New Patent Filed by Leif Holmlid

  • Dr Richard Have you read any of Holmlid's papers? There is a commercial venture working on this now - Norront Fusion- the website is thin on details but Sindre Zeiner-Gundersen (hope I spelled that right who is leading the company normally replies to emails if you have questions. They are certainly living in the future, I notice the copyright notice on the home page is dated 2023.

  • A classic reference is:

    The new 4D mass model is exact for about 8,5 digits for all base particles (e,p,n) and also the muon. The proton split produces two kaons and that requires about 50MeV. In classical term: 1 perturbativ (non relativistic) mass unit of a "quark wave" must be added to a proton.

    Thank you. I rapidly went through the article and didn't find any reference to proton decay with 50MeV. I will nevertheless dig into it, which may take some time given the density of this review article.

  • Thank you. I rapidly went through the article and didn't find any reference to proton decay with 50MeV.

    The "50" MeV's are from StephenC's paper and are also found by the 4D model.

    The general question is whether you can add any amount of magnetic energy to a rotating flux. What Holmlid does is basically overloading the space with photon = EM mass/energy that finally couples with the proton magnetic moment.

    But the classical assumption that these masses are spin 0 (no "orbital momentum" in Holmlids case) is nonsense as in 4(6)D space mass is only spinning. But you can show that the average mechanical moment is zero!

  • Wyttenbach just to clarify. It’s not my paper... I’m not nearly so smart as to be able to do that 😉. This Paper is from RIKEN...

    But I did post the link from the internet article here.

    I wish I could study this stuff in detail though it’s really interesting and somehow really elegant. Your work is facinating.

  • Funny thing is that I was looking at the article to reference some information contained therein, and from one page refresh to the other the retraction notice appeared. So I caught that almost in real-time. I wonder if this is due to the recent Rossi-induced attention to his work.

    By the way, I found from Holmlid's ResearchGate account:

    Perhaps it could be worth checking out regularly if the editors suddenly decide to retract older published papers from Holmlid.

  • Existing Source for Muon-Catalyzed Nuclear Fusion Can Give Megawatt Thermal Fusion Generator. Leif Holmlid


    Fusion power generators employing muon-catalyzed nuclear fusion can be developed using a new type of laser-driven muon generator. Results using this generator have been published, and those data are now used to derive the possible fusion power using this generator. Muon-catalyzed fusion has been studied for 60 years, and the results found in such studies are used here to determine the possible power output. Since the muon source gives complex mixtures of mesons and leptons, which have very different interactions with the measuring equipment, the number of negative muons formed is not easily found exactly, but reasonable values based on numerous published experiments with different methods are used to predict the energy output. With deuterium-tritium as fuel, a fusion power generator employing the novel muon generator could give more than 1 MW thermal power. The thermal power using pure deuterium as fuel may be up to 220 kW initially: It will increase with time up to over 1 MW due to the production of tritium in one reaction branch. The power required for running a modern laser and the muon generator is estimated to be of the order of 100 W, thus giving a total energy gain of more than 10 000. The harmful radiation from such fusion power generators is mainly in the form of neutrons from the fusion reactions. Thus, thick radiation shields are necessary as for almost all other fusion concepts. This means that medium-scale thermal fusion power generators of the muon-catalyzed fusion type may become available within a relatively short time.

  • Alan Smith

    I linked that paper the same day it was published in the previous page, but I guess the post wasn't visible enough and the following discussion put it out of view.

    Today Leif Holmlid has added a comment on the retraction issued by PLOS ONE.…ae-4e3e-a404-8e19f711e069


    Retraction opposed by me

    Posted by lholmlid on 23 Feb 2019 at 14:24 GMT

    The action by Plos One on my paper which was retracted by the journal on 19-02-23 is astonishing. The retraction procedure did not involve a scientific evaluation. I have informed the journal that the experimental results on the time constants are correct. Such results have been published by me in several other papers, both prior to and after the Plos One publication. They have also been repeated by other groups. There is thus no problem with the experimental results. The suggested problem with "amplified electronics placed in the vicinity of intense laser irradiation experiments" is easily disproved by the results given in the paper. Three different decay time constants are measured, which agree with the well-known meson decay time constants. The time constants are different at the inner and the outer collector just moving the cable with the laser and the oscilloscope unchanged. The decay time constants are also different with different collector bias. Some types of signals do not even have a long decay time constant. See for example table 1 with data from figs. 12 and 11. The suggested problem with the electronics clearly does not exist. The laser used is also quite weak, at < 0.2 J pulse energy, in 5 ns long pulses not really giving "an intense laser irradiation experiment" whatever that means with so much stronger lasers used in many laboratories today.

    The main content of this Plos One paper is further not the decay time constants, which had been published previously elsewhere, but the main content concerns deflection of the relativistic particles with velocity up to 0.75c in magnetic fields. These results are not influenced by any decay time constant measurements, and they show very clearly that the relativistic particles are lighter than baryons, with masses like mesons or muons. This is the main result of the paper and it cannot be discarded as due to laser created artifacts, but this result has been overlooked or not understood by the reviewers.

    Of course, I do not yet know the exact process creating the mesons, but it is expected of me as author that I should propose some mechanism for this. Such a process is suggested on p. 5 in the paper. It has been interpreted by other scientists as implying that the number of baryons is not conserved, which is not in agreement with the so-called baryon law. Of course, it is just an empirical rule. Time will show if this is a case where the baryon number is truly not conserved, of if another process is responsible for the meson generation. Of course, the few lines on p. 5 giving a model for the meson generation could be removed or weakened, but Plos One has instead retracted the entire paper with its large number of advanced experiments. This not a scientific and unbiased treatment.

  • From Vortex-L:

    Re: [Vo]:Holmlid paper retraction

    Jones Beene Sat, 23 Feb 2019 16:36:49 -0800

    The retraction by the Plos editor is regrettable, even stupid. We can only wait to see if it will be an total embarrassment for them.

    In the end, the burden of proof is going to be met with a commercial product, or not at all. Based on everything in the record, we could see something like a commercial neutron generator as an initial product.

    These neutron generators are used for such tasks as petroleum well-logging. Normally the neutron well logger requires tritium - very expensive. Holmlid indicates that his device will not require tritium.

    The World-wide market forthese is actually quite large and no one else uses muon catalyzed deuterium fusion as the source of neutrons. Norront is well positioned to become a prime supplier, if they can avoid the

    need for tritium - especially given Norway's petro industry would be an initial buyer.

    Here is a Russian product with lots of details - which is what the present competition looks like. The Russians would be smart to take a license from Norront.

    VNIIA - Neutron generators - Well-logging