I never had a look at the system in detail before, so sorry if I'm missing some details here. The refrigerant pump is just used to heat a tube to 150 °C or so in order to make cooling water in an outer jacket to flash evaporate and cause energy-producing cavitation?
Why is a refrigerant pump needed at all? Couldn't this be more conveniently done with a cartridge heater or a band heater (or both)?
That I am aware of, there was a brief and vague suggestion of cold fusion materials having potential use for explosives in the DTRA report by Mosier-Boss, Forsley, McDaniel in section 3.8.2 here: https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MosierBossinvestigat.pdf
However, it's not immediately clear that in the photos the authors are not referring to the large crater, but to a smaller crater inside the larger crater caused by the high explosive charge for triggering the material.
Otherwise, this page appears to have some of the information you're looking for:
These two open access papers also have information pertaining to the reduction of iron oxide catalysts with hydrogen at pressure in the mbar range:
EDIT:
It is of course true that hot hydrogen will reduce Fe oxides to Fe, but you need a fairly high temperature.
In general, iron oxide catalysts are considered catalytically active (e.g. towards dissociating hydrogen) when the iron oxide is present in a trivalent state. Their inactive form is composed of Fe3O4 and potassium (often as KOH). In other words, activity would start decreasing before total reduction to metal is attained.
EDIT2: relevant excerpt from Kotarba and Holmlid from a 2009 paper (downloadable from Researchgate):
Holmlid has suggested that strong magnetic fields can prevent H(0) from being formed. Also, inducing a voltage on the catalyst material may affect its capability of emitting Rydberg states (either positively or negatively), which was observed in a few studies dedicated on alkali Rydberg matter emission (one example here).
I could add that the iron oxide catalysts typically used here at high hydrogen pressure might get reduced quickly and become inactive, although the active phase formed on the surface, when activated, is fairly resistant towards reduction (but there haven't been studies on H(0) production using just the synthetic active phase of these catalysts). In his past studies, Holmlid has often admitted air to keep the catalysts in their active state.
For high-pressure operation probably different catalysts will be needed.
So a while back I stumbled upon Holmlid's papers, it is impressive, however amounts of ultra dense hydrogen generated seem to be in order of nano/micro grams. I'm going to build a generator of ultra dense hydrogen for experiments, and I'm planning to produce orders of magnitude more, about milligrams. His generator/setup is quite complicated and expensive, so I'm seeking a way to build more efficient, less expensive generator oriented for producing large quantities of ultra dense hydrogen H(0). Any thoughts on possible solutions to do so?
To make more ultra-dense hydrogen H(0), a larger flow of hydrogen through the catalysts seems necessary. This is why the generator Holmlid wrote a patent application for uses many openings, each of which containing a catalyst pellet.
Even so, it still has limitations. Besides being complicated to build, at the likely maximum supported temperature the catalysts used aren't working very efficiently. Most of the hydrogen admitted is also likely not going to be converted to the ultra-dense form, so "recycling" it, perhaps with a reversible hydride, could be more advantageous in practice.
Another way that hasn't been explored in detail by Holmlid and others could be using a pulsed laser to ablate catalytically-active metals inside the chamber together with some hydrocarbon and alkali in the atmosphere, or also directly catalyst pellets. The resulting hot nanodust formed and sputtered inside the chamber should be active towards producing H(0). One such test was described in the review paper published a few years ago, although at relatively low pressure and without direct heating other than that of the the laser:
https://doi.org/10.1088/1402-4896/ab1276
The one above is the detection method that was generally used for the relatively low-energy particles and clusters.
For the high-energy particles, the signal is directly measured at longer distances (99 cm, 165cm etc) with an oscilloscope and foils ("collectors") in the flight path. This is the paper where magnetic deflection tests ruled out high-energy electrons:
The detector is shielded against photons of course and also against electrons....
The experiments I referred about earlier are those Holmlid calls "Coulomb Explosion experiments". They used a custom-made detector inside the vacuum chamber at a relatively close distance to the laser target, and a high vacuum.
I think strong light for the laser or possibly from nuclear reactions can still be detected even if filtered, but very fast particles ejected from the laser target also due to nuclear reactions should too be able to produce a fast signal close to the zero time.
Looking at this figure made me realize that the Dynode at a negative high voltage should cause this detector to reject electrons, though.
It's from this paper: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/ab1276
In earlier papers I remember it was sometimes explained that way. More recently it has been described like this, in similar experiments:
Quote[...] A large peak at 20–40 ns in Fig. 4 also exists, which has not been assigned previously. It may be due to processes giving a typical nuclear based energy of 100 keV u−1.
Regular atoms would arrive much later to the detector due to ordinary bond distances which would cause them to get ejected from the laser target with low kinetic energy compared to UDH and RM, at least according to how Holmlid has described the process occurring here (the laser strips out the electrons from some atoms in the target, and cluster fragments repel each other by Coulomb repulsion).
It could be thought that heavier atoms are somehow accelerated by the laser to high kinetic energies but I think this also got addressed in the past—I don't have a reference right away for this though.
Can the data be interpreted as follows: the initial spike is a burst of EMF (photons)
In those time-of-flight graphs there usually is an initial spike at almost 0 µs that is not very visible in the papers since it's very close to the Y axis. That could possibly be due to photons or MeV particles.
latter particles are high energy electrons that have a range of energies
Unlikely since electrons are very light compared to protons and deuterons, and would arrive much earlier.
For much faster particles, different time-of-flight studies have been done by collecting the electrical signal with metal foils or wire loops ("collectors") and a fast oscilloscope. From those studies Holmlid determined that mesons were produced, and these have been the focus in the later papers.
Could high energy electrons look like muons, since the large kinetic energy of the electrons might be interpreted as the heavier muon particle.
As far as I recall, magnetic deflection studies have been published, and they ruled out electrons.
How can Holmlid tell by time of flight?
It's summarily described in the paper I linked above. A form of laser-induced mass spectrometry is employed. To put it simply, when the laser pulse is applied on the target where UDH is expected to be, UDH fragments are ejected and then detected with a custom-made detector assembly inside the vacuum chamber. From the time it takes for these fragments to arrive to the detector and some safe assumptions, their kinetic energy and structure can be inferred.
The non-superfluid phase of UDH is more tightly bound and only forms small clusters, and will produce the fastest fragments arriving earlier at the detector. They cause the narrow peak at the beginning of the charts, and are always present. The superfluid phase will form larger fragments which will arrive a bit later at the detector; it disappears above a certain temperature, possibly reverting to ordinary hydrogen atoms or hydrogen Rydberg matter.
Each line is a test at different temperature:
EDIT: note that other tests were done in other papers to determine that a superfluid phase was observed, it's not just based on these results alone.
What are those particles with spiral tracts that Sveinn sees in his cloud chamber after the laser pulse?
External Content youtu.beContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
Those have to be something different with hundreds MeV of energy or more. The time-of-flight results above are instead for particles with much lower energies, in the hundreds of eV range maximum, which can only be properly detected inside the vacuum chamber with a high-vacuum.
This observation indicates that the UDH still is a superconductor after exposure to the high temperature transition point because superconductivity is regained when the temperature is lowered below the transition temperature.
You are wording this confusingly. A superconductor or superfluid is usually only called as such when it exhibits those properties.
In other words, at high temperatures UDH is not a superfluid or a superconductor, at least according to Holmlid's time-of-flight data interpretation.
I posit that the UDH will lose its superconductivity when it is completely kept in the dark and when the temperature is increased. The UDH will lose its superfluidity.
There is a transition temperature above which UDH is observed to lose superfluidity, like with ordinary superfluids, but depending on the surface and if deuterium or protium is used:
But after exposure to the laser light, no amount of heat will destroy the superconductivity of the UDH becuase the polariton condensate that is formed by the laser will protect the superconductive nature of the UDH.
To find out the state of UDH as in the above experiment, the pulsed laser (which is not merely "shining a light" in this case) must be employed and the observations do not change after using it. After using the laser, it still appears to lose superfluidity above the transition temperature and regain it below that.
This is basing on Holmlid's interpretation of the time-of-flight results which is not exactly intuitive, however.
The solar corona is a more likely spot. I suspect stars have more than one kind of nuclear process powering them.
Related paper: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.…epdf/10.1002/2017JA024498
QuoteAbstract [...] The properties of ultradense hydrogen H(0) give also a few novel possibilities to explain the high corona temperature of the Sun.
But also:
QuoteAbstract [...] Ultra-dense hydrogen H(0) has been studied in more than 50 experimental papers. H(0) is a quantum material. It gives spontaneous nuclear processes with a large energy release, including nuclear fusion processes. Since it is the lowest energy form of hydrogen it will exist everywhere where hydrogen exists in the Universe. H(0) will be formed inside the Earth since the chemical and thermal conditions there are excellent for its formation.[...]
Near-vacuum conditions are not needed for forming ultra-dense hydrogen. The most recent experiments reported used pressures up to substantial fractions of an atmosphere, and it has been suggested that certain forms of ultra-dense hydrogen are involved in catalytic reactions in ordinary industrial reactors (which can operate in some cases also at hundreds of bar of pressure).
I think a high vacuum was normally in earlier experiments because it made it easier to analyze the time-of-flight of fast fragments of ultra-dense hydrogen and Rydberg matter in the 1-1000 eV range. In later years, Holmlid moved away from those experiments, focusing on the high-energy particles (mesons, muons) he thought he was seeing, which were fast enough not to be braked by the higher-pressure atmosphere in the vacuum chamber. Higher hydrogen pressures seemingly help producing larger amounts of UDH from the catalysts used (as in ordinary catalytic reactions), which help seeing a stronger signal.
Of course other explanations are possible. One could hypothesize this is just the target metal playing tricks with the laser beam, depending on its surface state which can be affected by heat and gases in the chamber atmosphere.
[...]
[...]
The key factor in the production of the LENR reaction is superconductivity. The Dv/Dt spark forms metal nanoparticles which are superconductive. LENR is actioned by nanoparticles because they can be made superconductive when coherent light is applied to them..
Here is an example of how nanoparticles can be made LENR capable by the application of a laser pulse.
1306.0830.pdf
The pulsed laser employed in Holmlid-type experiments does indeed ablate and sputter around the target metal plate material (possibly producing hydrogen-active nanodust which will contribute dissociating hydrogen like the catalysts are supposed to do, if not better), although it has been reported that ablation proceeds very slowly when an ultra-dense hydrogen layer is present.
Source: https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(18)34875-8
You could take the increasing laser pulse energy as a way to increase the the dI/dt often regarded as important in LENR.
The nuclear explanation initially came from Holmlid analyzing how quickly the output pulses propagated in the vacuum chamber, using detector foils or wire loops at various distances, which he called collectors. These collectors could be almost thought as "antennas". The pulses were fast but had speed significantly lower than that of light, so they were thought to be due to massive charged particles moving away from the laser target. More in-depth analysis of the signal decay made Holmlid believe he was seeing meson decay, and thus that nuclear annihilation must be occurring.
I'm aware there are issues with this. For example Sveinn Ólafsson suggested that the long vacuum chamber tubes can act as inefficient waveguides and slow down electromagnetic waves which would otherwise normally propagate at the speed of light, but I don't recall this being discussed in Holmlid's papers.
Furthermore there have never been experiments showing "blank" runs with the laser. The reason is that no blank run is possible as without hydrogen the pulses are still there, just lower. Holmlid has recently suggested that since ultra-dense hydrogen is so small and ubiquitous, it must be present in all materials (that's really the only way the results without hydrogen can be justified).
Axil, I linked an easily accessible 2013 paper with an easy-to-understand figure just to show that the observed laser-induced reaction (i.e. the output pulse) has been observed to grow exponentially with laser pulse energy. This is independent of its interpretation as due to meson decay which came a few years after that paper.
Regarding lab light activation of the Holmlid reaction.
In nanoplasmonics, a polariton condensate is formed by adding one polariton at a time. A lab light will produce many photons over time, with each producing a single polariton. It does not matter if the photons are produced in a nanosecond or an hour or a day, the condensate will just grow at the rate of photon additions until a state of instability occurs. This gradual buildup of the condensate is what is happing in the Holmlid reaction.
For the purposes of obtaining a large output pulse size, it matters. In past studies the output pulse was found to vary with the fourth power of laser pulse energy or more, for example here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.2781
The laser-less reaction that was observed to be stimulated in the laboratory by fluorescent light, also called "spontaneous", is in comparison microscopic and needs special tools to be measured (the photomultiplier tube (PMT)-based "Muon detector" conceived by Holmlid several years ago).
How could high energy gammas production be happening when all those UDH researchers are still alive after years of exposure to the reaction whatever it may be?
All those UDH researchers who have actually performed experiments with pulsed lasers (which would be producing at least in theory radiations in large amounts) are not really that many researchers. I think at this point it's safe to say that most of them do not think that they are seeing the emission of mesons like Holmlid suggested.
Watch the video for the claims and reaction description.
annualization should read annihilation
If you meant "annihilation" you should correct that in your previous messages. I have watched the video and know what it's claiming.
I once heard that a spark can also produce the same results as a laser pulse. If true, the reaction begins to look very much like LENR.
Lasers similar to the ones used in the experiments by Holmlid can typically dump 0.4 J in 5*10-9 seconds at 10 Hz on a spot of tens of microns of diameter, working very consistently with very small variations between each pulse. The average laser power at 10 Hz over one second is just 4W, but the instant power per laser pulse is 80 MW. There's no comparison with typical spark discharges although they might be possibly able to initiate the same reactions.
But most importantly here, it's the very short and consistent input laser pulse which allows to analyze the output pulse from the plasma (i.e. the reaction). With slower pulse types (sparks, etc) you would have the signal from the output pulse overlapping with that of the input pulse, and probably you wouldn't obtain the same output intensity anyway due to the lower instant power per input pulse.
