On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:51 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote:
> > > > Kevin, did you actually read this paper ( > > http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.1261v1.pdf)? > ***I'm still making my way through it. It is not one of the links I posted. > The conditions have no relationship to those in PdD at room temperature. > ***I never said they did. > The BEC is created in vacuum at low temperatures using Rb atoms. > ***Yup. And the BEC absorbed photons. That's what started this discussion. > > > > > If you think these statements are not important, > ***I did not say that they are unimportant, I said they didn't stand out. > than you understand nothing about materials science or BEC. > ***Now you're in insult mode. Try to add more bran to your diet. > 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. > ***And yet, those 2 links I posted have BECs forming at room temperature and even high temperature. Perhaps it is time to talk about how much you know about BECs, seein' as how you started the insults flying in that sandbox. > > > > >> 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. > ***Not proof yet, but evidence nonetheless. First you say "as theory shows", then you say he has shown no proof. Those are 2 entirely different things. You yourself have not shown proof that your theory is correct. Obviously. Otherwise we'd all be having a LENR party because of such a giant breakthrough. > > His theory does not fit the facts. With more time, I can list the > conflicts if you are interested. > ***I'm not that interested if you're gonna go all tribal and start throwing insults around. You should get in touch with Dr. Kim and have a discussion right here on Vortex. All of us would benefit, including you. > > 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. > ***Further discussion is the purpose of Vortex-L > > How would you propose to test his theory? > ***Well, the room temperature BEC paper suggested there was a telltale signature for the formation of a BEC. I would suggest going after the telltale signatures and load up some Nickel/H1 or Palladium/Deuterium and see if the signature presents itself. How would you?
