Can we talk about Holmlid?

Quote from Zephir_AWT

At first, note the usage of phrase "I think" at the beginning. At second, I already explained it above: the fusion runs, when two atoms collide. You don't need to have separate phase of them for it.
In particular, the cold fusion is assisted with additional atoms from metal lattice (which act like pistons / anvils in my model, but you can invent many others). Such an involvement requires to have fusing pair isolated - inside the larger island of dense hydrogen phase the nickel atoms would have nowhere to help with.

Holmlid experiments are specific with high energy density, supplied with laser beam from outside. During hot fusion in tokamak different products also get formed - but nobody implies some extrapolation for cold fusion from it, because everyone knows, that these experiments run under different conditions. The Holmlid experience is not transferable to cold fusion systems, because its energy density couldn't form spontaneously there. In similar way like with kaons and muons, the (formation of) metallic hydrogen has been detected nowhere else - so you can draw conclusion for yourself.

The detection of metallic hydrogen in palladium is indirect. Without hydrogen loading, palladium is not a superconductor, but when loading of hydrogen is high, it becomes a room temperature superconductor just like ultra dense hydrogen.

The superconductor concept is orthogonal to the metal concept (they're mutually inclusive in fact, given the different state of electrons within metal and superconductors): we know many nonmetallic superconductors and vice-versa: some metals were never observed in superconductive state, including the most metallic metals like the sodium.

Quote from Alan Smith

From memory, Palladium Hydride has a transition temperature of 9K. I don't know where you live, but I keep my room warmer than that! Don't mistake very low resistance for superconductivity -they are completely different things.

There are papers (which Axil linked many times) claiming that the D filled cracks in Pd show SC like behavior. But, just like...

Quote from Zephir_AWT

The superconductor concept is orthogonal to the metal concept (they're mutually inclusive in fact, given the different state of electrons within metal and superconductors): we know many nonmetallic superconductors and vice-versa: some metals were never observed in superconductive state, including the most metallic metals like the sodium.

https://phys.org/news/2016-07-…ce-superconductivity.html

Quote

The team conducted high-pressure/high-temperature experiments. Matter under these extreme conditions can morph into new structures with new properties. They squeezed hydrogen and sodium samples in a diamond anvil cell to enormous pressures while heating the samples using a laser. At pressures between 300,000 and 400,000 atmospheres (30-40 gigapascals, or GPa) and temperatures of about 3100°F (2000 kelvin), they observed, for the first time, structures of "polyhydrides," sodium with 3 hydrogen atoms (NaH3) and NaH7—sodium with seven atoms of hydrogen—in very unusual configurations. Three negative charged hydrogen atoms in the NaH7 material lined up and looked like one-dimensional hydrogen chains, which is a new phase that is very different from pure hydrogen.

Quote from Alan Smith

• AXIL Said "The detection of metallic hydrogen in palladium is indirect. Without hydrogen loading, palladium is not a superconductor, but when loading of hydrogen is high, it becomes a room temperature superconductor just like ultra dense hydrogen."

From memory, Palladium Hydride has a transition temperature of 9K. I don't know where you live, but I keep my room warmer than that! Don't mistake very low resistance for superconductivity -they are completely different things.

There is a difference between how palladium hydride is formed and how palladium loaded with hydrogen is formed in the same way that an iron tank filled with oxygen is different from iron oxide.

Quote from Alan Smith

There is indeed. But neither is truly superconducting at room temperature.

Where is your reference that states what the maximum temperature of the onset of superconductivity is for ultra dense hydrogen.

Calculation made by Cornell physicist Neil W. Ashcroft, professor of atomic and solid state physics, in 1968, at the same time as the Russian physicist Abrikosov, first suggested that metallic hydrogen might be a room temperature superconductor.

Both the evidence from loaded palladium and Cellanti wire suggest that this posit was correct.

Alan Smith

I don't have time right now to look up for the actual source in detail, but from the DTRA Boss-Forsley investigation released a few months ago:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf

Quote

... Besides LENR, the Pd/H(D) system exhibits superconductivity. Palladium itself does not

superconduct. However, it was found that H(D)/Pd does and that the critical temperatures of the

deuteride are about 2.5 K higher than those of hydride (at the same atomic ratios). 19 This is the

'inverse’ isotope effect. In these early measurements, the loading of H(D) in the Pd lattice was

less than unity, i.e. H(D):Pd < 1. Later Tripodi et al. 20 developed a method of loading and

stabilizing 50 µm diameter Pd wires with H(D):Pd loadings greater than one. These samples

have exhibited near room temperature superconductivity. Examples of measured

superconducting transitions of PdH x samples are shown in Figure 1-2.

We believe the two phenomena, LENR and high T c superconductivity, are related and that

both need to be investigated in order to gain an understanding of the processes occurring inside

the Pd lattice.

Display More

In reference to the Cosmic ray finder proposed today by MFMP...

I think they're setting up themselves for failure if they expect detecting anomalous muon emission from their experiments with this. The mean energy of cosmic muons at sea level - which this tool is supposed to detect- is about 4 GeV. The ones Holmlid claims can be emitted are in the 10-100 MeV range or less: much slower.

Holmlid uses standard scintillators and photomultipliers with several mm-thick plates attached to their front window in order to slow those muons down enough to cause secondary capture reactions (link to paper). These capture reactions indirectly cause neutron activation and beta decay reactions in the material, which can be detected by standard means. This method of applying a relatively thin shield to the detector is reported to increase the detection rate by a factor of at least 100, but it works especially because these aren't cosmic muons and can be easily stopped.

In the first page of another thread on LENR-Forum there are reports from Russ George and Alan Smith of an improvement in detection by using a similar method with standard detectors. Don't these people communicate and discuss their findings to each other?

The not-invented-here syndrome is strong.

Alan Smith

They can by all means use whatever method they see fit; it's their experiment after all.

However, without a more or less complete understanding of the background theory and methods I don't feel it's fair to assume that these replications are going to test (as stated) any specific theory in particular.

I'm not just referring to the muon detection system: even mixing together (as suggested in this document) nickel powder, LiAlD4 and unknown (but likely too small) quantities of a catalyst similar to those used by Holmlid is likely to cause different outcomes than assumed. The LiAlD4 for instance is going to destroy the surface of the catalyst, together with the excessively high temperatures typical of these GlowStick experiments.

Since Zephir_AWT has suggested on a couple occasions (for example here) that a focused pulse laser is required for the reaction Holmlid observes, here's an excerpt from Muon detection studied by pulse-height energy analysis:Novel converter arrangements which should clarify things up through basic reading comprehension. Color emphasis mine.

• The potassium-iron oxide catalysts produce H(0) from hydrogen or deuterium gas flow;
• The catalysts give a slowly decaying muon signal after producing H(0);
• Laser irradiation triggers an increase in muon production;
• Sometimes (?) even the light from fluorescent lamps can trigger an increase in muon production.

Quote from can

Holmlid uses standard scintillators and photomultipliers with several mm-thick plates attached to their front window in order to slow those muons down enough to cause secondary capture reactions (link to paper).

The paper you quote sets out a novel way of purportedly detecting muons, proposed without the benefit of a calibration against a known source of muons, and devised by scientists whose expertise is in fields other than charged particle detection. Holmlid needs to engage independent, third-party expertise in characterizing the charged and neutral particle currents he claims to be observing, help that is experienced with this kind of measurement and whose reputation is independent of Holmlid. Holmlid himself will surely welcome such assistance, as he is no doubt committed to the due diligence needed to falsify his own conjectures or rule out competing alternatives.

Eric Walker

I don't disagree with what you're saying here.

For what it's worth, Axil reported some time ago on Vortex-l (citing an email from Sveinn Olafsson) that Holmlid's group is looking to test in a few months one of their apparati in a full-scale particle detector, so I guess that better data (and if need be, better interpretation) will eventually come.

(EDIT: removed ranty portion of the comment unrelated with your message although it addressed information from the very same paper; added link)

Quote

Sometimes (?) even the light from fluorescent lamps can trigger an increase in muon production. Holmlid uses standard scintillators and photomultipliers with severalmm-thick plates attached to their front window in order to slow those muons down

Holmlid needs to engage independent, third-party expertise in characterizing the charged and neutral particle currents he claims to be observing, help that is experienced with this kind of measurement and whose reputation is independent of Holmlid.

Everything what Holmlid presents is very interesting - but it's also an one man show without any scientific feedback. There is strong background of cosmic muons and the scintillators which he uses for detection of muons would be sensitive both for this background, both UV light and they may be even sensitized with it.

I'm particularly interested about his dense hydrogen worms, as they have some extent to dense aether models. It seems, he's able to collect quite substantial amount of these noodles. Couldn't he attempt for their direct observation under atomic microscope? It would be best evidence of his experiments - otherwise it's all just about spectroscopy, i.e. indirect evidence.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Everything what Holmlid presents is very interesting - but it's also an one man show without any scientific feedback. There is strong background of cosmic muons and the scintillators which he uses for detection of muons would be sensitive both for this background, both UV light and they may be even sensitized with it.

In Spontaneous ejection of high-energy particles from ultra-dense deuterium D(0) Holmlid and Olafsson report what they did to ensure it isn't an artifact produced by an external signal, whether natural or artificial. A figure shows the background signal after a couple days of inactivity and its increase (reportedly by a factor of 40) one hour after admitting deuterium in the apparatus. It's a repeatable effect.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

I'm particularly interested about his dense hydrogen worms, as they have some extent to dense aether models. It seems, he's able to collect quite substantial amount of these noodles. Couldn't he attempt for their direct observation under atomic microscope? It would be best evidence of his experiments - otherwise it's all just about spectroscopy, i.e. indirect evidence.

I'm not sure what to answer here. I'm afraid that indirect evidence is all that we've got for now.