On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:06 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote:
> You mention that a BEC can absorb gammas and recast them with frequencies > of 1/N. I would consider this suggestive that energy released by one of > these BEC fusion reactions taking place would be in that form instead of > the more energetic and penetrating gammas. ***That is exactly what I've been suggesting. > > I have also explored the concept of a large collection of entangled > protons behaving together in an effort to avoid the single large gamma > emission. It is not clear how coupled resonators can share the energy more > or less equally over a long time span instead of having one of the number > emit the large energy rapidly. > ***I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying here. > What mechanism could encourage one of the number to hold off its emission? > ***Since I don't understand your premise, I can't answer this question. > > > > There appears to be an important difference between these two models. > All of the toy pendulums are at the same resonant frequency and of high Q. > I find it difficult to establish the resonant frequencies of the protons > in their specific environments. Unless something about the metal crystal > forces them to be closely resonant, why would they tightly couple? > **Something in the metal crystal would be what I'm comfortable with... > > > But, once the helium comes into existence, I would expect the new type of > atom to behave as a different animal. If most of the energy is released at > that event, then why would it share with other atoms that are unlike > itself? > ***I would suggest that this is the reason why helium gets expelled from the lattice bulk and gets evacuated to the surface, like a bubble in water. > Does a BEC composed of Ds include a lone helium among its group? > ***This sounds highly doubtful. > > There are many questions to consider if one is to think of these > reactions as due to BEC behavior. Perhaps classical physics does a better > job of handling the interactions. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Wed, Jun 12, 2013 2:41 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:19 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Kevin, >> >> Are saying that a BEC which is composed of two Ds will always fuse? >> > ***No way. The BEC would be composed of thousands of atoms, only 2 of > which are so stuck that they fuse. Just like a crowd of 2 people won't get > trampled, but a crowd of 20,000 might trample a couple of people if they > were confined to a conference room for ICCF18. > > > > >> What is the criteria that you use to determine under what conditions the >> fusion occurs? >> > ***I do not have such a criteria. But, working backwards from this > finding that N atoms in a BEC absorbed 1/N frequency, I might be able to > develop a criteria of how large a BEC must form for it to be able to > squeeze 2 atoms together, similar to how large a crowd must form for 2 > people to get trampled. > > > > >> What evidence of this behavior is demonstrated in other system? >> > ***Well, we've been discussing it on various Vortex threads. Here's the > latest: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg82949.html > > >> >> It seems unlikely that gamma rays of that energy would all become >> absorbed, >> > ***Well, maybe we should all re-read this paper and find out exactly what > 1/N atoms means? This paper itself seems straightforward, but its > implications could be immense. Kinda like LENR. > > particularly any that are released at the first layer beneath the surface > of the crystal. Even if a tiny probability of escape is available they > would be easy to detect outside the metal. > ***Yes, If a fusion event occurs near the edge of the BEC, then it is like > a stick of dynamite going off out in the garage rather than the center of > the house. Normally, the house would absorb the dynamite (gamma) in almost > every direction, with quite a bit of energy escaping, but not enough to > kill a man 50 feet away. But, take away the house, and that man is dead, > from 50 feet with nothing between him & the blast. If the explosion occurs > on one side of the house, then you have a partially preserved house (BEC) > but large energy released in the other direction (detectable energy > release, possibly even transmutation). > > > >> >> I suspect that you would be ahead to assume that there is a fusion energy >> release process that does not involve high energy gammas. >> > *** I like that assumption as well. It is a clean assumption. But then > how do you account for the very few gammas that appear to be present once > in a while? > > > > > >> Ed has a hypothesis that allows the energy to be released into a long >> series of photons to solve that problem. >> > ***There's also phonons, and Ron Maimon's theory, and perhaps several > others. But the difference here is this is an EXPERIMENTAL finding. > Experiment trumps theory ~Richard Feynman > > > > ----Original Message----- > From: Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Wed, Jun 12, 2013 1:56 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:BEC transforms photon frequency > > Now, wait a second. After responding to this and seeing your lack of >> response, then repeating the same thing on another thread it leads me to >> re-examine what you wrote. Perhaps you are saying here that near-zero BECs >> have formed in Metal Hydrides? If so, then how can you say on the other >> thread >> >> Why invoke a structure that is known not to form at high temperature? >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg82949.html >> >> Then that means BECs have been known to form in metal hydrides, or you >> are pretending like we never had this conversation about BECs forming at >> high temperatures. Which is it? Or perhaps there's an in-between thing >> I'm overlooking, that no doubt would save face for one or both of us? >> >> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:55 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Kevin, I see no evidence in the link for the actual existence of a BEC >>> forming between hydrons at room temperature. People have proposed but not >>> demonstrated. >>> >>> Ed Storms >>> >>> On May 27, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Edmund Storms >>> <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>> The BEC is known from experience and theory to only form near absolute >>> zero. >>> ***How quickly you forget having logged onto this thread: >>> >>> Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room >>> Temperature<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=subject:%22Re%3A+%5BVo%5D%3ABose+Einstein+Condensate+formed+at+Room+Temperature%22> >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg76596.html >>> >>> And this thread was greeted with a yawn: >>> [Vo]:Re: Superheated Bose-Einstein condensate exists above critical >>> temperature<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=subject:%22%5BVo%5D%3ARe%3A+Superheated+Bose-Einstein+condensate+exists+above+critical+temperature%22> >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg78827.html >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
