can Verified User
  • Member since Jan 20th 2017

Posts by can

    I think John Dash (many papers available on LENR-CANR.org) did something along these lines, but using a small cold roller instead. The samples (usually Pd, but sometimes also other materials) would be folded (EDIT: maybe not?) and passed through the [hand-driven] machine several times to reduce their thickness before they would be used for the usual electrolysis experiments (using a diluted sulfuric acid solution electrolyte instead of the typical alkaline solution—deposition of some material occurred too on the surface). Reproducibility was apparently good and a "recipe" was even posted, but it didn't have much following.


    A variation could easily use several material types layered together, folded and then cold rolled, or perhaps instead of different metals, inert impurities like Storms has suggested could be added.

    On the questions: H vs D? Which one works better? Is high purity necessary?


    My understanding from what has been published so far is that both work (but D works better) and a gas mixture may be used too. Deuterium will have local D+D fusions going on and a higher condensation energy, which will likely make it more easily to detect using heat alone. However, protium will (eventually) produce negative muons which should give muon capture reactions. In the experiments the gases are often switched, without any particular procedure for purging the other from the system, other than keeping admission going for prolonged periods to obtain a clean enough signal as desired.


    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aadda1


    Quote

    Since the bonding is slightly stronger in D(0) than in protium p(0), it is likely that deuterons (which are bosons) condense to d(0) more easily than protons (fermions) do to p(0), and that d(0) is more resistant against excitation and fragmentation.


    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1402-4896/ab1276


    Quote

    [...] the normal spin s values found in [Coulomb Explosion] experiments are generally higher for p(0) than for D(0), thus the average distances in the clusters are larger for protium than for deuterium. This agrees with the notion that the proton–proton (fermion) interaction should give larger bond distances in p(0) than in D(0).


    https://patents.google.com/patent/SE539684C2/


    Quote

    “Hydrogen” should, in the context of the present application, be understood to include any isotope or mix of isotopes where the nucleus has a single proton. ln particular, hydrogen includes protium, deuterium, tritium and any combination of these.

    Quote

    The fusion reactor 1 comprises a muon generator 10, a vessel 3 containing hydrogen gas (which may, for example, be a suitable mix of protium, deuterium, and tritium), a vaporizer 5, and an electrical generator 7.

    Quote

    [H(0)] is a quantum material (quantum fluid) which may involve both electron pairs (Cooper pairs) and nuclear pairs (proton, deuteron or triton pairs, or mixed pairs


    https://www.sciencedirect.com/…abs/pii/S0022286018308172 (paywalled)


    Quote

    [Rotational] spectra are now studied for ultra-dense protium p(0) and for the ultra-dense hydrogen mixture pxDy(0), giving several lines different from D(0).


    https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(18)34875-8


    Quote

    Using p(0), the observed decay time is in the range 1–2 μs, thus shorter than the free muon lifetime, as expected when the signal is mainly caused by negative muons which interact with matter by muon capture

    [/quote][/quote]

    Picking up on the subject of annihilation energy generation from UDH/UDD, I´ve noticed that Holmlid slightly changed his views. [...]


    if you were highlighting this in particular:


    Quote

    it is estimated that 600 – 1200 MeV kinetic energy is generated per pair of nucleons, thus 30-60% of the nucleon pair mass is converted to useful kinetic energy


    I think here he's referring to the kinetic energy generated by overall process, while the 390 (or 111) MeV figure given earlier was only the kinetic energy from the initially formed kaons+pions.

    For what it's worth, Holmlid differentiates between "dense" and "ultra-dense" hydrogen, although both are condensed matter. The former, which he calls in general terms Rydberg matter, may be formed by almost any atom or molecule that can be excited (brought to a Rydberg state, albeit a particular one called "circular") in sufficiently large numbers at low-workfunction or nonmetal surfaces (or possibly the presence of other "collision partners" that can dissipate the condensation energy). In my opinion this is the form with properties closer to what is often called EVO, or other clustered form of hydrogen and other molecules since, among other things, it can have atom-atom distances ranging from 150 pm to almost arbitrarily large.


    The ultra-dense version (atom-atom distances in generally the ~0.5-5 picometer range) was found to be spontaneously formed only from Rydberg matter of atomic hydrogen, whose atoms have only one electron. I speculate that perhaps an ultra-dense version of heavier atoms or molecules could be formed if all of their electrons could be brought to a circular Rydberg state, although it seems it would be very unlikely to happen. Mayer and Reitz have theoretically proposed a sort of "ultra-dense helium", which they call He-tresino, though.

    The scintillator crystal sits inside an aluminium casing, a good Faraday cage. The signals to the remote loggers are carried by shielded cages. I certainly have seen very little EM interference.

    I have no direct experience with scintillation detectors, but I imagined it would vary depending on construction and the intensity of the RF emission. In either case, since the possibility of interference would likely be a major source of skepticism towards any positive result, one would have to make sure that this type of artifact cannot happen. Or at least, that was my idea there.


    Thank you can for this great initiative. There is much information that I will need some time to read and digest.


    Here I'm just replying to the above question: what you describe looks like a hydrogen membrane that is used in the industry for several applications such as hydrogen purification. Hydrogen or deuterium passes through the membrane and desorbs on one side of the membrane. If I'm not mistaken (can someone confirm?) Fleischmann & Pons were using some types of palladium that were precisely produced by Johnson Matthey for that purpose.

    I think a hydrogen membrane will have a similar function to what I proposed, since in order to get to the other side of the membrane, molecular hydrogen would necessarily have to get dissociated into the atomic form.


    In this specific case I had in mind a more free-flowing, hypothetical catalytic system where the rate of hydrogen dissociation would be high enough to heat up materials considerably with the recombination energy (or—possibly—also other processes like condensation to UDH on metal surfaces) of the desorbing H atoms.

    I've been asked to collect in a dedicated general thread recent discussions made on the LENR-Forum channel on Telegram regarding ultra-dense hydrogen and related topics. This thread will be further used in the future to assemble together other chats on the subject, so that they won't get lost or be difficult to access, since they are of general interest.


    Keep in mind that conversations on the Telegram channel tend to be fast and loose compared to forum discussions, so they may have a different feel and style than usual here.


    This thread may also be used for general discussions on the subject, and comments on the assembled Telegram chats.




    EDIT 2022-09-25: outdated informal chats put under the spoiler tag.

    In retrospect, an obvious observation, but heating with flowing air, especially if damp, will of course accelerate the oxidation process, making the outer olive-green layer acquire a more intense color (higher concentration). As the moisture in the airflow will be decomposed to oxidize the underlying surface, some hydrogen will be evolved too and possibly be retained within the porous oxide structure formed.


    SindreZG

    Besides testing my new adjustable power supply, I am just exploring the application on different surface types of the same method previously used to obtain on plain steel (99% iron) the known catalytically active K-Fe oxide oxide phase. Since such phase has an olive-green color and easily decomposes at room temperature with moisture (properties often mentioned in the related catalyst literature), it is easy to visually detect its presence, at least at high enough concentrations.


    I also find interesting that stainless steel alloys that normally oxidize very slowly can rather easily corrode and form relatively thick oxide films when heated after applying a concentrated alkali (potassium, but sodium also works) hydroxide solution to their surface.


    A related high-temperature oxidation method by Joule heating wires composed of different alloys (e.g. CuNi / constantan) has been used by other researchers like Francesco Celani to obtain LENR-active materials. Here, I'm doing it in a slightly different way with Fe-based alloys.


    I am writing about these crude tests mostly for the sake of keeping a public record of what I have been informally doing and discussing elsewhere. There's not much else besides this.

    I recently got a bench DC power and been trying with several things with it.


    In the various tests performed, I've also revisited the previously mentioned process for forming the (presumably) catalytically-active green potassium–iron oxide layers on steel surfaces, which in short basically only involves applying a concentrated KOH solution on the surface and heating it up. I could now do it in a more controlled way.


    Some time ago I found that the process apparently works also with ferritic stainless steel (FeCr) and even Kanthal A-1 alloy (FeCrAl alloy). In the latter case, it looks like the application of KOH solution (2M concentration) on the surface and heat interferes with the formation of the protective Al2O3 layer, and eventually a surface rust layer, probably mixed with various chromium oxides, forms. This is interesting because actual catalysts are formed by Fe2O3Cr2O3K2O so the oxides formed with these ferritic alloys may approximate those catalysts better than just plain steel as I initially used.


    Unusual colors (for Kanthal alloy, at least) could then be seen, as in the photos below. The green color in principle could be chromium oxide, but it immediately reverts to brown when wetted, so I think it is mostly the potassium–iron oxide compound discussed in this thread.



    In a way, the process with Joule-heated wires is similar to the one used by Celani et al to form porous oxide structures on CuNi wires.

    I will post again here the link to the virtual folder where I uploaded those papers. I will be using this thread for making posts that will focus on highlighting important aspects of his work. I hope this thread serves others to realize how important is this work and why we should all be well versed in it.


    https://drive.google.com/drive…neLfyqLQUgwhV?usp=sharing


    Attached is, on pages 79—92, "EXPERIMENTS OF UNDERWATER SPARK DISCHARGES WITH PINCHED ELECTRODES" by Takaaki Matsumoto. This paper is not present in the linked archive.

    A slightly revised version was recently posted here:

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…ainable_TD_Nuclear_Fusion

    I saw the updated version, I asked Holmlid what happened with the version at Researchsquare and he seems to be a bit in a bad mood.


    I missed this before, but it looks like it is also on ResearchSquare as a different article than the one previously posted, even though it's just a revision. So, the reviewing process can be followed here as well, although judging from last time it's probably not going to be particularly eventful. Perhaps it might be of interest to compare the two versions, though.


    https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-148681/v1

    Curbina

    As long as Norront is paying the fees, I don't think the application will be withdrawn, but it will not proceed until the patent examiner receives an answer fulfilling the stated requirements.


    Without a completely independent replication published on a reputable peer-reviewed journal in support of the results, probably the patent application would have to be rewritten and stand up on its own legs without referring to external publications by Holmlid and coworkers.

    Curbina,

    From the latest documentation at https://register.epo.org/appli…ber=EP17870991&filter=ALL it does not seem that the patent office received anything indicating a longer response.


    I think Norront submitted the minimum necessary to keep their application alive.


    EPO demanded:




    Norront responded:






    In the revised paper I linked above it is anyway maintained that:


    Quote

    The patent description [29] is complete and can be repeated easily by anyone knowledgeable in the fields of vacuum and chemical catalysis. A complete description of the science and technology behind the production of ultradense hydrogen [1] will soon be published [39]. The importance of carbon surfaces for the formation of Rydberg species at surfaces was known long before 1998, when the key reference [40] was published. Another useful review is found in [41]

    A new (Oct 2020) open-access paper from Leif Holmlid:

    Muon-catalyzed fusion and annihilation energy generation supersede non-sustainable T+D nuclear fusion

    https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-97208/v1

    A slightly revised version was recently posted here:

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…ainable_TD_Nuclear_Fusion

    but the accompanying document was not uploaded, I hope it will be uploaded eventually as I really want to know how Holmlid is answering to the lack of independent replication, which is EPO’s main point for refusing to accept the patent.

    I think it was just this 1-page document:

    https://register.epo.org/appli…17870991&lng=en&npl=false

    Curbina

    I'm not judging whether he's right or wrong, it's just a matter of form (hence, minor observation). There do not seem to be explicit or implicit indications in this paper that there are alternative explanations for the neutron star issue or that they could be solved within the ultra-dense hydrogen/Rydberg matter framework. As far as I am concerned, since transient forms of ultra-dense hydrogen with neutron density may exist ("quasineutrons"), they could possibly be even explained with that.


    Why give more ammo to reviewers and skeptics alike to reject the paper, however? Among other things, it's probably already going to be demoted for citing the one from PLOS ONE retracted by the editors, even if Holmlid did not agree with the retraction.