OK. I got you loud and clear. Thanks.
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Kevin O'Malley <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
