Experimental Instrument For Rydberg Matter Research (University of Iceland)

...

The actual document from the EPO register describes more in detail what's their problem with the application.

https://register.epo.org/appli…870991&lng=en&tab=doclist

"own publications.."

that is a problem that Sindre will also have.. and that Mills also has.

The Chinese publication on Rydberg potassium matter was theoretical only

But as the patent examiner points out

the main problem is that the evidence for the dense hydrogen state is thin... it needs some triangulation .. other evidence

the measurement of the properties of the dense hydrogen state

- density,magnetic moment? is an experimental challenge

Mills has not yet achieved that although he has characterised a ~500 Ev formation engy output for what he calls

the H2(1/4) dimer..

as Wyttenbach has calculated ..the conversion of protons of 938 Mev to Kaons with 991 Mev

just using 2.3 eV of laser enefgy

is impossible by Standard Model Physics..

in addition Holmlid is not a theoretical physicist and his explanation for the exptal result is vague.

I guess the conventional people at Livermore.. CERN have just dismissed this result ...

and most finance and effort and instruments in nuclear physics are being channelled into conventional projects.

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

Good find. This seems to be more severe. Holmlid's references are mainly to his own publications.

Maybe the first publication of Holmlid on UDH/UDD contains some independent references.

I think he might try submitting related works by independent authors on the superconducting properties of hydrogen clusters in porous materials like Pd, or theoretical studies pointing out that hydrogen could form a quantum material similar to what has been observed with UDH, but if the patent office wants fully independent studies on ultra-dense hydrogen H(0) (and nothing else) written by authors who are not or have not been Holmlid's coauthors, then I'm afraid that such studies don't exist yet.

Perhaps some works by Hora–Prelas–Miley could support Holmlid's (from the EPO's point of view), but the occasionally cited "inverted Rydberg matter" description is not up to date anymore with Holmlid's latest thinking.

A couple examples:

http://coldfusioncommunity.net…18/07/234_JCMNS-Vol13.pdf

https://mospace.umsystem.edu/x…esentation.pdf;sequence=1

Quote from can

Perhaps some works by Hora–Prelas–Miley could support Holmlid's

there is if course Mills.. but he is also not very well cited..support?

Mills' theoretical predictions about H2(1/4) are much more specific about dense H2 than Holmlid's.

Mills has some detiled predictions of magnetic behaviour based on spin moment..

Like Holmlid .. Mills postulates the dense matter forming aggregates in Ch.16 of GUTCP..

but Holmlid has

hydrogen multimers with the form (H2)N, with N = 7, 14, 19, 37 and 61 (Wang & Holmlid 2000a)

whereas Mills has h2, h2(2) h2(3) h2(4) etc.. where h2 may be his H2(1/4) dimer( the only one he has evidence for)

Also the exptal (131) support reference for Mills has not been published yet..

and the Hagen reference a bit difficult to work out...

EPR or ESR is a bit like NMR... but it may need some $ and expertise to get it to work properly..

It would great to see the (131) evidence some time soon 2020?

I don't think Holmlid is going to cite Mills. Also the patent office seems to want independent studies about ultra-dense hydrogen or well-accepted theoretical studies justifying its existence, not similar aggregates that could themselves be regarded as not independently confirmed.

Quote from can

I don't think Holmlid is going to cite Mills

Me neither.. Mills has 18 picometers for his H2(1/4) interprotonic distance... Holmlid has 2.3 picometers..

But ESR might be a useful technique for Sindre to get acquainted with to look at electron spin..

Rob Woudenberg

It seems they are considering an ideal scenario where the hypothetical interstellar rocket could be engineered so that that high-energy particles emitted by the reaction—possibly also those decaying at some distance from the laser target—could advantageously reflect off thick layers of H(0) and still contribute to the thrust.

Quote

Many of the particles formed can penetrate far through normal materials, thus an equal number of particles may be ejected in all directions giving no directed thrust. The simple inherent solution to this is to see to that thick layers of ultra-dense hydrogen are formed on the target which prevents the penetration by reflecting the mesons from these layers. This effect was studied for ions in Refs. [25].

I thought that the first application as a deep space thruster for LENRs would be a diafluid effect motor powered by fusion diodes, but I may be wrong:

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2020/05/164531.html

I just noticed Norront have put a page on their website about a "Powerplant MK1"

http://www.norrontfusion.com/m…talysed-fusion-powerplant

Condo heating with tritium blend ... brilliant. From space propulsion to home basament ... very wide range. Ask Neil Woodford.

https://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/pu…g_tritium_info-0796_e.pdf

Neutron shielding will cover both the Muon sources and the fusion vessel.

http://www.norrontfusion.com/m…talysed-fusion-powerplant

There is some ash!

This won't surprise the Neanderthals..

"The harmful radiation from such fusion power generators is mainly in the form of neutrons from the fusion reactions.

Thus, thick radiation shields are necessary as for almost all other fusion concepts."

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

The 15 kW is a bit of a surprise to me as this conflicts with numbers given by Holmlid's paper "Existing Source for Muon-Catalyzed Nuclear Fusion Can Give Megawatt Thermal Fusion Generator".

For comparison: the central gas heater in my Dutch home has a nominal power output of 22 kW.

Looks like they did not want to include power caused by meson decay although this design includes a 'muon thermalizer'.

This does not look like a wise promotion.

That paper mentions too a starting 15 kW output power, excluding the energy from the initial mesons (eq. 5, section V).

https://www.tandfonline.com/do…080/15361055.2018.1546090

But then Holmlid also states that the power of the decay of the initial mesons would be 220 kW (eq. 7), which on a first sight doesn't make the complications from having to deal with tritium to reach higher outputs (slowly over time) very attractive. Also, protium (ordinary hydrogen) would work too, as even the latest paper on the interstellar rocket points out.

...unless producing tritium in large amounts is actually the point.