Formation of Ultra Dense Hydrogen/Deuterium : Holmlid / LENR-Cars

    Quote from Rob Woudenberg

    A bit offtopic to this thread but still related to UDH formation: What would be the options for formation of UDH using plasma technology?

    Hydrogen plasma is an excellent source of atomic Hydrogen (think of atomic H welding equipment).

    Combining this with the presence of suitable catalyst(s) it would be possible to form UDH, right? (having Safire project in mind, and early demo of Andrea Rossi, showing plasma device).


    Possibly a dusty environment will work better. Condensation to Rydberg matter (first) and the ultra-dense form (after) releases energy and this condensation energy must be removed, otherwise the clusters will revert back to their higher form. The solid particles (or other surfaces) where adsorption/desorption takes place would act as an energy sink.


    This is in part explained in a 2002 paper in reference to Rydberg matter (paywalled), for example in this excerpt:



    or briefly mentioned more recently for example in the review paper relatively to the ultra-dense form, where the issue is more difficult:


    Quote

    [...] As discussed above, the formation of H(0) goes over states H(l) and down to H(1). The transfer from H(1) to H(0) is quite complex, since the energy given off by the H(0) cluster formation will mainly be taken up as rotational energy in the clusters. Due to their super properties, they will not easily transfer or lose this energy to the surroundings. This process is included in figure 12, and this figure indicates that the higher state H(1) will be reformed, if the excess condensation energy cannot be removed. Thus, the spontaneous condensation to H(0) is normally a slow process.

    • Official Post
    Quote from can

    Another unmentioned issue is that the presence of magnetic fields (particularly changing) can negatively affect the transition to the ultra-dense form and that it's important to keep them down. This was—I was told—a reason why when Holmlid started probing UDH on surfaces away from the catalyst (which was indirectly heated with an AC current) he obtained better results and also started seeing larger amounts of ultra-dense protium, which seems more sensitive to these issues than deuterium.


    This is more complex than it at first appears. All of my reactors were heated with DC, so the solenoid heater coil created a fairly strong and unchanging magnetic field around the core. This was a deliberate choice for practical and safety reasons - less chance of electric shock, but also changing to low voltage allowed me to use thicker wire for the heater (0.9mm) for longevity and raised the current level giving me more amperes per turn and a stronger field. Later experiments with both 50 Hz stepped-down mains power and also with a slowly varying strong bipolar magnetic field (around 20 Hz) gave very poor or zero results. But- we discovered that brief applications of a varying strong unipolar magnetic field would often 'wake-up' sleepy fuel.


    In this context it is worth mentioning that Parkhomov, Focardi and Piantelli and Rossi used grid-powered heaters stepped down with a Variac, or in rossi's case 'frequencies'. I doubt they were all wrong. So it seems there is much more to learn about this.

    Quote from can

    Possibly a dusty environment will work better. Condensation to Rydberg matter (first) and the ultra-dense form (after) releases energy and this condensation energy must be removed, otherwise the clusters will revert back to their higher form. The solid particles (or other surfaces) where adsorption/desorption takes place would act as an energy sink.


    Yes, this seems more suitable where UDH needs to exists for a longer time.

    But a construction with plasma + catalyst where UDH is instantly (or constantly) triggered to create energy , before reverting back to its higher form, may work as well don't you think?


    In fact it may be beneficial to have this reverting back effect where accumulation of UDH is undesired.

    Triggering only the real time produced UDH will allow for the control of the desired amount of energy to be produced in such reactors, assuming the real time production of UDH can be controlled by simple means (gas flow, High Voltage, etc.)

    Rob Woudenberg

    I could be wrong but so far my interpretation was that the small non-superfluid UDH clusters where nuclear reactions can take place (as previously mentioned) are also those which have already given off their condensation energy to the environment, and are therefore in a stable, non-excited state and won't easily revert back to higher forms.


    Alan Smith

    It's possible that a constant magnetic field may still be useful for the formation of higher levels of Rydberg matter, but not the lower (denser) forms which have super properties. Holmlid's group hasn't made detailed studies with easily configurable magnetic fields so there is no clear information on this regard.

    Alan Smith

    how are you doing a Lochak like unipolar magnetic field ?


    Quote from Alan Smith

    This is more complex than it at first appears. All of my reactors were heated with DC, so the solenoid heater coil created a fairly strong and unchanging magnetic field around the core. This was a deliberate choice for practical and safety reasons - less chance of electric shock, but also changing to low voltage allowed me to use thicker wire for the heater (0.9mm) for longevity and raised the current level giving me more amperes per turn and a stronger field. Later experiments with both 50 Hz stepped-down mains power and also with a slowly varying strong bipolar magnetic field (around 20 Hz) gave very poor or zero results. But- we discovered that brief applications of a varying strong unipolar magnetic field would often 'wake-up' sleepy fuel.


    In this context it is worth mentioning that Parkhomov, Focardi and Piantelli and Rossi used grid-powered heaters stepped down with a Variac, or in rossi's case 'frequencies'. I doubt they were all wrong. So it seems there is much more to learn about this.

    Quote from can

    I could be wrong but so far my interpretation was that the small non-superfluid UDH clusters where nuclear reactions can take place (as previously mentioned) are also those which have already given off their condensation energy to the environment, and are therefore in a stable, non-excited state and won't easily revert back to higher forms.


    The formation of UDH (H*-H*) frees 495eV of energy what only works with a correlated grid state. (On a catalyst surface). UDH will not fall back.


    What is a transient state is normal "electron spin pairing" based Rydberg matter that frees about 11eV/pair. This is chemical level energy taken by neighbor electrons allowing them to stay on higher orbits. At least in Hydrogen the states S1,S2,S3 are magnetically bound too. It would be interesting to see of Rydberg electrons do show the same anomalies.

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Holmlid dense hydrogen technology has similar problem like Randell Mills hydrino based technology: if they should generate an energy, then the resulting form of hydrogen should be thermodynamically very stable and widespread into account of this normal one. Which keeps me in belief, they're both bogus and if some energy generation is involved, then it's overunity effect. This doesn't imply, that dense hydrogen or even hydrino couldn't exist after all - but only as a metastable volatile form of matter.



    It is a very good point that ultra-dense hydrogen can't have lower energy state than ground state hydrogen, otherwise it would become the new ground state.

    However: if a metastable state catalyzes nuclear reactions (e.g. fusion), then the energy comes from the nucleus and not from the electron arrangement.

    Quote from Andras

    It is a very good point that ultra-dense hydrogen can't have lower energy state than ground state hydrogen, otherwise it would become the new ground state.

    However: if a metastable state catalyzes nuclear reactions (e.g. fusion), then the energy comes from the nucleus and not from the electron arrangement.

    The evidence that Dark Matter is made of hydrogen at its ground state has increased these last 2 years from so-called 21-centimeter cosmology, see here for example:

    https://www.intechopen.com/onl…in-its-lower-ground-state


    Interestingly, UDH as main component of DM does still better fulfill current observational constraints on DM, especially the one on cosmic dawn cosmic microwave background (CMB) decoupling, see e.g. this excellent study

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.06698v1

    • Official Post

    Paper (preprint) on Inertial Confinement Fusion - and Leif Holmlid's rebuttal.


    BPIF_letter_v1.pdf


    Dear authors,

    It is sad to read in your preprint that you do not understand anything about ultra-dense hydrogen H(0). This ultra-dense material is not produced by the laser. There is no base for that idea in our 50 or so published papers. To understand, read our review in Physica Scripta from 2019 (open access). The results on ultra-dense hydrogen have indeed been reproduced in other laboratories.

    There are several other errors in your preprint. You need for example to realize that the first report on sustained laser-induced fusion above break-even was published already in 2015 in AIP Advances, using ultra-dense deuterium as fuel.

    As a general comment, the history of nuclear fusion shows that the two common approaches are both impossible. There you are right. The attempt to run fusion reactions at high temperature is a tragic mistake. Besides, since both methods use tritium as fuel they should not be allowed at all. On the other hand, muon catalyzed fusion works with deuterium as fuel and is now under commercial development, using our patented muon generator.

    Other methods than muon-catalyzed fusion exist for nuclear energy generation, without large and dangerous neutron fluxes. The particle temperature reached is T K (tera-kelvin), so it is far from cold fusion. We should not build bombs, so I hope you can select a better approach than T+D for your future activities. See for example my recent paper in Acta Astronautica.

    Regards Leif Holmlid


    The source is here:- see also comment by Rob Woudenberg.


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…b0c84#fullTextFileContent

  • Alan Smith

    Changed the title of the thread from “Formation of Ultra Dense Hydrogen/Deuterium : Holmlid vs. LENR-Cars” to “Formation of Ultra Dense Hydrogen/Deuterium : Holmlid / LENR-Cars”.
    • Official Post

    It’s great to see When direct peer review happens within the context of ResearchGate. But is also very encouraging seeing Leif Holmlid firmly stating his ideas and making a strong statement about how UDH is formed and what is the role of the laser, and also stating clearly what we all here mostly agree with, that the current mainstream approaches to Fusion are completely nonsensical.


    This comment made my day. 😀

    Quote from Curbina

    ..... what we all here mostly agree with, that the current mainstream approaches to Fusion are completely nonsensical.


    This comment made my day. 😀

    Agree with the term 'mainstream', but keep an eye on Boron-Hydrogen fusion using CPA lasers. This is 'hot fusion' technology and very promising.
    It might crush any ITER promises within approximately 5 - 10 years from now. See also this recently created thread by @Rends on Marvel Fusion.

    Key is the rapid progress on CPA lasers, see also this article of Asia Times.

    • Official Post

    Rob Woudenberg , I have no doubts that there are better approaches to hot fusion, I have talked many times about The Z pinch approach, which IMHO already opened the path to aneutronic B-H fusion as it has been experimentally proven to reach 3,6 billion degrees Kelvin, that would be more than enough to trigger B-H fusion, instead of the “puny” 150 million degrees aimed for at ITER. The problem is that mainstream has steered away of these kind of approaches and favored the more nonsensical ones.


    I have also speculated that this is a politically driven reality, as any approach that makes fusion easier to reach, in the eyes of those that depend of a certain hegemony to be maintained, an easy and cheaper approach to hot fusion, is a national security nightmare.

    Quote from Curbina

    Rob Woudenberg , I have no doubts that there are better approaches to hot fusion, I have talked many times about The Z pinch approach, which IMHO already opened the path to aneutronic B-H fusion as it has been experimentally proven to reach 3,6 billion degrees Kelvin, that would be more than enough to trigger B-H fusion, instead of the “puny” 150 million degrees aimed for at ITER. The problem is that mainstream has steered away of these kind of approaches and favored the more nonsensical ones.


    I have also speculated that this is a politically driven reality, as any approach that makes fusion easier to reach, in the eyes of those that depend of a certain hegemony to be maintained, an easy and cheaper approach to hot fusion, is a national security nightmare.

    Zeta Pinch effect is certainly interesting. Maybe we should create separte (new) threads to discuss both Z-pinch progress and B-H/CPA progress to keep this thread on topic.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.