Re: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
As I recall, the Coulomb repulsion is an r^-2 effect whereas the forces between magnetic dipoles is more of an r^-3 effect. This means that the magnetic field effect falls off more quickly with radius, but on the other hand it increases more quickly with decreasing r. This is only true to a certain scale. At a distance between the nuclei commensurate with the Rydberg orbital radius, I think the r^-3 relationship no longer holds or it would form a singulatiry. Its funny that in Winterberg's descriptions of the stacks of Rydberg clusters, that the strings that are magnetically aligned could vibrate/resonate like Ed Storms' hydrotons. On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 6:16 PM, wrote: > In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Sun, 10 Jan 2016 16:23:21 -0700: > Hi, > >Since in this case we are talking about H or D Rydberg snowflakes, I > think the electrons are all in large planar Rydberg orbitals and this > hexagonal Rydberg snowflake would behave as a BEC. Because of that, if one > of the electrons were forced to take a different orbital, it may completely > disrupt the cluster. So I have been thinking about ways that the small > separation could occur that could work across an entire snowflake all at > once. > > > >I have mentally postulated that as more and more "snowflakes" align and > stack, perhaps the magnetic moment forces along the axis of the aligned > atoms squeeze the layers together, just as 3 magnet disks stacked will > produce a greater axial field than 2 magnet disks. In the case of disk > magnets, as the number in the stack increases, at some point the axial > field will not continue to increase - because of the high permeability of > the magnetic material, the field will leak out the sides. It could be that > these highly anisotropic Rydberg snowflakes may not suffer that effect and > the axial magnetic field may continue to increase for a large number of > stacked layers. > [snip] > > The problem I have with this approach is that while the magnetic > attraction does > increase with additional layers, so does the electrostatic repulsion, and > electrostatic force is always greater than or equal to magnetic force (or > not?) > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
Re: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Sun, 10 Jan 2016 16:23:21 -0700: Hi, I wrote:- "The problem I have with this approach is that while the magnetic attraction does increase with additional layers, so does the electrostatic repulsion, and electrostatic force is always greater than or equal to magnetic force (or not?)" Upon reconsidering this, it occurs to me that each individual atom will be electrically neutral, so stacking them probably wont add much if anything to the electrostatic repulsion. The magnetic fields OTOH will add because the magnetic field of the electron will be much different to that of the proton/deuteron. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Sun, 10 Jan 2016 16:23:21 -0700: Hi, >Since in this case we are talking about H or D Rydberg snowflakes, I think the >electrons are all in large planar Rydberg orbitals and this hexagonal Rydberg >snowflake would behave as a BEC. Because of that, if one of the electrons >were forced to take a different orbital, it may completely disrupt the >cluster. So I have been thinking about ways that the small separation could >occur that could work across an entire snowflake all at once. > >I have mentally postulated that as more and more "snowflakes" align and stack, >perhaps the magnetic moment forces along the axis of the aligned atoms squeeze >the layers together, just as 3 magnet disks stacked will produce a greater >axial field than 2 magnet disks. In the case of disk magnets, as the number >in the stack increases, at some point the axial field will not continue to >increase - because of the high permeability of the magnetic material, the >field will leak out the sides. It could be that these highly anisotropic >Rydberg snowflakes may not suffer that effect and the axial magnetic field may >continue to increase for a large number of stacked layers. [snip] The problem I have with this approach is that while the magnetic attraction does increase with additional layers, so does the electrostatic repulsion, and electrostatic force is always greater than or equal to magnetic force (or not?) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
It is currently assumed that hot fusion occurs inside the sun and stars. but could cold fusion power the nuclear reactions at the center on the sun? Could liquid hydrogen be so impervious to change that it defeats the hot fusion process? If LeClair's water crystal can produce supernova level nuclear reactions: the transmutation of transuranic elements without being affected in any way, how could this type of hydrogen produce hot fusion? LeClair says that the water crystal can handle pressure in cavitation beyond 10,000,000 bar without being destroyed. On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 6:23 PM, Bob Higgins wrote: > I think the argument being offered is that because the Rydberg matter has > such large diameter electron orbitals, there is a high magnetic moment for > these materials. When one ~2D hexagonal Rydberg "snowflake" is put atop > another, the magnetic moments align like two disk magnets oriented > N-S-N-S. > > Since in this case we are talking about H or D Rydberg snowflakes, I think > the electrons are all in large planar Rydberg orbitals and this hexagonal > Rydberg snowflake would behave as a BEC. Because of that, if one of the > electrons were forced to take a different orbital, it may completely > disrupt the cluster. So I have been thinking about ways that the small > separation could occur that could work across an entire snowflake all at > once. > > I have mentally postulated that as more and more "snowflakes" align and > stack, perhaps the magnetic moment forces along the axis of the aligned > atoms squeeze the layers together, just as 3 magnet disks stacked will > produce a greater axial field than 2 magnet disks. In the case of disk > magnets, as the number in the stack increases, at some point the axial > field will not continue to increase - because of the high permeability of > the magnetic material, the field will leak out the sides. It could be that > these highly anisotropic Rydberg snowflakes may not suffer that effect and > the axial magnetic field may continue to increase for a large number of > stacked layers. > > Also, in that same vein... if one of the electrons in a Rydberg cluster > (presume BEC) were excited out of the Rydberg state (ionized) perhaps by a > photon interaction, the whole snowflake could self-destruct. If it were an > inner layer for a large stack of snowflakes that self-destructed, you could > have the effect of the magnetic field of many stacked snowflakes acting on > the particles - sort of a magnetic explosion. In that case, it may be > possible that a particle could receive magnetic accelerations from many > layers at once - a large number of atoms in the stack acting upon the few > particles of the disintegrating inner layer that was ionized by the > photon. In that case, the energy supplied may not represent Coulombic > explosion, but instead an Oersted explosion with many particles acting on a > few. Then the whole business of the 2.3 pm spacing, based solely on > Coulombic explosion calculations, is pure poppycock. > > However, I do not understand Winterberg's postulate entirely and this > magnetic theory of mine could be total crap. > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 1:54 PM, wrote: > >> In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Sun, 10 Jan 2016 10:51:47 -0700: >> Hi, >> >> This message will only make sense if viewed with a fixed width font. >> [snip] >> >What Holmlid proposes is that planar hexagonal Rydberg clusters of >> deuterium can form stacks where the inter-nucleus spacing in the stack can >> be 2.3 pm. The hexagonal Rydberg clusters are essentially planar with an >> inter-nucleus spacing that is bigger than D2 gas. So, in one dimension, >> along the column of the stack, Holmlid claims that the inter-nucleus >> spacing is 2.3 pm, while in the other 2 dimensions the inter-nucleus >> spacing is 100x bigger. From a density standpoint, this would be a set of >> linear strings. How do you ascribe density to something that is a linear >> string? It would certainly be a tensor. >> [snip] >> I was going to write:- >> >> What makes me highly skeptical of the claim is that I see no way to get >> two >> deuterons (or protons for that matter), within 2.3 pm of one another >> while the >> electrons are hundreds of pm away. >> >> ...when it occurred to me that the columns might interleave, such that the >> electrons from one layer came between the nuclei from the layers above and >> below. The spacing between layers would then be half of 2.3 pm. >> >> Imagine pushing two parallel "cylinders" into one another until the wall >> of each >> reached the axis of the other, with the layers of each "cylinder" >> interleaving >> with those of the other.) >> >> A1 A2 >> E N E >> E N E >> E N E >> E N E >> E N E >> E N E >> >> Each E N E layer is actu
Re: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
I think the argument being offered is that because the Rydberg matter has such large diameter electron orbitals, there is a high magnetic moment for these materials. When one ~2D hexagonal Rydberg "snowflake" is put atop another, the magnetic moments align like two disk magnets oriented N-S-N-S. Since in this case we are talking about H or D Rydberg snowflakes, I think the electrons are all in large planar Rydberg orbitals and this hexagonal Rydberg snowflake would behave as a BEC. Because of that, if one of the electrons were forced to take a different orbital, it may completely disrupt the cluster. So I have been thinking about ways that the small separation could occur that could work across an entire snowflake all at once. I have mentally postulated that as more and more "snowflakes" align and stack, perhaps the magnetic moment forces along the axis of the aligned atoms squeeze the layers together, just as 3 magnet disks stacked will produce a greater axial field than 2 magnet disks. In the case of disk magnets, as the number in the stack increases, at some point the axial field will not continue to increase - because of the high permeability of the magnetic material, the field will leak out the sides. It could be that these highly anisotropic Rydberg snowflakes may not suffer that effect and the axial magnetic field may continue to increase for a large number of stacked layers. Also, in that same vein... if one of the electrons in a Rydberg cluster (presume BEC) were excited out of the Rydberg state (ionized) perhaps by a photon interaction, the whole snowflake could self-destruct. If it were an inner layer for a large stack of snowflakes that self-destructed, you could have the effect of the magnetic field of many stacked snowflakes acting on the particles - sort of a magnetic explosion. In that case, it may be possible that a particle could receive magnetic accelerations from many layers at once - a large number of atoms in the stack acting upon the few particles of the disintegrating inner layer that was ionized by the photon. In that case, the energy supplied may not represent Coulombic explosion, but instead an Oersted explosion with many particles acting on a few. Then the whole business of the 2.3 pm spacing, based solely on Coulombic explosion calculations, is pure poppycock. However, I do not understand Winterberg's postulate entirely and this magnetic theory of mine could be total crap. On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 1:54 PM, wrote: > In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Sun, 10 Jan 2016 10:51:47 -0700: > Hi, > > This message will only make sense if viewed with a fixed width font. > [snip] > >What Holmlid proposes is that planar hexagonal Rydberg clusters of > deuterium can form stacks where the inter-nucleus spacing in the stack can > be 2.3 pm. The hexagonal Rydberg clusters are essentially planar with an > inter-nucleus spacing that is bigger than D2 gas. So, in one dimension, > along the column of the stack, Holmlid claims that the inter-nucleus > spacing is 2.3 pm, while in the other 2 dimensions the inter-nucleus > spacing is 100x bigger. From a density standpoint, this would be a set of > linear strings. How do you ascribe density to something that is a linear > string? It would certainly be a tensor. > [snip] > I was going to write:- > > What makes me highly skeptical of the claim is that I see no way to get two > deuterons (or protons for that matter), within 2.3 pm of one another while > the > electrons are hundreds of pm away. > > ...when it occurred to me that the columns might interleave, such that the > electrons from one layer came between the nuclei from the layers above and > below. The spacing between layers would then be half of 2.3 pm. > > Imagine pushing two parallel "cylinders" into one another until the wall > of each > reached the axis of the other, with the layers of each "cylinder" > interleaving > with those of the other.) > > A1 A2 > E N E > E N E > E N E > E N E > E N E > E N E > > Each E N E layer is actually a single atom where the two E's represent a > single > electron in a circular orbit. N stands for nucleus. A1 is the axis of the > first > vertical cylinder. A2 is the axis of the second vertical cylinder. > > I wonder if coincidentally(?) the vertical separation distance is the fine > structure constant times the radius?? > > > > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
Re: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
In reply to Bob Higgins's message of Sun, 10 Jan 2016 10:51:47 -0700: Hi, This message will only make sense if viewed with a fixed width font. [snip] >What Holmlid proposes is that planar hexagonal Rydberg clusters of deuterium >can form stacks where the inter-nucleus spacing in the stack can be 2.3 pm. >The hexagonal Rydberg clusters are essentially planar with an inter-nucleus >spacing that is bigger than D2 gas. So, in one dimension, along the column of >the stack, Holmlid claims that the inter-nucleus spacing is 2.3 pm, while in >the other 2 dimensions the inter-nucleus spacing is 100x bigger. From a >density standpoint, this would be a set of linear strings. How do you ascribe >density to something that is a linear string? It would certainly be a tensor. [snip] I was going to write:- What makes me highly skeptical of the claim is that I see no way to get two deuterons (or protons for that matter), within 2.3 pm of one another while the electrons are hundreds of pm away. ...when it occurred to me that the columns might interleave, such that the electrons from one layer came between the nuclei from the layers above and below. The spacing between layers would then be half of 2.3 pm. Imagine pushing two parallel "cylinders" into one another until the wall of each reached the axis of the other, with the layers of each "cylinder" interleaving with those of the other.) A1 A2 E N E E N E E N E E N E E N E E N E Each E N E layer is actually a single atom where the two E's represent a single electron in a circular orbit. N stands for nucleus. A1 is the axis of the first vertical cylinder. A2 is the axis of the second vertical cylinder. I wonder if coincidentally(?) the vertical separation distance is the fine structure constant times the radius?? Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
Bob, Winterberg’s understanding differs from Holmlid’s and Holmlid’s older papers have been modified considerably in the newer ones. Many details are in a state of flux. The snowflakes could be far smaller. The overarching argument is that Mills, Holmlid, Winterberg, Miley, Hora and all the others who have explored the theme of condensed hydrogen clusters, could be partly right and partly wrong. I do not have a problem with a mashup of all of them. From: Bob Higgins Ø My understanding was that the hexagonal iron oxide catalyst was responsible for making the planar hexagonal Rydberg "snowflakes". These "snowflakes" form a dusty plasma in his system and spontaneously align to form stacks of "snowflakes" having the 2.3 pm separation [Winterberg]. I don't think the iron oxide is responsible for anything but forming the pre-cursor hexagonal Rydberg "snowflakes" that then forms the dusty plasma. From: Bob Higgins Ø I am not convinced at all that Holmlid's strings of "UDD" exist. The existence of the low density hexagonal Rydberg "snowflakes" of hydrogen is a fairly well established fact. I cannot see how any of this is a path to large scale fusion even if it exists. As I understand Holmlid’s argument - iron oxide is the matrix which makes it all happen. Iron oxide is naturally structured as nanoporous, with holes of one nanometer diameter which are located in the center of hexagons of iron-oxide, and which align as deep narrow wells. Presumably, the strings of UDD would be positioned inside these deep holes like drilling strings, providing an extended lifetime but requiring that the matrix must also be included as part of the fuel. Although it would appear at first glance that this structure is mostly iron oxide, the spacing of the stacked layers in the strings is so close (2.3 pm), that there would be many more actual atoms of UDD compared to the matrix. Until there is independent replication, I agree with Bob that this is not convincing on its own. Yet, it should be relatively easy to show some previous anomaly in hydrogen loaded iron-oxide due to the industrial importance. In fact, using hydrogen to reduce hematite was once considered as a way to make pure steel from iron ore with no coal. Sooner or later I will get around to digging up old papers looking for reported thermal anomalies.
Re: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
There is no way that the UDD as described by Holmlid/Winterberg could enter ANY metal lattice. The Ni lattice does not admit even neutral monatomic hydrogen and the Rydberg snowflake stacks that form UDD are much bigger than an H2 molecule. On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Teslaalset wrote: > Holmlid suggests 0.18 s lifetime possible. See: > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244327849_Formation_of_long-lived_Rydberg_states_of_H_2_at_K_impregnated_surfaces > > Question is, when UDD realy exists, does it allow to store in metal > lattices (e.g. Nickel) and when so, will this expand it’s lifetime? > >
Re: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
My understanding was that the hexagonal iron oxide catalyst was responsible for making the planar hexagonal Rydberg "snowflakes". These "snowflakes" form a dusty plasma in his system and spontaneously align to form stacks of "snowflakes" having the 2.3 pm separation [Winterberg]. I don't think the iron oxide is responsible for anything but forming the pre-cursor hexagonal Rydberg "snowflakes" that then forms the dusty plasma. On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > *From:* Bob Higgins > > Ø I am not convinced at all that Holmlid's strings of "UDD" exist. > The existence of the low density hexagonal Rydberg "snowflakes" of hydrogen > is a fairly well established fact. I cannot see how any of this is a path > to large scale fusion even if it exists. > > As I understand Holmlid’s argument - iron oxide is the matrix which makes > it all happen. Iron oxide is naturally structured as nanoporous, with > holes of one nanometer diameter which are located in the center of hexagons > of iron-oxide, and which align as deep narrow wells. Presumably, the > strings of UDD would be positioned inside these deep holes like drilling > strings, providing an extended lifetime but requiring that the matrix > must also be included as part of the fuel. > > Although it would appear at first glance that this structure is mostly > iron oxide, the spacing of the stacked layers in the strings is so close > (2.3 pm), that there would be many more actual atoms of UDD compared to > the matrix. > > Until there is independent replication, I agree with Bob that this is not > convincing on its own. Yet, it should be relatively easy to show some > previous anomaly in hydrogen loaded iron-oxide due to the industrial > importance. > > In fact, using hydrogen to reduce hematite was once considered as a way > to make pure steel from iron ore with no coal. Sooner or later I will get > around to digging up old papers looking for reported thermal anomalies. > >
RE: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
From: Bob Higgins * I am not convinced at all that Holmlid's strings of "UDD" exist. The existence of the low density hexagonal Rydberg "snowflakes" of hydrogen is a fairly well established fact. I cannot see how any of this is a path to large scale fusion even if it exists. As I understand Holmlid’s argument - iron oxide is the matrix which makes it all happen. Iron oxide is naturally structured as nanoporous, with holes of one nanometer diameter which are located in the center of hexagons of iron-oxide, and which align as deep narrow wells. Presumably, the strings of UDD would be positioned inside these deep holes like drilling strings, providing an extended lifetime but requiring that the matrix must also be included as part of the fuel. Although it would appear at first glance that this structure is mostly iron oxide, the spacing of the stacked layers in the strings is so close (2.3 pm), that there would be many more actual atoms of UDD compared to the matrix. Until there is independent replication, I agree with Bob that this is not convincing on its own. Yet, it should be relatively easy to show some previous anomaly in hydrogen loaded iron-oxide due to the industrial importance. In fact, using hydrogen to reduce hematite was once considered as a way to make pure steel from iron ore with no coal. Sooner or later I will get around to digging up old papers looking for reported thermal anomalies.
Re: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
Holmlid suggests 0.18 s lifetime possible. See: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/244327849_Formation_of_long-lived_Rydberg_states_of_H_2_at_K_impregnated_surfaces Question is, when UDD realy exists, does it allow to store in metal lattices (e.g. Nickel) and when so, will this expand it’s lifetime? On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Teslaalset wrote: > There may still be the issue of sufficient lifetime of UDD to be resolved > though. > > On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:54 AM, John Berry wrote: > >> Jones, I appreciate the recap. >> >> But while I appreciate that there may be breakthroughs and perhaps this >> one goes above the level my post considered... >> >> I was talking about conventional nuclear weapons that are declassified. >> Not black projects, not experimental research. >> >> Now you do make a good point, but I'm not sure we really know what >> Holmlid is doing currently, especially me since this is outside my area >> of active interest really. >> >> I am not sure if can be considered settled sciences well known to create >> a suitcase H-bomb with conventional nuclear yield. >> Are you sure it can be? >> If so that is scary! >> >> John >> >> On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Jones Beene wrote: >> >>> You still are not on the right page, John. >>> >>> I think this is because you are unaware of Leif Holmlid’s work, and how >>> that work fits into the big picture of World politics. Holmlid is >>> showing complete mass conversion of nucleons into energy, which is a >>> step above nuclear fusion. He has been publishing this in peer reviewed >>> journals for a decade but AFAIK, none of his important experiments are >>> independently replicated, at least not in the USA. >>> >>> I will try to be more specific on the details. Going back to the >>> original premise, if we can believe both Professor Holmlid and North K >>> orea – then what we are facing is precarious situation for World Peace >>> which could be worse than imagined by experts. The points to consider >>> and combine are: >>> >>> 1) Holmlid has presented a technique to make an ultra-dense from >>> of deuterium (UDD) which has a nucleon separation of 2.3 picometers. >>> >>> 2) This material has been shown to be much easier to fuse than >>> normal deuterium. In fact, Holmlid can fuse UDD and even cause complete >>> nucleon disintegration, using only a milliwatt laser for triggering. >>> >>> 3) NK has been involved in LENR since about 2001, according to an >>> earlier press release. They certainly are capable of doing sophisticated >>> research >>> in nuclear physics and can be assumed to have read Holmlid’s papers. >>> >>> 4) NK has this week tested what they call a compact “hydrogen >>> bomb” but the yield is in the range of few kilotons – far less than a >>> fission triggered fusion type of H-bomb and less than a boosted design. >>> >>> 5) This combination of salient facts, if true, leads to only a few >>> conclusions about what is really going on behind the scenes. >>> >>> 6) One conclusion, which may be unlikely but which cannot be >>> ignored, is that NK has managed to make enough of the Holmlid deuterium >>> (UDD), or even UDDT, to weaponized. >>> >>> 7) The great risk of open-research on the internet is that an >>> exotic material such as UDD, which can be easily converted into energy, >>> can be produced and disintegrated without a fission trigger by a Rogue >>> Nation or well-funded terrorist group. >>> >>> 8) For instance, if you do the numbers to extrapolate from Holmlid’s >>> tests to the 5 kiloton explosion which did happen this week – then it >>> is possible that a few grams of UDD could produce that kind of result if >>> fully disintegrated into muons. The ratio for comparative energy of UDD >>> to TNT is about one billion to one. The NK could even have used laser >>> triggering. >>> >>> >>> For a sardonic laugh, imagine 1,000 laser-pointers surrounding a tiny fuel >>> pellet like mini version of NIF. >>> >>> >>> *From:* John Berry >>> >>> Looking it up, Boosted Fission if a Fission-Fusion bomb where the Fusion >>> instead of being the main event is merely a minor improver of Fission >>> efficiency. >>> >>> Fusion Fission (as a bomb) is not possibly according to anything >>> declassified or any known physics within reason. >>> >>> >> >
Re: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
>From my understanding of Holmlid's work, the UDD description (Ultra-Dense Deuterium) would not be an appropriate description even if what he proposes to happen really does happen. Please explain this to me if I have gotten it wrong. What Holmlid proposes is that planar hexagonal Rydberg clusters of deuterium can form stacks where the inter-nucleus spacing in the stack can be 2.3 pm. The hexagonal Rydberg clusters are essentially planar with an inter-nucleus spacing that is bigger than D2 gas. So, in one dimension, along the column of the stack, Holmlid claims that the inter-nucleus spacing is 2.3 pm, while in the other 2 dimensions the inter-nucleus spacing is 100x bigger. From a density standpoint, this would be a set of linear strings. How do you ascribe density to something that is a linear string? It would certainly be a tensor. If you go on to propose that fusion is possible on a large scale from a collection of a large amount of this matter, how do you compress strings of matter to begin fusion? It would be like compressing a rope by pushing on its ends. I am not convinced at all that Holmlid's strings of "UDD" exist. The existence of the low density hexagonal Rydberg "snowflakes" of hydrogen is a fairly well established fact. I cannot see how any of this is a path to large scale fusion even if it exists. On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > *From:* Teslaalset > > Ø There may still be the issue of sufficient lifetime of UDD to be > resolved though. > > Yes, it could be short. Has anyone seen recent data on average lifetime > from Holmlid? > > We know that metallic hydrogen, as previously described in the literature, is > not stable unless kept under extreme pressure. The assumption has been that > whatever species corresponds to UDD is not this kind of metallic hydrogen > (the previously described variety) … although it could be metallic. Thus > the confusion. There could, in fact, be several varieties of condensed > hydrogen which are possible, including whatever Mills’ theory suggests. > > Holmlid’s UDD is far denser than the metallic hydrogen which is made in a > diamond anvil press. That would mean that shock compression is > fundamentally more efficient than mechanical compression. > > One detail which would make my day, and yours too - would be an emission > line coming from the decay of the Holmlid version of UDD which matches > the 3.5 keV emission line which is turning up everywhere these days in > cosmology. > > This would mean that UDD is probably the same species as “dark matter” > and it would provide greatly needed secondary validity to Holmlid’s claims. > >
RE: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
Jones, I’ve been stuck in a mode considering anomalous forms of hydrogen as free flowing molecules exposed to surrounding tapestry of metal lattice, but your suggestion of “metalized hydrogen” makes me consider a solid solution. could metallic hydrogen self catalyze such that it doesn’t need the intense pressure other than an “immediate” tapestry surrounding it, ie self catalyzing in Millsian fashion within a parent lattice from which it builds inward ? I still subscribe to the Naudts relativistic proposal but applied now to this solid concept where perhaps the parent lattice maintains the solid foundation and then successive layers of proportionally shrunken metal hydrogen lattice grow /push inward away from the parent lattice “down a well” where each successive layer is exposed to fewer and fewer virtual particles in a negative Lorenztian like manner without the need for near C displacement. My proposal being that metalized hydrogen can load much further down into the interstial space of the parent lattice and grow instead extra dimensionally outward. Reactions at the extreme excursions of these extradimensional wells would achieve large values of spatial displacement and temporal dilation but being a solid would provide mechanical linkage back to our frame. Could relativistic displacement and mechanical linkage together explain some of the strange anomalies with LENR like spectrum shifts, lack of Gamma radiation, modified half lives and even a recent thread about radiation not measured near the reactor wall but measured further away? Fran From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Sunday, January 10, 2016 11:03 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"? From: Teslaalset > There may still be the issue of sufficient lifetime of UDD to be > resolved though. Yes, it could be short. Has anyone seen recent data on average lifetime from Holmlid? We know that metallic hydrogen, as previously described in the literature, is not stable unless kept under extreme pressure. The assumption has been that whatever species corresponds to UDD is not this kind of metallic hydrogen (the previously described variety) … although it could be metallic. Thus the confusion. There could, in fact, be several varieties of condensed hydrogen which are possible, including whatever Mills’ theory suggests. Holmlid’s UDD is far denser than the metallic hydrogen which is made in a diamond anvil press. That would mean that shock compression is fundamentally more efficient than mechanical compression. One detail which would make my day, and yours too - would be an emission line coming from the decay of the Holmlid version of UDD which matches the 3.5 keV emission line which is turning up everywhere these days in cosmology. This would mean that UDD is probably the same species as “dark matter” and it would provide greatly needed secondary validity to Holmlid’s claims.
RE: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
From: Teslaalset * There may still be the issue of sufficient lifetime of UDD to be resolved though. Yes, it could be short. Has anyone seen recent data on average lifetime from Holmlid? We know that metallic hydrogen, as previously described in the literature, is not stable unless kept under extreme pressure. The assumption has been that whatever species corresponds to UDD is not this kind of metallic hydrogen (the previously described variety) … although it could be metallic. Thus the confusion. There could, in fact, be several varieties of condensed hydrogen which are possible, including whatever Mills’ theory suggests. Holmlid’s UDD is far denser than the metallic hydrogen which is made in a diamond anvil press. That would mean that shock compression is fundamentally more efficient than mechanical compression. One detail which would make my day, and yours too - would be an emission line coming from the decay of the Holmlid version of UDD which matches the 3.5 keV emission line which is turning up everywhere these days in cosmology. This would mean that UDD is probably the same species as “dark matter” and it would provide greatly needed secondary validity to Holmlid’s claims.
Re: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
There may still be the issue of sufficient lifetime of UDD to be resolved though. On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 5:54 AM, John Berry wrote: > Jones, I appreciate the recap. > > But while I appreciate that there may be breakthroughs and perhaps this > one goes above the level my post considered... > > I was talking about conventional nuclear weapons that are declassified. > Not black projects, not experimental research. > > Now you do make a good point, but I'm not sure we really know what Holmlid > is doing currently, especially me since this is outside my area of active > interest really. > > I am not sure if can be considered settled sciences well known to create a > suitcase H-bomb with conventional nuclear yield. > Are you sure it can be? > If so that is scary! > > John > > On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > >> You still are not on the right page, John. >> >> I think this is because you are unaware of Leif Holmlid’s work, and how >> that work fits into the big picture of World politics. Holmlid is >> showing complete mass conversion of nucleons into energy, which is a >> step above nuclear fusion. He has been publishing this in peer reviewed >> journals for a decade but AFAIK, none of his important experiments are >> independently replicated, at least not in the USA. >> >> I will try to be more specific on the details. Going back to the >> original premise, if we can believe both Professor Holmlid and North K >> orea – then what we are facing is precarious situation for World Peace >> which could be worse than imagined by experts. The points to consider >> and combine are: >> >> 1) Holmlid has presented a technique to make an ultra-dense from of >> deuterium (UDD) which has a nucleon separation of 2.3 picometers. >> >> 2) This material has been shown to be much easier to fuse than >> normal deuterium. In fact, Holmlid can fuse UDD and even cause complete >> nucleon disintegration, using only a milliwatt laser for triggering. >> >> 3) NK has been involved in LENR since about 2001, according to an >> earlier press release. They certainly are capable of doing sophisticated >> research >> in nuclear physics and can be assumed to have read Holmlid’s papers. >> >> 4) NK has this week tested what they call a compact “hydrogen bomb” >> but the yield is in the range of few kilotons – far less than a fission >> triggered fusion type of H-bomb and less than a boosted design. >> >> 5) This combination of salient facts, if true, leads to only a few c >> onclusions about what is really going on behind the scenes. >> >> 6) One conclusion, which may be unlikely but which cannot be >> ignored, is that NK has managed to make enough of the Holmlid deuterium >> (UDD), or even UDDT, to weaponized. >> >> 7) The great risk of open-research on the internet is that an >> exotic material such as UDD, which can be easily converted into energy, >> can be produced and disintegrated without a fission trigger by a Rogue >> Nation or well-funded terrorist group. >> >> 8) For instance, if you do the numbers to extrapolate from Holmlid’s >> tests to the 5 kiloton explosion which did happen this week – then it is >> possible that a few grams of UDD could produce that kind of result if >> fully disintegrated into muons. The ratio for comparative energy of UDD >> to TNT is about one billion to one. The NK could even have used laser >> triggering. >> >> >> For a sardonic laugh, imagine 1,000 laser-pointers surrounding a tiny fuel >> pellet like mini version of NIF. >> >> >> *From:* John Berry >> >> Looking it up, Boosted Fission if a Fission-Fusion bomb where the Fusion >> instead of being the main event is merely a minor improver of Fission >> efficiency. >> >> Fusion Fission (as a bomb) is not possibly according to anything >> declassified or any known physics within reason. >> >> >
Re: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
Jones, I appreciate the recap. But while I appreciate that there may be breakthroughs and perhaps this one goes above the level my post considered... I was talking about conventional nuclear weapons that are declassified. Not black projects, not experimental research. Now you do make a good point, but I'm not sure we really know what Holmlid is doing currently, especially me since this is outside my area of active interest really. I am not sure if can be considered settled sciences well known to create a suitcase H-bomb with conventional nuclear yield. Are you sure it can be? If so that is scary! John On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Jones Beene wrote: > You still are not on the right page, John. > > I think this is because you are unaware of Leif Holmlid’s work, and how > that work fits into the big picture of World politics. Holmlid is showing > complete mass conversion of nucleons into energy, which is a step above > nuclear fusion. He has been publishing this in peer reviewed journals for > a decade but AFAIK, none of his important experiments are independently > replicated, at least not in the USA. > > I will try to be more specific on the details. Going back to the original > premise, if we can believe both Professor Holmlid and North Korea – then > what we are facing is precarious situation for World Peace which could be > worse than imagined by experts. The points to consider and combine are: > > 1) Holmlid has presented a technique to make an ultra-dense from of > deuterium (UDD) which has a nucleon separation of 2.3 picometers. > > 2) This material has been shown to be much easier to fuse than > normal deuterium. In fact, Holmlid can fuse UDD and even cause complete > nucleon disintegration, using only a milliwatt laser for triggering. > > 3) NK has been involved in LENR since about 2001, according to an > earlier press release. They certainly are capable of doing sophisticated > research > in nuclear physics and can be assumed to have read Holmlid’s papers. > > 4) NK has this week tested what they call a compact “hydrogen bomb” > but the yield is in the range of few kilotons – far less than a fission > triggered fusion type of H-bomb and less than a boosted design. > > 5) This combination of salient facts, if true, leads to only a few c > onclusions about what is really going on behind the scenes. > > 6) One conclusion, which may be unlikely but which cannot be > ignored, is that NK has managed to make enough of the Holmlid deuterium > (UDD), or even UDDT, to weaponized. > > 7) The great risk of open-research on the internet is that an exotic > material such as UDD, which can be easily converted into energy, can be > produced > and disintegrated without a fission trigger by a Rogue Nation or > well-funded terrorist group. > > 8) For instance, if you do the numbers to extrapolate from Holmlid’s > tests to the 5 kiloton explosion which did happen this week – then it is > possible that a few grams of UDD could produce that kind of result if > fully disintegrated into muons. The ratio for comparative energy of UDD > to TNT is about one billion to one. The NK could even have used laser > triggering. > > > For a sardonic laugh, imagine 1,000 laser-pointers surrounding a tiny fuel > pellet like mini version of NIF. > > > *From:* John Berry > > Looking it up, Boosted Fission if a Fission-Fusion bomb where the Fusion > instead of being the main event is merely a minor improver of Fission > efficiency. > > Fusion Fission (as a bomb) is not possibly according to anything > declassified or any known physics within reason. > >
Re: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
This is what they did. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9zg8nFjiw0
Re: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 8 Jan 2016 07:32:21 -0800: Hi, I suspect that a more likely scenario is that they tied to explode a conventional fusion weapon, but only the trigger exploded, not the fusion bomb. > >You still are not on the right page, John. > >I think this is because you are unaware of Leif Holmlids work, and how that >work fits into the big picture of World politics. Holmlid is showing complete >mass conversion of nucleons into energy, which is a step above nuclear fusion. >He has been publishing this in peer reviewed journals for a decade but AFAIK, >none of his important experiments are independently replicated, at least not >in the USA. > >I will try to be more specific on the details. Going back to the original >premise, if we can believe both Professor Holmlid and North Korea then what >we are facing is precarious situation for World Peace which could be worse >than imagined by experts. The points to consider and combine are: > >1) Holmlid has presented a technique to make an ultra-dense from of >deuterium (UDD) which has a nucleon separation of 2.3 picometers. >2) This material has been shown to be much easier to fuse than normal >deuterium. In fact, Holmlid can fuse UDD and even cause complete nucleon >disintegration, using only a milliwatt laser for triggering. >3) NK has been involved in LENR since about 2001, according to an earlier >press release. They certainly are capable of doing sophisticated research in >nuclear physics and can be assumed to have read Holmlids papers. >4) NK has this week tested what they call a compact hydrogen bomb but >the yield is in the range of few kilotons far less than a fission triggered >fusion type of H-bomb and less than a boosted design. >5) This combination of salient facts, if true, leads to only a few >conclusions about what is really going on behind the scenes. >6) One conclusion, which may be unlikely but which cannot be ignored, is >that NK has managed to make enough of the Holmlid deuterium (UDD), or even >UDDT, to weaponized. >7) The great risk of open-research on the internet is that an exotic >material such as UDD, which can be easily converted into energy, can be >produced and disintegrated without a fission trigger by a Rogue Nation or >well-funded terrorist group. >8) For instance, if you do the numbers to extrapolate from Holmlids tests >to the 5 kiloton explosion which did happen this week then it is possible >that a few grams of UDD could produce that kind of result if fully >disintegrated into muons. The ratio for comparative energy of UDD to TNT is >about one billion to one. The NK could even have used laser triggering. > >For a sardonic laugh, imagine 1,000 laser-pointers surrounding a tiny fuel >pellet like mini version of NIF. > >From: John Berry > >Looking it up, Boosted Fission if a Fission-Fusion bomb where the Fusion >instead of being the main event is merely a minor improver of Fission >efficiency. > >Fusion Fission (as a bomb) is not possibly according to anything declassified >or any known physics within reason. > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
You still are not on the right page, John. I think this is because you are unaware of Leif Holmlid’s work, and how that work fits into the big picture of World politics. Holmlid is showing complete mass conversion of nucleons into energy, which is a step above nuclear fusion. He has been publishing this in peer reviewed journals for a decade but AFAIK, none of his important experiments are independently replicated, at least not in the USA. I will try to be more specific on the details. Going back to the original premise, if we can believe both Professor Holmlid and North Korea – then what we are facing is precarious situation for World Peace which could be worse than imagined by experts. The points to consider and combine are: 1) Holmlid has presented a technique to make an ultra-dense from of deuterium (UDD) which has a nucleon separation of 2.3 picometers. 2) This material has been shown to be much easier to fuse than normal deuterium. In fact, Holmlid can fuse UDD and even cause complete nucleon disintegration, using only a milliwatt laser for triggering. 3) NK has been involved in LENR since about 2001, according to an earlier press release. They certainly are capable of doing sophisticated research in nuclear physics and can be assumed to have read Holmlid’s papers. 4) NK has this week tested what they call a compact “hydrogen bomb” but the yield is in the range of few kilotons – far less than a fission triggered fusion type of H-bomb and less than a boosted design. 5) This combination of salient facts, if true, leads to only a few conclusions about what is really going on behind the scenes. 6) One conclusion, which may be unlikely but which cannot be ignored, is that NK has managed to make enough of the Holmlid deuterium (UDD), or even UDDT, to weaponized. 7) The great risk of open-research on the internet is that an exotic material such as UDD, which can be easily converted into energy, can be produced and disintegrated without a fission trigger by a Rogue Nation or well-funded terrorist group. 8) For instance, if you do the numbers to extrapolate from Holmlid’s tests to the 5 kiloton explosion which did happen this week – then it is possible that a few grams of UDD could produce that kind of result if fully disintegrated into muons. The ratio for comparative energy of UDD to TNT is about one billion to one. The NK could even have used laser triggering. For a sardonic laugh, imagine 1,000 laser-pointers surrounding a tiny fuel pellet like mini version of NIF. From: John Berry Looking it up, Boosted Fission if a Fission-Fusion bomb where the Fusion instead of being the main event is merely a minor improver of Fission efficiency. Fusion Fission (as a bomb) is not possibly according to anything declassified or any known physics within reason.
Re: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
Looking it up, Boosted Fission if a Fission-Fusion bomb where the Fusion instead of being the main event is merely a minor improver of Fission efficiency. Fusion Fission (as a bomb) is not possibly according to anything declassified or any known physics within reason. On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > Wiki has entries which answers most of your questions > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boosted_fission_weapon > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device > > > > Boosted fission is different from the H-bomb in a number of ways, and an > improvement over fission alone, therefore we can surmise: > > > > 1) Since the yield of the recent NK test was about the same as > their prior fission test, then it is probably not boosted. > > 2) Since the yield is way too low to be fission-triggered fusion > (H-bomb) we can eliminate that and all other high yield choices > > 3) Add the fact that it is compact, means that there is the prospect > of a novel design of some type. > > 4) Given the features of UDD, assuming Holmlid is correct, then > there are options which could include Cohen’s claim of a ballotechnic > driven fusion device (no fission trigger) which was largely debunked > > > > *From:* John Berry > > > > Not sure what you mean by 'boosted fission' but my understanding is that > ALL Fusion bombs are either Fission-Fusion or Fission-Fusion-Fission. > > > > We don't publically have the technical ability to create mass fusion > without fission first, if we did hot fusion power would be a reality. > > > > John > > > > a.ashfield wrote: > > > My secondhand understanding is that many of the weapons the media call > H-bombs are really boosted fission weapons with a shell of uranium. > > >
Re: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
In reply to John Berry's message of Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:48:08 +1300: Hi, ...either that, or a fission weapon that is trigger by a fusion explosion, that is in itself not triggered by a fission reaction. I.e. Fusion-Fission (if that is possible). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
In reply to John Berry's message of Fri, 8 Jan 2016 12:48:08 +1300: Hi, [snip] >Not sure what you mean by 'boosted fission' but my understanding is that >ALL Fusion bombs are either Fission-Fusion or Fission-Fusion-Fission. I believe the term 'boosted fission' is used to refer to Fission-Fusion-Fission. > >We don't publically have the technical ability to create mass fusion >without fission first, if we did hot fusion power would be a reality. > >John > >On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:36 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > >> Jones, >> My secondhand understanding is that many of the weapons the media call >> H-bombs are really boosted fission weapons with a shell of uranium. >> >> Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
RE: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
Wiki has entries which answers most of your questions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boosted_fission_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuclear_device Boosted fission is different from the H-bomb in a number of ways, and an improvement over fission alone, therefore we can surmise: 1) Since the yield of the recent NK test was about the same as their prior fission test, then it is probably not boosted. 2) Since the yield is way too low to be fission-triggered fusion (H-bomb) we can eliminate that and all other high yield choices 3) Add the fact that it is compact, means that there is the prospect of a novel design of some type. 4) Given the features of UDD, assuming Holmlid is correct, then there are options which could include Cohen’s claim of a ballotechnic driven fusion device (no fission trigger) which was largely debunked From: John Berry Not sure what you mean by 'boosted fission' but my understanding is that ALL Fusion bombs are either Fission-Fusion or Fission-Fusion-Fission. We don't publically have the technical ability to create mass fusion without fission first, if we did hot fusion power would be a reality. John a.ashfield wrote: My secondhand understanding is that many of the weapons the media call H-bombs are really boosted fission weapons with a shell of uranium.
Re: [Vo]:North Korea... and the UDD "candle"?
Not sure what you mean by 'boosted fission' but my understanding is that ALL Fusion bombs are either Fission-Fusion or Fission-Fusion-Fission. We don't publically have the technical ability to create mass fusion without fission first, if we did hot fusion power would be a reality. John On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 12:36 PM, a.ashfield wrote: > Jones, > My secondhand understanding is that many of the weapons the media call > H-bombs are really boosted fission weapons with a shell of uranium. > >
