Bose Einstein Condensates and the E-cat

6/26/26: Update:

Well, here's another blast from the past. Yours truly used to follow this, and I stopped following it. Therefore, I cannot offer any new thoughts on the subject.

But it is an old story. Not to be discrediting it for being old. Shoot, I'm old. What wrong with old? Sometimes "old" can be a cool thing. Like Cool Hand Luke. Luke said that sometimes nothing can be a pretty cool hand. If you think old means "nothing", but nothing can still be cool.

I reacted to this post because of one of the knocks against cold fusion back in the day. It went against all of what was known in nuclear physics. As if nothing new could be learned. The world is full of jackasses. As for me, I try not to exceed the limits of jackassery.

A thing is or it isn't. Cold fusion got discredited, and probably not for fair nor honest reasons.

It's worth investigating why there seemed to be these anomalous results from experiments. Instead it was discredited because of conventional wisdom that isn't exactly wisdom in my book. So there.

The original post of 7/18/2011 follows below:

Somebody else responded to my question to Andrea Rossi besides Rossi himself.  It was the observation that these condensates form at very low temperatures.  However, a little digging shows that it can be predicted that these condensates can form at very high temperatures too.  I cite the source here:

It has been predicted that a quasi-equilibrium system of bosons could undergo Bose-Einstein condensation even at relatively high temperatures, if the flow rate of energy pumped into the system exceeds a critical value. 

I found the link to this from the Wikipedia entry on Bose Einstein condensates, footnote number 10.  There is more to this, but I have shortened it because of a lack of time.  It should be easy enough to follow, though.

Update:

As I wrote before, the topic here is way above my pay scale, so I think I'll let it drop at this point.  It is interesting reading to a certain extent, but without the formal education to fully understand it, I feel a bit confused sometimes when I read this stuff.

I've been spending the last few hours reading over such topics as "spin" and "anti parallel" and so forth.  As best as I can determine, the theory offered to explain the e-cat's low energy nuclear reaction seems plausible. I'd rather not go much further than that.  That belongs in a discussion elsewhere.

Update:

Here's some information on Yeong E. Kim.  I'd say it looks pretty impressive.