Or maybe Wyttenbach can come up with some new perspectives on this since conventional physics only seems to be successful in repeating the past and ignoring any new or unexplained phenomena.
New Patent Filed by Leif Holmlid
-
-
Norront Fusion is a logical extension of simply having found an economical way of producing muons - good luck to them if this approach ever works. Meanwhile it seems sensible to apply the same theoretical perspective ie the possible role of muons generated at low energies to other LENR applications like Mizuno's R20 reactor.
It is likely that similar spontaneous reactions (meaning, occurring without using a Nd:YAG pulsed laser or other relatively energetic impulses) as those observed by Holmlid with his iron oxide catalysts might be observed in typical LENR experiments, but I don't think muon emission would be the primary mode of energy generation or even reaction product.
On a loosely related note, he reports seeing as many as 1015 mesons per laser pulse in his experiments. The spontaneous / LENR-like particle flux should be several orders of magnitude lower per unit of time.
From https://iopscience.iop.org/art…02-4896/ab1276#psab1276s8 (section 8.)
Quote[...] The number of mesons observed in each laser pulse is as large as 1015, which seems to be the highest meson intensity used anywhere in the world. A typical formation and decay event is shown in figure 7. It should be noted that the direct signal current is in the several mA range without any amplification and without a PMT or similar device. The large current observed could partially be due to a large secondary electron emission coefficient, such that each meson or muon ejects around 10 electrons from the metal collector.
EDIT: in http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.06.116 (paywalled, but pdf available here) a total (4pi) rate of 107–1010 particles/s is mentioned for the spontaneous emission (without laser) that Holmlid and Ólafsson observed in 2015. The "D(0) generator" used in the reactor chamber was the same described in the patent application in the opening post of this thread.
-
That's the question-does the 250 mJ laser supply enough energy to induce a proposed electron spin-flip or neutron quasi - particle formation? There seems to be an unresolved mystery here
It's possible, because of high energy density of ultrashort pulses, which prof. Holmlid is using - not median energy density is what is crucial here. At such extreme short pulses the pulse frequency is not relevant anymore as well, because the effective pulse frequency is given by harmonics of pulse envelope, not interior of pulse itself. This explains why mode locked lasers are able to induce nuclear reactions or even pair splitting under "desktop" arrangement. From this perspective prof. Holmlid's observations aren't anomalous at all - but I wouldn't connect them with cold fusion, dense hydrogen or even dark matter at all from this perspective. It's just normal brute force approach common in nuclear physics.
-
BTW It seems prof. Holmlid is aware of this fact too:
"No, I research not about cold fusion, I research on laser-induced hot fusion. It enables us to reach a temperature of between 50 and MK 500 MK in the plasma. This one can measure both the neutron energy distributions (published) and from electron energy distributions (to be adopted soon). It is the temperature that needs to be reached to get the core processes that move with sufficient speed. It might seem strange that this is higher than the established temperature in the solar interior, but it depends on the core processes inside the sun goes very slowly."
Sorta ironically prof. Holmlid may be still able to achieve higher energy densities with his modest desktop arrangement, than for example multi-billion laser fusion facilities like NIF. The trick is, his energy pulses are much shorter and strictly directional, whereas laser fusion utilizes omnidirectional arrangement of pulses in general.
-
Muons (105 MeV/c2) wouldn't form spontaneously: muons are 2nd generation of matter, which requires by at least two order higher energies than any natural radioactive decay or fusion involving strong force (effective mass of gluons is 0.12 MeV I guess).
Recently it was
observedpredicted muon formation during radioactive decay of extremely unstable products formed in colliders - but this is clearly an exception due to high energy pumped into system by collider beam. If muons are forming, then the atom nuclei must be squashed directly with EM pulse under breaking of strong forces - so that weak forces and repulsive forces of quarks itself will apply. Here I presume, that coherent laser pulse arranges atoms on fly into collinear rows, so that their shock wave collision occurs in relatively high yield. Random character of incoherent NIF pulses has no such an ability. -
This spontaneous reaction is another issue hard to account for - is it due to spontaneous nuclear reactions smashing protons to release further muons? So UDD/H undergoes spontaneous nuclear reactions that either fork to fusion releasing neutrons etc or to proton decay releasing mesons? Is any of this really possible at such low energies, what's causing it, Brownian motion as has recently postulated by Parkhomov to underly neutrino emissions? Maybe weak nuclear forces become far stronger the closer nuclei are together, 2 pm separated p or D nuclei either fusing or disintegrating.
-
Holmlid most often uses 5 nanosecond-short laser pulses at 10 Hz. The laser employed in the study you linked two posts above uses 130 femtosecond pulses.
.. and peak intensity reaching almost 2 petawatts per cm2, whereas prof. Holmlid is using 0.4 J pulses, i.e. peaking in gigawatt range per fraction of milimeter squared. Texas laser generates 150 J per 140 fs and Chinese already have 100 PWatt laser.
-
So are we seeing spontaneous string breaking/fragmentation in UDD as described in wiki;
Therefore, as two color charges are separated, at some point it becomes energetically favorable for a new quark–antiquark pair to appear, rather than extending the tube further. As a result of this, when quarks are produced in particle accelerators, instead of seeing the individual quarks in detectors, scientists see "jets" of many color-neutral particles (mesons and baryons), clustered together. This process is called hadronization, fragmentation, or string breaking.
-
Rutherford Laboratory familiar to you? They do a really good Shepherd's Pie in the canteen
Reference please.
-
Sveinn Ólafsson has a hypothesis involving the Adler-Bell-Jackiw anomaly, but I have no opinion about that.
-
-
That's the question-does the 250 mJ laser supply enough energy to induce a proposed electron spin-flip or neutron quasi - particle formation? There seems to be an unresolved mystery here - and why do we end up with mesons from proton decay rather than fusion of the two protons if tunneling probability has been increased? Whilst we can accept his work from a phenomenological point of view, theoretical physics is needed to work out the underlying mechanisms - maybe he's working on it for his next paper, hopefully?
the laser produces Higgs field vacuum instability through the initiation quantum processes located in the electron cover layer of the Ultra dense hydrogen. IMO.
-
-
Sveinn Ólafsson has a hypothesis involving the Adler-Bell-Jackiw anomaly, but I have no opinion about that.
Decay of two protons in three mesons breaks the baryon number and the Adler-Bell-Jackiw anomaly is currently the only known process that does the same. I'm not a fan of that explanation for UDH because the minimum energy required to trigger the sphaleron process is believed to be in the TeV range. Also the Adler-Bell-Jackiw anomaly works with multiple of 3 baryons only and as such would require more complex UDH clusters. I expect another (unknown) quantum chiral anomaly. In the case of UDH, as opposed to hot fusion, there is plenty of time for electroweak interactions to act with the hadrons somewhat freed of the strong interactions.
-
...there is plenty of time for electroweak interactions....
There might well be near-infinite time for interaction. Who knows for sure how time passes in the nucleus?
-
For what it's worth, Holmlid thinks that in UDH the nuclear processes take place in the 3- and 4- atom small clusters that are not superfluid, so that could in part be where Ólafsson's hypothesis came from.
- https://iopscience.iop.org/art…-4896/ab1276#psab1276s8-1 (section 8.1)
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s10876-018-1480-5 (open access)
Ólafsson talked about the Adler-Bell-Jackiw anomaly also during the LANR 2019 colloquium back in March.
https://coldfusionnow.org/wp-c…imental_ColloquiumMIT.pdf
-
For what it's worth, Holmlid thinks that in UDH the nuclear processes take place in the 3- and 4- atom small clusters that are not superfluid, so that could in part be where Ólafsson's hypothesis came from.
In the same article, Holmlid argues that nuclear processes take place in small 3 or 4 atoms clusters not because of the requirement to have 3 baryons in the Adler-Bell-Jackiw process but because:
1) middle of Section 8.1: This is as expected, since the superfluid chain clusters will be able to transport energy rapidly and thus may not be so easily influenced by laser radiation. I.e. that only the small clusters are influenced by the laser, and because:
2) end of Section 8.1: The spin state of these small clusters is not known, but it appears likely that the state s = 1 must be reached for the small cluster before the nuclear processes take place, for example by tunneling from the close distance of 0.56 pm at s = 1. If this process down to → s = 1 is required to start the nuclear processes, it is also quite unlikely that the chain clusters are involved since that would mean a transfer to s = 1 for a majority of the atoms in a large cluster. In fact, no clear evidence exists from CE experiments that chain clusters can transfer down to state s = 1 thus to the state with only electron spin and no orbiting motion of the electrons in the clusters. I.e. that only the small clusters may switch to S=1 for the nuclear reactions to occur.
I was initially following Holmlid explanations but now, when weighting the experimental evidence in front of the various hypotheses, to require H(3) because of the Adler-Bell-Jackiw anomaly is indeed quite appealing. I will deep into the literature on spheralons to determine how much current published estimate (in the TeV range) depends on time for crossing over the barrier to occur. I do not exclude that this figure was estimated for a LHC-type, read short time-high energy, experiment and as such may not fit UDH case.
-
Quote
So are we seeing spontaneous string breaking/fragmentation in UDD as described in wiki
Yep - in essence the energy density which is prof. Holmlid is using is quite high, so that literally anything could happen there with atoms even according to Standard Model of particle physics.
It has no meaning to soothsay anomalies there.
-
@JB@can@ZAThe chiral anomaly theory seems to be a typical SM fudge to me, but it is worth chasing it down if only to rule it out. There is no TeV energy source (typical of the Big-Bang maybe) in UDD/H to account for the Adler-Bell-Jackiw anomaly (but as you say lower energy over a longer timescale maybe). No, the only other possible energy source which is driving spontaneous proton decay to generate mesons is, and I'm sure no-one is going to like this idea, good old-fashioned cosmic rays. We all know that high GeV energy protons/neutrons/gammas will do it and we have a known background of negative muons to induce a very low level of fusion reactions anyway.
The rest of the radiation getting through from the sun consists of neutrinos/antineutrinos (n's) which have until recently been rejected as having any possible interaction with matter. Parkhomov has however recently proposed that low-energy n's may be involved in LENR (See Bob G's translation from Russian/Parky has done a lot of research into n's before getting involved in LENR).
So I was thinking along the lines that OK-n's probably do have little, negligible interaction with ordinary matter, but what about dense matter (as used in n's detectors deep underground) or further with ultra dense matter ie UDD/H? Could Holmlid's UDD/H simply have a high enough density to trap high energy n's and convert (what would be a new limitless untapped n's energy source from outer space!) it via proton decay into mesons and in the process releasing MeV energy?
A simple test of this theory would be for Holmlid or Norront Fusion to screen out any n's and see if the spontaneous rate of meson production is reduced.
Would they have to dig deep underground to do this? Not necessarily, if we assume UDD is itself absorbing/screening n's wrapping a UDD jacket around the laser target UDD might be effective in this respect. Alternatively, a radioactive n's source could be placed in the vicinity of the laser target UDD to see if this raises the spontaneous meson rate which we know is already raised by 1064 nm laser energy. An interaction of coherent IR photons with n's to promote proton decay seems likely. [maybe I could do a second PhD in nuclear physics??]
Finally, what if all LENR/cold fusion experiments over the last 30 yrs involved some small UDD/H/Hydrino or Hydroton species being generated to trap incoming n's from outer space? We all remember the muon possibility of raising fusion probabilities at higher altitudes etc - we would expect n's flux perhaps to be more constant maybe varying seasonally with changes in the distance of the Earth from the Sun etc (thought at one time to vary radioactive decay rates)
-
