LENR and UDH
-
-
Directly address the questions. Enough with the copy-pastas.
I thought you would prefer the research findings of professional science, references as it were. But I did provide my take on how this research translates to LENR and specifically to answering your question. If not, please complain. This is hard to understand stuff.
-
Haven't you noticed that the excerpt below from Holmlid (previously posted) appears to be in contradiction with what you've written in a previous comment?
Quote from axilIn order for the electron cloud to form a polariton condensate, orbital like continuous motion might not be supported. In other words, the electrons cannot move that much.
It's not the first time I show excerpts from Holmlid et al. that contradict your comments. If you're not taking the time to read what they are actually writing (despite me continuously spoon-feeding highlighted excerpts from their papers) why do you feel the need to provide your own personal take on what you think they are writing?
-
Many thanks for the effort you took to write this comment and linking the resources.
From a very quick look I can't claim that they won't mostly be over my head, but more expert readers than I am probably lurk around here too.
BTW: the first link has a malformed URL.
-
Historiography:
EXPERIMENT (no "New Physics" without):
Zitternder amateur:
-
J.G. Williamson, Is the electron a photon with toroidal topology?, Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, 22 (2),133 (1997)Electron as a toroidal helix@
JulianBianchi can : This approach is pointing into the right direction as many others too. Keep in mind that a toroidal orbit has an interesting projection to 4D space! Just forget SU(3,1)...
Don't blame Axil. He is just collecting interesting papers - not more. He has not yet posted even the simplest "new" (self derived) formula to discuss about.
-
JulianBianchi can : This approach is pointing into the right direction as many others too. Keep in mind that a toroidal orbit has an interesting projection to 4D space! Just forget SU(3,1)...
Don't blame Axil. He is just collecting interesting papers - not more. He has not yet posted even the simplest "new" (self derived) formula to discuss about.
All that Wyttenback does is produce mathematical nonsense based of R. Mills theory, when he should be using quantum electrodynamics as a valid basis for his equations. But Mills will never approve, how sad. It is such a shame to waste such a wonderful mind on nonsense. Such innate talent is so rare, allow your beautiful mind to focus on worthwhile things.
-
Display More
Haven't you noticed that the excerpt below from Holmlid (previously posted) appears to be in contradiction with what you've written in a previous comment?
It's not the first time I show excerpts from Holmlid et al. that contradict your comments. If you're not taking the time to read what they are actually writing (despite me continuously spoon-feeding highlighted excerpts from their papers) why do you feel the need to provide your own personal take on what you think they are writing?
To the best of my understanding, polariton formation requires that the electron must be restricted to a limited position so that entanglement with photons can occur. To equalize energy, the photon must continually interact with the electron until the energy transferred between the two is zero. There may be electrons in orbit but they play no role in LENR. Electron localized confinement is a key requirement in LENR. This is why cracks and bumps in a lattice are now recognized as one of the LENR active topologies that fosters the LENR reaction. Also, optical cavities as formed in palladium hydrogen loading and acid treatment of CELANI's constantan wires created pits that are the LENR active areas on the surface of those wires.
In Mizuno surface preparation, he uses electric arcing to pit the surface of this nickel and palladium surfaces. Piantelli uses vapor disposition to roughen the surface of his nickel bars to form sharp surface features and crevices.
Energy equalization is also a requirement to generate UDH . An atomic condinsate is formed inside an optical cavity as hydrogen atoms become thermally equalized with each other and with the lattice in which the optical cavity has formed. This is why Holmlid uses iron oxide to generate UDH. This material supports a preponderance of optical cavities on its surface in which hydrogen atoms can accumulate and become equilibrated, coherent, and entangled.
The branch of science that deals with this issue is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavity_quantum_electrodynamics
The optical cavity is an important tool in quantum mechanical dynamics and has been recognized as such by the nobel committee
The 2012 Nobel Prize for Physics was awarded to Serge Haroche and David Wineland for their work on controlling quantum systems.[1]
-
Researchers from Crete have just discovered that if a polariton BEC is squeezed between two metallic contacts, and excited by applying a tiny voltage pulse over these contacts they could change the spin state of the condensate. Because all particles in a BEC occupy the same quantum state, the whole BEC responds in unison, assuming one of the two spin states, up or down. This process operates like a memory cell, and the information is kept in the spin state. This sounds like a possible LENR activation stimulant that might apply to the Quark reactor.
They use extremely low power in the voltage pulse to switch the optical state. The switch is actually bistable. The voltage is only required to switch the device between states, and the total energy required is just 0.8 femtojoule.
The other find was that the light emitted by the polariton BEC demonstrates clarity of the optical signal. This signal has a pure, 100-percent polarization state, in contrast to spintronics, where you have both states, and one state is stronger than the other, This switch mechanism might be a result of the KERR effect.
The activation stimulus changes the magnetic nature of the polariton BEC so that it emits a pure monopole magnetic beam. A typical polariton lasts for just a few picoseconds so this activation signal must be reapplied at a rate that can activate the new polaritons as they a reformed.
Another indicator that the Quark reactor is using this polariton activation process is the nature of the light that it emits. If the light that the Quark reactor emits is in a pure, 100-percent polarization state, we know that Rossi is using a polariton BEC in the Quark reactor and a high frequency low powered activation signal.
-
Quote
Verlinde is correct in that there is no such thing as dark matter...This means that R, Mills theory of the hydrino is wrong and so is Holmlid's dark matter theory.
Verlinde may not be right - but it still doesn't imply, that Mills theory of the hydrino is wrong and so is Holmlid's dark matter theory. All these causual connections exist in your confused head only.
QuoteQuark reactor is using this polariton activation process is the nature of the light that it emits
The same applies to your polariton stuff - neither polaritons, neither boson condensate mechanism doesn't imply polarization of light. This forum is loud mixture of pathoskeptics who deny and ignore everything what they just read just because the occurrence of some common words - and axil, who believes and promotes everything, what he just reads just by presence of common words. You both should get real just a bit - it makes this forum difficult to read.
-
Unlike normal matter, dark matter does not interact with the electromagnetic force. This means it does not absorb, reflect or emit light, making it extremely hard to spot. In fact, researchers can only infer the existence of dark matter from the gravitational effect it seems to have on visible matter. Dark matter seems to outweigh visible matter roughly six to one, making up about 27% of the universe, so there should be plenty of the stuff there to be found. One popular idea that has made the rounds in science is that the particle zoo could contain "supersymmetric particles" – hypothesized particles that are partners to those already known in the Standard Model. Experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) even after all these years and all the money spent, they have not produced any evidence that Supersymmetry is in any way true.
If the hydrino particle existed, the LHC would have detected it by now. If the hydrino was dark matter, Mills would have deminstated that it was depleted hydrinos. The chances are very good that Verlinde is correct and Mills is wrong.
-
Reference:
Valley-Polarized Exciton-Polaritons in a Monolayer Semiconductor
Polaritons come in two orientations, either with spins pointing in both the up or down orientation or with spins pointing in either the up or down orientation. Only one of these spin polariton orientation types as are capable of producing the EMR reaction. Only polaritons that have had their spins aligned using the KERR effect in a single up or down orientation are LENR active,
Unlike traditional microcavity exciton-polaritons, these spin aligned light-matter quasiparticles emit polarized light with spectral Rabi splitting.
This requirement is why the LENR reaction must be activated using a EMF based simulation process that allines the spin of the polariton condinsate in a single direction.
A light emitting LENR reaction will emit polarized light with spectral Rabi splitting.
In addition, as a prediction, that 10nn light that Mills uses as a proof of the hydrino theory will be found to polarized with spectral Rabi splitting.
-
If the hydrino particle existed, the LHC would have detected it by now.
axil: May be you can teach CERN how to produce hydrinos first, before they can detect them...
But their energies will certainly not match Mills calculations... - what not proves that "they" don't exist.
The other proposal is to ask CERN to analyze Holmlids UDH which has virtually the same energy levels...
The only guys that look at Holmlid are the Livermore top shots with clear military intensions.
-
Removed as duplicate.
-
Reference:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.…rature-metals-d_1267.html
It is not true that the Rossi plasma in the Quark reactor has no lattice. Rossi provides a secret additive to this plasma and that additive produces the lattice needed to support the LENR reaction.
That additive is a metal whose boiling point is at or just under the 2700C operating temperature of the Quark. The boiling point of that metal provides a setpoint for that Quark reactor's operating temperature and controls how hot that temperature can get through its solid/vapor transition temperature.
Like snow, water vapor will condense into ice at 0C, Chromium with a vaporization point of 2670C seems to be the best fit to set the Quarks operation temperature at 2700C. That operating temperature can be adjusted by replacing Chromium with another metal with either a higher or lower vaporization point.
At the vaporization temperature of the secret metal additive, nanoparticles of that metal with form when the temperature drops below the operating temperature. The LENR reaction will stop when the secret metal additive boils off and then there is no Lattice( nanoparticles) to drive the LENR reaction forward. But when the temperature drops below the setpoint temperature, nanoparticles condense out of the metal vapor of the metal additive and the LENR reaction begins anew.
In the low temperature E-Cat, the mechanism for producing polaritons is mostly cracks and bumps in the lattice. There is also nanoparticles and microparticles involved so the LENR mechanism is based on both the crank and bumps in the lattice of large microparticles (greater that 100 micrometers) and the smaller microparticles( a few micrometers) and nanoparticles that produce optical cavities when the touch each other.
The quark reactor uses just small nanoparticles. that may aggregate to form optical cavities.
-
Display More
axil: May be you can teach CERN how to produce hydrinos first, before they can detect them...
But their energies will certainly not match Mills calculations... - what not proves that "they" don't exist.
The other proposal is to ask CERN to analyze Holmlids UDH which has virtually the same energy levels...
The only guys that look at Holmlid are the Livermore top shots with clear military intensions.
Your thinking involving hydrinos as dark matter does not make sense. Dark matter is suppose to be a fundamental particle. What you are claiming is that hydrinos are quasiparticles that must be put together, configured by a process of manipulation. Fundamental particles exist own their own and are self perpetuating. Science Is looking for a fundamental particle because this particle comprises 6 times more matter than exists as the visible matter in the universe. A quasiparticle must be composed of existing fundamental particles, This hydrino formation process means that there is 6 times more matter in the universe than can be detected via EMF related processes. This illogic also implies that as time moves forward, visible matter will gradually be converted to dark matter and the universe will end is a dark matter apocalypse where everything becomes dark matter. I beleive that your brilliant mind is more capable than is shown lately by your blind belief in the illogic of the proposition that dark matter is a quasiparticle.
-
Your thinking involving hydrinos as dark matter does not make sense. Dark matter is suppose to be a fundamental particle.
axil : This is classical main-stream thinking. If we can't explain it, let's assume a new particle.
The hydrino/UDH form of hydrogen is stable and not a quasi particle. The corresponding build-up frequencies can be measured in the solar corona and lower band emission frequencies coming from doppler coupling or spin flip have also been measured from so called "dark matter". "Dark matter" initially got this name because we (humans with our eyes) can't see it - it's radiating in different bands.
There is so far no prove/evidence for any dark matter costing of strange new particles. May be for you UDH is "strange".
-
This hydrino formation process means that there is 6 times more matter in the universe than can be detected via EMF related processes.
That is the point. Hydrinos can NOT be detected via interaction with light. I dont understand the level of "hydrino" mysterie here. There is nothing mysterious about hydrinos:
It is an hydrogen atom with the electron on a lower orbit. In this state the hydrogen does not interact with light anymore. Changes in the orbit of the electron can only be made by "billard ball" like collisions with the correct energy or by interaction with a catalyst.
When another atom hits a hydrino with the right energy it can become a "normal" hydrogen atom. If a hydrino interacts with a catalyst its electron can go to an even lower orbit releasing more energy.
Dark matter does not have to be a fundamental particle. They have a hypotheses that it might be a fundamental particle. But there is a saying that fits in this case:
"If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail".
Translated in CERN language:
"If you have a particle collider everything looks like a fundamental particle".
-
The hydrino does not react to EMF but it has mass because it is purported to produce gravitational effects. If the Hydrino has mass then it can produce pressure through interparticle collisions. The hydrino can be confined in a chamber. R. Mills can setup a demo where a hydrino forming reaction is vented into a vacuum chamber. The pressure in that chamber should increase as a sign that hydrinos are present inside the chamber. Why has this test not been performed?
Furthermore. the hydrino is a neural particle composed of a proton and an electron. Neutrons are virtually identical to a hydrino in terms of mass and charge.. Neutrons can be detected using elastic scattering produced by high energy particle collisions. Elastic scattering with the hydrino produced by high energy alpha, beta, proton, or neutron collisions will impart energy to the hydrino so that the interaction of the energetic hydrino with matter can be detected by the detection of that collision imparted energy via scintillation detection. Why has this test not been performed?
