On May 27, 2013, at 10:16 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Edmund Storms
<[email protected]> wrote:
Kevin, did you actually read this paper (
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf)?
***I'm still making my way through it. It is not one of the links I
posted.
It is a link I extracted from your e-mail. What links are you
referring to? I read too many papers to know who sent which. If the
paper does not describe a BEC based on an isotope of hydrogen in a
metal lattice at room temperature, then it has no relationship to this
discussion. Of course a BEC might be created under a variety
conditions based on things other than an atomic nucleus, but that is
not relevant to the problem we are discussing here.
The conditions have no relationship to those in PdD at room
temperature.
***I never said they did.
But then we are not talking about the same thing. I'm discussing the
conditions required to initiate a nuclear reaction in a material at
room temperature and while using isotopes of hydrogen. What are you
talking about?
The BEC is created in vacuum at low temperatures using Rb atoms.
***Yup. And the BEC absorbed photons. That's what started this
discussion.
So what? This has no relationship to LENR.
If you think these statements are not important,
***I did not say that they are unimportant, I said they didn't stand
out.
What does "not stand out mean"?
than you understand nothing about materials science or BEC.
***Now you're in insult mode. Try to add more bran to your diet.
It is only an insult if it is not true. You need to decide if it is
true or not. In any case, I was responding to the ambiguous statement
above, which you now say does not mean what it appears to mean.
Nevertheless, I did not mean to insult, only to point out that you
might not know what you think you know. People point out my
limitations all the time, which while annoying is not an insult.
Creation of an assembly of atoms requires energy to compensate for
the entropy change. This is basic thermodynamics. This energy is not
sufficient in the formation of a BEC for it to occur much above
absolute zero, where the entropy energy is small. This means a BEC
cannot form between atoms much above absolute zero.
***And yet, those 2 links I posted have BECs forming at room
temperature and even high temperature. Perhaps it is time to talk
about how much you know about BECs, seein' as how you started the
insults flying in that sandbox.
Again, you are not describing what the papers actually said. In any
case, are we to believe the laws of thermodynamics or the ambiguous
claims based on an unproven application of BEC theory?
Formation of a BEC does not supply much energy, as theory shows.
***But Y E Kim's theory shows that the formation of a BEC could
generate fusion, which does supply much energy.
Kim only has a theory based on the assumption that a BEC can form.
He has shown no proof that the assumption is correct.
***Not proof yet, but evidence nonetheless. First you say "as
theory shows", then you say he has shown no proof. Those are 2
entirely different things. You yourself have not shown proof that
your theory is correct. Obviously. Otherwise we'd all be having a
LENR party because of such a giant breakthrough.
A theory proves nothing, neither mine nor Kim's. A theory only shows
where to look for information. If the theory is wrong, the looking
becomes a waste of time. Because money and time are scarce, testing a
theory having a good chance of being right is important. That is why I
have examined all the theories. I need to know which is worth testing.
I have tested some and rejected others. None look plausible. That is
why I proposed by own, which I will test soon. For me, this is not an
intellectual game. The result has practical importance to everyone.
Society needs this energy and the sooner the source is mastered the
better.
His theory does not fit the facts. With more time, I can list the
conflicts if you are interested.
***I'm not that interested if you're gonna go all tribal and start
throwing insults around. You should get in touch with Dr. Kim and
have a discussion right here on Vortex. All of us would benefit,
including you.
An amazingly arrogant response. I see no insult here. I'm simply
stating a fact, which I presume is permitted. What makes you think I
have not already talked to Kim about my theory and suggest such a
public discussion? What makes you think he would agree, which he did
not? In addition, Vortex is not the only discussion group. If you want
to learn about theory, I suggest you attend ICCF-18 and contact Kim
yourself.
Yes, some theories conflict with more facts and observations than
others. At this stage in the process, you can choose what you want
to believe. Nevertheless, after reading all the theories, most of
the published papers describing the behavior of CF, and applying my
knowledge of materials science and nuclear physics, I choose to
believe my theory. I have described exactly why I believe my theory
and suggested many predictions that can be used to test it. That is
all I or anyone can do. It is now up to the experimentalist to test
the predictions and find out who is correct. Further discussion will
not solve the problem.
***Further discussion is the purpose of Vortex-L
Yes, but this is not the only discussion group or even the most
important one. In addition, discussion is not the only or even the
best way to learn the truth. I would rather spend the time reviewing
the literature, thinking, writing papers other people can read, and
doing experimental studies. I contribute here on occasion as an
exercise to better explain my theory and because a few people actually
know what they are talking about.
How would you propose to test his theory?
***Well, the room temperature BEC paper suggested there was a
telltale signature for the formation of a BEC. I would suggest
going after the telltale signatures and load up some Nickel/H1 or
Palladium/Deuterium and see if the signature presents itself. How
would you?
Apparently you believe a BEC will form without causing LENR and its
presence can be detected by shining laser light on the material. Is
this what you propose? On the other hand, if the BEC causes LENR,
then the typical result of LENR would be detected. But how would you
know that a few BEC were the cause? The laser light would have to
reach the BEC and the resulting radiation would have to leave the
metal unabsorbed. You seem to be expecting a lot.
Ed Storms
