• Dr Richard

    That's not quite the case at least for Holmlid. He doesn't think he's doing LENR but he thinks observations related to ultra-dense hydrogen can explain at least some of those in LENR experiments. In the latest review on the topic published this year he wrote in passing:


    https://iopscience.iop.org/art…02-4896/ab1276#psab1276s9


    Quote

    9. Condensation to H(0)

    The energy of condensation released during formation of H(0) is considerable. In the state s = 2, the bonding energy per H–H pair is of the order of 1 keV (Holmlid 2013a). This means that the condensation energy is of the order of 100 MJ mol−1 H2, or 27 kWh mol1 H2. Thus an ordinary gas tube containing hydrogen may be able to release MWh in condensation energy. Of course, this process is not very likely to take place spontaneously. After condensation, spontaneous nuclear processes may take place. Both condensation and spontaneous nuclear processes may be the source of the excess heat observed in the so called 'cold fusion' or LENR experiments (Storms 2007, 2014). That condensation energy may be the source of the energy in 'cold fusion' was pointed out by Winterberg (2010a, 2010b) and by Mayer and Reitz (2012, 2014).

  • Quote

    9. Condensation to H(0)

    The energy of condensation released during formation of H(0) is considerable. In the state s = 2, the bonding energy per H–H pair is of the order of 1 keV (Holmlid 2013a). This means that the condensation energy is of the order of 100 MJ mol−1 H2, or 27 kWh mol1 H2.


    50,000MJ/kg.


    Hmm.

  • Einstein's work led to such things as nuclear power, nuclear weapons, and GPS. Mills' work has led so far to completely unfulfilled claims of power plants to come (for 20 years) and a bright flash when he puts gargantuan amounts of electrical power into a tiny, mostly uncooled space. Whooopeee!

  • can Well this is certainly good news that Holmlid at last acknowledges the link to LENR. He probably thought this all along but maybe was worried about losing credibility in supporting cold fusion ideas. I think Mills has a similar problem going there, its difficult enough already with his hydrino theory involving partial quantal states (analogous to Holmlid's UDH H(0) states) - both being lower energy than the accepted SM ground state of hydrogen. But is all this just too good to be true? I still remain somewhat skeptical until more research groups attempt to disprove these theories. I really wish Team Google would replicate Holmlid's work rather than waste their time on old-fashioned cold fusion replications! :)

  • The plurality of ideas is always good but it should be subject of exchange of ideas and free market competition. Under contemporary omnipresent ignorance of mainstream science and obstinate tendency to cover know how before rest of world the pushers of alternative theories lack mutual feedback and they change into sectarian communities sieged against competition from all directions. See also famous article by David Goodstein, Professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Caltech:


    Quote
    Between cold fusion and respectable science there is virtually no communication at all.…because the Cold-Fusioners see themselves as a community under siege, there is little internal criticism. Experiments and theories tend to be accepted at face value, for fear of providing even more fuel for external critics, if anyone outside the group was bothering to listen. In these circumstances, crackpots flourish, making matters worse for those who believe that there is serious science going on here ... What all these experiments really need is critical examination by accomplished rivals intent on proving them wrong. That is part of the normal functioning of science. Unfortunately, in this area, science is not functioning normally. There is nobody out there listening.”
     


    See also my remark about dismal level of replication in cold fusion research.

  • He probably thought this all along but maybe was worried about losing credibility in supporting cold fusion ideas. I think Mills has a similar problem going there, its difficult enough already with his hydrino theory involving partial quantal states (analogous to Holmlid's UDH H(0) states) - both being lower energy than the accepted SM ground state of hydrogen. But is all this just too good to be true? I still remain somewhat skeptical until more research groups attempt to disprove these theories. I really wish Team Google would replicate Holmlid's work rather than waste their time on old-fashioned cold fusion replications! :)

    Holmid and Mills' claims need to be looked at! People are focusing so heavy on their idea of LENR here, when the exothermic chemistry (catalyzed dense H) enabled would create a much more free flowing source in terms of where and how it can be used. Literally this is lighting up water with "dark matter" as a made useful ash.


    True LENR can probably be used as a symbiote for atomic MSRs. Dealing with and transmuting the waste so that the device can go anywhere. Heard Bob Greenyer espouse this idea more than once. This is of course assuming it works according to Parkamov's papers and many theories. And though i love it, if this isn't all workable it makes for a really good sci fi story setting.

  • Watch the Expanse on Amazon for a really good Sci-fi story - laser driven fusion reactor engines should become reality if Holmlid and Norront Fusion are correct!:)

    For in atmoshere civilian propulsion and minimally shielded simple reactors in close proximity to family homes I am lead to believe the hydrino/dense H process would work the best and most desirably.


    Atomic reactors tend to permeate their own containment vessel and LENR seems particularly adept at promoting this. Even if the affect is to "liquify" or to produce more stable elements. The supposed LENR catalyzed/hybridized fusion or MSRs would be best for space travel, industrial use, military/high power density uses and a spread out but still more of a mucho grandè micro grid approach.

  • Hmm segue...


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • Missed the live stream by Navid and Brett Holverstott, but just watched a replay. Not "terrifying", or "shocking" as promised :) , but a good, basic overview of Mills and his Hydrino's. A little dry compared to Safire, and Thunderbolt, but since this is their first go of it they are forgiven.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • The whole idea of a dark matter powered reactor, which sounds like speculative technobabble in sci fi, is now looking more practical than anti-matter or regular hot fusion. I am thinking it's appropriate to making the point that in fact all LENR positives are various novel atomic and chemical reactions enabled by dark matter or shrunken hydrogen aka Rydberg matter, probably with the assistance of neutrinos and subatomic releases. All these exotic matter constructs we try to name and say is the only way are in fact filters on the same core phenomena, arranged differently like elements, isotopes and molecules in standard matter. The chemical reaction alone, Mills/Holmid is proposing, is tantalizing enough doing it's thing.

  • Totally agreed - I have been proposing this for some time in previous posts, and Wyttenbach also supports the idea that UDH/hydrino (aka dark matter) formation is a necessary pre-requisite for LENR to occur (read his ICCF-22 abstract). I think UDH/formation is followed by meson release (maybe neutrino-stimulated) -muon formation, then muon-catalysed fusion releasing further energy. Full energy release is rarely observed in CF experiments simply because natural inhibitors of muon-catalysed fusion (eg nitrogen) or of UDH formation are all present in varying degrees, or catalysts for UDH/hydrinos are absent (as in the Deneum R20 replication). We'll know if any of this is true only when Mills/Holnlid's work has been fully replicated ie that this is what happens regardless of the underlying partial or sub-quantal theories or the technical impossibility of forming UDH with 0.5 pm inter proton distances with low pressure and room temperatures. It all defies the logic of the SM so this will indeed involve new physics not previously understood, Exciting stuff if TG or NASA could replicate it.:)