OK. There's ALOT to respond to here, so let me do my best considering Ed is not here to talk for himself:
Axil -- Why is the hydroton different from Rydberg hydrogen crystals(aka matter)? Last I checked there is only evidence for Rydberg matter applications in hot fusion, not cold fusion. Its application to cold fusion is sort of pure speculation, even though its not a bad speculation to make necessarily. Also, in looking through your link, I didn't notice the 1:1 correspondence between metallic hydrogen & Rydberg matter that you do -- that simply seemed to be one possibility suggested by the work of Holmlid. It says they are "effective promoters to metallic hydrogen", suggesting that it is a stepping stone of sorts, not the thing in itself. Ed can call it whatever he wants because it seems to be the first form of "whatever it is" to be able to produce a LENR. That is quite novel wouldn't you say? Perhaps worth a title of its own despite belonging to a "family" grouping? Regardless, I think its all rather trivial. *The process that forms these strings is condensation from plasma.* Interesting idea, but speculative of course. A "cold plasma" in a cold fusion system is certainly not the same as hot plasmas in tokomaks for instance. Conflating the two and their effects is almost certainly a mistake. I do think cold plasma at the interface might be having some contribution to the reaction however, but its not critical, as has been shown in a number of systems where a cold plasma never forms yet still produces excess heat effect. *It keeps the confusion level down. * I don't really think Ed's that hard to understand at all -- its rather simple in comparison to many other theories and lexicons. For example, I think its fair to say that some of what you write and reference is highly opaque. Kevin -- *Earlier he had chastised theorists for throwing out the laws of thermodynamics, and here he does essentially the same thing.* I don't think he's doing the same thing at all. Nothing about thermodynamics is being violated in Ed's theory. If the reaction takes place in the lattice, we're definitely violating the laws of thermodynamics. In a nano-environment, separate from the chemical lattice itself but still a "part" of it in another sense, we can see new high energy events manifest before altering the NAE before high rates of nuclear reactions can be achieved. Jones -- I think you're making strange conflations between fracto-fusion, Hagelstein's theory, and Ed's theory. None of them fit together in the way you're suggesting. Also, how can separating CF from HF "not be valid"? If we have different reactions going on, why call them the same thing when they are not? I don't really understand your point I guess. Thanks all for taking an interest in the discussion, love it or hate it. Much appreciate all your efforts & speculations here on Vortex-l. ~~~ John On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 10:11 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > My responses embedded within your post with a triple asterisk *** > designation. > > > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 6:27 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> *More...* >> >> *A 1 dimensional atom strings will form a 1 dimensional superconductor. >> * >> > ***Most of us suspect that superconductor theory will converge with LENR > theory at a certain point. I smell a DOUBLE Nobel prize. > > > >> *A long thin string of hydrogen atoms will be superconducting. * >> > ***And they might also be a Luttinger Liquid, forming a Linear BEC at MUCH > higher temperatures than previously considered, because of the nature of > Luttinger Liquids and BECs and also maybe "string theory" or other weighty > models of physics we currently hold onto. > > > >> *The process that forms these strings is condensation from plasma. * >> > ***Once you enjoin plasma physics you have invited some very strange > characters to your party. And yes, I agree that there are ASPECTS of > plasma physics that will be involved. There are probably aspects that will > not be involved. This is an unexplored area of physics because until > recently, 1D Luttinger Liquids were NOT OBSERVED in the lab. But now they > are. My prediction is that LL's will have a direct bearing upon LENR > theory. > > > > >> *Ed Storms should have had the courtesy to use the name of this stuff >> that the discoverer coined, Rydberg matter. * >> > ***Well, maybe. Maybe not. He's a grumpy old bass turd who recently > unsubscribed from Vortex, and he's probably the ONLY guy who could compile > the level of evidence that he has. In this particular interview he said > his database is 5000 articles, a rival of Jed. But what kind of person > acquires a library like that, and doesn't share it? Perhaps your > accusation of lack of courtesy has merit. > > > > >> *It keeps the confusion level down. * >> > ***I agree. I get confused listening to Ed, corresponding with him, > reading his theoretical material. I don't get so confused reading his > compilation material. It is difficult to write theories in such a way that > pedestrians like me can understand and yet, PhD dudes will respect. Ed is > sticking to the currently OBSERVED laws of thermodynamics and others so > that his theory can gain legitimacy. His theory is better than the > Widom-Larson theory, and I hope it gains traction. But I don't think his > theory nor the W-L theory are correct. It will remain to be seen. > > > >> *Dr. Leif Holmlid worked with Dr, Miley on the many experiments including >> the one where Dr Miley discovered this superconductivity in hydrogen.* >> > ***This is a key finding. In any other field of science, there would be > researchers all over it. But this is LENR, the outcast, so it will take a > brave & courageous researcher to take this on. > >> *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.* >> > ***Thank you for posting this. I did not notice and would not have > noticed unless you gave the heads-up. This is a difficult field to follow. > > > >> *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 >> > ***Well, good for them, and good for you. I hope someone wins a Nobel > Prize... REAL SOON. Did you know that the MFMP project has been nominated > for the Nobel Peace Prize? > > > >> >> >> 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/ >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
