** ** *Ed Storms said: I do not now believe the BEC plays any part in LENR.*
I agree with this. But the conditions that produce LENR make the formation of BEC probable. This BEC formation is not a necessary and sufficient condition to the development of LENR, be if a BEC does form, it may enhance the reaction. I also now question what professor George H. Miley saw in those cracks. He says that the cavities held a deuteron BEC. I don’t think he has done a definitive test to make a determination as follows: *The experiment would determine whether or not a BEC can indeed form inside a metal at room-temperature. If a BEC forms, you can then measure the velocity distribution of the deuterons with low-energy neutron scattering or high-energy x-ray scattering off the deuterium in the metal, as was done in the atomic case. * I am doing my annual LENR theory reformulation; ,,,throw out the old, ring in the new… My newly developing theory points to the possible but not necessary development of a plexciton BEC. Addressed to all and sundry, I have all the time in the world to explain my theory so please ask me and leave Ed alone. Cheers: Axil On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > First of all, your question was not about my theory. It was about how I > would expected a BEC would behave, which has no relationship to my theory > > Second, I explained to you why I did not answer your question and you > replied with demanding arrogance. In a discussion group, interaction with > other people is voluntary and based on a pleasant and fruitful interaction. > > Third, when I say I do not BELIEVE BEC has a role, perhaps I can translate > this belief into English you can accept. I have seen no evidence to support > the claim. I have seen no plausible justification that a BEC based on > hydrogen atoms can occur at room temperature. I have seen no evidence or > explanation of how a BEC can produce results that are consistent with > observations attributed to LENR. Are these statements clear? These > statements are based on my study and reading of all the evidence I can > find. I'm not interest in debating this information. I suggest you do this > with people who care about a possible role for BEC. > > Fourth, your understanding of how lasers behave when applied to a solid > material conflicts with what I have observed and shows a confidence on your > part that has no justification. If you want an example of why I want no > further discussion with you, simply look at the way you insist that only > you understand this interaction. > > > > > > On Feb 21, 2013, at 4:58 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > OK Kevin, I hurt your feelings. Sorry >> ***I don't care about hurt feelings. You can hurt my feelings every day >> next week and twice on Sunday if you'll answer the simple question. >> >> You are asking a question that requires a great deal of my time to fully >> answer. >> ***I'm not asking for it to be fully answered. That's why I'm asking at >> the 40k foot high Inductive level of Occham's Razor. >> >> If I leave a gap in my answer, other questions follow. >> ***If you are not going to answer questions as they pertain to your >> theory, then what are you doing? Trolling for groupies? >> >> I simply do not have the time to answer all questions. >> ***You take the time to answer questions you like, and you don't take the >> time to answer the questions you don't like. I get it. It aint very >> scientific, but I get it. >> >> Besides, I have also made my opinions about the role of BEC clear in the >> past, so this idea is not of interest to me. >> ***If it turns out to be the breakthrough, the idea will be of interest >> to you. And if you could find the silver bullet that destroys BECs as a >> viable theory, you'd be interested. Since we have neither of these, we >> rely on inductive reasoning to move us forward and now you don't even want >> to pursue inductive reasoning. You seem to prefer to engage in >> opinionation. Now, admittedly, your opinion is worth more than mine due >> to your 23 years of effort in this area. But it just so happens that in >> the case of laser cooling (which Dr. Chu got his Nobel Prize for in >> creating BECs), you happened to be wrong as it pertained to LENR. So it's >> in the best interest of LENR science to close the loop on that line of >> inquiry, if only at the 40k foot level. >> >> I do not believe the BEC plays any part in LENR. >> ***Science aint about belief. >> >>> Theoreticians take their ideas very personally and criticism, either >>> implied or real, is not usually taken kindly. >>> >> >> ***It would appear to be the case. >> >> >> >
