RE: [Vo]:Confining light
No. did you read the study or just watch the video? Laser light, which is thousands of times weaker per photon than gamma radiation, was stored not blocked - for a fraction of a second, and comes out at the same frequency it went in. The light was not attenuated or captured ! Plus the process only happens at less than one degree Kelvin. With gamma radiation, which is lethal, even if it could be stored with a higher temperature version of a BEC, still there is no reason to suspect that the radiation would not come out after a brief delay. Thus - this finding is of no importance to blocking gamma radiation, since it actually blocks no radiation at all, on a permanent basis. From: Axil Axil http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EK6HxdUQm5s Using BEC to Slow Down Light A BEC can slow light down to a snarls pace. Can a BEC in a cold fusion system be doing something very special to gamma rays?
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Dave-- I suspect that most of the theory is Yeong Kim's and the experimental description is from John Hadjichristos of DGT. Kim had proposed the BEC idea some time ago. I find Kim's theory quite reasonable. The ability to predict the rate of reactions is significant and the importance of the B field, which is induced as explained in the ICCF-18 report, is also noted. If what Kim believes is true, it could also be true in Rossi's reactor. Both the DGT reactor and the E-Cat apparently have nano size Ni particles. The Rossi Cat may be merely a external magnetic field applied to control the reaction by creating the magnetic traps for the BEC to form. Careful manufacturing of the Ni nano particles and appropriate alignment in the reactor may significantly improve the reactivity response to a magnetic field. I am not sure what Rossi's reactor vessel alloy is--if its magnetic or not. It would be interesting to know whether the SS316 used in the DGT reactor has any magnetic susceptibility. Cold working this alloy can create a metal that responses weakly to magnetic fields. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Thanks for the refresher in all things DGT. :-) The link exposes the large difference between what you are proposing and what they claim. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 4, 2014 9:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The large magnetic field reported by DGT supports the coupling concept, but there is question as to whether or not the report is accurate. It is valuable to review again what DGT said in their report. At the time of the ICCF-18 report, DGT revealed the existence of the localized magnetic traps (LMT). Their theory does not correspond to what we have been discussing in this thread. http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/ICCF-18-JCMNS-KH-Pre-2.pdf The theory describing the creation of LMT is based on nano-scale explosions (“Bosenova”) and proton super currents. DGT: “These hydrogen pairs or hydrogen molecules may be trapped in an LMT and form a Boson cluster state (BCS) in the LMT.” DGT thinks that the LMT contains hydrogen and that the LMT explodes producing a super proton current directed at the nickel powder. The LMT must be floating around in the hydrogen gas outside of the powder zone. DGT: “These predicted super currents in turn will create super magnetic field.” DGT think that the proton current produces the strong magnetic field. The explosion of the LMT causes the fusion of protons with large Z elements via the optical effect. All this DGT theory has is completely unlike what we are describing as related to the soliton monopole. The Bosenova reveals that the LMT storage capacity has limits and when that limit is exceeded the LMT explodes dumping its energy content into the hydrogen envelope. The NiH reactor must enter into a cycle of LMT creation and destruction which starts with spark ignition.
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Dave-- One other idea is that the early failure of many of the P-F effect experiments did not pay attention to the magnetic field present in P-F's original experiment. Hagelstein's current lectures at MIT point this out indirectly by displaying the arrangement of the electrodes in the cells--they did not have the platinum coil that P F used. There was no comparable magnetic field applied to the Pd electrode in those null experiments. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Thanks for the refresher in all things DGT. :-) The link exposes the large difference between what you are proposing and what they claim. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 4, 2014 9:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The large magnetic field reported by DGT supports the coupling concept, but there is question as to whether or not the report is accurate. It is valuable to review again what DGT said in their report. At the time of the ICCF-18 report, DGT revealed the existence of the localized magnetic traps (LMT). Their theory does not correspond to what we have been discussing in this thread. http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/ICCF-18-JCMNS-KH-Pre-2.pdf The theory describing the creation of LMT is based on nano-scale explosions (“Bosenova”) and proton super currents. DGT: “These hydrogen pairs or hydrogen molecules may be trapped in an LMT and form a Boson cluster state (BCS) in the LMT.” DGT thinks that the LMT contains hydrogen and that the LMT explodes producing a super proton current directed at the nickel powder. The LMT must be floating around in the hydrogen gas outside of the powder zone. DGT: “These predicted super currents in turn will create super magnetic field.” DGT think that the proton current produces the strong magnetic field. The explosion of the LMT causes the fusion of protons with large Z elements via the optical effect. All this DGT theory has is completely unlike what we are describing as related to the soliton monopole. The Bosenova reveals that the LMT storage capacity has limits and when that limit is exceeded the LMT explodes dumping its energy content into the hydrogen envelope. The NiH reactor must enter into a cycle of LMT creation and destruction which starts with spark ignition.
[Vo]:PESN LENR-to-Market digest for this week
See: http://pesn.com/2014/02/05/9602432_LENR-to-Market_Digest_February5/
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Bob, This information that you share may be a clue to follow up on. Exactly how the field interacts might to be important. Thanks. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Cook frobertc...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 5, 2014 2:40 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Dave-- One other idea is that the early failure of many of the P-F effect experiments did not pay attention to the magnetic field present in P-F's original experiment. Hagelstein's current lectures at MIT point this out indirectly by displaying the arrangement of the electrodes in the cells--they did not have the platinum coil that P F used. There was no comparable magnetic field applied to the Pd electrode in those null experiments. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, February 04, 2014 10:50 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Thanks for the refresher in all things DGT. :-) The link exposes the large difference between what you are proposing and what they claim. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Feb 4, 2014 9:22 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:01 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The large magnetic field reported by DGT supports the coupling concept, but there is question as to whether or not the report is accurate. It is valuable to review again what DGT said in their report. At the time of the ICCF-18 report, DGT revealed the existence of the localized magnetic traps (LMT). Their theory does not correspond to what we have been discussing in this thread. http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/ICCF-18-JCMNS-KH-Pre-2.pdf The theory describing the creation of LMT is based on nano-scale explosions (“Bosenova”) and proton super currents. DGT: “These hydrogen pairs or hydrogen molecules may be trapped in an LMT and form a Boson cluster state (BCS) in the LMT.” DGT thinks that the LMT contains hydrogen and that the LMT explodes producing a super proton current directed at the nickel powder. The LMT must be floating around in the hydrogen gas outside of the powder zone. DGT: “These predicted super currents in turn will create super magnetic field.” DGT think that the proton current produces the strong magnetic field. The explosion of the LMT causes the fusion of protons with large Z elements via the optical effect. All this DGT theory has is completely unlike what we are describing as related to the soliton monopole. The Bosenova reveals that the LMT storage capacity has limits and when that limit is exceeded the LMT explodes dumping its energy content into the hydrogen envelope. The NiH reactor must enter into a cycle of LMT creation and destruction which starts with spark ignition.
RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
Of interest - in this regard is that the magnetic field used in the Letts/Cravens effect is fairly weak. Did not Dennis mention to vortex that it needs to be weak and the effect goes away if it is too strong? Here is a paper mentioning 700 Gauss – across the cathode face, from a pair of ceramic magnets. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LettsDstimulatio.pdf One wonders if a platinum coil provides something in the range of 700 Gauss at the current being used. -Original Message- From: Bob Cook Hagelstein's current lectures at MIT point this out indirectly by displaying the arrangement of the electrodes in the cells--they did not have the platinum coil that P F used. There was no comparable magnetic field applied to the Pd electrode in those null experiments.
Re: [Vo]:Understanding BLP: Chapter 6, the Demo
In reply to Axil Axil's message of Tue, 4 Feb 2014 21:39:45 -0500: Hi, [snip] Why is the voltage impactful: High volts produce LENR and high amps produce hydrinos? How does this distinction fit into Mills theory? To start with, 600 keV electrons will produce lots of X-rays. They could also bring about some beta-conversion reactions in nuclei. 6 eV electrons will only cause chemical reactions, primarily electrolysis of water, resulting in lots of free H atoms, which can then undergo Hydrino shrinkage. On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:23 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote: In reply to Axil Axil's message of Tue, 4 Feb 2014 14:25:35 -0500: Hi, [snip] The SF-CIHT system is virtually identical to the Proton-21 experiment. The only difference is a few micrograms of water that the copper button encloses. AFAIK the Proton-21 experiment uses 600 keV electrons. Mills uses 6 eV electrons. That's a huge difference. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Magnetism doesn't exist
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:26 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Ah, got it. Well according to SR all motion or stillness is an illusion. But I think a better analogy would be calling someone by a different name because when they are moving their face looks motion blurred. One important point is that if a magnetic field is created by a net charged object in motion, if SR is correct then a magnetic field that occurs in one reference frame does not occur in a co-moving frame. Magnetic fields are a useful fiction, but hardly real. John What is real? Real can be defined as real enough for certain purposes. Since the 18th century the dominant purpose of physics has been to explain motion in a manner consistent with a mechanical philosophy of motion. The mechanical philosophy inspired Galilean relativity and Newtonian Mechanics. Subsequent developments such as EM dynamics, Special Relativity, General relativity, Quantum mechanics etc. remained true to the spirit of the mechanical philosophy through an expanding array of useful fictions. In my estimation, if there is a problem with these useful fictions, then questioning the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics or EM dynamics is not enough. Instead, it requires a careful reexamination of the ideas the mechanical philosophy excluded from the study of motion and to determine if their rejection was rooted in logic or an ideological preference for mechanical causes. Harry Harry
Re: [Vo]:Magnetism doesn't exist
real is ultimately defined in terms of parsimony aka Ockham's Razor. While it is true that if one's concerns are sufficiently limited, Ockham's Razor cuts differently, it is also true that one frequently misses opportunity by donning such blinders. On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 3:40 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:26 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Ah, got it. Well according to SR all motion or stillness is an illusion. But I think a better analogy would be calling someone by a different name because when they are moving their face looks motion blurred. One important point is that if a magnetic field is created by a net charged object in motion, if SR is correct then a magnetic field that occurs in one reference frame does not occur in a co-moving frame. Magnetic fields are a useful fiction, but hardly real. John What is real? Real can be defined as real enough for certain purposes. Since the 18th century the dominant purpose of physics has been to explain motion in a manner consistent with a mechanical philosophy of motion. The mechanical philosophy inspired Galilean relativity and Newtonian Mechanics. Subsequent developments such as EM dynamics, Special Relativity, General relativity, Quantum mechanics etc. remained true to the spirit of the mechanical philosophy through an expanding array of useful fictions. In my estimation, if there is a problem with these useful fictions, then questioning the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics or EM dynamics is not enough. Instead, it requires a careful reexamination of the ideas the mechanical philosophy excluded from the study of motion and to determine if their rejection was rooted in logic or an ideological preference for mechanical causes. Harry Harry
[Vo]:The Case Against Copernicus
Scientific American recently published an article called The Case against Copernicus. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-case-against-copernicus/ Copernicus famously said that Earth revolves around the sun. But opposition to this revolutionary idea didn't come just from the religious authorities. Evidence favored a different cosmology If you don't have subscription access this blog provides a decent summary of the article but it also covers more philosophical ground too. http://badatheist.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/religion-vs-science-part-2-copernicus-and-galileo/ Harry
Re: [Vo]:The Case Against Copernicus
Wait until everyone realizes the Earth is not round...:) On Wednesday, February 5, 2014, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Scientific American recently published an article called The Case against Copernicus. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-case-against-copernicus/ Copernicus famously said that Earth revolves around the sun. But opposition to this revolutionary idea didn't come just from the religious authorities. Evidence favored a different cosmology If you don't have subscription access this blog provides a decent summary of the article but it also covers more philosophical ground too. http://badatheist.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/religion-vs-science-part-2-copernicus-and-galileo/ Harry
Re: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev
It is interesting that the magnets are shown in that application. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 5, 2014 3:28 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:a note from Dr. Stoyan Sargoytchev Of interest - in this regard is that the magnetic field used inthe Letts/Cravens effect is fairly weak. Did not Dennis mention to vortex thatit needs to be weak and the effect goes away if it is too strong? Here is a paper mentioning 700 Gauss – across the cathode face,from a pair of ceramic magnets. http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LettsDstimulatio.pdf One wonders if a platinum coil provides something in the range of700 Gauss at the current being used. -OriginalMessage- From: Bob Cook Hagelstein'scurrent lectures at MIT point this out indirectly by displaying thearrangement of the electrodes in the cells--they did not have the platinum coilthat P F used. There was no comparable magnetic field appliedto the Pd electrode in those null experiments.
Re: [Vo]:The Case Against Copernicus
I read it at a news stand (cheapskate that I am). Some of the key issues I recalled and looked up : Copernicus (1543) : Not actually improved until Newton's theory of gravity (1687) explained how the earth could be moved in its orbit, Bessel's parallax (1838) observation got the distance to to the nearest stars right, and Airy's diffraction analysis (1835) showed that the apparent size of stars is an optical artifact.
[Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
All of Ruby Carat's/Jeremy Ry's videos are now up http://coldfusionnow.org/2014-cold-fusion-101-video-lectures/ Particularly day 5 Hagelstein http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=Al7NMQLvATo From my cryptic notes (H:M) : 1:25 : he disagrees with Ed Storms, because you need the electron cloud/Gamow factor for the reaction rates. (Gives up 10 orders of magnitude) 1:29 NiH Talks about H2 clustering in Ni Keywords are Fukai phase and elevated vacancy formation 1:50+- Phonon/Accoustic coupling should be about 8Thz -- compare with the recent discussion about Bushnell's 5-30Thz stimulation (Actually I couldn't see Bushnell saying that) Says Piantelli encountered charge generation -- compare Rossi EMF and Defkalion Magnetic effects (I think it comes from He3 creation) 2:05 Briefly discusses Rossi and Defkalion. Says that their COP from Ni powder is in line with Piantelli's rod. Says they should NOT be dismissed out of hand. My thoughts : since H doesn't easily diffuse into Ni (Unlike D in Pd) it's more likely to be a surface effect.
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
1:50+- Phonon/Accoustic coupling should be about 8Thz -- compare with the recent discussion about Bushnell's 5-30Thz stimulation (Actually I couldn't see Bushnell saying that) I viewed it again, and couldn't hear a specific frequency mentioned.
Re: [Vo]:The Dirty Dozen Basic routes to thermal gain for hydrogen in a lattice
Thanks for posting this, Jones. It reminds me of an earlier post on Vortex that was a compilation of LENR theories but I cannot find it with the search engine nor even with google. So I'll need to circle back on this item to comment on it because I intended to contrast your post to the earlier post. At any rate, I do not find the V1DLLBEC theory up there. Basically it's my theory that 1D BECs could form at much higher temperatures than expected and generate fusion events. As far as the 2nd miracle of where those fusion events are dissipated into the lattice, one would have to pursue my analogy about balloons within a matrix of tinker toys. When they pop, would you hear them? When a matrix of a few million balloons is generated, and a bullet is fired through it, would you be able to hear it? No, because the output energy would be absorbed into the matrix. On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Below can be found at least 12 viable and distinct hypotheses for LENR gain. Given that some of the listings represent slight variations or enabler mechanisms there are more than a dozen entries (16). All are related in some way to hydrogen which is constrained in a lattice, and many require QM tunneling. The range of these, and the generally strong evidence for each are almost conclusive evidence for me that LENR cannot be reduced to a single reaction, nor even two - one for deuterium and one for protium. QM tunneling is complex. But the most controversial suggestion of all is that none of these are mutually exclusive, and several, or even most of them, could be at work simultaneously in any given experiment, if that reactor has all the necessary components. There is not even a good candidate for most likely unless the reaction involves only a limited range of options, such as palladium and deuterium which only produces helium-4 as ash. I am now dropping the attribution - since earlier there were numerous overlooked contributors, like Mitchell Swartz who were not credited but who are still fighting the USPTO for basic priority. 1) The original theory of PF applicable to palladium and deuterium, involving gammaless fusion to helium caused by coherent electron effects (screening) 2) Coulomb mediated reactions in general, including the deflation fusion model. When any one channel is highly favored, such as tritium or He-3, then there will be another separate distinguishable reaction at play, and it often involves an alloy or dopant to the lattice or to an electrolyte. Thus it is distinctly unique, and not a channel reaction. 3) The hydrino (or fractional hydrogen) mechanism. Several variations now exist. The species may be a predecessor step for LENR and may actually provide no excess heat unless it does proceed to a nuclear reaction. 4) The dense hydrogen cluster or dense deuterium model, differentiated as inverted Rydberg hydrogen or a DDL (deep Dirac layer). The DDL can be applicable to deuterium and it can result in something completely different from 1 and 2, such as heat only with no ash. 5) The P-e-P mechanism for Ni-H, which envisions protons fusing to deuterium via screening at much higher probability than in the solar model 6) The NASA filing (US 20110255645) suggests an alternative method for producing heavy electrons as a fusion catalyst in what looks like a beta decay mechanism. This is similar to 2, 5 and 8 7) The proposal of a high temperature BEC - Bose Einstein Condensate and/or the tetrahedral TSC model which is similar. 8) The beta decay/ ultracold neutron mechanism popularized by Widom-Larsen which is similar to a Brillouin/ NASA explanation. 9) Proton addition - to the metal lattice atoms, which was the original Focardi/Rossi conception. Rossi later refined this to emphasize only the heavier nickel isotopes, especially Ni-62 but gammaless. 10) Piantelli has a version of Ni-H with gammas and transmutation. 11) SPP or surface plasmon polariton catalysis in general - which is a theory involving plasmons, phonons and photons. This is more of an enabler pathway for several types of reactions. 12) Casimir dynamics, in general, including a dynamical effect, called DCE. This is an enabler pathway, as are other geometry constraints. 13) Accelerated nuclear decay. Some experiments benefit from unstable isotopes like potassium-40 which can undergo accelerated decay rates, 14) RPF or reversible proton fusion, which is based on the strong force, QCD and a transient state called the diproton, deriving energy from excess proton mass with no gammas. 15) The nanomagnetism formative theory involving magnons and cyclical phase change around the Curie point of Ni. This may be nonnuclear (ZPE related). 16) Any combination or permutation of the above - since none of them is mutually exclusive, and most actual
Re: [Vo]:MIT Course Day 5 -- NiH Systems
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Particularly day 5 Hagelstein http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeddedv=Al7NMQLvATo Interesting video. I have always been a little mystified by Peter Hagelstein's theory. My understanding is that in its current form it involves two receivers which form semi-independent oscillators with the 24 MeV donor. In one oscillator, phonon modes are weakly coupled with the donor, and in the other oscillator, the nuclear degrees of freedom are strongly coupled with it. These two oscillators work in conjunction to fractionate the 24 MeV quantum into relatively low-energy phonon modes, which dissipate energy from the system as heat. The reason for two oscillators instead of one is that you have to have a strongly coupled partner to interact with the 24 MeV donor, and the phonon modes can't provide this kind of coupling. Mono-vacancies are also important in the theory, for in a mono-vacancy in palladium, there will still be significant electron charge density, and this charge density will have the effect of screening the reactants somewhat with the negative charge of the electrons, thereby reducing Coulomb repulsion between reacting nuclei. At 1:10:20, Hagelstein addresses how his model does not fall into the trap set by Huizenga's three miracles. In connection with two of those miracles, Hagelstein does not believe that his theory requires that Coulomb repulsion be altered, nor that it requires the branching ratios for t/3He/gammas to be changed in the case of d+d fusion. I had a hard time understanding him when he explained why it was that these two miracles were avoided. It might have been something along the lines of Coulomb repulsion being overwhelmed by the large number of coherently coordinated actors in the system, and the branching ratios being applicable to incoherent fusion, whereas we're dealing with a coherent system, so they do not apply. It's likely that I misunderstood one or both of these points. As an uninformed bystander, there are several challenges that I have with Hagelstein's theory. The first is the expectation that in a 700 C system there will be any kind of coherent coordination of phonons, let alone a coordination of phonon modes sufficient to fractionate on the order of 10E12 reactions per second into heat. Although Hagelstein's theory is focused on PdD, which has typically been operated at lower temperatures, he also seeks to apply it to NiH, which is often operated at higher temperatures. If I have understood him, he notes that the coherence of the phonons has to be more than just local and must extend across a significant portion of the system [1]. A second difficulty I have is the notion that phonons can be coupled to a nuclear reaction that is underway. I can imagine electromagnetic coupling, e.g., the coupling of a [dd]* intermediate state with the positive charges of the nuclei and the negative charges of the electrons, but it seems too abstract to say that a reaction can directly couple with phonons. This probably just goes back to a deficiency in my understanding of quantum mechanics. Note that electromagnetic coupling with lattice sites would lead to phonons as a side-effect, and electromagnetic coupling with electrons would lead to photons. There's good reason to think that Hagelstein is correct in assuming that plain old fusion is going on (d+d fusion in the case of PdD), and in wanting to fractionate the resulting mass-energy of the source across a large number of sinks, instead of trying to devise a way to catch a 23 MeV gamma or fast t and 3He in flight. What I don't understand yet is why he does not consider electromagnetic coupling with electrostatic charges in the Coulomb rich environment. Perhaps this is because it might imply that in such an environment the branching ratios would change, depending on how you look at the matter. Eric [1] I have a similar difficulty with BECs and hydrotons -- how do such delicate creatures form and survive in something as chaotic as a metal at high temperatures?
