Posts by can

    The abstract also shows that Holmlid understands that Ultra dense matter(UDM) can exist in stars as follows:


    In the paper he points out that since the bond energy in the material of ~500 eV corresponds to a temperature of about 5 MK, generally speaking it's a very stable form of matter that should also exist inside stars, although energetic particles and photons will be able to dissociate it.


    Paradigmnoia

    However, if the device runs on DC power (which is what I assumed) the power supply symbol is not the correct one as it's generally used for AC transformers (EDIT: I changed it to the standard symbol for DC input to avoid confusion). The rate of pecking does not appear to be critical from the information available, but until a complete description of wiring, circuit and rationale for the choices made is provided one cannot be 100% sure.


    Below is attached a modified diagram of what I posted earlier in this thread, showing the complete process (that I imagined) and a DC power supply.


    This is Parkhomov's summary of the principle of operation from the ECW blogpost:


    Quote

    Any experimenter can create a “woodpecker” device. You need a horizontal flat electrode immersed in water or another liquid, and a vertical electrode in the form of a thin rod. The vertical electrode is connected to an electromagnet, which is powered by a current, the circuit of which is closed through the electrodes. When the electrodes are connected, the electromagnet pulls up the vertical electrode, the circuit opens, after which the vertical electrode falls on the horizontal one. The chain closes again, the cycle repeats. In my devices, the voltage is up to 100V, the current is several A

    (Using the latest updated thread focused on Holmlid's work)

    A new theoretical paper from Leif Holmlid got recently published. It's not open access.


    * * * * *


    https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/aadda1

    Ultradense Hydrogen H(0) as Stable Dark Matter in the Universe: Extended Red Emission Spectra Agree with Rotational Transitions in H(0)


    Abstract: Studies of ultradense hydrogen H(0) in our laboratory have been reported in around 50 publications. The proton solar wind was shown to agree well with the protons ejected by Coulomb explosions in p(0). H(0) is a quantum material and can have at least two slightly different forms—ultradense protium p(0) and ultradense deuterium D(0)—which are stable even inside many stars. Mixed phases pD(0) have also been studied. These phases are the lowest-energy forms of hydrogen, and H(0) will probably exist everywhere where hydrogen exists in the universe. Rotational spectra from H(0) have been studied in laboratory experiments in emission in the visible range, giving good agreement with observations of ERE (extended red emission) in space. The ERE bands and sharp peaks agree with rotational transitions for a few coupled p–p and p–D pairs in the well studied spin state s = 4 in H(0). Since ERE is observed almost everywhere in space, this proves that H(0) is common in space. The rotational absorption from the ground state in p(0) agrees with the 220 nm extinction bump for three coupled p–p pairs in the most common spin state s = 2 studied. The uneven distribution of deuterium in space may be due to the slightly different properties of D(0), which separate it from p(0). The dark "missing mass" concluded to exist in the halos of rotating galaxies is proposed as being due to accumulation of H(0) there. Other important implications of the superfluid and superconductive phase H(0) in space await discovery.

    Paradigmnoia

    I realize that an ordinary induction coil could be used for this, but the previously made description of the device made it sound like it was something different and it didn't help that the way I understood it was constructed seemed to work to some extent, in a couple tests. A diagram of an induction coil from your link:


    File:Ruhmkorff coil schematic 1.svg


    From the video that has been just posted (I didn't realize there was actually an embedded video in the presentation) on ECW in a recent dedicated thread it looks like in the jar there are only a graphite rod and a graphite plate and so it does appear that they might be simply the terminals of a spark gap connected to the secondary winding of a induction coil like you're suggesting, with the difference that presumably Parkhomov made the induction coil by himself (since it runs at 100V, etc).




    Paradigmnoia

    The solenoid-based "Woodpecker" was interesting in that, at least from how it's been described, it appears to be a simple electromechanical device; basically 1800's technology. However I don't understand how it would work with a non-ferromagnetic core/striker like graphite or copper since, I guess, then the solenoid part wouldn't be able to pull it upward. I suspect some crucial detail might have been inadvertently left out or incorrectly reported.


    Alan Smith

    It does seem incredible but after all Ken Shoulders claimed that EVOs when produced (of which sparks would be the visible manifestation) would make visible marks on dielectric surfaces, which is what I think I observed last year on plastic surfaces and that small 10-12kV piezoelectric igniter (although I'm still not sure if they weren't just burn marks). I guess the incredible part is that these EVOs can jump to nearby dielectric surfaces and make similar marks there.

    Alan Smith

    With a few dozen meters of thick gauge wire wound around a somewhat ferromagnetic dumbbell (likely hollow) I've already made a coil capable of producing relatively loud and bright sparks at 5V input (and probably about 8A input but I cannot check at the moment) when the terminals are disconnected. I haven't been able to produce any strange radiation marks so far on nearby DVD-R, also when used as a protection screen against particles and light (the DVD-R was inside a paper case) within 10 cm distance. Either my methodology is wrong somewhere (possibly), or as it's been suggested around, perhaps it needs to run continuously for a period of time.


    So I was checking out how feasible an automated Woodpecker-like device would be at zero cost with what I already have around.

    Director

    I was referring to the known and immediate electrical hazards of these experiments rather than the possibility of strange radiation.


    I already tried breaking apart a small grill piezoelectric igniter last year but I couldn't make much out of the results. Inside there was a piece similar to this one:





    Igniters like these emit quite feeble sparks and they are rather fragile and difficult to use for purposes different than their intended one. I thought at some point of purchasing an automotive coil but didn't feel like spending money on one when other people already have the equipment to perform the same experiments.


    At the moment I'm sort of thinking of replicating a "Woodpecker". The basic concept tested with a coiled wire (17 turns), the usual over-abused ATX PSU @ 5V and a weakly ferromagnetic steel screwdriver does work (barely) in the air as the diagram below shows, in that after striking the base plate the pin does get pulled upward (by inverting polarity of the terminals it gets pushed towards it). To work better it would either need many more turns on the solenoid to move the pin with more force (and a better constructed setup), or a pin with a significantly higher magnetic permeability, or a much higher current (and better/oversized PSU), or all of the previous improvements. A big inductor somewhere in the circuit should also help.



       

    Director

    By abruptly dumping enough enough into an unshielded spark gap, it becomes a spark-gap transmitter, which nowadays are illegal due to the broadband radio disruption they cause. Resistors in modern spark plugs act as a current limiting device, limiting the energy of the discharge.


    http://www.ngk-sparkplugs.jp/e…echinfo/qa/q08/index.html


    Ordinary spark plugs when fired up in the air aren't very loud (nor that dangerous). More powerful arc discharges for example from short circuits can be on the other hand quite loud. I prevously wrote "effort" but a better word would be "commitment" since you have to understand the possible risks. Parkhomov's strange radiation-producing "Woodpecker" device looks like it might be that dangerous, IMHO.

    Director

    What I'm saying is basically that if the electromagnetic noise (pulses) measured gives a direct indication on the size and amount of EVO produced (and destroyed), then electrolysis or gaseous H loading of metals seem a rather tortuous way to achieve the same results.


    With pretty much any spark gap it doesn't take a lot of effort to produce electromagnetic noise large enough to be heard on a nearby AM transistor radio (also FM with a bit more effort). On the other hand this seems rather difficult to achieve with electrolysis or gas-loaded systems, if one is to rely on piezo-/pyro-/tribo- emission or similar effects from the loaded lattice.

    magicsound

    There must be a 4-5 minute delay in the video stream or so because the count rate took quite some time to start decreasing and the provided times didn't seem to exactly match what I was seeing. EDIT: however I just realized that the time on the bottom of the video stream does not seem to differ significantly from my timestamps.


    LN7317 count rate still seems elevated.




    By the way, in the graphs above I'm using the total count and calculating the CPM myself. It's more flexible and being an integer number it has less OCR problems.

    The production of an EVO is NOT associated with an EMF. An EMF is only produced if a sufficiently large enough EVO accelerated into a target explodes. You have to realize that Kenneth Shoulders was able to guide EVOs down guide lines on dielectric sheets toward anodes.


    For an EVO to explode it has to be created first. To be clearer, I was wondering is if electromagnetic pulses are always caused by EVO, or rephrased differently if behind EMPs there's always the destruction of an (or more) EVO.


    There are also issues with the electrical properties of your target. For example, smashing an EVO into a thick target will produce gamma rays while smashing an EVO into something thin will produce an EMF.


    How is thin/thick defined here, more precisely?

    Director

    You have probably read more than I have about the subject so maybe you can clarify.


    One thing that isn't clear to me is whether an electromagnetic pulse (which can be "listened" to easily with an AM radio, although FM will work too to a lesser extent, at least with mine) is always associated with the production of an EVO, or if it only can.


    The excerpt below (among others) appears to suggest that it's the former, but if that's the case, then one could simply aim to produce the maximum possible electromagnetic noise in an hydrogen environment, and on this regard arc discharge systems would far be superior to most other experiments, I would guess.


    http://www.padrak.com/ine/FB97_1.html


    Quote

    SIMPLE TEST FOR CHARGE CLUSTERS


    If you are working with devices in which charge clusters are expected to be produced, the following procedure is suggested. Place a small transistor radio near the suspected cluster target. Tune to an AM (amplitude modulated) part of the radio band where there are no AM stations on the air. Turn up the volume and listen for "cracks" of static. When a charge cluster strikes it will emits sufficient electromagnetic energy to hear on such a radio. Remember that FM (frequency modulation) clips these bursts of EM radiation and that static discharges will not be heard on FM stations.


    If you question whether these clusters can do damage to metal surfaces, just disconnect the capacitor that is wired across the breaker points of a distributor in a gasoline-fueled internal combustion engine. You will soon find that you will need to replace the distributor breaker points. The capacitor is sufficient to prevent the formation of charge clusters.


    If it was this easy I think I would have obtained plenty of strange radiation tracks on nearby witness materials, but so far I haven't had such luck unfortunately.

    That is a somewhat common occurrence. What happens is that over time, as the article describes, sharp points can start to be formed. Depending on the material, this can be tiny razor like edges or even microscopic spires.


    For what it's worth (they're not exactly the most rigorous and controlled experiments in the world), I observed this with impure graphite (i.e. soft pencil cores) and steel electrodes. The photo below shows a sample steel electrode with a partially modified surface from the arc discharges. The roughened area (bottom portion) eventually acquired a sort of grainy, almost prismatic finish.


    This is after washing with clean water to remove carbonate deposits from an electrolyte solution that was also used in the process, so I might have possibly lost most of the spikes or points formed.



    The above are three good documents that will help you learn more. The Chernetski device in particular is not too different than the Quark. It's simply lacking many optimizations.


    It appears this is in the first document.

    http://egely.hu/wp-content/upl…yPseudoParticlesPart1.pdf




    As for the highlighted section, that's something I also noticed, albeit in slightly different, comparatively much more rudimentary tests. After applying arc discharges repeatedly along the surface of the electrode(s) for a while, the discharges would progressively become easier to initiate / more intense.

    Alan Smith

    Universal Time as shown in the graphs should be equivalent to UTC time, i.e. GMT+0. It should have no daylight saving adjustment.


    X-rays alone at this level shouldn't be directly responsible for any obvious effect observed on the Earth's surface, but they should come along with previously unobserved particles produced in the same processes.

    Solar X-ray flux data could be useful. It directly tracks solar flare activity. The graphs below show data from NOAA's geostationary GOES-15 satellite. Times are UTC. There was a spike in solar X-rays between 13:00 and 15:00 on 2018-10-12 and one earlier in the night; it might be correlated with the signal you're reporting.


    https://sxi.ngdc.noaa.gov/index.html

    https://satdat.ngdc.noaa.gov/sem/goes/data/

    https://satdat.ngdc.noaa.gov/s…5_summary_latest3days.pdf

    https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/products/goes-x-ray-flux


    https://satdat.ngdc.noaa.gov/sem/goes/data/new_plots/latest/goes15/g15_summary_latest3days.jpg


    GOES X-ray 3-day plot

    Director

    This might look kind of off-topic, but it actually isn't.


    In his experiments Leif Holmlid observed that 75% or more of the particles emitted by his reaction would not be deflected by a magnetic field, implying that they are neutral or too fast (energetic) for being deflected appreciably. These would be either neutral kaons (mesons which decay to other mesons and muons) or neutral fragments of what he calls ultra-dense hydrogen, ejected from the source/target (which would eventually decay to kaons, etc) by the application of an energetic impulse, typically a focused pulsed laser beam.


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


    If the observation of strange radiation marks in other experiments by different researchers is caused by these early particles and mesons, then it means they do not have necessarily to be caused by one single particle type and flavor.

    Director

    No idea. I don't think the EVO (/plasmoids/etc.) themselves are what some Russian researchers call strange radiation. The latter is supposed to be a byproduct of the former's break-up.


    Anyway I would consider my silly experiments more similar to those of Randell Mills, where water impurities included within the plasma region composed of gas and metal ions would form so-called hydrinos. I think the sometimes explosive reaction I got in my case is just H2-O2 recombination, though.



    Shane D.

    I was only paraphrasing; I don't necessarily agree with that. See if the adaptation below makes more sense to you:


    Quote

    [...] In ideal world, yes. In reality, only one can be right. However, in QM [i.e. mainstream physics] everything is possible at the same time. If we want to get to the point [of LENR], trying to grow [an] organic garden of different options is not going to work. We already have that: it is called mainstream physics.


    For a more complete reply: I think the main issue is that there is still no confirmed working experiment to be replicated that doesn't either require years of preparatory work or NDAs to sign, whether formal or informal. Competition on the theory side would be best left for when at least one is found.

    I think the gist is that letting many different theoretical explanations thrive just for the sake of thought diversity is not going to help advancing LENR.

    It could simply be that LION just wants to remain anonymous. Putin or Mohammed bin Salman is apt to remove any treat to their oil income with a dose of nerve gas or a hit squad.


    I would find this a very strange explanation given that:

    • LION still writes on E-CatWorld;
    • Bob Greenyer still refers to LION's previously published work in his presentations and comments;
    • As far as I understand, he's met in person Bob Greenyer, Alan Smith, Russ George and others in the UK.

    Max Nozin

    As I mentioned earlier, it wasn't intended to be a "real" replication. There were other underlying thoughts into it.


    From observations, the powerful and repeated arc discharges quickly erode the anode, producing small particles that in the air can be observed as very fine dark smoke. At a sufficiently high voltage, current passage could occur directly through these particles, effectively producing numerous localized short circuits that would imply very large Di/Dt without the need for special PSUs. If I recall correctly a similar idea was discussed in one of Brian Ahern's US patent applications. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2011/0233061.html


    Perhaps by adding another 100 meters spool and increasing voltage further (the added resistance might allow to use 12V from my PSU without it tripping the overcurrent protection) I might be able to get a high enough current and voltage to produce such marks. However I think it would also become quite dangerous to handle due to electrical hazards, from the little the power supply allowed me to see there.

    Max Nozin

    From the small photo provided in Parkhomov's presentation and how it's been described elsewhere, the "Woodpecker" device did not seem something very complicated. I figured that perhaps similar results could be achieved manually, although I was definitely not obtaining a large plasma as visible here:



    In my case I did not use carbon electrodes, so it was difficult (almost impossible) to achieve arc discharges at a high repetition rate. Carbon electrodes as used by Parkhomov sublimate upon contact and the highly expanding gases evolved naturally makes them separate cyclically, something I observed in past tests (not this one). Metal electrodes (Al and Cu in my case in the previous test) tend to weld together.


    For what it's worth, I recall that Ken Shoulders' EVO could ideally also be produced with single "shots" / discharges. If there's any link with so-called strange radiation, then if the conditions are right immediate results (like particle tracks) could be expected too, although they might take a while to accumulate to a significant extent.


    As a side note, here's the very advanced equipment I used for the above test. The radio is for better detecting / gauging the reaction, when used in AM mode (significant EMI is produced in the process):