RE: [Vo]:Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium
It’s very difficult to keep the terminology consistent. I think Holmlid would be wise to ditch the present designations and start over. From: Mark Jurich FYI: All, please take a close look at Fig. 2 of this Holmlid Paper: http://fuelrfuture.com/science/holm2.pdf I think it will help explain how Holmlid had viewed/grasped the energy levels back in early 2014. Also keep in mind that H(-1) is now called H(0). It was thought that the apparent Ultra-dense state was Inverted Rydberg Hydrogen (IRH, hence the “-1”), but now this state is seen as somewhat different. The “0” reflects that the orbital angular momentum of the electrons is zero. The picture in Fig 1 may need some modification to take into account the various apparent spin states of H(0). Winterberg’s earlier description has slightly fallen out of favor in regards to more recent data, but I am not sure what the latest findings suggest. Reading more of literature should help clear up the current understanding of H(0). Mark Jurich
[Vo]:Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium
FYI: All, please take a close look at Fig. 2 of this Holmlid Paper: http://fuelrfuture.com/science/holm2.pdf I think it will help explain how Holmlid had viewed/grasped the energy levels back in early 2014. Also keep in mind that H(-1) is now called H(0). It was thought that the apparent Ultra-dense state was Inverted Rydberg Hydrogen (IRH, hence the “-1”), but now this state is seen as somewhat different. The “0” reflects that the orbital angular momentum of the electrons is zero. The picture in Fig 1 may need some modification to take into account the various apparent spin states of H(0). Winterberg’s earlier description has slightly fallen out of favor in regards to more recent data, but I am not sure what the latest findings suggest. Reading more of literature should help clear up the current understanding of H(0). Mark Jurich
[Vo]:Elsevier publication staff quits en masse
The editors and staff at an Elsevier journal on linguistics resigned en masse to protest the high cost of the journal. They are going to start a new open access on-line journal. They are all professors being paid by universities, and the journal only pays ~$5000 a year, so they can afford to quit. This is the beginning of the end for overpriced academic journals. See: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/inside_higher_ed/2015/11/lingua_editors_and_editorial_board_quit_the_journal_citing_lack_of_access.html - Jed
Re: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium
The Higgs mechanism is a type of superconductivity which occurs in the vacuum. It occurs when all of space is filled with a sea of particles which are charged, or, in field language, when a charged field has a nonzero vacuum expectation value. Interaction with the quantum fluid filling the space prevents certain forces from propagating over long distances (as it does in a superconducting medium; e.g., in the Ginzburg–Landau theory). A superconductor expels all magnetic fields from its interior, a phenomenon known as the Meissner effect. *This was mysterious for a long time, because it implies that electromagnetic forces somehow become short-range inside the superconductor. * Short range effects means MASS. Photon gain mass in a superconductor. On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 8:17 PM, David Roberson wrote: > The field is repulsed by the flowing of current. That induced current > balances out the incoming field. > > Dave > > > > -Original Message- > From: Axil Axil > To: vortex-l > Sent: Thu, Nov 5, 2015 7:59 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium > > Magnetic repulsion in superconductivity is caused by the generation of > mass by the superconductor in the photon. This is the same mass production > mechanism that is seen in the higgs field were mass is produced in the W > boson. > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:49 PM, David Roberson wrote: > >> From what I recall the magnetic field repulsion is due to current >> flowing and not on an individual atom basis. That would imply that no >> extra repulsion would be seen for atoms embedded within the iron. >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Bob Higgins >> To: vortex-l >> Sent: Thu, Nov 5, 2015 6:39 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium >> >> Jones, >> >> Even if true that H(-1) exists as a superfluid/RTSC (and Winterberg says >> that the ultra-dense form only occurs with deuterium), then it is highly >> likely that it would be a type II superconductor, like all of the >> superconductors above about 40K. The type II superconductors pin a >> magnetic field inside it if the field was there when the superconducting >> state formed. So, you wouldn't get the instant repulsion. >> >> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Jones Beene wrote: >> >>> Of interest… >>> >>> In a 2014 paper, Holmlid says: “Ultra-dense hydrogen H(-1) is a quantum >>> material and the first material which is superfluid and superconductive at >>> room temperature. This has been shown in detail for the deuterium form >>> D(-1).” >>> >>> Comment: >>> As a RTSC, the dense material H(-1) will be subject to the Meissner >>> effect. If it is created on a ferromagnetic catalyst which has permanent or >>> applied magnetic field, which is possible to accomplish with iron oxide as >>> the fill, then H(-1) should be repelled as soon as it is made. >>> >>> The H(-1) can made within a translucent alumina tube filled with Shell >>> 105 and hydrogen, using photons shining into the tube, so as to create SPP >>> on the interfacial ID surface of the tube. The H(-1) should slowly migrate >>> into the walls of the alumina. This should happen as soon as it is formed >>> due to Meissner repulsion. Laser light should be avoided in favor of >>> diffuse monochromatic light during the fuel build-up stage. It would be >>> beneficial to cool the tube as much as possible at this stage, possibly >>> using a cold plate. The alumina matrix would be effectively porous to H(-1) >>> at only a few picometers in diameter. >>> >>> This is concievably an effective way to make and store the H(-1) for >>> later use. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
Re: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium
The field is repulsed by the flowing of current. That induced current balances out the incoming field. Dave -Original Message- From: Axil Axil To: vortex-l Sent: Thu, Nov 5, 2015 7:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium Magnetic repulsion in superconductivity is caused by the generation of mass by the superconductor in the photon. This is the same mass production mechanism that is seen in the higgs field were mass is produced in the W boson. On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:49 PM, David Roberson wrote: >From what I recall the magnetic field repulsion is due to current flowing and >not on an individual atom basis. That would imply that no extra repulsion >would be seen for atoms embedded within the iron. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l Sent: Thu, Nov 5, 2015 6:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium Jones, Even if true that H(-1) exists as a superfluid/RTSC (and Winterberg says that the ultra-dense form only occurs with deuterium), then it is highly likely that it would be a type II superconductor, like all of the superconductors above about 40K. The type II superconductors pin a magnetic field inside it if the field was there when the superconducting state formed. So, you wouldn't get the instant repulsion. On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Of interest… In a 2014 paper, Holmlid says: “Ultra-dense hydrogen H(-1) is a quantum material and the first material which is superfluid and superconductive at room temperature. This has been shown in detail for the deuterium form D(-1).” Comment: As a RTSC, the dense material H(-1) will be subject to the Meissner effect. If it is created on a ferromagnetic catalyst which has permanent or applied magnetic field, which is possible to accomplish with iron oxide as the fill, then H(-1) should be repelled as soon as it is made. The H(-1) can made within a translucent alumina tube filled with Shell 105 and hydrogen, using photons shining into the tube, so as to create SPP on the interfacial ID surface of the tube. The H(-1) should slowly migrate into the walls of the alumina. This should happen as soon as it is formed due to Meissner repulsion. Laser light should be avoided in favor of diffuse monochromatic light during the fuel build-up stage. It would be beneficial to cool the tube as much as possible at this stage, possibly using a cold plate. The alumina matrix would be effectively porous to H(-1) at only a few picometers in diameter. This is concievably an effective way to make and store the H(-1) for later use.
Re: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium
Magnetic repulsion in superconductivity is caused by the generation of mass by the superconductor in the photon. This is the same mass production mechanism that is seen in the higgs field were mass is produced in the W boson. On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 7:49 PM, David Roberson wrote: > From what I recall the magnetic field repulsion is due to current flowing > and not on an individual atom basis. That would imply that no extra > repulsion would be seen for atoms embedded within the iron. > > Dave > > > > -Original Message- > From: Bob Higgins > To: vortex-l > Sent: Thu, Nov 5, 2015 6:39 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium > > Jones, > > Even if true that H(-1) exists as a superfluid/RTSC (and Winterberg says > that the ultra-dense form only occurs with deuterium), then it is highly > likely that it would be a type II superconductor, like all of the > superconductors above about 40K. The type II superconductors pin a > magnetic field inside it if the field was there when the superconducting > state formed. So, you wouldn't get the instant repulsion. > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> Of interest… >> >> In a 2014 paper, Holmlid says: “Ultra-dense hydrogen H(-1) is a quantum >> material and the first material which is superfluid and superconductive at >> room temperature. This has been shown in detail for the deuterium form >> D(-1).” >> >> Comment: >> As a RTSC, the dense material H(-1) will be subject to the Meissner >> effect. If it is created on a ferromagnetic catalyst which has permanent or >> applied magnetic field, which is possible to accomplish with iron oxide as >> the fill, then H(-1) should be repelled as soon as it is made. >> >> The H(-1) can made within a translucent alumina tube filled with Shell >> 105 and hydrogen, using photons shining into the tube, so as to create SPP >> on the interfacial ID surface of the tube. The H(-1) should slowly migrate >> into the walls of the alumina. This should happen as soon as it is formed >> due to Meissner repulsion. Laser light should be avoided in favor of >> diffuse monochromatic light during the fuel build-up stage. It would be >> beneficial to cool the tube as much as possible at this stage, possibly >> using a cold plate. The alumina matrix would be effectively porous to H(-1) >> at only a few picometers in diameter. >> >> This is concievably an effective way to make and store the H(-1) for >> later use. >> >> >> > >
Re: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium
>From what I recall the magnetic field repulsion is due to current flowing and >not on an individual atom basis. That would imply that no extra repulsion >would be seen for atoms embedded within the iron. Dave -Original Message- From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l Sent: Thu, Nov 5, 2015 6:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium Jones, Even if true that H(-1) exists as a superfluid/RTSC (and Winterberg says that the ultra-dense form only occurs with deuterium), then it is highly likely that it would be a type II superconductor, like all of the superconductors above about 40K. The type II superconductors pin a magnetic field inside it if the field was there when the superconducting state formed. So, you wouldn't get the instant repulsion. On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Jones Beene wrote: Of interest… In a 2014 paper, Holmlid says: “Ultra-dense hydrogen H(-1) is a quantum material and the first material which is superfluid and superconductive at room temperature. This has been shown in detail for the deuterium form D(-1).” Comment: As a RTSC, the dense material H(-1) will be subject to the Meissner effect. If it is created on a ferromagnetic catalyst which has permanent or applied magnetic field, which is possible to accomplish with iron oxide as the fill, then H(-1) should be repelled as soon as it is made. The H(-1) can made within a translucent alumina tube filled with Shell 105 and hydrogen, using photons shining into the tube, so as to create SPP on the interfacial ID surface of the tube. The H(-1) should slowly migrate into the walls of the alumina. This should happen as soon as it is formed due to Meissner repulsion. Laser light should be avoided in favor of diffuse monochromatic light during the fuel build-up stage. It would be beneficial to cool the tube as much as possible at this stage, possibly using a cold plate. The alumina matrix would be effectively porous to H(-1) at only a few picometers in diameter. This is concievably an effective way to make and store the H(-1) for later use.
RE: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium
From: Bob Higgins * Even if true that H(-1) exists as a superfluid/RTSC (and Winterberg says that the ultra-dense form only occurs with deuterium), then it is highly likely that it would be a type II superconductor, like all of the superconductors above about 40K. The type II superconductors pin a magnetic field inside it if the field was there when the superconducting state formed. So, you wouldn't get the instant repulsion. Bob, Yes Winterberg could be correct about deuterium, which is an inconvenience for the glow tube application, if it is required. AFAIK, Holmlid thinks either will densify - but only uses deuterium… so the issue is unsettled. I think a bosonic species is required. The purported density of the cluster, if Holmlid is correct, makes one wonder if massive numbers of deuterium bosons are not literally occupying the identical space, even at the elevated temperature. The type-ll SC works best for the previous suggestion - and is what was assumed. In fact, all high temperature superconductors are type-II AFAIK - so the true Meissner effect should not have been mentioned. In the flux pinning state, a superconductor becomes pinned in space away from a permanent magnet, but not too far away. Many of the popular images purporting to be Meissner effect “levitation” are actually Type ll. Since the D(-1) superconductor cluster wants to be pinned away from, but near, the ferromagnetic catalyst, it should tend to lodge in the alumina - but not be expelled.
Re: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium
Jones, Even if true that H(-1) exists as a superfluid/RTSC (and Winterberg says that the ultra-dense form only occurs with deuterium), then it is highly likely that it would be a type II superconductor, like all of the superconductors above about 40K. The type II superconductors pin a magnetic field inside it if the field was there when the superconducting state formed. So, you wouldn't get the instant repulsion. On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 3:56 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Of interest… > > > > In a 2014 paper, Holmlid says: “Ultra-dense hydrogen H(-1) is a quantum > material and the first material which is superfluid and superconductive at > room temperature. This has been shown in detail for the deuterium form > D(-1).” > > > > Comment: > > As a RTSC, the dense material H(-1) will be subject to the Meissner > effect. If it is created on a ferromagnetic catalyst which has permanent or > applied magnetic field, which is possible to accomplish with iron oxide as > the fill, then H(-1) should be repelled as soon as it is made. > > > > The H(-1) can made within a translucent alumina tube filled with Shell 105 > and hydrogen, using photons shining into the tube, so as to create SPP on > the interfacial ID surface of the tube. The H(-1) should slowly migrate > into the walls of the alumina. This should happen as soon as it is formed > due to Meissner repulsion. Laser light should be avoided in favor of > diffuse monochromatic light during the fuel build-up stage. It would be > beneficial to cool the tube as much as possible at this stage, possibly > using a cold plate. The alumina matrix would be effectively porous to H(-1) > at only a few picometers in diameter. > > > > This is concievably an effective way to make and store the H(-1) for later > use. > > > > >
RE: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium
Of interest… In a 2014 paper, Holmlid says: “Ultra-dense hydrogen H(-1) is a quantum material and the first material which is superfluid and superconductive at room temperature. This has been shown in detail for the deuterium form D(-1).” Comment: As a RTSC, the dense material H(-1) will be subject to the Meissner effect. If it is created on a ferromagnetic catalyst which has permanent or applied magnetic field, which is possible to accomplish with iron oxide as the fill, then H(-1) should be repelled as soon as it is made. The H(-1) can made within a translucent alumina tube filled with Shell 105 and hydrogen, using photons shining into the tube, so as to create SPP on the interfacial ID surface of the tube. The H(-1) should slowly migrate into the walls of the alumina. This should happen as soon as it is formed due to Meissner repulsion. Laser light should be avoided in favor of diffuse monochromatic light during the fuel build-up stage. It would be beneficial to cool the tube as much as possible at this stage, possibly using a cold plate. The alumina matrix would be effectively porous to H(-1) at only a few picometers in diameter. This is concievably an effective way to make and store the H(-1) for later use.
[Vo]:Surface topology tuning...
FYI: The reason I include this article is that surface topology can tune and enhance absorption by many orders of magnitude. "Thermal energy harvesting antennas by more than 10,000 to 100,000 times with tiny holes in copper" http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/10/thermal-energy-harvesting-antennas-by.html "Park's team uses software to analyze how the nanoscale topology of a surface -- its bumps, holes or grooves -- changes the way that electromagnetic radiation interacts with the surface. In some instances the geometry supports the formation of a wave of rippling electronic charges, called a plasmon, that hugs the surface." "We design the surface to support a surface wave, because the presence of the wave offers a new avenue for engineering thermal emission," Park said. For the case of optimizing thermal energy harvesting, the researchers found they could "spectrally tune" a surface to emit more radiation at 1 THz frequency. "Turning Up the Heat: Holey Metamaterials Enhance Thermal Energy Harvesting" http://www.newswise.com/articles/turning-up-the-heat-holey-metamaterials-enh ance-thermal-energy-harvesting -Mark Iverson
Re: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium
>From my side of a recent private discussion of Holmlid ... I thought some of it would add to this topic: >From what I have seen of Miley's work, Miley does not believe the ultra-dense form of hydrogen is something that forms on a surface or can exist in the air. He thinks it is a form that exists interstitially inside a metal or metal nanoparticle. Holmlid cites backward to Winterberg about theory for ultra-dense hydrogen. Winterberg believes the ultra-dense form is a vertical column of deuterium atoms - completely different from known RM which is planar monatomic flake-like molecules. Miley believes the ultra-dense form can exist with either H or D. Winterberg says the ultra-dense state can only form with D. Miley and Holmlid/Winterberg appear to be describing completely different animals. Interestingly, Winterberg's description sounds more like Ed Storms' linear hydroton of atoms. It is not clear how Winterberg's column-of-atoms matter is something that forms from RM. If I had to speculate, I would say that the columns form as an aligned stack of RM flakes. Then the matter switches from being a planar array of columns to being a columnar stack of flakes. Anderson/Holmlid describe D(-1) as being the lowest energy form of RM. This would imply that the snowflake form of RM, D(1) is higher energy. Wouldn't this mean that there is more potential Coulomb explosion energy from the D(1) than there is from the D(-1)? The authors keep referring to there being only a small energy barrier between D(1) and D(-1) and indicate the possibility of spontaneous change between the states. Yet they also seem to be ascribing tremendous potential energy to D(-1) [the lowest energy state] compared to D(1) [a supposed higher energy state]. I guess I don't understand the idea of Coulomb Explosion (CE). The authors describe how easy it is to remove an electron from RM (true only for a Rydberg excited atom) and then the resulting exposed ions just blow apart from Coulomb repulsion. To me this sounds pretty ridiculous. Otherwise, how could the D(1) RM be as stable as it appears to be?
Re: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium
The great hangup on the replication of the Holmlid experiment is the time it takes the SPPs to become fully charged with energy. It takes weeks of laser stimulation. This delay might be greatly shortened through the use of an electric arc as a way to pump energy into the SPPs. For example, in the titanium exploding foil experiments, the SPPs were fully charged in only one shot of the spark. A electric arc is the ideal EMF format for charging the rydberg hydrogen to optimum energy storage levels. In another example, the EVO experiments of Ken Shoulders produce a SPP reaction by using only one spark discharge. The arc will also produce a wave of UV and X-Rays that could be used to calibrate the arrival of sub-atomic particles. On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Bob, > > > > Let’s face it: the only thing which is going to validate Holmlid is > replication by an independent third party. This replication could happen in > pieces on many fronts, starting with testing for muons - but it must be > done. > > > > Holmlid seems to have an arguably valid response to most objections, but > the answers will not satisfy everyone since they form a house of cards. It > cannot all be correct – just as Mills theory cannot. > > > > You seem to buy in the DDL or some version of it, and that would be a fine > place to start to reconcile the conflicts. I am hoping Meulenberg jumps in > on this, sooner or later. His species, being “femto” is presumably even > denser than Holmlid’s. > > > > As to the expanded electron orbital of “normal” RM – Holmlid does see that > as a preliminary or oscillatory state, as you acknowledge. Presumably this > results in some kind of transitory reality … which is a step above > “virtual”. It seems like the RM must be transferred while still on its > substrate. > > > > The SRI slides starting at 25 provide further answers, but in the end, > Holmlid will end up in the same drifting boat as Mills, in the sense that > broad support from the physics community will not arrive until there is > totally independent replication. At least Holmlid is open enough to allow > and even encourage that. > > > > A step towards partial replication would seem to be to integrate Holmlid’s > method for producing dense hydrogen into ab ongoing experiment – like the > glow tube. > > > > *From:* Bob Higgins > > > > I would like to see more discussion of Holmlid's evidence for existence of > the ultra-dense deuterium D(0). > > > > From my reading, I understand the evidence for Rydberg Matter (RM) > particles, and it is strong. This evidence is based on rotational > spectroscopy of clouds of RM particles - the "snowflakes" I previously > mentioned. Because these RM particles have such large electron orbitals > (the Rydberg states), the RM particle spectra is highly susceptible to > electric fields (well known Stark effect) and magnetic fields (Zeeman > effect). In fact, the Stark effect is so large, it can be used with RM to > make tunable RM lasers. RM forms from many atomic species, not just > hydrogen isotopes. This RM is NOT dense, and even sodium RM particles are > detected in the Earth's upper atmosphere, some 80 km high. Obviously, to > float in such a thin atmosphere, the mass density of the particles must be > relatively low. > > > > Now we come to Holmlid's propositions. The first proposition is that RM > can form in monolayers on a metal oxide surface. This is not too far > fetched. One could easily visualize a self-assembling effect of the > hexagons under the right conditions. Has Holmlid proved a continuous > film? I haven't seen that evidence. In other words, the Holmlid surface > condensed H(1) / D(1) as a continuous film could simply be isolated RM > particles that have attached to the metal oxide surface. > > > > Holmlid's next proposition is the spontaneous switching on the surface of > the purported D(1) film with 150 pm atomic spacing to the ultra-dense form, > D(0) having 2.3 pm spacing. First, is Holmlid expecting us to believe that > the entire surface film shrinks in lateral dimensions by a factor of 65? > Even if such a state switch could occur, it would be unlikely to occur in > the entire film simultaneously - I think it would rip itself into small > islands. > > > > What is Holmlid's evidence for the 2.3 pm ultra-dense D(0) state? As near > as I can tell, the evidence comes from the energy calculated from a > supposed Coulomb explosion - I.E. sudden failure of the mechanism holding > the atoms at such a small inter-atomic spacing caused by an incident > laser. If such potential energy existed for Coulomb explosion, then there > would be no natural means for even individual RM particles to switch to > this state - I.E. how can D(1) RM particles spontaneously jump to a > configuration having so much higher potential energy as D(0) is purported > to have? > > > > So, how can Holmlid say that the cause of the measured ejecta atoms is > Coulomb explosion? Could
RE: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium
Bob, Let’s face it: the only thing which is going to validate Holmlid is replication by an independent third party. This replication could happen in pieces on many fronts, starting with testing for muons - but it must be done. Holmlid seems to have an arguably valid response to most objections, but the answers will not satisfy everyone since they form a house of cards. It cannot all be correct – just as Mills theory cannot. You seem to buy in the DDL or some version of it, and that would be a fine place to start to reconcile the conflicts. I am hoping Meulenberg jumps in on this, sooner or later. His species, being “femto” is presumably even denser than Holmlid’s. As to the expanded electron orbital of “normal” RM – Holmlid does see that as a preliminary or oscillatory state, as you acknowledge. Presumably this results in some kind of transitory reality … which is a step above “virtual”. It seems like the RM must be transferred while still on its substrate. The SRI slides starting at 25 provide further answers, but in the end, Holmlid will end up in the same drifting boat as Mills, in the sense that broad support from the physics community will not arrive until there is totally independent replication. At least Holmlid is open enough to allow and even encourage that. A step towards partial replication would seem to be to integrate Holmlid’s method for producing dense hydrogen into ab ongoing experiment – like the glow tube. From: Bob Higgins I would like to see more discussion of Holmlid's evidence for existence of the ultra-dense deuterium D(0). >From my reading, I understand the evidence for Rydberg Matter (RM) particles, >and it is strong. This evidence is based on rotational spectroscopy of clouds >of RM particles - the "snowflakes" I previously mentioned. Because these RM >particles have such large electron orbitals (the Rydberg states), the RM >particle spectra is highly susceptible to electric fields (well known Stark >effect) and magnetic fields (Zeeman effect). In fact, the Stark effect is so >large, it can be used with RM to make tunable RM lasers. RM forms from many >atomic species, not just hydrogen isotopes. This RM is NOT dense, and even >sodium RM particles are detected in the Earth's upper atmosphere, some 80 km >high. Obviously, to float in such a thin atmosphere, the mass density of the >particles must be relatively low. Now we come to Holmlid's propositions. The first proposition is that RM can form in monolayers on a metal oxide surface. This is not too far fetched. One could easily visualize a self-assembling effect of the hexagons under the right conditions. Has Holmlid proved a continuous film? I haven't seen that evidence. In other words, the Holmlid surface condensed H(1) / D(1) as a continuous film could simply be isolated RM particles that have attached to the metal oxide surface. Holmlid's next proposition is the spontaneous switching on the surface of the purported D(1) film with 150 pm atomic spacing to the ultra-dense form, D(0) having 2.3 pm spacing. First, is Holmlid expecting us to believe that the entire surface film shrinks in lateral dimensions by a factor of 65? Even if such a state switch could occur, it would be unlikely to occur in the entire film simultaneously - I think it would rip itself into small islands. What is Holmlid's evidence for the 2.3 pm ultra-dense D(0) state? As near as I can tell, the evidence comes from the energy calculated from a supposed Coulomb explosion - I.E. sudden failure of the mechanism holding the atoms at such a small inter-atomic spacing caused by an incident laser. If such potential energy existed for Coulomb explosion, then there would be no natural means for even individual RM particles to switch to this state - I.E. how can D(1) RM particles spontaneously jump to a configuration having so much higher potential energy as D(0) is purported to have? So, how can Holmlid say that the cause of the measured ejecta atoms is Coulomb explosion? Could it not be that some form of energetic reaction occurred between the substrate, the D(1) particles on the surface, and the laser? Perhaps a LENR reaction? Somewhere, Miley and Holmlid parted theoretical company. I think that Miley may believe that the RM particles could be complicit in LENR, but perhaps he didn't buy into the ultra-dense hypothesis. Bob Higgins
[Vo]:who will bring a bit of order in the Babel Tower of LENR theories?
Is this possible, after all? http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/11/05-nov-2015-babel-tower-of-lenr.html Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium
I was thinking of a way to do this calibration. If a electric arc was used to produce excitation of the Holmlid experiment rather than a laser, the EMF and electrons from the arc could be used as a benchmark for time of arrival of x-rays and high energy electrons at the detector. A run with the catalyst could then be compared to the null run where only the electric ach produced excited particles. On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Bob Higgins > wrote: > > RM forms from many atomic species, not just hydrogen isotopes. This RM is >> NOT dense, and even sodium RM particles are detected in the Earth's upper >> atmosphere, some 80 km high. >> > > I'm not surprised. I would be more surprised if naturally-occurring > Rydberg matter /were/ dense, given that the outer atomic electrons are less > tightly bound and hence take up a larger volume. You can kind of reason > through why it might be, but it all feels pretty speculative. > > If such potential energy existed for Coulomb explosion, then there would >> be no natural means for even individual RM particles to switch to this >> state - I.E. how can D(1) RM particles spontaneously jump to a >> configuration having so much higher potential energy as D(0) is purported >> to have? >> > > I've had a similar difficulty understanding how a system can go from very > little energy (sub-eV) to high potential energy (many MeV), prior to the > Coulomb explosion, at the point in which the energy is released in the > explosion, unless there's something like LENR going on underneath. > > Part of Holmlid's difficulty is that he's using a very simple > time-of-flight spectrometer of his own making, that counts from the time of > a laser pulse to a signal in an oscilloscope. There is no obvious way to > calibrate such a device against a standard source of known decay energy > (e.g., americium). The next step for Holmlid would be to pull in someone > with skill in measuring the energies and particles types in the current of > particles that provides the experimental basis for so much of his > hypothesis. > > None of this is to say that he doesn't have an interesting current of > charged particles (and perhaps neutral ones). > > Eric > >
Re: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium
There may be a D(1)—D(0) phase shift in a planar configuration induced by intense magnetic fields associated with local SPP’s or just the B field associated with the catalyst in resonance with the lasers oscillating magnetic field. Calculation of the dense phase binding energy would be instructive relative to the D(1) phase. Such a calculation may be possible for a planar configuration. Bob Cook From: Bob Higgins Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 7:59 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium I would like to see more discussion of Holmlid's evidence for existence of the ultra-dense deuterium D(0). >From my reading, I understand the evidence for Rydberg Matter (RM) particles, >and it is strong. This evidence is based on rotational spectroscopy of clouds >of RM particles - the "snowflakes" I previously mentioned. Because these RM >particles have such large electron orbitals (the Rydberg states), the RM >particle spectra is highly susceptible to electric fields (well known Stark >effect) and magnetic fields (Zeeman effect). In fact, the Stark effect is so >large, it can be used with RM to make tunable RM lasers. RM forms from many >atomic species, not just hydrogen isotopes. This RM is NOT dense, and even >sodium RM particles are detected in the Earth's upper atmosphere, some 80 km >high. Obviously, to float in such a thin atmosphere, the mass density of the >particles must be relatively low. Now we come to Holmlid's propositions. The first proposition is that RM can form in monolayers on a metal oxide surface. This is not too far fetched. One could easily visualize a self-assembling effect of the hexagons under the right conditions. Has Holmlid proved a continuous film? I haven't seen that evidence. In other words, the Holmlid surface condensed H(1) / D(1) as a continuous film could simply be isolated RM particles that have attached to the metal oxide surface. Holmlid's next proposition is the spontaneous switching on the surface of the purported D(1) film with 150 pm atomic spacing to the ultra-dense form, D(0) having 2.3 pm spacing. First, is Holmlid expecting us to believe that the entire surface film shrinks in lateral dimensions by a factor of 65? Even if such a state switch could occur, it would be unlikely to occur in the entire film simultaneously - I think it would rip itself into small islands. What is Holmlid's evidence for the 2.3 pm ultra-dense D(0) state? As near as I can tell, the evidence comes from the energy calculated from a supposed Coulomb explosion - I.E. sudden failure of the mechanism holding the atoms at such a small inter-atomic spacing caused by an incident laser. If such potential energy existed for Coulomb explosion, then there would be no natural means for even individual RM particles to switch to this state - I.E. how can D(1) RM particles spontaneously jump to a configuration having so much higher potential energy as D(0) is purported to have? So, how can Holmlid say that the cause of the measured ejecta atoms is Coulomb explosion? Could it not be that some form of energetic reaction occurred between the substrate, the D(1) particles on the surface, and the laser? Perhaps a LENR reaction? Somewhere, Miley and Holmlid parted theoretical company. I think that Miley may believe that the RM particles could be complicit in LENR, but perhaps he didn't buy into the ultra-dense hypothesis. Bob Higgins
Re: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium
On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:59 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: RM forms from many atomic species, not just hydrogen isotopes. This RM is > NOT dense, and even sodium RM particles are detected in the Earth's upper > atmosphere, some 80 km high. > I'm not surprised. I would be more surprised if naturally-occurring Rydberg matter /were/ dense, given that the outer atomic electrons are less tightly bound and hence take up a larger volume. You can kind of reason through why it might be, but it all feels pretty speculative. If such potential energy existed for Coulomb explosion, then there would be > no natural means for even individual RM particles to switch to this state - > I.E. how can D(1) RM particles spontaneously jump to a configuration having > so much higher potential energy as D(0) is purported to have? > I've had a similar difficulty understanding how a system can go from very little energy (sub-eV) to high potential energy (many MeV), prior to the Coulomb explosion, at the point in which the energy is released in the explosion, unless there's something like LENR going on underneath. Part of Holmlid's difficulty is that he's using a very simple time-of-flight spectrometer of his own making, that counts from the time of a laser pulse to a signal in an oscilloscope. There is no obvious way to calibrate such a device against a standard source of known decay energy (e.g., americium). The next step for Holmlid would be to pull in someone with skill in measuring the energies and particles types in the current of particles that provides the experimental basis for so much of his hypothesis. None of this is to say that he doesn't have an interesting current of charged particles (and perhaps neutral ones). Eric
Re: [Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium
https://www.mpq.mpg.de/5020726/0720a_Rydberg_blockade.pdf Rydberg blockase is the quantum mechanical mechism whereby on typre of rydberg matter forses it state onto another type of matter. Potassium can force hydrogen in the rydberg matter state through entanglement. This is why a alkali metal is alway present as a secret sauce in the LENR process. But it is not rydberg matter that produces LENR effects. It is the surface plasmon polariton (SPP) condensates that rydberg matter catalyzes that produces the nuclear effects. These are balls of EMF that form when light and matter combine through entanglement. The Russians call this stuff ball lightning and Ken Shoulders called them EOV. The electron brings dipole energy to the polariton marriage, and light brings the ability of the polariton to aggregate in limitless density because it is a boson. Holmlid does not see the role of SPPs yet. These SPPs must be charged with huge amounts of energy before they become active in subatomic particle production through tachyon condensation. This is why LENR fuel preparation takes a long time. On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:59 AM, Bob Higgins wrote: > I would like to see more discussion of Holmlid's evidence for existence of > the ultra-dense deuterium D(0). > > From my reading, I understand the evidence for Rydberg Matter (RM) > particles, and it is strong. This evidence is based on rotational > spectroscopy of clouds of RM particles - the "snowflakes" I previously > mentioned. Because these RM particles have such large electron orbitals > (the Rydberg states), the RM particle spectra is highly susceptible to > electric fields (well known Stark effect) and magnetic fields (Zeeman > effect). In fact, the Stark effect is so large, it can be used with RM to > make tunable RM lasers. RM forms from many atomic species, not just > hydrogen isotopes. This RM is NOT dense, and even sodium RM particles are > detected in the Earth's upper atmosphere, some 80 km high. Obviously, to > float in such a thin atmosphere, the mass density of the particles must be > relatively low. > > Now we come to Holmlid's propositions. The first proposition is that RM > can form in monolayers on a metal oxide surface. This is not too far > fetched. One could easily visualize a self-assembling effect of the > hexagons under the right conditions. Has Holmlid proved a continuous > film? I haven't seen that evidence. In other words, the Holmlid surface > condensed H(1) / D(1) as a continuous film could simply be isolated RM > particles that have attached to the metal oxide surface. > > Holmlid's next proposition is the spontaneous switching on the surface of > the purported D(1) film with 150 pm atomic spacing to the ultra-dense form, > D(0) having 2.3 pm spacing. First, is Holmlid expecting us to believe that > the entire surface film shrinks in lateral dimensions by a factor of 65? > Even if such a state switch could occur, it would be unlikely to occur in > the entire film simultaneously - I think it would rip itself into small > islands. > > What is Holmlid's evidence for the 2.3 pm ultra-dense D(0) state? As near > as I can tell, the evidence comes from the energy calculated from a > supposed Coulomb explosion - I.E. sudden failure of the mechanism holding > the atoms at such a small inter-atomic spacing caused by an incident > laser. If such potential energy existed for Coulomb explosion, then there > would be no natural means for even individual RM particles to switch to > this state - I.E. how can D(1) RM particles spontaneously jump to a > configuration having so much higher potential energy as D(0) is purported > to have? > > So, how can Holmlid say that the cause of the measured ejecta atoms is > Coulomb explosion? Could it not be that some form of energetic reaction > occurred between the substrate, the D(1) particles on the surface, and the > laser? Perhaps a LENR reaction? > > Somewhere, Miley and Holmlid parted theoretical company. I think that > Miley may believe that the RM particles could be complicit in LENR, but > perhaps he didn't buy into the ultra-dense hypothesis. > > Bob Higgins >
[Vo]: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium
I would like to see more discussion of Holmlid's evidence for existence of the ultra-dense deuterium D(0). >From my reading, I understand the evidence for Rydberg Matter (RM) particles, and it is strong. This evidence is based on rotational spectroscopy of clouds of RM particles - the "snowflakes" I previously mentioned. Because these RM particles have such large electron orbitals (the Rydberg states), the RM particle spectra is highly susceptible to electric fields (well known Stark effect) and magnetic fields (Zeeman effect). In fact, the Stark effect is so large, it can be used with RM to make tunable RM lasers. RM forms from many atomic species, not just hydrogen isotopes. This RM is NOT dense, and even sodium RM particles are detected in the Earth's upper atmosphere, some 80 km high. Obviously, to float in such a thin atmosphere, the mass density of the particles must be relatively low. Now we come to Holmlid's propositions. The first proposition is that RM can form in monolayers on a metal oxide surface. This is not too far fetched. One could easily visualize a self-assembling effect of the hexagons under the right conditions. Has Holmlid proved a continuous film? I haven't seen that evidence. In other words, the Holmlid surface condensed H(1) / D(1) as a continuous film could simply be isolated RM particles that have attached to the metal oxide surface. Holmlid's next proposition is the spontaneous switching on the surface of the purported D(1) film with 150 pm atomic spacing to the ultra-dense form, D(0) having 2.3 pm spacing. First, is Holmlid expecting us to believe that the entire surface film shrinks in lateral dimensions by a factor of 65? Even if such a state switch could occur, it would be unlikely to occur in the entire film simultaneously - I think it would rip itself into small islands. What is Holmlid's evidence for the 2.3 pm ultra-dense D(0) state? As near as I can tell, the evidence comes from the energy calculated from a supposed Coulomb explosion - I.E. sudden failure of the mechanism holding the atoms at such a small inter-atomic spacing caused by an incident laser. If such potential energy existed for Coulomb explosion, then there would be no natural means for even individual RM particles to switch to this state - I.E. how can D(1) RM particles spontaneously jump to a configuration having so much higher potential energy as D(0) is purported to have? So, how can Holmlid say that the cause of the measured ejecta atoms is Coulomb explosion? Could it not be that some form of energetic reaction occurred between the substrate, the D(1) particles on the surface, and the laser? Perhaps a LENR reaction? Somewhere, Miley and Holmlid parted theoretical company. I think that Miley may believe that the RM particles could be complicit in LENR, but perhaps he didn't buy into the ultra-dense hypothesis. Bob Higgins
[Vo]:Making an active potassium iron oxide catalyst for the Holmlid effect
Shell 105 catalyst is no longer in production by Shell, but it can be obtained from others … yet what is being sold may be different in the all-important parameter: nanostructure. How can we be sure? Nanostructure is almost certainly the key to success in trying to replicate the dense hydrogen fabrication technique. BASF apparently bought the rights to this catalyst from Shell, and is the most reputable supplier. There are other specialty suppliers. However, the cost is obscenely high for what is basically a structured form of “rust.” Given the high cost, and more importantly - the lack of assurance on the nanostructure - the possibility arises for making the catalyst from bulk iron oxide and potassium hydroxide. This becomes a more interesting proposition if one has access to a high speed ball mill or equivalent and a well-equipped chemistry lab. Anyone considering the strategy of making the nanoporous iron oxide catalyst should have a look at this article from Nature, which is current, and very interesting. Almost makes one wonder if Nature has not finally seen the light, so to speak. http://www.nature.com/articles/srep09733 There are six different nanostructures shown for iron oxide. I am not sure which is best for the Holmlid effect and the formation of ultra-dense hydrogen, but there is a clue. Notably, in one of the pictured nanostructures (called “porous spheres” figure 3) a broad absorption edge at 535 nm was observed, which is a bit coincidental, no? This light frequency is associated with a double excitation process which is is also responsible for the red color of α-Fe2O3 phase. This is the laser frequency used by Holmlid. Note: the absorption frequency of light and the color seen by the human eye are not necessarily the same. Thus, a powder which appears red can be absorbent for green light (535 nm). FWIW: this red iron oxide powder is available on eBay for about $1/pound which is about 400 times less expensive than one of the suppliers is asking for their version of Shell 105. Jones
[Vo]:Re: NOV 03,2015 A LENR DAY OF HOMO DISCONTENTUS
Peter-- Of course you may quote me on your blog. Sincerely, Bob From: Peter Gluck Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 11:43 PM To: VORTEX Subject: Re: [Vo]:NOV 03,2015 A LENR DAY OF HOMO DISCONTENTUS thanks, dear Bob may I cite what you say on my Blog? yours Peter On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Bob Cook wrote: Peter-- The recent item by Andrea Calaon, “Electron Mediated Nuclear Reactions" I also found very interesting and well written. Philippi Hatt, who presented his theory of the makeup of the proton and neutron at ICCF-19, which theory has some similarities to the Calaon theory. The electron and positron are important particles in the “construction” of neutrons and protons for example. Hatt’s theory allows the calculation of the proton’s rest mass and magnetic moment to the accuracy of experimental evidence. Hatt notes: “As main result, the reader will observe that the nucleon is composed of information mass-quanta structured in a certain way so as to constitute this nucleon in its mass component as well as in its magnetic moment one. I obtained a mass of 939,551 Mev and 938,261 Mev respectively for the neutron and the proton. The values of the magnetic moment I calculated are – 1,913 and + 2,793 for the neutron and the proton.” Hatt’s theory may also support the predictions of Calaon regarding the role of electrons in causing nuclear reactions. Calaon and Hatt should confer. For further information see Hatt’s web page at: http://www.philippehatt.com Bob Cook From: Peter Gluck Sent: Tuesday, November 03, 2015 9:29 AM To: Arik El Boher ; Bo Hoistadt ; Brian Ahern ; CMNS ; Dagmar Kuhn ; David Daggett ; doug marker ; Dr. Braun Tibor ; eCatNews ; Gabriel Moagar-Poladian ; Gary ; Haiko Lietz ; jeff aries ; Mark Tsirlin ; Nicolaie N. Vlad ; Peter Bjorkbom ; Peter Mobberley ; Pierre Clauzon ; Roberto Germano ; Roy Virgilio ; Steve Katinski ; Sunwon Park ; Valerio Ciampoli ; vlad ; VORTEX Subject: [Vo]:NOV 03,2015 A LENR DAY OF HOMO DISCONTENTUS http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2015/11/03-nov-2015lenr-info-in-engtalian.html A Hungarian proverb says: "It's a fool he who dances better than he can!" Peter -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
