Thank you Dave for the response to my post, It is a pod to more deductive speculation about the nature of the magnetic field in the Ni/H reactor.
I notice that there is a disbelief associated with this magnetic field observation that is similar to the disbelief that naysayers demonstrate when they say that LENR is impossible in principle because it is just unbelievable counter indicative of observational reality. A worst case number is useful as a systems engineering rule of thumb as a guide to estimation. There are 200,000 microns in 20 Cms. In the worst case estimate, the magnetic field has to have come from the volume of the 200 micron nickel foam. That is 1000 inverse squared or 1,000,000 tesla. If an anapole field is involved when the field acts within a few nanometers of the source, applying second order effects might be warranted. The inverse cube might be valid to use. Therefore, 1000 cubed or 1,000,000,000 or 10^^9 tesla is the worst case originating from the 200 micron nickel foam. Dave: "*I personally think that the field is the net vector sum of a very large number of tiny sources and hence may not become as large as is suggested as we close in on those individual sources."* If this is the case, the field is "ferromagnetic" A "ferromagnetic" field applies only if *all* of its magnetic ions add a positive contribution to the net magnetization. The spins of all the unit field contributors must be aligned. If some of the magnetic ions *subtract* from the net magnetization (if they are partially *anti*-aligned), then the material is "ferrimagnetic" In materials that exhibit antiferromagnetism, the magnetic moments of atoms or molecules, usually related to the spins of electrons, align in a regular pattern with neighboring spins (on different sublattices) pointing in opposite directions If the field is ferromagnetic, what is producing the alignment of the individual magnetic contributions? The electron for example is a dipole with a north and South Pole. Any anti alignment in a dipolar system would negate the ferromagnetic effect. One important clue to the nature of the magnetic field inside the reactor as determined by experimental observations is that the eternal magnetic field is basically the same all around the outside of the reactor. This is not indicative of a ferromagnetic field. Such a field would produce a strong north pole and a strong anti-aligned south pole field with little field strength in between. If the magnetic units were anapole, any misalignment would not diminish the strength of the composite combined field. An antiferromagnetic anapole field would project equal field strength in all directions whose field strength at an arbitrary distance would be a non-additive refection of each individual’s source generators field strengths. The individual unit magnetic sources would not be additive because of their random aliments. On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 10:45 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > The inverse cube law is normally seen when a two pole magnet is observed > at a dimension that is relatively large compared to the spacing between > those poles. If you monitor the field variation when close to one of the > poles you get the second order behavior. > > The actual internal structure of the magnetic field generation is not > known so it is highly speculative to assume that the external magnetic > field originates from one tiny region within the reactor. I personally > think that the field is the net vector sum of a very large number of tiny > sources and hence may not become as large as is suggested as we close in on > those individual sources. > > The time rate of change of the field becomes important as one attempts to > understand the penetration of that field through the structure. A rapidly > changing field is attenuated strongly by conductive material while a steady > field has a free pass. > > It is OK to speculate wildly on vortex since that is one of the guiding > principles, but we must always realize that most of these ideas will turn > out to be false once the true nature of the beast is revealed. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Thu, Aug 21, 2014 1:55 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:LENR <-> dark mater <-> DDL connection-- > > *DGT says that about 1 tesla is produced at 20 CMs in their reactor.* > > This 20CM location must be outside of the reactor. The reaction zone is > located inside a 200 micron nickel foam filled with 5 micron particles. The > magnetic activity is observed in "localize magnetic traps" (LMT). Because > the 5 micron particles are not destroyed by the "bosenova" , the magnetic > reaction must be centered is at the tips of or just beyond the > nanostructures that are associated with the 5 micron particles. The > dimensionality of the magnetic bosenova must be on the nanometer scale and > nondestructive to micron level structures. > The reactor is double faraday shielded. Was this magnetic measurements > done on an unshielded reactor. Let us assume the worst case that the > magnetic measurements were done on an unshielded reactor. But the magnetic > field must have penetrated the stainless steel pressure vessel and the > metal reactor wall(s?). > The tesla level field was detected at multiple points around the reactor > and the bosenova was depicted to occur inside the 200 micron nickel foam. > There are 20,000,000 million nanometers in 20CMs. But to the distance of > the bosenova must be added the radius of the hydrogen pressure vessel and > the distance of the pressure vessel to the outside metal wall of the > reactor; so 20 CMs is a worst case. > There is an uncertainty of 200 microns in the origin of the bosenova > because that reaction could occur anywhere inside the nickel foam. > By the inverse square law, the power of a nanometer sized reaction is > reckoned as the square of 20,000,000 with the dimension of tesla. That > comes to a MINIMUM of 10^^14 tesla which is correct for the creation of a > quark/gluon plasma. > I thought that the inverse cube law was the correct law to use but that > would but the strength of the magnetic reaction into the twilight zone. I > welcome opinion on this point. > > >
