If you looked at the reference I provided, you would have seen both internal and external voids filled with Rydberg matter through hydrogen loading.
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 2:31 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net>wrote: > Axil:**** > > Were the voids he studied at the surface??? If so, then you failed to read > my posting accurately. I am discussing voids which are formed internally, > and completely isolated from the surface layers.**** > > ** ** > > How did Miley determine that? If he was looking at surface defects > (voids), then that is completely different from the environment I am > positing. If he was looking at SUB-surface voids, then how did he see thru > numerous atomic layers in order to determine what was inside a void? How > do you know that whatever process he used didn’t cause the Rydberg matter > in the first place?**** > > ** ** > > -Mark**** > > ** ** > > *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Sunday, May 19, 2013 11:13 AM > *To:* vortex-l > > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Of NAEs and nothingness...**** > > ** ** > > 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**** > > **** > > **** > > ** ** > > ** ** >
