Wyttenbach may I ask... have you looked at the scalar meson resonances such as the f0(500), f0(980) resonance with regard your SO(4) theory approach or are these kinds of resonances currently out side the scope of that approach for now?
When I consider these things this way I realize how big the job can be. But if it’s relevant to the processes associated with LENR it could be interesting.
Wyttenbachmay I ask... have you looked at the scalar meson resonances such as the f0(500), f0(980) resonance with regard your SO(4) theory approach or are these kinds of resonances currently out side the scope of that approach for now?
I did only model kaon, pion,muon so far. But now we understand the SO(4) orbit model and it should be easy to identify the measured energies.
The main problem is that nuclear charge does not couple the way SM believes. Thus we always first must check how the values where measured! E.g. the Z bosons is a resonance of the proton 3D/4D mass that couples with double the charge radius what gives 8 times the coupling mass.
Thus it is impossible to draw any conclusion from measurements only if you have no clue (as SM has) about the real structure of matter.
A new preprint paper has been submitted on ResearchGate:
Detection of muons and neutral kaons from ultra-dense hydrogen H(0) by lepton pair-production
Leif Holmlid and Sveinn Olafsson
https://www.researchgate.net/p…by_lepton_pair-production
QuoteMuons from spontaneous and laser-induced nuclear processes in ultra-dense hydrogen H(0) have previously been studied by energy spectroscopy of the beta-like signal in solid and multilayered converters. Laser-induced muons from H(0) were recently shown to have >100 MeV energy in separate studies. The high-energy cut-off of the beta-like energy distribution is constant independent of the material used as converter. The signal is thus not caused by atomic or nuclear effects like muon capture. This result also proves a strict limit in the energy available, as in a beta-emission process or in a decay process of a nuclear particle. The zero signal high-energy cut-off is close to the electron mass of 511 keV, using beta-decay electrons for the calibration. The signal has a strongly varying gain in the converter depending on the converter material and its history, which indicates particle creation by lepton pair-production. The signal in the photomultiplier is due to leptons (electrons and positrons) penetrating through the glass. The particle energy distributions observed are characterized by their cut-off energy due to pair-production and an almost statistical form, which indicates step-wise pair production. The energy for the pair-production is derived from the kinetic energy of the muons of 10-100 MeV and from the decay of the muons at 105 MeV. The particles moving to the photomultiplier detector and giving the beta-like muon signal may be both muons and long lived neutral kaons K0L , depending on the distance and the experiment. Kaons K0L give shortlived neutral kaons K0S in metal parts and finally muons.
Another masterpiece from Holmlid.
This is quite interesting!
If I understand correctly from a very preliminary read, what is mainly observed in the experiments is not the result of beta decay reactions from muon capture as previously suggested, but actually the production of up to 50 electron-positron pairs per muon through an apparently seldom studied decay mechanism, which gives an energy distribution similar to (but not quite exactly like) standard beta decay reactions.
From this it sounds like harnessing electricity directly could be more efficient than previously expected. In the experiments up to 1015 mesons per laser pulse are observed (source); at 10 Hz and at 1 to a few muons per meson that's potentially a large number of electrons to be harvested.
If I understand correctly from a very preliminary read, what is mainly observed in the experiments is not the result of beta decay reactions from muon capture as previously suggested, but actually the production of up to 50 electron-positron pairs per muon through an apparently seldom studied decay mechanism, which gives an energy distribution similar to (but not quite exactly like) standard beta decay reactions.
From this it sounds like harnessing electricity directly could be more efficient than previously expected. In the experiments up to 1015 mesons per laser pulse are observed (source); at 10 Hz and at 1 to a few muons per meson that's potentially a large number of electrons to be harvested.
That would be coherent with what we have already known, that the interest and support behind Norront Fusion is mainly due to the possibility of harvesting electricity directly from the reaction.
https://www.independent.co.uk/…orce-nature-a9210741.html
Interesting news, instead of trying to add a 5th force maybe it can be a reflection of forces that already exist. Was wondering how this would apply to Holmid's/Wyttenback's/Mills' work or if it discredits it.
Was wondering how this would apply to Holmid's/Wyttenback's/Mills' work or if it discredits it.
The azimuthal 5th force is speculative since 2001..
There may be other valid but speculative explanations related to the Meissner effect..
Mills has some explanation..in GUTCP
Holmlid quotes Hirsch 2010, quotes Nikulov 2001,
https://link.springer.com/cont…7%2Fs10948-009-0531-4.pdf
Nikulov [9] correctly recognized that this is a fundamental unanswered question in the conventional theory of superconductivity.
He postulates the existence of an azimuthal ‘quantum force’ Fq that acts on the superfluid electrons
when the system is cooled below Tc, that forces the canonical momentum to change to satisfy the quantum condition equation (38)
(or equivalently, that forces the macroscopic wave function to be single-valued)
, given by Fq = pω (39)
with ω−1 the time scale over which the canonical momentum change..
The azimuthal 5th force is speculative since 2001..
In SO(4) physics SC can be naturally explained by the spin-spin coupling 1FC orbit filling that delivers a force (1FC) and and the exact energy freed during the induction of the SC condition. 1FC is the exact electro weak face constant.
Slightly over my head lol, but I'm seeing Holmid is pretty much QM and you merge the phenomina as part of another force. At the moment glad to see where all this goes. In the case these other theories don't pan out, Holmid's approach releases the potential for a hydrino like energy flow up to a more dense source. Without completely overturning current physics models?
International Nuclear Physics Conference 2019
29 July – 2 August 2019 Scottish Event Campus, Glasgow, UK
An article on Holmlid technology in NextBigFuture
Just got these from the article, the quoted sources.
Not so positive update on the status of Holmlid's patent application EP3542370.
Attached EPO response indicates that according EPO crucial information is missing to be a valid patent application. There is a 6 months response time allowing Holmlid to further motivate current claims.
This is a bit of a kick in the balls....
This is a bit of a kick in the balls....
Indeed. And Is the same trouble again, and again. Holmlid is in a very better position as he has managed to get a good base of literature in peer reviewed journals, but it doesn’t matter if you play a symphony that is mesmerizing, if you are a solo band, patent office will say you are not good enough.
This is why we need to understand fully the theoretical basis of Holmlid's groundbreaking work. But there again I don't think, like Einstein, he would really care less whether the patent was granted or not - at least he is on top of the game from the scientific publication side even if his work contradicts conventional SM physics. He is showing the way ahead for all LENR research even though he tends (for academic reasons) to avoid being associated with cold fusion. But that is what he is doing in a remarkable and unique way.
The examiner evidently wants inside the patent application all the information and operating steps required to confirm with the described apparatus that an ultra-dense state of hydrogen is indeed produced and accumulated, not to be redirected to papers written by the applicant or his coworkers. To be fair, for novel subject matter not described by anybody else that seems a reasonable request; the examiner is not outright saying that the invention cannot work because it violates known physics.
I think elsewhere a point was made that the application cites results showing time-of-flight times suggesting relativistic particles (muons, etc), but I think it can be anticipated that on their own these may not be considered sufficient evidence of an ultra-dense hydrogen state being produced.
I think elsewhere a point was made that the application cites results showing time-of-flight times suggesting relativistic particles (muons, etc), but I think it can be anticipated that on their own these may not be considered sufficient evidence of an ultra-dense hydrogen state being produced.
Agreed - the scent of a cat doesn't mean you have one in the house.
