Quote from gio06

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

Holmlid measured 630 eV for a cluster >= 6H* bound electron! Thus 315 is just half of it. As Deuterium consist of 2 protons then D*-D* has 4 protons, a cluster has >= 12 the added electron flux is shared by 2 protons in average in two dimensions and thus the bond is just half of the H*-H* bond.

Magnetic bonds show a different action than Coulomb bonds and below the Bohr Radius only magnetic bonds can act.

Just one more hint. In SO(4) physics I give the exact energy levels for H*-H* as measured by R.Mills. I just noticed if I use the same law as in 4-He for parallel flux I also get about 630 eV for clusters of H*!

It's a shame that the mafia spends billions for fruitless high energy physics and we still have no deep experiments for the most simple forms (H*-H*) of matter.

Testeng the Holmlid D-D separation of 0.023 angstrom on a time-of-flight mass spectrometer?

A low voltage tof mass spectometer with laser ionization might possibly be used to verify the D⁺ at 630 eV, which is the basis for Holmlids proposal of superdense deuterium. A sample of deuterium satjurated FeO(K) catylyst is ionized in the spectrometer, run at at low acceleration voltage (100V). A D⁺ signal should then precede all other ions such as H⁺. By ionization of other deuterium saturated materials like PdD, TiD₂, ZrD₂, LaD₃, one could verify that a 630 eV signal is independent of matrix, and therefore probably caused by a coulomb explosion of two D's very close together.

500keV has peak by soft d-ray spectroscopy,

IJISRT22MAY292_(1).pdf

in this paper

Thanks for bringing this to our attention can , is an interesting hypothesis. The co authors are listed as belonging to LazeraH, which is also intriguing.

Holmlid published a new paper

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374854063_Spontaneous_creation_of_muons_and_destruction_of_protons_in_ultra-_dense_hydrogen_H0

It is estimated by Holmlid that 8×10²³ hydrogen atoms in form H(0) was produced. Given that 6×10²³ atoms of hydrogen is 1 gram, presumably 1,33±0,01 grams of H(0) were produced. The lifetime of H(0) was estimated to be 10¹¹ years. The activity for this amount was roughly 40000 spontaneous reactions/second, so activity per gram is roughly 30000 reactions/second. Given that 1 reaction corresponds to consumption of 2 atoms of protium with rest mass of 939 MeV, we can estimate that 30000×939×2=56340000 MeV of energy per gram is constantly released. Assuming standard density of H(0) to be around 130000 g/cm³, we can estimate that 1 cm³ of H(0) would have an activity of roughly 3900000000 reactions per second, or 3,9 GBq (gigabecquerel). So 1 cm³ of H(0) would constantly release 3900000000×939×2=7324200000000 MeV of energy. Assuming that only 46% of that energy can be converted to heat by any means, we can calculate that 3369132000000 MeV of usable energy would be released, which corresponds to 0,54±0,01 joules/second, or 0,54±0,01 watts of heat. That is not negligible amount of heat just from "decay"!

I knew it can be produced in good enough amounts, and finally there is evidence.

Quote from can

If enough H(0) could be accumulated on/in a suitable material

The energy release from the formation of each dense hydrogen is estimated to be of the order of 500ev by Wyttenbach..

If as Holmlid estimates there is ~1 mole (8×10²³)of dense hydrogen formed

then the energy release is ~500x 96.5Kj/ev= ~50Mj

which is enough energy to vaporise a lot of water.

The Holmlid experimental setup did not include calorimetry ..

perhaps somebody could add this but this takes $/time

also the K doped ferrite catalysts used may be obsolete?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/374536554_The_proton_and_its_resonances_RIIpdf?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6Il9kaXJlY3QiLCJwYWdlIjoicHJvZmlsZSIsInBvc2l0aW9uIjoicGFnZUNvbnRlbnQifX0

Quote from RobertBryant

Holmlid estimates there is ~1 mole (8×10²³)of dense hydrogen formed

This is obvious nonsense. The second electron of H*-H* is still in his original, orbit albeit much less bound. The Bohr radius is a basic quantity in physics that hold for all chemical bonds.

Of course H*-H* must be a bit more dense as two H* use the same space as one H. Also the magnetic force may lead to some weak compression (May be I should once calculate it...). Santilli wrote of about 10% in hydrocarbons....

As said: Old school thinking did mislead all old school guys. See also the Lipinskys and of course Mills.

I recently on ECW came access the very interesting LENR forum

Video interview with Sveinn Olafsson from 2021.

Somehow I missed this back in 2021…. There is a whole bundle of interesting information there.

The pictures of the laser stimulation between the catalyst and foil

The bubble chamber radiation tracks

The very fast TOF

The lack of muon detection by other means

The clear forward development at the time.

Also since then there flags been some papers from Holmlid that were contested and answered. Were they resolved?

I wonder if there was any follow up?

I saw recently Zeiner Gundersen has had a paper in preprint in research for the last year.

Regarding the laser stimulation in tat video. I’m curious about the colour. Is it a real colour image? If frequency doubled an Nd YAG laser would be close to green in colour rather than blue violet. Hydrogen gas could have Balmer line emission in that range but could that be stimulated with a laser of that frequency?

Resolved?

Nothing resolved... that would require more than a few replications by others..

Besides its too upsetting for the status quo

Holmlid's latest response to the status quo

"5. Final comments

“The paper of Holmlid and Zeiner-Gundersen makes claims that would be truly revolutionary

if they were true.”

The claims are true.

I suggest that you try such experiments yourself.

You have the resources and if you have problems I offer help.

Please note that the review was based on close to 50 published papers.

Why should you be able to spot all the errors that must have been made in measuring and publishing these 50 papers if they are not correct?

“We have shown that they violate some fundamental and very well established laws in a rather direct manner.”

H+E probably mean the baryon number conservation law which they misunderstand as shown above. No other fundamental law was referred to. Their discussions about the hydrogen molecule demonstrate no understanding of quantization of angular momentum in atomic and molecular physics.

Such quantization is fundamental for the theory of H(0)."

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.08775

Yes, some claims are true. Some misinterperpetation as knowledge have increased in the field. Post the picture and ill tell you if colours are correct.

Sincerely Sindre

Btw, Jos Engelen i very critical of everything, and has been for many years…

Thanks for the replies Sndre

The picture I was think of was this one:

That I understand comes from this video

I really liked that video it’s honest and intriguing at the same time.

On reflection though I guess the bright diffraction pattern is from Balmer emission from the Deuterium. And may be that would be expected .if it was initially in Rydberg state I was at one point wondering though if it was evidence of emission from the UDD state. But now realize that Balmer emission is more likely.

I think it’s normal to have some strong critics. And the full process benefits from them when it leads to clarification and sometimes self review. So long as it does not completely block serious innovation and exploration of new concepts. If science does not raise seriously evaluated new concepts and possibilities for fear of being wrong we all loose.

The papers and works by Vassalo, Tomasso, Kovacs etc really re stimulated my interest in your work. Since they are clearly related and largely take it’s a basis.

I hope everything is going well with your work. I can’t help being curious about the developments but I guess they will published in their own time.

Thanks again

Stephen.

Quote from RobertBryant

Holmlid's latest response to the status quo

Holmlids response is clear. If a signal is amplified (multiplied) by a standard (Al,Cu) target/behind a target we usually see muons. After this the rest is clear.

What most replicators simply don't grasp is that they have to measure at about 7 meter from the UDH foil as it takes some time until the Kaons do decay. So any replication in a shorter tube is just a fake or a kind of cocktail.

2011 Blog

Open Access Scientific Publishing

Engelen is not critical of the status quo in nuclear physics

a decaying status quo ..

The future of nuclear energy is not in fission or ITER but in LENR

"And no CO2 emissions. Germany has decided to close its nuclear power plants. That is a remarkable decision that the government seems to have taken overnight. The phasing out of nuclear power stations will lead to a disappearing need for technical and scientific knowledge in the field of nuclear energy. There will be no more technical and scientific innovation in this area. In Germany."

Quote from SindreZG

Jos Engelen i very critical of everything,

Quote from RobertBryant

The phasing out of nuclear power stations will lead to a disappearing need for technical and scientific knowledge in the field of nuclear energy. There will be no more technical and scientific innovation in this area. In Germany."

Then we will see a next leap forward in other areas, I am sure.... e.g. check out

CMblu .

https://www.cmblu.com/en/home/

Conventional nuclear power plants are just too problematic.

We need sustainable, non harmful technology!!