Quote from redirmogician

I would love to see research on UDH by someone other than Leif Holmlid

You should do a little digging yourself. It's amazing what the internet knows.

A search on the internet for UDH should use the key "metallic hydrogen"

Many hits will be forthcoming and interesting.

I don’t know why Engvild deleted his las post, but thanks for bumping this thread for me with perfect timing to add this new article by Holmlid:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367561386_Charge_Asymmetry_of_Muons_Generated_in_a_Muon_Generator_from_Ultra-Dense_Hydrogen_D0_and_p0

Abstract

Laser-induced nuclear reactions in ultra-dense hydrogen H(0) (review in Physica Scripta 2019) create mesons (kaons and pions). These mesons decay mainly to muons. The muons created are useful (patented source) for the muon-induced fusion process. The sign of the muons from the source depends on the initial baryons used. With D(0) (ultra-dense deuterium) the source produces mainly positive muons and with p(0) (ultra-dense protium) the source produces mainly negative muons. Negative muons are required for muon-induced fusion. This charge asymmetry was reported earlier, and has now been confirmed by experiments with a coil current transformer as the beam detector. The current coil detector would give no signal from the muons if charge symmetry existed. The charge asymmetry could indicate unknown processes, for example, caused by the different annihilation processes in D(0) and p(0). The conclusions of a new analysis of the results are presented here. Using D(0) in the muon source, the asymmetry is likely due to the capture of μ-in D atoms and D2 molecules. This leads to emission of excess μ + from D(0). With p(0) in the muon source, the capture rate of μ-is lower than in D(0). The emitted number of μ + will be decreased by the reaction between μ + and the surrounding abundant electrons, forming neutral muonium particles. This effect decreases the amount 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). Thus, there is no dominant emission of negative muons which would violate charge conservation.

Laser Deuterium Fusion Target should perhaps be on Reaction Chamber

Wallt o Enable Enthalpy Transfer to Water/Steam

Kjeld C. Engvild

DTU Environment, Technical University of Denmark

DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark

Both magnetic confinement and laser inertial fusion operate with temperatures of a million degrees Kelvin in the middle of a very large reaction chamber. Even if break-even has been achieved the problem of transferring the enthalpy to a medium outside of the chamber and converting it to electricity remains. Perhaps, sustainable deuterium fusion could be achieved by letting tabletop laser accelerated deuterium impact a Zirconium deuteride layer on the wall of a narrow hohlraum or pinhole in a tube surrounded by water.

A pulsed laser with 10¹² watt/cm² [1] to 10²⁰ watt/cm² [2] in the focus is accelerating deuterium into Zirconium deuteride. The deuterium gas is at 0.0001 to 1 bar. Some of the neutrons produced are scavenged by boron and ³He. The enthalpy production is followed by simple calorimetry. The Zirconium deuteride could be replaced by other compounds with better electronic screening for fusion such as palladium or nickel [3], or by palladium oxide [4] or iron oxide [1].

The scheme above should describe a system with a heat evolution around break-even according to [1]. Other papers on deuteron fusion at low energies describe particles at unexpected high en energy levels [5,6].

Possible reactions in the system:

D + D à T + H; D + D à ³He + n; D + T à  ⁴He + n; ³He + n à T + H;

D + D à ⁴He + gamma, or ⁴He + e^- ; H + D à ³He + gamma, or ³He + e^- [7]

n + ¹⁰B à  ⁷Li + ⁴He; n + ¹¹B à  ¹²B à  ¹²C + e⁺

D + D + D à (^D_D^D) à  ⁴He + D; D + D + D à (^D_D^D) à ³He + T; Efimov intermediate [5,6,8]

[1] L. Holmlid, “Heat generation above break-even from laser induced fusion in ultra-dense deuterium”. AIP Advances, 5, 087129. 2015.

[2] A. Alejo, H. Ahmed, A. Green, S. R. Mirfayzi, M. Borghesi, S. Kar, ”Recent advances in laser-driven neutron sources” . Nuovo Cimento 38 C, 188. 2015.

[3] F. Raiola, P. Migliardi, L. Gang, C. Bonomo, G. Gyürky, R. Bonetti et al., ”Electron screening in d(d,p)t for deuterated metals and the periodic table”. Phys. Lett. B 547,193-199. 2002.

[4] J. Kasagi, H. Yuki, T. Baba, T. Noda, T. Ohtsuki, A. G. Lipson, “Strongly enhanced DD fusion in metals observed for keV D⁺ bombardment”. J. Phys. Soc. Japan 71, 2881-2885. 2002.

[5] A. Takahashi, K. Maruta, K. Ochiai, H. Miyamaru, “Detection of three-body deuteron fusion in titanium deuteride under the stimulation by a deuteron beam”. Phys. Lett. A 235, 89-97. 1999.

[6] J. Kasagi, T. Ohtsugi, K. Ishii, M. Hiraga, “Energetic protons and α particles emitted in 150-keV deuteron bombardment on deuterated Ti”. J. Phys Soc. Japan 64, 777-783.1995.

[7] M. Lipoglavsek, S. Markelj, M. Mihovilovic, T. Petrovic, S. Stajner, M. Vencelj, J. Vesic, ”Observation of electron emission in nuclear reaction between protons and deuterons”. Phys. Lett. B 773, 553-556. 2017.

[8] P. Naidon, S. Endo, “Efimov physics: a review.” Rep. Prog. Phys. Vol 85, 056001. 2017.

Quote from Curbina

I don’t know why Engvild deleted his las post, but thanks for bumping this thread for me with perfect timing to add this new article by Holmlid:

https://www.researchgate.net/p…-Dense_Hydrogen_D0_and_p0

Abstract

Laser-induced nuclear reactions in ultra-dense hydrogen H(0) (review in Physica Scripta 2019) create mesons (kaons and pions). These mesons decay mainly to muons. The muons created are useful (patented source) for the muon-induced fusion process. The sign of the muons from the source depends on the initial baryons used. With D(0) (ultra-dense deuterium) the source produces mainly positive muons and with p(0) (ultra-dense protium) the source produces mainly negative muons. Negative muons are required for muon-induced fusion. This charge asymmetry was reported earlier, and has now been confirmed by experiments with a coil current transformer as the beam detector. The current coil detector would give no signal from the muons if charge symmetry existed. The charge asymmetry could indicate unknown processes, for example, caused by the different annihilation processes in D(0) and p(0). The conclusions of a new analysis of the results are presented here. Using D(0) in the muon source, the asymmetry is likely due to the capture of μ-in D atoms and D2 molecules. This leads to emission of excess μ + from D(0). With p(0) in the muon source, the capture rate of μ-is lower than in D(0). The emitted number of μ + will be decreased by the reaction between μ + and the surrounding abundant electrons, forming neutral muonium particles. This effect decreases the amount 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). Thus, there is no dominant emission of negative muons which would violate charge conservation.

Display More

What I found interesting in this paper is that a coil is used and a charge is detected by it. One can argue about the hypothesis of what causes the charge, but the fact that a coil detects a charge is interesting per se IMHO.

Quote from Engvild

Laser Deuterium Fusion Target should perhaps be on Reaction Chamber

Wallt o Enable Enthalpy Transfer to Water/Steam

Kjeld C. Engvild

DTU Environment, Technical University of Denmark

DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark

Both magnetic confinement and laser inertial fusion operate with temperatures of a million degrees Kelvin in the middle of a very large reaction chamber. Even if break-even has been achieved the problem of transferring the enthalpy to a medium outside of the chamber and converting it to electricity remains. Perhaps, sustainable deuterium fusion could be achieved by letting tabletop laser accelerated deuterium impact a Zirconium deuteride layer on the wall of a narrow hohlraum or pinhole in a tube surrounded by water.

                  

A pulsed laser with 10¹² watt/cm² [1] to 10²⁰ watt/cm² [2] in the focus is accelerating deuterium into Zirconium deuteride. The deuterium gas is at 0.0001 to 1 bar. Some of the neutrons produced are scavenged by boron and ³He. The enthalpy production is followed by simple calorimetry. The Zirconium deuteride could be replaced by other compounds with better electronic screening for fusion such as palladium or nickel [3], or by palladium oxide [4] or iron oxide [1].

The scheme above should describe a system with a heat evolution around break-even according to [1]. Other papers on deuteron fusion at low energies describe particles at unexpected high en energy levels [5,6].

Possible reactions in the system:

D + D à T + H; D + D à ³He + n; D + T à  ⁴He + n; ³He + n à T + H;

D + D à ⁴He + gamma, or ⁴He + e^- ; H + D à ³He + gamma, or ³He + e^- [7]

n + ¹⁰B à  ⁷Li + ⁴He; n + ¹¹B à  ¹²B à  ¹²C + e⁺

D + D + D à (^D_D^D) à  ⁴He + D; D + D + D à (^D_D^D) à ³He + T; Efimov intermediate [5,6,8]

[1] L. Holmlid, “Heat generation above break-even from laser induced fusion in ultra-dense deuterium”. AIP Advances, 5, 087129. 2015.

[2] A. Alejo, H. Ahmed, A. Green, S. R. Mirfayzi, M. Borghesi, S. Kar, ”Recent advances in laser-driven neutron sources” . Nuovo Cimento 38 C, 188. 2015.

[3] F. Raiola, P. Migliardi, L. Gang, C. Bonomo, G. Gyürky, R. Bonetti et al., ”Electron screening in d(d,p)t for deuterated metals and the periodic table”. Phys. Lett. B 547,193-199. 2002.

[4] J. Kasagi, H. Yuki, T. Baba, T. Noda, T. Ohtsuki, A. G. Lipson, “Strongly enhanced DD fusion in metals observed for keV D⁺ bombardment”. J. Phys. Soc. Japan 71, 2881-2885. 2002.

[5] A. Takahashi, K. Maruta, K. Ochiai, H. Miyamaru, “Detection of three-body deuteron fusion in titanium deuteride under the stimulation by a deuteron beam”. Phys. Lett. A 235, 89-97. 1999.

[6] J. Kasagi, T. Ohtsugi, K. Ishii, M. Hiraga, “Energetic protons and α particles emitted in 150-keV deuteron bombardment on deuterated Ti”. J. Phys Soc. Japan 64, 777-783.1995.

[7] M. Lipoglavsek, S. Markelj, M. Mihovilovic, T. Petrovic, S. Stajner, M. Vencelj, J. Vesic, ”Observation of electron emission in nuclear reaction between protons and deuterons”. Phys. Lett. B 773, 553-556. 2017.

[8] P. Naidon, S. Endo, “Efimov physics: a review.” Rep. Prog. Phys. Vol 85, 056001. 2017.

Display More

Thanks Engvild , I am glad you decided to post this here, I initially thought you had posted an abstract to a paper but now realize you wrote a comment in a very formal scientific communication format, with very pertinent references, which I greatly apprecciate.

Quote from Curbina

I don’t know why Engvild deleted his las post, but thanks for bumping this thread for me with perfect timing to add this new article by Holmlid:

https://www.researchgate.net/p…-Dense_Hydrogen_D0_and_p0

Abstract

Laser-induced nuclear reactions in ultra-dense hydrogen H(0) (review in Physica Scripta 2019) create mesons (kaons and pions). These mesons decay mainly to muons. The muons created are useful (patented source) for the muon-induced fusion process. The sign of the muons from the source depends on the initial baryons used. With D(0) (ultra-dense deuterium) the source produces mainly positive muons and with p(0) (ultra-dense protium) the source produces mainly negative muons. Negative muons are required for muon-induced fusion. This charge asymmetry was reported earlier, and has now been confirmed by experiments with a coil current transformer as the beam detector. The current coil detector would give no signal from the muons if charge symmetry existed. The charge asymmetry could indicate unknown processes, for example, caused by the different annihilation processes in D(0) and p(0). The conclusions of a new analysis of the results are presented here. Using D(0) in the muon source, the asymmetry is likely due to the capture of μ-in D atoms and D2 molecules. This leads to emission of excess μ + from D(0). With p(0) in the muon source, the capture rate of μ-is lower than in D(0). The emitted number of μ + will be decreased by the reaction between μ + and the surrounding abundant electrons, forming neutral muonium particles. This effect decreases the amount 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). Thus, there is no dominant emission of negative muons which would violate charge conservation.

Display More

I think there is a high probability that these results are an experimental error caused by the electromagnetic pulse generated by the laser shot.

But who knows? I would like these results to be real, because there are few theories that open the Stargate to us. It's a shame that no one is trying to replicate these extraordinary results.

What hypotheses make us glimpse the Stargate? There is the Laplace Force extended to the Spin Field of Georges Egely, there is the Janus hypothesis of my teacher and friend Jean-Pierre Petit and there is the hypothesis of Holmlid et al.

If Holmlid is right, then we are in the same situation as physicists in the early 1930s: we knew that enormous energy was contained in the nucleus, but we had no idea how to extract this energy.

And then nature came to give us a gift, explained by Lise Meitner : by providing 5 MeV to an atom of uranium 235, we could make it burst.

How to do ? We can do it with gamma rays of 5 MeV, (photofission) or more energetic protons, or even fast electrons, it works well, but it is not very practical. Accelerators are needed and the energy balance is not very favorable…

Second gift of nature: by binding a neutron to the uranium 235 nucleus, 5 MeV of energy is released, which is enough to split the U236 nucleus. And there, no need for an accelerator.

3rd gift: no nucleus with a mass close to half of the uranium nucleus is stable with the same neutron/proton ratio as the uranium nucleus. Sure, the fission products could turn their excess neutrons into protons through beta decay, but the problem with beta radioactivity is that it depends on the weak force, and the weak force, as the name suggests, it's not very strong, so it would take too long. So neutrons must be released, first in the form of prompt neutrons.

4th gift of nature: Fission products still have too many neutrons, some will be released as delayed neutrons, coupled with beta radioactivity. Without it, we could make bombs, but not reactors.

It is not impossible that nature still offers us such gifts concerning the annihilation of matter. Leif Holmlid may be giving us one of those gifts. It is unlikely, but the stake is so important for humanity that many academic and industrial teams should be working on this technology.

Quote from fabrice DAVID

I think there is a high probability that these results are an experimental error caused by the electromagnetic pulse generated by the laser shot.

You well know that this is nonsense and bias from others. A laser pulse produces do EM signal! At best the laser electronic could do it.

A Geiger/Spektrometer Sensor tube shows no reaction if such a pulse is > 1 meter away.

The problem with current physics is that all what these folk(critics) know is fringe science and useless for mass & particles.

I had e-mail discussion with Holmlid and I did ask him straight away whether he sees muon difference with H/D because it is obvious that H reacts totally different in a H* cluster.

Unluckily Holmlid himself uses fringe models to explain the proton split... He so far could not explain what (physical mechanism) delivers the energy needed to split a proton... You need about 52 MeV ... but how can photons do this...

With SOP it is easy to show how....

D-D fusion above break-even?

Has deuterium fusion about four times above break-even already been observed in 2015??

In 2015, a preprint by Dalkarov, Negodaev, and Rusetskii “Investigation of heat release in the targets during irradiation by ion beams” (file attached).

As I read the paper the team has observed a temperature increase to 100 degrees centigrade in a TiD_x target irradiated with a deuterium beam at one watt in. When Ti was irradiated with a hydrogen beam the temperature rose about 20 degrees centigrade.

In my book this means that Deuterium fusion has caused a temperature increase of about 80 degrees above the heat deposited by the beam, or about four times the heat deposited!

I realize that this argument is extremely rough. The target seems to be cooled by flowing water, so temperatures are quite uncertain. The team’s mechanism proposal, I have not seen anywhere else (equation (4)): d + d à  ⁴He + Q (24 MeV)

I think it is extremely important that this work be repeated, and with better calorimetry as already proposed by the authors. We may be sitting on a solution to the world’s energy problems.

Quote from Engvild

I think it is extremely important that this work be repeated,

Ask MIT to repeat.or maybe Livermore..

ARPA-E has given them funding..for more collision>> neutron type stuff.

"Massachusetts Institute of Technology — Cambridge, MA Neutron Emission from Laser-Stimulated Metal Hydrides - $2,000,000 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) proposes a hypothesis-driven experimental campaign to examine prominent claims of low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) with nuclear and material diagnostics, focusing on unambiguous indicators of nuclear reactions such as emitted neutrons and nuclear ash with unnatural isotopic ratios. The team will develop an experimental platform that thoroughly and reproducibly test claims of" nuclear anomalies in gas-loaded metal-hydrogen systems..

Quote from Alan Smith

The solar corona is a more likely spot. I suspect stars have more than one kind of nuclear process powering them.

Yes, and possibly energy from absorption of spacetime... (Some interesting recent papers on correlations between black hole grow and spacetime expansion.)

Some detailed research on links between astronomic observations and ultra dense hydrogen theory may yield some more relevant theoretical info. There are a lot of UDH objects in the sky emitting a variety of unaccounted for radiation... - i.e. spectral peaks of unknown or incorrectly assigned peaks. Good opportunities for low budget research...

Quote from Simon Brink

There are a lot of UDH objects in the sky emitting a variety of unaccounted for radiation... - i.e. spectral peaks of unknown or incorrectly assigned peaks. Good opportunities for low budget research...

Indeed there are. Up till last year I had continuius background data-logging in the lab and one night in 2011 (around 3 AM UK time) there was a huge peak of up to 20x backround lasting for around a minute.

Have really enjoyed catching up on the UDH news from the last year or so, although a bit sad that ongoing development has run into a few problems.

Best wishes to Leif and Sindre.

From what I can see - as a believer - the major challenges for a large scale commercial system are (i) reaction upscale, (ii) designing a shielding system to deal with (and hopefully capture) all the high energy neutral particles generated, and (iii) power generation.

If decay particles could be forced to be charged, that would help a lot...

Given the current status of international relations, I suspect that “closed book” development by a major backer may be the most realistic path to realisation of positive technology potential.

Quote from Simon Brink

Yes, and possibly energy from absorption of spacetime... (Some interesting recent papers on correlations between black hole grow and spacetime expansion.)

Some detailed research on links between astronomic observations and ultra dense hydrogen theory may yield some more relevant theoretical info. There are a lot of UDH objects in the sky emitting a variety of unaccounted for radiation... - i.e. spectral peaks of unknown or incorrectly assigned peaks. Good opportunities for low budget research...

Black hole growth and dark matter are both errors resulting from the concept of universal gravity. If there are actually two gravitational forces, then the shift from universal gravity to electro-gravity at edges of galaxies creates a modified gravity theory that identifies dark mass as matter having 42 orders of magnitude high coupling. So, the amount of dark matter causing dark matter effects is much smaller than current predictions. The same for blackholes. They radiate out of existence but the apparent mass increases because electro-gravity creates a larger gravitational effect from far less mass. Blackhole radiate a massive synchronous radiation: a sort of gravitational wave that expands space-time which is also call dark energy.

Hansen and Engelen,, "violates the law of baryon conservation".

perhaps they missed out on some aspects of the history of science..

Saying that Holmlid's results violate socalled laws therefore they must be wrong

is so Ptolemaic

Kepler's measurements were inevitably verified by others and led onto inter alia

Newton's Law of Gravitation..

Holmlid is so Keplerian

"Repetition of experiments is required not pondering by nonspecialists"

Kepler got rid of Ptolemiac epicycles and Copernican circles..

but it caused him some headaches

"I was almost driven to madness in considering and calculating this matter.

I could not find out why the planet would rather go on an elliptical orbit. Oh, ridiculous me!

Perhaps Holmid is wrong on his interpretation..

but Ptolemaic style refutation won't lead to progress

Quote from Simon Brink

Best wishes to Leif and Sindre.

From what I can see - as a believer - the major challenges for a large scale commercial system are (i) reaction upscale,

There are technical challenges to Holmlid's UDH tech

More serious challenges.. mainly opposition / avoidance from academic physicists

Few actually acknowledged that Holmlid exists

Hansen and Engelen.. while others expect him to be dead from radiation or heat

240KW?

“One is that this production rate corresponds to an energy outputof close to 240 kW with an input of 5 W laser light.” The measurement cited is correct but the value of 240 kW looks unfamiliar. The experiment has been repeated many times over a period of several years and published a few times.An energy gain of 1000 is normal, not 50 000 as H+E state. “Another is that it is made without any reference to radiation protection measures that should have been taken. T

his type of intensities will cause serious damage to living biological matter in the surroundings and evento the experimental equipment used.” These comments are unprofessional.

Further H+E know nothing about the radiation protection in my lab. The radiation that leaves the apparatus from H(0) is mainly neutral kaons and muons which give little radiation damage.

This has been published in several papers. I have had manuscripts rejected since I was not dead and could not be right about the reactions in H(0). However, instead of fantasizing I measured the particles and the radiation. So I am still alive contrary to expectations and I know why".

Quote from can

Shouldn't all of this derailment go into The church of SM physics or similar threads?

Moved all off topic posts to an appropriate place as requested.

Quote from RobertBryant

Hansen and Engelen,, "violates the law of baryon conservation".

perhaps they missed out on some aspects of the history of science..

Saying that Holmlid's results violate socalled laws therefore they must be wrong

is so Ptolemaic

Kepler's measurements were inevitably verified by others and led onto inter alia

Newton's Law of Gravitation..

Holmlid is so Keplerian

"Repetition of experiments is required not pondering by nonspecialists"

Kepler got rid of Ptolemiac epicycles and Copernican circles..

but it caused him some headaches

"I was almost driven to madness in considering and calculating this matter.

I could not find out why the planet would rather go on an elliptical orbit. Oh, ridiculous me!

Perhaps Holmid is wrong on his interpretation..

but Ptolemaic style refutation won't lead to progress

Display More

Holmlid is wrong. He did not produce mesons. He has produced strange radiation as seen in the cloud chamber used in Sveinn Ólafsson recent replication experiments.