LENR and UDH

Quote from can

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:

From:

http://english.pku.edu.cn/news_events/news/research/5335.htm

Physicists observe spontaneous symmetry breaking in an optical microcavity

Light energy (Heat) is stored in a polariton within an optical cavity. Think of the polariton as a form of ball lightning. The light is contained in this container as two counter rotating currents, one going clockwise and the other going counter-clockwise. This arrangement forms a magnetic dipole with the spin of the photons pointing out both the top and bottom central axial pole of the optical cavity. This makes for a balanced magnetic behavior of the optical cavity where the resulting magnetic force of the photons counter each other. In this conditions, the optical cavity is magnetically neutral.

When the laser, spark, or high potential electric field is applied to the optical cavity, the index of refraction inside the cavity changes whereby the counter rotating balance between the two photon currents is changed to favor one spin pole over the other.

As with all quantum mechanical processes, there are uncertainties involved where some optical cavities will have a dominant spin pole condition before KERR effect activation. This is the condition that will produce a weak residual reaction effect.

When the KERR effect is activated, then the spin pole of many optical cavities are adjusted to dominant over a balanced initial condition. But not all the spin poles are optimally polarized.

From the article: "Note that the original state would randomly enter the two symmetry-breaking states, and the CW-to-CCW output ratio could exceed 20:1,” said Cao.

Each time the KERR activation stimulus is applied, the magnetic effect (Monopole) is increased as uncertainty in the dominant spin pole orientation is reduced. But even before the KERR activation stimulus is applied, there is a small incipient imbalance in the spin pole orientation. This initial residual spin pole imbalance is what produces the effect that you are referring to.

Quote from can

IMHO, fusion of two protons is so unlikely as we have discussed with regards to PP fusion, that it is next to impossible for what Holmlid is saying to be real.

The monopole magnetic pole of the optical cavity is the stimulus that destabilized the proton into transforming into kaons. If fusion of two protons did occur, Holmlid would produce deutrium and NOT kaons. The only way for Kaons to form is through proton decay and NOT fusion.

p→K+ν ( A proton decays into a kaon and a neutrino)

Nuclear interacton is negligible

Kaon momentum is 340 MeV/c: is below Cherenkov threshold

essentially a search for kaon decay at rest

This article lists a number of the possible products of proton decay

physics.bu.edu/NEPPSR/TALKS-2009/Kearns_GUTs_ProtonDecay.pdf

Most of these decay produces are found in Holmlids results.

By the way, the particular meson that Rossi theory paper says produces his reaction results are found to be a decay product of the proton.

A post with others in conversation outside of the LENR community. I am interested in your feedback also

Elle H.C.

September 10, 2017

“For associated theory see:

https://www.nikhef.nl/pub/serv…_pdf/thesis_J_Boomsma.pdf

Effects of instanton interactions on the phases of quark matter

This paper explains how the formation of instantons inside the proton will produce P symmetry breaking which will result in proton decay.”

That’s an interesting paper but it doesn’t talk about Proton decay.

What is talked about is decay and phase change of Quark matter, which are deconfined quarks, and which was produced during the Big bang, or in High-energy collisions (LHC) and also a special class of Neutron stars, called Magnetars, but not the Sun.

-------------------------------------------------------------

Axil

September 11, 2017

@Elle H.C.

It is my belief that there are certain micro particles that can produce hugely strong magnetic effects at the nanoscale. This magnetic flux lines produce the instantons inside protons that elicit the effect on quarks as detected in the referenced article. One of these micro-particle types is metallic hydrogen which is almost always produced inside large planets and stars. In order for instantons to form inside the proton, the magnetic flux lines that catalyze this effect must come from a very powerful magnetic source and be unbalanced or anisotropic (vortex like).

Metallic hydrogen is a good candidate as the source of such strong anisotropic magnetic field lines because of its vortex like wave function and it inherent tendency for coherence.

From

http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…cle/pii/S0375960110004949

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

An attempt is made to explain the recently reported occurrence of 14 MeV neutron induced nuclear reactions in deuterium metal hydrides as the manifestation of a slightly radioactive ultra-dense form of deuterium, with a density of 130,000 g/cm3 observed by a Swedish research group through the collapse of deuterium Rydberg matter. In accordance with this observation it is proposed that a large number of deuterons form a “linear-atom” supermolecule. By the Madelung transformation of the Schrödinger equation, the linear deuterium supermolecule can be described by a quantized line vortex. A vortex lattice made up of many such supermolecules is possible only with deuterium, because deuterons are bosons, and the same is true for the electrons, which by the electron–phonon interaction in a vortex lattice form Cooper pairs. It is conjectured that the latent heat released by the collapse into the ultra-dense state has been misinterpreted as cold fusion. Hot fusion though, is here possible through the fast ignition of a thermonuclear detonation wave from a hot spot made with a 1 kJ 10 petawatt laser in a thin slice of the ultra-dense deuterium.
————————————-

Holmlid has found experimentally that he sees the same results with protium as he sees with deuterium so protium based metallic hydrogen can be superconductive, coherent, and entangled also. This Bose condensate nature of the metalize hydride microparticle is essential to the super-radiance required to step up the power of the magnetic field projected by the micro-particle.

It has been observed experimentally that these micro-particles exist is swarms and act in a coordinated way to project a combined coherent magnetic effect as an amplified sum of the entire aggregation of particles..

The fixation on fusion in the mind of many including Holmlid works against understanding the true source of energy generation in condensed matter systems. That true source is the magnetically induced decay of the nucleon.

axil

What is a "weak interaction" as mentioned by Holmlid in the highlighted section in the excerpt I previously posted and that you quoted?

Quote from can

axil

What is a "weak interaction" as mentioned by Holmlid in the highlighted section in the excerpt I previously posted and that you quoted?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction

The decay of the nucleon might not be a weak force mediated reaction. The strength of the magnetic fields may be so high that the weak and strong force may be combined into a single unified force as predicted under grand unification of the forces.

But in the Craven's golden ball demo,

See

The Dennis Cravens Golden Ball reaction

a rare earth magnet produces enough magnetic field lines to produce the LENR reaction. In the Golden balls, that magnetic field strength is very low. I just don't know how to characterize the LENR reaction in terms of fundamental force interaction: strong, weak, or combined.

axil

Can you help me understand why you're saying that Holmlid is fixated on fusion? (which you also mentioned in a different thread)

He thinks that from two protons he's obtaining three kaons through a weak interaction; how would that be fusion?

Quote from can

axil

Can you help me understand why you're saying that Holmlid is fixated on fusion? (which you also mentioned in a different thread)

He thinks that from two protons he's obtaining three kaons through a weak interaction; how would that be fusion?

In your post #154, the first highlighted excerpt starting with "In state S =1," implies that tunneling is producing fusion of two protons. In the second highlighted section, he confirmed that "this interaction" produces the kaons. But according to proton proton fusion, 2H is produced.

The production of kaons and their decay particles muons are an indicator of proton decay as follows:

physics.bu.edu/NEPPSR/TALKS-2009/Kearns_GUTs_ProtonDecay.pdf

From Holmlid's latest Swedish patent (discussed briefly in this thread).

Is Holmlid proposing that the ultra-dense proton+electron (pe) pairs are for all intents and purposes annihilating each other in the reaction?