*Apparently you believe a BEC will form without causing LENR and its presence can be detected by shining laser light on the material. Is this what you propose?*
It is just amazing, but it looks like LENR in the Ni/H is an optical based reaction. A laser is not required to supply the photons to activate the reaction, the infrared photons in a hot Ni/H reactor is what drives the formation of the BEC in that system. There seems to be a direct relationship between the intensity of the infrared photon flux in an Ni/H reactor and the power and extent of BEC formation. This photon based BEC mechanism is and established physical reality, universally recognized throughout science. It is a waste of time to dispute its existence. The professors are teaching it in class. This reference indicates how it all works: Reference: http://www.umich.edu/~mctp/SciPrgPgs/events/2010/MQSS10/Talks/Littlewood_Michigan_PBL.pdf This reference shows the metronome demo which illustrates the BEC principle. This slideshow seems to be a tutorial on BEC caused by excitonic matter. I don’t understand it all, but I think I have the gist of it. On page 6, the slideshow introduces the metronome idea. Terry Blanton posted this video which illustrates the mechanism of coherence development using a collection of metronomes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JWToUATLGzs Increase in electron tunneling forced by the photons forces a positive feedback loop for charge separation. It is also amazing, how strong that the charge separation can get. As I posted before, terawatt power level concentrations can be produced. We have some more research to do, to properly understand this power accumulation process, but I think we are on the right scent. This stuff is most strange, new, and unusual and feel free to pose questions that will help us all make progress in understanding LENR. If you want to oppose this theory, feel free to sharpen your arguments against it here in the minor leagues before Kim get this theory well off the ground. I feel certain that this idea is what Dr. Kim needs to complete his BEC theory of LENR. On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>wrote: > > On May 27, 2013, at 10:16 PM, Kevin O'Malley wrote: > > > > 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. > > > It is a link I extracted from your e-mail. What links are you referring > to? I read too many papers to know who sent which. If the paper does not > describe a BEC based on an isotope of hydrogen in a metal lattice at room > temperature, then it has no relationship to this discussion. Of course a > BEC might be created under a variety conditions based on things other than > an atomic nucleus, but that is not relevant to the problem we are > discussing here. > > > > >> The conditions have no relationship to those in PdD at room temperature. >> > ***I never said they did. > > > But then we are not talking about the same thing. I'm discussing the > conditions required to initiate a nuclear reaction in a material at room > temperature and while using isotopes of hydrogen. What are you talking > about? > > > > > >> The BEC is created in vacuum at low temperatures using Rb atoms. >> > ***Yup. And the BEC absorbed photons. That's what started this > discussion. > > > So what? This has no relationship to LENR. > > > > > >> >> >> >> >> If you think these statements are not important, >> > ***I did not say that they are unimportant, I said they didn't stand out. > > > What does "not stand out mean"? > > > > > >> than you understand nothing about materials science or BEC. >> > ***Now you're in insult mode. Try to add more bran to your diet. > > > It is only an insult if it is not true. You need to decide if it is true > or not. In any case, I was responding to the ambiguous statement above, > which you now say does not mean what it appears to mean. Nevertheless, I > did not mean to insult, only to point out that you might not know what you > think you know. People point out my limitations all the time, which while > annoying is not an insult. > > > > >> 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. > > > Again, you are not describing what the papers actually said. In any case, > are we to believe the laws of thermodynamics or the ambiguous claims based > on an unproven application of BEC theory? > > > >> >> >> >> >>> 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. > > > A theory proves nothing, neither mine nor Kim's. A theory only shows where > to look for information. If the theory is wrong, the looking becomes a > waste of time. Because money and time are scarce, testing a theory having a > good chance of being right is important. That is why I have examined all > the theories. I need to know which is worth testing. I have tested some and > rejected others. None look plausible. That is why I proposed by own, which > I will test soon. For me, this is not an intellectual game. The result has > practical importance to everyone. Society needs this energy and the sooner > the source is mastered the better. > > > > > >> >> 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. > > > An amazingly arrogant response. I see no insult here. I'm simply stating a > fact, which I presume is permitted. What makes you think I have not > already talked to Kim about my theory and suggest such a public discussion? > What makes you think he would agree, which he did not? In addition, Vortex > is not the only discussion group. If you want to learn about theory, I > suggest you attend ICCF-18 and contact Kim yourself. > > > >> >> 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 > > > Yes, but this is not the only discussion group or even the most important > one. In addition, discussion is not the only or even the best way to learn > the truth. I would rather spend the time reviewing the literature, > thinking, writing papers other people can read, and doing experimental > studies. I contribute here on occasion as an exercise to better explain my > theory and because a few people actually know what they are talking about. > > > >> >> 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? > > > Apparently you believe a BEC will form without causing LENR and its > presence can be detected by shining laser light on the material. Is this > what you propose? On the other hand, if the BEC causes LENR, then the > typical result of LENR would be detected. But how would you know that a few > BEC were the cause? The laser light would have to reach the BEC and the > resulting radiation would have to leave the metal unabsorbed. You seem to > be expecting a lot. > > Ed Storms > > > > > > >
