Why should I apologize? Will I be getting an apology from Y E Kim for his direct comment agreeing that this gives his theory a leg up? You yourself said that this is a poorly written article almost seemingly intended to deceive. You found a way around the paywall, and I thank you for setting me straight. But couldn't Ed have done the same thing? You expect Vorticians to find ways around paywalls before commenting while those who obviously are within the paywalls are withholding the kind of critical information you just posted? Do all Vorticians uphold this supposed standard? Because I see it nowhere in the rules, and if it were to be posted, Vortex-L might lose the great majority of its membership. When that happens, I imagine you would be the one apologizing.
No, there will be no apology coming. But again I thank you for setting the record straight, I value that kind of factual input even though it is personally painful. Re: [Vo]:Re: Superheated Bose-Einstein condensate exists above critical temperature<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=subject:%22Re%3A+%5BVo%5D%3ARe%3A+Superheated+Bose-Einstein+condensate+exists+above+critical+temperature%22> Kevin O'Malley<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=from:%22Kevin+O%27Malley%22>Mon, 15 Apr 2013 13:47:51 -0700<http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]&q=date:20130415> In a personal correspondence, Y.E. Kim confirms that this BEC development gives his theory yet another leg up. Yes, high temperature BEC (HT-BEC) is possible with interacting Bosons which is capable of forming a BEC cluster.**** The arguments for requiring the very low T to form a BEC are valid only for non-interacting or weakly interacting Bosons (as observed by Cornell, Wieman, Ketterle, and others) for which the temperature is determined by the tail of the MB velocity distribution. The MB velocity distribution is appropriate for an ideal gas of non-interacting Bosons, but it is not applicable to the interacting Bosons.**** Some (or many) people still do not the understand this !**** I expect that many of LENR phenomena at room temperatures and also at higher temperatures can be explained by BEC clusters formation by the interacting Bosons.**** Yeong On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > ** ** > > Here is a copy for free. Often Paywall articles, or the predecessor > version - are available on arXiv or the University site or elsewhere on the > net (for free) if you dig around.**** > > ** ** > > http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.5833v1.pdf**** > > ** ** > > We can only wish that you and Axil, in particular, would try to find and > read these articles first, before commenting - since this is a very > important point in the big picture; and he especially tends to cite > articles from abstracts, which only partially apply to the point being made > – and often without having read the details. **** > > ** ** > > In fact the details often support the opposite conclusion being proposed. > In this case “superheated” is still very, very cold and this is one of the > poorest written scientific papers I have ever seen. It is almost written > specifically to deceive.**** > > ** ** > > Of course --- if you want to argue that 1.5 degrees K is not “near” > absolute zero – then have at it but even then it would not relate to gamma > suppression.**** > > ** ** > > I think you owe Ed an apology. He is exactly correct - and this article > proves, not disproves, his contention.**** > > ** ** > > Let’s be clear – polaritons can possibly transform photon frequency in the > IR spectrum, but in NO WAY do they absorb or thermalize gamma radiation. * > *** > > ** ** > > That point is ludicrous, yet the BEC keeps coming up here on vortex from > time to time - as if there were some evidence for an ability to absorb > gamma radiation. There is none.**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Kevin O'Malley **** > > ** ** > > No I did not read it because you have to pay money for it. **** > > **** > > http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v9/n5/full/nphys2587.html**** > > **** > > I do have to admit that I misread the article, there's a graph showing > -10, 0 , +10 and +30 in what appears to be a temperature axis, but its > labeling is quizzical. I had thought when I read it that this meant room > temperature, i.e. in degrees Celsius. Now I don't know what is intended > for that axis.**** > > ** ** > > Jones Beene wrote:**** > > Did you read the paper cited in the post, Kevin? **** > > If so, then what temperature are we talking about? **** > > Is that temperature not “near absolute zero” as Ed states? **** > > QED **** > > *From:* Kevin O'Malley **** > > Edmund Storms wrote:**** > > I'm saying that BEC is known to form near absolute zero but has not been > shown to form BETWEEN ATOMS at higher temperatures.**** > > ***Is an optically trapped potassium-39 gas somehow not formed of ATOMS? > **** > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg78827.html**** > > **** > > **** > > **** > > ** ** >
