Replication of Holmlid and Olaffsons experiment - required components

In a close replication the most expensive equipment would be a nanosecond pulse green/infrared laser similar to that used by Holmlid in his studies, which would require alone more than 10k €/$ (last time I checked).

Without one, the experiment would be different enough that other components could be changed as well, in which case a simpler and cheaper tubular reactor (for example like the ones used by MFMP) could be used instead. The most expensive equipment would then likely be the vacuum pump (+ fittings) which would preferably have to be at least a two-stage model.

By including suitable radiation detection equipment costs would quickly increase again, though.

Jones Beene is to be commended for his creative and open experiments. I wonder what other efforts are out there to simply replicate the Homlid experimental apparatus.

To get the particle data, the experimenter might need one or more high performance oscilloscopes to time the decay of the subatomic particles produced by the short laser shot.

But all this equipment might be provided by the US govenment labs through the submission of a research proposal if the replication documentation is freely available to the general public.

Perhaps the word can be returned to Cole and Beene. Fluorescent lights quite famously produce low voltage x-rays, particularly near the igniter filaments at the ends. Any asymmetry in such a set up could produce some confusing or confused results.

However, an excellent set of experiments might deliberately look at germicidal lamps which are essentially the mercury arc inside a quartz tube and with no phosphor coating inside. Such might be an interesting "stimulus" for exciting some reactions in a relatively safe and low temperature way.

Quote from Longview

Perhaps the word can be returned to Cole and Beene. Fluorescent lights quite famously produce low voltage x-rays, particularly near the igniter filaments at the ends. Any asymmetry in such a set up could produce some confusing or confused results.

However, an excellent set of experiments might deliberately look at germicidal lamps which are essentially the mercury arc inside a quartz tube and with no phosphor coating inside. Such might be an interesting "stimulus" for exciting some reactions in a relatively safe and low temperature way.

There are some LEDs that produce UV light.

Quote from Longview

Perhaps the word can be returned to Cole and Beene. Fluorescent lights quite famously produce low voltage x-rays, particularly near the igniter filaments at the ends. Any asymmetry in such a set up could produce some confusing or confused results.

However, an excellent set of experiments might deliberately look at germicidal lamps which are essentially the mercury arc inside a quartz tube and with no phosphor coating inside. Such might be an interesting "stimulus" for exciting some reactions in a relatively safe and low temperature way.

There are some LEDs that now produce UV light.

There are lots of LEDs in the UV category. A couple available clear out to 220 nm, if I recall correctly. But to get the X-rays incidental at the ends of fluorescents and "neon" lights, well that is not happening with LEDs, yet.

As you likely know, many "white" LEDs are UV to phosphor to light devices, similar in that principle to the wavelength upconversion via phosphors in fluorescent lamps.

Quote from Longview

There are lots of LEDs in the UV category. A couple available clear out to 220 nm, if I recall correctly. But to get the X-rays incidental at the ends of fluorescents and "neon" lights, well that is not happening with LEDs, yet.

As you likely know, many "white" LEDs are UV to phosphor to light devices, similar in that principle to the wavelength upconversion via phosphors in fluorescent lamps.

fluorescent lights only convert 85% of the UV light to visible light. X-rays might not be needed to stimulate Holmlid's ethylene catalyst. UV might be good enough, but yes, XUV might be better.

That conversion efficiency applies to phosphor white light LEDs as well. But the loss of conversion efficiency is aggravated some in the fluorescents due to higher thermal losses. The UV LEDs have a fairly narrow UV spectrum, and one that in theory won't carry peaks of energy that can damage phosphors as might be seen in a Hg or Hg-Ar arc.

Yes, XUV sources are available and could be very interesting. Vacuum UV and now soft X-ray sources are hot items in silicon lithography now reaching under 10 nm, with little end in sight (so to speak). Of course optics is always an issue, lenses must be made with diffractive or grazing incidence reflective rather than transmissive optics, the MgF2 transmission limit being 110 nm.

Maybe a good start would be to detect the same signature in nuclear particle decay, not using Holmlid's setup but a more traditional PdD electrolytic cells or NiH reactor. A simple cloud chamber could do the trick. And decaying signals similar to those observed by Holmlid in his recent experiments may be the missing link we are all looking for.

Quote from JulianBianchi

Maybe a good start would be to detect the same signature in nuclear particle decay, not using Holmlid's setup but a more traditional PdD electrolytic cells or NiH reactor. A simple cloud chamber could do the trick. And decaying signals similar to those observed by Holmlid in his recent experiments may be the missing link we are all looking for.

This excess heat meme is difficult to overcome in the replicator community. The correct scientific detection method for LENR is sub-atomic particle detection and identification. Someday, this new idea will get through and the truth of LENR will then unfold.

A question as a non-expert in neutron detection. Can a muon signal (as Holmlid is detecting) be in some cases mistaken for a neutron signal, especially when muons are not expected? I guess this would not be the case with a cloud chamber, but what about when a cloud chamber is not used?

My guess is that the slower muons could undergo capture in the detection material, giving rise to an elusive neutron-like signal. I could be wrong, however.

Quote from Majorana

The biggest problem I am seeing in Beenes and Coles setup is that they don't use a suitable laser source
for excitation. They seem to be able to handle the potassium catalyst and also H2/D2 though.

It would be interesting to use a potassium catalyst with larger active area, similar to activated charcoal, and then apply
the D flow through it.

charcoal will not work, its crystal structure is wrong, it must be graphite with a hexagonal structure.