I'm saying that its not necessary to initiate LENR, but when it is present, it does perhaps work as a catalyst (or something similar) in some way. Hope that makes better sense.
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 11:01 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
