The problem is that the kinetic H-H fusion reaction never could be reproduced...
How about H-bomb?
Norront Fusion Energy AS
-
-
They only ever used H isotopes mainly lithium deuteride as far as is known...unless a hydride was used in undocumented secret tests?
-
They only ever used H isotopes mainly lithium deuteride as far as is known...unless a hydride was used in undocumented secret tests?
In the context of ITER /Tokamak H usually means some isotope of it
-
-
Norrønt Fusion Energy AS aksjeposter og eiere 2018
-
Norrønt Fusion Energy AS aksjeposter og eiere 2018
Norront is the lead Shareholder, a Gotenburg University (through is VC proxy) the second, that's a very strong support IMHO.
-
Norront is the lead Shareholder, a Gotenburg University (through is VC proxy) the second, that's a very strong support IMHO.
When I first saw the website and saw the university connection I was immediately interested.
-
When I first saw the website and saw the university connection I was immediately interested.
As Alan Smith has shared with us elsewhere in this thread and this forum, Norront Fusion is in the front line, and has all the funding, staff, supporting academic literature and patent applications to succeed. Is not easy to get there, and this is only feasible because Holmlid, in spite of the paper that was withdrawn from PLOS due to the irate screams of SM purists(*), has been able to get his experiments independently verified, and so effectively that the validators are also part of Norront Fusion. This is a very strong signal of the reality of his work, IMHO.
(*) I am of course dramatizing, but if you visit the page of the withdrawn paper you can see the reasons for the withdrawall (an SM editor take it personal, and the fact that Holmlid did not agree to the withdraw).
-
At first this process is apparently in its very early stage of its development, maybe ten or more years will be needed before any practical tests. At second, muon catalyzed fusion generates copious amount of neutrons like any other hot fusion. These neutrons may be used to breed fissile fuels, from fertile material - for example, thorium-232 could breed uranium-233 in this way - but this is still too distant technology.
But the most serious is the "alpha-sticking" problem recognized in 1957 already. The α-sticking effect is the approximately 1% probability of the muon "sticking" to the alpha particle that results from deuteron-triton nuclear fusion, thereby effectively removing the muon from the muon-catalysis process altogether. Even if muons were absolutely stable, each muon could catalyze, on average, only about 100 d-t fusions before sticking to an alpha particle, which is only about one-fifth the number of muon catalyzed d-t fusions needed for break-even, where as much thermal energy is generated as electrical energy is consumed to produce the muons in the first place, according to Jackson's rough 1957 estimate.
From these reasons I don't consider muon catalyzed fusion practically feasible - with muons generated by Holmlid's process or without them.
-
The fusion business is rather a red herring in this case. It is (until now) not generally known but the system produces electricity. I have no idea at what COP, but it is certainly what has captured the interest of researchers at Nprront.
-
Thanks for that deeply interesting tidbit Alan Smith, that is certainly something I figure you asked permssion to share here, and that's one more of the reasons why LENR-forum is the place to be to get the best information on the field.
-
Well, 2 senior team members have mentioned it to me on separate occasions, but they never told me it was a secret. So here it is.
-
Well, 2 senior team members have mentioned it to me on separate occasions, but they never told me it was a secret. So here it is.
Ahhh double goodie right there. Wish there were publicly available stats for compactness and energy density. If the process of producing muons in and of itself is energy positive, muon catylized fusion may be unnessasary for a productive reactor to work. If they can get a decent COP and high level energy densities it would be lovely. As charged particles are the product electricity can be directly absorbed and I wouldn't be surprised if there is substantial thermal flux as well.
-
It's not a secret because the same principle is used for particle detection in Holmlid's studies using an oscilloscope. The muons produced by the decay of mesons from the ultra-dense hydrogen layer cause secondary electron ejection at collector plates/foils placed at arbitrary distances from the laser target, which is observed as a current on the oscilloscope.
See chapter 8 here: https://iopscience.iop.org/art…02-4896/ab1276#psab1276s8
QuoteThe main type of experiment used here has not only been able to observe the particles formed by the nuclear processes but has also been able to observe the particle decays directly (Holmlid 2015a, 2015b, 2017b). This type of experiment observes the formation and decay of intermediate particles (mesons) in a beam of particles initiated by a laser pulse in real time, not by particle detection in complex detector arrays used by other groups (Burcham and Jobes 1995). This method is novel since such large meson fluxes have not been employed before, and also since it gives a direct particle signal which can be studied by parameter changes in real time. This means that it is possible to optimize the meson production more easily than in large-scale experiments. 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.
In the paper that the publisher retracted, a peak current density of 200 mA/cm2 at about 22 cm from the target was reported: https://journals.plos.org/plos…1371/journal.pone.0169895
QuoteThe experiments using the small pin collector for TOF and magnetic deflection observe currents up to 1.2 mA, as seen in the figures. This means a peak current density of 25 mA cm-2 at the pin, or a factor of nine larger density of 200 mA cm-2 at the slit due to the difference of a factor of three in the distance to the laser spot. It is apparent that such a large current density is due to a very large number of emitted particles from the target.
-
The whole point of Holmlid's process is that it represents a much more efficient way of producing -muons than has ever before been realized because once formed he claims that ultra dense hydrogen spontaneously releases mesons. Jackson and Alvarez ruled out a muon-catalysed fusion reactor on energetic grounds that it would cost 10 GeV per muon and only release 1.7 GeV. Holmlid's demonstrated the spontaneous proton fragmentation rate is accelerated by relatively low power Nb YAG IR laser pulses to provide sufficient -muon catalysts for driving a fusion reactor. Which begs the question of why this phenomenon has not been observed before by other scientists (they've simply missed it as it would not be predicted by the SM?) and furthermore surely it could underly possibly every previously successful cold fusion experiment reported to date going back to the early F&P electrolytic experiments? - Ok we all know there is a background level of -muons which increases with altitude and with solar sunspot activity as cosmic radiation interacts with our upper atmosphere.
I'm proposing that under certain conditions successful cold fusion experiments always generate some ultradense H or D which would augment the background level of muons particularly on heating, electrical or IR laser stimulation. If there were insufficent UDD/UDH catalyst present in the reaction mix then without any significant UDD/H there would be no cold fusion derived excess heat etc. perhaps accounting for so many negative trials. Palladium itself can function as a weak hydrogenation catalyst but other elements eg Ir and Rh are better at it, but then Holmlid always uses the dehydrogenating metal oxide Rydberg Matter catalyst KFeO2 . Other metal oxides eg ZrO2, MnO2, Cr2O3, Al2O3, NiO or PdO also show this activity accounting for significant levels of UDD/H in Takahashi's expts, in Brillouin's Hot tubes, and most recently in Mizuno's reactor.
So here is one theory which would explain all the LENR data - ultradense H or D formation generating -muons within the reactors which in turn catalyse p-u-p p-u-D, D-u-D, D-u-T molecular species which then fuse releasing energy as excess heat a few neutrons and keV gammas consistent with observations. Simple enough to test for as there are known ways of increasing or blocking muonic fusion catalysis once established. Linking Norront Fusion's muon generator to a Mizuno type reactor would be a good test system for working this one out.
-
Display More
It's not a secret because the same principle is used for particle detection in Holmlid's studies using an oscilloscope. The muons produced by the decay of mesons from the ultra-dense hydrogen layer cause secondary electron ejection at collector plates/foils placed at arbitrary distances from the laser target, which is observed as a current on the oscilloscope.
See chapter 8 here: https://iopscience.iop.org/art…02-4896/ab1276#psab1276s8
In the paper that the publisher retracted, a peak current density of 200 mA/cm2 at about 22 cm from the target was reported: https://journals.plos.org/plos…1371/journal.pone.0169895
Interesting, because I thought it was another approach. So what's the power density calculation for this setup? Do any muons produce nuclear reactions other the hydrogen fusion?
-
Display More
It's not a secret because the same principle is used for particle detection in Holmlid's studies using an oscilloscope. The muons produced by the decay of mesons from the ultra-dense hydrogen layer cause secondary electron ejection at collector plates/foils placed at arbitrary distances from the laser target, which is observed as a current on the oscilloscope.
See chapter 8 here: https://iopscience.iop.org/art…02-4896/ab1276#psab1276s8
In the paper that the publisher retracted, a peak current density of 200 mA/cm2 at about 22 cm from the target was reported: https://journals.plos.org/plos…1371/journal.pone.0169895
Don't tell Mills or he will claim Holmlid is attempting to copy his MHD generator idea...
-
Many other side reactions and transmutation reactions are possible and a quantitative estimate of power density is correspondingly difficult to estimate. The initial fragmentation process releasing mesons is exothermic too - direct electricity generation from muon collection releases about 10 electrons per muon would not supply sufficient power to drive the laser so it would be better to use the muon catalytic activity to amplify up the power density via fusion reactions generating thermal energy, I think.
-
R.Mills wouldn't be interested because its a completely different mechanism to his MHD generator. The motion of Ag particles induce the current not muons in BLP's system.
-
Holmlid Rydberg prehistory [1989] and electricity
