Despite well designed experiments , circumnavigating the status quo road blocks has not been easy for Holmlid
Never said it was, but getting published in peer reviewed journals is key. And also, not easy at all with such a controversial research, but he managed to get several published and only one retracted.
Nice one Holmlid - its not atomic physics! That's a good circumnavigation of the status quo! Anyway, it would certainly be worth the NASA group working on a fission/fusion reactor (Mosier-Boss & Forsley) looking into the UDH-generating muons story so they may eventually come up with a powerful fusion reactor. They never detected negative muons in their co-deposition experiments but their existence could have been obscured by other radiation/particles. Similarly Brillouin Energy Corp. might obtain better COP values by incorporating Rydberg Matter catalysts in reactor cores (Al2O3 probably works but KFeO2 styrene dehydrogenation catalysts probably work much better). Be nice if this knocked the COP up to 10 - probably need to evacuate/remove any nitrogen from their hot-tubes too and switch to laser pulses instead of Q-pulses.
The peculiarity of KFeO2, the active phase of K/Fe2O3 catalysts that only exists under appropriate conditions (which means that you cannot really purchase it as a separate compound, it has to be formed in-situ), is that it directly emits excited (Rydberg) K atoms upon heating to mild temperatures, which can then transfer their excitation energy to nearby and adsorbed molecules and atoms, including of hydrogen.
Al2O3 on its own probably requires much higher temperatures and KAlO2 was not shown to produce the same effect of KFeO2, so its function in Brillouin's reactor is probably different. See here on RG: Stability and excitation of potassium promoter in iron catalysts - The role of KFeO2 and KAlO2 phases
There, it might work for example as a support where hydrogen atoms dissociated at the Ni-Pd layer can spill onto and eventually form clusters after accumulation, or it might simply work as an insulating layer between the metallic ones that form a continuous electrical conduction path for the Q-pulses.
In this latter case, with large current pulses the layers might repel from each other, vibrating in practice, assisting whatever process might be occurring there. The former case (spillover) I think is generally promoted in Holmlid's experiments by a layer of decomposed carbon (from hydrocarbons in the atmosphere) on the heated surfaces surrounding the catalysts and the catalysts themselves.
In summary, one cannot simply do a mishmash of loosely related systems in an attempt improve efficiency, there has to be some logic behind it.
From the latest patent application posted by Ahlfors from Norront AS it would seem that the authors could still be using something similar to the K/Fe2O3 catalysts used by Holmlid, but these are just a possible way to obtain Rydberg matter/UDH by thermal emission, and other materials will work as well as Holmlid himself points out. In principle any catalytic surface that efficiently dissociates hydrogen molecules and prevents the atoms from recombining to the molecular form as long as possible should work. A combination of a metallic catalyst and a non-metallic support in close proximity where hydrogen atoms can accumulate should be suitable too.
From P Moisier-Boss et al 2019 j CMNS:
The use of energetic particles produced during Pd/D co-deposition to fission uranium was explored. Real-time HPGe spectral data obtained during the early stages of the plating phase of Pd/Dco-deposition on a Au/Ucomposite cathode showed evidence of neutron damage. Using the Monte–Carlo technique, the average energy of the neutrons was estimated to be of the order of 6–7 MeV. A gamma ray spectrum obtained in a Compton suppressed Pb cave a month after the experiment showed the presence of Am-241 which is likely created by neutron capture by U-238 to form Pu239. Pu-239 undergoes successive neutron captures to form Pu-241 which then beta decays into Am-241. The HPGe spectra also shows a decrease in the U X-ray peaks indicating that U has been consumed. Production of energetic neutrons and fissioning of U-238/U-235 were further verified by the CR-39 detector that was in contact with the Au/U/Pd composite cathode. LSC spectra showed evidence of an alpha emitter at 3.2±0.3 that is likely due to Gd148. Additional changes in the LSC spectra with time show beta–gamma emitters due to long-lived fission products. These results indicate that uranium can be fissioned by the energetic particles formed as a result of Pd/Dco-deposition. The implication of this experiment is that a hybrid fusion-fission reactor is feasible. The main advantages of such a reactor would be, (1) it does not require enrichment of U-235, (2) it does not produce greenhouse gases, and (3) it can easily be shut off by simply turning off the current to the cell. Such a reactor might also be used to dispose of nuclear wastes and long life radioactive fission products remaining in spent nuclear fuel.
Tune it all up with UDH/D catalysts and IR laser pulses, and we could probably replace the proposed Hinckley fission reactor with a fusion-fission hybrid designed to consume its own nuclear waste. Fusion alone isn't there yet but the combination (with Holmlid's improvements) would be the best option.
can - agreed, its nice to have a consistent theory to guide experimental work but without it a mish-mash approach is often the only option. But given Holmlid's recent work aren't such new approaches worthwhile investigating? Positive results would confirm the -muon catalysed fusion reaction and progress BEC to more efficient energy production - Robert Godes has visited Norront Fusion recently and is probably aware of such potential- its a very difficult engineering problem of how to modify the existing system to incorporate laser pulse stimulation, catalyst incorporation, hydrogen pressure control etc. Maybe they're working on it already!
From the latest patent application posted by Ahlfors from Norront AS it would seem that the authors could still be using something similar to the K/Fe2O3 catalysts used by Holmlid, but these are just a possible way to obtain Rydberg matter/UDH by thermal emission, and other materials will work as well as Holmlid himself points out. In principle any catalytic surface that efficiently dissociates hydrogen molecules and prevents the atoms from recombining to the molecular form as long as possible should work. A combination of a metallic catalyst and a non-metallic support in close proximity where hydrogen atoms can accumulate should be suitable too.
They are certainly running a screening programme looking for other potential UDD catalysts under the guidance of Holmlid and other senior team members.
Target optimization studies for surface muon production ["conventional" physics, Rutherford Laboratory]
>>> a screening programme looking for other potential UDD catalysts <<<
... "Rydberg Matter has been observed on ... several catalysts" ...
Office action for A modular apparatus for generating energetic particles, energy conversion, capture, and storage
... and Zeiner-Gundersen answer
Au contraire, Holmlid application WO2018093312 APPARATUS FOR GENERATING MUONS WITH INTENDED USE IN A FUSION REACTOR is ok
Leif Holmlid WO2018093312 cited document and cockroach nuclear fusion breakthrough at MIT
http://postflaviana.org/haroch…lear-fusion-breakthrough/
... "By 1997, Jacobson had seemingly moved on from his postdoctoral interest in the quantum theory of Schrodinger’s cat. He joined MIT’s media lab, where he headed the “molecular machines” group, and developed a “microsphere” technology for electronic information displays. He also became an entrepreneur, and founded E-Ink, a company that used the microsphere technology to implement the display for the original (“paperwhite”) Kindle as well as other products.
However, apparently his past was not completely left behind. In 2006, Jacobson filed a remarkable patent application. A veritable grab bag of wonders, the patent proposes four different methods to achieve desktop nuclear fusion. As the patent states:
Systems and methods are described for carrying out fusion reactions by changing either the Coulombic energy barrier or the reaction cross section or both. Such systems and methods are useful for creating fusion reactions which exceed energy breakeven (Q>1) and which have a relatively low cost and compact size.http://www.google.com/patents/US20080008286
The patent application is strangely defiant of the basic rules of the patent office. An elementary principle is that a patent should describe a single invention, no more than that. Putting three inventions in one application only guarantees that two of them must be ultimately filtered out. Furthermore, in order to get a patent awarded, an inventor must ..."
Never said it was, but getting published in peer reviewed journals is key. And also, not easy at all with such a controversial research, but he managed to get several published and only one retracted.
Nice one Holmlid - its not atomic physics! That's a good circumnavigation of the status quo! Anyway, it would certainly be worth the NASA group working on a fission/fusion reactor (Mosier-Boss & Forsley) looking into the UDH-generating muons story so they may eventually come up with a powerful fusion reactor. They never detected negative muons in their co-deposition experiments but their existence could have been obscured by other radiation/particles. Similarly Brillouin Energy Corp. might obtain better COP values by incorporating Rydberg Matter catalysts in reactor cores (Al2O3 probably works but KFeO2 styrene dehydrogenation catalysts probably work much better). Be nice if this knocked the COP up to 10 - probably need to evacuate/remove any nitrogen from their hot-tubes too and switch to laser pulses instead of Q-pulses.
In fact the key thing is not just getting published in peer reviewed journals, but communicating with others in the field so that they get interested, read your publications, and do their own work to confirm or deny them, or to investigate relate phenomena.
Holmlid has done well with publication (he obeys the style and content rules and thus writes easily publishable papers). However he has not managed to interest many other academics (maybe no-one except his own students - I'm not sure). I know this because I always evaluate peer reviewed papers by doing a citation search and seeing what other people say about the work. Typically you find a whole load of self citations, sometimes some "same group" or "student from same group moved elsewhere" citations, and then the independent citations.
The independent citations are the most interesting. These can be:
Holmlid needs more independent citations from mainstream papers of types 1 - 4. At least that was the case when i last looked a year ago or so.
THH
Display MoreLeif Holmlid WO2018093312 cited document and cockroach nuclear fusion breakthrough at MIT
http://postflaviana.org/haroch…lear-fusion-breakthrough/
... "By 1997, Jacobson had seemingly moved on from his postdoctoral interest in the quantum theory of Schrodinger’s cat. He joined MIT’s media lab, where he headed the “molecular machines” group, and developed a “microsphere” technology for electronic information displays. He also became an entrepreneur, and founded E-Ink, a company that used the microsphere technology to implement the display for the original (“paperwhite”) Kindle as well as other products.
However, apparently his past was not completely left behind. In 2006, Jacobson filed a remarkable patent application. A veritable grab bag of wonders, the patent proposes four different methods to achieve desktop nuclear fusion. As the patent states:
Systems and methods are described for carrying out fusion reactions by changing either the Coulombic energy barrier or the reaction cross section or both. Such systems and methods are useful for creating fusion reactions which exceed energy breakeven (Q>1) and which have a relatively low cost and compact size.http://www.google.com/patents/US20080008286
The patent application is strangely defiant of the basic rules of the patent office. An elementary principle is that a patent should describe a single invention, no more than that. Putting three inventions in one application only guarantees that two of them must be ultimately filtered out. Furthermore, in order to get a patent awarded, an inventor must ..."
That comment perhaps ignores the main utility of patents where the things patented are very far from any actual commercial use and maybe don't work - as PR
Display MoreIn fact the key thing is not just getting published in peer reviewed journals, but communicating with others in the field so that they get interested, read your publications, and do their own work to confirm or deny them, or to investigate relate phenomena.
Holmlid has done well with publication (he obeys the style and content rules and thus writes easily publishable papers). However he has not managed to interest many other academics (maybe no-one except his own students - I'm not sure). I know this because I always evaluate peer reviewed papers by doing a citation search and seeing what other people say about the work. Typically you find a whole load of self citations, sometimes some "same group" or "student from same group moved elsewhere" citations, and then the independent citations.
The independent citations are the most interesting. These can be:
- directly supportive. Agree with mechanism and/or confirm result
- non-supportive. confirm result but investigate and suggest a different (less interesting) mechanism
- contradictory. claim different results from the same experiment
- enhancing. Show evidence from some other area that tends to support the thesis of the paper (in the case of LENR there is a lot of this, but the connections are often tenuous)
- motivated by. Some different hypothesis is examined and the paper is cited because it shows (often on a superficial reading) evidence which might motivate the work. People tend to do a very complete LS and add as potential motivation anything that loosely might do that, so these citations often say nothing about the merits of the original paper.
Holmlid needs more independent citations from mainstream papers of types 1 - 4. At least that was the case when i last looked a year ago or so.
THH
I agree, but in the case of building support for a patent application from the theoretical/ experimental point of view you don’t need to have many citations, just peer reviewed will do. Also, Holmlid was independently replicated early and the replicator became an associate soon after.
But WIPO don't ignore that the [obviously inoperative] Holmid's WO2018093312 follows from the [obviously inoperative] Jacobson's US20080008286. What remains [i.d. postflaviana.org etc] is blog.
But WIPO don't ignore that the [obviously inoperative] Holmid's WO2018093312 follows from the [obviouly inoperative] Jacobson's US20080008286. What remains [i.d. postflaviana.org etc] is blog.
So you are saying that WO2018093312 is not going to be granted because US20080008286 was abandoned? I just read the patentability report and it got green light to advance in the process, at least as of today.
@THH Agreed - they need their work verified and publicised more widely - and also need to understand the underlying mechanism of meson production using such low energy (100 W) lasers from UDD/H. One idea I had is that the spontaneous level he reports could be due to background radiation absorption by such extremely dense matter, maybe even of the most prolific known particles neutrinos or anti neutrinos (which Parkhomov has recently proposed being involved in cold fusion) Pure idle speculation, I know, but the limitations of our understanding due to the SM of QM etc make practically any theory possible. So to theorize neutrino/antineutrino interaction with ultra dense D or H would create Z-bosons which have sufficient mass to collide with P of D to release photons. Providing resonant laser photons would drive this nuclear weak interaction to provide sufficient energy for Z-boson collisions to fragment protons releasing mesons, maybe? Several different theories are possible & its difficult to design experiments to distinguish between them - but what is highly likely is that common principles probably underly both Holmlid's and Mills' work
"Obviously inoperative" Holmlid
- ask Miley, Hora, Forsley [2009, left],
- ask Kotzias/Airbus [2015, right].
"Obviously inoperative" Jacobson
Kindle is on shelf, not the mesonic reactor [2006].
