Posts by JulianBianchi

River runs red - Midnight Oil, written in 1989

So you cut all the tall trees down, you poisoned the sky and the sea

You've taken what's good from the ground

But you've left precious little for me

You remember the flood and the fall, we remember the light on the hill

There should be enough for us all, but the dollar is driving us still
River runs red, black rain falls, dust in my hand

River runs red, black rain falls, on my bleeding land

A difficult time for the Standard Model with the funerals of both WIMP

https://www.forbes.com/sites/s…-come-up-empty-again/amp/

and SUSY

https://medium.com/starts-with…sics-history-e4e7d3879a00

A nice quote: "No matter how often we fool ourselves, nor how many scientists get fooled, nature is the ultimate arbiter of reality. The experiments do not lie. "

Quote from seven_of_twenty

It is? Ask the typical nuclear physicist about it. Or nuclear engineer.

Oh, I forgot. Most scientists and engineers are either dismally ignorant or, shudder, skeptopaths.

Not ignorant, shudder or skeptopaths, but just lazy. Because all physicists I know who made the effort to read the literature in the field believe that - at least - it is worth to pursue research in the field. The issue is that 99% of the physicists have not done their homework and only preconceived ideas remain. I was one of those and now regret my lack of open-mindedness when I rejected some CF results presented to me during my visit of the Bhabha Atomic Research Center in the middle of the 1990s.

Quote from Wyttenbach

A classic reference is: https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ahep/2018/7236382/

The new 4D mass model is exact for about 8,5 digits for all base particles (e,p,n) and also the muon. The proton split produces two kaons and that requires about 50MeV. In classical term: 1 perturbativ (non relativistic) mass unit of a "quark wave" must be added to a proton.

Thank you. I rapidly went through the article and didn't find any reference to proton decay with 50MeV. I will nevertheless dig into it, which may take some time given the density of this review article.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Even classical physics explains that it will be possible to stuff enough energy in a small space to enable proton decay. All you need is about 50MeV of magnetic flux. That's about 2 D-D fusions events.

@jürg Can you elaborate on that? Or point to a section of one of your papers that deals about this subject? Also can you confirm that the decay of a diproton requires still less than 50MeV? Thank you in advance.

Quote from axil

https://phys.org/news/2019-01-…rs-super-dense-stars.html

Cold plasma may be a new way to make ultra dense hydrogen (aka metallic hydrogen) and/or hydrinos.

Laser cooling of hydrogen remains a challenge, see here:

https://physics.aps.org/articles/v9/115

If this technical challenge is met, I agree with you that laser cooling of H could lead to the generation of UDH, and this despite the very low pressure of laser cooling experiments.

What I found interesting in this study by Hioki et al is the simultaneous presence of a crystalline phase of a metal alloy and of a metal oxide (though amorphous ZrO2 may still dominate). It is known that the desorbtion of H out of a metal oxide leads to excited states of H that can then form clusters at the surface of a metal. A nice continuation of the work by Iwamura who was using alternate layers of CaO and Pd to get radiations, transmutations and excess heat.

That said, I disagree with the assertion that ZrO2 is "H-inactive". On the contrary, it is known that H can diffuse through Zr oxides layers, with some diffusion processes being actually quite complex.

Quote from Wyttenbach

I never read that (4D heresy) in Randall Mills writing. But it took extensive modeling and time to understand that the first step for the process of "massification" in fact is a conversion of potential energy into rotational energy = magnetic flux.

Wyttenbach Are you familiar with the work of Hestenes (inspired by Parson and Barut), then followed by others, on the representation of particles as electromagnetic fluxes of various topologies (e.g. toroidal) with mass naturally explained as rotational energy?

Why this school of thoughts has not prevailed is because of the experimental evidence of a point-like electron, up to 10-20m, 8 orders of magnitude less than the scale of the Zitterbewegung.

Quote from magicsound

It's not fully repeatable, having been seen in only two of the six runs using this protocol. But the parameter space is small, so it should be possible to improve this process yield.

Exactly. For the ones that "failed", (1) add more H2, (2) let Ni split H2 and absorb H, (3) cool and pump out, (4) re-heat. With Ni-H, the faster the increase in temperature the higher the chance to create UDH. Cycle the above until you see this pressure decrease. After this onset, add more H2 at a low rate, pressure should not increase significantly, but temperature will.

can More than RM, we interpret the sudden decrease in pressure as the formation of UDH.

I concur with can that more information is required for anyone to understand your findings.

What do you mean by "negative pressure"? How do you monitor pressure? Can you control it?

If you use a vacuum pump and a pressure gauge, I confirm that a pressure lower than the one that can be achieved by the pump can be obtained using Ni-H. However I'm not sure that what's you mean.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Flares and other surface events are driven by large-scale collapse of magnetic fields which store an enormous amount of energy - that is a physical process for potentially very high energies imparted to ions.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mssl/res…Archive1516/SarahMatthews

In the file that you attached, "very high energy imparted to ions" remains in KeV, e.g. hard x-rays, still 6 orders of magnitude short of the 100 GeV gammas. What did I miss?

Edit: I got the answer here:

https://www.sciencenews.org/ar…-rays-sun-magnetic-fields

The sun’s high-energy gamma rays aren’t produced directly by the star. Instead, the light is triggered by cosmic rays — protons that zip through space with some of the highest energies known in nature — that smack into solar protons and produce high-energy gamma rays in the process (SN: 10/14/27, p. 7).

Very interesting read, thanks for sharing.

The article mentions gammas of up to 100 GeV. Wow. What physical process can lead to gammas of that energy knowing that the sun is mostly composed of hydrogen and helium?

Quote from JohnyFive

This mean that there is no leak, instead hydrogen, its protons are just fired from the cell.

Not sure I understand what you mean by "fired from the cell". Do you mean permeation with the protons that are first absorbed within the internal wall of the SS cell, which then diffuse across the SS cell, to finally desorb at the external wall the cell? Or do you have any other process in mind?

Related to this, is the decrease in pressure progressive over a few days (as expected from the permeation process described above) or do you see a sudden change in pressure anytime during these few days?

Quote from THHuxleynew

Long before Rossi came on the scene I was looking at the literature and thought Holmlid's stuff interesting. Since then his theoretical speculation has got less coherent. His experimental stuff remains of interest and if replicated would be of high interest.

You were asking for strong experimental evidence of "exotic" particles from a tabletop experiment, and not for a theory. This work clearly shows that after a laser pulse hits a surface where some H or D is present, a signal is observed at a few meters, where the time of flight between the surface and the detector indicates that the particles travel at the speed of 0.75c. Basic experimental stuff here. Results now replicated by Sveinn Olafsson and Sindre Zeiner-Gundersen from the University of Iceland with a time of flight of a few nanoseconds for a length >2m. It took 3 years for them to replicate because the production of Rydberg matter of H isn't a piece of cake.

Then yes Holmlid develops a theory to explain the above experimental facts. The theory isn't complete yet, no doubt about it. This doesn't change the experimental facts that are pretty convincing. What Holmlid and now others observe share all physical characteristics of the "strange radiations", or "mishuggenons", or "spheromaks", or whatever they are called..., oberved in LENR.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Do the CD/DVDs work well with normal radiation/particles?

I have some nasty strong radioactive stuff available (nothing too outrageous, NORM stuff, but hot, like 2 billion year old pitchbende) to try them with, and a stack of DVD discs.

DVDs are not that great because made of polystyrene that should be blend with fluorescent compounds in order to better absorb radiation energy. See e.g.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23353088/

For an inexpensive plastic scintillator, you may try PET instead. PET has excellent scintillation properties though its detection threshold is high, higher than the usual CR-39 and LR-115. See e.g.

https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4890700

Meaning that at the end this will depend on what is your "nasty strong radioactive stuff".

Quote from THHuxleynew

The field is so wide when you go for exotic - unconstrained by normal assumptions - new particles (rather than exotic but vaguely constrained particles) that you need very clear experimental evidence to point the way.

I await with interest this evidence pointing the way.

May I recomnend to start with this article published in Plos One:

https://journals.plos.org/plos…1371/journal.pone.0169895

that provides "very clear experimental evidence" of the generation of relativistic particles from a tabletop experiment.

Quote from mmckubre

CMNS was so-named because multiple different nuclear "things" do seem to happen in similarly prepared condensed matter systems. I regard them as having a common mechanistic origin - but different manifestations (like smoke and flame).

What surprised me most in LENR is the different manifestations of nuclear products. Or should I say their lack of. The reason of my (initially) high skepticism in LENR.

Some theories try to circumvent this issue by assuming that the nuclear products have a low energy (cold neutrons, low energy gammas...). This doesn't make sense to me because this can't explain the high variations in energy observed in LENR, the famous triple-tracks in CR39 and last but not least some heat up to the W level. In my opinion only highly penetrating particles can fit what is observed. Some highly energetic relativistic particles are so penetrating that in most occasions only their by-products are detected using standard instrumentation. In particular, based on available evidence in LENR, I postulated that these particles should have an energy level close to the minimum of the Bethe-Bloch curve. This explains my interest in Holmlid's work on ultra-dense hydrogen because the kaons that he sees from the decay of UDH fall precisely in this window.

In practice, the decay of UDH in mesons via the weak force could be the primary nuclear reaction (together with D-D fusion in UDD) and a kaon flux could explain the various manifestations of nuclear products observed in LENR. This in function of the stopping power of the materials present close to the source (as secondary or even tertiary reactions in the case of muons). Evidence of a flux of relativistic kaons can be found in this paper. Pretty convincing to me I admit.

Quote from THHuxleynew

My point is a subtler one, which is that unexpected excess heat is one thing, unexpected gammas is another. Both might be signs of unexpected nuclear reactions but they not likely signs of the same unexpected nuclear reactions. Therefore this is a coincidence of two independent highly unexpected things and means that they do not support each other.

I see a logical fallacy here: you can't infer from the fact that both signs come from a different nuclear reaction that they are necessarily independent. For example a nuclear reaction may be secondary to a primary nuclear reaction. It is actually the route that I privilege in LENR.

Quote from THHuxleynew

We can be pretty sure that either the heat or the gammas has a non-nuclear (experimental artifact) type explanation.

No. Because heat and gammas, the two effects, can have a single cause, namely a primary nuclear reaction.

Quote from THHuxleynew

It is subtle, because the natural assumption when excess heat (could be artifact) and gammas (could be artifact) are observed together you would expect likelihood of artifacts to go down, because a single nuclear reaction cause would generate both observations.

Yes the likelihood of artifacts would go down, not for the reason you mention, but simply because the prior probability of one artifact leading to both effects, or to the prior probability of two independent artifacts occuring at the same time leading to one effect each, is low.

No subtelty here.

Quote from JohnyFive

Moreover I found how to boost the effect almost 2 times. I used activated paper again and it resulted in 3.5 times of background.

Then I placed thin Ag foil at the top of the paper to cover it. And surprise - count rate was almost doubled.

Well done. You may think about a few other relatively easy experiments to better characterize the radiations. I have my own idea on the type of radiations that you observe however I prefer to suggest a series of easy experiments than to develop my theory here.

First, I suggest to place a second Ag foil on top of the first one. If you see that the effect is cumulative, then repeat with multiple foils and try to find a quantitative relation between the number of foils and the Pancake output.

Second, I suggest to measure the temperature of the Ag foils (and possibly water) and link any difference from a control experiment to the output of the pancake detector. It may indicate whether the observed radiations are primary or secondary and the energy levels involved.

Finally, before thinking about a cloud chamber as suggested by a few here, I suggest to try first with a bottle of PET exposed on top of the paper then etched with NaOH at 55°C. PET is a low cost but nevertheless very efficient nuclear track detector with a detection threshold higher than the usual CR-39.

Success or failure of one or more of these 3 simple experiments can provide much information on the radiations that you observe.