Many thanks Sveinn for your answers.
By by the way is the laser pulse that produces the ultra dense hydrogen the same type type of laser pulse that can stimulate the apparent fusion reaction?
thanks
stephen.
Many thanks Sveinn for your answers.
By by the way is the laser pulse that produces the ultra dense hydrogen the same type type of laser pulse that can stimulate the apparent fusion reaction?
thanks
stephen.
I recently found a post by Mark Jurich in the Vortex-l email archive where the following very interesting paper written by Leif Holmlid was mentioned:
http://fuelrfuture.com/science/holm2.pdf
I understand from that post that h(-1) and d(-1) are now termed h(0) and d(0).
Perhaps these questions are more specific to Leif Holmlids paper and better directed to him so if you cannot answer them I understand. They do seem relevant to your recent experiment however so if you can answer them it would be interesting I think.
From this paper I understand that:
Rydberg Matter h(0) and d(0) is planar like a snowflake with atoms spaced 150 pm a little further apart than the bond length of H2 74 pm
The ultra dense form h(1) and d(1) is paired atoms in a linear vortex with the paired atoms much closer about 2.3 pm.
Also that the two forms Rydberg Matter and ultra dense matter oscillate between their forms.
Are these understanding still correct or have they been updated in the time since this paper was written in early 2014? If the ideas still stand could I ask a couple of questions about it?
1. Since the Rydberg matter from and the ultra dense form are quite different. One planar the other linear. Is the mechanism for the change of state now understood?
2. Is the oscillation present even for a single flake of Rydberg matter? Or does it require a collection maybe a stack of multiple flakes which interact together to allow switching between these two forms
3. If there is an oscillation between these two forms do we know if there is a specific oscillation frequency and if so would you be able to say what it is?
4. Are the two states energetically equivalent, or does it need stimulus to maintain the oscillation?
5. is there a maximum length in terms of number of atom pairs that can occur for the ultra dense form?
6. Are the atom pairs in the Ultra dense form also 2.3pm apart from the adjacent pairs?
7. I understand the laser is needed to cause the switch to ultra dense form. Does the laser have any part to play in the continued oscillation between states or is it only to collect the Rydberg matter and cause the initial compression and transition to ultra dense form ?
8. Are there specific characteristics to the laser application apart from its frequency that are relevant? For example, minimum intensity , duration of laser pulses repetition frequency and number of pulses?
best regards
Stephen
Hi Sveinn, Thanks very much for taking time to answer my questions so quickly. I very much appreciate it. It really does look like an amazing phenomena you are seeing especially the apparently simple way h(0) and d(0) seems to be generated in your experiment and that such relatively week and relatively simple stimuli can generate such amazing results.
Regarding your question "Lifetime of Hydrogen ??? you mean lifetime of generated particle?", Yup I wasn't very clear in my question but indeed I was considering the Long Kaon 0, and +/- Kaon half life and the apparent delays in generation that were mentioned in the presentation.
Regarding the catalyst and target questions I think your presentation and papers are clear enough, I guess I went off on a bit of a tangent there. I had a bit of a wild idea that in addition to the material generating the Rydberg matter that maybe a secondary effect could be the initial Kaons could be generated somehow from nucleons resonance in the Catalyst or or Target rather than the UDD, following some external disturbance stimulation generated by the SPP for example. I had wondered if the collective binding energy in a nucleus was sufficient enough maybe it could contain a resonant process in the nucleons sufficient to generate a Kaon. Also if Nuclei with slightly too low binding energy could affect the process. But on reflection it was a bit of a crazy idea to link Nucleus binding energy to nucleon resonance energy in this way with out a clear link or mechanism and its clear I think from the signature you describe that the Kaons are coming directly from the h(0) and d(0). Thanks for your patience with that question. Its fascinating enough that this catalyst readily generates Rydberg matter from the surface as you describe.
Probably it is mentioned somewhere already but I wonder is it known either theoretically or experimentally what size the h(0) and d(0) particles would be and how many nuclei they would typically contain? would they be quite large say 10's or 100's micro meters in size or would they be much smaller still may be nano meters in size? Do we know how many of these particles would be typically produced in one event?
Is Sveinn Ólafsson still available for questions regarding this very interesting work? I appreciate he must be busy with the developments in his work.
Following his very good and interesting presentation at SRI International:
http://tempid.altervista.org/SRI.pdf
And the interesting review of the presentation by Jones Beene who was able to attend and posted on the Vortex-L email archive:
[email protected]/msg105372.html">https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg105372.html
There has been a lot of discussion on various sites relating to the experiment and related phenomena in the various forums including this site LENR Forum, e-catworld and and other subsequent topic threads in the vortex-l email archive and probably others
I think since we have now had time to think about and discuss the presentation, some questions have come up which maybe Svienn can clarify if he is available and able to.
I was personally most intrigued by the production of mesons and would like to ask a questions related to this if possible:
1. In the test under laser stimulation Kaons were observed.
a) Were these also observed when spontaneous emission occurred?
b) If not were less energetic mesons observed or other less energetic particles or phenomena.
c) Were Kaons also observed under the artificial light stimulation?
d) Were there any other particular differences between the stimulated and spontaneous emission characteristics
2. The source of the mesons is identified as the Rydberg Matter in particular the Dueterium or Hydrogen. Is it strongly clear if the Mesons all come from the Rydberg Matter itself or does it comes from in part the catalyst or the target itself? I appreciate the different lifetime 52 ns for Hydrogen and 26 or 12 ns for Deuterium may indicate a strong fuel relationship.
3. It is indicated that on laser stimulation the Mesons were generated in huge numbers in a burst, there has been some speculation about the mechanism based on this so it would be interesting to know if there is particular characteristics that would support one or other of them. Was there any indication about the distribution of their generation. was there for example:
a) an initial low amount followed by a fast ramp up to maximum?
b) an initial maximum amount with a slow decline?
c) a single burst of Kaons with identical energy?
4. Was there any indication of Pions being generated before the Kaons were observed?
5. Have other materials of similar nuclear mass been used for the Catalyst and Target? And was any difference in behaviour observed? (Its speculative but I'm wondering if elements or isotopes similar to but different to the naturally active materials have an impact) If so:
a) I understand Iron is used in the Catalyst has it been tried with purified isotopes such as purified Fe56 or Fe58 only?
b) I understand Nicekl is used in the Target has it been tried with purified isotopes such as purified Ni58 or Ni62 only?
c) Have either the target or Catalyst been tried with dopants of close but different elements such as Manganese or Cobalt or Copper or others?
d) Does the Catalyst need to be an Oxide or does pure Iron work as well with different results?
e) Does the Catalyst only work with the Potassium Present and do other contaminants such as Sulphur, Chlorine or Argon or others effect its performance.
I suppose differences chemically similar or different materials or dopants would also be interesting.
f) Does the experiment work with Targets that are not in the Group 10 transition Metals
g) Are there other chemically efficient catalysts
6. In terms of energetics do you see a slow increase of energy generating the effect or a sudden burst of energy being required?
7. In usual high energy Nuclear Physics experiments such as DAPhiNE Kaons are produced (either directly or indirectly from Phi Mesons I'm not sure about the exact process) with high energy electron or proton beams interacting with a Nucleon in and Nucleus to cause Nucleon resonance which then allows Mesons and if the energy is high enough for Kaons to be produced. Photogeneration of Kaons using high energy Gamma can also have a similar effect. Very High energies are required for the processes, however, of the order of 1 GeV.
a) Do you see a similar high energy photo generation or particle impact process going on in your experiment?
b) Do you suggest that collective behaviour and entanglement is enabling excitement of a nucleon to sufficient energy to spawn the Mesons?
If so could this also generate the large quantities of Kaons seen above?
c) If not it would suggest the possibility of some other process is generating the Mesons in large quantities perhaps directly from the SPP of sufficient accumulated energy as has been mentioned by Axil.
d) Do you have some other mechanism in mind and would you be able to share the idea?
8. I understand that the preparation of the catalyst and fuel took a long time.
a) was this due to the preparation of the Catalyst to form suitable surfaces and structures to stimulate Rydberg Matter formation?
b) was this due to the time for H or D absorption?
c) was this due to the time for Rydberg Matter Formation?
d) was this due to the production of SPP on the UDD? (Or does this only appear later if so how long does it take for a suitable SPP to form with out stimulation)
Sveinn I apologise for the huge number of questions especially if some of them are in fact irrelevant, feel free to ignore the ones which are and if the others cannot be answered thats also OK. I wish you and Leif Holmlid continued success with these fascinating experiments.
Is everything OK? was there a power cut?
Very interesting find Mike, thanks for sharing it.
Thanks Ogfusionist,
I certainly think you and some others here who have been working on this for so long are remarkable. There is still a lot for us to learn from you and your experiments. Redundant posts are good for people like me who are relatively new to catch on to the subject.
Was the quadruple spectrometer able to detect the ration of He3 to He4? I suppose so. If it was a Proton Proton chain reaction there would be more He3? From the Proton Proton cycles I think it takes 2 He3 in Stars to make an He4 an 2 protons if I remember correctly.
I suppose if He3 was detected and Lithium not was present this would prove the He seen did not come from some kind of alpha decay from other heavier elements.
ogfusionist. It looks to me that the various ideas and experiment data are converging. This is a good sign I think. I have a question about the He you saw in your experiments:
Did you make an isotopic analysis of the gas to see the relative proportions of He3 and He4? I suppose it could be done with a spectral analysis of the gas?
Since He3 can only be produced in certain ways it's relative proportion might tell us something about what process are occurring. He3 can be produced from Tritium decay, Proton bombardment of Lithium 6, Pion induced Fission of Lithium 6 and Lithium 7, maybe some others I did not think of. I suppose there might be a characteristic signature based on final and initial abundance the produced radiation and processes involved.
Edit: If I understand correctly your experiment didn't use Lithium is this right? It might still be interesting to see the He3 relative abundance though. It might be also interesting to look at the Hydrogen Protium/Deuterium ratio if possible
I don't know if it's a coincidence but power also started to get noisy at the same time with drops to 0 W from this time onwards.
Was there a radiation spike at 200 deg C? maybe it was just the background as it was only about 48-50 but seemed to last a while.
Interestingly it seems to occur just at the point the power gets noisy with drops to 0 and at a kind of minimum in the maximum noise values.
Hi me356,
Can I ask what method you use for measuring the muons?
Is it something simple that can be applied in other experiments?
Does it work for muon energies down to low MeV or keV I think I read somewhere if a stationary Pion (136 MeV) decays to a Muon (106MeV), due to conservation of momentum the muon kinetic energy should be about 4 MeV with remaining 26 MeV taken up by the neutrino. Even if all the change in mass from a pion to a muon is taken up by momentum of the muon somehow it will still be about 30 MeV.
I think cosmic muons have much higher energies of though.
Did you run any new tests where you repeated the detection radiation? If I remember right you possibly detected some small amounts gamma and beta radiation in some earlier tests? I'm wondering if it is possible to determine if the beta came indirectly from muon radiation or directly from beta decay in the device.
I think you used foil to block the beta radiation to determine how much of the signal was from beta decay?
This might be a crazy idea but if muons decay to beta after a certain half life would this mean we get more betas from muons with distance from the device? Also can we assume muons are also more penetrating than beta? If so could we use this to determine if muon radiation is present by blocking with foil between the device and Geiger tube at different distances from the device?
I suppose when those living in the far north of Sweden first see the Aurora. There are:
Poets and artists who think it is beautiful,
Mystics who think it is a message from the Nordic gods,
Explorers an Engineers who want to go there,
Scientists who wonder what it is and how it works,
and those I guess who don't care and are just glad it isn't raining.
I suppose if you lived there you would be number 5?
Personally I'm glad that there are those up there are in categories 1 to 4.
And remember if they are all nuts: from nuts beautiful trees can grow
i think anomalous heat when needed is something as facinating as the Aurora don't you?
How much LiAlH4 was there in the initial run was it also 250mg?
You mentioned that rhe LiAlH4 was of poorer quality. Was some of it already decomposed to Li3AlH6 at loading?
Could it be that the Lithium after the first run was in the form of LiAl rather than LiH and all the hydrogen from that run was outgassed. If so could this account for the lower pressure if more Li is now available to absorb the hydrogen during the current run?
Interesting 30MeV is about the difference in mass between a Pion 136 MeV and a Muon 106 MeV, but I read somewhere normally we would expect most the energy to be released in the Muon neutrino about 26 MeV and 4 MeV in the Muon. I appreciate he is talking about neutral particles though, but I can't help wondering if the energy released in Pion decay somehow generates these particles.
Could the initial trigger in the laser less experiment come from a cosmic radiation generated muon or is the apparatus shielded from this?
I wonder if the lasers in Holmlids experiments are required to produce the rydberg matter, cause it to form UDD or initiate its "muon fusion" type behaviour?
I remember a while back Axil explained to me about how Rydberg Hydrogen matter forms in 2d crystals and in fact they can stack into threads. I wonder if Deuterium is used if this the same as UDD?
Could threads of Rydberg Matter like this resonate with particular frequencies and have a "thermal" phonon effect as has been discussed elsewhere? And would this have a characteristic frequency? Could the laser used by Holmlid excite this resonance at higher frequency compared to thermal resonance in this ultra dense material for example?
On a sperate point would Muonic deuterium be special in some way? The orbital muon would spend relatively more time in the nucleus when it does would there be a net charge impact in the nucleus. Could this also disturb significantly the coulomb barrier, and perhaps even perturb the nucleus.
I was just wondering, would anyone be able to tell me if based of any of the current theories 'Hot' LENR reactors would work in micro-gravity? Bit of an odd question I know. Also, just demographically, how many of you believe the EM drive holds some promise?
Very good question. I was also wondering if it could with stand the vibrations and acoustic environment of a launch (or any other transport for that matter)… if not i wonder if it can be built from safe raw materials and components in a zero g environment. I hope it can work in space it potentially could be very useful.
Hi backyardfusion: It is a sad development. I have been following your thread a while and I also agree it contains some interesting stuff, I hope you can keep the thread active. Also who knows what will come up in the future in I hope you can still be a part of LENR you seem to have some remarkable ideas and very good level thinking.
Hi Axil, If I'm right i don't think this experiment is meant to be a strict Lugano test replication but rather a Lugano/Celani Hybrid based on the use of a wire. It's an interesting idea to check out I think.
Regarding the use of carbon, I'm wondering if Boron Carbide might be interesting as an alternative. In-particular Li dispersed Boron Carbide Nanotubes. See attached reference:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0703519.pdf
If the particles were coated in B4C could this act in a similar way you describe for Carbon? Could it account for the Boron seen in the fuel and ash of some tests?
I speculated a while back about BNNT but B4C nanotubes in particular Lithium doped have high conductivity where as BNNT are insulating. both are stable at high temperatures.
I recently read an article on Space Daily about atoms during a supernova:
http://www.spacedaily.com/repo…ernova_explosion_999.html
It talks about X-ray interactions in Supernova producing an exotic plasma state where the inner electrons are ejected from atoms.
A supernova is obviously a different environment than that discussed in Leif Holmlid experiment and the article does not talk at all about either cold or hot fusion but I wonder if the high temperatures and energies produced by the lasers might be creating a similar environment on a local scale that has a similar atomic effect that LENR can then maybe take advantage of.
I could not help wondering if this could play a part in Rydberg matter formation. Also if the inner vacancies from the ejected photons could capture a muon before the outer electrons rearrange and fill these positions.
Note according to the article high energy X-rays are produced as a consequence of this effect which i understand are not seen in LENR experiments. I wonder if the XUV light seen in sonoluminescence experiments and by Mills is at similar frequencies?
Could there be characteristic photon emission from transitions in muon shell levels similar to those from electrons and at what frequencies these occur. Could these be observed experimentally?
If characteristic radiation can be seen from muon energy level transitions then it could be interesting to see if radiation of these frequencies occur astronomically, either in supernovae or other energetic shocks and boundaries such as associated with different parts of solar flares. Given the muon half life if the radiation occurs well way from known sources such as high in the solar corona rather than just close to the photosphere then it may tell us something about how and where they are formed.
I like Axils ideas about the SPP directly producing the radiation but on a slightly different tack I wonder if in the absence of lasers could the SPP mentioned by Axil generate similar disruptions to the inner electrons either directly or magnetically or through the radiation generated by the SPP solitons?
If muons are seen do we know if they are positive or negative or do we see both, I suppose in order to form muonic atoms and allow muon catalysed fusion they would need to be negative?
I suppose even if muons could be generated from some process perhaps involving decay, interaction or resonance of virtual pions in the nucleus quite a lot of energy would be needed? Would the high temperatures of 50 to 500 MK be sufficient for this? Am I right in saying this is equivalent thermally to about 4.3 to 43 keV? This seems quite low to generate pions or muons. Or is the specific laser frequency also important?
Once produced in a nucleus would negative muons wave function naturally move into the available orbital due to overlap with the nucleus or would conservation of momentum require them to be ejected?
If negative muons are produced from a negative pion in the nucleus I suppose conservation rules would require a Neutron to change to a Proton. If these come from the deuterium this implies it forms He2 + which I suppose would immediately decay to 2 Protons or by beta + decay back to deuterium. Do we see a change in protium/deuterium ratio consistent with this?
Looking further I read that beta decay rates are sometimes modified in highly ionised atoms and sometimes bound beta decay where an emitted election is transferred to a bound state can occur.
http://www.phy.pku.edu.cn/~jcpei/meeting/201408/litvinov.pdf
I wonder if this could also occur for muons generated from pion decay in the nucleus, particularly as the orbitals for muons have greater overlap with the nucleus when compared to electron orbitals. Could it be that atoms in Rydberg state or with ionised lower orbitals are more likely to generate muons or capture negative muons from a nucleus? I suppose this would have been previously observed if this is the case, however. I'm not sure how conservation of momentum is respected in bound beta decay however maybe the momentum not included in the neutrino is taken up by the atom. I suppose any positive muons produced would be ejected and form muonium.
Still it is difficult to account for the energy required if they do come from the nucleus.
Edit: I wonder if to some extent all nucleons exist in a cloud of one or more virtual mesons according to the quark composition of the nucleon and how their wave functions would behave and interact. I wonder if a highly charged environment such as a collection of nuclei in a Rydberg matter or UDD or an an atom with ionised inner orbitals such a transition of a pion and muon decay can be more likely. Could it be in Rydberg matter the nuclei are too closely packed for beta decay to occur due to the size of the electron wave function in the first electron orbital but pion-muon decay would still be possible? In normal matter with electrons in occupied inner orbitals could this prevent muon decay occurring and instead favour nucleon integrity from a conservation of energy point of view and beta decay? Could such a behaviour be evaluated and measured in terms of half lives and size of wave functions and quantum tunnelling effects?
A crazy question... Could a bound nucleon such as a neutron theoretically decay into to or temporarily exist as 3 pions? EDIT: Interestingly 3 pions would have less than half the mass of a nucleon but I suppose other conservation rules would need to be respected, i'm not sure if this is possible. But if it was could this be an alternative source of energy?
I'm also speculating a lot as an amateur enthusiast… and probably sprouting rubbish in my enthusiasm. So I hope someone with more knowledge can clarify and knock some holes in what i just said.