On May 27, 2013, at 8:12 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
The essential question is, Does a BEC form in any material?
***Yes, according to the 2 links I posted.
Kevin, did you actually read this paper (
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf)? The conditions have no
relationship to those in PdD at room temperature. The BEC is created
in vacuum at low temperatures using Rb atoms.
Various applications of this concept have been applied, but not to
hydron atoms.
***We both already agreed to that, so I don't understand the need to
repeat it. This hasn't been applied for H2 or H1 or D2 gas because
it is difficult and expensive. Oh, and there's that added wrinkle
where LENR starts to become active, really messing with scientists'
heads... ;-)
In fact, when BEC are formed near absolute zero, they consist of
neutral atoms in a vacuum. In the case of hydrons, they are ions
located in stable sites in a structure. Moving these ions into a
common site where a BEC might form takes energy.
***Okay, nothing particularly standing out in these statements.
If you think these statements are not important, than you understand
nothing about materials science or BEC. Creation of an assembly of
atoms requires energy to compensate for the entropy change. This is
basic thermodynamics. This energy is not sufficient in the formation
of a BEC for it to occur much above absolute zero, where the entropy
energy is small. This means a BEC cannot form between atoms much above
absolute zero.
Formation of a BEC does not supply much energy, as theory shows.
***But Y E Kim's theory shows that the formation of a BEC could
generate fusion, which does supply much energy.
Kim only has a theory based on the assumption that a BEC can form. He
has shown no proof that the assumption is correct.
I do not see any advantage to pretending something might happen that
conflicts with basic theory
***Because Y E Kim's theory fits the facts pretty good right now.
Anyone's LENR theory will conflict with what's out there. Including
yours.
His theory does not fit the facts. With more time, I can list the
conflicts if you are interested.
Yes, some theories conflict with more facts and observations than
others. At this stage in the process, you can choose what you want to
believe. Nevertheless, after reading all the theories, most of the
published papers describing the behavior of CF, and applying my
knowledge of materials science and nuclear physics, I choose to
believe my theory. I have described exactly why I believe my theory
and suggested many predictions that can be used to test it. That is
all I or anyone can do. It is now up to the experimentalist to test
the predictions and find out who is correct. Further discussion will
not solve the problem.
and experience unless this is the only possibility.
***What a bizarre requirement. Where does it come from?
This is not the only possibility. In fact, better ideas have been
suggested.
***The best ideas are the ones immediately testable. Kim's theory
doesn't look all that superior to others in this respect, but recent
developments in BECs suggest that his theory is certainly worth
looking into.
How would you propose to test his theory?
Ed Storms
Ed Storms
On May 27, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com
> wrote:
The BEC is known from experience and theory to only form near
absolute zero.
***How quickly you forget having logged onto this thread:
Re: [Vo]:Bose Einstein Condensate formed at Room Temperature
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg76596.html
And this thread was greeted with a yawn:
[Vo]:Re: Superheated Bose-Einstein condensate exists above
critical temperature
http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg78827.html
