It makes as much sense as a 2-storey outhouse.
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
