antimatter annualization
I have no idea of what this means. Google seems clueless as well.
antimatter annualization
I have no idea of what this means. Google seems clueless as well.
If you trust his results and methods, Holmlid also sees high-energy gammas, for example in the latest paper uploaded here: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-2033818/v1
QuoteAbstract
[...] Particle energy measurements with Al converters (without scintillator) in the separated, enclosed charged particle detector identify further modes of decay of K0L and K0s, all producing a few simultaneous high-energy gamma photon peaks in the approximate energy range 20 - 100 MeV. [...]
Though I think most of the papers released recently are reinterpretation or clarifications of data from experiments performed a few years ago, and I am aware that the detector system used here, although it is definitely seeing something, may not be operating the way Holmlid thinks, according to some well-sourced criticisms.
[...] LazeraH will also observe AM radio wave production and the appearance of high energy electrons coming from the bosenova.
Holmlid came to the conclusion that nuclear annihilation is occurring also from the analysis of the time variation of the pulses generated by the laser-caused reaction inside the vacuum chamber, where UDH is formed and collected. This is possible because the laser pulses are consistently very short (5 ns for the one used in the experiments), unlike typical spark discharges. The decay times appear to be consistent with mesons and muons, although their interpretation is not always simple.
Although muon-catalyzed fusion was previously a stronger focus, presumably since in principle it is easier to apply in practice, the process described in the video is still the same reported by Holmlid in his papers. The annihilation reaction is the source of those muons, at least according to theory.
Of course, questions remain on whether it is actually possible to scale the reaction to practical devices, but Holmlid and his associates still think this can be done.
I've learned about the website from the source. In other words, Leif Holmlid is definitely aware about the company, the website and its contents.
There's a video as well on the LazeraH website, which was uploaded today. Here's the same video embedded from Vimeo:
In case it does not work: https://vimeo.com/752911550
As far as I am aware of, they're already doing experiments with good equipment.
I would like to ask Holmlid if he is really on the board.
I think he is.
By the way, Martin Tornberg (listed on the website as being family of Professor Leif Holmlid) and Erling Nilsen were previously respectively board member and board chairman of Norrønt Fusion Energy AS.
A new website for the company called LazeraH AB; I don't think this has been posted before, although I've seen the company mentioned earlier on here.
Sveinn Ólafsson, who replicated most of the observations by Holmlid on UDH, is the idea that if each laser pulse caused the emission of high-energy particles in amounts comparable to what Holmlid has suggested (up to about 10^14 per laser shot), his own laboratory in Iceland would not be usable from the radiations. I believe he already mentioned that in the LENR-Forum interview posted last year. He's not seeing such effects, however, and presumably neither did Sindre Zeiner-Gundersen.
There's no doubt there is something worth investigating (the signal observed with the "muon detector" is still mysterious, even completely disregarding the mesons/muon hypothesis; and the traces seen in cloud chambers by Ólafsson and Zeiner-Gundersen could be important), but I very much think it's better to keep expectations down regarding the possibility in the near term of building commercial reactors for energy production based upon the observed effects, whether hot or cold.
Note that (Sveinn) Ólafsson is not to be confused with (Frans) Olofson, who coauthored several papers with Holmlid before 2015.
I think funding is a key factor, and Olofsson is able to continue because of this. Again, we know from Olofsson interview with LENR-forum that he is not entirely sold on those interpretations and he is actively seeking further clarity on that aspect.
I think if the reaction could be scaled up or even just be as large as suggested in some of the recent papers (e.g. >8000 times more energy out than the laser energy into the chamber as suggested here), it would basically pay for itself.
The main issue is probably that Holmlid's findings are likely more relevant for science at a fundamental level than solving the energy crisis in the near term, and PhD students in a hurry to get productive may not be patient enough to wait for that.
Another is that many of the observations rely on interpreting the results in a certain way and that's probably where disagreements may have arisen.
The process described here is similar to that I accidentally found a good while back, only I used KOH instead of NaOH. When KOH solution (i.e. KOH in the presence of water) reacts with clean iron surfaces from moderate temperatures up (~250-300 °C), it oxidizes them rapidly forming on the surface a hygroscopic green layer similar to the catalytically-active phase found in industrial iron oxide catalysts under active conditions.
I'm not sure if it's related to the LEC however.
When subtracting the masses of the electron and the proton from the neutron's gives almost exactly the free neutron decay energy, the above overly complex attempts at explaining the p-n mass difference seem entirely off the mark.
Proton mass | 938.272088 | MeV | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton |
Neutron mass | 939.565421 | MeV | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron |
Electron mass | 0.510999 | MeV | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_mass |
Neutron – Electron – Proton mass | 0.782333 | MeV | |
Free neutron decay energy | 0.782343 | MeV | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron |
This other paper reports 1 KJ of excess heat without making much of it, as a mere curiosity that requires further elucidation.
1 kJ excess with 241 kJ in, 242 kJ out, that's within error margins.
They should have tried up to 50 wt% KOH concentration just to make sure, although that would have likely required lower voltages.
I am only saying that given the above information, from the point of view of the experimenter, the unshielded reactor would be safer, since neutral kaons—suggested in the excerpt I posted not to interact significantly with living matter—would decay mostly far away from it. Otherwise, with heavy shielding the reactor materials would soon become too dangerous to handle due to radiation from the decaying meson shower.
Hypothetically speaking, of course.
It does indeed appear according to Holmlid's suggestion that the choice is between having a heavily shielded reactor and concentrating the radiation there, or not having any shielding at all (or very little shielding) and distributing the radiation over a large area, meters away from the reactor.
In the latest paper (among others) that I linked a few days ago, Holmlid argues that the neutral kaons produced by the annihilation reaction are very penetrating and do not normally interact with organic matter, partially justifying why the observed radiation levels are not as high as expected.
0.3A at 60V sounds about right in tap water for pieces of the size shown previously. However titanium at the anode easily forms an impervious oxide layer during electrolysis.
can great that you are back!
What kind of Software are you using for your drawings?
Thanks; I use Inkscape: https://inkscape.org/
Antiprotons from Ultradense Hydrogen?
In other publications the supposed process is expanded a bit more, for example here: