Ultra-dense hydrogen and Rydberg matter—a more informal general discussion thread

    Thank you can, you're a gold mine when talking about UDH.


    I understand that transition states may exist between UDH and RM, and that these "highly excited UDH states" may revert to RM because of the similar energy levels involved, however this would mean the existence of excitation energy levels of several hundreds of eVs of chemical origin. To put things in perspective a covalent "strong" bond is typically in the eV range (e.g. 4.5 eV for H2 as shown in the picture). 600 eV is in a different league. And if truly the case my point still stands on how to transit from "lowly excited" UDH back to "highly excited" UDH. To have transition states does just displace the issue but not solve it.


    I'm not saying that Holmlid is wrong. Just that this claim is extraordinary. And if truly the case, that the understanding of how bonds of several hundreds of eVs can be created between a group of protons and electrons would be a huge step forward in the understanding of UDH.

    Rob Woudenberg

    I initially wrote 'orbit', but then I realized that it is not supposed to actually be an ordinary orbital motion according to what has been described, so I deleted that word. It should be clearer to say that the radius, scale or atom-atom distances shrink.


    EDIT: I removed the comment since in the end that did not really answer JulianBianchi's question. Before doing that, I saved a copy locally just in case, however.

    Quote from JulianBianchi

    'm not saying that Holmlid is wrong. Just that this claim is extraordinary. And if truly the case, that the understanding of how bonds of several hundreds of eVs can be created between a group of protons and electrons would be a huge step forward in the understanding of UDH.

    May be you missed it: Mills did measure the H*-H* bond as 495eV. Homlid's data is problematic as he has no H*-H*. He has clusters of them (H*n) where other resonant couplings do occur too.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    May be you missed it: Mills did measure the H*-H* bond as 495eV. Homlid's data is problematic as he has no H*-H*. He has clusters of them (H*n) where other resonant couplings do occur too.

    I admit that I don't follow anymore Mills. I read his Theory of Everything maybe 10y ago and found so many discrepancies that I gave up.


    If Mills measured 495eV, it is actually in the same range as Holmlid (~600eV). My point is that if the bond energy is truly in that range I cannot see how UDH can revert to RM where electrons excitation levels are max in the 20eV range.


    What is the distance between 2 protons in Mills model?

    Quote from JulianBianchi

    My point is that if the bond energy is truly in that range I cannot see how UDH can revert to RM where electrons excitation levels are max in the 20eV range.

    Mills has no model! (Di-Hydrinos 1/4 are some% off) He measured H*-H* from the SUN-CELL output the only fusion machine that can run with a COP >3 for hours now.

    The true structure of UDH you can read up in my work as it is not a deep electron bound molecule. H*-H* is proton spin paired matter! As a consequence the field energy of H*-H* is lower due to a topology change. The effective work-function for Rydberg electrons is 4.5 eV. This is measured (Stelomachowski,..., Holmlid) and also from model.


    Wyttenbach

    Just to clarify, the graph you cited from this source is showing the desorption signal from potassium atoms, not H.


    The signal variation with voltage depends on various factors, it's not fixed.

    For example, in this other study, again for potassium atoms but different catalyst type, the peak is at about 10–11V:



    Note that the caption is switched with Figure 5, so I changed it with the correct one.

    On this point again:


    Quote from JulianBianchi

    Thank you can, you're a gold mine when talking about UDH.


    I understand that transition states may exist between UDH and RM, and that these "highly excited UDH states" may revert to RM because of the similar energy levels involved, however this would mean the existence of excitation energy levels of several hundreds of eVs of chemical origin. To put things in perspective a covalent "strong" bond is typically in the eV range (e.g. 4.5 eV for H2 as shown in the picture). 600 eV is in a different league. And if truly the case my point still stands on how to transit from "lowly excited" UDH back to "highly excited" UDH. To have transition states does just displace the issue but not solve it.


    I'm not saying that Holmlid is wrong. Just that this claim is extraordinary. And if truly the case, that the understanding of how bonds of several hundreds of eVs can be created between a group of protons and electrons would be a huge step forward in the understanding of UDH.


    Although the highly excited UDH clusters (presumably possessing hundreds of eV of internal energy) are suggested to be able to easily revert to RM, I am not sure if the same holds true also for the lowly excited ones, or at least I don't remember reading direct suggestion of this.


    In any case, for what it's worth:


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

    Quote

    That H(0) is superfluid also means that its internal rotations in the clusters are free and not hindered by the surrounding H(0) phase. This is similar to the free and undisturbed rotations of molecules inside superfluid He clusters (Fröchtenicht et al 1994, Goyal et al 1994). In figure 12, the inter-conversion from H(1) to H(0) ends up in high rotational states which do not lose their energy rapidly due to this unhindered rotation. This means that the system can oscillate back and forth between H(0) and H(1), as observed directly in real time by the CE experiments (Badiei et al 2010b).


    It seems that the key point is in the rotational states mentioned here. The "lowly excited states" with energy in the few eV range have been observed with optical spectroscopy, whose results have been also cited in the same review in section 2.2 ("Rotational spectra").


    The calculated peaks seem in agreement with experimental results, suggesting that they are due to small p/D groups rotating at picometer distances as indicated. I tried doing the calculations as well and they seem to be in general agreement with Holmlid's.


    It should be possible to extend these up to the hundreds eV energies, but I don't know enough about this particular topic to tell much more than this (i.e. other than "shut up and calculate"). Example below for rotating D–D pairs in state s=4 and table from Holmlid in https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molstruc.2016.10.091


    Rob Woudenberg

    Useful general overview on the subject, mostly summarizing Holmld's research on Rydberg matter and in very general terms background information on the catalysts used for its production. I would have expected some original data on the catalysts from Norront, though.


    Curiously, there is no direct mention of ultra-dense hydrogen in the section where Holmlid's calorimetric experiment is cited (section "Producing heat") or other papers where the observations were actually ascribed to UDH rather than the 'ordinary' RM form.


    Quote

    Aasen, T.H., Zeiner-Gundersen, D.H., Zeiner-Gundersen, S. et al. A Condensed Excited (Rydberg) Matter: Perspective and Applications. J Clust Sci (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10876-021-02031-6

    Quote from can

    I would have expected some original data on the catalysts from Norront

    When Norront will reveal progress on improved catalyst is a big question. I am not too optimistic on this.
    It's a commercial company that struggles with the fact that Holmlid´s patent application seems to become rejected, since they have to link specific catalysts to Ultra Dense Hydrogen/Deuterium of which the Patent Office requested independent confirmation.

    This leaves them currently the (only) option to go for the ´trade secret´ path, meaning they will never publish their improved catalyst(s).

    Rob Woudenberg

    I think at least data from commercially-available catalysts or simple model catalysts (e.g. just using K2CO3–Fe2O3) would have not caused serious IP issues, and could have supported the notion that the reported observations by Holmlid and his colleagues are not exceedingly complex to arrange and reproduce.

    • Official Post

    There's no point in patenting a novel catalyst, because that means you have to tell everybody what it is. You are better off patenting the apparatus that produces the effect when using the catalyst. Then you are not obliged to disclose exactly what the catalyst is but can say.for example 'a suitable catalyst may be made from various combinations of compounds containing, but not exclusively, some or all of the following elements, Li, Ru, K, Na, Fe, Ni, Cu, Pt.


    By the time somebody has picked the bones out of that the sun will have gone Nova and you will have a commercial lead.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    There's no point in patenting a novel catalyst, because that means you have to tell everybody what it is.

    If an inventor is able to get a grand to his patent application describing the details of a catalyst and the process(es) it is used for, nobody without a license may use it for the claimed process(es). The essence of a granted patent is that sufficient details are available for those skilled in the art to reproduce what is claimed.

    We have had that discussion more often in the past, but patenting a method is far better than patenting an apparatus.
    A slight modification to a granted apparatus patent will allow for license free use of such modified apparatus.

    Several efficient methods. Measure time of flight on ions in the chamber, Or measure pressure fluctuations or aim a pmt with aluminium foil towards the chamber. If ions have velocity above 4% of c, you see pressure fluctuations or the radiation increases you have udh....

    • Official Post
    Quote from SindreZG

    Btw, udh is the most common material in the universe. Just because we cant see or measure it in many experiments due to lack of sensor technology doesnt mean its not there... its everywhere...

    SindreZG , are you aware of a broadly similar claim about what Randell Mills calls Hydrinos? Sorry if this is an odd question, but I had to ask, many of us think that Mills is doing something that creates UDH but he insists in his theory and doesn't seem to see the similarity even to the cosmological level.

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.