George H. Miley has experimentally found Rydberg matter in the cavities.
End of story.


On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote:

>  I agree with what you say, Mark. The parameters have to be within range,
> but that range is generally not exceeded unless a real effort is made.
> Consequently, the laws usually apply and must not be ignored just because
> they may fail outside of an extreme range.  On the other hand, I'm amused
> by people who apply processes that occur in the Sun to what might happen in
> a cathode on Earth. This is an example using conditions that are way out of
> range.
>
> I do not believe CF should be considered to be outside of physics just
> because the hot fusion behavior is not detected. This is the basic error
> made by skeptics. Cold fusion is a new phenomenon that occurs only at low
> energy, which has not been explored before.  The behavior has opened a new
> window into Nature. No conflict exists and no law of physics is violated.
> Nevertheless, some insight is missing. We need to find that insight. After
> all, that is what we were taught science was all about,. Obviously, some
> people slept through that lecture.
>
> Ed Storms
>
>
>
> On May 19, 2013, at 10:16 AM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
>
> Ed said:****
> “*Some of these behaviors have been described in ways we call laws
> because the descriptions always apply.”*****
> ** **
> I would add the following ending to that statement for it to be precise:**
> **
> ** **
> “…because the descriptions always apply when experimental parameters are
> within the ranges established across all the replications.”****
> ** **
> If someone conducts an experiment, but cranks up parameter X to 1000 times
> what was used in all previous replications, there is no guarantee that the
> results will come out as expected.  There are numerous examples where
> ‘laws’ failed when some parameter in the experiment was way beyond what had
> been tried before; where some critical threshold had been reached.****
> ****
> I also have a problem with the use of the word ‘always’ in that statement;
> or in any statement for that matter.  The now mature field of Chaos,
> Dissipative structures and Self-organizing systems, which grew out of Ilya
> Prigogine’s work, has shown how coherence can spontaneously form in an
> otherwise incoherent system, and there are many examples in science,
> including in chemistry and physics:****
>     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organizing_system****
> ** **
> I agree for the most part with your desire to diligently apply the ‘laws’
> of physics, however, there are some aspects of LENR which **potentially**
> place it outside the realm/range established from historical empirical
> results.  As has been mentioned numerous times by LENR researchers, the
> rules of plasma physics may not apply in the condensed matter world that is
> LENR.****
> ** **
> -Mark****
> ** **
> *From:* Edmund Storms [mailto:stor...@ix.netcom.com<stor...@ix.netcom.com>
> ]
> *Sent:* Sunday, May 19, 2013 7:54 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Cc:* Edmund Storms
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...****
> ** **
> *Mark, I agree that we do not know all we think we know and many rules
> can be violated when conditions change. Nevertheless, we do have a
> collection of observations that show how Nature behaves. Some of these
> behaviors have been described in ways we call laws because the descriptions
> always apply. Of course, a person has to understand what the law actually
> means. For example, I find that many people, even in science, do not
> understand what the Laws of Thermodynamics mean.  This problem is
> especially notable in physicists. *****
> ** **
> *Also, I have observed that mathematicians can find a mathematical way to
> explain ANYTHING - just give them a few assumptions.  This means that what
> we think we know is determined by the initial assumptions, not by the
> applied math itself.  The math can be made to fit the observations and may
> even provide predictions that fit behavior. However, this does not mean the
> assumption is correct. Take the Big Bang theory as a perfect example. This
> is based on an assumption that cannot be tested. A complex collection
> of mathematical consequences are created that seem to fit most
> observations. Meanwhile the Steady State theory does the same thing and
> also generates math that fits observations. Which theory you believe
> depends on which conflict with observation you wish to ignore. *****
> ** **
> *This same problem occurs with cold fusion. Which theory you accept
> depends on which conflict with observation you wish to ignore. I'm trying
> to create a theory that ignores no observation and no accepted behavior of
> Nature. Meanwhile, people simply propose and discuss any imagined idea that
> comes into their head without any awareness of what is known about CF or
> about Nature in general. That is my frustration. *****
> ** **
> *New ideas are required, but not at the expense of ignoring all else.
>  Science has come a long way and does not need to reinvent the wheel every
> time a new phenomenon is discovered. *****
> ** **
> ** **
> ** **
> On May 18, 2013, at 8:10 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:****
>
>
> ****
> I know Ed has expressed concern, and a bit of frustration, at how some of
> the Collective’s discussions are too OOTB, or seemingly without much
> concern for basic physics principles, for a seasoned scientist’s tastes…
>  and he certainly has a valid point.  However, many here do have a good
> grounding in science and engineering, and we at least try to apply the
> ‘laws’ of physics (and I use the term ‘laws’ carefully)… but we also know
> that those laws have a LIMITED sphere of applicability;  they do NOT apply
> everywhere!  I have found it necessary in several Vort threads to remind
> the discussioneers that the Laws of Thermodynamics ONLY APPLY TO CLOSED
> SYSTEMS.  Too often that minor point gets lost…  When dimensions become
> small enough, or time scales fast enough, that quantum mechanical phenomena
> begin to influence things, those laws can either appear to be, or actually
> be, violated, in those instances.  But I digress… back on point.****
>  ****
> In trying to reduce Ed’s frustration level with the ‘loose’ conversations
> that fly around inside the Dime Box Saloon, I would like to drill down a
> little more into nothingness, and look inside a NAE…****
>  ****
> ---------------****
> Assume we start out with a chunk of solid palladium with NO internal voids
> or ‘cracks’…****
>  ****
> Stress that chunk of palladium so a crack/defect/void forms in the
> interior of it, removed from the outer surfaces…****
> assume that this void is several hundred atoms long, and a few tens of
> atoms wide.****
>  ****
> Have Scotty miniaturize you, and beam you into the center of that void…***
> *
>  ****
> Questions to contemplate:****
> 1) what’s inside that void?****
> ** **
> *The answer depends on which theory you accept. In my case, the void
> consists initially of a strong negative charge created by the electrons in
> the wall that are associated with the metal atoms making up the wall. The
> charge is strong because it is now unbalance as a result of the walls being
> too far apart for the electron orbits (waves) to be properly balanced.
>  This condition attracts hydrons (hydrogen ions), which enter the gap by
> releasing Gibbs energy. In so doing, they create a tightly bonded covalent
> structure in the form of a string. The hydrons in this string are closer
> together than is normally possible because the electron concentration
> between them is higher than normal. When this structure resonates, the
> hydrons get even closer together periodically, depending on the frequency
> of vibration. Each time they get to within a critical distance, energy is
> emitted from each hydron as a photon. Once enough energy has been emitted
> as a series of weak photons, the fusion process is completed by the
> intervening electron being sucked into the final nuclear product. The
> details of how this process works will be described later.*****
>
>
> ****
> 2) what’s the temperature in that void?****
> ** **
> *The temperature is very high, but not high enough to melt the
> surrounding material. As a result, some energy is lost from the gap as
> phonons. The photon/phonon ratio is still unknown.  Nevertheless, the rate
> of photon emission is large enough to be detected outside of the apparatus
> when H is used.*****
>
>
> ****
> 3) are there any fields (as in E or B fields) inside that void?****
> ** **
> *The E and B fields are strong.* ****
>
>
> ****
> 4) what is the mean free path of a free electron or proton in that void?**
> **
> ** **
> *The electrons that create the covalent bond between the hydrons are in a
> superconducting state. Their path is limited by the length of the string.*
> ****
> ** **
> *This description is consistent with all thermodynamic requirements and
> is missing only one feature that needs to be better understood.  Of course,
> this model is not like any other, although it contains features that have
> been suggested by other people. I have simply taken various parts and put
> them together into a bigger picture.  In so doing, I have created a map
> that can be improved as new features are discovered because we now know
> where to look and what to look for.  After all, that is the function of a
> theory, or at least that is what we are taught. *****
> ** **
> Ed Storms
>
> ****
> ------------------****
>  ****
> Looking fwd to the Collective’s thoughts…****
> -Mark****
>  ****
> ** **
>
>
>

Reply via email to