Would be swell if the MFMP guys would give a try at duplicating the work in the BLP patent, replicators needed..
There is no implication that there was a pre-existing "lead engineer" that left, that is rank speculation. Any company will have different 'leads' for different teams and efforts, 'lead' is a term for hands-on mid-level management at the team level.
If the opening was for a CTO, now that would be different story, but this job posting only says they are hiring..
Thanks Alan, the trolls are toxic. Amazing how mono-minded they are, fixated on personal attack only. Only treatment is active moderation.
Looking at the 2010 paper Efficient source for the production of ultradense deuterium D(-1) for laser-induced fusion (ICF)
The D(0) material accumulates on the surface of the emitter and the laser focus is 0.1 - 0.4mm below the tip of the emitter. So the D(0) would appear to build up on the surface or diffuse away from it. Given the density of the material, one could speculate that with a larger emitter there would eventually be a drop that forms and falls. That little drop would probably pack quite a punch.
Why should we talk about Holmlid ?
because if such a D(0) material could actually be created in volume at room temp as a super-liquid and independent of the production catalyst, this points to being able to design an practical engine to 'burn' this such a fuel to do useful work as opposed to being a lab curiosity.
If it can scale, then it would be a really big deal in human history, that's why.
This is just a replication of other work...
replication is a hot topic around here..
Government research into cavitation
yes interesting, BTW the ORNL publication does not involve cavitation
from this summary http://physics.aps.org/articles/v9/43
"To explain their results, the researchers conducted
first-principles calculations and found that a water molecule can occupy
six symmetrical orientations in a beryl channel, in agreement with the
known crystal structure. A single orientation has the oxygen atom
roughly in the center of the channel, with the two hydrogens pointing to
the same side (like a “<” symbol) toward one of the channel’s six
hexagonal faces. Other orientations point to other faces, but are
separated from each other by energy barriers of around 50 meV. However,
these barriers don't stop the hydrogens from tunneling among the six
orientations and thereby splitting the ground-state energy into multiple
levels. The energy differences among these levels were consistent with
the seven peaks observed in the neutron scattering data, the researchers
On the topic again: I recall that it was reported a few months ago from the amateur replication community - I do not recall from who exactly - that certain Geiger-Muller radiation counters do not appear to show any radiation where similar models do, in the context of the same experiments.
sounds like this video
My difficulty with this explanation of theirs is that it seems to just push the energy concentration problem back one step, to ultra-dense hydrogen/deuterium. But how was that reversal of entropy possible, one wonders.
Yes this is the question, how could a catalyst do this. Dr. Olafsson did send me a paper in 2013 entitled "Hydrogen Spillover in heterogeneous catalysis" ( Rozanov et al 1997 ), where spillover is defined as the 'interphase diffusion of absorbed hydrogen'. Of course the phases of hydrogen in the paper are nothing exotic, but it's background on how the catalysts function in normal industrial applications.
I thought belief was for religion
There exists only data and extrapolation. Extrapolation based upon well established theory tends to give very good results, but theory is not complete, so this is on the frontier of knowledge.
Someone has to attempt a replication in order for it to move forward. I guess the ideal replicator is a skeptic, but one with the motivation to commit the resources to the work, not an easy combination to find.
@axil - yeah that's my basic question, given the big difference between creating trace amounts of UDD in a tiny crack in a highly dynamic environment vs creating it in bulk in a stable apparatus why doesn't Homlid get more attention than some of the other characters out there. BTW I like that entanglement post, you are a free thinker.
thx for the detailed discussion of Homlid's experiment on this thread. Clearly the experiment needs to be reproduced by another party, and stands as a single data point at the moment.
If I understand the papers, compared to other LENR experiments, the energetic particles emitted ( whatever they are ) coincide with the laser impinging upon the 'puddle' of "UDD" which collects on plate having fallen off the catalyst material. The creation of this superfluid material in a pure form and physically and temporally from it's creation material is a big claim.
My reading is that energetic particles are not measured from the catalyst itself, or during the creation of the "UDD" material or from the "UDD" material without any stimulation. The question is really, does this hyper-dense superfluid derivative hydrogen exist? If the high energy emissions are only when stimulated, ( not during creation ) then there is a puddle of stable non-emissive mystery material just sitting there. Seems like there would be many simple tests to characterize it.
Yes the custom TOF appartus is going to attract attention ( although it certainly demonstrates a more than ordinary skill in the art.. ) kinda a moot point though, since the whole experiment has to be replicated in another lab. I was under the impression that Dr. Olafsson has an independant experiment in Iceland.
@gameover - Yes there would be other ways of producing the ultra-dense hydrogen or deuterium D(-1) such as in classic LENR or cavitation, but in every one of those other techniques the D(-1) is created indirectly through poorly understood mechanisms deep inside of some other material ( i.e. metallic or liquid ) with no way to isolate or concentrate it. Homlid describes creating 'pure' D(-1) which behaves as a superfuid at unremarkable temperatures and pressures, so this is a huge difference.
@robwoudenberg - I have 2 questions.
1. Why isn't there more interest in this in the replication community? It is different than what has come before, but would appear a much more tractable research problem than the LENR experiments.
2. If you did have some amount of D(-1), would this pose a "proliferation risk", i.e. the weaponization of such a material is an unpleasant thought
ok I know all the history, have been following been following this field for years..
My question is about Homlid. His work stands is stark contrast to everything else done since Pons&Fleischman. The implication is that he has a direct path to creating a state of matter that only exists in rare and sporadic form in all the endless metallic core shake and bake experiments.
I would add that I exchanged emails with Dr. Olafsson in 2013 at which time he was setting out to duplicate in his own laboratory the published experiments done by Dr. Homlid. Now 3 years later Dr. Olafsson clearly sees enough potential to continue this work.
I suppose it's a matter of bandwidth and money, but it seems possible that all the 'solid matter' experiments ( where a metallic core are somehow treated ) are essentially a dead end.
Jones Beene is to be commended for his creative and open experiments. I wonder what other efforts are out there to simply replicate the Homlid experimental apparatus.