*More...* *A 1 dimensional atom strings will form a 1 dimensional superconductor. A long thin string of hydrogen atoms will be superconducting. The process that forms these strings is condensation from plasma. Ed Storms should have had the courtesy to use the name of this stuff that the discoverer coined, Rydberg matter. It keeps the confusion level down. Dr. Leif Holmlid worked with Dr, Miley on the many experiments including the one where Dr Miley discovered this superconductivity in hydrogen.*
*I have always used the used the name Rydberg Matter with I judged was the proper name to refer to these strings of hydrogen atoms. Inventing new names for thing in LENR will just make the field increasingly confusing, more than it already is.* *I will give the credit to Dr Gorge Miley and Dr. Leif Holmlid for Rydberg matter, both the discovery and the naming of it. *Dr. Leif Holmlid On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > Miley has measures zero resistance in the Nano cavity that holds the > hydrogen, So the hydrogen is superconducting. That has to be a BEC. How > does this experimental finding impact Ed Storms theory? Has Ed included > this dot in his collection? > > > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 5:48 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Maybe instead of metallic 1D hydrogen, it's a Vibrational 1D Luttinger >> Liquid BEC forming. A V1DLLBEC. >> >> >> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 2:24 PM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> maybe some connexions, but Hydroton is a 1D object, constrained in a >>> lattice defect... metallic 1D hydrogen... >>> >>> Rydberg states is rather talking of excitation of the electrons.. >>> maybe is rydberg state of atoms in a coherent 1D chain of metallic >>> hydrogen... >>> >>> maybe is is a 1D rydberg matter... need more data >>> >>> >>> 2014-07-20 21:22 GMT+02:00 Axil Axil <[email protected]>: >>> >>> Why is the hydroton different from Rydberg hydrogen crystals(aka >>>> matter)? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks. Good interview. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The main complaint from the non-specialists - which will insure that >>>>> it gets few viewers - is lack of graphics. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Which is unrealistic of course, since who (especially among >>>>> volunteers) has the resources for a graphics artist these days? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I was going to suggest looping parts of an existing video, without the >>>>> sound, like this one >>>>> >>>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VD4hj2PmkoY >>>>> >>>>> They are supposedly a for-profit company who might agree - for a >>>>> little joint PR. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Anyway - If anything needs to be cleared up it is the “hydroton”. >>>>> Everything in the Storms theory pretty much depends on this hybrid >>>>> concept. >>>>> It is a hypothetical “chemical structure” without any precedence in >>>>> chemistry or physics. To me, it looks like a strained attempt to shoehorn >>>>> Hagelstein’s ideas about lack of gammas into fractofusion, together with >>>>> something vaguely related to Mills. Ed has expressed before that he does >>>>> not like his concept being referred to as fractofusion…. but he has this >>>>> love/hate thing with trying to draw the line between hot and cold fusion >>>>> is >>>>> a peculiar way that probably cannot be valid. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> My response is that if walks like a duck and quacks like a duck …. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Well, anyway - we ought to start a new thread on the hydroton when >>>>> enough readers have gotten hold of the book. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Jones >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Foks0904 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For anyone who has 50 minutes and an interest in cold fusion theory. >>>>> We discuss both Ed's theory specifically and the theory landscape >>>>> generally >>>>> -- and get into a number of other topics in between. Thanks for listening: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://coldfusionnow.org/interview-with-dr-edmund-storms-on-lenr-theory/ >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
