LENR and UDH

axil

I do have watched the entire Robitaille presentation on Youtube that you've linked in a few instances in the past.

I think Holmlid might have started considering the idea of a "condensed matter Sun" since at least year 2014 but he's never written it explicitly (besides suggesting in other works that ultra-dense hydrogen and/or Rydberg matter - the less dense form - could be the "missing" dark matter in the Universe).

For example I think the paper I previously linked in this thread in post #13 could indirectly imply this hypothesis.

I beleive that Verlinde is correct in that there is no such thing as dark matter.

Search my posts on  Verlinde.

Verlinde beleive that gravity is an initial force. As such, entanglement replaces dark matter as the mechanism that produces changes in gravity over galactic scales.

Leonard Susskind is coming round to the same idea...see my post

How to emit low energy photons during LENR

This means that R, Mills theory of the hydrino is wrong and so is Holmlid's dark matter theory.

axil

There are many believes. But Mills explanation fits very good to observations:

- hydrino reaction produces X-rays: solves the currently unexplainable observed amount of x-rays in space

- hydrinos are created in the corona of stars: explains the "temperature of the corona" mystery

- amount of dark matter increased over time (13% of matter 13 billion year ago - 90% (?) today) - fits to continuous creation in stars

And most important: experiments in the lab show the existence of hydrinos with the predicted internuclear distance:

http://www.brilliantlightpower…st-Power-Paper-060817.pdf

The experimental proof is pretty convincing. He did not use some fancy self created measurment methods and devices but rather well established lab equipment designed to measure the parameters he measured. No repurposing of equipment.

More or less the only other convincing explanation for his results: he faked them.

Quote from Epimetheus

axil

There are many believes. But Mills explanation fits very good to observations:

- hydrino reaction produces X-rays: solves the currently unexplainable observed amount of x-rays in space

- hydrinos are created in the corona of stars: explains the "temperature of the corona" mystery

- amount of dark matter increased over time (13% of matter 13 billion year ago - 90% (?) today) - fits to continuous creation in stars

And most important: experiments in the lab show the existence of hydrinos with the predicted internuclear distance:

http://www.brilliantlightpower…st-Power-Paper-060817.pdf

The experimental proof is pretty convincing. He did not use some fancy self created measurment methods and devices but rather well established lab equipment designed to measure the parameters he measured. No repurposing of equipment.

More or less the only other convincing explanation for his results: he faked them.

Display More

I believe that there are true things that are included in hydrino theory which generally deal with chemical reactions. I also beleive that there are behaviors of the hydrino that really come from metallic hydrogen like the processes that occur on both the surface and in the atmosphere of the sun. There is also x ray, gamma and XUV emissions that are produced in space that come from metallic hydrogen reactions that Mills are wrongly attributing to hydrinos.

But I am convinced that there is no dark matter and no SunCell dark matter ash. If that stuff existed, R, Mills would have produced it to prove the hydrino theory for science.

The reaction that drives the SunCell is the same one that Rossi has discovered drives the Quark reactor.

The fundamental difference between the Hydrino model and ultra-dense Hydrogen/Rydberg matter is that as far as I know (I stress that I haven't studied Mills' theory in detail so I could be wrong) the former is considered to be an inert gas that is "lighter than air" that would "drift harmlessly into space" once produced (you can search on Google for these exact words for many sources, but one can be found here), while the latter is dense condensed matter that can be contained for days-weeks in the laboratory on suitable metal surfaces. I think only one or none of these models can be correct, not both at the same time, even though there could still be agreements on certain aspects related for example to their formation.

can

"I think only one or none of these models can be correct,"

Holmlid:

A) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1387380616000245

B) https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.00744

(Arxiv only, refused from Int. J. Mass Spectrom.)

Ahlfors

So is it's neither dense condensed matter nor a lighter-than-air gas? What is it?

btw: https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.00744 (EDIT: this was added in the above comment in a later edit)

can

"I think only one or none of these models can be correct,"

Mills:

A) ACT-RPR-PHY-Rathke-hydrino.pdf

B) 0507193.pdf

(Arxiv only)

can

No THIRD PARTY experimental evidence - the sex of angels, interesting "Scolastic" discussion.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism)

Ahlfors

I guess you would be right if you were to only consider these studies in their own isolated bubble, ignoring related observations and anomalies from different research groups and fields.

Going forward, below are notes I took on my LENR-notebook while reading the latest paper published by Holmlid (paywalled). They could be considered a relatively condensed version of the paper, but they do not include everything and I cannot guarantee that they're always accurate.

Quote

Large Rydberg matter clusters have been observed in plasmas.

H(0) clusters are very strongly bound, and have a density much higher than the Sun's average density.

Nuclear processes in H(0) imply that other kinds of nuclear reactions are possible in stars (implying: not just the Sun), with high energy output and low helium production.

Composition of the Sun needs further study.

The maximum kinetic energy release (KER) expected for Coulomb explosions from two charges (most common mode) in H(0) is 2580 eV in state s=1. CE modes from three charges exist.

The gravitational energy at the photosphere in the Sun is -1.99 keV for the proton mass (see this link; calculation seems correct, see screenshot =>).

Protons from CE processes in H(0, s=1) can thus escape from the Sun. Higher energy levels have a too low KER to escape from the photosphere, but still, may exist in the Sun atmosphere.

630 eV is the KER of the most common H(0) state (s=2). This is roughly the gravitational energy at a distance of 3 solar radii (calculation roughly agrees).

Temperature in the corona in approximate agreement with the 630 eV KER (~7MK). (but Wikipedia as well as other sources indicate temperatures normally in the order of 1.5-3.0 MK, with 10 MK only as an upper end value for hot spots. Reason? EDIT: it is sort of explained later in the paper)

H(0) can be safely assumed to also exist inside the Sun, even if it has not been found or identified yet.

The bond energy of H(0) is at least 1 keV per proton in ordinary spin states. Therefore it's stable and likely to exist in the photosphere at the typical temperature of 5800K (0.5 eV).

Several processes have been proposed to explain the solar wind, but rarely verified directly by lab experiments as they have [by Holmlid et al].

Local density of H(0) is much higher than the average density of the Sun. High hydrogen densities have also been reported using H in Pd foil by Lipson et al. (This paper has also been linked by Ahlfors on LENR-Forum).

Bond energy of H(0) is > 1 keV per proton.

Metallic (large density) hydrogen has been studied in the past. It's difficult to achieve with static compression, but dynamic compression studies have a higher degree of success. Theory predicts that it's a superfluid, superconductive quantum liquid like H(0) has been verified to be experimentally for both protium and deuterium.

Some aspects still not completely understood, however.

[…] The average density of the sun is 1.4 g/cm3. H(0) is on the order of 100 Kg/cm3. The average density of the Sun is more similar to that of Rydberg matter H(1) which has been calculated to be roughly 0.5-0.7 g/cm3.

The solar core temperature is thought to be 15 MK, corresponding to an energy of 1.3 keV. The bond energy of H(0, s=2) is similar, while that of H(0, s=1) is four times higher. Therefore H(0, s=1) may be stable inside the Sun.

At these temperatures the Sun will not be superfluid, as detailed in one of Holmlid's studies at higher temperatures. The interior of the Sun would consist of non-superfluid H₄(0) and H₃(0) clusters.

At the photosphere, due to the low temperature of 5800 K, higher spin states of H(0) would stably exist (implying also spin states that have not been observed yet in lab experiments?).

Velocity distribution for CE processes in H(0) has been calculated using existing data from other sources.

High proton velocity in solar winds suggest CE processes in H(0) as responsible for proton ejection.

Data from some sources give a too broad velocity distribution compared to observations; could have been based on different types of measurement. (?)

H(0) in the Sun atmosphere may exist as chain clusters H_2N(0) formed with various spin states, decomposing by collisions with charged particles in the plasma or gas. Loss or excitation of an electron may give unshielded charges leading to CE processes from the clusters (=> ejection).

Ejection of one p from these chains is possible, called 2+ process. The ejection from a p3 group with one p moving away from two charges is called 3+ process. However, direct evidence of 3+ processes from spin state s=1 has not been observed yet due to too low resolution of TOF measurements.

The KER from CE in H₃(0) and H₄(0) is often smaller than for small fragments in large clusters as the KER will be divided between fragments of similar masses. Experimental evidence exists.

Slow solar wind may emanate from CE2+ and CE3+ processes in p₃ clusters.

These clusters have different properties in a magnetic field; this could explain polar angle distribution differences for slow wind depending on solar activity (source listed, not read yet).

H(0) may be formed more readily in the Corona due to lower density and collision rate. An equilibrium between condensation and destruction processes (e.g. CE) will exist.

Condensation releases energy in the order of a few keV per proton in the H(0), but this may happen in a step-wise manner from higher spin states.

2 keV means 23 MK, but this energy will be distributed over several particles.

CE in state s=2 will release 630 eV per proton ejected and not give loss of protons from the sun. This is roughly 7 MK.

=> However this energy can excite other particles and give thus a lower typical observed temperature of the corona of 1 MK. Therefore formation and partial destruction of the H(0) in the corona will give temperatures similar to those observed.

Nuclear processes that produce mesons have been observed in the laboratory for p(0) and D(0). This implies that other nuclear process than normally assumed can take place in the Sun other than [p+p => D => etc].

High temperature of the corona may also be due to these nuclear processes. Apparently solar wind is also driven by the heating of the corona.

Meson-producing nuclear processes are 100 times more efficient than normal solar fusion processes. This implies that the lifetime of stars similar to the Sun could be [much] longer than usually calculated for conventional fusion processes.

Fast and slow solar wind velocity distribution agrees with the ejection of protons from H(0) by CE processes, but only fragments from CE in spin states s=1 may escape the Sun. These processes are initiated by collisions with charged particles in the atmosphere of the Sun; one of these processes has been observed in published laboratory experiments.

Display More

Comment on Rossi blog on UDD and Iwamura experiments:

Dear Dr. Rossi

In your paper “Nucleon polarizability and long range strong force from σI=2 meson exchange potential”, I have noted an interesting point on the role of electron as “carrier of the nucleon”:

"A less probable alternative to the long range potential is if the e-N coupling in the special EM field environment would create a strong enough binding to compare an electron with a full nuclide. In this hypothesis, no constraints on the target nuclide are set, and nucleon transition to excited states in the target nuclide should be possible. In other words these two views deals with the electrons role. One is as a carrier of the nucleon and the other is as a trigger for a long range potential of the nucleon”.

Now, in the Iwamura experiment the CaO layer is hundreds of atomic layers far from the area near the surface where the atoms to be transmuted are deposited or implanted. Therefore, it is important to find a mechanism that explains the action at a distance and the role of CaO, the breaking of the Coulomb barrier and the usual absence of intense nuclear radiation typical of the LENR. An interesting hypothesis might arise from considering the formation of ultra-dense deuterium near the calcium oxide layer, where the high difference in work function between Pd and CaO favors the formation of a dense electron layer (SEL). Ultra-dense deuterium “atoms” are picometric structures, formed by a deuteron and an electron, that can easily migrate to the area where the nuclei to be transmuted (Cs or Sr) have been implanted. In this case the electrons can be seen as the “carriers” of the deuterons. A quite similar concept has been proposed by G. Bettini in the JONP paper “How can 30% of nickel in Rossi’s reactor be transmuted into copper?”

This hypothesis seems to me more realistic than the hypothesis of formation of di-neutrons from a nuclear capture of the electron, considering that the neutron mass is much higher than the sum of proton and electron masses. Ultra-dense deuterium “mini-atoms”, having no charge but a relatively “long range” high magnetic momentum, according to this hypothesis, may be considered good candidates as the very cause of the transmutation of Cs in Pr and Sr in Mo.

Regards

gio06

Incidentally, Holmlid calls the "building blocks" composing the long H(0) chain clusters "quasi-neutrons" (with protium) and "quasi-dineutrons" (with deuterium). In the processes (also spontaneous) that apparently eventually cause the production of mesons and muons, small picometer-scale fragments of the ultra-dense hydrogen/deuterium material can get ejected from it with MeV velocities, remaining neutral.

Short excerpt from http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169895.g019 (open access) where they are cited:

Quote

[...] One possibility is that the neutral particles are of the H_N(0) particle type, as suggested previously. Such particles may be named quasi-neutrons, or quasi-dineutrons in the case of D_N(0), and could remain neutral even after acceleration to very high velocities by the other fast ejected particles. However, their properties in this respect are not known.

As a side note, unless he recently changed his mind, as far as I know Rossi doesn't think highly of theories where hydrogen atoms shrink/expand (see for example 1 and 2).

can

Yes, but

how could this phrase, on electron role, be explained?

"One is as a carrier of the nucleon and the other is as a trigger for a long range potential of the nucleon"

Quote from can

As a side note, unless he recently changed his mind, as far as I know Rossi doesn't think highly of theories where hydrogen atoms shrink/expand (see for example 1 and 2).

gio06

Sorry, I haven't invested much time trying to understand Gullström's paper (not only the theory, even the grammar is hard to follow), so I can't answer unfortunately. Additionally, I think the thread author would object to discussions about it here.

I only wanted to point out that Holmlid regards ultra-dense deuterons as "quasi-dineutrons"; that JONP comment reminded me of this.

* Comment to post #72 by gio06.

* Progress on "Zener-like" phenomenology.

Dear gio06, I FULLY agree with Your interpretation, based on Ultra Dense Deuterium (UDD) model by Leif Holmlid (and Collaborators), of the revolutionary experiments of Yasuhiro Iwamura (and Collaborators), on Sr and Cs transmutation, made since 2000 at Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Laboratories.

* BTW, also in our recent observation of "Zener-like" effects on surface-modified Constantan wires (as presented at the recent IWAHLM-12), after prolonged Deuterium absorbtion at high temperatures, suggests that some "proximity effect" could plain an important role.

Just to remember, the proximity effect plays a key role on general superconductivity effects, at any temperatures.

* I would like to share one of the most recent results (very preliminary!!) obtained with our "improved/modified" set up: now the "Zener-like" effect is more strong, in respect to that presented at IWAHLM-12, and it happened even under Xe-D₂ atmosphere.

I.E., in order to detect the effect, it is not necessary anymore to work in closed air conditions that, after some cycles, self-destroy the effect. Recently, the effect INCREASES as time is lasting (several days), with the Constant wire (surface modified) kept at high temperatures (>500°C) by flowing large currents (about 2000 mA).

We are thinking even to some superconductivity-related effect, although the wire temperature (at measurement cycles of Zener-like effect) is really quite large (over 200°C) and superconducting effects are unlike, according to present theories.

Thanks for Your time,

Francesco CELANI

Quote from Francesco CELANI

* Comment to post #72 by gio06.

* Progress on "Zener-like" phenomenology.

My opinion on the Zener like effect in LENR as follows:

Superconductivity is just as or maybe even more controversial than LENR is. Who could imagine that a material could become superconducting at room temperature let alone at 3000K. But there are indicators in LENR experiments that point to superconductors partially forming at room temperature and even at higher temperatures.

For example, the electrical resistance of Celiani's wire goes down when its temperature rises. Also hydrogen loaded palladium becomes a room temperature superconductor when the hydrogen loading is high.

One of the factors that can be causing this drop in electrical resistance is the formation of islands of superconductivity that form in the lattice or the plasma that is producing the LENR effect.

Electrons could be jumping from island to island in their trip across the lattice. When the electron is moving past the LENR Island on its boundary, it gets a free ride but the resistance returns in its trip between islands.

Ultra-dense hydrogen has been found to be a room temperature superconductor and produces the messier effect. Highly loaded palladium could contain a high number of Ultra-dense hydrogen islands of superconductivity in a lattice.

Rossi’s plasma could contain a high number of LENR reaction generating superconducting nanowires (Ken Shoulders called them EVOs) that let electrons travel on them with no resistance.

I believe that Rossi adds vanadium oxide to his fuel mix as LENR reaction booster. This additive vaporizes at 3000K. In this way, this additive produces vanadium nanowires at 3000K when the vanadium condenses like rain drops in a cloud; the electric current jumps from nanowire to nanowire as they get a free ride across the plasma thereby reducing the electrical resistant to near zero.

This negation in electrical resistant produced by a hot research topic is sciences these days called non-equilibrium Bose-Einstein condensates, a state of matter produced in polaritons. The vanadium nanoparticles like most other transition metal nanowires carry polaritons on their surface.

See how quantum mechanics can generate this Bose condensate that can form at 3000K here.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.05264

In order for the Sun to use metallic hydrogen in the production of solar heat, that metallic hydrogen must maintain its lattice form even when the temperature of the Sun reaches into the millions of degrees. How can such a process be happening?

The superconductive nature of metallic hydrogen must be protecting its lattice structure from any particles or radiation that solar activity can produce. A positive feedback loop that makes the metallic hydrogen superconductivity stronger as the outside environment becomes more energetic must be in place.

The missiner effect repels all particles and radiation from penetrating into the positively charged "Hole" core of the metallic hydrogen. There may be no limit to how strong that the superconductive shield can become so that the entire Sun can remain a liquid even down to the bottom of its very core.

The same protective superconductive mechanism must be how metallic water in cavitation can erode the most robust material including diamond and boron nitride.

Superconductivity means Bose condensation must be occurring and for this condition to occur, a boson must be forming that condensate. Electrons cannot form a condensate. But electrons can be converted into a boson when these electrons become entangled with photons. This is what a polariton is, an electron that has been entangled with a photon. After this entanglement process, the electron loses almost all of its mass and its charge. but it still has spin. Anytime an electron is confined long enough for a photon to join with it, a polariton will form. This is why microcavities and tubercles are places where polaritons form. In those places, electrons and photons are combined together for a long enough time to form polaritons. This also happens on the surface of nanoparticles where dipoles hold onto electrons for long enough for sequestered photons to become entangled with the electrons in those dipoles.

Superconductivity at high temperatures is critical in supporting the LENR reaction and that is why polaritons and its condensate are KEY to the LENR reaction.

Bose condensation and its ability to suppress radiation through super-absorption might make experimentation more difficult...here is why.

Quantum Mechanics teaches that distance does not matter in entanglement. Two things can be entangled even if separated by billions of kilometers. If an entangled (superconductive) process produces a muon that is still entangled by that process' subsequent reactions then the muon so catalyzed might also be constrained by the peculiarities of the LENR reaction. The energy produced by that subsequent reaction may follow the same path as the first reaction that produced the muon. This could be the reason why reactions produced in lead by the muon does not result in any activation involving radioactive isotopes.

If the experimenter cannot see any radiation or activation coming from muon generated secondary reactions, then it will be difficult to determine what is happening in these LENR experiments. The only evidence that can be counted on is the detection of transmutation in the lead shielding.

One idea that might work is using Xenon to detect transmutation spectroscopy. Xenon is the heaviest stable gas with an atomic weight of 118 that is more likely than most elements to interact with muons. Over time, if transmutation is occurring in the Xenon, then the spectral lines of the transmuted elements will show up in the light from the light produced by the xenon tube.

Furthermore, spectroscopy is very sensitive in the detection of elements.