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, <bobcook39...@gmail.com> 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 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton> encounters its > antiparticle <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiproton> (and more > generally, if any species of baryon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon> > encounters the corresponding antibaryon > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antibaryon>), the reaction is not as > simple as electron-positron annihilation. Unlike an electron, a proton is a > composite particle > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles#Composite_particles> > consisting > of three "valence quarks" <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_model> and > an indeterminate number of "sea quarks" > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark#Sea_quarks> bound by gluons > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluon>. Thus, when a proton encounters an > antiproton, one of its quarks, usually a constituent valence quark, may > annihilate with an antiquark <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadronization>) into a number of mesons > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meson>, (mostly pions > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pion> and kaons > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaon>), 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 > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray>, electrons > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron>, positrons > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron>, and neutrinos > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino>. This type of reaction will > occur between any baryon <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon> (particle > consisting of three quarks) and any antibaryon > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron>, and likewise antineutrons > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antineutron> 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] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation#cite_note-4> > > Similar reactions will occur when an antinucleon annihilates within a more > complex atomic nucleus <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_nucleus>, > save that the resulting mesons, being strongly interacting > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction>, 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 > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeV>, it can in principle exceed the binding > energy <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy> of even the > heaviest nuclei. Thus, when an antiproton annihilates inside a heavy > nucleus such as uranium <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium> or > plutonium <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium>, partial or complete > disruption of the nucleus can occur, releasing large numbers of fast > neutrons.[5] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation#cite_note-5> Such > reactions open the possibility for triggering a significant number of > secondary fission <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission> reactions > in a subcritical mass <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass>, and > may potentially be useful for spacecraft ‘propulsion > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter_catalyzed_nuclear_pulse_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 <jone...@pacbell.net> > *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 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. > > > > > > >
