It's psychological. Rydberg matter is Holmlid's baby. He wants his baby to succeed. Like almost all LENR experiments, Holmlid assumes that the means of the reaction is the cause of the LENR reaction. But the cause of the reaction is not Hydrogen Rydberg matter. This stuff only produces the cause. Just like for Ed Storms, cracks produce the cause of the reaction.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 26, 2015, at 9:33, "Jones Beene" <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > Wait a minute – the end result of muon decay is an electron (or positron > in the case of the antimuon). This is technically not “beta decay” at > least not as taught by pedantics. > > I'm not sold on the whole meson -> muon decay explanation. I'm going to > hazard a guess that as I make it through Holmlid's papers, the evidence > will be explainable as beta decay. > > I read through an older paper of Holmlid's last night on arXiv. It was > nearly indecipherable. What was clear was that he was heating potassium > with a laser and seeing activity in the radio spectrum. The paper was > seeking to explain peaks in the spectrum that were appearing at regular > intervals. > > He had already developed at that point a whole explanation for this radio > spectrum which involved electronic transitions in clusters of rotating > "Rydberg matter". His theory thoroughly infused his discussion of the raw > data. There was no attempt to explain or justify how he had gotten to that > point, so the paper came across as listening in on the middle of a > conversation full of technical jargon without the benefit of having heard > the first part of the conversation. > > Much of the jargon dealt with the behavior of antennas. Some EEs with > experience with antennas might immediately have opinions about some of the > discussion. > > Eric > >
