Harry, I don't want to speak for Axil, but from my understanding it is theorized that some manner of photonic-BEC can form in the Nano-cavity. I'm not sure whether it assists fusion or the photons themselves create some novel variety of EM energy. It relies, in ways, on Kim's BEC cluster theory. The radiation is thought to be neutralized to IR, etc. by A) some form of coherent wave function between electrons, and B) dissipated momentum amongst the cluster. Axil can correct me if I'm wrong.
It is an interesting model but speculative, like almost every theory to some degree. Cavity QED seems to have some relevance to LENR in my opinion, but if only to provide the appropriate initiation energy and geometrical surface environment for a nuclear active structure (i.e. cluster, hydroton, etc.) to form. Regards, John On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:25 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, now the question comes up about how many photons can be captured > inside such a tiny space before it self destructs. In normal classical > circumstances the tiny space you speak of would be called a cavity > resonator. These have a "Q" associated with them that is related to the > stored energy per cycle compared to the escaping or loss energy and "Q" can > be quite large. The electric and magnetic fields trapped within reach > extreme levels with high "Q" resonators when power is continuously added. > These fields tend to keep rising until a balance is established between > input power and energy loss. > > Do you suspect that the fields trapped in this manner reach levels that > initiate LENR reactions? Which one is the most important;electric or > magnetic? How would this lead to a reaction that is different than hot > fusion? I can see some possibilities, but what do you suspect? > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sat, Jan 4, 2014 3:03 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get > (unethically) silent > > You have the idea right. > > > On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:01 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Axil, you say that light can continue to spin inside a small space and >> gain strength. This contrary to the concept that light is composed of >> photons unless you are suggesting that more and more of these enter the >> space as the fields build up. Is that what you mean? If so, then the >> total energy is increasing due to addition of new photons to the old ones >> that remain trapped. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sat, Jan 4, 2014 2:21 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:McKubre visitors who peer-reviewed his lab, then get >> (unethically) silent >> >> One of the possibilities of the Nano world is that light can >> experience such bending that it can enter a small space and not come out. >> It just spins inside that space changing as it spins and gains strength as >> long as the condition persists. >> This behavior is not imagination, it is experimental fact; and yet such >> behavior is completely alien to our every day experience. This condition >> requires a special set of circumstances to happen...unusual conditions that >> are seldom found in everyday life. >> The trick in understanding is to know what conditions result in which >> laws and when to apply these laws in the associated theory of that >> particular reality. >> When you play chess you don't use the rules of tiddlywinks. You need to >> know what game you are playing and use the proper rule that govern that >> game. >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> No Harry, reality is NOT a chess game. Trying to understand reality is >>> the game. Do you see the difference? Reality has rules we are trying to >>> understand. We can either learn the rules or we can make up any rule we >>> might imagine. The PROCESS is like playing chess without knowing the rules. >>> Reality is not the game itself. >>> >>> Ed Storms >>> >>> On Jan 4, 2014, at 11:15 AM, H Veeder wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Axil, I think a clear distinction needs to be made between reality and >>>> imagination. Reality is what we experience, which is described using >>>> imagination. Occasionally the imagination actually describes reality well >>>> enough. Most of the time the imagination has very little relationship to >>>> reality. When that lack of relationship is extreme, the person is described >>>> as being insane. >>>> >>>> In the F-P case, they had no idea what they were doing. They were >>>> following their imagination, which was supported occasionally by reality. >>>> The skeptics understood what was real about hot fusion. However, they tried >>>> to apply this understanding to what F-P saw, which was not hot fusion. >>>> >>>> The present attempts to resolve the conflict between imagination >>>> about LENR and reality are handicapped by use of concepts and math that >>>> has no relationship to reality, but is 100% imagination. This is like >>>> attempting to play chess without reading the rules and making the rules up >>>> as you play. In other words, people need to make an effort to bring their >>>> imagination in harmony with reality. Only one reality exists, while the >>>> imagination has infinite possibilities. >>>> >>>> Ed Storms >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> Ed imagines reality is a chess game. >>> >>> Harry >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jan 4, 2014, at 9:18 AM, Axil Axil wrote: >>>> >>>> The results that F-P produced corresponded to a new reality that did >>>> not correspond to the reality that F-P expected; the old paradigm of >>>> neutron reactions. . >>>> >>>> This mismatch between the real as described by experiment and >>>> what is expected by the theorist must cause and immediate adjustment by the >>>> theorist to modify their reality to correspond to what is real. >>>> >>>> Is this what you mean by reality? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 10:38 AM, Edmund Storms >>>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Eric, F-P thought they were initiating a version hot fusion. >>>>> Therefore, they expected a large neutron flux which the dosimeter would >>>>> detect. They had no understanding about the nuclear process they actually >>>>> discovered. I expect when they did not find neutrons, they must have >>>>> questioned their heat measurements as did everyone else. Looking back >>>>> with >>>>> the benefit of the huge data set now available, the explanations being >>>>> proposed at that time look desperate and silly. >>>>> >>>>> I have to admire their confidence in the calorimetry measurements in >>>>> the face of not finding the expected radiation. However, they did detect >>>>> radiation that should not have been emitted and was later confirmed - but >>>>> it was ignored because it did not fit with the expectations based on hot >>>>> fusion. In other words, the presence of a nuclear reaction was >>>>> demonstrated >>>>> but not the expected nuclear reaction. The data now available show >>>>> overwhelming that a nuclear reaction occurs under conditions where none >>>>> should occur. The universal rejection looks more and more politically >>>>> motivated because only politics can cause people to ignore that which is >>>>> overwhelmingly obvious. >>>>> >>>>> Ed Storms >>>>> >>>>> On Jan 4, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Eric Walker wrote: >>>>> >>>>> About the neutron measurements with the health dosimeter, I wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Fleischmann and Pons ... carried out procedures of their own devising >>>>>> to look for evidence completely outside of their field ... >>>>>> >>>>>> This was inaccurate. For the neutron measurements, they used two >>>>>> approaches. First they used an NaI scintillation detector to look for >>>>>> the >>>>>> p(n,ɣ)d reaction. This is the gamma spectrum that Petrasso and the >>>>>> others >>>>>> at MIT called out as being fudgy. They also used a Harwell Neutron Dose >>>>>> Equivalent Rate Monitor, on loan from a colleague. This is the health >>>>>> dosimeter. The colleague was probably R.J. Hoffmann, with the Department >>>>>> of Radiological Health at the University of Utah (not to be confused with >>>>>> Nathan Hoffmann). Health dosimeters are relatively inaccurate and are no >>>>>> good for trying to measure very low neutron fluxes. Hofmann might have >>>>>> been the one to have carried out the actual measurements and analysis >>>>>> (I'm >>>>>> not sure). For the low fluxes they thought they were seeing, they would >>>>>> have benefited from much better instrumentation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Eric >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
