HOMLID & OLAFSSON RYDBERG FUSION -New presentation

Maybe you are interested to present your slides (or updated slides, if it the case) at the

10th International Symposium
Honouring Mathematical Physicist Jean-Pierre VIGIER
Portonovo (Ancona, Italy), 25-28 July 2016

http://www.noeticadvancedstudies.us/index10.html

Help me get up to speed on these slides with a few lines of explanation as the presenter might give.

@padam73: In http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.06.116 he thinks that the laser is more like a disturbance which initiates a transition of this exotic ultra-dense matter to a different spin level where the atomic separation is even smaller (0.56 pm) and fusion and other nuclear processes are spontaneous. Your mileage might vary.

EDIT: in the same paper it was also observed that the reaction can also eventually start almost on its own (i.e. without using a laser), as in typical LENR experiments. Sveinn Ólafsson clarified this some time ago on LENR-Forum: Ask questions to Dr. Sveinn Ólafsson, Science Institute - University of Iceland

Quote

[...] The laser can start the process but just waiting after admitting the D2 gas does the same.

Quote from Ecco

@padam73: In http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.06.116 he thinks that the laser is more like a disturbance which initiates a transition of this exotic ultra-dense matter to a different spin level where the atomic separation is even smaller (0.56 pm) and fusion and other nuclear processes are spontaneous. Your mileage might vary.

What happened to the gamma rays, the neutrons, the tritium? He must explain why his fusion reaction is different from standard fusion.
If he cannot explain the entire reaction process in detail, his explanation is invalid.

@axil: I don't remember reading him providing a clear explanation on why the reaction is different than standard nuclear processes, in actual fact he's mostly reporting his experimental observations.

It was reported some time ago that he wants to call this phenomenon "cold spallation" so I believe he's aware this not simply a nuclear fusion reaction.
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…energy-nuclear-reactions/

Padam73:
"If D-D atoms are truly separated by 2.3pm, then the rate of D-D fusion would already be extremely high just by tunneling (see Gamow 1928). In other words a laser to excite the system is not required. How does Holmlid solve this apparent contradiction?"

The Coulomb barrier at 2 pm is proportional to 1/r = 1/2.
The size of a nucleus (range of strong force) is 1 fm = 0.001 pm, so the barrier is 1/r = 1/0.001 = 1000

So, even at 2 pm distance most of the barrier is left. The fusion rate can thus not be much affected by using (the unconfirmed) ultra-dense deuterium.

Apart from this, as Axil said, where are the radiations? And how do you collect several 100 MeV to make mesons?

No, the Holmlid-Olafsson theory is completely unrealistic!

If the atoms are separated by a few pm and there are free or conducting electrons then the plasma frequency could be around a some 10s keV or so below this frequency any EM radiation in the bulk would be evanescent i.e. will not propagate as a travelling wave. EM radiation below this frequency would also be reflected off any material with this plasma frequency in the same way optical and some UV light is reflected off metal surfaces. Surface plasmons associated with this frequency may also be generated. So maybe UDD is more susceptible to emissions of this energy in its bulk or surface or a cavity or metal particle with a surface coating of UDD would contain X-rays in the 10s keV frequency range and below. X-ray or gamma emissions near the plasma frequency will also be absorbed and heat the thermal electrons.

Interestingly I understand this density will be similar to degenerate matter in white dwarf stars, so in a sense maybe Holmlid has a little piece of a white dwarf star in his experiment!

@'padam73:
I beg to disagree. You apply a classical approach here while
quantum tunneling matters at these distances. In his seminal
article of 1928, Gamow showed that the tunneling probability is
dominated by the tail of the Coulomb barrier and not by the
barrier peak closer to the nucleus. At the beginning many found
this illogical (as often in science...) however this is been amply
confirmed by experiments. In practice, it has been shown that
quantum tunneling may already apply with barriers of thickness in
the nm range.

I did the calculations using Gamow formalism and if ones
removes the tail of the Coulomb barrier until 2pm, i.e. ~2 orders
of magnitude less than traditional interatomic distances, in other
words up to 99% of the tail of the Coulomb barrier is lost, we
should have fusion rates in the orders 10e-8 - 10e-9 per nucleon
per sec. An apparently small number but in 1cm3 of D-D this should
still lead to at least 10e15 fusion reactions per sec, neglecting
any chain reactions. This is equivalent to >100 Watts/sec, a
huge amount!

I agree that the tail contributes considerably. I get a factor
e^-10 = 5*10^-5 for the ratio of penetration between r = 10^-10 and
10^-12 m. Barrier penetration is, however, not everything. Cross
section is important. The talk deals with H and not D. For fusion of H
you need to employ the weak force. This is lucky since otherwise we
would not exist.

To put in perspective, the mean energy production in the sun is
4*10^26/2*(10^30) = 0.0002 W/kg at in excess of 10 million K. (OK, you
will have to correct for the fact that there is fusion only in the
centre.)

How come we have not discovered spontaneous fusion in H_2? And in D_2
the rate would be enormous and the signals (p and n) very obvious. If I
were Lewis Larsen I would say that the effect heats up Jupiter!

Yes, you may have tunnelling for nm distances but only for light particles like electrons.

If one accepts your fusion rates (whatever W/s is), how come Holmlid is still alive? That flux of neutrons would be easy to detect.

The science is clear in this case. What thermalizes the gammas, stops neutrons, and excludes tritium production is the superconductivity of the condensed deuterium nanoparticle. This superconductive cover acts to turn the hydrogen metalized hydrogen nanoparticle in to superatom.

The experimental data is also clear here. These hydrogen metalized hydrogen nanoparticles act as neutral exotic particles that absorb huge amounts of energy and become exotic analog EMF black holes. This fact is easy to see experimentally. Just use photoemulsions to show the tracks of these superatoms.

You can tell from these tracks how much energy these particle hold, what their charge is, what their magnetic nature is, and if they are entangled(which they are)

It would be easy for Holmlid to do this test on his ash. But these results would get him excommunicated from the American Institute of Physics as a wacko. Until someone has the courage to see the truth experimentally, we will be arguing about tunneling.

See http://restframe.com/. See the work of a true scientist: :Keith Fredericks

Here is what the head of science at AIRBUS thinks LENR is all about.

(Paper by Jean-Francois Geneste, Airbus Group)

https://drive.google.com/file/…bGM5ZDFIWXpRLUViMmZB/view

A quick review of the paper indicates that Geneste’s paper is based on experiments that were conducted by Leonid Urustkoev, who was trying to understand the cause of the 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine. According to Geneste’s paper, Urustkoev generated high energy discharges into titanium foil that was isolated in bi-distilled water. These experiments produced powders. After 24 hours, ‘strange’ traces began to show up on X-ray film placed near receptacles holding the powders.

A recent experimental result shows how hydrides become superconductive under pressure.

http://phys.org/news/2016-03-q…liest-superconductor.html

The KEY: the hydrogen bonds become symmetric. All matter will become metallic under enough pressure. This special type of hydrogen bonding is the key to metalized hydrogen and therefore to LENR.

This room temperature superconductivity is what produces LENR effects in metalized hydrogen.

Lithium Aluminum Hydride becomes metalized at the lowest pressure : 42 GPa of all hydrides because it is a ternary hydride.

Other hydrides can be found that become metalized at even lower pressures if the aluminum atom is replaced with a heaver atom. Lower pressure of formation means easier LENR startup.

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/om020335k

Quote from axil

Lithium Aluminum Hydride becomes metalized at the lowest pressure : 42 GPa of all hydrides because it is a ternary hydride.

Other hydrides can be found that become metalized at even lower pressures if the aluminum atom is replaced with a heaver atom. Lower pressure of formation means easier LENR startup.

OK, interesting factoids, Axil. So, perhaps we can play with this a bit. One ternary hydride is ammonia, NH3. Of course nitrogen is not "heavy" but its analog phosphorus is heavier, giving the very toxic analog phosphine PH3, next is arsine or AsH3.... also very toxic stuff. Moving down the column, antimony = Sb = stibnium, is a heavier and readily available member giving SbH3 or "stibine", a ternary hydride, described as "intensely poisonous". Finally "bismuthine" BiH3, a "thermally unstable liquid" (data and toxicities from the Merck Index). Bismuth is readily available and has perhaps undeserved GRAS status in some over the counter remedies. Both Sb and Bi are considered metallic or semi-metallic and arsenic a metalloid-- for what it may be worth. Bismuth and antimony are seen in High Temperature SuperConductor HTSC formulations. One key feature of the whole column is the tendency expose a naked electron pair-- making them classic Lewis bases, that is electron pair donors. This of course is reminiscent of the spin paired behavior said to be key in such superconductors.

A recent article in Science details study of the superconductivity of a binary hydride, that is hydrogen sulfide, H2S under immense pressure in a diamond anvil cell. H2S is of course a homolog of water. I'm curious if binary hydrides are easier or more difficult to push to superconductivity. Certainly the ternary compounds would pack in ways that might influence any BEC transition in ways quite distinct from packing of binaries.

Check this one out

https://www.sciencedaily.com/r…/2011/09/110922093721.htm

Tungsten as a hydrogen carrier, in a ternary crystal structure where a heavy metal carries hydrogen that is released as heat is applied. Rare earths are heavy and might be optimum as a high pressure LENR catalyst.

@axil

See restframe.com/. See the work of a true scientist: :Keith Fredericks

The object (causing the traces) in the above mentionned paper behaves like Mills (p. 1566) proposed hyperbolic (polarised) electron, which per definition acts on negativ gravitational acceleration.
But this theory is even more hated than LENR...

Quote

Lithium Aluminum Hydride becomes metalized at the lowest pressure : 42 GPa of all hydrides because it is a ternary hydride.

Axil, you have unwisely posted numbers. As you know I call you out when you do that.

In this case 42GPa = 42,000 atmospheres. There is no conceivable way that pressure could exist except at the bottom of the sea, or in a diamond anvil. The record stands at around 300GPa from a diamond anvil.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Axil, you have unwisely posted numbers. As you know I call you out when you do that.

In this case 42GPa = 42,000 atmospheres. There is no conceivable way that pressure could exist except at the bottom of the sea, or in a diamond anvil. The record stands at around 300GPa from a diamond anvil.

That pressure is produced by the fractured metal bonds that are produced in the fuel preparation process. It is like capillary action. Experiment by Miley and Holmlid have shown via SQUID measurements of magnetic response and conductivity , that hydrogen clusters are superconductive in iron oxide cavities. Whenever there is superconductivity in a hydride, high pressures are involved. Will you force me to show the reference?

http://phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWS&PROFESSORS/pdf/MileyClusterRydbLPBsing.pdf

Quote from Wyttenbach

@axil

See restframe.com/. See the work of a true scientist: :Keith Fredericks

The object (causing the traces) in the above mentionned paper behaves like Mills (p. 1566) proposed hyperbolic (polarised) electron, which per definition acts on negativ gravitational acceleration.
But this theory is even more hated than LENR...

Display More

Many of the ways and means of LENR have been co-opted and misinterpreted by Mills. There is a class of scientist that work on LENR who think that what they do is not LENR...but it is. Holmlid is in that group.