The Exotic Vacuum Object (EVO) as the cause of the vacuum reaction.

Magnets can be sensitive to temperature. The strength of a magnet depends on the alignment of its magnetic moments, which are formed by the angular momentum and spin of its electrons. When a magnet is exposed to cold, its molecules move more slowly and cause less vibration, which creates a more concentrated magnetic field. However, heat can cause the molecules to move faster and become more sporadic, which can weaken the magnet's strength and magnetic field.

The degree to which temperature affects a magnet depends on the type of material. For example, most magnets with the exception of ferrite

will actually display an increase in strength as the temperature drops. All permanent magnets (including ferrite) will lose a percentage of their performance for every degree increase.

If a magnet is exposed to high temperatures, the delicate balance between temperature and the domains in a magnet is destabilized. At around 80 °C, a magnet will lose its magnetic force and it will become demagnetized permanently if exposed to this temperature for a period, or if heated above its Curie temperature

.

The maximum operating temperature and Curie temperature are determined by the material a particular magnet is made of and the size and shape of the magnet.

So any magnet is imperfect because the spins of the particles that created the magnetism wonder around at random. This random motion lessens the magnetic fields that the magnet produces.

But in a condensate all the magnetic particles are identical. There is no random motion of the spins of these particles. In a condensate it is as if the condensate acts as one huge single particle. This coherent behavior insures that the magnetic field alway is at maximum strength. The strength of that single huge composite particle is 10^23 times more powerful than any single particle that forms the condensate.

Quote from Alan Smith

Only if it contains 10²³ particles of course. Most BECs studied consist of a few hundred atoms.

The origin of this 10^23 number comes from the Ken Shoulders estimate of the number of electrons that aggregate to form the EVO.

Ken Shoulders: "These calculations also show the сhаrgе density of the ЕV to Ье about б.6 х 10^23 elecfrons/cm3, approximately that of а solid."

According to

Dipole - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The strength of a magnetic source goes as 1/R^3 for a magnetic dipole and 1/R^2 for a magnetic monopole.

Here is a message about the magnetic behavior of the Defkalion reaction.

From: "Andrew Meulenberg"

Date: 2013-08-09 9:14 PM

Subject: Re: CMNS: Re: Magnetic field strength in Defkalion report. Kim?

To: <[email protected]>

Cc:

Dear Abd,

I agree with you that the claim is 'amazing' and appreciate your 'checking' the levels.

Comments below.

On Thu, Aug 8, 2013 at 7:04 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:

Quote

...
... However, the slides presented by Kim are on-line.

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/x…Mechanisms.pdf?sequence=1

Slide 5:

"After each triggering duty cycle , the magnetic field (at ~20
cm from the reactor) rose from ~0.6 Tesla to 1.6 Tesladuring the reaction period (no triggering !)"
...

This is not about the 1.6 Tesla at 20 cm. figure being wrong. It is about how truly extraordinary it is, which did not seem to be readily acknowledged when brought up as a possible problem.

I heard Kim myself and didn't think much of it, because I didn't have the figures in my mind of what, say, the geomagnetic field was, or how strong powerful magnets were. So I first saw certain pseudoskeptics ridiculing the claim. So, as is my wont, I checked it out, I never assume that the pseudoskeptics are wrong. They were right about the field strength, though not necessarily about the sarcastic conclusions they drew.

That is one whopping magnetic field, far beyond a level where it would still be an important fact.

So far beyond that level, that the most likely explanation at this point, absent confirmation of something else, is a simple misreading of the instrument used. A Gauss indication read as Tesla. That idea is mine, I didn't read it anywhere.
...

Display More

Your hypothesis is one possible explanation. However, it depends on interpretation of information that is not clear. The statement was "After each triggering duty cycle..." My understanding of the DGT operation is that triggering is initiated only when the output drops below a desired level. Thus, the 0.6 T would be the mag-field output for operation below the desired level. I don't know if the detector system gives a zero reading on the same scale before application of the 1st trigger to get it to the operating regime. These are easily answered questions (along with the make and model of the detector and analyzer).

By presenting your comments in the manner that you did, I fear that you might deter other experimentalists from 'admitting' that they also had signs of 'anomalous' RF emission. Remember that the data that Kim presented was for a system that was different from most and much more productive of heat. I know of at least one other lab that has seen very strong RF emission measurements (sufficient to shut down laboratory instrumentation). If scaled to heat output, the levels might be comparable to what was presented. The other lab's data is not going to be published until all alternative explanation for the source of RF has been explored.

You have repeatedly suggested that the heat-to-4He ratio be reproduced. It might be that a simpler measurement is the RF to heat ratio.

I would request that people with an excess-heat-producing system put a loop antenna about it and feed it into an oscilloscope, if they don't have a frequency analyzer present. Even if they don't have an ability to turn the system on and off at will, or a trigger, they might be able to correlate an RF signal above background (if observed) with the excess heat production. If only a correlated 10x background is observed, for a 1 watt excess power output, a mention of this effect could be important. Turning on a portable radio in the lab might provide an effective qualitative RF-radiation detector.

Andrew

__________________________________________________

The magnetic fields produced by the Defkalion system were large as witnessed by the disruption of computer and telephone equipment at 3 meters even through a double faraday shield box.

The conjecture to be considered is the possible activation of nuclear reactions caused by strong magnetic fields (aka Monopole catalyzed fusion and fission).

The order of magnitude magnetic field strength of a 1 micron magnetic field source to be measured at 20cm showing 1.6 tesla is (10^4)^3 or (10^12) tesla for a magnetic dipole and (10^4)^2 or (10^8) tesla for a EVO sized magnetic monopole.

The other factor that is stated in slide 5 of the Kim presentation is that all even isotopes of nickel produced overunity heat whereas the odd isotope (Ni61) usually does not produce gainful energy. In other words, the nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) active isotopes are not nuclear active and the non NMR active isotopes are.

Also U238(nuclear spin = 0) is fissioned more that U235(nuclear spin = 7/2) by the LENR reaction.

This lack of nuclear activity may be due to the magnetic energy lost in the vibrations produced in the nuclei of (NMR) active isotopes by the nuclear magnetic dipole of that type of isotope.

See this video to understand how NMR active isotopes behave in a magnetic field.

If the transmutation process in LENR is based on magnetic power, then the best material that can be used to resist transmutation damage in the structure of a LENR reactor is those elements that have a high NMR active dipole value.

Mendelevium (258Md) has the highest possible nuclear spin for common isotopes on the periodic table, with a value of 8. Niobium (90Nb) and tantalum (181Ta) also have a value of 8.

See
https://mriquestions.com/predi…riodic%20Table%20(website).

https://mriquestions.com/uploa…34572113/4171575_orig.gif

The case against the plasmoid theory of the EVO reaction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…ill%20work%20inside%20one).

A Faraday cage cannot shield the magnetic field of a permanent magnet. A Faraday cage is made of a conductor that responds to electric fields, but it is not affected by strong magnetostatic fields.

A Faraday cage can protect against electromagnetic fields by shorting out the electric part, but it cannot block stable or slowly varying magnetic fields. For example, a compass will still work inside a Faraday cage.

This magnetic behavior points to the nature and origin of the magnetic field produced by the EVO. The lack of effectiveness of faraday shielding in the LENR reaction points to the existence of a lattice like spin footprint inside the EVO where the magnetically active spin particles take on a fixed and unmoving position inside the EVO. The witness hexagonal shaped marks produced by the EVO show that the lattice taken on by the spin particles take the shape of a hexagon shaped fixed lattice.

There is no movement of these spin particles as required by the plasmoid theory of the EVO reaction. If the magnetic field were being produced by a plasmoid effect that type of magnetic field would be able to be shielded by a faraday cage.

Quote from Cydonia

Why an electron cluster could enhance a Lenr reaction ?

Because many spoke in this way ? Maybe things could be more subtle..than putting a cement layer between 2 bricks..( EVO between 2 nuclei)

An EVO interacts with a nucleus directly when it absorbs a nucleus. The EVO can interact with a nucellus indirectly by projecting a strong magnetic beam that is of sufficient magnetic power to produce nuclear effects when that beam irradiates a nucleus. Form the SEM images recently produced by MFMP, this beam seems to emanate from between the center of the rotating north monopole and counterrotating south anti-monopole pair that develops at the center of the EVO.

Transmutation in SAFIRE.

It is my belief that SAFIRE operates under the action of a Bose Einstein Condensate.

Bose-Einstein condensates (BECs) can produce vortexes, spherical shells, and double layers. The double-layer vortex lattice model illustrates the relationship between the physics of a fast-rotating BEC and macroscopic quantum tunneling. In 1999, researchers created vortices in two-component BECs using an interference technique. The technique allows researchers to map the phase of the vortex state to confirm that it has angular momentum. The researchers also observed differences in the stability and dynamics of the vortices in either of the two components.

Double-layer Bose-Einstein condensates with a large number of vortices

PDF

https://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0401173v2

Abstract

In this paper we systematically study the double-layer vortex lattice model, which is proposed to illustrate the interplay between the physics of a fast rotating Bose-Einstein condensate and the macroscopic quantum tunneling. The phase diagram of the system is obtained. We find that under certain conditions the system will exhibit a phase transition which is a consequence of the competition between interlayer coherent hopping and the interlayer density-density interaction. In one phase the vortices in one layer coincide with those in the other layer. In another phase two sets of vortex lattices are staggered, and as a result the quantum tunneling between two layers is suppressed. To obtain the phase diagram we use the quantum Hall mean field and Thomas-Fermi mean field theories. Two different criteria for the transition taking place are obtained, which reveals some fundamental differences between these two mean-field states. The sliding mode excitation is also discussed

--------------------------------------------------

Vortices, Rings, and Spherical Shells in Bose-Einstein Condensates. I. Case of Repulsive Nonlinearity

Published October 12, 2021

Abstract

The stationary behavior of axisymmetric vortex and vortex-like states of a Bose-Einstein condensate are described numerically and analytically. Both extended and con?ned condensates are considered in the context of the nonlinear Schrodinger equation, which models the mean ?eld. The assumption of azimuthal symmetry and integer winding number leads to three physical solution types. Vortex solutions have no nodes and a regular singular point at the origin, approach a nonzero constant density as the radial coordinate approaches in?nity, and present a boundary between non-divergent and divergent solutions. Ring solutions have a central vortex which may be surrounded by concentric nodal rings, and take the same asymptotic form as the Coulomb function to leading order. Spherical shell solutions are the three-dimensional generalization of ring solutions but have a winding number of zero, and consist of spherical layers of alternating positive and negative phase of the order parameter. These solutions include the ground state for extended and con?ned condensates in both two and three dimensions.

-------------------------------------------------

Vortices are pervasive in nature, representing the breakdown of laminar fluid flow

and hence playing a key role in turbulence. Vortexes can help stabilize a larger trapped condensate with attractive interactions in the sense that it can contain a larger number of particles.

The crenelated sphere pictured in this video is formed from rare earths. The current method by which these rare earth elements can be created is through the merger of two neutron stars.

Bob Greenyer finds a lattice of mixed transmuted elements inside a EVO.