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. ***What? If a cold plasma "never forms" then how can it produce an effect?
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
