For any polariton based soliton, it exists for some 10s of picoseconds only. It seems to me that this is a rapidly changing magnetic field.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:50 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > People keep saying "EMF" in the context of talking about a magnetic field. > Aside from the difference being generally crucial, the energy in a > magnetic field is unavailable if it is unchanging. > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:36 PM, ChemE Stewart <[email protected]> wrote: > >> If you are talking to me, a singularity is where I was a year ago as I >> have listened to your range of theories. >> >> You also appear to be embracing string theory now and dismissed it a year >> ago. I suggest you stop what you are doing and go back and read up on M >> theory while we are throwing out suggestions >> >> But I will read up on nanoplasmonics. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Stewart >> >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, August 13, 2013, Axil Axil wrote: >> >>> As Jed has suggested up-thread, you should suspend all current theory >>> making until you understand better what EMF brings to the LENR table. I >>> also suggest that you study Nanoplasmonics as a modern day extension of the >>> pioneering work of Pons and Fleischman. This field is currently the >>> enthusiastically embraced darling of traditional science which can start >>> your preparation for a new paradigm of LENR theory making. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:41 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >>> >>> Dfkalion also reports high RF interference with the phone systems and >>> their SCADA function. >>> >>> >>> Yes, which indicates that their claim for a 1.6 T magnetic field >>> resulted from a misreading of the Gauss meter, perhaps because the meter >>> was influenced by an RF field, not a magnetic field. Perhaps the effect >>> gives off RF radiation, but it clearly does not create a strong magnetic >>> field. Before you provide an explanation, you need to know EXACTLY what >>> happened. We do not yet have this information. The information is second >>> hand and hearsay provided by people who have shown very little >>> understanding of what they have observed in the past. We NEED better data >>> to believe an observation that conflicts with the basic ways magnetic >>> fields are generated. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> >>> The real data reported in the ICCF-18 paper is not hard to interpret.. >>> 1.6 tesla at 20 Cms. What could be clearer than that, unless you just don't >>> want to believe it, that is. >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>> But exactly what is the anomaly? DGT reports a magnetic field with 1.6 >>> T. Rossi reports RF radiation. Neither source gives any actual data. I >>> would not be surprised to see RF radiation. I would be surprised to see a >>> 1.6 T magnetic field. The devil is in the details. Using a collection of >>> ambiguous data to support a novel theory is not progress. Conventional >>> scientists complain that we in the field will believe anything, no matter >>> how impossible or poorly demonstrated. You are proving them right. >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Axil Axil wrote: >>> >>> 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 solit >>> >>> >
