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

  • The link between chemistry and Lenr remains to be proven. I know that most of the field connects chemistry to Lenr.

    Personally, I think it wasted a lot of time focusing on this pseudo link.

    For example, where is the chemistry in the Iwamura's multilayers ?

    The company Catalytica Associates, Inc., Micheal Boudart founded, patented several processes for the production of urethanes. Looks like similar stuff that Shell developed as Shell S-105 catalyst. Something Holmlid used to produce UDD and UDH.

  • The company Catalytica Associates, Inc., Micheal Boudart founded, patented several processes for the production of urethanes. Looks like similar stuff that Shell developed as Shell S-105 catalyst. Something Holmlid used to produce UDD and UDH.

    Thanks for actually looking for the patent portfolio of that company. Although these ones for urethane production are still catalysts used in industrial-scale processes, on a first look they do not really seem very similar to the ones used by Holmlid since they are not metal oxides and are not alkali-promoted, the latter a feature that was deemed important in his latest paper on the catalysts used for UDH production.


    It looks like these catalysts are mainly of the metallic type (Palladium, Ruthenium or Rhodium-based), which will however still work well for dissociating molecular hydrogen efficiently. Then, if the support is carbon, or if carbon is deposited from the reactions involved (which will most certainly happen), it would still be viable overall as a catalyst for UDH production, at least according to what has been suggested in that paper.


    The link between chemistry and Lenr remains to be proven. I know that most of the field connects chemistry to Lenr.

    Personally, I think it wasted a lot of time focusing on this pseudo link.

    For example, where is the chemistry in the Iwamura's multilayers ?

    If the bonds of the hydrogen atoms desorbing into the gaps that presumably exist between one layer and another are affected, wouldn't it still be chemistry?

  • The link between chemistry and Lenr remains to be proven. I know that most of the field connects chemistry to Lenr.

    Personally, I think it wasted a lot of time focusing on this pseudo link.

    For example, where is the chemistry in the Iwamura's multilayers ?

    Chemistry provided the tools to prove cold fusion. In chemistry as well as in nuclear reactions there is a reaction equation. To show a reaction one does a mass balance. What elements and in what concentration are present before and after a proposed reaction occurs? Accurate measurements can be within 2-3 ppm. Stiochiometry is used show that for any reaction reactants disappear in proportion to products appearing.


    The proven reaction was 7 deuterium and 1 oxygen disappear to produce 2 hydrogen and 2 nitrogen. In ppm the numbers were 9061 ppm nitrogen, -4805 ppm, 9792 ppm hydrogen and -29877 ppm deuterium.


    You can look up my reports via this forum. There really is no excuse to claim cold fusion doesn't happen. Look at my analysis and show me where it is wrong. Otherwise offer an apology.

  • A preprint was recently uploaded on ResearchSquare by Leif Holmlid:


    Charge Asymmetry of Muons Generated by Laser- Induced Nuclear Processes in Ultra-dense Hydrogen D(0) and p(0)
    Research Square is a preprint platform that makes research communication faster, fairer, and more useful.
    www.researchsquare.com


    Quote from Abstract

    Laser-induced nuclear reactions in ultra-dense hydrogen H(0) (review in Physica Scripta 2019) give mesons (kaons and pions) which decay to muons. The process which gives the mesons is baryon annihilation (Holmlid, J. Hydrogen Energy 2021; Holmlid and Olafsson, High Energy Density Phys. 2021). The sign of the muons detected depends on the initial baryons, with D(0) in the meson source producing mainly positive muons and p(0) producing mainly negative muons. This charge asymmetry was reported in Holmlid and Olafsson (Heliyon 2019), and has been confirmed by later experiments with a coil current transformer as beam detector , also in another lab (unpublished). The current coil detector would give no signal from the muons if charge symmetry existed. The charge asymmetry of the muons seems first to be at variance with charge conservation. An analysis of the results which includes charge conservation is given here. It agrees with the standard model of particle physics. Using D(0), the asymmetry is, as previously, proposed to be due to capture of µ- in D atoms and D2 molecules. This gives emission of mainly µ+ and a fraction of > 50% of µ+ from D(0). In p(0), the capture rate of µ- is lower than in D(0). The emitted number of µ+ will be decreased by reaction between µ+ and abundant electrons, forming muonium particles. This effect decreases the fraction of emitted µ+ for both p(0) and D(0), and it is proposed to be the main reason for a larger fraction of emitted µ- in the case of p(0).


    Supplementary file (appendix) focused on the nuclear reaction steps, including the formation of the "quasineutrons":

    https://assets.researchsquare.com/files/rs-493124/v1/e7a2a3d9275048a5e7c482c3.doc



  • Here is a screenshot from this article...

    I am against this author's reasoning - "This is a process called β-capture. As indicated, both the baryon and lepton numbers are conserved in this reaction. Charge is also conserved. Spin is easily conserved, also including the simultaneous transfer in H (0 ) from s = 2 to s = 1 (from L = ħ to L = ħ / 2). Thus, this reaction agrees with the standard model of particle physics. "


    This is all false science! Understand this! I expose this lie! This lies is relayed from one article to another article!

    I'm already tired of explaining to everyone - there is no such reaction - "e-capture", the fulfillment of the "law of conservation of energy"! This is a lie ! There is no such law ... And there is no neutrino in nature ...

    And what is in nature? And there is a "law of conservation of mass"!

    Look closely at this reaction from the point of view of this law -

    1р1 + e + [ether - the mass, which is equal to 1.531me] → 0n1

    ∆m = m1р1 + me- + 1.531 • me - m0n1 = (1.007276466879 + 0.0005485799 + 1.530987739 • 0.0005485799 - 1.008 664 915 88) amu. = 0.0 amu

    ∆E = ∆m • c^2


    ∆E = 0.0 amu • 1,661 • 10^-27 kg / amu. • 9 • 10^16 m^2 / s^2 = 0.0 • 10^-13 J = 0 MeV


    Now ask yourself the question - "Where is the place for neutrinos in these equations ???"

    And there is no place for neutrinos ... And rightly so! Why is it correct? And because there are no neutrinos in nature! The experimenters who allegedly conducted experiments to detect neutrinos were wrong - they misinterpreted the results of their research and mistakenly took the interaction of photons with matter for "interaction of neutrinos with matter" - this is a public deception!


    The phrase "Charge is also conserved." is a deception of physicists. There is no "electric charge" in nature!


  • Let me explain with this example -

    From Wikipedia - the mass of neutrinos is less than 0.28 eV, but not zero for all flavors ...

    Eή = mήC^2 = 0.28 eV

    Thus, the mass of neutrinos, according to Nobel laureates Takaaki Kajita and Arthur MacDonald, is -

    mή = 0.28 • 1.6 • 10^-19 / (2.998 • 10^8) ^2 = 0.498 • 10^-36kg

    And now let's express this mass 1.531 me- through the neutrino mass ...

    There is no physical sense in this - it's just interesting ...

    me = 9.10938356 (11) • 10^−31 kg

    mή = 0.28 • 1.6 • 10^-19 / (2.998 • 10^8) ^2 = 0.498 • 10^-36 kg

    Then we have -

    1.531me = 2.8 • 10^6 • mή

    If we put neutrinos in this reaction on the right, as "relativists" do, then we get the following -

    1р1 + e + [ether - mass, which is equal to 1.531me] + [neutrino mass] → 0n1 + [neutrino mass]


    We get -

    1р1 + e + 2.8 • 10^6 • mή + mή → 0n1 + mή

    Complete absurdity ...

  • [...] I'm already tired of explaining to everyone [...]

    Such important findings should be published on a major peer-reviewed journal—it seems fruitless to rant about this on LENR-Forum threads.


    Until then, scientists will refer to what is conventionally known as "electric charge" as "electric charge".

  • [user = '3491'] Cherepanov2020 [/ user]


    Что вы думаете об экспериментах Милликена по измерению электрического заряда? Эта работа тиражировалась тысячи раз.


    https://www.britannica.com/sci…likan-oil-drop-experiment

    As for Millikan's experiment ... Millikan was wrong, because he relied on Maxwell's erroneous physics - I have analyzed it in this article - Answer by A.I. Cherepanov. Avsharov E.M. August 7, 2021 - https://cloud.mail.ru/public/oTJv/zi4J1HPjb

    Answer by A.I. Cherepanov. Avsharov E.M. August 7, 2021 - https://docs.google.com/docume…LF8YXqpl/edit?usp=sharing

    Answer by A.I. Cherepanov. Avsharov E.M. August 7, 2021 - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356222194_Millikan's_error_-_Answer_by_AI_Cherepanov_Avsharov_EM_August_7_2021

  • The link between chemistry and Lenr remains to be proven. I know that most of the field connects chemistry to Lenr.

    Personally, I think it wasted a lot of time focusing on this pseudo link.

    For example, where is the chemistry in the Iwamura's multilayers ?

    The link between chemistry and LENR is so obvious it is palatable. It is a waste of time to ignore obvious connections and creation's inspiration on this matter.

  • "This work has been replicated thousands of times."... But ... But you have to understand the next LIE said a million times will never be true!

    None of you wants to delve into THESE mistakes and understand them ... People get used to ... Physicists are used to ... They were taught at school to think like this ... to walk correctly ... This is a difficult task ... And a person is looking for where it is easier and easier to live ... A person does not understand that he is mistaken! Why is that ? This is due to the fact that a person believes too much that Maxwell is a great physicist and this is an "infallible" physicist ... This is called "authoritarian thinking".

    This is very bad. This is how physics is not able to develop ... But there are loners - physicists who are deprived of "authoritarian thinking" and they are able to dig and dig so deep that sooner or later they find "there - in the depths of physics" the mistakes of physicists who worked in the past. .. 148 years ago Maxwell made his mistakes ... But no one was going to open them ... But I got tired and decided to look for the origins of the modern concept of "electric charge" ... And what struck me? I was amazed that the pattern that Charles Coulomb wrote about in his treatise does not correspond to the modern law of Coulomb. And he found the reason for this discrepancy - the reason is that Maxwell was mistaken and created the modern concept of "electric charge" ... and he called his formula the Coulomb law ... Charles Coulomb himself is very far from this formula and from this law ... This is a disaster for all physicists ... Many now do not understand what to do with it ... Many have lived their whole lives next to this Maxwellian concept, they wrote articles applying this concept, but a catastrophe happened - nothing of this exists in nature and has never existed ... This is a collapse ... It is very difficult to realize in fact, it is very difficult to reformat your knowledge and your consciousness ... Habit ... BUT it is inevitable! If it hadn't been for me, someone else would have done it! Why is that ? But because it was brewing! Thousands of experiments at LENR show that Maxwell's law, which he called "Coulomb's law", does not work in LENR physics ... There is no Coulomb barrier! And his - the Coulomb barrier, simply never existed in nature.

  • The link between chemistry and LENR is so obvious it is palatable. It is a waste of time to ignore obvious connections and creation's inspiration on this matter.

    Since 2016, I have become a student of Kanarev Philip Mikhailovich ... It was he who showed me the following - there is no separate science "chemistry" and there is no separate science "physics"! What is there? And there is the "physical chemistry of the microworld", which Kanarev presented to us in 2001 ...

    If we take a more responsible approach, then it should be stated that historically, “chemistry” first appeared, then “nuclear physics” appeared on its basis, and then “physical chemistry of the microworld” appeared on the basis of “chemistry” and “nuclear physics”.