Posts by can

Quote from magicsound

That is pretty much what we did yesterday. We went higher in pressure, 3 bar absolute. That was added over maybe 5 minutes. The bleed to vacuum also was done over several minutes. At no time during the entire run did we see a deviation (above measurement jitter) between active and null temperatures, nor did we expect to.

The data and what I recall from the live test seemed to suggest that this was done over 10-15 seconds, but I guess I could be wrong or looking at something else. The data has a sample rate of one every 10 seconds, and the jumps here show 1 or 2 at most.

magicsound

The idea is something in the order of several minutes (for example 10-15 minutes, but the actual duration isn't that important as long as it's not fast) to reach 1-1.5 bar from a vacuum condition, then reverse the process by applying a vacuum at the same rate and possibly repeat a few times if time allows.

If this requires constant manual fiddling with the pressure, nevermind!

EDIT: the rationale for doing this comes in part from the studies of A.J.Groszek et al, who found that certain metals such as Pd that have previously adsorbed hydrogen show an anomalous oscillatory behavior in heat evolution during further sorption, if subject to a flow of H2/N2 (or H2 and a noble gas) at a low, controlled flow rate starting from a very mild vacuum. The conditions here in GS5.4 are different in that only hydrogen gas with Ni is used and different flow rates likely can't be consistently tried within reasonable time and effort, but perhaps it's still worth a try. The group didn't check for radiations. [Paper 1, 2]

magicsound

Is there any possibility of making the pulses more controlled in duration or are there limitations in the current experimental setup preventing this?

Quote from PeterMetz

I managed to digitize the FPL daily data provided in one of the exhibits. After trying a few sites, I found WebPlotDigitizer (http://arohatgi.info/WebPlotDigitizer/) to work best. It's online, free, and easy to use and the tracing mode will produce usage data on the day boundaries using X Step w/Interpolation automatic tracing.

Very useful website.

Quote from barty

This is not about changes on the fuel, but about things which can be done immediately around the reactor.

Here's one: introduce hydrogen at a controlled rate (for example, over the course of 30 minutes) up to 1-1.5 bar or more while keeping the reactor at elevated temperature. Then do the same by removing hydrogen down to the very mild vacuum range. Repeat a few times.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Does the presence of dense hydrogen during cold fusion lead into some testable predictions? In this moment I can see none - except that it disfavors all proton capture based mechanisms (which were already proven experimentally). In construction of physical theories a simple rule exists: "hypotheses non fingo" (don't invent hypothesis, if you don't have to).

[Ultra-]Dense deuterium atoms will eventually fuse each other spontaneously due to their short interatomic distance, and this can already predict many of the reported results in the LENR field. The material can also be stimulated for particle emission. Proton emission was reported in 2012 by Holmlid et al. in Detection of MeV particles from ultra-dense protium p(-1): Laser-initiated self-compression from p(1). A possible hypothesis/mechanism for this was provided (read excerpts below). This could predict several of the results of LENR researchers using protium with specific activation methods that include short energetic impulses.

Before you start ranting (once again) that the laser used by Holmlid has a too high intensity and so it doesn't apply for LENR, complete Nd:YAG devices with similar laser pulse specifications are available for 1000-1500 euro on Ebay and are used among other things used for tattoo removal. They can be dangerous but they're actually not as powerful and specialized devices as you routinely make them seem to be. Economy of scale could probably make them much cheaper.

FYI, much of the discussion seems to be going on here:

E-CatWorld - MFMP Prepares for Glowstick 5.4 and 5.5 Test

axil

I'm not an expert but after a very quick read to me that seems a relatively standard scintillation detector, only homemade.

Holmlid's improvement for scintillation detectors is the addition of layers or plates of glass or metals to their front window (or in front of the photomultiplier, if detachable), which promotes the capture of slow muons potentially emitted by his reaction. This improvement can be applied to other common detectors, which MFMP already have.

You've probably already read this paper:

Muon detection studied by pulse-height energy analysis: Novel converter arrangements

Good find but would this one in particular actually be suitable for detecting muons directly? The video description states "Pure beta emitters, gamma emitters, and x-rays do not trigger this kind of detector."

In reference to my previous comment, in the end MFMP agreed upon my request (I used a different nickname on E-CatWorld) to add a silver metal plate (a 2.3mm thick, 38.6mm diameter commemorative 15 euro coin) on the front of the Geiger tube window of one of their detectors. This should increase the chances to see beta decay reactions from muon capture significantly; Russ George also apparently used silver foil with success some time back.

Has a higher quality version of this graph already been posted?

AlainCo asked on E-CatWorld, referring to the muon detection system put in place by MFMP:

Quote from AlainCo

Does it apply to Holmlid candidates muon ?

Their analysis is adapted to cosmic muons of few GeV energy ?

My reply (pending verification; in retrospect, I shouldn't have posted there in the first place) was:

Holmlid's (et al.) analysis is suited for muons of much lower energy (10-100 MeV) that are emitted by his experiments.

Cosmic muon detectors usually detect the ionization caused by the muons themselves as they pass through them, while Holmlid's detects the beta decay reactions caused by their capture.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

At second, the thermal vibrations are chaotic and their energy density is lower than this one of coherent laser beam. Such a beam spontaneously doesn't form in nature, it's also human invention, so it cannot be included into a cold fusion mechanism. And muons don't form during normal cold fusion without lasers and vice-versa: the Holmlid experiments with laser pulses did allegedly produce many things - except the evidence that some fusion really runs there, cold fusion the more.

As explaned in a different dedicated thread on the subject, Holmlid et al. have also detected high energy particle emission without a laser. Is it actually due to muons? That can be debated, but fact is, a laser is not required for their observations.

From Muon detection studied by pulse-height energy analysis: Novel converter arrangements

From Charged particle energy spectra from laser-induced processes: Nuclear fusion in ultra-dense deuterium D(0)

From Sveinn Ólafsson on LENR-Forum:

Quote from sveinol

Thanks for the question, The laser can start the process but just waiting after admitting the D2 gas does the same.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

But why? I don't believe in incidents. Maybe the ionization energies and/or electron capture of potassium 40 plays some role here.

Holmlid et al. found that potassium atoms can easily get emitted (for example in a vacuum and/or upon heating) from KFeO2 directly in a Rydberg state. These Rydberg states of K can form Rydberg matter (which in turn leads to the formation of H Rydberg matter). At the same time, it's also been found that KFeO2 is the active phase in industrial potassium-iron oxide catalysts.

In other words, there appears to be a correlation between catalytic activity and the ability of easily forming Rydberg states from desorbed atoms.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

The D(0) clusters interact low-dimensionaly, i.e. they condense into form of strings rather than blobs in similar way, like the chains of magnetic dipoles magnetized beads. It would indicate, each cluster behaves like tiny superconducting magnet.

To call it Rydberg matter is somewhat misnomer, because every superconductive ring should be called a Rydberg matter too.

Now I see what you mean. Holmlid also calls Rydberg matter H(1). It's related with H(0), which can be considered a condensed form of Rydberg matter, but they're not the same thing. As far as I'm aware of, superfluidity and superconductivity was observed in the latter, but not the former. There's some information on the H(1) which you may find useful/interesting in this open access paper from 2002 (try searching in the text "clusters of RM are strong magnetic dipoles").

The details on how H(1) can form H(0) and viceversa aren't clear to me. I'm not sure if Holmlid has described yet the exact dynamics.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

I'm intrigued, which role the KFeO2 (a quite boring compound) plays in their formation. Note that it's ferromagnetic by itself.

KFeO2 is the active phase of potassium-iron oxide catalysts and incidentally also what allows Rydberg matter to easily form. There's a paper or two by Holmlid et al. on the subject, here's one (paywalled).

Quote from Zephir_AWT

I just hope, that Holmlid doesn't consider the ferrite particles evaporated by laser as some exotic form of matter...

In several of the latest published papers he doesn't use the laser directly on the catalyst, so I don't think he's seeing ferrite particles.

Either way, the most relevant claim for LENR experiments is the reported emission of elementary particles (e.g. muons) after making hydrogen gas flow through the catalyst, before laser irradiation. I feel that in trying to demonstrate that H(0) is unphysical many people are missing this point.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Everything what Holmlid presents is very interesting - but it's also an one man show without any scientific feedback. There is strong background of cosmic muons and the scintillators which he uses for detection of muons would be sensitive both for this background, both UV light and they may be even sensitized with it.

In Spontaneous ejection of high-energy particles from ultra-dense deuterium D(0) Holmlid and Olafsson report what they did to ensure it isn't an artifact produced by an external signal, whether natural or artificial. A figure shows the background signal after a couple days of inactivity and its increase (reportedly by a factor of 40) one hour after admitting deuterium in the apparatus. It's a repeatable effect.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

I'm particularly interested about his dense hydrogen worms, as they have some extent to dense aether models. It seems, he's able to collect quite substantial amount of these noodles. Couldn't he attempt for their direct observation under atomic microscope? It would be best evidence of his experiments - otherwise it's all just about spectroscopy, i.e. indirect evidence.

I'm not sure what to answer here. I'm afraid that indirect evidence is all that we've got for now.

Eric Walker

I don't disagree with what you're saying here.

For what it's worth, Axil reported some time ago on Vortex-l (citing an email from Sveinn Olafsson) that Holmlid's group is looking to test in a few months one of their apparati in a full-scale particle detector, so I guess that better data (and if need be, better interpretation) will eventually come.

(EDIT: removed ranty portion of the comment unrelated with your message although it addressed information from the very same paper; added link)

Since Zephir_AWT has suggested on a couple occasions (for example here) that a focused pulse laser is required for the reaction Holmlid observes, here's an excerpt from Muon detection studied by pulse-height energy analysis:Novel converter arrangements which should clarify things up through basic reading comprehension. Color emphasis mine.

• The potassium-iron oxide catalysts produce H(0) from hydrogen or deuterium gas flow;
• The catalysts give a slowly decaying muon signal after producing H(0);
• Laser irradiation triggers an increase in muon production;
• Sometimes (?) even the light from fluorescent lamps can trigger an increase in muon production.

Alan Smith

They can by all means use whatever method they see fit; it's their experiment after all.

However, without a more or less complete understanding of the background theory and methods I don't feel it's fair to assume that these replications are going to test (as stated) any specific theory in particular.

I'm not just referring to the muon detection system: even mixing together (as suggested in this document) nickel powder, LiAlD4 and unknown (but likely too small) quantities of a catalyst similar to those used by Holmlid is likely to cause different outcomes than assumed. The LiAlD4 for instance is going to destroy the surface of the catalyst, together with the excessively high temperatures typical of these GlowStick experiments.

In reference to the Cosmic ray finder proposed today by MFMP...

I think they're setting up themselves for failure if they expect detecting anomalous muon emission from their experiments with this. The mean energy of cosmic muons at sea level - which this tool is supposed to detect- is about 4 GeV. The ones Holmlid claims can be emitted are in the 10-100 MeV range or less: much slower.

Holmlid uses standard scintillators and photomultipliers with several mm-thick plates attached to their front window in order to slow those muons down enough to cause secondary capture reactions (link to paper). These capture reactions indirectly cause neutron activation and beta decay reactions in the material, which can be detected by standard means. This method of applying a relatively thin shield to the detector is reported to increase the detection rate by a factor of at least 100, but it works especially because these aren't cosmic muons and can be easily stopped.

In the first page of another thread on LENR-Forum there are reports from Russ George and Alan Smith of an improvement in detection by using a similar method with standard detectors. Don't these people communicate and discuss their findings to each other?

The not-invented-here syndrome is strong.