Mesonproduksjon fa hydrogen ... gone.
LENR and UDH
-
-
A Google search shows pretty much zero references on the Internet about that so I'm not sure how Sindre Zeiner-Gundersen expected to raise funds. On the other hand by asking on E-Cat World MFMP managed to raise 350,000$ (+800,000$ offered) to save Suhas Ralkar's reactor; go figure.
This 2016 article from the Norwegian Aftenposten, of which Russ George posted a translated version on his blog, was circulated and discussed more widely.
I've just found out that there also was an other article (in Norwegian, untranslated) from about the same period which is the source for the cropped photo in the fundraiser linked above (in the same laboratory).
-
Thx Can,
From the article:
"He also believes his supervisor in Iceland, Svein Olafsson. Olafsson is a professor of solid state nuclear physics and has since 2014 made efforts which also confirms cold fusion. Olafsson, who has been chairman of the Icelandic physicist Association for several years and has also done experiments at Isolde laboratory CERN, picks happily up the phone when Aftenposten rings."
Svein Olafsson used to respond to questions here I believe. Wonder of he could give an update?
-
For what it's worth, about six months ago I emailed him for a couple questions on related matters and from what I could gather he expected work/studies from his group (which is not the same of Holmlid's although they authored a few papers together) on the subject to be published in 2018, so it's probably going to take some more time. He did also refer to ongoing replications in Oslo, which in retrospect were probably about Sindre Zeiner-Gundersen's work that was linked in the articles in the post(s) above.
I don't know if there have been updates from him in the interim.
-
Can,
Thx. It also seems to me that Holmid has distanced himself, and his work from LENR/CF, but that article Russ George edited that you linked to, has LENR written all over it. So are they related, or not?
-
I don't think Holmlid sees his work as LENR, but he's explicitly related it several times over the years to known work and observed effects in the LENR field, citing for example Storms or Miley et al.
In short he's saying that the ultra-dense hydrogen produced can undergo nuclear reactions spontaneously (without significant external input) and that these reactions would be "similar to the ones often called LENR". Some examples below.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218301316500853
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.06.116
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0169895
-
I don't think Holmlid sees his work as LENR, but he's explicitly related it several times over the years to known work and observed effects in the LENR field, citing for example Storms or Miley et al.
...
At one time, Holmlid did consider that the energy that he observed in his experiments came from fusion, but he has since changed his mind because of the very high energy imparted to particles. Also proton only reactions cannot produce fusion.
QuoteThe time variation of the collector signals was initially assumed to be due to time-of-flight of the ejected particles from the target to the collectors. Even the relatively low particle velocity of 10–20 MeV u-1 found with this assumption [21–23] is not explainable as originating in ordinary nuclear fusion. The highest energy particles from normal D+D fusion are neutrons with 14.1 MeV and protons with 14.7 MeV [57]. The high-energy protons are only formed by the D + 3He reaction step, which is relatively unlikely and for example not observed in our laser-induced D+D fusion study in D(0) [14]. Any high-energy neutrons would not be observed in the present experiments. Thus, ordinary fusion D+D cannot give the observed particle velocities. Further, similar particle velocities are obtained also from the laser-induced processes in p(0) as seen in Figs 4, 6 and 7 etc, where no ordinary fusion process can take place. Thus, it is apparent that the particle energy observed is derived from other nuclear processes than ordinary fusion. It is clear that such laser-induced nuclear processes exist in p(0) as well as in D(0). The low laser intensity used here, of the order of 3×10^12 W cm-2 makes it impossible to directly accelerate the particles (especially the neutral ones) to high energies. For example, in Refs. [58,59] more than 10^19 W cm-2 was used to accelerate heavy ions to > 1 MeV u-1 energies, thus close to 10^7 higher intensity than used here.
The statement "similar particle velocities are obtained also from the laser-induced processes in p(0) " means that proton proton fusion is IMPOSSIBLE. Fusion cannot be where energy is coming from either in Holmlid's reaction or in LENR. Is that understood yet???
-
At one time, Holmlid did consider that the energy that he observed in his experiments came from fusion, but he has since changed his mind because of the very high energy imparted to particles. Also proton only reactions cannot produce fusion.
That the high energy particles (mesons, muons) do not come from ordinary nuclear fusion doesn't automatically define the process as LENR. This is what I meant.The statement "similar particle velocities are obtained also from the laser-induced processes in p(0) " means that proton proton fusion is IMPOSSIBLE. Fusion cannot be where energy is coming from either in Holmlid's reaction or in LENR. Is that understood yet???
The emission of mesons and muons does not exclude nuclear fusion processes also occurring when deuterium is used. He is not rejecting nuclear fusion; he's only saying that D+D fusion processes occurring within the ultra-dense hydrogen layer, as studied in ref. 14, wouldn't give rise to the particles observed here (besides, they are also observed with protium, so they can't be due to fusion).
-
ordinary nuclear fusion doesn't automatically define the process as LENR.There is muon/pion catalyzed fusion. But there cannot be any primary fusion reaction when protium is involved in the LENR reaction. This means that no fusion can occur in the Ni/H reaction.
It makes sense that the Ni/H reaction and the Pd/D reaction have the same mechanism. So there is no fusion in the Pd/D reaction either. This no fusion constraint makes LENR theory easy since all the existing LENR theories assume fusion is fundamental in LENR. These LENR theories can be ignored. Is this wholesale clearing of LENR theory list make you uneasy...is that why you must cling to the fusion myth?
LENR is a subatomic particle decay process where particles are transformed into energy or other particles like electrons and muons.
Muon/pion fusion as a secondary reaction can explain transmutation of elements where covalent electrons are replaced by muons which combine the various nuclei of chemical compounds into heavier elements.
-
Since the process is supposed to first involve the condensation of hydrogen atoms into the so-called ultra-dense state where the atom-atom distance becomes (eventually) similar to that of muonic hydrogen, it's inevitable that some amount of regular fusion when deuterium is used will also happen. This doesn't mean that the core mechanism is different between protium and deuterium or that the process is centered around ordinary fusion; it only means that nuclear fusion may occur in the latter's case as a result of the hydrogen atoms shrinking to the picometer-scale.
Mechanisms exist (example) that would allow the ejection of energetic (MeV) protons or small fragments of ultra-dense hydrogen matter from the base ultra-dense layer before the meson-producing interaction occurs. If these energetic particles interacted with other matter, some the reactions that LENR researchers have sometimes observed throughout the years could also occur as a "side-effect".
-
Since the process is supposed to first involve the condensation of hydrogen atoms into the so-called ultra-dense state where the atom-atom distance becomes (eventually) similar to that of muonic hydrogen, it's inevitable that some amount of regular fusion when deuterium is used will also happen. This doesn't mean that the core mechanism is different between protium and deuterium or that the process is centered around ordinary fusion; it only means that nuclear fusion may occur in the latter's case as a result of the hydrogen atoms shrinking to the picometer-scale.
Mechanisms exist (example) that would allow the ejection of energetic (MeV) protons or small fragments of ultra-dense hydrogen matter from the base ultra-dense layer before the meson-producing interaction occurs. If these energetic particles interacted with other matter, some the reactions that LENR researchers have sometimes observed throughout the years could also occur as a "side-effect".
http://www.tim-thompson.com/fusion.html
For consistency, all time scales reported here are taken from Clayton (1968). The only reaction that is of uncertain time scale is the initial proton-proton fusion, which is too slow to measure in a laboratory. So the time scale is computed from basic theory. Hansen & Kawaler (1994) give the time scale 6,000,000,000 years, whereas Clayton gives 7,900,000,000. Bohme-Vitense (1992) gives 14,000,000,000 years, but for the lower temperature of 14,000,000 Kelvins. The one thing that is certain is that the reaction is slow.
PPI
Table 1
86% of 3He goes out this wayp + p –> d + e+ + nu 7.9 x 10^9 years
p + p + e- –> d + nu 10^12 years
d + p –> 3He + g 1.4 sec
3He + 3He –> 4He + 2p 2.4 x 10^5 yearsAccording to PP fusion theory in the core of the sun: “The time scales represent how long an average particle will survive, in our sun, before experiencing the reaction. But of course many react much more quickly, many will last far longer, and many will never react at all.”
There’s roughly 10E53 protons in the sun. So ‘many react much more quickly’ does the job just fine.
Reiterating, at 14,000,000,000C, and at the pressures inside the core of the Sun, a PP fusion event will happen on the average once in 14,000,000,000 years, but because there are so many protons in the Sun, a goodly amount of fusion reactions do occur.
At room temperature and pressure, the PP fusion rate burning a few milligrams of hydrogen an average PP fusion rate much lower than the core of the Sun is expected. From this perspective, it is easy to understand why science rejects fusion in LENR. PP Fusion just cannot happen in a Ni/H reactor.
-
Where did I write that PP fusion is occurring?
Here I was referring to D+D fusion (as in Pd-D experiments) or the fusion of p with other elements (as in Ni-H or similar experiments with protium).
EDIT: for context and clarity, the points I was making were that:
- Nuclear fusion may (also) occur between the ultra-dense deuterium pairs (in addition to the meson-producing interaction).
- Nuclear fusion would NOT occur between the ultra-dense protium pairs.
- Some mechanisms described by Holmlid can cause ultra-dense protium (or deuterium) fragments and protons to be ejected with MeV energy from the ultra-dense layer. These may engage in nuclear fusion with other (non-protium) matter.
- Point 3 might explain some of the observations by LENR researchers in metal-protium experiments.
-
If the ultra-dense protium is the only material in the zone of the reaction, by definition, no other material can interact with the ultra-dense protium. Only ultra-dense protium can interact with other ultra-dense protium.
The Holmlid reaction only occurs if it is stimulated by a laser pulse or a spark. This is because ultra-dense protium must be activated by the Kerr effect. If this activation does not occur, then the reaction does not occur where fragments and protons are ejected at near light speed and with MeV energy from the ultra-dense layer.
I beleive that this activation has nothing to do with fusion, but instead is produced by a state change where the ultra-dense protium becomes magnetically activated. Once ultra-dense protium crystal produces a magnetically activated proton decay reaction that imparts high energy of decay into a neighboring ultra-dense protium crystal thereby ripping it apart via explosion.
Once activated, the ultra-dense protium crystal continues to produce mesons through another reaction called hadronization where energy is converted into particle creation..
Without KERR effect activation, ultra-dense protium crystals do not interact and can be aggregated together without any reaction effect between them. because they are not magnetically active.
LENR also must be magnetically activated via the KERR effect before the reaction can begin. The KERR effect converts the UDP waveform into a monopole. Think of an iron rod that has been magnetized with spin directions that reinforce each other. Before KERR activation, the UDP is a magnetic dipole with spin directions that counter each other. Think of an iron rod that has NOT been magnetized.
See post 113 for an example of how the KERR effect activation happens.
-
If the ultra-dense protium is the only material in the zone of the reaction, by definition, no other material can interact with the ultra-dense protium. Only ultra-dense protium can interact with other ultra-dense protium.
Since there would also be other materials in practice, emitted particles with MeV energy would inevitably interact with them to some extent.
To further clarify, I'm referring to particles getting ejected from the ultra-dense layer.
The Holmlid reaction only occurs if it is stimulated by a laser pulse or a spark. This is because ultra-dense protium must be activated by the Kerr effect. If this activation does not occur, then the reaction does not occur where fragments and protons are ejected at near light speed and with MeV energy from the ultra-dense layer.
Holmlid et al have already written several times that the reaction can also occur spontaneously (albeit at a low rate). Spontaneously means without a laser or any other energetic activation. Example from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.10.072 below:
I believe that this activation has nothing to do with fusion, but instead is produced by a state change where the ultra-dense protium becomes magnetically activated. Once ultra-dense protium crystal produces a magnetically activated proton decay reaction that imparts high energy of decay into a neighboring ultra-dense protium crystal thereby ripping it apart via explosion.
Once activated, the ultra-dense protium crystal continues to produce mesons through another reaction called hadronization where energy is converted into particle creation..This seems your own personal interpretation of what Holmlid is writing.
In one of the latest papers where he's described the reaction he's more simply suggesting that the distance between the ultra-dense protons (in state s=1, 0.56pm) gets so close that the quarks composing them may reorganize themselves in a more favorable arrangement through a tunneling and weak interaction, liberating significant energy in the process. As implied in the excerpt above, this can - at least with deuterium - either occur spontaneously at a low rate (= without a laser or other energetic activation), or at a higher rate with an energetic input.
-
-
You might not like them, but the papers from which excerpts have been posted above (the last one in particular) are experimental too.
Whether or not the analysis of the time variation of the charged particle current with an oscilloscope is a suitable method for determining the formation of specific mesons and muons is debatable, although I'd agree that it's not enough.
-
NO. "Experiments" MUST belong to current scientific koinè, and not to a single researcher. Incidentally, Holmlid NEVER declares the success rate of its experiences.
-
NO. "Experiments" MUST belong to current scientific koinè, and not to a single researcher.
Please clarify in plain English what you mean exactly with this.
Incidentally, Holmlid NEVER declares the success rate of its experiences.
As far as I am aware of, once the Fe2O3:K catalysts have been correctly prepared they start working within a couple hours of heating and hydrogen admission, and they can work for several months before their activity starts to fade off due to final K depletion. Or at least, that's what Holmlid has reported a few times.
The issue here likely is the "correct preparation". The success rate apparently depends on this, not random factors. Such preparation has been summarily described in a few publications from past years (for example the ones linked below but in particular here) and you sort of have to dig for it, but to my knowledge it's not a trade secret (it's for the most part similar to what is commonly done with industrial catalysts in a hydrocarbon atmosphere, with the main difference that most of the K content also has to be removed by heating in a vacuum), and last time I asked him a few related questions via email (several months ago) he seemed willing to discuss about it and even gave some tips which unfortunately I didn't get to personally utilize.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10876-011-0387-1
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2008.10.024
https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0607193
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef050172n
-
A)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine_Greek: "Name"
B)
See snaps - world revolution or improper laboratory practices? This simple question must be settled before talking of caons, pions and mesons. Do you know one (1) indipendent check of Holmlid results?
"El sueño de la razon produce monstruos" - "The sleep of reason produces monsters" or, if you prefer it, Genesis 38:9. I wish you a relaxing evening.
-
I'm capable of using Google and sort of got what you meant, but it would be best if people didn't have to guess what you might have actually thought while writing certain posts.
B) See snaps - world revolution or improper laboratory practices? This simple question must be settled before talking of caons, pions and mesons. Do you know one (1) indipendent check of Holmlid results?
What could I add to what Holmlid wrote in a rebuttal rejected by the Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 2016-06-13? The main issue I see is that the complex explanation he gives can't counter in a very convincing manner the simple (and powerful) message that there might have been errors in one of his studies.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.00744
As for indipendent tests, those are Rossi's specialty.
