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

MUONS AS THERAPY.

The muon is a subatomic particle that includes the positive and negative muon with a charge of

−1 and 1, respectively. For the mass, the muon is heavier than the electron. As for a proton beam,

the muon beam shows a Bragg peak when it interacts with materials. Therefore, the muon beam, as

well as the proton beam, can also be considered as a candidate for radiotherapy. In this study, based

on the Monte Carlo method, we defined a water phantom that which included a target volume and

three interesting volumes. Then, the interaction processes of proton, positive and negative muon

beams in materials were simulated. Moreover, the dose depositions of proton beam, positive and

negative muon beams in each volume were calculated. An analysis of the calculated results, showed

that compared to a proton beam, especially the negative muon beam, had an advantage in reducing

the physical dose deposition in the upstream volume of the target.

muon beams.pdf

Quote from Wyttenbach

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?

Display More

Attached is a database on muonix xrays, not just bremstralung and light: https://muxrays.jinr.ru

Pions and kaons can not be detected using simple detectors for a couple of 100 bucks with ns timing.

Yes i reproduced everything as far as i could with the funding i had, transportable battery operated pmts. SiPM detectors, calibrated xray detectrors, three different kind of neutron detectors. Large scale coincidence and anti coincidence Muon detectors. The detectors i used was a lot more advanced. Detection range 0-20 m from reactors under different operating conditions. as a physicist i will always be looking for answers- i saw the same radiation as Leif but i do not have the same conclusion. The Neutrons origin is most likely not from Fusion but from high energy Protons. Remember that just a slight misunderstanding of early results can lead to a cascade of later interpretations.

Quote from SindreZG

[…]

Im happy to share catalysts and assist a different research group if someone want to set up a fifth replication experiment to see if they can verify.

Quote from SindreZG

Attached is a database on muonix xrays, not just bremstralung and light:

Thanks for the table!

As it was about danger to humans (in Leif's lab) only light elements play a role. There we only have X'rays that count- But unluckily these tables do not differentiate between u+/u-.

So as said: u+ produces only breaking radiation where u- can produce all sort of X-rays and is much more dangerous.

The other problem is the final stop of a muon and its decay. The e+/e- usually is of high energy and only a fraction will stay in your body.

For details about u+ see:

Optical imaging of muons - Scientific Reports

www.nature.com

We used positive muons for our imaging experiments because the intensities of the posi-

tive muons at J-PARC were higher than that of negative muons and radionuclide production by irradiation to

materials is negligible for positive muons.

Quote from SindreZG

Large scale coincidence and anti coincidence Muon detectors.

Here the question is :: what type of muon's did you see? This can tell us more about the H*_x --> 4-He (12-C) reactions that feed the proton decay.

One more good reference for estimating muon damage::

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/29/043/29043332.pdf

The flux density to dose equivalent conversion factor has been found by Stevenson [(St73),

quoted in (Sw90)] to be 40 fSv m2 (25000 muons cm"2 per mrem) for 100 MeV < Eu < 200

GeV. [At lower energies range-out of muons in the body with consequential higher energy

deposition gives a conversion factor of 260 fSv m^ (3850 muons cm*2 per mrem)]

So its all a matter of distance to source for direct muon hits. A sphere of 1m radius has a surface of about 12.3m2 40 femto sieverts are pretty low. A mrem is 0.00001 sievert

Holmlid's just published robust rebuttal of criticisms of his low-cost Muon production and HO claims.

Here's a sample from the rebuttal paper (very readable btw).Full text link below.

H&E state that in my experiments, a very simple YAG laser was used, but a little later in their text they suggest that it was a very high-power laser which facilitates the acceleration of the fragments from H(0) to energies of several hundred eV.

Such an acceleration due to emitted electrons can never produce the observed acceleration of neutral fragments. Such an acceleration by the laser would likely not give the observed result of several well-defined energies. Therefore, H&E should write a paper on how this could be possible.

I would never try to publish such an impossible explanation of the experimental results, while the explanation which was used in terms of Coulomb explosions agrees very well with experiments and was publishable.

The lack of publications by H&E on these subjects give their comments low credibility.A more scientific approach with ordinary publications would be far better than writing unsupported comments on published papers.

Response_to_the_comment_Are_claims_of_cheap_muon_p.pdf

Quote from Alan Smith

Holmlid's just published robust rebuttal of criticisms of his low-cost Muon production and HO claims.

Here's a sample from the rebuttal paper (very readable btw).Full text link below.

H&E state that in my experiments, a very simple YAG laser was used, but a little later in their text they suggest that it was a very high-power laser which facilitates the acceleration of the fragments from H(0) to energies of several hundred eV.

Such an acceleration due to emitted electrons can never produce the observed acceleration of neutral fragments. Such an acceleration by the laser would likely not give the observed result of several well-defined energies. Therefore, H&E should write a paper on how this could be possible.

I would never try to publish such an impossible explanation of the experimental results, while the explanation which was used in terms of Coulomb explosions agrees very well with experiments and was publishable.

The lack of publications by H&E on these subjects give their comments low credibility.A more scientific approach with ordinary publications would be far better than writing unsupported comments on published papers.

Response_to_the_comment_Are_claims_of_cheap_muon_p.pdf

Display More

Great to know it was published as a letter to the editor in this journal, I had seen it and even commented on the preprint available on Researchgate but wasn’t aware it had been submitted to a journal, too. That’s great, as the critics were only published at Arxiv.

ETA: I stand corrected, the criticism had also been published in the same journal at some point, I just became aware of that.

Bashing at other physicist doesnt make it more credible. Still results with uncalibrated detectors…

Quote from SindreZG

Bashing at other physicist doesnt make it more credible. Still results with uncalibrated detectors…

Can we know what is your interpretation of the results you obtained? I know you replicated the effect but don’t agree with Holmlid’s interpretation, but I haven’t been able to know what is your alternative hypothesis to explain your results.

its XRays and neutrons

Quote from Curbina

Can we know what is your interpretation of the results you obtained? I know you replicated the effect but don’t agree with Holmlid’s interpretation, but I haven’t been able to know what is your alternative hypothesis to explain your results.

The TOF results is a mix, microwaves, xrays, electrons and protons in the tof tubes.

No magic, just normal accellerator physics

Quote from SindreZG

No magic, just normal accellerator physics

Ok, so from your point of view UDH is non existant?

No i believe rydberg state, R matter, dense and ultradense formation of both H and D is absolute correct. There are certainly commercial uses for it.

Quote from SindreZG

No i believe rydberg state, R matter, dense and ultradense formation of both H and D is absolute correct. There are certainly commercial uses for it.

Including energy production?

Is Holmlid 0.023 angstrom D-D separation a signature of a triple D Efimov state enabling Deuterium fusion?

"Badiei, Holmlid and associates have postulated the existence of metastable "ultradense deuterium" because they have observed 315 eV deuterium after laser pulse induced coulomb explosions, indicating a separation between two deuterium atoms of 0.023 angstrom. Instead of "ultradense deuterium", the 315 eV deuterium signal might be the signature of a triple deuterium Efimov state induced by the laser pulse. In the triple D state the average D separation would be 0.023 angstrom; the energy might be around 120 eV. Sometimes, the 3 D's would fuse to alpha + D, rarely to T + 3 He. This would explain the amounts 4 He >> T >> neutrons observed often in LENR electrolysis, glow discharge, laser pulse, and deuteron beam experiments. The Efimov state might relax to a lower Efimov state with an average D separation of 0.52 angstrom, giving a solid kick to the surrounding nuclei, creating heat. A deuterium glow discharge lamp with a zirconium deuteride cathode on the wall might demonstrate the existence of "Efimov fusion". Ultradense Deuterium? Badiei, Holmlid and their associates [1-13] induced coulomb explosions in D2 adsorbed to potassium promoted iron oxide dehydrogenation catalyst by laser pulses. By time-of-flight measurements they observed many particles at 315 eV [1-4]. They deduced a separation between two deuterons of 0.023 angstrom. Accelerations of deuterons from other naked nuclei of the catalyst would not explain the 315 eV signal [1]. They therefore postulated the existence of metastable ultradense deuterium, where D's are separated by 0.023 angstrom."

Quote from gio06

Is Holmlid 0.023 angstrom D-D separation a signature of a triple D Efimov state enabling Deuterium fusion?

"Badiei, Holmlid and associates have postulated the existence of metastable "ultradense deuterium" because they have observed 315 eV deuterium after laser pulse induced coulomb explosions, indicating a separation between two deuterium atoms of 0.023 angstrom. Instead of "ultradense deuterium", the 315 eV deuterium signal might be the signature of a triple deuterium Efimov state induced by the laser pulse. In the triple D state the average D separation would be 0.023 angstrom; the energy might be around 120 eV. Sometimes, the 3 D's would fuse to alpha + D, rarely to T + 3 He. This would explain the amounts 4 He >> T >> neutrons observed often in LENR electrolysis, glow discharge, laser pulse, and deuteron beam experiments. The Efimov state might relax to a lower Efimov state with an average D separation of 0.52 angstrom, giving a solid kick to the surrounding nuclei, creating heat. A deuterium glow discharge lamp with a zirconium deuteride cathode on the wall might demonstrate the existence of "Efimov fusion". Ultradense Deuterium? Badiei, Holmlid and their associates [1-13] induced coulomb explosions in D2 adsorbed to potassium promoted iron oxide dehydrogenation catalyst by laser pulses. By time-of-flight measurements they observed many particles at 315 eV [1-4]. They deduced a separation between two deuterons of 0.023 angstrom. Accelerations of deuterons from other naked nuclei of the catalyst would not explain the 315 eV signal [1]. They therefore postulated the existence of metastable ultradense deuterium, where D's are separated by 0.023 angstrom."

Engvild is a member here also, gio06 .