On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:10 PM, Axil Axil wrote:
The strength of the magnetic field is a “smoking gun” for soliton
production.
It is a smoking gun if the claim is real. But what if the claim is not
real? What if we discover it is actually based on an error. What will
you say then? How much evidence, Axil, do you require to believe an
amazing claim? You are explaining an amazing claim using an amazing
explanation with neither having any evidence for being real. Can you
see why your claim is not believed?
Ed
What remains to be determined is what exact nature of the EMF
produced by the soliton. And is this EMF responsible for the
disintegration of the nucleus.
Kim thinks it is the electrostatic field. I think it is the anapole
magnetic radiation that comes out of the soliton.
But it is almost certain now that intense EMF is the active agent in
LENR.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Jed Rothwell
<[email protected]> wrote:
Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote:
I think this is more a case where the result does not fit in with
conventional, textbook physics and engineering.
In nanoplasmonics, Hot Spots have be experimentally verified to
produce solitons with a EMF power density of 100 terawatts per cm2
before the sensors blew out.
Not finding this behavior is a result of not looking in the proper
text book.
Well, naturally if you think an intense magnetic field is an
important clue, then you should take note of it. I meant that people
who do not believe in nanoplasmonics should not fret about
temporarily setting aside this claim. You can always look at it
again if new evidence emerges.
There is no need to accept all claims at once from a researcher. An
evaluation should not be "all or nothing." You can accept some
claims readily, others with reservations, and still others you put
aside, without prejudice, waiting for better evidence.
A researcher can be right about some things and wrong about others.
Fleischmann and Pons made a mistake measuring neutrons in 1989. Many
physicists dismissed all of their claims because they got that one
wrong. That was a dangerous attitude.
- Jed
