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

  • Hi, I would like to know if there is a feasible way to obtain usable energy from the reaction of Ultra-dense hydrogen in the scheme. And not just catalytic fusion. Is there a feasible way to convert the mass of a meson into usable energy before it is produced and eventually decays into a neutrino. Or is it possible for the energy produced by the annihilation reaction to be absorbed by the adjacent hydrogen as such. :)

    Bond compression cause fusion ultra dense H never cause fusion.



    (PDF) Cold Fusion mechanism of bond compression
    PDF | Cold fusion is caused by the compression against D2 covalent bond at the expanded tetrahedral site (T site) on the nano-roughness of the metal... | Find,…
    www.researchgate.net

    (PDF) Cold Fusion mechanism of bond compression
    PDF | Cold fusion is caused by the compression against D2 covalent bond at the expanded tetrahedral site (T site) on the nano-roughness of the metal... | Find,…
    doi.org

  • You write - "other theoretical research of electron deep orbit." What orbits are you talking about? Niels Bohr's orbital model has long since collapsed - electrons do not have orbital motion, electrons do not have orbital motion around the nucleus! If it's not difficult for you, then give proof of the movement of electrons in orbits. There is no such evidence and you will not have it! Why is that ? And because neither on the proton nor on the electron there is no "electric charge".

  • The orbit is closer than n=1 and a few fm from the nucleus. You can find the related paper.

    Keyword is electron deep orbit, deep Dirac level and I included this paper in my reference.

    This deep orbit has already proved by experiment outside nuclear physics and cold fusion.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009569_Neutron_is_the_Tightly_Bound_Proton-Electron_and_the_nucleus_is_constituted_by_proton_and_internal_electrons


    Here is electron deep orbit theory

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281089882_Basis_for_Electron_Deep_Orbits_of_the_Hydrogen_Atom

  • You are certainly mistaken ... But how can I explain this delusion to you if you are not able to understand what is "proof" and what is not proof? You do not understand elementary things in science, but at the same time you think that you are a great scientist... I am not the first person on this forum who tries to show this to you.

    I opened two of your links - there is nothing but drawings there ... The drawings are not proof ... Your drawings, in my opinion, are a misunderstanding of physical phenomena ....

    For example, you write - "This problem comes from the expression of the Coulomb potential in 1/r." In this expression, you refer to Charles Coulomb ... But he did not have this - "Coulomb potential" ... You should open Charles Coulomb's treatises of 1783-1785 and read carefully ...

    At the same time, you rely on the "Bohr model", and it is absolutely false, since it relies on false physics - or mathematics, Maxwell ... You are deceiving us physicists in the same way as mathematician Maxwell, mathematician Dirac, mathematician Bohr, mathematician Pauli deceived physicists , the mathematician Feinberg, the mathematician Fermi, the mathematician Schrödinger, who inserted their mathematics into physics and forcibly convinced many that their mathematical solutions are real physics .... Your mathematics is inherently false ... All relativistic formulas should be removed from textbooks on physics ... You are not only mistaken ... You are destroying physics as a science with your perseverance, and I am here to prevent you from doing this - I will defend physics, I will defend physics from people like you, so How do you prevent humanity from developing with your crazy ideas.

    Similar reasoning - "By using the formula ofthe Coulomb energy potential CP = −αcħ/r, we can calculate |CP|~1.09 MeV for this deep orbit. On the other hand,an electron on this orbit has a potential energy equal, in absolute value, to γmv2 = |CP| ~ 1.09 MeV, where v is theelectron velocity. From this, we can deduce v = 2.75 108m/s, β ~ 0.91 and γ ∼ 2.5 confirming that the electron is actually relativistic." , today are not only not appropriate - they are harmful to our beloved physics. Your articles are rubbish, which tomorrow will be adequately recognized by physicists and they will give you a decisive rebuff, based on the knowledge that I give to people ... This knowledge is quite sound - Maxwell made fatal mistakes, Maxwell distorted the teachings of Charles Coulomb, Maxwell's teachings according to "electrostatics" has no place in modern physics, since it was modern physicists who, by their experiments, showed that these inventions of Maxwell do not exist in nature:

    1. Coulomb's law, which was invented by Maxwell, and Charles Coulomb has nothing to do with him;

    2. "Electric charge", which was invented by Maxwell and through whose efforts his followers "planted" an "electric charge" on the electron and proton;

    3. Coulomb potential, which was also invented by Maxwell, and Charles Coulomb himself did not use the word "potential" in his treatises...

    4. Coulomb barrier...

    Nothing of THIS - presented in paragraphs 1) -4) in real nature was and is not!

  • What (precisely) do you mean when you say "Covalent bond compression"?

  • What happens when the resulting meson collide with other nucleons, do the muons transfer momentum to other nucleons, or do they fuse into other particles. I was wondering if there is any way to harvest energy by charged particles instead of heat.

  • What happens when the resulting meson collide with other nucleons, do the muons transfer momentum to other nucleons, or do they fuse into other particles. I was wondering if there is any way to harvest energy by charged particles instead of heat.

    Negative muons could replace electrons when colliding.
    This is what happens with muon catalyzed D-D fusion.

    Simplified explanation by this youtube video.


    Harvesting highly energetic charged particle energy can be done by guiding them through the centre of toroidal coils.


    I recommend you to read Leif Holmlid's papers, in particular his publications after 2014.

  • Norront Fusion, the spin-off company from Leif Holmlid's theoretical work, is as far as I know trying to rule out (exhaustively) that their negative muonic theory was in fact due to free neutrons, which in turn decay to protons and electrons. It's all gone quiet on this front, but maybe soon we will see an update from Svenn Olaffson's and thus Holmlid's team in Iceland and Norway.

  • Dr Richard* Did you watch the interview we made with Olofsson - Leif Holmlid's colleague for many years.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • Norront Fusion, the spin-off company from Leif Holmlid's theoretical work, is as far as I know trying to rule out (exhaustively) that their negative muonic theory was in fact due to free neutrons, which in turn decay to protons and electrons. It's all gone quiet on this front, but maybe soon we will see an update from Svenn Olaffson's and thus Holmlid's team in Iceland and Norway.

    Any more details on this point?

  • redirmogician


    On the organisational front, Norront was indeed dissolved some months ago. I have no inside knowledge on what happened but suspect it was due to the usual things that affect small and potentially disruptive research and technology organisations, rows about debts, distribution of equity, dividends, and the dissemination/development of the IP. Science is like fishing, the rewards can be quick but more often you have to wait longer for a bite then bankers and backers can stand,


    SindreZG (Zeiner Gundersen) - a key member of the Norront team is a member here, though he has not logged in since February. He may be working in the USA currently, I wish he would pop in and tell us what is going on. The free neutron hypothesis had I believe been ruled out sometime ago since there was none of the expected residual radioactivity caused by neutron produced isotope was observed when the system was powered down. But that info -from a conversation with Sindre a couple of years back - may be out of date.

  • On a lighter note, I think Leif Holmlid's theoretical work may one day be accepted by mainstream physicists who are pondering the identities of dark energy and matter. Until this is given credibility who knows? It's up to astrophysicists and astronomers to propose new theories. Not my field of expertise.

  • 稍微轻松一点,我认为 Leif Holmlid 的理论工作有朝一日可能会被正在思考暗能量和物质身份的主流物理学家所接受。在这被赋予可信度之前,谁知道呢?由天体物理学家和天文学家提出新的理论。不是我的专业领域。

    没有更多的细节,虽然另一条有希望的研究路线走到了尽头,但很遗憾。

    Are you referring to not producing what Leif Holmlid calls "annihilation".

  • I noticed that "Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen Take Place in Small Non-superfluid HN(0) Clusters" is mentioned in Holmlid's paper. So what happens if (I mean if) this process happens in superfluid HN(0) Clusters. Just curious

  • Comment on ’Ultradense protium p(0) and deuterium D(0)

    and their relation to ordinary Rydberg matter: a review’ 2019

    Physica Scripta 94, 075005


    Abstract. The article by Holmlid and Zeiner-Gundersen (2019 Physica Scripta 94

    075005) contains a number of claims that explicitly or implicitly contradict fundamental

    knowledge of modern science. Some can only be true if long held conservation laws are

    broken. One such is baryon number conservation. A second fatal mistake is the treatment

    of the structure of molecules that disregard fundamental quantum mechanical aspects, such

    as the concept of kinetic energy operators and the Heisenberg indeterminacy relations.

    Keywords: baryon number conservation, hydrogen phase diagram, quantum mechanics

  • "Out of 114 references, 36 are not coauthored by Holmlid. And
    of these 36, none address the claims made by him and his co-authors."


    from: http://cobraf.com/forum/forum/…-rossi-20889/?post=756687

    "Holmlid il deuterio ultradenso lo vede solo lui: il metodo scientifico insegna che lo debbano vedere almeno in due in posti differenti."

    E se nessuno dei "differenti" [per motivi suoi non collegati alla sostanza della cosa] lo cerca, come la mettiamo? Il deuterio ultradenso non esiste perche ai suoi presunti peers non piace, per cui guardano altrove, trascurando gli esperimenti di conferma?

    La stessa domanda me la sono fatta riguardo la sonofusione. Non è che che misogna montare un nuovo ITER per essere sicuri per il sì o per il no. E' stato fatto solo una volta dai diretti concorrenti. I quali [ma che combinazione] non hanno trovato nulla. Sotto la linea gotica siete tutti così elementarmente pretestuosi?

  • Comment on ’Ultradense protium p(0) and deuterium D(0)

    and their relation to ordinary Rydberg matter: a review’ 2019

    Physica Scripta 94, 075005

    Such comments only shows that the author has no clue of physics = just reproduces what generations of untallented experimenters make us claim.


    There is no hadron conservation! Nobody that is clear in his mind ever made this claim! Protons (hadrons) decay since 1940 in accelerators and Kaons -->Pions- muons --> e+7/- finally produce photons only...