Hi Ecco
This compression idea of Holmlid is valid from this picture but as soon as you think of temperature then you have hard time thinking that H(1) Rydberg matter (before converting to H(0)) will survive the temperature in ICF and even less in stars.
Greetings
Sveinn
<a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/128-sveinol/">@sveinol</a>
Are you sure of the calculations that led to the graph displayed at page 36? Because they don't agree with standard Gamow calculations for D-D pairs. See for example Balian et al, Cold fusion in a dense electron gas. Journal de Physique, 1989,…
I did this 2 years ago so there might be error, but relative comparison between muon case of UHD case should be similar the right order
The reference you give does the calculation for huge distance compared to 2.3pm according to the abstract.???
Greetings, a bit jet lagged
Sveinn
The sooner you start replicating Holmlid´s work at 100°C not 1400°C the sooner you will be out of this Rossi fire:-).
But I agree there is certainly more action, gossip and drama around Rossi which makes a great kind of a reality TV program for us.
Look at graph in slide 36 a Gamow tunnelling calculation, is it fast at 2.3 pm?
"There seems to be no proof that they obtained 20 times input energy in the ultraheavy hydrogen patent. Show us the proof! "
Agree 20 times!?, there is never proof without scientific publication, the only reliable work so far is
Heat generation above break-even from laser- induced fusion in ultra-dense deuterium
Leif Holmlid. AIP Advances 5, 087129 (2015);
Sveinn
Have a look on
Heat generation above break-even from laser- induced fusion in ultra-dense deuterium
Leif Holmlid. AIP Advances 5, 087129 (2015);
Agree too
One joule = 1W x 1 second, absorbed energy in form of radioactivity is a deadly dose for the body. LENR is usually peaceful and cold and harmless but there is always possibility of one minute runaway physics process that could emit out that radioactivity in one burst during a research work. Plan for the worst and shield everything.
Sveinn
<a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/128-sveinol/">@sveinol</a>: thanks for answering. As a side note, the magnification of K* production with the application of a small voltage reminded me of another effect in catalysis known as EPOC (Electrochemical Promotion of Catalysis), which also requires small…
Yes this is increasingly studied. I am involved here in Iceland in project were production of NH3 by electrochemical process with such novel catalyst and biasing is studied. First mainly with DFT calculations and then experimental checking. This is very hard problem.
Sveinn
Hi <a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/128-sveinol/">@sveinol</a>!
Now after MFMP released their "recipe" do you think you and Holmlid will try such an experiment to just verify it? Maybe check against your own findings?
Gratulations to MFMP
No there is no need to duplicate excellent research work. I visited Alan last November and had nice time in his lab. They will continue this and will get still better data soon I think. They are doing open live research with is very good while we are doing old style delayed open research (publications).
Of course I think there is Rydberg matter involved in the recipe they published:-)
Greetings
Sveinn
@sveinol
Sorry for asking yet another question.
Recently I've stumbled upon the following 2015 paper on the emission of Rydberg states from certain K-promoted catalysts by a research group where Holmlid was a co-author. Today I happened to read it a bit more in detail than last time:
researchgate.net/publication/2…rom_cryptomelane_nanorods
Is my understanding correct that the application of a small positive voltage on the sample increases significantly K* emission, whereas if it's too high it completely inhibits it? This appears to be explained in pages 4-5 and figure 4.
If yes (in other words, if I understood correctly), this is quite important information.
Hi again
Just back from vacation trip in Central America, I read the paper and what it basically says is that increasing the positive bias you increase excitation level of the neutral K* species until you end up with ionisation of K* to K+ and e-. The detector can only detect neutral K* and not K+ therefore the signal drops.
Can voltage bias affect the rate of H* as an intermediate step in generation of ultra dense Hydrogen generation? Yes it is possible but the catalyst is insulator so I think is is hard to bias it.
Greetings
Sveinn
Svein, maybe there is no thread to lose.
Well, I do not have access to this document and I do not want to shell out $39.95 for it.
Perhaps you have a solution to this problem?
H-G Branzell
Send me an email and I will...
Greetings
Sveinn
@Svein
Quoting fromhttp://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/patent-details-for-nuclear-fusion-using.html
The hydrogen transfer catalyst may further be configured to cause a transition of the hydrogen into the ultradense state if the hydrogen atoms are prevented from re-forming covalent bonds. The mechanisms behind the catalytic transition from the gaseous state to the ultra-dense state are quite well understood, ...
Can you help spread light on “understood”?
This is a patent text if you do A then B then C with something then you have "an understood mechanism " i.e. the process that you are trying to patent?
Is this the answer to my question perhaps hidden here: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10894-010-9280-4#/page-1
An attempt is made to explain the recently reported occurrence of ultradense deuterium as an isothermal transition of Rydberg matter into a high density phase by quantum mechanical exchange forces. It is conjectured that the transition is made possible by the formation of vortices in a Cooper pair electron fluid, separating the electrons from the deuterons, with the deuterons undergoing Bose–Einstein condensation in the core of the vortices.
I have tried to read this paper a few times, I always loose the thread/logic jumps on the way.....so do you maybe ?
H-G Branzell
There are many different kinds of traps alongside those that catch rabbits or reputations. I recommend that MFMP avoids getting caught in Leif Holmlid’s ultradense deuterium trap. Just like the hydrinos this is not something that exists or can be coaxed into existence by black magic or any color magic. At least wait for a couple of D(-1) replications before spending resources on it. Before this has happened I suspect that the average donor will find it a less worthy cause.
I can make one practical comment on this statement H-G Branzell.
Leif Holmlid´s work does not urgently need a replication the reason is that anyone that has visited him has been able to perform similar measurements using his setup. A replication from different lab would be fine but that lab would face the same problem of interpreting similiar experimental results. That lab could hardly come up with much different interpretation. Anyone that reads Leif papers can look for alternative interpretation of his data.
The muon and other results however urgently need confirmation with different experimental methods i.e. not a replication experiment.
Greetings
Sveinn
I don´t take my own advice seriously when LENR is involved but I hope that will change ....
Sorry
Very bad experimental description and no reviewing from the conference people? I would have rejected it. The He3 peak could be HD peak but you can not tell, there is no experimental information at all in the paper to help you.
This is probably a space limited conference paper and they spend valuable space in discussing theory!
Sveinn
"Admittedly I'm venturing way outside my comfort area so I am probably wrong in my thinking, but I assumed that the kinetic energy release the from coulomb explosion experiments performed to determine H(0) bond lengths would have been also in the ballpark of the chemical bond energy of the broken fragments. So, perhaps not really 630 eV but still "a few hundred" eV, which would be higher than chemical.
EDIT: to clarify a bit more my point of view on this matter: given that anomalous thermal oscillations and thermal runaways seem to be a common unwanted problem in catalytic hydrogenation beds in the oil industry, it wouldn't surprise me too much if these were consistent/related with the rapid, spontaneous transition between H(0) and H(1) as observed by Holmlid, and the potentially "more exothermic than chemical" 2H->H(0) transition as hinted above."
Sorry for late reply Ecco.
You are right to expect a chemical bond energy in the ballpark of 630eV if you assume a localised electron bond exist in H(0). There are other options possible and most likely is many body quantum phase see for example.
Strongly correlated quantum fluids: ultra cold quantum gases, quantum chromodynamic plasmas and holographic duality
Allan Adams, Lincoln D Carr Thomas Schäfer, Peter Steinberg and John E Thomas
New J. Phys. 14 115009 2012
Greetings
Sveinn
Most likely the new Rossi gadget is of this type
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-intensity_discharge_lamp
plus a solar cell for the electricity production
Greetings
Sveinn
Thanks for the questions Ecco
As far as I understand the reaction can also occur spontaneously, without laser application, provided that enough ultra-dense hydrogen is generated with a hydrogen flux through the catalyst heated preferably in the 200-650°C range. Furthermore, in "Spontaneous ejection of high-energy particles from ultra-dense deuterium D(0)" it's suggested that it doesn't take much time for this process to occur. Here's an excerpt from the paywalled paper:
[...] At the start of a run with D2 gas admission into the apparatus, the signal out from the PMT with PS and glass converters is low as seen in the spectrum indicated “initial” in Fig. 3. After 1 h in that run, the signal increased a factor of 40 as shown by the higher curve in Fig. 3. [...]
This spontaneous process is occurring with the D(0) phase in place if you have D(1) normal Rydberg matter you would not observe it.
If one is to assume that in most low-temperature LENR experiments without nanosecond laser application performed throughout the years the same effect occurred, then the only thing one should be concerned with is attempting to produce as much ultra-dense hydrogen as possible. Eventually some sort of clearly anomalous reaction should be able to occur.
Yes in the end
Either way, shouldn't the transition from H2 to 2H and finally to the ultra-dense phase be quite exothermic?
H2 to 2H* is endothermic. 2H* to H(1) is not known but most likely little exothermic with reference to 2H*. H(1) to H(0) must have similar total energy otherwise they could not transform easily in to one another as Holmlid has observed.
EDIT: sveinol: more in detail, what would the heat of formation of H(0) be? I recall reading somewhere 630eV, but that seems a very high value given that it should be about 4.5eV for the formation of molecular hydrogen. At this level it would not be better than nuclear, but it would still be much better than chemical.
The 630eV energy is not formation energy of (H0) it is the repulsive electrostatic energy when the binding mechanism has been removed with the laser.
Greetings
Sveinn
I myself don´t know but Holmlid has implied to me it is one days work
Greetings
Sveinn
Ecco,
This replication performed few years ago failed since there was only one day of experiment available and it was a company that was trying to perform it not a professor.
Greetings Sveinn
