When I look to a list of work function values of elements (attached), Samarium (Sm) seems to be an exception when it comes to low work function values while it isn't an alkali metal. Samarium has 2 valence electrons and seems to be able to be promoted to Rydberg states.
Samarium has been reported present in some LENR experiments generating excess heat.
The paper of Holmlid and his polish colleagues "Production of ultra-dense hydrogen H(0): A novel nuclear fuel" been discussed a few times in this thread.
The proposed fundamental mechanism is illustrated in Fig. 3 with the assumption that hydrogen that is transported over the (heated) surface of the solid (in this case the Alkali doped iron oxide) in a gaseous environment.
Dissociated hydrogen atoms and alkali Rydberg matter clusters exchange energy such that hydrogen Rydberg matter is formed which in turn condensates to UDH. The low working function of alkali metals plays an essential role in this mechanism.
There are many indications that just high enough absorption of hydrogen or deuterium in suitable metals (e.g. Pd, Ni) can lead to excess heat.
The question is whether this is also related to the formation of UDH, as Holmlid has shared as a remark at ResearchGate.
Let's assume this is the case. The question then is how can UDH be formed within such metals.
One thought could be that the work function of absorbed hydrogen atoms within the lattice of such metals is much lower than that of dissociated hydrogen in gaseous form above solid surfaces. Hydrogen atoms with a comparable or lower work function would than form hydrogen Rydberg matter in a similar manner as alkali metals.
Another thought could be that the work function of metals that have a very high load of hydrogen within their lattices is significantly lower than that of metals that don't contain hydrogen.
Or, it might be a combination of the two thoughts of course.
The open question therefore is: would it be possible that the work function of hydrogen and/or metals atoms is decreased within the lattices of such metals when sufficient hydrogen atoms are present?
I was not been able to find any scientific publications on this unfortunately. Any thoughts or facts?
Comments or recommendations?
The 'Mizuno effect' might require the IR radiation from the heater as a trigger.
Therefore best option would be to add external insulation to allow reaching the temperatures Mizuno applied.
The modified thermal gradient will in addition increase the temperature response of potential excess energy which makes it relative easier to detect. Too much external isolation might be tricky as this could cause run away effects in case of successful generation of excess heat.
A potential reference could also be the heater construction Iwamura indicated in his latest patent application.
The heater elements are adjacent to the metal layers that generate the excess heat.
But since this is about replication of Mizuno's R20 reactor it may be wise to stick as much as possible to Mizuno's construction.
There are a variety of rare and other metals that could be tried
after investigating the T,P parameter space with Pd/Ni..
Dual or multiple layers of different metals are applied in various successful LENR methods as most of us already know.
Iwamura's (Clean Planet Japan) method is currently probably the most consistent and reproducible one.
He reports excess heat with several combinations, including Ni/Pd.
Addition of an alkali-oxide may cause increased excess heat performance. Iwamura focusses on calcium oxide 'islands' in between metal layers.
The typical effects at junctions of different metals applied may work as catalyst.
- The effect on Fermi level
- The effect of Galvani potential
Both effects affects the work function of the metal atoms at the junction(s). But probably also the present hydrogen/deuterium atoms are impacted by these effects at that location.
Work function changes may help forming Rydberg matter easier.
Rydberg matter has been suggested to form Ultra Dense Hydrogen/Deuterium.
The presence of Alkali metals (in the form of oxides) may further catalyze formation of (hydrogen/deuterium) Rydberg atoms and matter. Mizuno used a particular soap to clean his nickel mesh. Most soaps contain potassium and/or calcium oxides.
The activity continues, the lab is still intact.
Most important professional known activity is currently that of Sveinn Ólaffson, university of Reykjavik, Iceland.
He has a budget for at least this year and similar laboratory infrastructure.
Don't think I've seen this one here. An expanded paper building on NASA's co-dep journal article:
Very systematically performed research!
Another possible option: neutral pions generally decay into gamma rays.
Lots of uncertainties.
This is probably the reason why Holmlid's papers are not widely accepted.
PMT glass scintillation due to gamma radiation is a known phenomenon
That made me wonder about the following:
A high energy particle that passes through a scintillation element has a remaining energy which is not converted into light within the scintillator. This means that the output value of the PMT does not represent the amount of energy of that particle but only a part of it.
For muons that seems a realistic situation. How to determine the value of a high energetic muon when scintillators aren't just big enough to catch all the energy of that muon?
That's the PMT signal pulse height, which can be interpreted as pulse energy. The multichannel analyzer (MCA) used for analyzing the amplified PMT signal and plotting the spectra sorts the pulses into different 'bins' (or channels), depending on their height/amplitude.
Assuming this should represent an energy scale with increasing energies (eV) from left to right.
Not easy to calibrate.
The images below are from Sveinn Ólafsson's ICCF23 presentation, around minute 17:30. The "layers" refer to the number of aluminium sheet layers placed in front of the PMT (which enhance the signal).
Maybe a naive question, but what does the channel parameter (horizontal axis) represent?
B.T.W. in addition to detect muons in industrial reactors or micro reactors at universities, it would be highly useful when other LENR researchers would actively apply muon detectors.
As Holmlid stated a few month ago, most LENR findings likely are bound to UDH/UDD.
A 32 page pdf from NASA...
The short summarizing paragraph on LENR starting from page 13 onwards does not refer to their own research which is a bit strange. It's worth looking at their reference list, indicating what has been on their radar while writing this LENR paragraph (including e.g. Holmlid).
Bottom line: commercialization seems far away. Basic research work needs to be done to understand what is going on.
Holmlid has stated a few times that more research is needed.
From your analysis I get that there is little doubt about the production and existence of UDD/UDD, but that the results from breaking down UDD/UDH are under discussions. Do you agree with this can ?
That's why temperatures have increased 1.5 ºC for the last decades.
...but you're excused as LENR supporter.
It's worth reading the patent application although a fairly long read. It has several disclosures that match the suggestions and findings in this LEC discussion thread although quite different materials were tested. The inventors have no explanation why these effects occur.
QuoteDespite having run nearly 1,500 cells, it is not known why the cells are producing electricity. It is unexplainable why two small cells have produced electricity for over 15 months with no additional fuel. Although it is not fully understood, it is postulated that the PdC anode ionizes the hydrogen/deuterium gas, and ions are released from the PdC into the internal volume of the cell housing to produce a net negative material. The ions in the gas recombine on the copper cathode with electrons in the copper, electrons being pulled into the cathode externally of the housing from the anode. This invention functions similar to a fuel cell, except that there is no constant input of fuel, and there is no electrolyte to transport ions, as required in a fuel cell. The ions are part of the gas cloud inside the cell housing.
Spotted by Gregory Byron Goble
I think the honor goes to AlainCo with this earlier post in 2016.
This does not mean that the research is all wrong but it likely puts into question the feasibility of manufacturing reactors for power generation within short timeframes as sometimes suggested, which must be why NFE was founded in the first place.
Longer term financing of this type of research and development is the biggest problem here.
With the rejection of their main patent application the outlook of income from licensing an important potential income is virtually zero. Serious investors mostly will only fund when there is at least outlook on licensing income. NFE has indicated in the past that their business would be based on licensing rather than end product development and sales.
I don’t know the value of a patent awarded in one single country, perhaps not much, other than recognition of priority.
Having only a granted patent in one country will not be valuable. Depending on the type of licensing only producing products in that country will require a license. By simply produce products in other (not granted) countries there will be no license fees to collect. Another licensing type might require a licensing fee per sold product in a granted country. In that case only products sold in Sweden will generate license income.
About the way it is written. It sounds as though the Gundersens have doubts about Holmid's science.
How do you explain the crowdfunding project by Sindre happening in parallel?
It clearly indicates this is based on Holmlid's work without mentioning Holmlid and contradicts the content of the letter to NFE's shareholders.
Sindre and Dag are main shareholders and operators of NFE.
Why do you think they did not take the responsibility themselves to inform shareholders?
This is a careful game being played to minimize reputation damage caused by other conflicts of interests.
Let's see what the main shareholders have to say on this.
The biggest issue might be the key patent application, assigned to NFE, which was turned down by the patent offices.
This makes all published insights public domain which decreases a solid business model significantly.
Another issue might be the focus on muon catalyzed fusion versus focus on annihilation energy harvesting.
I have the impression that Holmlid more and more favored focus on harvesting annihilation harvesting while Sindre seems to focus on muon catalyzed fusion (given the description of current crowdfunding project).
Best future options would be universities to pick up the research, although they became increasingly focussed on patenting technologies as well. Many universities have the required infrastructures though, which makes investments less costly.
