It certainly would be helpful if DGT supplied supporting evidence of the very large magnetic field. I agree with Jed that it might be premature to jump to conclusions as to the reality of the field, but I also believe that it does little harm for theoretical concepts to be suggested that depend upon this field as supporting evidence. At this point in time we do not know whether or not the field exists, and it might be some time before DGT verifies its existence.
Unless DGT is making an attempt to misdirect our thoughts, then they should be capable of determining the effects of RF interference within their instrumentation. It existence is generally obvious in most cases since just waving your hand around the instrument face or body results in wildly different readings. It is easy to spot these interference effects, but shielding them out effectively is not so easy. If a large magnetic field is indeed present, then an important clue is uncovered. Rossi suggested something similar on his blog, so that should be taken into consideration as well. I tend to seek out positive feedback interactions when attempting to explain effects that seem to appear out of nowhere. These positive feedback type systems have a characteristic behavior. On many occasions there is a threshold below which nothing is seen. Once the threshold is breached the effect appears to rise out of the local noise exponentially with time. The end result is much like what we see with LENR systems. The various pieces of the puzzle are first assembled correctly and then the trigger is applied. This appears to be direct thermal input in the case of Rossi and a plasma associated trigger for DGT. If a large unexpected magnetic field happens to be one component of the positive feedback loop, then it will rise rapidly once initiated and interact with the other parts of the mechanism. Perhaps a magnetic field allows additional LENR sites to generate energy, a portion of which adds to the local magnetic field energy. This process can theoretically feed upon itself until some limiting action occurs within the material. In this case, that might be the depletion of available LENR sites. It is not difficult to imagine that reaction components continually collect in each tiny local region but the net positive feedback loop gain remains less than unity until the proper density is achieved for example. There is one especially interesting physical effect that depends upon a magnetic field which might offer a clue. Many materials that are magnetic exhibit magnetostriction when subject to a field. This is a well known phenomenon and results in the mechanical distortion of the metal and large internal stresses. There are claims that some LENR systems respond to mechanical drive due to shock and this might be an extension of that observation. Even though I find it difficult to initially accept the large claimed magnetic field according to DGT, that is no reason to discard the idea at this point in time. Perhaps DGT will add supporting evidence to their statement and we will know how seriously we should take their input. To totally disregard the possibility of the field would be closing many doors. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Wed, Aug 14, 2013 11:03 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Abd's take on Defkalion's recent claims. Edmund Storms <[email protected]> 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. Yeah. Phone systems are usually robust. I have heard of them being disrupted by RF but not a magnetic field. Then again who knows what a 1.6 T magnetic field would do? (Assuming it is real.) I think Ed's main point is that you should not assume there is no instrument artifact when the signs point to one: 1. The result is highly unexpected. 2. It appears to violate textbook physics. 3. There has to be strong RF noise, and that is known to cause instrument artifacts. That is not proof the result is wrong, but it should give you pause. It is fine for Axil to be encouraged by this result because it may support the nanoplasmonics theory. This particular evidence is important to him. He should pay close attention to it. But he should be prepared to accept it is wrong, should additional evidence emerge. Defkalion has not been good at supplying additional information or clarifying this sort of thing. They have left many loose ends loose. - Jed
