So sorry, I should have included a reference to that paper for the convenience of Mr. Cude.
http://physics.aps.org/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.031402.pdf Best regards, Axil On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint < zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: > Hi Axil,**** > > ** ** > > Gee, I don’t even remember whether I posted that one or not, but what’s > important is that there is plenty of evidence that extraordinary CONDITIONS > frequently produce results that don’t make sense. Nice to know that > someone has seen my FYI postings to be potentially useful… Why did I post > that particular article??? When I read thru the latest science headlines, I > just get a feeling that certain ones have some importance beyond the > obvious. Is it ‘intuition’? Not sure about intuition… some ascribe to it > some kind of ‘magical’ qualities… I’m think more along the lines that the > subconscious mind is much more aware of things and ‘sees’ the connections > which the conscious mind does not… thus, the light bulb going on seems > magical to the conscious mind, but is perfectly clear why to the > unconscious mind.**** > > ** ** > > -m **** > > ** ** > > *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, December 05, 2011 9:31 AM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:LENR Presentation by Joseph Zawodny, NASA Langley > Research Center Edit**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint posted a study on Rydberg matter a few weeks ago > which stated that this special form of exotic hydrogen (alkali matter) can > amplify quantum mechanical properties of atoms by some 11 orders of > magnitude; that is 10 to the 11th power. The Coulomb barrier cannot > protect the nucleus of the atom from proton intrusion when exposed to such > a huge and powerful masking force. **** > > ** ** > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> > wrote:**** > > ** ** > > On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 2:17 AM, Mark Iverson-ZeroPoint < > zeropo...@charter.net> wrote:**** > > JC wrote:**** > > “Say what? That's just gibberish. I seriously doubt that Zawodny has any > idea what that sentence means, if it means anything at all. A physical > effect is allowed by a breakdown in a mathematical approximation? What that > sentence does is make people's eyes glaze over, and think it sounds > sophisticated enough that it must be true.”**** > > **** > > That certainly is one possibility… but it’s just as plausible that your > and MY’s eyes glaze over because you don’t have enough in-depth knowledge > of the relevant physics to fully understand what’s being proposed.**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > But my failure to understand something does not make it any more plausible > to me. Someone could come along and claim to have a theory that explains > perpetual motion machines, but I wouldn't believe it just because he could > string a bunch of sophisticated buzz-words together into an > incomprehensible sentence.**** > > ** ** > > You need 780 keV at a single atomic site to induce electron capture by a > proton. This is allegedly induced by heating the lattice. So, random atomic > motion representing a fraction of an eV per atom is somehow supposed to be > concentrated by a factor of much more than a million by some resonant > phenomenon. No amount of jargon makes that plausible. WL present all sorts > of equations to justify the idea, but they don't actually calculate a > reaction rate for a given hydrogen loading in Pd or Ni.**** > > ** ** > > People are skeptical of cold fusion because of the Coulomb barrier. The > big selling point about the WLT is that it is supposed to be more plausible > because it avoids the Coulomb barrier. The problem is it introduces a much > bigger energy barrier. So then, the same skeptics should be more skeptical > of WLT, not less skeptical. Why should telling people they are not > sophisticated enough to understand the mechanism be any more effective for > the WLT than for breaching the Coulomb barrier? **** > > ** ** > > It's another matter to pitch it at theoretical physicists, but people like > Bushnell and Krivit pitch it at their lay audiences. And the last time I > checked, no theoretical physicists of any stripe were citing W&L, even > though it would be breakthrough physics if it were right. Even among LENR > advocates, the theoretical physicists like Hagelstein don't give it much > respect.**** > > ** ** > > **** > > this was only an internal workshop. It was most likely background for > others who might be interested in helping. It most certainly was NOT a > full description of all the LENR work that they have done. How the hell do > you know what data they have or don’t have? What experiments they’ve done > or not done? **** > > ** ** > > It's true. It's possible they have evidence that he did not present. They > might have done an experiment where gamma rays that otherwise go right > through a nickel powder, are blocked when it's heated in an atmosphere of > hydrogen under pressure. Or other experiments that make WL more believable. > But if he's trying to attract helpers, wouldn't it make more sense to > present evidence like that? The presentation looks pretty similar to the > one he gave in 2009. No indication of progress at all. But again, maybe > he's got a reason for hiding it. Maybe, but I doubt it.**** > > ** ** > > Anyway, based on what's available, I remain skeptical.**** > > ** ** >
