Re: [Vo]:Fast particles

[Axil Axil]

Mixent  makes a good point here. I read somewhere that UDH of was it
rydberg matter is a frozen plasma. If the definition of a plasma is total
charge separation, then UDH is a plasma. There is a positive core and a
negative electron spin wave covering that core on the outside of this
nanowire so UDH might well be a super dense plasma.

Once charged up with light energy, UDH needs an injection of just of a few
photons to produce muons again.

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 9:56 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  's message of Mon, 23 Jan 2017
> 13:55:21
> -0800:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Holmild’s  laser source description does not indicated a chirped laser
> source IMHO.
> >
> >Axil—What do yo mean by “carrier material”?
> >
> >As Axil has pointed out, the experimental process would not seem to
> produce much plasma, if any, and I doubt a plasma would support the surface
> reaction Holmild suggests..
> >
> 532 nm = 2.331 eV. This is probably enough to ionize Rydberg Hydrogen,
> depending
> on the exact level.
> The plasma will at least initially be dense, if the initial hydrogen is
> dense,
> simply because it doesn't have time to "explode".
>
> Quote from https://phys.org/news/2015-11-discovery-enable-portable-
> particle.html
>
> "If you increase the plasma density enough, even a pipsqueak of a laser
> pulse
> can generate strong relativistic effects," Milchberg added.
>
> Note that they were using plasma densities 20 greater than normal. However
> Holmlid is talking about densities a million times greater than normal
> IIRC.
>
> I suspect this means that a deliberately "chirped" laser may not be needed.
> If the accelerated protons attain GeV energies, then they are quite
> capable of
> creating a whole zoo of charged particles.
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

[Vo]:High Speed Photograpyt at 100 billion frames per second

[Ron Wormus]

The science is interesting, but the camera they developed to catch the 
phenomenon is incredible:


"Choi reports that the photography technique, called lossless-encoding 
compressed ultrafast photography (LLE-CUP), can capture 100 billion frames 
per second "

Re: [Vo]:Fast particles

[mixent]

In reply to  's message of Mon, 23 Jan 2017 13:55:21
-0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Holmild’s  laser source description does not indicated a chirped laser source 
>IMHO.  
>
>Axil—What do yo mean by “carrier material”?
>
>As Axil has pointed out, the experimental process would not seem to produce 
>much plasma, if any, and I doubt a plasma would support the surface reaction 
>Holmild suggests..  
>
532 nm = 2.331 eV. This is probably enough to ionize Rydberg Hydrogen, depending
on the exact level.
The plasma will at least initially be dense, if the initial hydrogen is dense,
simply because it doesn't have time to "explode".

Quote from https://phys.org/news/2015-11-discovery-enable-portable-particle.html

"If you increase the plasma density enough, even a pipsqueak of a laser pulse
can generate strong relativistic effects," Milchberg added.

Note that they were using plasma densities 20 greater than normal. However
Holmlid is talking about densities a million times greater than normal IIRC.

I suspect this means that a deliberately "chirped" laser may not be needed.
If the accelerated protons attain GeV energies, then they are quite capable of
creating a whole zoo of charged particles.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: [Vo]:Fast particles

[Russ George]

Holmlid’s mechanism is more likely a means to make ‘spillover’ hydrogen which 
is ready to become ultra-dense in a conveniently adjacent hydrogen loving 
lattice.  The laser stimulation helps condense the spillover hydrogen into that 
ultra-dense hydrogen form which has a significant character of being stable. 
That unexpected ‘cold fusion ready’ dense hydrogen stability has been 
uncommonly reported by the best cold fusioneers since 1989. 

 

The US Navy definitively described this phenomenal dense hydrogen ‘stability’ 
lasting weeks many years ago in studies of my highly reactive cold fusion 
materials which their scientists collected from my experiments with their own 
hands while I was required to stand aside so that no ‘magician’s trickery’ 
could be possible. They brought their own palladium to my lab, loaded it 
themselves in my apparatus, and removed their palladium when it had clearly 
begun to show massive anomalous heat (hundreds of watts not milliwatts) and 
took it back to their lab for thorough study.  Those who think this field of 
cold fusion is all about truth and justice and good scientific behavior are 
fooling themselves, it is and has been a down and dirty fight over what form of 
energy is allowed in society and simple low cost transformative energy 
technology is fought tooth and claw with ‘alternative facts’ by those with 
established energy to sell and protect.

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 5:45 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fast particles

 

Re: "Axil—What do yo mean by “carrier material”?"

The experiments of Holmlid explains how these nanoparticles work. IMHO in the 
Holmlid experiment, ultra-dense hydrogen (UDH) is produced in the presence of 
hydrogen by the iron oxide/potassium catalyst and falls onto the collection 
foil. That foil is made of a noble metal: iridium, palladium, or platinum. What 
this metal is made of is important because that collection foil metal has a 
special optical property: it reflect high frequency laser light. The green 
laser light bounces between the collection foil and the hydrogen gas. This 
generates Surface Plasmon Polaritons (SPP), a boson that is the entangled 
combination of the electrons on the surface of the ultra-dense hydrogen spin 
wave and the photons from the laser light. These polaritons store the huge 
amounts of energy that the ultra-dense hydrogen extracts from proton decay. 
This energy protects the UDH from temperature disruption because it functions 
as a magnetic shield. This enables the metastable existence (or shelf life) of 
the UDH that Holmlid has found in his experiments. Based on its energy content, 
the SPP covering on the UDH can last for weeks or months even if it is not 
recharge with more nuclear energy.

Holmlid has said that when the collection foil containing this rydberg matter 
is exposed to room light, the production of muons increase dramatically.

These production of muons continues for hours after the light is removed and 
gradually stops over an extended time.

It seems to me, that the UDH is capable of long term energy storage that 
defuses gradually over time. When that energy loss is replensihed by the action 
of applied light, the storage limit is reached and the UDH begines to produce 
muons again.

 

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:55 PM,  > wrote:

Holmild’s  laser source description does not indicated a chirped laser source 
IMHO.  

 

Axil—What do yo mean by “carrier material”?

As Axil has pointed out, the experimental process would not seem to produce 
much plasma, if any, and I doubt a plasma would support the surface reaction 
Holmild suggests..  

 

Does anyone know what the reaction of a anti-proton/proton annihilation 
produces—are there typically muons observed or only energetic photons, back to 
back?

 

( The following description from Wikipedia does not seem to apply since the 
input energy is to low—

“ When a   proton encounters its  
 antiparticle (and more generally, if 
any species of   baryon encounters the 
corresponding   antibaryon), the 
reaction is not as simple as electron-positron annihilation. Unlike an 
electron, a proton is a  
 composite 
particle consisting of three   
"valence quarks" and an indeterminate number of  
 "sea quarks" bound by  
 gluons. Thus, when a proton encounters an 
antiproton, one of its quarks, usually a constituent valence quark, may 
annihilate with an   antiquark (which 
more rarely could be a sea quark) to produce a gluon, after which the 

Re: [Vo]:Fast particles

[Axil Axil]

Re: "Axil—What do yo mean by “carrier material”?"

The experiments of Holmlid explains how these nanoparticles work. IMHO in
the Holmlid experiment, ultra-dense hydrogen (UDH) is produced in the
presence of hydrogen by the iron oxide/potassium catalyst and falls onto
the collection foil. That foil is made of a noble metal: iridium,
palladium, or platinum. What this metal is made of is important because
that *collection foil *metal has a special optical property: it reflect
high frequency laser light. The green laser light bounces between the
collection foil and the hydrogen gas. This generates Surface Plasmon
Polaritons (SPP), a boson that is the entangled combination of the
electrons on the surface of the ultra-dense hydrogen spin wave and the
photons from the laser light. These polaritons store the huge amounts of
energy that the ultra-dense hydrogen extracts from proton decay. This
energy protects the UDH from temperature disruption because it functions as
a magnetic shield. This enables the metastable existence (or shelf life) of
the UDH that Holmlid has found in his experiments. Based on its energy
content, the SPP covering on the UDH can last for weeks or months even if
it is not recharge with more nuclear energy.

Holmlid has said that when the collection foil containing this rydberg
matter is exposed to room light, the production of muons increase
dramatically.

These production of muons continues for hours after the light is removed
and gradually stops over an extended time.

It seems to me, that the UDH is capable of long term energy storage that
defuses gradually over time. When that energy loss is replensihed by the
action of applied light, the storage limit is reached and the UDH begines
to produce muons again.

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:55 PM,  wrote:

> Holmild’s  laser source description does not indicated a chirped laser
> source IMHO.
>
>
>
> Axil—What do yo mean by “carrier material”?
>
> As Axil has pointed out, the experimental process would not seem to
> produce much plasma, if any, and I doubt a plasma would support the surface
> reaction Holmild suggests..
>
>
>
> Does anyone know what the reaction of a anti-proton/proton annihilation
> produces—are there typically muons observed or only energetic photons, back
> to back?
>
>
>
> ( The following description from Wikipedia does not seem to apply since
> the input energy is to low—
>
> “ When a proton  encounters its
> antiparticle  (and more
> generally, if any species of baryon 
>  encounters the corresponding antibaryon
> ), the reaction is not as
> simple as electron-positron annihilation. Unlike an electron, a proton is a
>  composite particle
>  
> consisting
> of three "valence quarks"  and
> an indeterminate number of "sea quarks"
>  bound by gluons
> . Thus, when a proton encounters an
> antiproton, one of its quarks, usually a constituent valence quark, may
> annihilate with an antiquark  (which
> more rarely could be a sea quark) to produce a gluon, after which the gluon
> together with the remaining quarks, antiquarks and gluons will undergo a
> complex process of rearrangement (called hadronization or fragmentation
> ) into a number of mesons
> , (mostly pions
>  and kaons
> ), which will share the total energy
> and momentum. The newly created mesons are unstable, and unless they
> encounter and interact with some other material, they will decay in a
> series of reactions that ultimately produce only gamma rays
> , electrons
> , positrons
> , and neutrinos
> . This type of reaction will
> occur between any baryon  (particle
> consisting of three quarks) and any antibaryon
>  consisting of three
> antiquarks, one of which corresponds to a quark in the baryon. (This
> reaction is unlikely if at least one among the baryon and anti-baryon is
> exotic enough that they share no constituent quark flavors.) Antiprotons
> can and do annihilate with neutrons
> , and likewise antineutrons
>  can annihilate with protons,
> as discussed below.
>
> Reactions in which proton-antiproton annihilation produces as many as nine
> mesons have been observed, 

Re: [Vo]:Fast particles

[Axil Axil]

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/jul/05/new-boson-sparks-call-for-higgs-factory

New boson sparks call for 'Higgs factory'

If producing muons are so easy, why is CERN considering paying 10 to 20
billion euros for a muon facture for Higgs research?

Also see

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22021-physicists-propose-factory-to-spew-out-higgs-particles/
Physicists propose factory to spew out Higgs particles








On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> Don't forget that is the estimated power *density* in W/cm^2 over a beam
> waist cross-section of only 30 microns diameter.  From the description, it
> appears to be a diode pumped Nd:YAG laser that is frequency doubled (as are
> most green lasers today).  The 5ns pulse implies Q switching.  It is a
> pretty powerful class IV laser.  At 200mJ/pulse and 10pulses/second, that's
> 2000mJ/s or 2W average power of green light that has been focused.  If you
> look around on the web for what a 2W focused laser can do (and green
> focuses to a smaller spot than IR), you will see it igniting common
> materials, and capable of metal marking via evaporation.  This is not a
> "small" laser like a laser pointer - probably about 500x more.  But it is
> also not a SHIVA for hot ICF.
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
>
>> 10 to the 12th watts is sufficient to cause an unlimited family of
>> nuclear byproducts!
>>
>> LENR folks are not used to these power densities.
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Axil Axil 
>> *Sent:* Monday, January 23, 2017 11:00 AM
>> *To:* vortex-l
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fast particles
>>
>> From:
>>
>> Laser-induced fusion in ultra-dense deuterium D( 1): Optimizing MeV
>> particle emission by carrier material selection
>>
>> Quote:
>>
>> A Nd:YAG laser with an energy of <200 mJ per
>> each 5 ns long pulse at 10 Hz is used at 532 nm. The laser beam is
>> focused at the test surface with an f = 400 mm spherical lens. The
>> intensity in the beam waist of (nominally) 30 lm diameter is relatively
>> low, 4 <10e12Wcm 2 as calculated for a Gaussian beam
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Fast particles

[Bob Higgins]

Don't forget that is the estimated power *density* in W/cm^2 over a beam
waist cross-section of only 30 microns diameter.  From the description, it
appears to be a diode pumped Nd:YAG laser that is frequency doubled (as are
most green lasers today).  The 5ns pulse implies Q switching.  It is a
pretty powerful class IV laser.  At 200mJ/pulse and 10pulses/second, that's
2000mJ/s or 2W average power of green light that has been focused.  If you
look around on the web for what a 2W focused laser can do (and green
focuses to a smaller spot than IR), you will see it igniting common
materials, and capable of metal marking via evaporation.  This is not a
"small" laser like a laser pointer - probably about 500x more.  But it is
also not a SHIVA for hot ICF.

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 11:30 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:

> 10 to the 12th watts is sufficient to cause an unlimited family of nuclear
> byproducts!
>
> LENR folks are not used to these power densities.
>
> --
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *Sent:* Monday, January 23, 2017 11:00 AM
> *To:* vortex-l
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fast particles
>
> From:
>
> Laser-induced fusion in ultra-dense deuterium D( 1): Optimizing MeV
> particle emission by carrier material selection
>
> Quote:
>
> A Nd:YAG laser with an energy of <200 mJ per
> each 5 ns long pulse at 10 Hz is used at 532 nm. The laser beam is
> focused at the test surface with an f = 400 mm spherical lens. The
> intensity in the beam waist of (nominally) 30 lm diameter is relatively
> low, 4 <10e12Wcm 2 as calculated for a Gaussian beam
>

RE: [Vo]:Fast particles

[bobcook39923]

Holmild’s  laser source description does not indicated a chirped laser source 
IMHO.  

Axil—What do yo mean by “carrier material”?

As Axil has pointed out, the experimental process would not seem to produce 
much plasma, if any, and I doubt a plasma would support the surface reaction 
Holmild suggests..  

Does anyone know what the reaction of a anti-proton/proton annihilation 
produces—are there typically muons observed or only energetic photons, back to 
back?

( The following description from Wikipedia does not seem to apply since the 
input energy is to low—
“ When a proton encounters its antiparticle (and more generally, if any species 
of baryon encounters the corresponding antibaryon), the reaction is not as 
simple as electron-positron annihilation. Unlike an electron, a proton is a 
composite particle consisting of three "valence quarks" and an indeterminate 
number of "sea quarks" bound by gluons. Thus, when a proton encounters an 
antiproton, one of its quarks, usually a constituent valence quark, may 
annihilate with an antiquark (which more rarely could be a sea quark) to 
produce a gluon, after which the gluon together with the remaining quarks, 
antiquarks and gluons will undergo a complex process of rearrangement (called 
hadronization or fragmentation) into a number of mesons, (mostly pions and 
kaons), which will share the total energy and momentum. The newly created 
mesons are unstable, and unless they encounter and interact with some other 
material, they will decay in a series of reactions that ultimately produce only 
gamma rays, electrons, positrons, and neutrinos. This type of reaction will 
occur between any baryon (particle consisting of three quarks) and any 
antibaryon consisting of three antiquarks, one of which corresponds to a quark 
in the baryon. (This reaction is unlikely if at least one among the baryon and 
anti-baryon is exotic enough that they share no constituent quark flavors.) 
Antiprotons can and do annihilate with neutrons, and likewise antineutrons can 
annihilate with protons, as discussed below.
Reactions in which proton-antiproton annihilation produces as many as nine 
mesons have been observed, while production of thirteen mesons is theoretically 
possible. The generated mesons leave the site of the annihilation at moderate 
fractions of the speed of light, and decay with whatever lifetime is 
appropriate for their type of meson.[4]
Similar reactions will occur when an antinucleon annihilates within a more 
complex atomic nucleus, save that the resulting mesons, being strongly 
interacting, have a significant probability of being absorbed by one of the 
remaining "spectator" nucleons rather than escaping. Since the absorbed energy 
can be as much as ~2 GeV, it can in principle exceed the binding energy of even 
the heaviest nuclei. Thus, when an antiproton annihilates inside a heavy 
nucleus such as uranium or plutonium, partial or complete disruption of the 
nucleus can occur, releasing large numbers of fast neutrons.[5] Such reactions 
open the possibility for triggering a significant number of secondary fission 
reactions in a subcritical mass, and may potentially be useful for spacecraft 
‘propulsion.’

 It may be that the laser pulse changes the charge on one or two protons or 
deuterons similar to the mechanism for creation of electron/positron pairs or 
merely disrupts the coupling of existing Cooper pairs of p or  D(0) itself.  (I 
do not buy the quark-gluon theory expressed above in the Wikipedia quote.) 

Bob Cook
From: Jones Beene
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 10:57 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fast particles


Ok - it is likely from the specs that Holmlid's laser is not a (chirp amplified 
pulse) CAP using exotic gratings and so forth. That is important. 
Since it is simply a plain vanilla low-powered-pulse from a ow priced laser ... 
but it a pulse which works... and if we believe it works, then that tells us 
much about the physics involved. Yet it is not new physics.
The yellow-green light frequency is important. In fact, this result is reported 
in the literature going back a decade; but it is overlooked that laser fusion 
at low power has been demonstrated a number of times using this exact frequency 
of light from several other labs - and to little fanfare, such as here:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/TianJexcessheatb.pdf
There are other papers where 532 nm lasers have produced anomalous fusion. 
Maybe other frequencies work, maybe not.
If we could be certain that Holmlid is correct, then what he has done is to 
show that the process for fusion involves muon production, which is far more 
energetic than nuclear fusion - and the total annihilation of hydrogen nuclei 
can be done without chirping.
That is huge ... even if it has been overlooked for a decade. Even if it is a 
QM effect which does not scale, it is huge since there is a faction of the 
output which is charged particles and that means the effect can be more than 

[Vo]:Re: Fast particles

[mixent]

Hi,

Furthermore, an accelerator will accelerate any charged particle, not just
electrons.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:Re: Fast particles

[mixent]

Hi,

It seems to me that the fact that it also works in ordinary hydrogen speaks, for
the argument that an accelerator is involved, rather than against it.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:(fwd) Re: Fast particles

[mixent]

Hi,

This is the reply from Prof. Holmlid.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2017 10:06:38 +0100, holmlid  wrote:

>Dear Mr van Spaandonk,
>
>The mechanism for the nuclear reactions in H(0) is not
>
>coupled to electron acceleration. The nuclear process works also
>
>with ordinary hydrogen. I attach a recent paper.
>
>Best regards, Leif Holmlid
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

[Vo]:LENR INFO, QUESTIONS

[Peter Gluck]

http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2017/01/jan-23-2017-lenr-info-questions.html

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

Re: [Vo]:Fast particles

[Axil Axil]

From:

A novel model for the interpretation of the unidentified infrared (UIR)
bands from interstellar space: deexcitation of Rydberg Matter

Quote:

"Thus in the laboratory, it is sufficient to heat a graphite or
other surface with a graphite layer, or a metal oxide surface, to
rapidly form Rydberg states of alkali metal impurities, which
then condense to form Rydberg clusters and RM clusters. A
rather lowintensity visible light is also shown to desorb Rydberg
states and to form RM. These states also have catalytic effects
and transfer their energy to gas molecules to form Rydberg states
and RM. It is likely that the same processes take place in the
ISM at particle surfaces at much lower temperatures, since the
quenching rate of the Rydberg species is lower due to the much
lower density."

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 1:30 PM, Brian Ahern  wrote:

> 10 to the 12th watts is sufficient to cause an unlimited family of nuclear
> byproducts!
>
>
> LENR folks are not used to these power densities.
>
>
> --
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *Sent:* Monday, January 23, 2017 11:00 AM
>
> *To:* vortex-l
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fast particles
>
> From:
>
> Laser-induced fusion in ultra-dense deuterium D( 1): Optimizing MeV
> particle emission by carrier material selection
>
> Quote:
>
> A Nd:YAG laser with an energy of <200 mJ per
> each 5 ns long pulse at 10 Hz is used at 532 nm. The laser beam is
> focused at the test surface with an f = 400 mm spherical lens. The
> intensity in the beam waist of (nominally) 30 lm diameter is relatively
> low, 4 <10e12Wcm 2 as calculated for a Gaussian beam
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:
>
>> Holmlid has left out the most important experimental detail.
>>
>>
>> What is the laser like? I suspect it is chirped into the exowatt range
>> where anything can happen.
>>
>>
>> This is a rich field that does not require any suppositions about dense
>> hydrogen.  Large accelerators became nearly obsolete by the chirped laser
>> capabilities since 1998.
>>
>>
>> The failure to describe the laser input casts a pall on everything he has
>> posted in the last 20 years.
>>
>>
>> --
>> *From:* Axil Axil 
>> *Sent:* Monday, January 23, 2017 12:12 AM
>> *To:* vortex-l
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fast particles
>>
>> I don.t think that Holmlid is producing a hydrogen plasma at the place
>> where the LASER strikes the collection foil, because the Ultra Dense
>> hydrogen on the collection foil is not ionized as it falls by gravity from
>> the iron oxide catalyst into the collection foil, A plasma would be too
>> energetic to allow that collection process, especially a wakefield
>> energized plasma.
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:21 PM,  wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Professor,
>>>
>>> The conventional means of producing muons is through bombardment with GeV
>>> particles in a particle accelerator.
>>> So if one had a cheap and efficient means of producing muons, then muon
>>> catalyzed D-D fusion might be economic.
>>> It seems you may have built such a particle accelerator, see
>>>
>>> https://phys.org/news/2015-11-discovery-enable-portable-particle.html
>>>
>>> The process upon which this is based bombards a very dense plasma, with
>>> a pulsed
>>> laser which seems to describe your experimental setup quite well.
>>>
>>> The particle accelerator might explain the energetic particles that you
>>> are
>>> detecting, while the muon catalyzed fusion may explain the excess energy.
>>>
>>> I might add that while muons catalyze fusion reactions, the same might
>>> also be
>>> true of negatively charged mesons, since they are even heavier than
>>> muons, so
>>> the tunneling time should be even further reduced. True, the  lifetime
>>> of pions
>>> is very short, but this may not matter in a very dense plasma, since the
>>> density
>>> means that the travel distance to the next atom is also very short.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Robin van Spaandonk 
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:Fast particles

[Jones Beene]

Ok - it is likely from the specs that Holmlid's laser is not a (chirp 
amplified pulse) CAP using exotic gratings and so forth. That is important.


Since it is simply a plain vanilla low-powered-pulse from a ow priced 
laser ... but it a pulse which works... and if we believe it works, then 
that tells us much about the physics involved. Yet it is not new physics.


The yellow-green light frequency is important. In fact, this result is 
reported in the literature going back a decade; but it is overlooked 
that laser fusion at low power has been demonstrated a number of times 
using this exact frequency of light from several other labs - and to 
little fanfare, such as here:


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

There are other papers where 532 nm lasers have produced anomalous 
fusion. Maybe other frequencies work, maybe not.


If we could be certain that Holmlid is correct, then what he has done is 
to show that the process for fusion involves muon production, which is 
far more energetic than nuclear fusion - and the total annihilation of 
hydrogen nuclei can be done without chirping.


That is huge ... even if it has been overlooked for a decade. Even if it 
is a QM effect which does not scale, it is huge since there is a faction 
of the output which is charged particles and that means the effect can 
be more than additive.



Axil Axil wrote:

From: Laser-induced fusion in ultra-dense deuterium D( 1): Optimizing MeV
particle emission by carrier material selection

Quote: A Nd:YAG laser with an energy of <200 mJ per
each 5 ns long pulse at 10 Hz is used at 532 nm. The laser beam is
focused at the test surface with an f = 400 mm spherical lens. The
intensity in the beam waist of (nominally) 30 lm diameter is relatively
low, 4 <10e12Wcm 2 as calculated for a Gaussian beam

Brian Ahern  wrote:

Holmlid has left out the most important experimental detail.

What is the laser like? I suspect it is chirped into the exowatt
range where anything can happen.

This is a rich field that does not require any suppositions about
dense hydrogen.  Large accelerators became nearly obsolete by the
chirped laser capabilities since 1998.

Re: [Vo]:Fast particles

[Brian Ahern]

10 to the 12th watts is sufficient to cause an unlimited family of nuclear 
byproducts!


LENR folks are not used to these power densities.



From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 11:00 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fast particles

From:

Laser-induced fusion in ultra-dense deuterium D( 1): Optimizing MeV
particle emission by carrier material selection

Quote:

A Nd:YAG laser with an energy of <200 mJ per
each 5 ns long pulse at 10 Hz is used at 532 nm. The laser beam is
focused at the test surface with an f = 400 mm spherical lens. The
intensity in the beam waist of (nominally) 30 lm diameter is relatively
low, 4 <10e12Wcm 2 as calculated for a Gaussian beam

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Brian Ahern 
> wrote:

Holmlid has left out the most important experimental detail.


What is the laser like? I suspect it is chirped into the exowatt range where 
anything can happen.


This is a rich field that does not require any suppositions about dense 
hydrogen.  Large accelerators became nearly obsolete by the chirped laser 
capabilities since 1998.


The failure to describe the laser input casts a pall on everything he has 
posted in the last 20 years.



From: Axil Axil >
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 12:12 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fast particles

I don.t think that Holmlid is producing a hydrogen plasma at the place where 
the LASER strikes the collection foil, because the Ultra Dense hydrogen on the 
collection foil is not ionized as it falls by gravity from the iron oxide 
catalyst into the collection foil, A plasma would be too energetic to allow 
that collection process, especially a wakefield energized plasma.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:21 PM, 
> wrote:
Dear Professor,

The conventional means of producing muons is through bombardment with GeV
particles in a particle accelerator.
So if one had a cheap and efficient means of producing muons, then muon
catalyzed D-D fusion might be economic.
It seems you may have built such a particle accelerator, see

https://phys.org/news/2015-11-discovery-enable-portable-particle.html

The process upon which this is based bombards a very dense plasma, with a pulsed
laser which seems to describe your experimental setup quite well.

The particle accelerator might explain the energetic particles that you are
detecting, while the muon catalyzed fusion may explain the excess energy.

I might add that while muons catalyze fusion reactions, the same might also be
true of negatively charged mesons, since they are even heavier than muons, so
the tunneling time should be even further reduced. True, the  lifetime of pions
is very short, but this may not matter in a very dense plasma, since the density
means that the travel distance to the next atom is also very short.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk >

Re: [Vo]:Fast particles

[Axil Axil]

From:

Laser-induced fusion in ultra-dense deuterium D( 1): Optimizing MeV
particle emission by carrier material selection

Quote:

A Nd:YAG laser with an energy of <200 mJ per
each 5 ns long pulse at 10 Hz is used at 532 nm. The laser beam is
focused at the test surface with an f = 400 mm spherical lens. The
intensity in the beam waist of (nominally) 30 lm diameter is relatively
low, 4 <10e12Wcm 2 as calculated for a Gaussian beam

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Brian Ahern  wrote:

> Holmlid has left out the most important experimental detail.
>
>
> What is the laser like? I suspect it is chirped into the exowatt range
> where anything can happen.
>
>
> This is a rich field that does not require any suppositions about dense
> hydrogen.  Large accelerators became nearly obsolete by the chirped laser
> capabilities since 1998.
>
>
> The failure to describe the laser input casts a pall on everything he has
> posted in the last 20 years.
>
>
> --
> *From:* Axil Axil 
> *Sent:* Monday, January 23, 2017 12:12 AM
> *To:* vortex-l
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Fast particles
>
> I don.t think that Holmlid is producing a hydrogen plasma at the place
> where the LASER strikes the collection foil, because the Ultra Dense
> hydrogen on the collection foil is not ionized as it falls by gravity from
> the iron oxide catalyst into the collection foil, A plasma would be too
> energetic to allow that collection process, especially a wakefield
> energized plasma.
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:21 PM,  wrote:
>
>> Dear Professor,
>>
>> The conventional means of producing muons is through bombardment with GeV
>> particles in a particle accelerator.
>> So if one had a cheap and efficient means of producing muons, then muon
>> catalyzed D-D fusion might be economic.
>> It seems you may have built such a particle accelerator, see
>>
>> https://phys.org/news/2015-11-discovery-enable-portable-particle.html
>>
>> The process upon which this is based bombards a very dense plasma, with a
>> pulsed
>> laser which seems to describe your experimental setup quite well.
>>
>> The particle accelerator might explain the energetic particles that you
>> are
>> detecting, while the muon catalyzed fusion may explain the excess energy.
>>
>> I might add that while muons catalyze fusion reactions, the same might
>> also be
>> true of negatively charged mesons, since they are even heavier than
>> muons, so
>> the tunneling time should be even further reduced. True, the  lifetime of
>> pions
>> is very short, but this may not matter in a very dense plasma, since the
>> density
>> means that the travel distance to the next atom is also very short.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Robin van Spaandonk 
>>
>>
>

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Eric Walker]

I found the LENR Forum thread where we looked in detail at several papers
by Holmlid and Holmlid and Olafsson:

   - dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2015.06.116, "Spontaneous ejection of
   high-energy particles from ultra-dense deuterium D(0)", Holmlid and Olafsson
   - dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4928109, "Muon detection studied by pulse-height
   energy analysis: Novel converter arrangements", Holmlid and Olafsson
   - dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218301315500809, "Nuclear particle decay in a
   multi-MeV beam ejected by pulsed-laser impact on ultra-dense hydrogen
   H(0)", Holmlid

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/3728-can-we-talk-about-holmlid/

Here is the mainstream physics view on ultra-dense deuterium, which, even
though it might be blinkered, is good at least to be aware of:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/36064/is-ultradense-deuterium-real

Eric

Re: [Vo]:Fast particles

[Brian Ahern]

Holmlid has left out the most important experimental detail.


What is the laser like? I suspect it is chirped into the exowatt range where 
anything can happen.


This is a rich field that does not require any suppositions about dense 
hydrogen.  Large accelerators became nearly obsolete by the chirped laser 
capabilities since 1998.


The failure to describe the laser input casts a pall on everything he has 
posted in the last 20 years.



From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 12:12 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fast particles

I don.t think that Holmlid is producing a hydrogen plasma at the place where 
the LASER strikes the collection foil, because the Ultra Dense hydrogen on the 
collection foil is not ionized as it falls by gravity from the iron oxide 
catalyst into the collection foil, A plasma would be too energetic to allow 
that collection process, especially a wakefield energized plasma.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:21 PM, 
> wrote:
Dear Professor,

The conventional means of producing muons is through bombardment with GeV
particles in a particle accelerator.
So if one had a cheap and efficient means of producing muons, then muon
catalyzed D-D fusion might be economic.
It seems you may have built such a particle accelerator, see

https://phys.org/news/2015-11-discovery-enable-portable-particle.html

The process upon which this is based bombards a very dense plasma, with a pulsed
laser which seems to describe your experimental setup quite well.

The particle accelerator might explain the energetic particles that you are
detecting, while the muon catalyzed fusion may explain the excess energy.

I might add that while muons catalyze fusion reactions, the same might also be
true of negatively charged mesons, since they are even heavier than muons, so
the tunneling time should be even further reduced. True, the  lifetime of pions
is very short, but this may not matter in a very dense plasma, since the density
means that the travel distance to the next atom is also very short.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk >