Rossi mentioned extreme EMF behavior coming out of his reactor. Two like systems reporting the same type of EMF anomaly looks like the real thing to me.
If you are really interest in zeroing in on the causation of LENR, the also research Rossi's EMF claims. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > > 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 >> >> > >
