Experimental Instrument For Rydberg Matter Research (University of Iceland)

  • 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.

  • The concept of having a heater in a shipping container that initially generates 15 kW of heat and only slowly (years) will have a higher power capacity is commercially not attractive.

    The construction is dimentioned such that it can deliver 500 kW, so why not control the number of fusions in such way that it is able to generate 500 kW all the time.


    I would be much more interested in technology that converts the annihilation energy rather than fusion energy.

  • 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


    Today an update was posted with Norront's reply.

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


  • The concept of having a heater in a shipping container that initially generates 15 kW of heat and only slowly (years) will have a higher power capacity is commercially not attractive.

    The construction is dimentioned such that it can deliver 500 kW, so why not control the number of fusions in such way that it is able to generate 500 kW all the time.


    I would be much more interested in technology that converts the annihilation energy rather than fusion energy.

    We should use the best source for human needs and convenience. I don't understand the fixation on fusion considering the options below it and maybe above it. If hydrogen can be converted to high energy electrons directly, as well as pico-hydride chemistry producing blacklight and soft X-ray level energies practically.... Why do we need to use these proccesses too enhance fusion again?? Pico-chemistry is an optimum oxidative chemistry, radioisotope decay and fission replacement; atomic annialation to energetic muons is better than fusion, best for the most high energy applications.


    Interesting update can !

  • I extracted a higher resolution version of the previous diagram:


    Deuterium will be used in the high pressure fusion vessel, while Hydrogen (protium) will be used to produce the high energy negative muons.

    The reason for choosing fusion might be that conversion of energy caused by annihilation is much more complicated and methods not yet be available.

    Maybe research funding is currently too limited to go for the best choices.


    B.t.w. Tritium — $30,000 per gram. Not bad as a byproduct ;)

  • Deuterium will be used in the high pressure fusion vessel, while Hydrogen will be used to produce the high energy negative muons.

    The reason for choosing fusion might be that conversion of energy caused by annihilation is much more complicated.

    Seeing that hydrogen is more plentiful and we desire simplicity and safety for our hydrogen reactor, the set up that seems the most intuitive is using *H2 formation itself. You eliminate many of the complications as you essentially end up with really high energy chemistry.

  • LeBob

    My understanding (which could be incorrect) is that the form of H(0) that releases energy to the surroundings upon formation is also the form that supports the annihilation-like nuclear reactions.


    So, by producing useful amounts of what could be named high-energy chemistry, it's sort of implied that significant energy in the form of nuclear reactions could potentially be released, if one wanted to.


    Rob Woudenberg

    Tritium is not necessarily a byproduct, depending on the point of view. In the 1MW paper it's incidentally pointed out that "alternatively, the reactor may be employed as a tritium-producing equipment, with gas separation and regeneration".


    As for the EPO, I'm afraid they were looking for more convincing information.

  • Rob Woudenberg

    Tritium is not necessarily a byproduct, depending on the point of view. In the 1MW paper it's incidentally pointed out that "alternatively, the reactor may be employed as a tritium-producing equipment, with gas separation and regeneration".

    True, Tritium could all be converted to He of course (dtμ+4He2 + n + μ- + 17.6 MeV).

    It would need a spreadsheet to calculate where the economical sweetspot would be if selling off Tritium is also considered besides selling heat.

  • LeBob

    My understanding (which could be incorrect) is that the form of H(0) that releases energy to the surroundings upon formation is also the form that supports the annihilation-like nuclear reactions.


    So, by producing useful amounts of what could be named high-energy chemistry, it's sort of implied that significant energy in the form of nuclear reactions could potentially be released, if one wanted to.

    I see. What about the hydrino picohydride polymer, white web like, material that Mills is producing? I was sure *H2 (possibly in a polymerised form) would be significantly more stable than regular chemical compounds and the most radioactive majority of isotopes. Something with useful material qualities like graphene. I'm thinking it's the condensed large liquid clusters of *H that are prone to annialation like reactions.

  • LeBob

    According to Holmlid, the large (or long, chain-like) clusters are those with super properties (superfluidity, superconductivity). Due to these properties they do not seem to release well their condensation energy to the environment, but instead retain it in a form of internal excitation. This also means they will oscillate back and forth to the less dense form called Rydberg matter. See section 4 here: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/ab1276


    The clusters that support the nuclear reactions are the small ones that do not have super properties: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10876-018-1480-5

    These clusters can easily release their condensation energy to the environment. Once they do, they should be stable.


    The ones described above are clusters composed of only hydrogen/deuterium atoms in the densest form.

    Mills' Hydrino polymer could be something different—possibly more similar to Rydberg matter—and picohydrides as theorized by Dufour may also have completely different properties.

  • I think the difference is Mills' hydride polymers are formed from already condensed hydrogen and seem to be relatively stable and interactive. They still apparently have strange magnetic properties and are very chemically stable, according to what his company says.

  • https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/ab1276


    The geometry of the chain clusters is still slightly uncertain.

    The assumption derived from ordinary RM is that the two electron orbits in a H–H pair are coplanar. However, with l = 0 there is no planar motion of the electrons at all and the orientation of the electron motion in the 'zitterbewegung' is thought to be unspecified.

    Thus, almost any shape of the clusters may seem possible.

    However, since the free rotation of the H–H pairs is observed in the rotational spectroscopy (Holmlid 2017a, 2018a),

    a structure with strongly interacting coplanar pairs is virtually excluded.

    Thus, the normally depicted cluster structure as in figure 10 is still the best visualization of the chain clusters.

    Figure 10.


  • Any info on how the properties of what Holmid observed in results compare to the resulting polymers observed by Mills et la? Like binding strength of these clusters? Some are saying they fall apart and spontaneously produce energy in some circumstances and in others it's a super durable interesting material.

  • Rob Woudenberg The thrust is not provided by the muons it is by the reaction they catalyse, ie the fusion reaction. You would somehow restrict the muons within the engine to cause fusion with supplied ultradense hydrogen or deuterium, like a hydrogen bomb up your backside. Only joking, but thats what all this is about, a slow controlled release of energy rather than it all going off at once.

  • Rob Woudenberg The thrust is not provided by the muons it is by the reaction they catalyse, ie the fusion reaction. You would somehow restrict the muons within the engine to cause fusion with supplied ultradense hydrogen or deuterium, like a hydrogen bomb up your backside. Only joking, but thats what all this is about, a slow controlled release of energy rather than it all going off at once.


    I discussed this with Holmlid at Researchgate (comment section of the posted article, requires member login).
    He responded that only muons that collide back to the rocket contribute to thrust and that this is subject to be investigated for confirmation.

    My personal doubt is whether muons will move in other directions than the directions of pre-decayed kaons that left the rocket.

    Kaons with a certain speed and mass have a certain momentum. If these kaons decay into muons with an opposite direction they will loose momentum and therefore loose speed.


    There are no fusion reactions involved here, at least the paper does not mention them, it indicates that only kinetic energy of kaons and muons contribute to pushing forward a rocket.

    This is all based on SM physics model, the SO(4) physics model may have different outcome.

    Maybe Wyttenbach has a different view on this. Jürg,do you have any comments?

  • Thanks for the clarification!