corrected for you
Perhaps the post with the biggest bias I have ever read on LF.
JulianBianchi
Member
- Member since Jun 3rd 2016
Posts by JulianBianchi
-
-
For what it's worth, Holmlid thinks that in UDH the nuclear processes take place in the 3- and 4- atom small clusters that are not superfluid, so that could in part be where Ólafsson's hypothesis came from.
In the same article, Holmlid argues that nuclear processes take place in small 3 or 4 atoms clusters not because of the requirement to have 3 baryons in the Adler-Bell-Jackiw process but because:
1) middle of Section 8.1: This is as expected, since the superfluid chain clusters will be able to transport energy rapidly and thus may not be so easily influenced by laser radiation. I.e. that only the small clusters are influenced by the laser, and because:
2) end of Section 8.1: The spin state of these small clusters is not known, but it appears likely that the state s = 1 must be reached for the small cluster before the nuclear processes take place, for example by tunneling from the close distance of 0.56 pm at s = 1. If this process down to → s = 1 is required to start the nuclear processes, it is also quite unlikely that the chain clusters are involved since that would mean a transfer to s = 1 for a majority of the atoms in a large cluster. In fact, no clear evidence exists from CE experiments that chain clusters can transfer down to state s = 1 thus to the state with only electron spin and no orbiting motion of the electrons in the clusters. I.e. that only the small clusters may switch to S=1 for the nuclear reactions to occur.
I was initially following Holmlid explanations but now, when weighting the experimental evidence in front of the various hypotheses, to require H(3) because of the Adler-Bell-Jackiw anomaly is indeed quite appealing. I will deep into the literature on spheralons to determine how much current published estimate (in the TeV range) depends on time for crossing over the barrier to occur. I do not exclude that this figure was estimated for a LHC-type, read short time-high energy, experiment and as such may not fit UDH case.
-
Sveinn Ólafsson has a hypothesis involving the Adler-Bell-Jackiw anomaly, but I have no opinion about that.
Decay of two protons in three mesons breaks the baryon number and the Adler-Bell-Jackiw anomaly is currently the only known process that does the same. I'm not a fan of that explanation for UDH because the minimum energy required to trigger the sphaleron process is believed to be in the TeV range. Also the Adler-Bell-Jackiw anomaly works with multiple of 3 baryons only and as such would require more complex UDH clusters. I expect another (unknown) quantum chiral anomaly. In the case of UDH, as opposed to hot fusion, there is plenty of time for electroweak interactions to act with the hadrons somewhat freed of the strong interactions.
-
Nice catch. I would love to see our "usual skeptics" discuss the calorimetry of this experiment here.
Edit: joking of course
-
Before this thread closes, here is another recommendation to replicate Holmlid. In our opinion, the work of Holmlid is not recognized enough in the LENR community. What is very exciting with Rydberg Matter of hydrogen and its presumed ultradense phase is that all serious LENR work, including AHE, NAE, strange radiations, you name it..., can be explained by the formation then disintegration of this ultradense phase of matter. As crazy as it may sound at first sight. And still more crazy - fasten your seat belt - is the idea that LENR is linked to dark matter, with LENR a two steps process, first chemical from hydrogen to its ultradense form, read from ordinary matter to dark matter, second nuclear through the disintegration of ultradense hydrogen into pure energy, read from dark matter to dark energy. Yeah no more no less.
A first replication occurred last year in Scandinavia and the timing is now excellent for the Google group to investigate RM of hydrogen. With the necessary instruments and know-how to better characterize the products of the reaction (that most in LENR don't have).
It is not an overstatement to say that a replication of Holmlid would not only revolutionize LENR but also represent the biggest scientific discovery of this century. As my mentor winner of the 2017 Nobel said again to me recently, in science one needs crazy scientists for crazy projects.
-
Cydonia Thank you for sharing the thoughts of Nicolas Armanet. My interpretation is the same: very unlikely that Ni absorbed so much, much more likely that H clusters condensed at the Ni surface. Interestingly enough, a decrease in pressure that can hardly be explained by the formation of an hydride, with the pressure sometimes decreasing in a fraction of a second, has already been reported by others. I would not be surprised to hear that the same happened in Mizuno R20.
-
Perhaps more useful (because more detailed) is the 2016 Syed et al:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1608/1608.01774.pdf
Both papers are only loosely related. The paper you cite is about PdH whereas the one by Lipson is about a new condensed phase of H at dislocation cores present at the Pd:PdO interface. IMHO only the latter is interesting in view of Storms model and recent Mizuno R20 experiment.
-
The excess heat does not appear to correlate with loading. At higher loading is actually anti-correlated. This is the opposite of all previous cold fusion experiments. I was astounded by this. Mizuno was sanguine. He thinks he can explain it. He thinks that high loading reduces the effect because it impedes adsorption in the interface between the two metals. It reduces flux. He said that when you are loading a palladium or nickel lattice, you want high loading, but not in this case, “presumably because the adsorption at the internal interface or the Pd-Ni mixed layer is the simplest Langmuir type. . . . If the deuterium concentration in the interior is high, the reaction at the interface or in the two-mixed metal layer will drop due to a slight inhibition of the adsorptive power.
Exactly the conditions required to create Rydberg Matter of hydrogen. And yes RM is fully compliant with Storms' NAE-in-cracks-or-surface concept as well with his two-steps electronic-nuclear model of LENR. But hey most people working in LENR don't know what RM is and don't care to read what conventional physics and surface science say on the subject. Mainstream physics has rejected LENR for reasons we all know here too well, but the LENR community should not do a similar mistake and neglect what conventional science says in related fields. Unfortunately bridges between the two are lacking. My favorite article in the field of LENR is the one by Lipson et al in Phys Rev B, 2005, precisely because it creates a bridge between the two. BeautifuI science. I strongly recommend to read this article again in view of Storms theory and Mizuno R20 experiment. Here is the DOI:
-
can With regard to loading, a specific treatment of Ni can help Ni to load more H than pure Ni. However an important isotopic effect is known to exist between H (protium) and D (deuterium). I would be very surprised if the specific treatment that Mizuno applies to Ni can also lead to a high loading of D.
That said, this doesn't change the fact that permeability may be more important than loading. In the case of Mizuno R20, it may be Pd permeability to D, and not Ni permeability to D, that is important. In that context, oxidation of Pd may help, whereas oxidation of Ni could be detrimental and may require flushing with D at a high temperature, either to create cracks of a size required for the NAE, as Storms is proposing, and/or to favor D spillover and the creation of Rydberg Matter of D at the Ni surface (my favorite theory).
-
All the literature about gas-loading metals suggests that high pressure (BarG+) is beneficial. The fact that Mizuno was seeing anomalous heat right down at 3 Pa is certainly counter-intuitive. That doesn't mean to say it is wrong, it just means that this is a very unusual version of cold fusion.
Not all the literature. The formation of Rydberg matter of H at the surface of a metal such as Ni requires a low pressure. Actually it is best formed exactly at the pressure levels recommended by Mizuno. Hardly a coincidence IMHO.
A high pressure may OTOH be required when the metal has to be loaded in order to have desorption of H in cracks within the metal, in other words at internal metal surfaces. Loading/unloading cycles may not only create cracks but also create a low pressure environment in cracks.
-
With liquid coolant instead of air, you should be able to get any temperature you want for the reaction by controlling the flow rate of the coolant or if necessary, even adding heat to it via an appropriate control system. See again SGVIT's example of a high temperature calorimeter using liquid coolant mass flow which could be made to fit Mizuno's reactors. This link should be the Google translate English version The particular example in this paper is for a 2kW heater-- well in the range of Mizuno's postulated 3kW device. The form factor fits too.
Agreed. Our hypothesis, supported by some experimental work, is that Ni should be kept at a high temperature to favor H spillover. Because H spillover is known to increase with temperature and metal dispersion. Interesting that Mizuno work goes in that sense as well. But, as you rightly said, this does not prevent the use of liquid calorimetry.
-
Your offer of independent and blind analysis is really wonderful. This is exactly the way to add robustness to the finding of such anomalies. I have a long road ahead to replicate this and even if this is within my reach, as I want to perform this within an academic context, I have a series of formalities to fulfill in the mean time, but be sure when the work begins I will be more than happy to consider a series of samples for sending to you, and your name will be added to any publication that might be generated. Much Thanks!!!!
Our ICP-MS is already waiting for your samples 😉
-
JulianBianchi, have you read this Chinese work? As you are familiar with ICP MS, which mistake you think could explain these results? I am not saying I see an obvious or even a non obvious one, I am just searching for a different point of view as I want to replicate these results and I am trying to isolate potential non obvious sources of error.
I'm skeptical with these results. First their instrument hasn't enough resolution to separate two isotopes with the same mass number, therefore I find misleading to claim a change between two elements. An isotopic, and not elemental, analysis is required here. Second, much of their ICP-MS work was about a mass number of 40. In practice this mass is usually avoided because of the interference with argon. There is not enough information in the article to know how they dealt with this interference and what neutral gas they used for the plasma. There are other few aspects that I didn't like such as the unusual distribution of the K isotopes (40K has an abundance of 0.01% only), the lack of calibrators and standards for a true quantitative analysis and the lack of 44Ca data. In my lab we analyse K and Ca routinely, with 44Ca measured by both a single quad in an Ar plasma and with a triple quad together with some oxygen to avoid any interference.
That said, this does not put into question the fact that some of their results are interesting. Mostly those by ICP-OES shown in Fig 1 as a function of temperature. Their ICP-MS work is less convincing to me for the reasons I mentioned above.
If you plan to replicate this work, I would be happy to analyze your samples for free. The only condition I ask is that you send the samples blinded to me, i.e. in a random order with a code, with the decode key sent to a third party, such as a moderator here on LF, to whom I will send all ICP-MS profiles, with then all results made public here. Of course the set of samples must include enough controls and blanks.
-
I know this probably will sound completely far fetched and really odd given the context, but the more and more I have been looking into the reported transmutation results of the vibration technology of Ryushin Omasa I think this should be in the priority list. The technology is simple enough and confirmation of the reported results would probably even be more Earth shattering for physics than a Mizuno replication. Using mechanical vibrations on a water solution (enriched with 5% of heavy water) of calcium, magnesium, copper and cesium salts he reports transmutation that is enhanced when the vibratory fins of the apparatus are palladium plated (double amount of transmutation observed compared to the plain stainless steel vibratory fins). It's Is also reported rapid radiation reduction in tritium enriched water.
If this can help, analyses of the water can be made on the latest generation iCAP TQ ICP-MS instrument that we run in my accredited laboratory located in Switzerland, would it be by Google or any other serious replicator. Just send me a PM.
That said, if priority should be given to a single experiment, I would also recommend a replication of the Mizuno reactor, in realizing that the experimental conditions are very similar to the ones used by Holmlid to produce Rydberg Matter of hydrogen at the surface of a hot metal.
-
JedRothwell do you know if Mizuno has ever observed a sudden decrease in pressure to very low pressure not caused by the pump right before the onset of the reaction and extra heat? This question because such a decrease has already been observed in metallic powders/H gas types of experiments. Thank you.
-
Listen, Julian, at one time I developed a small subset of clinical lab tests (I can discuss that with you by email if you like) but it was a while back so I readily admit I may have missed something recent. What is the name of the machine which does 30 of the tests you listed on a capillary full of blood? A link would be nice but I'll be happy to Google it. And it can do any mixture of any 30 on one sample? That would be pretty amazing. Most lab tests can be done on capillary size blood samples and there is nothing new about that but not many can be done on the same sample by the methods I used to be familiar with.
I will send you a private message so that I will not bother others with a subject that is not related to LENR.
-
Can you provide a link, preferably to a commercially available device, like Theranos claimed to be, which provides even 20 commonly performed tests which are of routine clinical usefulness in a typical medical practice and which can be done on 0.05 ml of blood or less? I've never seen or heard of one but I don't rule out the possibility that it can be done.
If you were familiar with laboratory testing, you would have known that the labs don't make their tests public.
QuoteI am talking about serologies or exotic immunoassays. I am asking about things I listed before: CBC, LFT, RFT, Lipid panels, diabetes panels, and electrolytes. Those are the tests which physicians require multiple times per day to evaluate their patients in an office setting.
Is the test catalog below ok for you? It comes from the first US lab that got CAP accreditation for capillary blood testing, a few years before Theranos entered the market of lab testing.
Metabolic Panel
Blood Glucose
Blood Urea Nitrogen (BUN)
Blood Creatinine
BUN / Creatinine Ratio (Calc)
AST (SGOT)
ALT (SGPT)
Alkaline Phosphatase
GGT
Bilirubin, Total
Protein, Total
Albumin
Albumin / Globulin Ratio (Calc)
Globulin (Calc)
Bicarbonate
Calcium, Total
Uric Acid
Sodium
Potassium
Chloride
Kidney Function
Glomerular Filtration Rate (Calc)
Lipid Profile
Cholesterol, Total
HDL-C
LDL-C
LDL-C (Calc)
VLDL (Calc)
Triglycerides
Cholesterol / HDL Ratio (Calc)
LDL / HDL Ratio (Calc)
Apolipoprotein A-1
Apolipoprotein B
Cardiac BioMarkers
Cystatin C
Inorganic Phosphorus
Homocysteine
hsCRP
Lactate Dehydrogenase
NT-proBNP
Anemia
Total Iron
Ferritin
Vitamin B12
Diabetes Insulin
C-Peptide
Hemoglobin A1c with EAG
Glycated Albumin (Fructosamine)
Hormones
Testosterone, Total
Cortisol
Dehydroepiandrosterone Sulfate (DHEA-S)
Estradiol
Progesterone
Thyroid Function TSH
T3, Total
T4, Total
T3, Free
T4, Free
Tumor Markers
PSA, Total
Immunoglobulin E
Infectious Disease
Anti-HCV
Toxicology
Blood Cotinine (Nicotine Metabolite)
Bone Biomarker
25-Hydroxyvitamin D
Hematology
Complete Blood Cell Count w/ 5-part Diff
The size of the panel can be up to 30 tests when a collection device able to separate the serum from the cells is used.
QuoteBTW, since you mention it, I've used LCMS (liquid chromatography/mass spectroscopy) in a military setting some years back. It's a peachy but complicated method and yes, it uses very small samples. I believe a current clinical application is detection of small amounts of toxic materials in serum (toxicology). It is also useful for protein chemistry. However, I am not aware of common routine applications to clinical laboratory analyses. Help me out here. I'd really like to know. How is LCMS used to do routine medical lab tests? And are these really done in large numbers on a single drop of blood or serum?
Last week, during ASMS 2019 the largest conference on mass spectrometry, Labcorp said that in 2018 only they acquired up to 500 MS instruments for routine lab testing.
In my lab, we run LCMS every day. We have the capacity to measure >50k molecules in one drop of blood. But I guess you will not trust me on that one. Because you see scams everywhere. You dont have the aptitude to separate the wheat from the chaff.
-
The above are the tests in common use world wide in clinical labs. If you know of a company contemplating making a machine which can perform a worthwhile subset of these on a drop of blood, I'd love to see the reference and the link. And I would certainly invest if credible testing had been done and appropriately reported. But then again, so would every venture capitalist be willing. Yet, this is what Theranos was implying they could deliver.
They are many labs worldwide accredited for the panels that Theranos was proposing in capillary blood. Again, Theranos failed not because they were proposing more than they could analyze in one drop of blood but because of the lack of compliance with current regulations on laboratory testing. See what John Carreyrou said on it: "This fiasco could have been avoided had Theranos sought accreditation from the College of American Pathologist (CAP) by submitting actual tests run on their equipment for appropriate testing. Based on the recent revelations, the results would not have been accurate and they would not have received CAP accreditation. Only labs that have CAP accreditation should be in the business of performing blood laboratory testing. CAP standards are exceedingly stringent and exceed CLIA certification. The FDA acted appropriately and responsibly in this case."
Again, some labs do propose under their CAP accreditation the same panels that Theranos was proposing. These tests are as precise and accurate as tests done in venous blood. The issue is not that the technology does not exist but that Theranos didn't bother to comply with current regulations.
Now, with regard to the number of tests that today's technology can allow in one drop of blood, sure if one use immunoassays that require a given amount of blood per biomarker, one cannot extend the panel to more than 20-30 analytes. However multiplexed assays such as LCMS do not have this drawback and some CAP accredited labs do already propose the measurement of thousands of molecules by high resolution LCMS in only ten microliters of blood.
-
I didn't know the bozos got swindled by such an obvious con as Theranos. Anyone with any health science background should have realized that the claims were extreme. One can not perform hundreds or thousands of tests on one drop of blood with any known or predictable technology.
Again you show your lack of knowledge in a field you know nothing about. The issue with Theranos had nothing to do with the number of tests that can be done in one drop of blood. Today's technology allows the precise and accurate measurement of tens of thousands of biomolecules in one drop of blood. The issue with Theranos was not about what they were intending to measure but about the lack of any quality management system and any accreditation by an external regulatory body. You should refrain to say things you know nothing about.
-
A new peer-reviewed paper got published today:
https://doi.org//10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01864 (open access)
Decay of muons generated by laser-induced processes in ultra-dense hydrogen H(0)
Leif Holmlid, Sveinn Olafsson
The difference in decay that they observed between D and p tells much on UDH itself. Some beautiful work. Thank you can for sharing.
