Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Axil Axil]

How long does it take to open a closed mind?

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 2:27 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Significant change to our understanding of physics is likely to occur
> Axil, the question is when?
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Axil Axil 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Mon, Oct 26, 2015 2:08 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid
>
> When Holmlid.s experiments on LENR get out, there is some months of maybe
> a year, its implications are going to blow the tops of of many close minded
> heads. I detect some panic setting in here even among the vorts. I will
> watch you with great anticipation and see how you will cope with the new
> reality.
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:56 AM, David Roberson 
> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps it is as simple as what you suggest CB, but does that explain
>> every case?  Can we be confident that there are no future particles to be
>> discovered that behave in a different manner although they have similar
>> spins?  If not, then why call it something fancy like the Pauli exclusion
>> principle instead of just spin states?   I suspect a more complex
>> underlying cause exists.   Do you suppose I am becoming too skeptical?
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: CB Sites 
>> To: vortex-l 
>> Sent: Mon, Oct 26, 2015 12:48 am
>> Subject: Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid
>>
>> Dave,  Doesn't the Pauli exclusion principle come about from the quantum
>> mechanical magnetic moment of the particle's spin state.  That would seem
>> to be a physical attribute of the particle and not something that can
>> easily be wiped away.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:39 AM, CB Sites  wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Eric.   There are a lot of interesting ideas presented in that
>>> slide show, many of the ideas I've seen commented on here.  In one of his
>>> last slides he mentions theoretical solutions, one being multibody fusion
>>> hinting at a Chubb's style n-body fusion.  Conceptually I've always found
>>> the S & T Chubb line of theory for cold fusion to be elegant and plausible.
>>> There is no reason why N-body solid state quantum mechanics can't apply to
>>> hydrogen in metal like it does to electrons in a metal. Quantum band states
>>> of H on Ni have been demonstrated (as a surface effect). *Sorry I don't
>>> recall the 1980's paper*  I think it was in Science.
>>>
>>> Anyway, as new experimental developments have come about, the solid
>>> state concepts applied to protium/metal make their theories less
>>> applicable. The Rydberg atomic fusion process would seem interesting if not
>>> so far fetched.  Maybe if I understood the quantum mechanics of how a
>>> Rydberg atom formed in a metal lattice at temps above room temperature. And
>>> then how to prove it.  I think I need to understand the theory a little
>>> more.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Eric Walker 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 9:52 PM, CB Sites  wrote:

 I found that to be a very interesting slide show.  Is there an
> audio/video track of the lecture to go with it?


 That is from HyperPhysics, a Web site authored largely by Rod Nave, now
 a retired physics professor from Georgia State University.  There is no
 accompanying audio or video that I am aware of.  It's inspired by the old
 HyperCard program.  I have found it a very useful site.

 Eric



>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[David Roberson]

Significant change to our understanding of physics is likely to occur Axil, the 
question is when?

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Axil Axil 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Oct 26, 2015 2:08 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid



When Holmlid.s experiments on LENR get out, there is some months of maybe a 
year, its implications are going to blow the tops of of many close minded 
heads. I detect some panic setting in here even among the vorts. I will watch 
you with great anticipation and see how you will cope with the new reality.


On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:56 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

Perhaps it is as simple as what you suggest CB, but does that explain every 
case?  Can we be confident that there are no future particles to be discovered 
that behave in a different manner although they have similar spins?  If not, 
then why call it something fancy like the Pauli exclusion principle instead of 
just spin states?   I suspect a more complex underlying cause exists.   Do you 
suppose I am becoming too skeptical?

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: CB Sites 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Oct 26, 2015 12:48 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid




Dave,  Doesn't the Pauli exclusion principle come about from the quantum 
mechanical magnetic moment of the particle's spin state.  That would seem to be 
a physical attribute of the particle and not something that can easily be wiped 
away. 
 



On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:39 AM, CB Sites  wrote:

Thanks Eric.   There are a lot of interesting ideas presented in that slide 
show, many of the ideas I've seen commented on here.  In one of his last slides 
he mentions theoretical solutions, one being multibody fusion hinting at a 
Chubb's style n-body fusion.  Conceptually I've always found the S & T Chubb 
line of theory for cold fusion to be elegant and plausible. There is no reason 
why N-body solid state quantum mechanics can't apply to hydrogen in metal like 
it does to electrons in a metal. Quantum band states of H on Ni have been 
demonstrated (as a surface effect). *Sorry I don't recall the 1980's paper*  I 
think it was in Science. 


Anyway, as new experimental developments have come about, the solid state 
concepts applied to protium/metal make their theories less applicable. The 
Rydberg atomic fusion process would seem interesting if not so far fetched.  
Maybe if I understood the quantum mechanics of how a Rydberg atom formed in a 
metal lattice at temps above room temperature. And then how to prove it.  I 
think I need to understand the theory a little more.






  








On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:


On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 9:52 PM, CB Sites  wrote:


I found that to be a very interesting slide show.  Is there an audio/video 
track of the lecture to go with it?   


That is from HyperPhysics, a Web site authored largely by Rod Nave, now a 
retired physics professor from Georgia State University.  There is no 
accompanying audio or video that I am aware of.  It's inspired by the old 
HyperCard program.  I have found it a very useful site.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Axil Axil]

When Holmlid.s experiments on LENR get out, there is some months of maybe a
year, its implications are going to blow the tops of of many close minded
heads. I detect some panic setting in here even among the vorts. I will
watch you with great anticipation and see how you will cope with the new
reality.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:56 AM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Perhaps it is as simple as what you suggest CB, but does that explain
> every case?  Can we be confident that there are no future particles to be
> discovered that behave in a different manner although they have similar
> spins?  If not, then why call it something fancy like the Pauli exclusion
> principle instead of just spin states?   I suspect a more complex
> underlying cause exists.   Do you suppose I am becoming too skeptical?
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: CB Sites 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Mon, Oct 26, 2015 12:48 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid
>
> Dave,  Doesn't the Pauli exclusion principle come about from the quantum
> mechanical magnetic moment of the particle's spin state.  That would seem
> to be a physical attribute of the particle and not something that can
> easily be wiped away.
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:39 AM, CB Sites  wrote:
>
>> Thanks Eric.   There are a lot of interesting ideas presented in that
>> slide show, many of the ideas I've seen commented on here.  In one of his
>> last slides he mentions theoretical solutions, one being multibody fusion
>> hinting at a Chubb's style n-body fusion.  Conceptually I've always found
>> the S & T Chubb line of theory for cold fusion to be elegant and plausible.
>> There is no reason why N-body solid state quantum mechanics can't apply to
>> hydrogen in metal like it does to electrons in a metal. Quantum band states
>> of H on Ni have been demonstrated (as a surface effect). *Sorry I don't
>> recall the 1980's paper*  I think it was in Science.
>>
>> Anyway, as new experimental developments have come about, the solid state
>> concepts applied to protium/metal make their theories less applicable. The
>> Rydberg atomic fusion process would seem interesting if not so far
>> fetched.  Maybe if I understood the quantum mechanics of how a Rydberg atom
>> formed in a metal lattice at temps above room temperature. And then how to
>> prove it.  I think I need to understand the theory a little more.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Eric Walker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 9:52 PM, CB Sites  wrote:
>>>
>>> I found that to be a very interesting slide show.  Is there an
 audio/video track of the lecture to go with it?
>>>
>>>
>>> That is from HyperPhysics, a Web site authored largely by Rod Nave, now
>>> a retired physics professor from Georgia State University.  There is no
>>> accompanying audio or video that I am aware of.  It's inspired by the old
>>> HyperCard program.  I have found it a very useful site.
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[David Roberson]

Perhaps it is as simple as what you suggest CB, but does that explain every 
case?  Can we be confident that there are no future particles to be discovered 
that behave in a different manner although they have similar spins?  If not, 
then why call it something fancy like the Pauli exclusion principle instead of 
just spin states?   I suspect a more complex underlying cause exists.   Do you 
suppose I am becoming too skeptical?

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: CB Sites 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Mon, Oct 26, 2015 12:48 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid



Dave,  Doesn't the Pauli exclusion principle come about from the quantum 
mechanical magnetic moment of the particle's spin state.  That would seem to be 
a physical attribute of the particle and not something that can easily be wiped 
away. 
 



On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:39 AM, CB Sites  wrote:

Thanks Eric.   There are a lot of interesting ideas presented in that slide 
show, many of the ideas I've seen commented on here.  In one of his last slides 
he mentions theoretical solutions, one being multibody fusion hinting at a 
Chubb's style n-body fusion.  Conceptually I've always found the S & T Chubb 
line of theory for cold fusion to be elegant and plausible. There is no reason 
why N-body solid state quantum mechanics can't apply to hydrogen in metal like 
it does to electrons in a metal. Quantum band states of H on Ni have been 
demonstrated (as a surface effect). *Sorry I don't recall the 1980's paper*  I 
think it was in Science. 


Anyway, as new experimental developments have come about, the solid state 
concepts applied to protium/metal make their theories less applicable. The 
Rydberg atomic fusion process would seem interesting if not so far fetched.  
Maybe if I understood the quantum mechanics of how a Rydberg atom formed in a 
metal lattice at temps above room temperature. And then how to prove it.  I 
think I need to understand the theory a little more.






  








On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:


On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 9:52 PM, CB Sites  wrote:


I found that to be a very interesting slide show.  Is there an audio/video 
track of the lecture to go with it?   


That is from HyperPhysics, a Web site authored largely by Rod Nave, now a 
retired physics professor from Georgia State University.  There is no 
accompanying audio or video that I am aware of.  It's inspired by the old 
HyperCard program.  I have found it a very useful site.


Eric

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Axil Axil]

Think substance over style.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:21 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> This is why polaritons are important in LENR. Polaritons are electrons
>> that have be converted into bosons with double the spin.
>>
>
> I much prefer when you use multiple colors and stylish fonts.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

This is why polaritons are important in LENR. Polaritons are electrons that
> have be converted into bosons with double the spin.
>

I much prefer when you use multiple colors and stylish fonts.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Neutral K mesons violates CPT

[Axil Axil]

in physical cosmology ,
*baryogenesis* is the generic term for the hypothetical physical processes
that produced an asymmetry (imbalance)
between baryons  and antibaryons
produced in the very early universe .
The baryonic matter  that remains
today, following the baryonic-antibaryonic matter annihilation, makes up
the universe .

LENR could be responsible for the past and ongoing production of matter in
the universe in violation of CPT and that negative matter (antibaryons) is
being sent back in time.

We see excess electrons pop into existence in LENR reactions. Could LENR be
the GOD reaction? In point of fact, Holmlid is producing electrons from
nothing in his experiment. Don't get excited, we are just talking here.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:53 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> CPT THEOREM C(harge) -P(arity=reflection) -T(ime reversal) INVARIANCE is a
> property of any quantum field theory in Flat space times which respects:
> (i) Locality, (ii) Unitarity and (iii) Lorentz Symmetry.
>
> Holmlid is producing neutral K mesons. This particle demonstrates CP
> violation,
>
> The discovery of CP violation in 1964 in the decays of neutral kaons
>  resulted in the Nobel Prize in
> Physics  in 1980
>  for its
> discoverers James Cronin and Val
> Fitch .
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation
>
> Who can say why LENR produces neutral K mesons?
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Axil Axil]

This is why polaritons are important in LENR. Polaritons are electrons that
have be converted into bosons with double the spin.

On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:51 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:29 PM, David Roberson 
> wrote:
>
> The Pauli exclusion principle appears to be a rule that captures a portion
>> of a deeper underlying physical phenomena.  If what I suspect is true then
>> one day new particles, etc. will be discovered that do not obey it.
>
>
> Note that there are bosons, which don't obey the Pauli exclusion
> principle.  You can crowd as many photons into a small space as you want,
> because they obey Bose-Einstein statistics rather than Fermi-Dirac
> statistics.
>
> I recall a derivation in which the only difference between the
> wavefunctions for bosons and fermions is the presence of a "+" sign or a
> "-" sign before one of the terms, but I am not yet familiar with the
> derivation.  Note that only certain kinds of particles can be described
> either by Fermi-Dirac statistics or Bose-Einstein statistics.  The
> particles must be indistinguishable, there must be negligible "interaction"
> between them.  (This latter detail is the hallmark of a simplifying
> assumption made to make a mathematical model work.)  Note also that
> Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics are yet another way of describing particle
> interactions.
>
> Eric
>
>

[Vo]:Neutral K mesons violates CPT

[Axil Axil]

CPT THEOREM C(harge) -P(arity=reflection) -T(ime reversal) INVARIANCE is a
property of any quantum field theory in Flat space times which respects:
(i) Locality, (ii) Unitarity and (iii) Lorentz Symmetry.

Holmlid is producing neutral K mesons. This particle demonstrates CP
violation,

The discovery of CP violation in 1964 in the decays of neutral kaons
 resulted in the Nobel Prize in Physics
 in 1980
 for its
discoverers James Cronin and Val
Fitch .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation

Who can say why LENR produces neutral K mesons?

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:29 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

The Pauli exclusion principle appears to be a rule that captures a portion
> of a deeper underlying physical phenomena.  If what I suspect is true then
> one day new particles, etc. will be discovered that do not obey it.


Note that there are bosons, which don't obey the Pauli exclusion
principle.  You can crowd as many photons into a small space as you want,
because they obey Bose-Einstein statistics rather than Fermi-Dirac
statistics.

I recall a derivation in which the only difference between the
wavefunctions for bosons and fermions is the presence of a "+" sign or a
"-" sign before one of the terms, but I am not yet familiar with the
derivation.  Note that only certain kinds of particles can be described
either by Fermi-Dirac statistics or Bose-Einstein statistics.  The
particles must be indistinguishable, there must be negligible "interaction"
between them.  (This latter detail is the hallmark of a simplifying
assumption made to make a mathematical model work.)  Note also that
Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics are yet another way of describing particle
interactions.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[CB Sites]

Dave,  Doesn't the Pauli exclusion principle come about from the quantum
mechanical magnetic moment of the particle's spin state.  That would seem
to be a physical attribute of the particle and not something that can
easily be wiped away.


On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:39 AM, CB Sites  wrote:

> Thanks Eric.   There are a lot of interesting ideas presented in that
> slide show, many of the ideas I've seen commented on here.  In one of his
> last slides he mentions theoretical solutions, one being multibody fusion
> hinting at a Chubb's style n-body fusion.  Conceptually I've always found
> the S & T Chubb line of theory for cold fusion to be elegant and plausible.
> There is no reason why N-body solid state quantum mechanics can't apply to
> hydrogen in metal like it does to electrons in a metal. Quantum band states
> of H on Ni have been demonstrated (as a surface effect). *Sorry I don't
> recall the 1980's paper*  I think it was in Science.
>
> Anyway, as new experimental developments have come about, the solid state
> concepts applied to protium/metal make their theories less applicable. The
> Rydberg atomic fusion process would seem interesting if not so far
> fetched.  Maybe if I understood the quantum mechanics of how a Rydberg atom
> formed in a metal lattice at temps above room temperature. And then how to
> prove it.  I think I need to understand the theory a little more.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 9:52 PM, CB Sites  wrote:
>>
>> I found that to be a very interesting slide show.  Is there an
>>> audio/video track of the lecture to go with it?
>>
>>
>> That is from HyperPhysics, a Web site authored largely by Rod Nave, now a
>> retired physics professor from Georgia State University.  There is no
>> accompanying audio or video that I am aware of.  It's inspired by the old
>> HyperCard program.  I have found it a very useful site.
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[CB Sites]

Thanks Eric.   There are a lot of interesting ideas presented in that slide
show, many of the ideas I've seen commented on here.  In one of his last
slides he mentions theoretical solutions, one being multibody fusion
hinting at a Chubb's style n-body fusion.  Conceptually I've always found
the S & T Chubb line of theory for cold fusion to be elegant and plausible.
There is no reason why N-body solid state quantum mechanics can't apply to
hydrogen in metal like it does to electrons in a metal. Quantum band states
of H on Ni have been demonstrated (as a surface effect). *Sorry I don't
recall the 1980's paper*  I think it was in Science.

Anyway, as new experimental developments have come about, the solid state
concepts applied to protium/metal make their theories less applicable. The
Rydberg atomic fusion process would seem interesting if not so far
fetched.  Maybe if I understood the quantum mechanics of how a Rydberg atom
formed in a metal lattice at temps above room temperature. And then how to
prove it.  I think I need to understand the theory a little more.






On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:07 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 9:52 PM, CB Sites  wrote:
>
> I found that to be a very interesting slide show.  Is there an audio/video
>> track of the lecture to go with it?
>
>
> That is from HyperPhysics, a Web site authored largely by Rod Nave, now a
> retired physics professor from Georgia State University.  There is no
> accompanying audio or video that I am aware of.  It's inspired by the old
> HyperCard program.  I have found it a very useful site.
>
> Eric
>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[David Roberson]

I agree Eric.  So far observations have shown the Pauli principle to be 
applicable.  But, that does not really prove that it is a real physical 
phenomena.  As you say, a new physical process needs to be found which explains 
the behavior if new discoveries prove it is not universal.

Science is always changing and what we believe is true today is going to be 
greatly improved upon in a few years.  This is a necessary process and one that 
has taken place continuously as better instrumentation is applied to real world 
measurements.   We will be in trouble when advances to our understanding are no 
longer taking place.  The Pauli exclusion principle appears to be a rule that 
captures a portion of a deeper underlying physical phenomena.  If what I 
suspect is true then one day new particles, etc. will be discovered that do not 
obey it.  Of course, the physicists can just state that the new particle does 
not follow the principle for some unknown reason. :-)

Dave

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Oct 25, 2015 9:24 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid




On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 8:05 PM, David Roberson  wrote:


Being a skeptic, I have to question the Pauli exclusion principal itself.  How 
do we know that it is actually a physical reality?  It may have appeared true 
during most of the previous experimentation, but how can we be sure it is 
anything more than an observation that has worked up until now?



The Pauli exclusion principle is your friend.  It is why rigid bodies are 
rigid.  It is why you and I are not falling towards the center of the earth.  
It's why additional electrons must occupy higher levels in atomic orbitals once 
lower ones are filled.  It is why neutron stars don't collapse into a single 
point [1].


I think of fermions as being a class of wave that is susceptible to destructive 
interference.  When two electrons of the same wavefunction are near one 
another, they begin to cancel one another out.  This means that the closer you 
approach the region in which they would otherwise overlap, the less you will be 
likely to see either.  This is a very intuitive explanation for me, since it's 
clear that waves sometimes destructively interfere with one another.


If we set aside the Pauli exclusion principle, we must be prepared to offer an 
alternative explanation for all of the things above.


Eric




[1] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/pulsar.html#c3

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 9:52 PM, CB Sites  wrote:

I found that to be a very interesting slide show.  Is there an audio/video
> track of the lecture to go with it?


That is from HyperPhysics, a Web site authored largely by Rod Nave, now a
retired physics professor from Georgia State University.  There is no
accompanying audio or video that I am aware of.  It's inspired by the old
HyperCard program.  I have found it a very useful site.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[CB Sites]

I found that to be a very interesting slide show.  Is there an audio/video
track of the lecture to go with it?


On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 8:05 PM, David Roberson 
> wrote:
>
> Being a skeptic, I have to question the Pauli exclusion principal itself.
>> How do we know that it is actually a physical reality?  It may have
>> appeared true during most of the previous experimentation, but how can we
>> be sure it is anything more than an observation that has worked up until
>> now?
>
>
> The Pauli exclusion principle is your friend.  It is why rigid bodies are
> rigid.  It is why you and I are not falling towards the center of the
> earth.  It's why additional electrons must occupy higher levels in atomic
> orbitals once lower ones are filled.  It is why neutron stars don't
> collapse into a single point [1].
>
> I think of fermions as being a class of wave that is susceptible to
> destructive interference.  When two electrons of the same wavefunction are
> near one another, they begin to cancel one another out.  This means that
> the closer you approach the region in which they would otherwise overlap,
> the less you will be likely to see either.  This is a very intuitive
> explanation for me, since it's clear that waves sometimes destructively
> interfere with one another.
>
> If we set aside the Pauli exclusion principle, we must be prepared to
> offer an alternative explanation for all of the things above.
>
> Eric
>
>
> [1] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/pulsar.html#c3
>
>

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 8:05 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

Being a skeptic, I have to question the Pauli exclusion principal itself.
> How do we know that it is actually a physical reality?  It may have
> appeared true during most of the previous experimentation, but how can we
> be sure it is anything more than an observation that has worked up until
> now?


The Pauli exclusion principle is your friend.  It is why rigid bodies are
rigid.  It is why you and I are not falling towards the center of the
earth.  It's why additional electrons must occupy higher levels in atomic
orbitals once lower ones are filled.  It is why neutron stars don't
collapse into a single point [1].

I think of fermions as being a class of wave that is susceptible to
destructive interference.  When two electrons of the same wavefunction are
near one another, they begin to cancel one another out.  This means that
the closer you approach the region in which they would otherwise overlap,
the less you will be likely to see either.  This is a very intuitive
explanation for me, since it's clear that waves sometimes destructively
interfere with one another.

If we set aside the Pauli exclusion principle, we must be prepared to offer
an alternative explanation for all of the things above.

Eric


[1] http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/astro/pulsar.html#c3

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Axil Axil]

The dirac electron does not have any mass!

Here is some education

http://www.spinograph.org/blog/what-heck-dirac-electron

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 9:05 PM, David Roberson  wrote:

> Being a skeptic, I have to question the Pauli exclusion principal itself.
> How do we know that it is actually a physical reality?  It may have
> appeared true during most of the previous experimentation, but how can we
> be sure it is anything more than an observation that has worked up until
> now?
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Eric Walker 
> To: vortex-l 
> Sent: Sun, Oct 25, 2015 3:29 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid
>
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> Protons are fermions. At the LHC, they routinely collide protons. These
>> protons are said to disintegrate.
>
>
> Note as well that the Pauli exclusion principle applies to fermions of the
> same kind and quantum numbers.  If Hotson argues that an electron and a
> positron would normally obey the Pauli exclusion principle, he is not
> applying a principle of mainstream physics that had prior to that been
> overlooked.
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[David Roberson]

Being a skeptic, I have to question the Pauli exclusion principal itself.  How 
do we know that it is actually a physical reality?  It may have appeared true 
during most of the previous experimentation, but how can we be sure it is 
anything more than an observation that has worked up until now?


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Oct 25, 2015 3:29 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid




On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:


Protons are fermions. At the LHC, they routinely collide protons. These protons 
are said to disintegrate.

Note as well that the Pauli exclusion principle applies to fermions of the same 
kind and quantum numbers.  If Hotson argues that an electron and a positron 
would normally obey the Pauli exclusion principle, he is not applying a 
principle of mainstream physics that had prior to that been overlooked.



Eric

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[David Roberson]

Bob


Why does the electron charge to mass ratio come out in support of it having 511 
keV of energy if it really has much more?  That seems contradictory.  The way I 
understand it, all of the energy has a mass equivalent.


Dave



-Original Message-
From: Bob Higgins 
To: vortex-l 
Sent: Sun, Oct 25, 2015 3:05 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid



That is the energy given off to send the normal space positronium atom into a 
DDL-like minimum energy orbit.  When the electron-positron orbiting pair 
becomes in the DDL orbit (orbital radius about the diameter of a proton), it 
becomes undetectable and it is part of the negative energy sea.  It is still 
polarizable and it is the displacement of the epo sea that provides 
electromagnetic "displacement".  According to Hotson, the epo (in the DDL 
orbit) has no inertial mass - for explanation of the origin of mass you will 
have to read Hotson's papers.  The epo sea IS the inertial mass-less ether.


Note that the 511keV is NOT the total energy of the electron.  When the spin 
energy of the electron is included, the total energy is over 16MeV.  The 
1022keV (two photons of 511keV each) is the energy given up to transition to 
the DDL state epo from the positronium atom.



On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:


On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Bob Higgins  wrote:



Regarding electrons and positrons in particular, Hotson rightly points out that 
these two particles are fermions.  As fermions, they are forbidden to be in the 
same place at the same time, and so cannot annihilate. Instead of annihilation, 
they fall into orbit around each other.  When (if) they reach a DDL orbit, the 
become a part of Dirac's negative energy sea.




If positrons and electrons do not annihilate, where do the two 
oppositely-travelling 511 keV photons come from as a result of the activity of 
beta plus emitters?  (Note that 511 keV is the mass of an electron or positron.)


Eric

RE: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Ø 

Ø  To Jones' point regarding annihilation and disintegration ... These are not 
the same.  Annihilation is the total conversion of entities having mass into 
energy.  Disintegration is the breakup of a composite particle into its 
constituents.  

 

OK Bob, I will buy that semantic distinction – but it is largely a function of 
applying time delay. Let’s return to the Holmlid premise of nucleon conversion 
into composite particles, most of which decay rapidly. We do not need 
annihilation since disintegration is almost as energetic – it just takes a few 
milliseconds longer. The main difference is that “disintegration” proceeds in 
well-defined steps instead of instantaneously. But after milliseconds, after 
muons have decayed – the GeV of mass-energy which was once a proton is gone, 
and what we have left is a few positrons and electrons (from muon decay). A few 
MeV remains instead of the GeV.

 

We do not need these few remaining leptons to annihilate, since they represent 
only a tiny fraction of the original mass, now almost completely converted to 
energy in the form of neutrinos. 

 

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:two images I found interesting

[mixent]

In reply to  Eric Walker's message of Sun, 25 Oct 2015 15:35:04 -0500:
Hi,
>Hi,
>
>I thought people here might enjoy these images.  Here is a picture of the
>sun, taken from Super-Kamiokande, the neutrino detector in Japan:
>
>http://strangepaths.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/sun.jpg

I particularly like this one. It tells us at least two things:-

1) The size of the core of the Sun where fusion reactions are occurring.
2) That some neutrinos are also being created in the outer layers.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[mixent]

In reply to  mix...@bigpond.com's message of Mon, 26 Oct 2015 07:39:15 +1100:
Hi,
[snip]

>2) If the standard model is wrong and baryons are really made of muon anti-muon
>pairs, then there is anti-matter in close proximity to matter.

Strictly speaking they are not in pairs. Triplets or Borromean rings might be a
better description.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Axil Axil]

http://hfmphysics.com/2014/SlidesTutorials/Wen.pdf

See slide: String-net/entanglement unification of light and electrons

• Q: Where do light and electron come from?

A: They come from qubits that form the space (the qubit-aether).

• Q: Why do light and electron exist? A: Because the qubits form a
string-net condensed state.

• Q: What are light and electron?

A: Light waves are collective motions of long “strings” and an electron is
one end of a long “string”. → A unification of matter and information



On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> To Jones' point regarding annihilation and disintegration ... These are
> not the same.  Annihilation is the total conversion of entities having mass
> into energy.  Disintegration is the breakup of a composite particle into
> its constituents.
>
> To Eric's question ... A proton is a composite particle. The sub-nucleonic
> structure of a proton or neutron (or muon) is arguable.  Bohr believed we
> would never understand the structure of a nucleus due to the uncertainty
> principle.  We have had to infer a lot from indirect experimental results.
> Understanding the sub-nucleonic world will be even harder.  Hotson believed
> that electrons are positrons were one and the same; simply out of phase in
> multi-dimensional space.  He believed that protons and neutrons were
> constituted of epos that were orthogonal in 10 dimensional space.
> Interestingly the size of an epo is the size of a proton or a neutron.
> Another coincidence is that charge only comes in +/- the charge of the
> electron.  Why would the all charged nuclear particles only have the charge
> of an electron?  If the proton were composed of epos less one electron, it
> would have a net positive charge of the electron.  The quark descriptions
> having +2/3e or -1/3 e charge seems contrived.  Hotson argues using Occam's
> razor that it makes more sense that there is only one particle (the
> electron) and all other particles are made from the electron and its
> dimensionally out of phase image, the positron.
>
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> *From:* Eric Walker
>>
>> Protons are fermions. At the LHC, they routinely collide protons. These
>> protons are said to disintegrate.
>>
>>
>> > Note as well that the Pauli exclusion principle applies to fermions of
>> the same kind and quantum numbers.  If Hotson argues that an electron and a
>> positron would normally obey the Pauli exclusion principle, he is not
>> applying a principle of mainstream physics that had prior to that been
>> overlooked.
>>
>> Yes. And beyond that - we can integrate Hotson to some degree within the
>> standard model by assigning his theory to applicability in a more
>> fundamental dimension, instead of 3-space. His BEC is next to impossible
>> to fully reconcile as a physical reality in 3-space, but it fits into a
>> context of a foundation-dimension (first dimension ?).
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

The quark descriptions having +2/3e or -1/3 e charge seems contrived.


Note that the quark description is intimately bound up with the so-called
"resonances," some of which are baryons consisting of different
combinations of the six quarks:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yfxbzzN0SHo/UQWN97WS5GI/AtI/0kRzu2l4unc/s1600/Baryon-decuplet-small.png

Each position in this triangle corresponds to a short-lived baryon with a
different mass, some of which have shown up in particle accelerator
experiments.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sun, 25 Oct 2015 10:29:59 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>That way is Holmlid’s finding of nucleon disintegration following laser 
>irradiation of dense deuterium clusters. Ironically, it provides far more net 
>energy than does nuclear fusion. 
>
>
>The most cogent argument for nucleon disintegration is that in the standard 
>model, every nucleon contains matter and antimatter in close proximity. No one 
>needs to be convinced that matter and antimatter can be made to annihilate. 

1) According to the standard model, there is no antimatter in close proximity to
matter. I.e. up and down quarks are not one another's anti-particle.

2) If the standard model is wrong and baryons are really made of muon anti-muon
pairs, then there is anti-matter in close proximity to matter.

3) It is not certain that Holmlid is correct about the nature of the particles
he is detecting.

4) There is a chance that his laser is accelerating charged particles to the
extent that they are capable of creating exotic particles in collisions.

(You may recall that I suggested this as a method of producing muons for a muon
catalyzed fusion driven neutron "factory" that would produce fast neutrons for a
fission reactor some years back on this list.)

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

[Vo]:two images I found interesting

[Eric Walker]

Hi,

I thought people here might enjoy these images.  Here is a picture of the
sun, taken from Super-Kamiokande, the neutrino detector in Japan:

http://strangepaths.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/sun.jpg

Here is the table of elements, with their line spectra included:

http://i.stack.imgur.com/rrVzd.png

Apart from the interesting spectra, what I like about the second image is
that the heavier transition elements are not pulled out into a separate
area.  This makes the relationship between them and the others clearer.
For example, one can see right away that the element Ds, or darmstadtium,
has chemical properties similar to nickel, palladium and platinum.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Bob Higgins]

To Jones' point regarding annihilation and disintegration ... These are not
the same.  Annihilation is the total conversion of entities having mass
into energy.  Disintegration is the breakup of a composite particle into
its constituents.

To Eric's question ... A proton is a composite particle. The sub-nucleonic
structure of a proton or neutron (or muon) is arguable.  Bohr believed we
would never understand the structure of a nucleus due to the uncertainty
principle.  We have had to infer a lot from indirect experimental results.
Understanding the sub-nucleonic world will be even harder.  Hotson believed
that electrons are positrons were one and the same; simply out of phase in
multi-dimensional space.  He believed that protons and neutrons were
constituted of epos that were orthogonal in 10 dimensional space.
Interestingly the size of an epo is the size of a proton or a neutron.
Another coincidence is that charge only comes in +/- the charge of the
electron.  Why would the all charged nuclear particles only have the charge
of an electron?  If the proton were composed of epos less one electron, it
would have a net positive charge of the electron.  The quark descriptions
having +2/3e or -1/3 e charge seems contrived.  Hotson argues using Occam's
razor that it makes more sense that there is only one particle (the
electron) and all other particles are made from the electron and its
dimensionally out of phase image, the positron.

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Eric Walker
>
> Protons are fermions. At the LHC, they routinely collide protons. These
> protons are said to disintegrate.
>
>
> > Note as well that the Pauli exclusion principle applies to fermions of
> the same kind and quantum numbers.  If Hotson argues that an electron and a
> positron would normally obey the Pauli exclusion principle, he is not
> applying a principle of mainstream physics that had prior to that been
> overlooked.
>
> Yes. And beyond that - we can integrate Hotson to some degree within the
> standard model by assigning his theory to applicability in a more
> fundamental dimension, instead of 3-space. His BEC is next to impossible
> to fully reconcile as a physical reality in 3-space, but it fits into a
> context of a foundation-dimension (first dimension ?).
>
>

RE: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Jones Beene]

From: Eric Walker 

Protons are fermions. At the LHC, they routinely collide protons. These protons 
are said to disintegrate.

> Note as well that the Pauli exclusion principle applies to fermions of the 
> same kind and quantum numbers.  If Hotson argues that an electron and a 
> positron would normally obey the Pauli exclusion principle, he is not 
> applying a principle of mainstream physics that had prior to that been 
> overlooked.

Yes. And beyond that - we can integrate Hotson to some degree within the 
standard model by assigning his theory to applicability in a more fundamental 
dimension, instead of 3-space. His BEC is next to impossible to fully reconcile 
as a physical reality in 3-space, but it fits into a context of a 
foundation-dimension (first dimension ?). 

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Protons are fermions. At the LHC, they routinely collide protons. These
> protons are said to disintegrate.


Note as well that the Pauli exclusion principle applies to fermions of the
same kind and quantum numbers.  If Hotson argues that an electron and a
positron would normally obey the Pauli exclusion principle, he is not
applying a principle of mainstream physics that had prior to that been
overlooked.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

That is the energy given off to send the normal space positronium atom into
> a DDL-like minimum energy orbit.
>

If we allow this description, could Jones's discussion of the
quark-antiquark annihilation be re-interpreted as a quark and an antiquark
going into a mini DDL state of their own, and releasing a corresponding
amount of energy?

Eric

RE: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Ø  Regarding electrons and positrons in particular, Hotson rightly points out 
that these two particles are fermions.  As fermions, they are forbidden to be 
in the same place at the same time, and so cannot annihilate. Instead of 
annihilation, they fall into orbit around each other.  

 

Protons are fermions. At the LHC, they routinely collide protons. These protons 
are said to disintegrate. Are you making a semantic distinction between 
“annihilation” and “disintegration”?  

 

Assuming there is no distinction, it would be extremely improbable that two 
fermions which are both matter could annihilate/disintegrate while two 
fermions, one matter and the other antimatter, could not 
annihilate/disintegrate.

 

 

 

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Bob Higgins]

That is the energy given off to send the normal space positronium atom into
a DDL-like minimum energy orbit.  When the electron-positron orbiting pair
becomes in the DDL orbit (orbital radius about the diameter of a proton),
it becomes undetectable and it is part of the negative energy sea.  It is
still polarizable and it is the displacement of the epo sea that provides
electromagnetic "displacement".  According to Hotson, the epo (in the DDL
orbit) has no inertial mass - for explanation of the origin of mass you
will have to read Hotson's papers.  The epo sea IS the inertial mass-less
ether.

Note that the 511keV is NOT the total energy of the electron.  When the
spin energy of the electron is included, the total energy is over 16MeV.
The 1022keV (two photons of 511keV each) is the energy given up to
transition to the DDL state epo from the positronium atom.

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
> Regarding electrons and positrons in particular, Hotson rightly points out
>> that these two particles are fermions.  As fermions, they are forbidden to
>> be in the same place at the same time, and so cannot annihilate. Instead of
>> annihilation, they fall into orbit around each other.  When (if) they reach
>> a DDL orbit, the become a part of Dirac's negative energy sea.
>>
>
> If positrons and electrons do not annihilate, where do the two
> oppositely-travelling 511 keV photons come from as a result of the activity
> of beta plus emitters?  (Note that 511 keV is the mass of an electron or
> positron.)
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Axil Axil]

The assumption that rydberg matter alone is the cause of the reaction is
not correct, IMHO. It is only a means. It's the application of optical
power to lots of rydberg hydrogen that does the trick. An electric arc near
a catalyst in a hydrogen flow that is filtered. We need the arc to produce
the SPPs and fill them to the brim with energy.

Background:

The Hydrogen Rydberg matter acts as an antenna to receive optical
energy.The large rust particles convert the laser light to dipole motion.
The small nanowires of the hydrogen matter act like sharp tips to
concentrate the dipole power. The polaritons only allow dipole power to
flow superconductivly in the outway direction away from the big
microparticles. This flow is called topolariton flow.

physics.aps.org/synopsis-for/10.1103/PhysRevX.5.031001

polariton power build up on the tips of the Rydberg matter were it
accumulates open endedly.


When laser light hits the rust particles (left), it generates surface
plasmon polariton waves that converge and interfere (fano resonance) at the
sharp tip of the hydrogen nanowire to create a nondiffracting beam
(orange). It is this magnetic beam (localized cosine-Gauss beam) that
produces subatomic particles.

Because the rydberg matter has a huge curvature (it is very sharp), it
amplifies the polariton energy greatly. This amplification goes as the size
of the rust particle divided by the size of the tip of the rydberg matter:
hundreds of billions.

The polariton spin is two. So the product of two times the polariton count
(N) times hundreds of billions(maybe as high as 10^^20) is the magnetic
power projected in the beam.

Other types of Rydberg matter will work like hydrogen but not as well.
These types like lithium and potassium produce nanowire that are not as
sharp as hydrogen. The sharper, the more powerful.

We know that the SPPs can free themselves from the substrate because we see
their tracts on photographic emulsions. They float around like ball
lightning. So we also need to entrap them in the filter also. But they are
not easy to trap because they pass through matter. They are dark matter.



On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Rydberg Matter Fuel Preparation
>
> Why does the LeClair reactor produce radiation and neutrons and the device
> invented by James Griggs does not?
>
> It’s a matter of temperature. The James Griggs device runs at an operating
> temperature of 400F, whereas, the LeClair reactor is not pressurized and
> does not.
>
> Since the Hydrogen Rydberg matter is a bigger molecule than the water
> molecule, it might be possible to capture the rydberg matter from the
> Griggs device using a properly sized filtration device placed in the flow
> of the circulating water and remove this filter as a feedstock for a laser
> based or electric arc based LENR reactor. The high power potential of an
> electric motor will dump a significant amount of power into the water thus
> amplifying the rate of production of rydberg matter. Any level of power
> could be applied to the water to speed Rydberg matter production.
>
> The level of Rydberg matter production could be determined by exposure of
> a photographic emulsion to the water filters.
>
> Joe Papp used this method of fuel preprocessing to form a Rydberg matter
> fortified water solution that he used as an explosive and fuel for his
> engine.
>
> Just like Papp did, other elements like chlorine might be added to the
> water to enhance the explosive effect. Papp used a electric arc to activate
> and liberate power production from his fuel.
>
> If a nickel or silica aeroform is used as a filter, a Rossi like tube
> reactor could be fueled with the powder make from the powdered aerofoam.
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh_-DUKQ4Uw
>
> The assumption here is that the SPP is the only cause for LENR in all its
> various forms. Also, Rydberg matter is the same no matter how you create
> it.
>
> For example, R Mills is reinventing the Papp engine in the Suncell and so
> is Holmlid. Papp was first and the best so far. Give that devil his due. I
> am not disposed to forgo a valuable tool in LENR engineering just because
> its inventor was a SOB.
>
> No replicator could get the Papp engine to work because of the tricky
> requirement for fuel preparation. We know now that the fuel used in LENR in
> all its forms must be prepared in a time intensive process. This
> preparation takes a lot of time and a lot of energy. The solitons that
> produce the LENR reaction hold a huge amount of energy.
>
> The situation is like a car with a battery the size of a building. It
> takes a long time to pump power into that energy storage device before it
> becomes active enough to produce high grade power with a high enough
> voltage. This is what Holmlid tells us. He says that it takes weeks of
> applying Laser power before the catalyst becomes active.
>
> 

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Axil Axil]

Rydberg Matter Fuel Preparation

Why does the LeClair reactor produce radiation and neutrons and the device
invented by James Griggs does not?

It’s a matter of temperature. The James Griggs device runs at an operating
temperature of 400F, whereas, the LeClair reactor is not pressurized and
does not.

Since the Hydrogen Rydberg matter is a bigger molecule than the water
molecule, it might be possible to capture the rydberg matter from the
Griggs device using a properly sized filtration device placed in the flow
of the circulating water and remove this filter as a feedstock for a laser
based or electric arc based LENR reactor. The high power potential of an
electric motor will dump a significant amount of power into the water thus
amplifying the rate of production of rydberg matter. Any level of power
could be applied to the water to speed Rydberg matter production.

The level of Rydberg matter production could be determined by exposure of a
photographic emulsion to the water filters.

Joe Papp used this method of fuel preprocessing to form a Rydberg matter
fortified water solution that he used as an explosive and fuel for his
engine.

Just like Papp did, other elements like chlorine might be added to the
water to enhance the explosive effect. Papp used a electric arc to activate
and liberate power production from his fuel.

If a nickel or silica aeroform is used as a filter, a Rossi like tube
reactor could be fueled with the powder make from the powdered aerofoam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yh_-DUKQ4Uw

The assumption here is that the SPP is the only cause for LENR in all its
various forms. Also, Rydberg matter is the same no matter how you create
it.

For example, R Mills is reinventing the Papp engine in the Suncell and so
is Holmlid. Papp was first and the best so far. Give that devil his due. I
am not disposed to forgo a valuable tool in LENR engineering just because
its inventor was a SOB.

No replicator could get the Papp engine to work because of the tricky
requirement for fuel preparation. We know now that the fuel used in LENR in
all its forms must be prepared in a time intensive process. This
preparation takes a lot of time and a lot of energy. The solitons that
produce the LENR reaction hold a huge amount of energy.

The situation is like a car with a battery the size of a building. It takes
a long time to pump power into that energy storage device before it becomes
active enough to produce high grade power with a high enough voltage. This
is what Holmlid tells us. He says that it takes weeks of applying Laser
power before the catalyst becomes active.

Lasers and dipoles don’t talk well together. Lasers produce plain waves at
a single frequency and dipoles don’t take kindly to that type of EMF. An
electron and a photon must have the same energy level to join together to
become a polariton. That marriage needs a common energy level. Only a
meager number of dipoles finely tuned to the exact frequency of the laser
will become entangled. If there is lots of bumps and nanocavities in the
substrate, then the Laser light will become decoherent. Decoherent light(
from an arc that R. Mills uses in the Suncell) is best so that dipoles of
any stage of development will become polaritons. A scattered shot cloud
from a shotgun is better at downing a clay pigeon than a 22 is.

Up until now, LENR replicators do not preprocess the fuel that they use and
they don’t wait long enough for the LENR reaction to take hold. No one
wants to invest the time and energy to properly prepare the fuel.

This is a lessen that we can draw from Joe Papp. No one understood the
reason why he invented a fuel preparation process. If the Papp fuel was not
preprocessed, the Papp engine would need to crank for a week before it
kicked over. Papp knew he had to load a lot of energy into that fuel before
it became active.

If we have a trillion SPPs each needing a full charge of 1,000,000 GeV
before they all become active, that implies that a great deal of energy is
needed to charge up that fuel.

The various ways currently invented to inject energy into that fuel have
differing power loading potential. Heat is the least effective method.
Lasers seem to be somewhat more powerful but a few weeks to get the Holmlid
fuel up to speed indicates to us that Laser power is marginal. Spark
discharge and cavitation seem to be the most powerful method of power
injection.

We can determine how long cavitation takes to charge up the LENR fuel by
seeing how long it takes for gammas to appear after the pump is turned on
in the LeClair reactor.

DGT could start their reaction in a few hours because an electric arc is a
powerful source of incoherent EMF power.

After they saw what problems that Rossi was having, their reactor design
goal was to start and stop their reactor on a dime and from what I saw,
they succeeded.

Holmlid’s effect is difficult to duplicate because most replicators don’t
have the patience to wait for weeks to see positive result

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 12:56 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

Regarding electrons and positrons in particular, Hotson rightly points out
> that these two particles are fermions.  As fermions, they are forbidden to
> be in the same place at the same time, and so cannot annihilate. Instead of
> annihilation, they fall into orbit around each other.  When (if) they reach
> a DDL orbit, the become a part of Dirac's negative energy sea.
>

If positrons and electrons do not annihilate, where do the two
oppositely-travelling 511 keV photons come from as a result of the activity
of beta plus emitters?  (Note that 511 keV is the mass of an electron or
positron.)

Eric

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:
>
> The rationale of this argument is that in subwatt electrolysis, the helium
> produced is necessarily well below background levels and must enriched before
> it can be detected in any device . . .
>
That is true for some experiments, but not others:

Some of the Italian researchers deliberately started the test with helium
in the cell at atmospheric concentration, so the new helium increased the
level above background.

Mel Miles did not enrich or concentrate the helium. He let all of the
effluent gas pass through the collection flask for 2 days (48 hours) at
normal pressure. During that time a volume of gas about 40 times the volume
of the flask flowed through the flask. This flushed out other gasses from
the flask. In other words, the final flask-full of gas was a sample from
~1.2 hours of electrolysis at the natural concentration of helium in
electrolysis gas. You can see his equipment configuration here:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJintroducti.pdf

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Bob Higgins]

Jones,

Once again you slapped your glove on Hotson's face.  Your comment, "No one
needs to be convinced that matter and antimatter can be made to annihilate"
is just such a slap.  Regarding electrons and positrons in particular,
Hotson rightly points out that these two particles are fermions.  As
fermions, they are forbidden to be in the same place at the same time, and
so cannot annihilate. Instead of annihilation, they fall into orbit around
each other.  When (if) they reach a DDL orbit, the become a part of Dirac's
negative energy sea.

If supposed quark and anti-quark pairs could annihilate, we should be
seeing the effects of that in the half life of the proton, reputed to
contain quark-anti-quark pairs.  Quarks are also believed to be fermions.
Of course, Hotson says that the sub-nucleon constituents are
electron-positron epos.

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> There are a number of LENR observers who are skeptical of the past finding
> s that with Pd-D electrolysis, helium has been detected which is
> commensurate with excess heat.
>
> Notably, this stance has been taken and staunchly defended by Steve Krivit
> - and has a certain amount of (wait-and-see) support from those who otherwise
> believe in excess heat. The rationale of this argument is that in subwatt
> electrolysis, the helium produced is necessarily well below background
> levels and must enriched before it can be detected in any device – and
> even after enrichment, it can be confused with molecular deuterium (less
> of a problem). It is the enrichment step which is the problem.
>
> This is not the place to continue that argument, which has been hashed
> and rehashed ad nauseum, but it is the place to suggest something more
> important - a way in which excess heat – as a general rule - can be
> observed without nuclear fusion of any kind.
>
> That way is Holmlid’s finding of nucleon disintegration following laser
> irradiation of dense deuterium clusters. Ironically, it provides far more
> net energy than does nuclear fusion.
>
> The most cogent argument for nucleon disintegration is that in the
> standard model, every nucleon contains matter and antimatter in close
> proximity. No one needs to be convinced that matter and antimatter can be
> made to annihilate.
>
> An external stimulus, especially an intense coherent stimulus of photons,
> forming plasmon polaritons (SPP), need only find a coupling window where any
> of the matter/antimatter component of the nucleus is annihilated. This
> disruption will trigger a further instability resulting in complete
> disintegration.  The evidence is somewhat compelling. Replication is
> demanded.
>
> _
> Deuteron disintegration which supplies about 1 GeV per nucleon is about
> 167 times more energy dense than nuclear fusion of deuterium to helium.
> Assumption: 1 GeV per nucleon vs 24 MeV per 4 nucleons (in the He-4
> nucleus).
>
> However, a sizeable percentage of that disintegration energy will
> disappear as neutrinos, and thus the usable energy is still a mystery. The
> bad news for LENR: If the muon pathway is favored, as seems to be the case
> from Holmlid’s studies, then most of the excess energy will indeed
> disappear as neutrinos.
>
> The good news for LENR is that even if 90% of the energy disappears, the
> fraction which remains is about 16.7 times more energetic than fusion of
> deuterium to helium. And if 99% disappears as neutrinos – the reaction is
> still more energetic than what is expected in palladium D+D fusion to
> helium, and yet could be easily confused with that reaction… EXCEPT there
> would be little helium detected (the occasional alpha particle).
>
>

RE: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Jones Beene]

There are a number of LENR observers who are skeptical of the past findings 
that with Pd-D electrolysis, helium has been detected which is commensurate 
with excess heat.

Notably, this stance has been taken and staunchly defended by Steve Krivit - 
and has a certain amount of (wait-and-see) support from those who otherwise 
believe in excess heat. The rationale of this argument is that in subwatt 
electrolysis, the helium produced is necessarily well below background levels 
and must enriched before it can be detected in any device – and even after 
enrichment, it can be confused with molecular deuterium (less of a problem). It 
is the enrichment step which is the problem.

This is not the place to continue that argument, which has been hashed and 
rehashed ad nauseum, but it is the place to suggest something more important - 
a way in which excess heat – as a general rule - can be observed without 
nuclear fusion of any kind. 

That way is Holmlid’s finding of nucleon disintegration following laser 
irradiation of dense deuterium clusters. Ironically, it provides far more net 
energy than does nuclear fusion.

The most cogent argument for nucleon disintegration is that in the standard 
model, every nucleon contains matter and antimatter in close proximity. No one 
needs to be convinced that matter and antimatter can be made to annihilate.

An external stimulus, especially an intense coherent stimulus of photons, 
forming plasmon polaritons (SPP), need only find a coupling window where any of 
the matter/antimatter component of the nucleus is annihilated. This disruption 
will trigger a further instability resulting in complete disintegration.  The 
evidence is somewhat compelling. Replication is demanded.

_
Deuteron disintegration which supplies about 1 GeV per nucleon is about 167 
times more energy dense than nuclear fusion of deuterium to helium. Assumption: 
1 GeV per nucleon vs 24 MeV per 4 nucleons (in the He-4 nucleus).
However, a sizeable percentage of that disintegration energy will disappear as 
neutrinos, and thus the usable energy is still a mystery. The bad news for 
LENR: If the muon pathway is favored, as seems to be the case from Holmlid’s 
studies, then most of the excess energy will indeed disappear as neutrinos. 
The good news for LENR is that even if 90% of the energy disappears, the 
fraction which remains is about 16.7 times more energetic than fusion of 
deuterium to helium. And if 99% disappears as neutrinos – the reaction is still 
more energetic than what is expected in palladium D+D fusion to helium, and yet 
could be easily confused with that reaction… EXCEPT there would be little 
helium detected (the occasional alpha particle).

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Blaze Spinnaker]

"The larger physics establishment" in my opinion is like the "vast right
wing conspiracy".  The fact is, he made it past peer review and published
in real journals.

I just think he's way more interesting than freaking Rossi who publishes
squat.

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:21 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

> I did, I made an edit back in the beginning of October.  It hasn't been
> reverted yet:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rydberg_matter&action=history
>
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Eric Walker 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Blaze Spinnaker <
>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> That's an interesting characterization considering it was Sveinn Ólafsson
>>> that did the presentation, that Holmlid has had a number of co-authors on
>>> his papers, that his university has published his press release(a rather
>>> risky thing to do, considering), and that he has had numerous peer reviewed
>>> papers published in respectable journals.
>>>
>>> I don't think we should confuse exceedingly talented
>>> and prodigious researcher for "one man show".
>>>
>>
>> Did you have a chance to read the details in the answer I linked to?
>> Holmlid wrote his own wikipedia page, which has been put up for deletion
>> (and rescued).  And a large portion of the citations referring to him are
>> citations in other papers he has written.  Apparently these are faux pas in
>> academia.
>>
>> For the sake of argument, set aside the question of whether what Holmlid
>> is describing is real.  If you had 1000 dollars to bet on how much Holmlid
>> has the backing of the larger physics establishment, what odds would you
>> bet?  :)
>>
>> This particular question is not one about fairness or truth; it's a
>> question about whether Holmlid is a maverick or not.  I would personally
>> bet 1000 dollars on the possibility that he does not have the backing of
>> the larger physics establishment (if I bet, which I don't).
>>
>> Eric
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Blaze Spinnaker]

I did, I made an edit back in the beginning of October.  It hasn't been
reverted yet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rydberg_matter&action=history

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 7:58 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Blaze Spinnaker  > wrote:
>
> That's an interesting characterization considering it was Sveinn Ólafsson
>> that did the presentation, that Holmlid has had a number of co-authors on
>> his papers, that his university has published his press release(a rather
>> risky thing to do, considering), and that he has had numerous peer reviewed
>> papers published in respectable journals.
>>
>> I don't think we should confuse exceedingly talented
>> and prodigious researcher for "one man show".
>>
>
> Did you have a chance to read the details in the answer I linked to?
> Holmlid wrote his own wikipedia page, which has been put up for deletion
> (and rescued).  And a large portion of the citations referring to him are
> citations in other papers he has written.  Apparently these are faux pas in
> academia.
>
> For the sake of argument, set aside the question of whether what Holmlid
> is describing is real.  If you had 1000 dollars to bet on how much Holmlid
> has the backing of the larger physics establishment, what odds would you
> bet?  :)
>
> This particular question is not one about fairness or truth; it's a
> question about whether Holmlid is a maverick or not.  I would personally
> bet 1000 dollars on the possibility that he does not have the backing of
> the larger physics establishment (if I bet, which I don't).
>
> Eric
>
>

RE: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Jones Beene]

Correction:
Deuteron disintegration which supplies about 1 GeV per nucleon is about 167 
times more energy dense than nuclear fusion of deuterium to helium. Assumption: 
1 GeV per nucleon vs 24 MeV per 4 nucleons (in the He-4 nucleus).
However, a sizeable percentage of that disintegration energy will disappear as 
neutrinos, and thus the usable energy is still a mystery. The bad news for 
LENR: If the muon pathway is favored, as seems to be the case from Holmlid’s 
studies, then most of the excess energy will indeed disappear as neutrinos. 
The good news for LENR is that even if 90% of the energy disappears, the 
fraction which remains is about 16.7 times more energetic than fusion of 
deuterium to helium. And if 99% disappears as neutrinos – the reaction is still 
more energetic than what is expected in palladium D+D fusion to helium, and yet 
could be easily confused with that reaction… EXCEPT there would be little 
helium detected (the occasional alpha particle).

RE: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Jones Beene]

Having studied a dozen or so of these papers but being far from an expert, here 
a couple of comments for those who are even more baffled than I am. 

1)  Holmlid’s thinking on the details has changed over time. There are 
inconsistencies. His critics will pick up on these but look past that to the 
most recent conclusions.
2)  He has generally tried to associate with well-respected co-authors 
(Miley, etc) some of whom have a different slant.
3)  The slide-show presentation cited below - probably because of where it 
was first presented, tends to focus on deuterium fusion, but in Olafsson’s 
talk, that focus is gone. Fusion was hardly mentioned at all compared to 
nucleon disintegration.
4)  There are authoritative papers by Meulenberg and especially by Lawandy 
on the subject of DD theory (dense deuterium) which are similar but different - 
and could add (or subtract) something which is relevant to the big picture.
5)  One detail which crops up is that the lifetime of DD is apparently only 
microseconds when free from the surface where it forms, yet it is greatly 
extended when retained on the catalyst. This short-life will hinder an ability 
to accumulate a sizeable population of DD fuel, such as for ICF targets… or for 
the glow-tube … unless the catalyst becomes incorporated into the target. Same 
for Glow-tube. 
6)  This could be the reason that a ferromagnetic catalyst works best. 
There is probably a strong magnetic bond which keeps the DD cluster attached, 
with extended lifetime when a magnetic field is present.
7)  This situation is begging for high level replication (national Lab). 
The military implications are such that it would be a big surprise if some kind 
of (hidden) replication is not underway.

From: Blaze Spinnaker 
In case you missed this:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WN1NPdWttMC1RdEU/view

Courtesy of MFMP.

"If confirmed, such process releases similar or higher energy than fission of 
Uranium 200MeV."

"4. The Ultra-dense hydrogen Leif Holmlid 30+ papers 2008-2015"


BTW – Uranium is of course considerably more massive than deuterium, so the 
comparison with fission is even more exaggerated. Deuteron disintegration which 
supplies about 2 GeV per atom will be over 1100 times more energy dense than 
nuclear fission, on a unit weight basis, and 400 time more energy dense than 
nuclear fusion of deuterium to helium. However, if a sizeable percentage of 
that disintegration energy disappears as neutrinos, then the usable energy is 
still a mystery. 

The bad news for LENR: If the muon pathway is favored, as seems to be the case 
from Holmlid’s studies, then most of the excess energy will disappear as 
neutrinos. The good news for LENR is that even if 90% disappears, the fraction 
which remains is far greater than fusion of deuterium to helium. 

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 9:28 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

That's an interesting characterization considering it was Sveinn Ólafsson
> that did the presentation, that Holmlid has had a number of co-authors on
> his papers, that his university has published his press release(a rather
> risky thing to do, considering), and that he has had numerous peer reviewed
> papers published in respectable journals.
>
> I don't think we should confuse exceedingly talented
> and prodigious researcher for "one man show".
>

Did you have a chance to read the details in the answer I linked to?
Holmlid wrote his own wikipedia page, which has been put up for deletion
(and rescued).  And a large portion of the citations referring to him are
citations in other papers he has written.  Apparently these are faux pas in
academia.

For the sake of argument, set aside the question of whether what Holmlid is
describing is real.  If you had 1000 dollars to bet on how much Holmlid has
the backing of the larger physics establishment, what odds would you bet?
 :)

This particular question is not one about fairness or truth; it's a
question about whether Holmlid is a maverick or not.  I would personally
bet 1000 dollars on the possibility that he does not have the backing of
the larger physics establishment (if I bet, which I don't).

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Holmlid vs. the Cowled Wikipedia Conservatory

[Blaze Spinnaker]

I thought this was interesting:


   - The President of Russian Academy of Sciences Vladimir Fortov has
   recently noted the works on Rydberg Matter as a great scientific event
   [33] 

http://tass.ru/opinions/interviews/1599386

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 6:41 AM, Steve High  wrote:

> You may turn to the talk page of the Wikipedia article on Rydberg Matter
> to find Prof Holmlid locked in a struggle with various Keepers of the Light
> who wish to see the Rydberg Matter article deleted. The good news is that
> this struggle took place in 2010 and the Wikipedia entry is still up.
> Holmlid may well be a force to be reckoned with.
>

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Blaze Spinnaker]

That's an interesting characterization considering it was Sveinn Ólafsson
that did the presentation, that Holmlid has had a number of co-authors on
his papers, that his university has published his press release(a rather
risky thing to do, considering), and that he has had numerous peer reviewed
papers published in respectable journals.

I don't think we should confuse exceedingly talented
and prodigious researcher for "one man show".

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Blaze Spinnaker  > wrote:
>
> "4. The Ultra-dense hydrogen Leif Holmlid *30+ papers* 2008-2015"
>>
>
> Holmlid is kind of a one-man show.  See this answer to a question I raised
> on Physics.SE sometime back:
>
> http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/74720/6713
>
> Eric
>
>

Re: [Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 6:18 AM, Blaze Spinnaker 
wrote:

"4. The Ultra-dense hydrogen Leif Holmlid *30+ papers* 2008-2015"
>

Holmlid is kind of a one-man show.  See this answer to a question I raised
on Physics.SE sometime back:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/74720/6713

Eric

[Vo]:Holmlid vs. the Cowled Wikipedia Conservatory

[Steve High]

You may turn to the talk page of the Wikipedia article on Rydberg Matter to
find Prof Holmlid locked in a struggle with various Keepers of the Light
who wish to see the Rydberg Matter article deleted. The good news is that
this struggle took place in 2010 and the Wikipedia entry is still up.
Holmlid may well be a force to be reckoned with.

[Vo]:slide deck for ultradense hydrogen / Leif Holmlid

[Blaze Spinnaker]

In case you missed this:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WN1NPdWttMC1RdEU/view

Courtesy of MFMP.

"If confirmed, such process releases similar or higher energy than fission
of Uranium 200MeV."

"4. The Ultra-dense hydrogen Leif Holmlid *30+ papers* 2008-2015"

[Vo]:LENR INFO , ENTERING (ME) IN PLATINUM YEAR

[Peter Gluck]

launched now before going to my favorite restaurant
with the Family

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/10/oct-25-2015-info-andentering-my.html


Yours,
Peter
-- 
Dr. Peter Gluck
Cluj, Romania
http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com