Axil: Were the voids he studied at the surface??? If so, then you failed to read my posting accurately. I am discussing voids which are formed internally, and completely isolated from the surface layers.
How did Miley determine that? If he was looking at surface defects (voids), then that is completely different from the environment I am positing. If he was looking at SUB-surface voids, then how did he see thru numerous atomic layers in order to determine what was inside a void? How do you know that whatever process he used didn't cause the Rydberg matter in the first place? -Mark From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:13 AM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... George H. Miley has experimentally found Rydberg matter in the cavities. End of story. On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: I agree with what you say, Mark. The parameters have to be within range, but that range is generally not exceeded unless a real effort is made. Consequently, the laws usually apply and must not be ignored just because they may fail outside of an extreme range. On the other hand, I'm amused by people who apply processes that occur in the Sun to what might happen in a cathode on Earth. This is an example using conditions that are way out of range. I do not believe CF should be considered to be outside of physics just because the hot fusion behavior is not detected. This is the basic error made by skeptics. Cold fusion is a new phenomenon that occurs only at low energy, which has not been explored before. The behavior has opened a new window into Nature. No conflict exists and no law of physics is violated. Nevertheless, some insight is missing. We need to find that insight. After all, that is what we were taught science was all about,. Obviously, some people slept through that lecture. Ed Storms On May 19, 2013, at 10:16 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: Ed said: "Some of these behaviors have been described in ways we call laws because the descriptions always apply." I would add the following ending to that statement for it to be precise: ".because the descriptions always apply when experimental parameters are within the ranges established across all the replications." If someone conducts an experiment, but cranks up parameter X to 1000 times what was used in all previous replications, there is no guarantee that the results will come out as expected. There are numerous examples where 'laws' failed when some parameter in the experiment was way beyond what had been tried before; where some critical threshold had been reached. I also have a problem with the use of the word 'always' in that statement; or in any statement for that matter. The now mature field of Chaos, Dissipative structures and Self-organizing systems, which grew out of Ilya Prigogine's work, has shown how coherence can spontaneously form in an otherwise incoherent system, and there are many examples in science, including in chemistry and physics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organizing_system I agree for the most part with your desire to diligently apply the 'laws' of physics, however, there are some aspects of LENR which *potentially* place it outside the realm/range established from historical empirical results. As has been mentioned numerous times by LENR researchers, the rules of plasma physics may not apply in the condensed matter world that is LENR. -Mark From: Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:54 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness... Mark, I agree that we do not know all we think we know and many rules can be violated when conditions change. Nevertheless, we do have a collection of observations that show how Nature behaves. Some of these behaviors have been described in ways we call laws because the descriptions always apply. Of course, a person has to understand what the law actually means. For example, I find that many people, even in science, do not understand what the Laws of Thermodynamics mean. This problem is especially notable in physicists. Also, I have observed that mathematicians can find a mathematical way to explain ANYTHING - just give them a few assumptions. This means that what we think we know is determined by the initial assumptions, not by the applied math itself. The math can be made to fit the observations and may even provide predictions that fit behavior. However, this does not mean the assumption is correct. Take the Big Bang theory as a perfect example. This is based on an assumption that cannot be tested. A complex collection of mathematical consequences are created that seem to fit most observations. Meanwhile the Steady State theory does the same thing and also generates math that fits observations. Which theory you believe depends on which conflict with observation you wish to ignore. This same problem occurs with cold fusion. Which theory you accept depends on which conflict with observation you wish to ignore. I'm trying to create a theory that ignores no observation and no accepted behavior of Nature. Meanwhile, people simply propose and discuss any imagined idea that comes into their head without any awareness of what is known about CF or about Nature in general. That is my frustration. New ideas are required, but not at the expense of ignoring all else. Science has come a long way and does not need to reinvent the wheel every time a new phenomenon is discovered. On May 18, 2013, at 8:10 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote: I know Ed has expressed concern, and a bit of frustration, at how some of the Collective's discussions are too OOTB, or seemingly without much concern for basic physics principles, for a seasoned scientist's tastes. and he certainly has a valid point. However, many here do have a good grounding in science and engineering, and we at least try to apply the 'laws' of physics (and I use the term 'laws' carefully). but we also know that those laws have a LIMITED sphere of applicability; they do NOT apply everywhere! I have found it necessary in several Vort threads to remind the discussioneers that the Laws of Thermodynamics ONLY APPLY TO CLOSED SYSTEMS. Too often that minor point gets lost. When dimensions become small enough, or time scales fast enough, that quantum mechanical phenomena begin to influence things, those laws can either appear to be, or actually be, violated, in those instances. But I digress. back on point. In trying to reduce Ed's frustration level with the 'loose' conversations that fly around inside the Dime Box Saloon, I would like to drill down a little more into nothingness, and look inside a NAE. --------------- Assume we start out with a chunk of solid palladium with NO internal voids or 'cracks'. Stress that chunk of palladium so a crack/defect/void forms in the interior of it, removed from the outer surfaces. assume that this void is several hundred atoms long, and a few tens of atoms wide. Have Scotty miniaturize you, and beam you into the center of that void. Questions to contemplate: 1) what's inside that void? The answer depends on which theory you accept. In my case, the void consists initially of a strong negative charge created by the electrons in the wall that are associated with the metal atoms making up the wall. The charge is strong because it is now unbalance as a result of the walls being too far apart for the electron orbits (waves) to be properly balanced. This condition attracts hydrons (hydrogen ions), which enter the gap by releasing Gibbs energy. In so doing, they create a tightly bonded covalent structure in the form of a string. The hydrons in this string are closer together than is normally possible because the electron concentration between them is higher than normal. When this structure resonates, the hydrons get even closer together periodically, depending on the frequency of vibration. Each time they get to within a critical distance, energy is emitted from each hydron as a photon. Once enough energy has been emitted as a series of weak photons, the fusion process is completed by the intervening electron being sucked into the final nuclear product. The details of how this process works will be described later. 2) what's the temperature in that void? The temperature is very high, but not high enough to melt the surrounding material. As a result, some energy is lost from the gap as phonons. The photon/phonon ratio is still unknown. Nevertheless, the rate of photon emission is large enough to be detected outside of the apparatus when H is used. 3) are there any fields (as in E or B fields) inside that void? The E and B fields are strong. 4) what is the mean free path of a free electron or proton in that void? The electrons that create the covalent bond between the hydrons are in a superconducting state. Their path is limited by the length of the string. This description is consistent with all thermodynamic requirements and is missing only one feature that needs to be better understood. Of course, this model is not like any other, although it contains features that have been suggested by other people. I have simply taken various parts and put them together into a bigger picture. In so doing, I have created a map that can be improved as new features are discovered because we now know where to look and what to look for. After all, that is the function of a theory, or at least that is what we are taught. Ed Storms ------------------ Looking fwd to the Collective's thoughts. -Mark
