Oh come on Leif Holmlid this new review will not do our case any good. Why talk about Sci-Fi space ship drives when we can't even make a LENR powered central heating system? Even you do not understand the true nuclear physics which I have outlined in previous posts! E= mc to the power n. What is so complicated about that? Oh I know you are saying n can never be 0 or infinity? But it can be very close to either. n'est-ce pas! Wyttenbach please show them your brilliant algorithms again because nobody is listening to me without your expert input!!!
New Patent Filed by Leif Holmlid
-
-
Oh come on Leif Holmlid this new review will not do our case any good. Why talk about Sci-Fi space ship drives when we can't even make a LENR powered central heating system? Even you do not understand the true nuclear physics which I have outlined in previous posts! E= mc to the power n. What is so complicated about that? Oh I know you are saying n can never be 0 or infinity? But it can be very close to either. n'est-ce pas! Wyttenbach please show them your brilliant algorithms again because nobody is listening to me without your expert input!!!
This is probably to increase attention for investments in their muon creation technology to fund the development of Norront Fusion Energy AS's MK1 prototype.
-
Figures 4 and 5 in this 20-years old paper appear to be swapped, by the way. The captions are in the correct place, however.
-
A new (Oct 2020) open-access paper from Leif Holmlid:
Muon-catalyzed fusion and annihilation energy generation supersede non-sustainable T+D nuclear fusion
The review of this paper is progressing slowly, just recently got assigned two reviewers. Is nice to be able to follow the review anyway. I hope this one gets through.
-
Sometimes the process can be much longer; it's seems it's the case for the paper on the catalysts pointed out earlier by Ahlfors.
By the way, I just realized that the above paper has references on other papers submitted for review that I did notice before:
- [10]. L. Holmlid, “Decay-times of pions and kaons formed by laser-induced nuclear processes in ultra-dense hydrogen H(0))”. Submitted.
- [15]. L. Holmlid. “Controlling the process of muon formation for muon-catalyzed fusion: method of non-destructive average muon sign detection”. Submitted.
- [23]. L.Holmlid, “Muons with different sign from laser-induced nuclear processes in ultra-dense protium p(0) and ultra-dense deuterium D(0)”. Submitted.
-
Leif has it all in the bag with his most recent patents. However he still doesn't realize the truth about cold fusion! So let's get to it ECALOX and establish our own UK patents please (Alan Smith, Jurg Wyttenbach and our new member Gerold S - wellcome to the party!)
-
What? I have to write it all? Not on my day off!
-
So the 'rocket' paper just happens to be the first one accepted., Wait and see for the rest of the 'submitted' papers ... (2/5 ain't bad)
-
The review of this paper is progressing slowly, just recently got assigned two reviewers. Is nice to be able to follow the review anyway. I hope this one gets through.
Interesting table.
Looks like MK1 demonstration reactor is something in the pipeline of Norront Fusion Energy, not just a paper plan.
-
....
-
NK Labs LLC: "We design products and prototypes for major global brands and innovative startups."
Department Of Energy as client......
-
Interesting table.
Looks like MK1 demonstration reactor is something in the pipeline of Norront Fusion Energy, not just a paper plan.
Please don’t show this table to anyone working at ITER.
-
Please don’t show this table to anyone working at ITER.
Too late
Anyone working for ITER can reduce the shame by investing in Norront Fusion Energy.Quote from Norront Fusion Energy AS's website: "We are currently working on listing the company on Oslo Merkur Market."
-
As the research square comments section of the paper was apparently open to comment, I added one (posted below) but it seems it triggered some sort of instantaneous flagging. I hope it eventually gets posted, but what I wanted to say was what follows:
“The review of this paper as a stand alone article might not make justice to the considerable and remarkable trajectory of Leif Holmlid and his work related to Rydberg matter and how it evolved into the study of Ultra-dense Hydrogen.
As an independent researcher that has already spent some time to review the current work of the author, but also the trajectory of the publications leading up to this point, I encourage the reviewers to familiarize themselves with all the references, as this is a line of work that is not widely known,
and probably prone to cause a knee jerk reaction when presented with it for the first time, to most people involved in the more classical approaches to Fusion Energy.”
Let me know if you find anything that might be objectionable about it. -
Maybe "jerk" in "knee jerk" triggered some kind of auto-filtering.
I have some minor observations on the paper but haven't written anything about them so far.
For example it's suggested:
Quotethis is the densest form of matter that exists on Earth and probably also in the Universe (at spin level s = 1 of the same density as white dwarf stars)
But what about neutron stars?
-
Display More
Maybe "jerk" in "knee jerk" triggered some kind of auto-filtering.
I have some minor observations on the paper but haven't written anything about them so far.
For example it's suggested:
But what about neutron stars?
Should have hyphenated it, true.
I think neutron stars are still believed to exist but not proven. At least the Electric Universe proponents, regardless of they particular point of view, have collected and pointed out a series of incoherent facts that should negate the existence of neutron stars.
Two links about those incoherences.
-
I didn't know that the existence of neutron stars was disputed, but if it is it might be best to add a short note about it, since many will probably think of them as the densest form of matter known in the universe (besides black holes).
-
I didn't know that the existence of neutron stars was disputed, but if it is it might be best to add a short note about it, since many will probably think of them as the densest form of matter known in the universe (besides black holes).
The existence of stars that emit pulses is not disputed, what is disputed is the explanation that was to make one subset of them match the background theory of pulsars and could only be resolved by inventing the concept of neutron stars and acting as if they were real things and not mere conceptual fixes for outlier observations.
-
Well, finally my suggestion to the reviewers was posted in the researchsquare page of the article. I hope it helps the reviewers in their assessment.
-
can , the issue of the neutron stars is tacitly answered in this prior paper where Holmlid suggests that UDH is the better explanation for several cosmological observations.
This is in practice offering a simpler explanation to the Big Bang (never happened), cosmic background radiation (it is a manifestation of the properties of UDH and a proof of its abundance) and RedShift (also a manifestation and proof of UDH), and also a much simpler explanation to star formation and ignition. This would also change all the conceptual basis that led to the need of the invention of neutron stars to make observations match the model.
Of course this paper must be infuriating to most mainstream Astrophysics and Cosmologists.
