VO2 Nanowires do also lower resistance above a certain temperature
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.co…df/10.1002/anie.201603406
And they can store atomic hydrogen!
Much interesting, thanks for sharing. At first sight VO2 has all characteristics required for LENR, I will give it a try.
Holmlid certainly measures interesting new facts, but as long a he tries to fit standard model theory to it will remain shaky.
Wyttenbach How do you explain the violation of the conservation of the baryon number in these experiments? Thanks
Right Shane. He did not hide it. In 2003 Prof. Conrads found a university where he could carry out some research to find out, if there is anything interesting in Mills experiments. He had the experiment running for about a year completly without Mills being around. They found completely unexplainable behavior of a simple hydrogen plasma:
Not that unexplainable if one follows Holmlid's work. The experimental conditions described in this paper are very close to those required to produce ultra-dense hydrogen.
I used to try to understand Rydberg Matter as a type of plasmoid. I think atoms are a type of dormant plasmoid. I don`t think anyone would claim that Rydberg atoms behave in the was I think active ball lightning-like plasmoids behave.
Some have. Starting with Manykin himself as early as in 1982. Unfortunately most articles of Manykin were written in Russian. Only a very few are in English and still less available in an electronic format. If you have access to a good university library, you may find one of those (all by Manykin et al):
- On the nature of ball lightning. Zh. Tekh. Fiz. 52(7) 5 (1982).
- Ball lightning is very much like Rydberg matter, isn’t it? In A. G. Keul (ed.) Progress in Ball Lightning Research: Proc. VIZOTUM, p. 54, Salzburg, Austria (1993).
- Decay of long-lived excited states of condensed matter and the problem of ball lightning stability. J. Moscow Phys. Soc., 8 19-22 (1998).
- Rydberg matter and ball lightning. In: 6th International Symposium on Ball Lightning: (ISBL99) ; Proceedings ; University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium (1999).
I said that large plasmoids hit planets and leave large pits many kilometers in diameter. Do you think Rydberg Matter does that? Would you say that Rydberg Matter does the same?
Rydberg Matter has been proposed to exist in space in various publications. Here is one. I don't know if this corroborates what you claim.
Who is Holmlid? What exactly did he say about atoms disappearing? Under what conditions? Has anyone put his name to asserting that Shoulder`s plasmoids were Rydberg Matter?
Leif Holmlid is a Swedish professor. His publications. According to his work, Rydberg Matter of hydrogen can condense to an ultra-dense form that can spontaneously transform (and as such "disappear") in relativistic mesons, mainly neutral kaons. Holmlid published much on this subject. Here is one.
For the rest, I don't know, sorry.
As I explain in my articles, atoms can change state from the dormant state to active plamoid
states. In the active plasmoid state, they exhibit ball lightning properties such as the ability to make material disappear (convert atoms to energy or transport them).
Interesting to note the similarities between what you wrote and Rydberg Matter:
- A set of excited atoms can change state and condense to clusters (plasmoids) called Rydberg Matter,
- Rydberg Matter has been proposed as an explanation for ball lightning because presenting the same characteristics,
- Rydberg Matter of hydrogen can switch to an ultra condensed form which, following Holmlid, "disappears" in converting atoms (baryons) in relativistic mesons.
Actually, you can replace "plasmoid" in your whole text by "Rydberg Matter" and it works every time.
https://memento.epfl.ch/event/…ion-of-ultra-dense-hyd-2/
The Octanis Association are just kids playing around:
The 3 persons leading this project are forty-something. I'm one of those.
Thanks for sharing this interesting paper from this Polish group. Indeed their results reconcile what is known on the role of KFeO2 in styrene production with the role of K in RM production. Much clearer now.
Exactly how potassium iron oxide assists in the formation of Rydberg matter of H is not clear to me. Fom the publications I read on the subject (I have no direct expertise in surface catalysis), I can see two main hypotheses:
- breaking the H2 molecule in atomic H at the surface of the iron oxide with a simultaneous desorption of K in an excited Rydberg state K* and a rapid transfer of the excitation energy of the K* to the atomic H to produce an excited Rydberg H*, or
- absorption of atomic H within the bulk of the porous iron oxide followed by its desorption in an excited Rydberg H*, this without any apparent role of K.
Holmlid seems to favor the 1st hypothesis, going even further in suggesting that Rydberg states K* are key in the process of ethylbenzene dehydrogenation (somewhat in contradiction with the attributed role of KFeO2), but he also alluded that a direct desorption of H in H* is possible. In any case, for what it's worth, this doesn't say why KFeO2 would be the active form.
Actually, I think most advocates do not keep an open mind to the possibility that they may be wrong about cold fusion. Skeptics on the other hand, while nearly certain it is bogus, would change their mind in a heartbeat if the right evidence came along.
Funny that you say this because that is what happened to me.
Back in the 1990s, I was laughing at all these claims of cold fusion because as a physicist by training "I know this is impossible therefore they must be wrong". The issue is that most physicists, me first, didn't bother at that time to read the papers and forge a personal opinion. A priori conceptions are strong in science, especially in physics. I know that well because in the 1990s I published a few articles on another controversial subject (together with this year Nobel Prize by the way) and it took about a decade for our results, first to be accepted, then to represent the "norm".
More recently, around 2015, I was surprised to see that a good friend of mine was a "believer" in cold fusion. My first reaction was that he was another victim of "pathological science". Therefore I started to read a few books to understand how "apparently sane scientists" could succumb to such "pathological science". My interest was more in the psychological aspects of cold fusion than in the scientific ones. The fact is that all these historical books on the cold fusion saga contain many technical papers in reference. And as a "good" scientist I started to read one, then two, then many of those. With a drift from trying to understand the psychological aspects to trying to understand the physics behind, if any. After reading a few papers, then a dozen, then hundreds of them, I found that the evidence that cold fusion was junk science "not that strong". Cold fusion literature is full of crap articles but I was surprised to see that many of them had some merit. Each paper after each paper, my opinion progressively changed from a true skeptic to a believer in the fact that behind all these studies there is a physical phenomenon that involves the atomic nucleus other than traditional fusion.
I don't claim that my personal opinion is right nor want to convince anyone, but at least now I have a personal opinion! I made the effort to read the scientific literature and now I'm even participating to some experiments. Therefore your last sentence clearly applies to me because I changed my mind based on scientific evidence. Was a long route though.
Thank you for your replies and sorry for not taking the time to answer each of them, Jed is doing an excellent job and I admire his tenacity in that regard.
Anyway, the levels of tritium Will claimed were orders of magnitude too low to account for the claimed excess heat, so that represents failure to prove the excess heat had a nuclear origin.
In practice the levels of tritium were significantly over the background with a direct correlation with the presence (but not quantity!) of excess heat. It is a logical fallacy to claim that tritium levels should be similar to those expected from D-D fusion in order to prove nuclear origin. Because this assumes a priori the type of nuclear process. In 1989 it became rapidly evident that another phenomenon was at play. But still of nuclear origin because these tritium nuclei are not coming from nowhere.
Either all these labs completely screwed up their analyses (I call this Shanahan's law, a nasty version of Murphy's law), or the underlying phenomenon is nuclear and different from D-D fusion. Still today only a few physicists are openminded enough to accept the latter with the majority hiding behind their prejudices.
The new 4(6) model of nuclear and particle physics treats the muon as a resonance wave of the proton.
Interesting. Any reference to share? Thank you.
Les recherche avec le palladium coûtent trop cher
Peut être faudra t'il "bricoler", chercher dans les placards
IL est bien là le problème concernant l'electrolyse Palladium.
P&F ont eu un énorme résultat avec 1cm3 de palladium, ce que personne ne fait car c'est trop cher..
Avec le deuterium, le titanium marche aussi très bien et est bien plus économique que le palladium.
Here is a graph showing the stopping power for muons in copper as a function of their kinetic energy (from Groom et al. Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables, Vol. 76, No. 2, July 2001). Assuming the muons are produced from ultra-dense hydrogen/deuterium, their kinetic energy would fall very close to the minimum of this stopping power curve, known as the Bethe-Bloch curve. The larger the thickness of any "shielding" copper or lead, the higher the number of muons stopped, the higher the counts of a Geiger counter. Until the thickness is large enough to stop all muons, which is in the order of half a meter for copper, and about 20% less for lead. Not convenient you would admit except if you work at CERN.
A cloud chamber is great to detect a few muons. However, as soon as the muon flux becomes large, condensation around the gaseous muon trails will not occur and no trace will be observed anymore. Therefore, the best place for a cloud chamber would be several tens of meter far from the reaction chamber in order to have a muon flux in the same range, but still larger than, the atmospheric one.
Axil, THH & others,
According to Holmlid, ultra-dense deuterium decays via the weak force in mesons. What is surprising here is less the occurence of a weak decay - given the length and time scales at play - than the absence of the usual D-D fusion and decay via the fast strong interaction.
Does anyone know a process that could prevent the decay of an excited D-D via the strong force?
I do not think EVOs are a particularly relevant topic to this site. I also do not think it helps LENR research to be associated with EVO-ology.
FTFY
Display MoreIf you review the work of Kenneth Shoulders, you will see that larger scale spheromaks are analagous to his smaller EVOs in virtually every possible way. The only difference is by definition smaller spheromaks are generally more energy and matter dense meaning that their fields are more intense. Also, the conditions for creations of EVOs (which are spheromaks) are indeed in a wide variety of LENR systems!
1) Cavitation bubbles produce EVOs (spheromaks) upon collapse.
2) RF plasmas produce EVOs (spheromaks).
3) Fracto-emission from the fracturing of embrittled metal hydrides (or other brittle substances) produces EVOs (spheromaks). This fracturing can come from pressure cycling, thermal cycling, bombardment with particles, etc.
4) The sparks that jump between the points on spikey metal powder when an electrical discharge runs through the fuel produces EVOs (spheromaks).
5) Lasers can produce EVOs in plasmas (spheromaks).
6) The multi-phase windings of resistor elements can create rotating magnetic fields that form EVOs (spheromaks).
@Director
I have always found the work of Bostick interesting and I follow the advances of MHD however I still fail to see how EVOs (spheromaks) can be created in subsurface nanocracks and be related to the NAEs in a LENR, say F&P, experiment. Could you expand on that? Thank you.
This pdf covers the work of Bostick, who was around long before KS started work in the field. See page 20 for more direct comments on the nature of plasmoids. Bostick also wrote an article for 'Scientific American' in 1956(?) entitled 'Plasmoids' which seems to be paywalled for me. If anybody has access, I would love to see a copy.
Bostick was indeed way ahead of his time, thanks for sharing. For those interested in the rebirth of this field, here are recent articles that I found much interesting:
http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4886135
http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.3554701
http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4989845
http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4903906
all published in Physics in Plasma but behind a paywall (they are also available on sci-hub or libgen though the latter may be forbidden/blocked in some countries). Finally, for those interested in a highly controversial model of the electron that fits in with other helical/zitterbewegung views of the electron, I highly recommend the paper that Bostick wrote in Physics Essays a few months before his death in 1991: Mass, Charge, and Current: The Essence and Morphology, Physics Essays, 1991 (I only have a print copy, maybe someone can find an electronic copy).
Display MoreJulian Bianchi above also points to this as a key piece of data. I don't see conclusive evidence yet in casual browsing. Perhaps the question has been examined and answered empirically.
If there is little or no difference in branching ratios, that would admittedly be a strong piece of evidence against a whole category of cold fusion theories.
We are by no means first to ask this question. Here at SJ Byrnes' blog: http://sjbyrnes.com/cf/muons/
"Experimentally, there are tons of muon-catalyzed fusion experiments, but in my (cursory) search I have not found any papers that took the appropriate data to figure out whether or not this branch actually happens."
Unfortunately Byrnes is not even addressing a change in the usual branching ratios, that is:
- D+D → neutron + helium-3 (~50% of the time),
- D+D → proton + tritium (~50% of the time),
- D+D → helium-4 + a gamma-ray (0.0001% of the time)
But instead is concerned with what Byrnes calls the "spectator" branch, which might enable practical muon catalyzed fusion:
- D+D+muon → helium-4 + muon
So, in spite of the interesting discussion at the Byrnes blog, I will continue to browse.
See eg Chapter 4.2 of IMHO the best review on muon catalyzed fusion:
This is muon catalyzed fusion, the original "cold fusion". To the best of my knowledge the decay products from this reaction are the same as those from the corresponding hot fusion.
This part is key. This suggests that the decay branching fractions do not depend on the kinetic energy of the nuclei. Unfortunately several LENR theories of D-D fusion don't take this fact into account.
