I have no idea of what this means. Google seems clueless as well.
Watch the video for the claims and reaction description.
annualization should read annihilation
Ultra-dense hydrogen and Rydberg matter—a more informal general discussion thread
-
-
Holmlid came to the conclusion that nuclear annihilation is occurring also from the analysis of the time variation of the pulses generated by the laser-caused reaction inside the vacuum chamber, where UDH is formed and collected. This is possible because the laser pulses are consistently very short (5 ns for the one used in the experiments), unlike typical spark discharges. The decay times appear to be consistent with mesons and muons, although their interpretation is not always simple.
I once heard that a spark can also produce the same results as a laser pulse. If true, the reaction begins to look very much like LENR.
-
Google seems clueless as well.
Axil is a creative artist with ideas, like a Picasso of text.
Here is another view of the laser-nuclear cracking
-
No.
It is not like you not to document your assertions. I would like to see what that plot looks like.
-
How could high energy gammas production be happening when all those UDH researchers are still alive after years of exposure to the reaction whatever it may be?
All those UDH researchers who have actually performed experiments with pulsed lasers (which would be producing at least in theory radiations in large amounts) are not really that many researchers. I think at this point it's safe to say that most of them do not think that they are seeing the emission of mesons like Holmlid suggested.
Watch the video for the claims and reaction description.
annualization should read annihilation
If you meant "annihilation" you should correct that in your previous messages. I have watched the video and know what it's claiming.
I once heard that a spark can also produce the same results as a laser pulse. If true, the reaction begins to look very much like LENR.
Lasers similar to the ones used in the experiments by Holmlid can typically dump 0.4 J in 5*10-9 seconds at 10 Hz on a spot of tens of microns of diameter, working very consistently with very small variations between each pulse. The average laser power at 10 Hz over one second is just 4W, but the instant power per laser pulse is 80 MW. There's no comparison with typical spark discharges although they might be possibly able to initiate the same reactions.
But most importantly here, it's the very short and consistent input laser pulse which allows to analyze the output pulse from the plasma (i.e. the reaction). With slower pulse types (sparks, etc) you would have the signal from the output pulse overlapping with that of the input pulse, and probably you wouldn't obtain the same output intensity anyway due to the lower instant power per input pulse.
-
Axil is a creative artist with ideas, like a Picasso of text.
Here is another view of the laser-nuclear cracking
Regarding lab light activation of the Holmlid reaction.
In nanoplasmonics, a polariton condensate is formed by adding one polariton at a time. A lab light will produce many photons over time, with each producing a single polariton. It does not matter if the photons are produced in a nanosecond or an hour or a day, the condensate will just grow at the rate of photon additions until a state of instability occurs. This gradual buildup of the condensate is what is happing in the Holmlid reaction.
-
Display More
All those UDH researchers who have actually performed experiments with pulsed lasers (which would be producing at least in theory radiations in large amounts) are not really that many researchers. I think at this point it's safe to say that most of them do not think that they are seeing the emission of mesons like Holmlid suggested.
If you meant "annihilation" you should correct that in your previous messages. I have watched the video and know what it's claiming.
Lasers similar to the ones used in the experiments by Holmlid can typically dump 0.4 J in 5*10-9 seconds at 10 Hz on a spot of tens of microns of diameter, working very consistently with very small variations between each pulse. The average laser power at 10 Hz over one second is just 4W, but the instant power per laser pulse is 80 MW. There's no comparison with typical spark discharges although they might be possibly able to initiate the same reactions.
But most importantly here, it's the very short and consistent input laser pulse which allows to analyze the output pulse from the plasma (i.e. the reaction). With slower pulse types (sparks, etc) you would have the signal from the output pulse overlapping with that of the input pulse, and probably you wouldn't obtain the same output intensity anyway due to the lower instant power per input pulse.
One experiment that would be instructive to run would be to feed UV photons to the USD in a weak stream (from a UV LED) over an extended time. A positive result would show that the reaction accumulates potential over time and does not require a high energy photon pulse.
Sveinn Ólafsson once told me that a spark will activate the UDH
Another test that would be instructive is to see if the Holmlid reaction would reduce the half life of a radioactive isotope. This is a LENR test.
-
Regarding lab light activation of the Holmlid reaction.
In nanoplasmonics, a polariton condensate is formed by adding one polariton at a time. A lab light will produce many photons over time, with each producing a single polariton. It does not matter if the photons are produced in a nanosecond or an hour or a day, the condensate will just grow at the rate of photon additions until a state of instability occurs. This gradual buildup of the condensate is what is happing in the Holmlid reaction.
For the purposes of obtaining a large output pulse size, it matters. In past studies the output pulse was found to vary with the fourth power of laser pulse energy or more, for example here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2781
The laser-less reaction that was observed to be stimulated in the laboratory by fluorescent light, also called "spontaneous", is in comparison microscopic and needs special tools to be measured (the photomultiplier tube (PMT)-based "Muon detector" conceived by Holmlid several years ago).
-
For the purposes of obtaining a large output pulse size, it matters. In past studies the output pulse was found to vary with the fourth power of laser pulse energy or more, for example here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2781
The laser-less reaction that was observed to be stimulated in the laboratory by fluorescent light, also called "spontaneous", is in comparison microscopic and needs special tools to be measured (the photomultiplier tube (PMT)-based "Muon detector" conceived by Holmlid several years ago).
I skimmed through the preprint. Some thoughts on the preprint:
Fusion is claimed to occur, but where are the gamma's at the requires fusion associated levels? Where is the tritium, or helium byproducts? Where are the neutrons? The same type of reactions would appear with protium. Did this experiment also use protium? If so, what are the results. Are the results the same? The nature of the protium fusion reaction will be markedly different.
The level of photon production will dictate how many UDH particles will be activated. But without a CERN sized detector how does Holmlid identify what subatomic particles are involved. There must be a ton of assumptions involved in subatomic particle identification.
Finally and most importantly, other people do not find muons as a byproduct of this reaction. But what particles do appear... electrons?
-
Axil, I linked an easily accessible 2013 paper with an easy-to-understand figure just to show that the observed laser-induced reaction (i.e. the output pulse) has been observed to grow exponentially with laser pulse energy. This is independent of its interpretation as due to meson decay which came a few years after that paper.
I became interested in how the increase in laser intensity correlates in the output of fusion power. There is no lattice compression involved as believed in LENR theory, and the laser light is not powerful enough to cause the fusion reaction. So where does this fusion concept come from. Does any phenomena that is not understood answered by invoking fusion?
-
Oh Dear. A group of businessmen and one scientist in poor health. I suspect this will not play out well.
Why a new company in the first place? There has been Noront, unfortunatley filed bankruptcy.
Is that the reason?
Why should a new company be more successful?
To formulate it mildly.... IMO this approach is not correct towards the investors of Norront!
-
To formulate it mildly.... IMO this is not correct towards the investors of Norront!
I think Norront was closed down.
-
There's no doubt there is something worth investigating (the signal observed with the "muon detector" is still mysterious, even completely disregarding the mesons/muon hypothesis; and the traces seen in cloud chambers by Ólafsson and Zeiner-Gundersen could be important),
I once (some two years ago) wrote to Sindre etc. that the spectrum on the Norront front page shows a Pion-Pion recombination spectrum. (Did very well fit the SOP calculations) This says, that most of the Pions are no completely free and still somehow bound and re-collapse to a proton.
-
Display More
You could take the increasing laser pulse energy as a way to increase the the dI/dt often regarded as important in LENR.
The nuclear explanation initially came from Holmlid analyzing how quickly the output pulses propagated in the vacuum chamber, using detector foils or wire loops at various distances, which he called collectors. These collectors could be almost thought as "antennas". The pulses were fast but had speed significantly lower than that of light, so they were thought to be due to massive charged particles moving away from the laser target. More in-depth analysis of the signal decay made Holmlid believe he was seeing meson decay, and thus that nuclear annihilation must be occurring.
I'm aware there are issues with this. For example Sveinn Ólafsson suggested that the long vacuum chamber tubes can act as inefficient waveguides and slow down electromagnetic waves which would otherwise normally propagate at the speed of light, but I don't recall this being discussed in Holmlid's papers.
Furthermore there have never been experiments showing "blank" runs with the laser. The reason is that no blank run is possible as without hydrogen the pulses are still there, just lower. Holmlid has recently suggested that since ultra-dense hydrogen is so small and ubiquitous, it must be present in all materials (that's really the only way the results without hydrogen can be justified).
The key factor in the production of the LENR reaction is superconductivity. The Dv/Dt spark forms metal nanoparticles which are superconductive. LENR is actioned by nanoparticles because they can be made superconductive when coherent light is applied to them..
Here is an example of how nanoparticles can be made LENR capable by the application of a laser pulse.
QuoteLaser-induced synthesis and decay of Tritium under exposure of solid targets in heavy water
Abstract
The processes of laser-assisted synthesis of Tritium nuclei and their laser-induced decay in cold plasma in the vicinity of solid targets (Au, Ti, Se, etc.) immersed into heavy water are experimentally realized at peak laser intensity of 10^10-10^13 W/cm2. Initial stages of Tritium synthesis and their laser-induced beta-decay are interpreted on the basis of non-elastic interaction of plasma electrons having kinetic energy of 5-10 eV with nuclei of Deuterium and Tritium, respectively.
The LENR reaction is an outgrowth of superconductivity. There are many ways to produce superconductivity such as hydrogen packing in palladium, hydrogen packed in cracks and holes, water crystals produce by cavitation, production of high Dv/Dt sparks on metal, and ultra dense hydrogen. The LENR community is not up on the details of superconductivity and this is the issue that stops any progress in LENR within the community. They are all hug up on fusion.
Ultra dense hydrogen is the purest form of the LENR process, because UDH is already superconductive. UDH can readily produce EVOs when exposed to photons. These EVOs are what Holmlid is seeing impack his detectors.
-
The key factor in the production of the LENR reaction is superconductivity. The Dv/Dt spark forms metal nanoparticles which are superconductive. LENR is actioned by nanoparticles because they can be made superconductive when coherent light is applied to them..
Here is an example of how nanoparticles can be made LENR capable by the application of a laser pulse.
1306.0830.pdfThe pulsed laser employed in Holmlid-type experiments does indeed ablate and sputter around the target metal plate material (possibly producing hydrogen-active nanodust which will contribute dissociating hydrogen like the catalysts are supposed to do, if not better), although it has been reported that ablation proceeds very slowly when an ultra-dense hydrogen layer is present.
Source: https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(18)34875-8
-
Holmlid has recently suggested that since ultra-dense hydrogen is so small and ubiquitous,
But almost vacuum conditions are not ubiquitous... except in outer space.
perhaps this is how stars are born?
-
Near-vacuum conditions are not needed for forming ultra-dense hydrogen. The most recent experiments reported used pressures up to substantial fractions of an atmosphere, and it has been suggested that certain forms of ultra-dense hydrogen are involved in catalytic reactions in ordinary industrial reactors (which can operate in some cases also at hundreds of bar of pressure).
I think a high vacuum was normally in earlier experiments because it made it easier to analyze the time-of-flight of fast fragments of ultra-dense hydrogen and Rydberg matter in the 1-1000 eV range. In later years, Holmlid moved away from those experiments, focusing on the high-energy particles (mesons, muons) he thought he was seeing, which were fast enough not to be braked by the higher-pressure atmosphere in the vacuum chamber. Higher hydrogen pressures seemingly help producing larger amounts of UDH from the catalysts used (as in ordinary catalytic reactions), which help seeing a stronger signal.
Of course other explanations are possible. One could hypothesize this is just the target metal playing tricks with the laser beam, depending on its surface state which can be affected by heat and gases in the chamber atmosphere.
Production of ultra-dense hydrogen H(0): A novel nuclear fuelCondensation of hydrogen Rydberg atoms (highly electronically excited) into the lowest energy state of condensed hydrogen i.e. the ultra-dense hydroge…www.sciencedirect.com[...]
[...]
-
The key factor in the production of the LENR reaction is superconductivity. The Dv/Dt spark forms metal nanoparticles which are superconductive. LENR is actioned by nanoparticles because they can be made superconductive when coherent light is applied to them..
The LENR reaction is an outgrowth of superconductivity. There are many ways to produce superconductivity such as hydrogen packing in palladium, hydrogen packed in cracks and holes, water crystals produce by cavitation, production of high Dv/Dt sparks on metal, and ultra dense hydrogen. The LENR community is not up on the details of superconductivity and this is the issue that stops any progress in LENR within the community. They are all hug up on fusion.
Superconductivity of nuclear active site should be well known in the LENR community based on US 8,227,020 B1 from 2012. Abstract as follows. 
