You might have missed this post on the magnetic LENR effect: ----------------------------------
At this early juncture, it looks like the LENR reaction is driven by an electromagnetic force. What is that force. The electromagnetic field can be viewed as the combination of an electric field and a magnetic field. The electric field is produced by stationary charges, and the magnetic field by moving charges (currents); these two are often described as the sources of the field. The way in which charges and currents interact with the electromagnetic field is described by Maxwell's equations and the Lorentz force law. But is LENR an electrostatic effect or a magnetic effect? Dr. Kim posits that LENR is basically an electrostatic effect. I have vacillated on this point incessantly and I have changed my opinion often but with the guidance of Nanoplasmonic principles and in the face of strong experimental evidence, I now believe that LENR is a magnetic effect. This belief is not only informed by what I know about the Ni/H reactor, but what has been seen in other types of LENR expressions. This belief is rooted in the suspicion that the ultimate LENR causation must be distilled down to one deeply embedded physical principle. It is informed by the belief that all LENR in its myriad forms are rooted in one common causation mechanism. Ken Shoulders spent his career looking into all things EMF, and as a pioneer and trailbreaker on this subject, he was at the forefront of this subject and was way ahead of his time. The experiments of Ken shoulders led him to the concept of the Exotic Vacuum Objects or EVO. An EVO can be conceived of as an atom without a nucleus, or as a spherical monopole oscillator. EVs exhibit soliton behavior with number densities equal to Avagadro's number. These non-neutral electron plasmoids contain various levels of binding energy which exceed that of atoms, and allows for new types of reactions with matter. I believe that the Ni/H reactor produces EVOs by the trillions when it converts heat into nano-plasmoids. EVOs are a magnetic thing in which electrons flow in a vortex ring. It is clearly not an electrostatic structure which by its very nature must be static and immovable. EVOs can move. This ability to move from its place of creation has been seen in proton-21 experiments, cavitation experiments, and experiments involving exploding metal foils. This particle like concentrations of charged currents have been imaged in a number of LENR experiments. The experimentalists that observed them thought that these strange structures were particles but they were actually long lived dark mode quasiparticles of negative charge contained tightly in a vortex that had traveled far from the place of their creation. See Prof. Alan Tennant discovered magnetic monopoles http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zgios9zEuJ4 And explanation of this recent work http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zgios9zEuJ4 The Ni/H reactor provides a mechanism that transforms dipole motion into coherent and entangled magnetic monopole vortex motion. This resonance mechanism supports quantum amplification of this anapole magnetic process because of the regular and globally periodic thermally based motion of the dipoles throughout the volume of the reactor’s reaction chamber. http://phys.org/news/2013-08-skyrmions-electronics.html Controlling skyrmions for better electronics These monopole spin vortexes are known as skyrmions This is a special condition where monopole motion is tremendously enhanced in the Ni/H reactor similar to how specific atomic configuration enhances monopole formation in its lattice. This monopole formation process is essentially unlimited. The Ni/H reactor produces a magnetic anapole singularity in which unimaginable magnetic power is concentrated into a volume that is the size of a molecule. It is this super-strong anapole magnetic field that can disrupt the Higgs superconductor in the subatomic particles that make up the nucleus of the atom. On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 10:37 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > Eric, you need to consider what a magnetic field really is when it is > measured in space 20 cm from an object in which the field is generated. > Such fields either result from a very large DC current or a very efficient > alignment of magnetic domains in the material. The alignment must be > accomplished by an applied DC current because otherwise the domains would > have random alignment no matter how intense the local magnetic field might > be. The only current passing through the device is claimed to produce a > plasma inside the metal container and the plasma is being generated by an > AC current. Even if a DC current were used, the field could not exceed the > known magnetic effect of the rather modest current. In short, the claim, > if true, is even more amazing than is the CF effect itself because it > violates basic understanding of magnetic behavior. A more logical > explanation is that the gauss meter and the other instruments nearby were > responding to the effect of RF emission obtained from a Maser effect > produced in the cavity. Since we know nothing useful about the observation, > any attempt at an explanation is useless and only makes the effort look > stupid. > > Ed > > On Aug 12, 2013, at 8:11 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > > Peter, a magnetic field has not been discovered. A claim has been made >> without any evidence or even a logical explanation. The claimed high >> intensity of a magnetic field is impossible under the circumstance. >> Therefore the reading on the gauss meter was misinterpreted. Until this >> issue is resolved, all discussion is pointless and a waste of time. The >> time out is necessary for this obvious error to be explained and corrected. >> > > My sentiments are similar, except that I don't have as strong an opinion > about the impossibility of a field of that strength. > > There is one reason, unfortunately, for claiming a large magnetic field -- > to provide an explanation for the thick shielding around the reactor that > differs from the straightforward and obvious one. (I wish I had heard > firsthand the statement about the shielding protecting electronics from the > magnetic field; without having done so, I'm not sure exactly what the claim > was.) > > Eric > > >
