*…more* * *
* * *Figure 7 in the reference* * * *http://www.foia.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-091008-049.pdf* * * *This cavity is produced by a magnetic monopole (Micro ball lightning or if you prefer, a vortex current plasmoid)generated by electric discharge. It is the same vortex current produced by Leclair in cavitation bubble collapse and by Ken Shoulders In his EV experiments,* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > What is happening in lightning both natural and artificial has been > produced in the Proton-21 experiments for years now. > > > > The gamma and neutron emissions from Proton 21 point to the occurrence of > the primary LENR reaction. The secondary LENR reaction involving > Bose-Einstein condensation does not occur in Lightning and in Proton-21 > spark discharge. > > > > BEC production is a product of SPASER(*surface plasmon amplification by > stimulated emission of radiation - *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaser) > formation that is produced in a lattice or dusty plasma. > > > > When LENR occurs in bare electric discharge, BEC does not form and > therefore gamma and neutron radiation is produced. > > > > The same is true for cavitation. Ed Storms says that the Leclair reaction > is hot fusion. Not So. > > > > Leclair is producing vortex currents in cavitation bubble collapse which > are un-remediated by BEC formation. > > > > > > Remember this post as follows: > > > > > > > > https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&shva=1#search/pro/13fab5525862e0d0 > > > > > > * Reference:* > > * * > > *http://aflb.ensmp.fr/AFLB-331/aflb331m632.pdf* > > * * > > *Experimental observation and analysis of action of light magnetic > monopoles on multilayer surfaces* > > * * > > * * > > *I am interested in the similarities between the electromagnetic > anomalies that have been reported by the Proton-21 experiment with those > reported by LeClair in his cavitation experiments.* > > * * > > * * > > *This “particle” could well be a magnetic vortex current that is mobile > well beyond its location of creation. Like a nano-sized ball lightning, > this vortex current is attracted to a solid surface where it induces > nuclear reactions as a result of its unique electromagnetic nature.* > > * * > > * * > > *LeClair may have erroneously connected the water crystal that he sees > with the action of this magnetic vortex current.* > > * * > > * * > > *Like ball lightning, If this current is large enough, this vortex > currents may well be capable of passing though solid obstructions such as > reactor walls as has been reported by LeClair and with ball lightning. * > > * * > > * * > > *The referenced paper shows that these vortexes can travel a considerable > distance from there points of creation and are very light in mass and may > well be massless. * > > * * > > * * > > *LeClair has presented clear experimental evidence showing the action and > mobility of these vortexes and so have STANISLAV V. ADAMENKO and > VLADIMIR I. VYSOTSKII in the above reference.* > > * * > > * * > > * * > > * * > > * * > > * * > > * * > > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> http://physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.115003 >>> >>> Neutron Bursts in Lab Lightning [... snip ... ] >>> >> We here at vortex know that LENR is an electromagnetic based reaction. >>> >> >> There have been complaints here and elsewhere that observing 10 MeV >> neutrons emitted in bursts from a lightning discharge is in no wise LENR. >> Complaints made here have been expressed with moderation, and ones >> elsewhere have been made with great self-assurance. I have seen two >> reasons given that such a phenomenon (assuming it exists) is not LENR: >> >> - LENR is understood to be a low-energy phenomenon, and the >> GeV-levels of energy to which particles in a lightning discharge are >> accelerated are more than enough to account for fusion of the hot plasma >> variety. The complaint here amounts to the idea that the most likely >> explanation in this instance can be found in decades-old textbooks -- >> we're >> just looking at old-time fusion. >> - Another complaint is that one of the main observables are 10 MeV >> neutrons, and >> - neutrons are not generally seen in LENR, >> - and the ones that have been seen are well below 10 MeV. >> >> My point here is not to dispute these complaints or say they are >> incorrect; on one level they are very reasonable. My point is to urge some >> caution and humility. We cannot simply choose willy-nilly to enforce a >> demarcation around an empirical phenomenon such as LENR and exclude what >> might well be a secondary effect, one that might be made possible only by >> the main process going on. Doing so would imply detailed knowledge of what >> is behind LENR, which we do not yet have. A similar note of caution can be >> made in connection with the D2O cluster impact fusion experiments carried >> out by Beuhler, Freidlander, and Friedman at Brookhaven National Laboratory >> in 1989 and after. They accelerated clusters of D2O ions up to 225-300 keV >> at TiD and TiH foils and saw 3 MeV protons coming off of the TiD foils at >> rates implying dd fusion that are anomalous for the level of energy to >> which the ion clusters were accelerated. (Recall that the energy of >> individual d's in the cluster are a fraction of the total energy for the >> cluster, which were made up of 10s to 100s of D2O molecules.) These >> observations of Beuhler et al. caused some difficulties, because existing >> models of hot fusion could not account for the rates of fusion that they >> were seeing. Nonetheless there are people who will say with great >> confidence that this is just hot fusion and, therefore, it is not >> interesting. >> >> This assertion may be correct, and it may be incorrect. It is quite >> possible and perhaps even likely that Beuhler et al.'s findings fall into >> the category of hot fusion, that they are not something novel, and that >> they are not at any rate due to LENR. My point here is only that they >> *might* be interesting and that they *might* be due to LENR. Without an >> adequate theory to link together all of the different pieces of the puzzle >> into a clean conceptual model, we are somewhat at a loss to say what is hot >> fusion and what is LENR. We can describe the situation in broad terms -- >> what you see in a nuclear reactor is fission. What you see in a hydrogen >> bomb is hot fusion and fission. And what you see going on in the sun is >> hot fusion and probably does not include LENR (although on this point I >> sometimes wonder). And also, on the other side -- what you see in the F&P >> effect is LENR. And what we're seeing with Rossi's and Defkalion's devices >> give every reason to think that it is LENR. And when you have LENR going >> on, you do not see prompt radiation at any levels commensurate with the >> heat that is evolved. >> >> But, sometimes in LENR experiments, you see fast particles at very low >> levels. And sometimes you do see neutrons at very low levels. And >> sometimes you see other things. And sometimes what is seen may not be >> readily explicable by existing models of hot fusion. It is an act of pure >> volition, and not of one of logical or scientific reasoning, to push such >> observations into the corner of hot fusion. People do it because they want >> to do it, because they have a heuristic that they like for deciding a >> priori what is LENR, and not because we understand sufficiently what is >> going on to say that these things are just hot fusion. >> >> It is a similar act of pure volition to say that complex structures in a >> metal lattice are a requirement for LENR. What we can conclude is that >> complex structures in a metal lattice seem to make LENR possible. But that >> is different than saying that LENR requires such an environment -- that's a >> much harder proposition to support. You must go around and find all of the >> other environments in the universe, and then show how LENR cannot occur in >> them. Absent a suitable and compelling theory, we're out of our depth >> trying to draw such a conclusion. It would be similar to asserting that >> LENR requires electrolysis, deuterium and palladium. We know that LENR >> seems to arise in such an environment given the right conditions. But if >> we hewed to that observation as final truth, we would have to exclude the >> possibility of LENR occurring in NiH, which would obviously be a silly >> thing to do. >> >> About the GeV levels of energy in the lightning discharge -- note that >> neutrons are also seen in arc discharges at much smaller energies, so the >> GeV and MeV levels of energy may not be pertinent to the neutron bursts >> observed by the Russian group. About the 10 MeV neutrons, note that such >> neutrons are going to be the *product* of some reaction, and the kinetic >> energy of the neutrons will be a function of the resulting mass deficit and >> not the initial energy of the reactants. >> >> Eric >> >> >
