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

Quote from redirmogician

Is it possible that the radiation emitted by UDH originates from the process of protium to deuterium? I've seen mention that because the nucleus and electron are so close that they are considered neutron-like, they may be captured by other nuclei. Could it be that in UDH a neutron-like reaction of a proton to an electron to another proton to form deuterium (and a neutrino) is taking place?

it is important to understand the electron deep orbit.

refer to the paper of

cold fusion mechanism of bond compression.

this is the correct mechanism of cold fusion and not by UHD hydrogen but by femto D2 molecules.

you mention that UDH is a neutron like.

note that femto D2 is neutron-like.

Quote from nkodama

it is important to understand the electron deep orbit.

The term orbit is wrong, as electrons never orbit... It's all EM flux and equal EM mass can join and e.g. form H*-H*/D*-D*. Magnetic EM) orbits are not QM like due to the 1/r³ nature.

This is experimental data logged over 5 years with dkfferent setups and using different detectors. how can you state this is impossible?

Quote from RobertBryant

?The text may need modification..or is the contradiction for effect.

"

This highest bremsstrahlung of 50 keV corresponds to channel 800, whereas the shoulder

at channel 200 corresponds to 21 keV X-Rays. We can conclude from figure 10 that the PMT detector set

up with aluminum foil acts as a simplified primitive low energy resolution X-Ray detector. The most likely

cause of the spontaneous radiation from the active chamber is therefore X-Rays.

"However, this conclusion is in fact impossible since the active chamber has no ongoing excitation with

laser or high voltage. Hydrogen has only entered a particular catalyst, and X-Ray emission from such a

chemical process is generally regarded as an impossibility.

Next we have to add the pulse shape observations. The radiation emitted from the active chamber can

come in bursts of multiple events within an event, as shown in figure 12. One raw pulse can contain up to

6-9 individual faster peaks indicating that the emitted radiation also is a combination or succession of pulse

trains, packets, or clusters. We do not see random smaller amplitude pulses between the main pulse clusters.

From this, we can only conclude that the we are most likely observing X-Rays bunches coming as random

events from the chamber."

The interesting result is that deuterium (vizaviz hydrogen) increases the radiation intensity and level

up to around 50 keV

Display More

wyttenback, please explain CF energy transfer?

Quote from Wyttenbach

No basic fusion is aneutronic. The neutron is not a key building block of matter - one of the big mistakes in the standard model. E.g. 4-He contains no neutrons. We often see an Xray spectrum from H*/D*-clusters. Mostly due to recombination induced by CF energy transfer.

im not saying we arent creating elusive particles. Im just stating that the detector Leif was using is sensitive to xray. Xray and muons would probably react the same in his detector. It has never been calibrated up to a known muon source.

Quote from Curbina

Just had now time to take a closer look, I guess Dr. Holmlid won't be happy that his replicators say the muon hypothesis is not valid, but his loss is our gain as now they provide interesting proof that Rydberg matter alone with or without laser stimulation can emit X ray radiation, where have we seen this before?

Quote from SindreZG

. It has never been calibrated up to a known muon source.

Not in your London visit?

Quote from SindreZG

Im just stating that the detector Leif was using is sensitive to xray. Xray and muons would probably react the same in his detector.

Xray and muons cause totally different reactions. Holmlid in some experiments did mount ALU foils upfront the PMT. This is well known leading to an increase of signal count of the whole spectrum including high energy gammas from muon capture.

A muon in the PMT causes multiple Xray's on its down spinning path. On the other side a 1mm ALU foil blocks almost all X rays (< 10keV) from the outside. The standard muon test is a thick copper foil/sheat but may be then you should be out of the lab if the production peeks is > 1000/s ...

Of course we all would like to see a 1:1 reproduction including the catalyst. But such an experiment with an at least 7 Meter long vacuum tube will be quit costly. It is 100% clear that Holmlids impact on new physics is already at least 100x greater than what CERN did. The aneutronic production of 4-He alone should give him a nobel.

Quote from SindreZG

how can you state this is impossible?

I don't state that this is impossible..

but in fact I believe the experimental evidence

but your text states

"However, this conclusion is in fact impossible"

Perhaps this should be modified to read

"However, this conclusion is in fact thought to be impossible by conventional physics.

Conventional physics mainly evolves by anomalies... eventually.. painfully.

Nuclear isomers were discovered 100 years ago, and physicists are still unraveling their mysteries

Nuclear isomers are rare versions of elements with properties that mystified physicists when first discovered. Isomers are now used in medicine and astronomy,…

theconversation.com

Quote from RobertBryant

Conventional physics mainly evolves by anomalies... eventually.. painfully.

One such anomaly was the introduction of the neutron as a nuclear building block. First sight it was a brillant solution but second sight it is wrong too. The combination of charge and proton is not a fixed entity inside nuclei. In fact charge inside most isotopes is degenerated to double the value of the electron's charge generation mass = 1183eV for1 nuclear bond equivalent. 1183eV is the energy a normal 2 rotation bond needs (e.g in the electron) and double is needed for the 4 rotation electro-strong p-p bond. The strong force bond is a five rotation double bond and usually needs 10x1183eV e.g. in 4-He.

Real physics seems to be much more complex than just counting LEGO'S (e,p,n). But as long as just one person does real physics and the rest of the world is occupied with fringe nonsense (standard model..) progress will be slow.

I guess the definitive loss of precious pets like neutron stars will also hinder these children from growing up.

Holmlid publishes since about 30 years now. As each paper of him directly or indirectly refutes the standard model he is just ignored by the SM mafia that, likes big money and big bang collider physics and childish models.

The only researchers that actively contacted him have been the LLL (military) guys of the laser ignition factory. It looks like they have learned from him but not from modern laser research...

Of course xrays and muons create different reactions in materials-but for leifs detector the spectrum would look similar. No, i was not given beam time slot. You need to apply for beam time and specify energy, detectors and materials to be placed. Aluminium is not a scintillator of any kind. A standard calibrated Muon detector with scintillator should have been used.

I did the 1:1 experiment and showed the same results as Leif, same ”muon” spectrum, same TOF, neutrons, xray, coil signal,H/Dt etc etc.

If Leif did produce Muons in the lab at the University most student and himself would have had serious health problems from all the radiation.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Not in your London visit?

Xray and muons cause totally different reactions. Holmlid in some experiments did mount ALU foils upfront the PMT. This is well known leading to an increase of signal count of the whole spectrum including high energy gammas from muon capture.

A muon in the PMT causes multiple Xray's on its down spinning path. On the other side a 1mm ALU foil blocks almost all X rays (< 10keV) from the outside. The standard muon test is a thick copper foil/sheat but may be then you should be out of the lab if the production peeks is > 1000/s ...

Of course we all would like to see a 1:1 reproduction including the catalyst. But such an experiment with an at least 7 Meter long vacuum tube will be quit costly. It is 100% clear that Holmlids impact on new physics is already at least 100x greater than what CERN did. The aneutronic production of 4-He alone should give him a nobel.

Display More

Quote from SindreZG

If Leif did produce Muons in the lab at the University most student and himself would have had serious health problems from all the radiation.

Thanks for your interactions hereq SindreZG , can we know if you have an Hypothesis or even if you hazzard a guess of what is what Mr. Holmlid and you also have produced and detected?

Quote from SindreZG

If Leif did produce Muons in the lab at the University most student and himself would have had serious health problems from all the radiation.

Muons are harmless for your body. Just avoid to place a piece of metal/copper in the flight path. Secondary radiation is the real danger. A friend has been exposed to a "deadly" particle flux in a glow discharge CF experiment at Los Alamos. But luckily the particle where identified as muons... So he still is healthy.

The other point is space angle and 1/r. 1000 muon's/s can lead to 50'000 secondary radiation events/s where the usual background is around 150..300.

I once asked Leif about polarization/ isotropy of the radiation beam. I assume that the particle flow is highly space inhomogen something also Lipinsky's did not believe and later failed. So Leif's answer was not conclusive. It should be easy to look for muons outside the vacuum tube. Just use 1..2cm copper blade and a PMT behind it and walk around if the count is reasonable... Such missing details are crucial for final credibility.

Absurd claim, negative muon can create fusion in Dt and positive Muons will create muonic xrays, energy based on target materials, thickness and positive muon energy. Muons can ionize molecules and and create dna mutations, this is well established facts. Never heard of any glow charge experiment used as a muon source, but share research on that if you have.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Muons are harmless for your body. Just avoid to place a piece of metal/copper in the flight path. Secondary radiation is the real danger. A friend has been exposed to a "deadly" particle flux in a glow discharge CF experiment at Los Alamos. But luckily the particle where identified as muons... So he still is healthy.

The other point is space angle and 1/r. 1000 muon's/s can lead to 50'000 secondary radiation events/s where the usual background is around 150..300.

I once asked Leif about polarization/ isotropy of the radiation beam. I assume that the particle flow is highly space inhomogen something also Lipinsky's did not believe and later failed. So Leif's answer was not conclusive. It should be easy to look for muons outside the vacuum tube. Just use 1..2cm copper blade and a PMT behind it and walk around if the count is reasonable... Such missing details are crucial for final credibility.

Quote from SindreZG

Never heard of any glow charge experiment used as a muon source, but share research on that if you have.

It happened behind the doors of an US military national lab and certainly will not be published.

Muons only are a danger in the "last" moment of their existence (when slowed down & depolarized) . The interaction of kinetic muon's with organic material is very low its following the usual "Z" law.

Of course no radiation is harmless but the rule for muon's is simple: Don't (try to) stop them.

Excellent, then we agree on harmfulness of radiation. Now rethink how Leifs setup works, thickness of reactors, distances and energy of particles. Electrons, protons, secondary radiation energies and how Leifs Detector actually should work and detect Muons. Im not saying there arent any Muons, but they havent been detected by using modern Muon detector technology by any means- and i have tried most of them. PMT with Al foil detector is probably the worst broadband ”detector” to actually verify anything or even to differentiate between any radiation.

Quote from Wyttenbach

It happened behind the doors of an US military national lab and certainly will not be published.

Muons only are a danger in the "last" moment of their existence (when slowed down & depolarized) . The interaction of kinetic muon's with organic material is very low its following the usual "Z" law.

Of course no radiation is harmless but the rule for muon's is simple: Don't (try to) stop them.

Yes, i can verify, electron velocity, proton velocity, xrays and neutrons. No Muonic Xrays are detected from positive Muons using HpGe detectors with different materials.

Quote from Curbina

Thanks for your interactions hereq SindreZG , can we know if you have an Hypothesis or even if you hazzard a guess of what is what Mr. Holmlid and you also have produced and detected?

Quote from SindreZG

Yes, i can verify, electron velocity, proton velocity, xrays and neutrons. No Muonic Xrays are detected from positive Muons using HpGe detectors with different materials.

So the emissions are electrons, protons and neutrons, which indicates fusion, but not muons? Or I am misunderstanding, and you are not detecting any emission at all so there's no fusion ongoing?

My task was never to verify Fusion, just negative Muons. I can only verify and publish what i have detected and have solid data on. Pathway for Neutrons have several explanations. Fusion is the last of them.

Quote from SindreZG

My task was never to verify Fusion, just negative Muons. I can only verify and publish what i have detected and have solid data on. Pathway for Neutrons have several explanations. Fusion is the last of them.

Thanks for that clarification. So, from that perspective, is posible to deduce that after your experimentation, you don't support the claims of Holmlid about UDH and its potential for energy production? Or you have no further interest in the matter and don't intend to pursue it anymore?

Quote from Curbina

So the emissions are electrons, protons and neutrons, which indicates fusion, but not muons? Or I am misunderstanding, and you are not detecting any emission at all so there's no fusion ongoing?

One explanation of an issue that I have missed in Holmid's process is that the process does not occur unless a light source no matter how weak (a photon source) is either intentionally or unintentionally applied to the Ultra dense hydrogen.

The probability of the reaction occurring is proportional to the strength of the initiating photon source. What mechanisms are involved in this reaction initiation process?

In other words, why would a few photons get the reaction started, and once started, the reaction keeps going even if the source of the photons are removed?

Quote from SindreZG

No Muonic Xrays are detected from positive Muons using HpGe detectors with different materials.

According to literature positive muons just lead to Bremsstrahlung and Cherenkov light. Can you tell us what X-rays you expect? So with Holmlid's guessified energy the expected penetration depth for u+ is 6..9 cm where the positron with up to 50MeV gets freed.

Are there medical papers about positiv "low energy muon" - u⁺ - damage? Cherenkov light could be enough for damage.

Negative muons are totally different as the coupling is much stronger and you get many X-rays.

I'm fully aware that many things Holmlid tells are just best guesses. But the energy of the fragments clearly has nuclear origin and the timing gives the correct answer for the Kaon, Pion, Muon chain - here is no doubt.

But it is a shame that nobody with more elaborate instruments tries to reproduce this key experiment. To make it clear: In my view this experiment will not promote any business as the radiation is far to dirty. So keeping any secretes would be childish except for the catalyst that could be used in CF.

Did your reproduction use the proper length (> 6 meters) to target /PMT?