New Patent Filed by Leif Holmlid

Quote from Alan Smith

can

It is postulated (and shown experimentally) that many types of Mesons (maybe 60 or so) exist. Also we have both positive and negatively charged Muons. Do you think this problem has been addressed by Holmlid? Presumably it would make a big difference to how energy is created from emissions?

In the previously published general review it has been suggested that all different mesons and leptons with a lifetime longer than a few nanoseconds—as well as their antiparticles—have been observed, but shorter-lived particles cannot be observed with the experimental system used so far.

Positive muons have been observed: https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(18)34875-8

Quote

[...] Using D(0), the observed decay time is (2.23 ± 0.05) μs in agreement with the free muon lifetime of 2.20 μs. This signal is apparently due to the preferential generation of positive muons. Using p(0), the observed decay time is in the range 1–2 μs, thus shorter than the free muon lifetime, as expected when the signal is mainly caused by negative muons which interact with matter by muon capture.

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

In fact, if true, Holmlid would have detected 4He in his earlier UDH experiments.

What he indeed did... Can once linked the paper.

It's also linked in the paper released yesterday. It used deuterium, however.

Quote

[...] Particles in the MeV range are easily generated by nuclear processes in H(0), using relatively weak laser pulses at < 0.4 J [1,10,11]. This is the third method used for verifying the pm distances in H(0). Clear signs of D + D fusion like 4He and 3He ions have been observed by TOF-MS [12].

[12] F. Olofson, L. Holmlid

Time-of-flight of He ions from laser-induced processes in ultra-dense deuterium D(0)

Int J Mass Spectrom, 374 (2014), pp. 33-38, 10.1016/j.ijms.2014.10.004

Quote from can

It's interesting to put those numbers in perspective. It is easy to normally assume that the number of cosmic muons reaching the Earth's surface would instead be many orders of magnitude larger, in comparison.

I suspect Holmlid et al. might be planning a system where the generated mesons and muons would be scattered and stopped by layer of UDH surrounding the laser target, but whether this would be materially feasible (i.e. possible to develop into an actually useful product) within short timetables is not clear to me, even if technically it should be.

That would make sense: a central-symmetric reactor with multilayers of UDH where only the central UDH layer would be targeted by a laser and the secondary layers only used to harvest energy.

FYI in the past I had some email exchange with Holmlid in which I shared my surprise that as many as 10^13 atoms may be annihilated with a single laser pulse that lasts a few nanoseconds only. He said that he was relatively confident with this number though he assumed some homogeneity in the angular distribution of the products of the reaction. I personnaly doubt that such a high number of reactions can take place otherwise the muon shower generated by his own experiments would have killed anyone in the tens of meters in Uppsala. Also the numbers don't add up when calculating the energy dissipated in the vicinity close to the reactor, and this even when one very conservatively assumes (1) that the generated muons fall in the minimum of the Bethe-Bloch curve of muon stopping power, and (2) the presence of not much msterial close to the reaction that could stop the muons.

For our own experiments we put in place an important radio protection system made of lead, cadmium and water with boric acid, but that system seems like a drop in an ocean to stop 10^13 relativistic kaons->pions->muons generated every tens of nanoseconds. Either I'm missing something or the numbers put forward by Holmlid are grossly overestimated....

JulianBianchi

In recent publications Holmlid has suggested that the neutral kaons initially formed in the reaction, although penetrating, are not ionizing and this gives a much lower radiation level than would be otherwise expected. I haven't read other details yet regarding this point.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15361055.2018.1546090

Quote

Instead of charged kaons, mainly neutral kaons seem to pass out into the laboratory, and the interaction of such particles with matter is believed to give considerably lower radiation levels, maybe mainly due to their longer decay times which allow them to move further before decay, thus depositing much of their energy in the building walls and in the laboratory equipment. They will also have a smaller direct Coulomb interaction with atoms in materials. Further, more energy is given off by gamma radiation from neutral kaon and pion decay, also distributing the radiation energy over a larger volume of materials. Certainly, more radiation research is required to give secure conclusions on this point.

Also: https://www.researchgate.net/p…ts_detect_0_K_L_and_0_K_S

Quote

Conclusions

[...] The verification of all types of kaons from H(0) as now completed was considered necessary for the final elucidation of their formation processes and for the successful understanding of the true properties of neutral kaons. They are often thought to be ionizing while they in fact are just penetrating through solid materials and living organisms. This gives a much lower radiation level in the experiments.

Another speculative possibility (not much thought went into it, so it is probably incorrect) could be that by the same properties I described earlier, after UDH formed a more or less homogeneous layer on the internal walls of the vacuum chamber by superfluidity (since it is supposed to be a room-temperature superfluid), most of the high energy particles would be prevented from coming out it. If this was possible, then extrapolating the measured particle current (using an internal collector, so inside the supposed UDH-shielding) over 4pi as Holmlid does could be overestimating the results by several orders of magnitude, since the actually measured current could already include many particles initially departing from the target along completely different directions.

Quote from can

It's also linked in the paper released yesterday. It used deuterium, however.

[12] F. Olofson, L. Holmlid

Time-of-flight of He ions from laser-induced processes in ultra-dense deuterium D(0)

Int J Mass Spectrom, 374 (2014), pp. 33-38, 10.1016/j.ijms.2014.10.004

Display More

Thanks for the links can.

However Holmlid´s last paper seems to focus on Hydrogen (protium) only.
UDD experiments deal with muon catalyzed D-D fusion and thus ⁴He is expected, which is different from what Wyttenbach suggested from 9H --> 2 4-He + K+/K0. We should not confuse pure H and pure D experiments, although 100% purity of each of those is impossible. I can not recall any of Holmlid´s paper mentioning ⁴He detection with UDH experiments.

Rob Woudenberg

Yes, if it wasn't clear from what I posted, it is indeed 4He from ordinary D+D fusion using deuterium. It's not clear whether the same would be observed with protium; probably not due to lack of D+D fusion. That one is the only paper mentioning 4He.

For what it's worth, Holmlid suggests that nuclear reactions in UDH (or UDD) occur only from 3- or 4-atom clusters that are not superfluid or superconductive, but these should be a different thing from 4He.

https://link.springer.com/arti….1007%2Fs10876-018-1480-5

Quote

Conclusions

The meson-ejecting nuclear processes in D(0) take place in small D(0) clusters with typically 3–4 atoms. These clusters do not form a superfluid phase on the metal target surface and are not directly coupled to the long-chain D(0) clusters which form a superfluid phase with a Meissner effect as reported previously. The actual D(0) cluster shape which supports the laser-induced nuclear processes in D(0) is thus identified.

can

What is important to realize is that negative muons, required to enable D-D fusion, are generated from UDH.

A combination of UDH and (mainly) Deuterium in one experimental setup has not been included in Holmlid´s publications as far as I recall. Also, Holmlid mentioned that D-D fusion should be operated at much higher gas (D₂) pressures. Two seperate vessels are basically required, one with UDH (low gas pressure) and one with UDD (higher gas pressure) to implement a muon catalyzed D-D fusion setup.

This is also visible in Norrønt´s MK1 prototype where Muon generators are fed with protium, while the fusion reactor is fed with Deuterium.

Rob Woudenberg

A deuterium–protium mixture has been used, but not in the context of meson/muon generation, e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molstruc.2018.06.116 .

I think that paper you're citing was referring to ideally a pressurized deuterium canister placed externally to the UDH generator operating at subatmospheric pressures. https://www.researchgate.net/p…nse_Hydrogen_H0_Generator

Something along these lines has been attempted by Sindre Zeiner-Gundersen using a 200 bar canister. From the slides of ICCF21:

Quote from JulianBianchi

FYI in the past I had some email exchange with Holmlid in which I shared my surprise that as many as 10^13 atoms may be annihilated with a single laser pulse that lasts a few nanoseconds only. He said that he was relatively confident with this number though he assumed some homogeneity in the angular distribution of the products of the reaction. I personnaly doubt that such a high number of reactions can take place otherwise the muon shower generated by his own experiments would have killed anyone in the tens of meters in Uppsala.

This number is derived from reference 25 of this latest paper , section "IV.A. Laser-Induced Signal", the result of a calculation:

Quote

In one apparatus using this construction, the three directions characterizing the experiment, thus the laser impact direction, the surface normal of the target, and the direction of observation of the particle flux, are all different. This means in this case that the main direction of the observed particle flux is close to 60 deg from the surface normal, thus unlikely to give any enhanced flux (for example due to an angular distribution peaked at the surface normal) in this almost arbitrary direction.

The direct current measurements^1,2 at 10⁻⁵ mbar pressure give large signal currents. In one of them1 the total number (over the full 4π sphere) of particles released was calculated to be 1 × 10¹³ particles per laser shot,

Looks like the actual number of particles generated in his setup is a fraction of the calculated number not having a homogeneous distribution over a 4π sphere.

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

UDD experiments deal with muon catalyzed D-D fusion and thus 4He is expected, which is different from what Wyttenbach suggested from 9H --> 2 4-He + K+/K0.

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

This is also visible in Norrønt´s MK1 prototype where Muon generators are fed with protium, while the fusion reactor is fed with Deuterium.

Deuterium has already given off 2.24Mev. Thus fusion of 4 Deuterium (<8p) cannot deliver enough energy to crack a proton. Proton gives an exact match!

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

Looks like the actual number of particles generated in his setup is a fraction of the calculated number not having a homogeneous distribution over a 4π sphere.

I think he's writing that even if it was, the same experiments from a different apparatus construction where angles have been randomly selected still gave large currents. The latest typical constructions also seem to give results that are not strongly dependent on angles.

Quote

In another setup, improved versions of the muon generator have been studied, both with separate and integrated formation of H(0). In this setup, shown in Fig. 1, the signal detection is in the direction of the normal of the laser target and the laser-induced TOF particle current to a collector is measured [3,4] at relatively high pressure, below 1 mbar. The signal measured in these experiments is caused by mega-electron-volt particles passing through or stopping in metal foil collectors with thicknesses from 20 µm to 1.5 mm. One example of the signals obtained is given in Fig. 2. The total number of particles emitted is in the range 1 × 10¹⁴ to 7 × 10¹⁴ per laser shot, thus 1 × 10¹⁵ to 7 × 10¹⁵ per second at a laser pulse rate of 10 Hz assuming a secondary coefficient of charge ejection of unity. This is calculated further assuming that the ejected flux density is independent of the direction, which may give too high values of the total flux. However, the relatively constant value found in many experiments with different angular acceptance and angular direction in the flux measurements indicates that any peaking effect of the ejected flux is rather small.

However, if the scattering properties of UDH towards mesons and muons are as efficient as suggested recently, both a strong signal enhancement as well as relative independence from observation and laser beam angles could happen, in particular in the latest constructions.

can
The above picture seems to be from a different reference that I don´t recall having read already. A very useful explanation!

Thanks!

Rob Woudenberg

It's just a modification I made of one of diagrams from the published papers. It should be similar to the construction shown in the patent application (granted in Sweden), minus the current coil:

Quote from can

However, if the scattering properties of UDH towards mesons and muons are as efficient as suggested recently, both a strong signal enhancement as well as relative independence from observation and laser beam angles could happen, in particular in the latest constructions.

Without focussing the Kaons nothing will work. The Pions shine up after 6 meters of flight. Then also the muons start. So you would need a reactor of at last 12 Meter diameter and fianlly face the same problems as ITER with just a marginal heating of the blanket... Muons can be collected by magentic fields if you can guide them else: Same problem.

Overall better chance than ITER but the time to a reactor might be even longer.

Wyttenbach

It could be argued that if the scenario on the right of my diagram is true or at least partially valid, some sort of "focusing" of the meson-muon flux on the "collector" portion (from which a current is measured using an oscilloscope) has been already occurring in the experiments.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Without focussing the Kaons nothing will work. The Pions shine up after 6 meters of flight. Then also the muons start. So you would need a reactor of at last 12 Meter diameter and fianlly face the same problems as ITER with just a marginal heating of the blanket... Muons can be collected by magentic fields if you can guide them else: Same problem.

Overall better chance than ITER but the time to a reactor might be even longer.

Would the use of scintillation material be suitable to reduce speed/distance and convert kinetic energy into heat and/or light?

For me all this is about funny science and basic research. Generating energy is a pretty hopeless case as the financing needed will be huge. Or just by luck somebody finds a material to focus the beam.

I would recommend to try carbon nano tubes with a bit larger diameter. This always produces neutrons after a fusions reaction...

To make it clear: My joice would be to combine UDH/H*-H* with a suitable LENR fuel. Everything else is dirty physics. The same holds for Mills.

Quote from Wyttenbach

My joice would be to combine UDH/H*-H* with a suitbale LENR fuel.

Are you willing to give us some more details/examples of your choices?

Or, are you refering to this thread and this thread that deal with D₂(O) en MWCNTs (Multi Walled Carbon Nano Tubes)?