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

    Quote from axil

    How can Holmlid tell by time of flight?

    It's summarily described in the paper I linked above. A form of laser-induced mass spectrometry is employed. To put it simply, when the laser pulse is applied on the target where UDH is expected to be, UDH fragments are ejected and then detected with a custom-made detector assembly inside the vacuum chamber. From the time it takes for these fragments to arrive to the detector and some safe assumptions, their kinetic energy and structure can be inferred.


    The non-superfluid phase of UDH is more tightly bound and only forms small clusters, and will produce the fastest fragments arriving earlier at the detector. They cause the narrow peak at the beginning of the charts, and are always present. The superfluid phase will form larger fragments which will arrive a bit later at the detector; it disappears above a certain temperature, possibly reverting to ordinary hydrogen atoms or hydrogen Rydberg matter.


    Each line is a test at different temperature:



    EDIT: note that other tests were done in other papers to determine that a superfluid phase was observed, it's not just based on these results alone.


    Quote from axil

    What are those particles with spiral tracts that Sveinn sees in his cloud chamber after the laser pulse?


    External Content youtu.be
    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.

    Those have to be something different with hundreds MeV of energy or more. The time-of-flight results above are instead for particles with much lower energies, in the hundreds of eV range maximum, which can only be properly detected inside the vacuum chamber with a high-vacuum.

    Can the data be interpreted as follows: the initial spike is a burst of EMF (photons) and the latter particles are high energy electrons that have a range of energies. Could high energy electrons look like muons, since the large kinetic energy of the electrons might be interpreted as the heavier muon particle.


    This trace is what Egely sees in his stick reactor after the initiation spark and then a series of electrons produced with about the same timing in microseconds.


    External Content youtu.be
    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.

    Quote from axil

    Can the data be interpreted as follows: the initial spike is a burst of EMF (photons)


    In those time-of-flight graphs there usually is an initial spike at almost 0 µs that is not very visible in the papers since it's very close to the Y axis. That could possibly be due to photons or MeV particles.



    Quote from axil

    latter particles are high energy electrons that have a range of energies

    Unlikely since electrons are very light compared to protons and deuterons, and would arrive much earlier.


    For much faster particles, different time-of-flight studies have been done by collecting the electrical signal with metal foils or wire loops ("collectors") and a fast oscilloscope. From those studies Holmlid determined that mesons were produced, and these have been the focus in the later papers.


    Quote from axil

    Could high energy electrons look like muons, since the large kinetic energy of the electrons might be interpreted as the heavier muon particle.

    As far as I recall, magnetic deflection studies have been published, and they ruled out electrons.

    Hydrogen is just protons and electrons. The detected particles must be atoms from transmutation. No muons or electrons can rule out subatomic particles.


    A muon is just a more massive electron. How can Holmlid tell the difference, those two particles are so much the same.

    axil

    Regular atoms would arrive much later to the detector due to ordinary bond distances which would cause them to get ejected from the laser target with low kinetic energy compared to UDH and RM, at least according to how Holmlid has described the process occurring here (the laser strips out the electrons from some atoms in the target, and cluster fragments repel each other by Coulomb repulsion).


    It could be thought that heavier atoms are somehow accelerated by the laser to high kinetic energies but I think this also got addressed in the past—I don't have a reference right away for this though.

    Alan Smith

    In earlier papers I remember it was sometimes explained that way. More recently it has been described like this, in similar experiments:


    Quote

    [...] A large peak at 20–40 ns in Fig. 4 also exists, which has not been assigned previously. It may be due to processes giving a typical nuclear based energy of 100 keV u−1.




    Quote from Alan Smith

    Could it be photons from the laser?

    The detector is shielded against photons of course and also against electrons....


    I also remind people that H*/D* (H(0)/D(0) for clusters) is a weak nuclear bond and always at least 2 H/D are bound together. There never will by Hydrinos or single H*/D*. The weight difference for H*-H*/D*-D* and ordinary H-H, D-D is about 496 eV as measured by Mills and calculated by SOP.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    The detector is shielded against photons of course and also against electrons....

    The experiments I referred about earlier are those Holmlid calls "Coulomb Explosion experiments". They used a custom-made detector inside the vacuum chamber at a relatively close distance to the laser target, and a high vacuum.


    I think strong light for the laser or possibly from nuclear reactions can still be detected even if filtered, but very fast particles ejected from the laser target also due to nuclear reactions should too be able to produce a fast signal close to the zero time.


    https://cfn-live-content-bucket-iop-org.s3.amazonaws.com/journals/1402-4896/94/7/075005/revision2/psab1276f4_lr.jpg?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAYDKQL6LTV7YY2HIK&Expires=1667043104&Signature=v3iyLsLOnOvpyFDpXnh584vX7xs%3D



    Looking at this figure made me realize that the Dynode at a negative high voltage should cause this detector to reject electrons, though.


    It's from this paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/ab1276

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    You missed some basic physics: If a state is formed spontaneously then as system releases energy, hence has less energy!

    True, if spontaneous if hydrinos were real. Here we disagree.


    The new states form magnecules, not hydrinos, and magnecules will decay to the normal ground state. Magnecules can be made with other gases such as oxygen and nitrogen. A magnecule of water is the basis of various gases: AquaFuel, HHO, Osuma, SG, and Brown's gas. There are detailed analyses of these gases by Santilli, the SG team and others. All of these gases react to produce heat and the usual ground state elements.


    If you are aware of proof that "hydrino gas" doesn't react as the above gases, please reference that for me.


    Because the states that produces spectra where n2 is in the equation for the quanta form endothermically. Hence, have higher energy. Hence conform to thermodynamics. The exothermic part only comes by fusion of hydrogen or by gravitational collapse and its radiation (the shredding of nucleons to Majorana neutrinos).


    It comes down to how one piles up the data. It seems to me to be a waste of time to argue that this stage of research if UDH forms endothermically or exothermically.

    From looking at the diagram, the observation of particle emissions is not direct. The "Catcher foil" will likely transform the particle types so that secondary ions and neutrals are generated by kinetic interactions with the primary particles. Secondary particle emission might also be produced by refection kinetically produced particles coming off the backstop from the reaction between the laser and the UDH.


    If the primary particles produced by the laser interaction with UDH were high energy electrons, then the interaction of those electrons with the various metals in the path of the electrons would produce secondary particles that would invalidate the characterization of the primary particle emissions.


    Another test that could have been done is to send the "Catcher Foil" off to magicsound labs of MFMP so that that metal could be analyzed for transmutation and possible production sites of secondary particles. magicsound has a SEM which he uses at no cost to support experimenters characterizations of the LENR reaction.

    The one above is the detection method that was generally used for the relatively low-energy particles and clusters.


    For the high-energy particles, the signal is directly measured at longer distances (99 cm, 165cm etc) with an oscilloscope and foils ("collectors") in the flight path. This is the paper where magnetic deflection tests ruled out high-energy electrons:


    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312347600_Mesons_from_Laser-Induced_Processes_in_Ultra-Dense_Hydrogen_H0/link/587d1cac08ae9275d4e73d21/download

    Quote from Drgenek

    True, if spontaneous if hydrinos were real. Here we disagree.

    Wyttenbach agrees with Drgenek.. Hydrinos are Milllsian fiction..


    The socalled dihydrino "{H2(1/4)

    of Mills which appears to be the only viable form of Mill's postulated fifty or more 'hydrinos'

    is probably a condensed form of the hydrogen molecule

    formed exothermically and 'spontaneously' but only under special conditions


    Some experimental evidence here

    Electron paramagnetic resonance proof for the existence of molecular hydrino
    Quantum mechanics postulates that the hydrogen atom has a stable ground state from which it can be promoted to excited states by capture of electromag…
    www.sciencedirect.com

    Quote from can

    The one above is the detection method that was generally used for the relatively low-energy particles and clusters.


    For the high-energy particles, the signal is directly measured at longer distances (99 cm, 165cm etc) with an oscilloscope and foils ("collectors") in the flight path. This is the paper where magnetic deflection tests ruled out high-energy electrons:


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…08ae9275d4e73d21/download

    One issue that causes me pause is quantum indeterminacy. There will always be a number of electrons that get through the magnetic trap. Holmlid should have measured this quantum indeterminacy effect by setting up a test that produced electrons (an electric spark or a glow plug) at the location of particle production to see how many electrons leaked through the trap. Electron leakage should have been minimized and the amount of electrons leaked should have been noted in the experiment.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Isn't that somewhat of a problem?

    As an expert experimenter. you understand that you must minimize the number of assumptions that you have made in your experiment. You do that by simulating all the stages in your experiment to make sure that your experiment behaves as you have expected when final integration of all the stages take place. You keep all the unknowns in the experiment to a minimum. This proper unit testing behavior is especially true with quantum mechanics and particles.

    Richard Feynman - Nobody understands Quantum Mechanics

    I am still under the opinion that the laser produces EVOs that explode producing anomalous results in the experiments' particle detectors.


    Quote

    Alexander L. Shishkin

    Abstract

    Anomalous current pulses (ACPs) have been recorded by an SNM-14 neutron detector, which exceeded the signal from a reference Pu-Be neutron source by two to four orders of magnitude. The author suggests that ACPs are associated with the registration of exotic objects, similar to micro-ball lightning and named by one of their discoverers Ken Shoulders - Charge Clusters (CCs). Under extreme impacts on material objects such; as mechanical load, electromagnetic pulses or ionising radiation, the concentration of CCs increases around them, which can "stick" to ionising radiation detectors. Under certain circumstances, for example, when there is a sharp change in electromagnetic field strength, these clusters "explode" resulting in signals being recorded in both neutron detectors and other charged particle detectors.

    This EVO behavior could be the reason that the new Holmlid's company is now claiming antimatter explosions as the source of excess power production.


    Also from Holmlid's paper rejection


    "The study’s detection methods and the reported observations are insufficient to support the article’s claims and are not sufficient to rule out other explanations. For example, a consulted reviewer advised that the reported meson decay time constants are consistent with “amplified electronics placed in the vicinity of intense laser irradiation experiments.”


    IMHO, the EVO is not matter, it is a vacuum field. EVO stands for Exotic Vacuum Object which is rightly considered an anti vacuum. When the vacuum and the EVO as anti vacuum interact, a Bosenova occurs. The Bosenova is the process of vacuum annihilation that produces energy from the vacuum.


    Maybe the data seen in Holmlid's company looks and acts like Matter/antimatter annihilation but i doubt that they see any gamma radiation. Vacuum field annihilation (aka Bosenova) looks and acts like antimatter annihilation but without any nuclear effects. The Bosenova will only produce high energy photons, protons, and electrons.


    In physics, tachyon condensation is a process in which a tachyonic field—usually a scalar field—of a negative squared mass acquires a vacuum expectation value and reaches the minimum of the potential energy. While the field is tachyonic (and unstable) near the original point—the maximum of the potential—it gets a non-negative mass (and becomes stable) near the minimum.

    The appearance of tachyons is a potentially lethal problem for any theory: the notion of an imaginary mass is troubling, and many proposed tachyon models involve violating causality. The understanding of tachyon condensation seems to be the only way to make such a theory meaningful. Tachyon condensation drives the physical system to a stable state where no physical tachyons exist.

    The Higgs mechanism that breaks the electroweak symmetry may be understood as a simple example of tachyon condensation. In the late 1990s, the Indian string theorist Ashoke Sen conjectured that the tachyons carried by open strings attached to D-branes in string theory reflect the instability of the D-branes with respect to their complete annihilation. The total energy carried by these tachyons has been calculated in string field theory; it agrees with the total energy of the D-branes, and all other tests have confirmed Sen's conjecture as well. Tachyons therefore experienced a comeback in the early 2000s.

    The character of closed string tachyons is more subtle, and the first steps towards our understanding of their fate have been made by Adams, Polchinski, and Silverstein in the case of twisted closed string tachyons. The fate of the closed string tachyon in the 26-dimensional bosonic string theory remains unknown.Template:Physics-stub

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.