Anyone who references a plasmoid structure cannot take the theory of Ed Storms seriously.
A plasmoid projects the causation of the reaction at a distant from the plasmoid. That negates the premise of Ed's theory because Ed's theory is one where the action of causation is directed inward within the crack. Remote LENR reactions are seen all the time in LENR experimentation. Any such experiment will disprove Eds theory. The plasmoid will project as anapole magnetic field axially in a direction normal to its direction of current rotation. Action at a distance is a key that indicates the reaction causation in projected magnetism. This is a simple concept not a extremely outlandish and completely unsubstantiated ideas, It has been seen in many experiments that I can reference *ad nauseam.* http://www.uf.narod.ru/public/recom_e11.pdf *LOW-ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS AND THE LEPTONIC MONOPOLE* Snip Doctor Ivoilov will present in his report some very interesting results for the traces.8 Here are some conclusions based on the presented experimental data. (1) The particle, which left the trace in the nuclear emulsion is charged, as nuclear emulsions are insensitive to neutrons. (2) The particle cannot have electric charge, as otherwise it could not be able to pass through *two meters of atmospheric air and two layers of black paper.* (3) The particle does not have high energy, as no delta electrons are observed. (4) The mechanism of the interaction between the particle and the photosensitive layer is not clear. Assuming the Coulomb mechanism, the absorbed energy estimated using the darkening area equals around 1 GeV. (5) The radiation is of nuclear origin; it interacts with magnetic fields. . On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 12:37 AM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:38 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> *it is in these domains of the nano-material that these coherent >> structures can become stable * >> >> There are only a few particles that stay together for an extended >> period of time, only the proton really. The neutron will stay around within >> the context of the proton, but will decay when isolated on its own. >> >> >> >> Solitons can stay stable in the context of the BEC for as long as the BEC >> endures but will decay when isolated on its own. >> >> >> >> The application of energy to air will catalyze a polariton soliton, but >> that vortex will rapidly decay. A high energy electron produced by beta >> decay might produce a polariton soliton, when the emitted electron releases >> its energy in a collision with a nitrogen molecule. But that soliton does >> not stay around very long, it decays in Picoseconds. The same is true for >> spark discharge in air. However, if the spark vaporizes material, say an >> aluminum sheet, a cooling plasma of aluminum will supply nano and micro >> particles together with the electrons and the photons in the spark >> discharge within a contextual medium to catalyze a polariton soliton BEC. >> The energy of the discharge is great enough to form a BEC. With the support >> of this polariton BEC, this soliton ensemble persists and is localized for >> long enough to transmute the surrounding material through the projection of >> a coherent anapole magnetic field (a monopole field). >> >> >> >> Ken Shoulders saw this whole process unfold in this research, but he >> never added the polariton and the associated BEC context to his >> experimental explanations. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 6:02 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and re-depositing >>> it elsewhere >>> >>> With all respect, this is some conceptual junk that you pick up along >>> the way as an inappropriate analogy. >>> >>> The key is that the magnetic field has an effect on the vacuum which >>> results in a complicated set of results. Spin flipping (the Higgs >>> mechanism) cannot be described in any context with the sedimentation of >>> material. >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm not so sure one needs to posit Higgs Field interactions -- maybe. I >>>> see it in a very basic way without too much esoterica. In over-unity >>>> electrical systems (possibly cold fusion) we initiate non-linear coupling >>>> between appropriate materials. This non-linear coupling produces these >>>> collective anharmonic modes. Moray B. King calls them "ion acoustical >>>> modes", T. Henry Moray was one of the first to propose this mechanism was >>>> at play in his plasma tubes. Harold Aspden eventually arrived at the same >>>> conclusion while attempting to explain the Correa PAGD -- which both he and >>>> Mallove believed was legitimate. >>>> >>>> So once the non-linear mode is setup, if all the conditions for >>>> material requirements and proper integration are met, the system will set >>>> up these nano-vortices -- usually magnetic -- which, like any other vortex, >>>> is quite good at picking up and displacing very "fine grained" material and >>>> re-depositing it elsewhere -- in this case from the "Aether" into >>>> our 3D-space (Higgs field, ZPF, or whatever) (think of a longitudinal wave >>>> in a riverbed). We know ball-lightning solitons result from >>>> fracto-emissions -- perhaps it is in these domains of the nano-material >>>> that these coherent structures can become stable and setup resonance with >>>> the vacuum. >>>> >>>> All speculation of course. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Another area that Ahern needs to look into is the way the Higgs field >>>>> seems to connect together magnetism and quantum chromodynamics (QCD), >>>>> which is the theory of quark-gluon interactions. >>>>> >>>>> When Ahern is postulating that nanomagnitism is effecting the vacuum, >>>>> he may mean to address how the Higgs field and nanomagnitism interact, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Most scientists are constrained in their focus by their >>>>>> specialization to a limited field of study. To understand a system fully, >>>>>> many fields of study must be considered to put all the pieces together. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> One obvious area of inquiry that Ahern never pursued is to understand >>>>>> how magnetism affects the vacuum and/or nuclear stability. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Another important piece of the puzzle that Ahern neglects in the >>>>>> critical role of quantum mechanics plays as a powerful amplification >>>>>> mechanism toward powering up Nanomagnetism to huge levels. When the >>>>>> dimensions of the lattice get below 100 nm, quantum effects predominate. >>>>>> To >>>>>> understand Nanomagnetism, quantum mechanics is the sole factor that >>>>>> reveals >>>>>> all the facts in the story of the nano system >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Furthermore, Ahern never mentions the pivotal role the spin plays in >>>>>> Nanomagnetism, including what defeats Nanomagnetism and what supports it. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Yeah he's pretty dismissive of the Heat/Helium work, which I >>>>>>> disagree with for PdD at least, and we're still waiting on reliable ash >>>>>>> measurements from NiH, but he's of course entitled to his opinion and I >>>>>>> still have a lot of respect for his views. I think, like he said, his >>>>>>> theory applies better to mysterious electromagnetic "free energy" >>>>>>> systems >>>>>>> than it does to LENR, but he thinks the same phenomenon is at play in >>>>>>> both. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think non-linear anharmonic modes may indeed be at play here. As I >>>>>>> think I mentioned in the interview, on a personal level, I like the >>>>>>> analogy >>>>>>> of loaded hydride in a wet or gaseous system as a non-equilibrium, >>>>>>> non-linear, open system of sorts -- so I think energy concentration (in >>>>>>> "violation" of the second law) may indeed be at play. But on the flip >>>>>>> side >>>>>>> I can't totally dismiss Storms' point of view that doesn't think any >>>>>>> sort >>>>>>> of abnormal energy concentration is necessary -- that linear >>>>>>> reaction-diffusion can get H/D to the NAE efficiently enough without >>>>>>> needing to invoke non-linear dynamics. It's hard to say. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm hoping the ash analysis being carried out by ELFORSK can shed >>>>>>> some light on what's going on (i.e. fusion or not fusion). I'm banking >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> that, because I don't really have a lot of faith DGT will be releasing a >>>>>>> wealth of mass spectrometer work anytime soon, even though they >>>>>>> promised to >>>>>>> at last years ICCF. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> John >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is an excellent interview. Have not finished yet, but there >>>>>>>> are a few things to add. Ahern is strongly impressed with a magnetic >>>>>>>> invention (Manelas device) since he did the 8 day test - and which >>>>>>>> device >>>>>>>> others have belittled. It is similar to the Floyd Sweet device (for the >>>>>>>> historians of overunity). The cross-connection to LENR is not easy to >>>>>>>> explain but is there. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It can be noted up front that Ahern does not believe that there is >>>>>>>> any evidence whatsoever for nuclear fusion in LENR. That includes >>>>>>>> deuterium >>>>>>>> fusion to helium and especially Ni-H. He thinks it is all nanomagnetic. >>>>>>>> Nanomagnetism is roughly equivalent to a combination of >>>>>>>> superferromagnetism >>>>>>>> and superparamagnetism. They are two are extremes of the same >>>>>>>> phenomenon. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> He believes that the helium seen in Pd-D is basically measurement >>>>>>>> error - noise. Krivit is probably pleased with that assessment. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From:* Alan Fletcher >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Foks0904 wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm sure many of you know of Brian Ahern from his EPRI report, >>>>>>>> his MIT colloquium appearance earlier this year, and now his >>>>>>>> collaboration >>>>>>>> with MFMP. Even if you're not aware of him, I think this conversation >>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>> enough for 3-4 threads worth of topics. We even flirt with the >>>>>>>> ever-so-dangerous & taboo possibility of "perpetual motion". Titled: >>>>>>>> "Nanomagnetism, Cooperative Modes, & Non-Linear LENR". Hope you >>>>>>>> guys/gals >>>>>>>> enjoy: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_kID_E-3tY >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> An outline can be found here: >>>>>>>> http://jmag0904.wordpress.com/2014/07/25/dr-brian-ahern-nanomagnetism-cooperative-modes-non-linear-lenr/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's a MUST-LISTEN link. (And I'm only half-way through!) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Goes into some of the history of anharmonic modes (related to >>>>>>>> discrete breathers, Quodons we've discussed recently). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At about 19minutes he says superconductivity and >>>>>>>> (super?)-ferro-magnetism are closely related (and that the latter >>>>>>>> persists >>>>>>>> up to a thousand degrees.). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then I *think* he says that LENR could be a localized ferromagnetic >>>>>>>> effect tapping into vacuum energy. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Needs a transcript. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
