*Axil, the question is, Exactly what behavior did the experiment >show?. DGE claims to have measured a magnetic FIELD of 1.6 T. Such >an intense magnetic field cannot form under the circumstances. >Therefore, they misinterpreted the behavior. The problem is to >discover just what they actually observed. Instead, people assume >the claim is correct and proceed to explain it by applying a theory. >Obviously, these theories can explain anything even if the >observation has no relationship to reality. Consequently, this >exercise is a waste of time and the so called theories have no >value. Until DGT provides real data, we have no reality to discuss.*
I* agree with Dr. Storms that some people are diving headlong into theoretical explanations of some poorly-reported phenomenon, far in advance of any necessity, with a high likelihood that it's all some mistake, or, more likely, that something is happening, all right, but the information reported is, at this point, misleading. But Ed himself goes into speculation, in a primitive way (as did I, with my theory that Gauss were being reported as Tesla. That has become unlikely.)* If an experimental result does not fit into their conceptual framework, the tendency is to ignore the troublesome concept as a result of some screw-up or another, rather than readjust the concept to fit the experimental data. The application of Nanoplasmonic theory to the Ni/H reactor is well documented in a paper that I authored and distributed to selected LENR experts many months ago. This Paper was a coherent compilation of the many posts that I have written on vortex. These posts usually receive no feedback or comment. To account for this lack of response, my assumption is that Nanoplasmonic science is way over the heads of most laymen or even non-electrochemists. However to my pleasant surprise, ABD was one of the reviewers and commented on it extensively. However unlike DGT, ABD has not taken these concepts to heart and embraced Nanoplasmonics as the causal root of the LENR process. I have repeatedly begged the Vortex community to learn and understand Nanoplasmonics, a electrochemical based science that has developed since 1974 when Martin Fleischmann founded it. This new science has made steady progress over the following decades and now produces and excess of 2000 papers a year as its intellectual product. The EMF behavior of the Ni/H reactor is exactly predicted by Nanoplasmonic technology. The central physical manifestation of Nanoplasmonics is the “hot spot”. This is directly related to the nuclear active environment that is oftentimes discussed as a central LENR mechanism. You would think that the revelation by both Rossi and DGT of EMF anomalies in the Ni/H reactor might engender increased interest in Nanoplasmonics as a successful predictor of Ni/H behavior. But it has not. This leaded me to the conclusion that the problem with LENR is deeply rooted in the people who support it. If you take offence at that conclusion, learn some Nanoplasmonics and prove me wrong. On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:58 PM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com>wrote: > Hi folks! > > One more comment from Abd. You are welcome to go there and comment!: > > http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/newvortex/message/593 > > ************************************ > > There has been extensive commentary on Vortex-l about the magnetic > anomaly, in a thread started by Peter Gluck. > > >http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85652.html > > There continues to be a high level of assumption involved in > comments, with little awareness of how weak the assumptions are. > > Dr. Storms commented: > > >http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85663.html > > >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. > > and later, to Daniel Rocha: > > >Why do you discuss any thing on vortex? Why do you even comment > >since we are all engaging in random curiosity about everything? > > Daniel Rocha does appear to have inside information, but is > restricted in what he can reveal. Unfortunately, he may also be > adding his own intepretations, confusing everything. > > >You make no sense. RF is not identified as a magnetic field. The > >impression given is of a constant magnetic field being generated. If > >you know this is not true, why would you not say so? > > I agree that this is the impression that was conveyed by the > announcement in Kim's presentation. However, we now have information > confirming some of what Rocha had said earlier, that the field was > measured as "peak." This is not a DC field. It is still remarkable as > a peak measurement, but it does become a little easier to explain. > The "time out" refers to requests from Defkalion to allow time for a > coherent response to questions; in particular, Hadjichristos is on > vacation, suffering mightily from the restrictions of being on a > Greek beach with his family. We feel his pain. We would join him if > we could, to share his difficulties. Contact me for information as to > how to provide me with transportation. > > and later: > > >Axil, the question is, Exactly what behavior did the experiment > >show?. DGE claims to have measured a magnetic FIELD of 1.6 T. Such > >an intense magnetic field cannot form under the circumstances. > >Therefore, they misinterpreted the behavior. The problem is to > >discover just what they actually observed. Instead, people assume > >the claim is correct and proceed to explain it by applying a theory. > >Obviously, these theories can explain anything even if the > >observation has no relationship to reality. Consequently, this > >exercise is a waste of time and the so called theories have no > >value. Until DGT provides real data, we have no reality to discuss. > > I agree with Dr. Storms that some people are diving headlong into > theoretical explanations of some poorly-reported phenomenon, far in > advance of any necessity, with a high likelihood that it's all some > mistake, or, more likely, that something is happening, all right, but > the information reported is, at this point, misleading. But Ed > himself goes into speculation, in a primitive way (as did I, with my > theory that Gauss were being reported as Tesla. That has become unlikely.) > > Finally (?), Ed wrote, at > http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg85723.html > > >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. > > It appears that Ed errs here. The stimulation is not AC, it is pulsed > DC. However, Ed is pointing out that if the device operation is > disrupting electronic equipment -- Defkalion claims it shut their > phone system down, apparently until they started shielding the > reactor, including using mu-metal -- it could certainly disrput a > gaussmeter. > > Using a peak measurement would be highly vulnerable to this. A DC or > RMS AC display would be less vulnerable, but major RF noise could > scramble almost any electronic device unless it is specially designed > to be immune. > > For "pulsed DC," and assuming Defkalion is using the same stimulation > still -- and apparently the Tesla figures were from last year or even > before -- see slide 15, > > http://www.slideshare.net/ssusereeef70/2012-0808-niweek-defkalion-technical-presentation-j-hadjichristos > > Defkalion has revealed what they are doing in dribs and drabs, there > is no single authoritative document, and, indeed, it may be a moving > target. That slide show, last year (August 2012), describes the > reactor contents in general terms. They moved from 5 micron pure > nickel nanopowder to nanoparticles with modified structure -- and, as > I recall, no longer pure nickel -- supported in a "cage" of nickel > foam, which they describe as "5 microns, 200 microns of pourous," > which matches what was described by Kim. That is, the foam "cells' > are about 200 microns in diameter. > > Nickel foam is a readily available commercial product, available in > sheets; one of the MFMP people showed me advertisements for the > product, the morning after ICCF-18. I'd walked to a nearby hotel to > breakfast with Dr. Celani, all the campus eating places being closed, > and he was also listening with interest. The MFMP fellow described > how one would roll the foam, loaded with nanoparticles, into a > cylinder, leaving an open core in the middle, which would be the > plasma path, in the case of the Hyperion. The point would be to > provide efficient heat conduction away from the nanoparticles, should > they become active, inhibiting sintering, and to provide access to > the nanopowder for hydrogen and whatever effects the plasma produces. > > See slide 17 for images of the nanoparticles and the foam. They also, > in later slides, report the use of ceramics as part of the structure. > I do not give a great deal of credence to their theoretical > explanations, but their experimental work could be of very high > significance. > > That slide show also reveals the nickel isotope results, in slide 16. > Hadjichristos has clarified, previously, that they used purified > nickel isotopes, processing them identically to the > standard-distribution nickel they were using, and found activity only > with the list of isotopes given, with Nickel-61, the only > odd-numbered isotope, being a stand-out exception. NO activity with > it, Hadjichristos has emphasized. This is *not* a theoretical result, > it is an experimental one, from a very expensive experiment. Pure > isotopes don't come cheaply. > > This is *not* a standard transmutation claim. Defkalion is making > those as well, and is setting themselves up, with the announced > purchase of a sophisticated mass spectrometer, to confirm transmutations. > > No, the "no Ni-61" result is a report about the necessary fuel. And > this, all by itself, makes a nuclear effect likely, certainly if this > is confirmed. This has very little practical relevance, but it has a > major impact on theory. I'm told that odd-numbered isotopes will have > different nuclear spin than even-numbered ones. > > Is it surprising that the Hyperion would generate a lot of RF noise? > Not particularly. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark-gap_transmitter > > See also > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_interference_( > electrical_interference)#Static_electricity_and_sparks > > To use the technical term, the Hyperion uses a "big honkin' spark." > > Slide 15: "... the plasma ignition method. DC pulsed at 24 kV/22 ma > at some kHz." > > While it is easy to find fault with Defkalion, particularly related > to secrecy, I suggest comparing Defkalion and what they are > revealing, to what we have from Rossi. There is almost no comparison, > Rossi reveals very, very little. > > Jed Rothwell and others have suggested how demonstrations could be > made far more powerful and effective. I agree. It was also mentioned > that a series of demonstrations could be interactive, with each > successive demonstration addressing issues raised by the public about > previous ones. > > My own version of this would be to collaboratively *design* a > demonstration. > > While it is extremely difficult to demonstrate a device outside of > fully independent testing, such that *all possibility* of some sort > of fraud is ruled out, nevertheless demonstrations could be handled > in far more convincing ways than has been done to date, and the > possibility of artifact, i.e., undiscovered simple error, could > become very small. > > My own concern at this point is that none of the demonstrations > really speak to the most critical issue: reliability -- which > includes sustainability. Short-term demos don't show sufficient > operating time to be confident that the device would continue to > function for a reasonable time in practical application. > > I was quite suprised to see Defkalion, in their pre-announced > demonstration protocoal, set a target COP of 1.1. Given that they > have previously announced far higher figures, that the actual > demonstration appears to have shown far higher COP, this implies to > me that they were not confident of the device reliability. That they > did not completely flush out the argon indicates to me a willingness > to leave an excuse, a back door, in place, in the event that they > didn't reach 1.1. I would tend to assume that they could predict the > effect of the argon. If not, how thoroughly have they tested the R5 > Hyperion? > > The low target COP leads me to suspect unreliability. Supporting > this, weakly, is the test set-up. It is as if it were set up with low > expected power generation, so that the cooilant water would only be > heated, not boiled. > > > -- > Daniel Rocha - RJ > danieldi...@gmail.com >
