We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
This paper is interesting in so many ways:
(It’s not from Holmlid but...)
I wonder if it can help account for the neutral Kaons emitted by UDH.
I wonder if It can relate to the long range interactions and sigma2=1 meson In Andrea Rossi’s joint paper with Carl Oscar.
Kaons and Pions decay eventually to muons and electrons and neutrinos could these resonance therefore be playing an important role in the Electron clusters and EVO’s that Bob and others are now discussing?
These resonances are scalar mesons and Chiral partners to Pions and Kaons. fo(500) has a very large band width if I understand right This could be relevant half lives and resonances and have big implications. But maybe others are better qualified than me to say if that is relevant or not.
Just thought it was interesting and worth highlighting.
If it is relevant perhaps this link is interesting:
Yes same here.
Hmm.. Nurront Fusion Energy uses laser light to induce fusion in dense H, the Hydrino thing uses densified H to produce light. Catalytically release energy from hydrogen/deuterium down to H0/Hydrinos then that same energy can be directed to annihilate more of the same dense hydrogen producing more energy and muons. Muons which are charged can further catalyze aneutronic fusion pathways or produce electricity. Thoughts??
A dense hydrogen based Fusion company I'm skeptical about this startup. It's all based on observation of Leif Holmlid, that short laser pulses generate quite a lot of muons, which are believed to catalyze hot fusion. But there is no reason for involvement of dense hydrogen in production of muons - laser pulses are known to produce many antiparticles, the annihilation of which would also produce muons. The energy for H(0) formation is quite low (in range of dozens of electronvolts) - so it's improbable that it participates on muon (105.66 MeV) formation. Even if we admit, that muons are generated without involvement of dense hydrogen there are many technical difficulties, like alpha-sticking problem. You'll need quite intensive source of muons - yet the energetic yield would be quite low.
This isn't your standard reaction if it holds true!
Actually I'm very optimistic about neither muon fusion, neither hydrino processes, neither dense hydrogen (in decreasing degree). I admit that atomar hydrogen can be source of anomalous surplus of energy due to symmetry and thermodynamical irreversibility of its orbitals.
Well we will see. The language you are using isn't the clearest not optimistic or optimistic? Something novel in energy production is going on or hundreds of people all around the world are making big mistakes
I see, but I'm not native speaker.. Which formulation is more correct in English?I'm not optimistic about either first thing either second oneorI'm optimistic about neither first thing neither second one..
Neither, I would say "im optimistic about neither the first or the second". I am by nature a realistic optimist which may be my downfall or the umbilical cord that keeps me floating.
The problem with both dense hydrogen both hydrino concepts is, they're all "single-man shows" and they were never transformed into more tangible stuff, than some lines in spectra. For example some compound, which someone could buy and study independently. Regarding their dark matter theory, this is apparent BS, as the observed behavior and distribution of dark matter cannot be explained by dense hydrogen or by hydrinos.
H(0) is the lowest energy form of hydrogen and H(0) is thus expected to exist everywhere where hydrogen exists in the Universe.
Which just doesn't exist. Such a hydrogen should be present at the Earth after them, it should form component of water, geological rock humidity etc. In addition, from where Holmlid thinks, that H(0) is the lowest energy form of hydrogen? Rydberg matter is pretty highly excited - and thus energy rich - form of matter instead. The understanding of trivial physical consequences is what both Holmlid, both Mills claims are sadly lacking.
No need to buy. Mills has much of those samples for free, to analyze, if the one analyzing promises to publish the results under a binding agreement to do that publishing, no ifs. ands or buts. This was already done but was not adhered to the part for publishing by the first lab that did analyze Mills samples. Only problem remaining with that is, no other lab now wants to get involved with Mills samples, for fear of finding results that can only be explained by Mills theory and then upsetting the apple cart of incumbent physics.
What this amounts to, is always finding something wrong, by moving the goal posts further and further down the road, no matter how much is answered by the earlier points of where those goal posts were.
So, similar to how Mills sets up his strategy to protect his interests, and then get that called out for not allowing others to do things totally independently or their own way for fear of prosecution, so the same is done by critics, in not acting in good faith when Mills does what those critics ask for.
A lose, lose, lose scenario, all around. That is why Mills has just given up in trying to convince anyone anymore and is just concentrating on making his devices all on his own.
Very reasonable line of thinking. Had come to much the same conclusion.
Mills has much of those samples for free, to analyze, if the one analyzing promises to publish the results under a binding agreement to do that publishing, no ifs. ands or buts. This was already done but was not adhered to the part for publishing by the first lab that did analyze Mills samples.
. Apparently Hydrino samples don't follow Mill's own legal policies.. ;-) I'm merely convinced, that Mills doesn't actually generate any overunity - and if he still does - which would be remarkable by itself - then no production of hydrino is actually involved. This also applies to dense hydrogen claims of Leif Holmlid...
I of course realize, that overunity in connection to hydrogen reactions is even more esoteric stuff, than the production of hydrino/dense hydrogen - but we already faced multiple plasma overunity claims (Papp, Chernetski), which didn't involve any hydrogen. Their common point is in utilization of monoatomic gases with spherical orbitals and forbidden energy transitions, which is also aspect of dense hydrogen/hydrino stuffs, which confused their inventors.
That is to say, this is just a speculation of lone anonymous observer against claims of well equipped research teams which undoubtedly cover many experimental data before public, so I can be still wrong - but it seems that Mills theory already got competition in form of Holmlid research.
Have you read much about Mills actual cells in their early phases of development. Seems not.
Offering a possible explanation for dark matter is one thing. "Putting the Big Bang to rest" is completely different. There are a lot of lines of evidence that point to the Big Bang beyond the cosmic microwave background radiation (which is only famous because it was predicted based on Big Bang theory before it was observed, and thus constitutes a strong validation of the theory). Red shift is different - it was observed first (by Edwin Hubble) and was not expected, and then explained with Big Bang theory afterward.
Lower-than-ground-state hydrogen ("ultradense", "hydrino", etc.) has some interesting evidence behind it, but this research is not going to be taken very seriously if we leap to conclusions about it disproving other very-well-evidenced theories. Much better to simply report the evidence and suggest what it helps explain, rather than jump straight to how it overturns all of modern cosmology.
The 1998 and 2012 observations of CMBR have produced graphs showing three oscillatory depictions of phenomena relating to earlier epochs of the universe. These same three points were earlier predicted by GUT-CP in 1995, which also shows several more such oscillations being depicted in the prediction. These oscillatory points of the graph are depictions of stellar objects that are remnants of earlier episodes of expansion and contraction of an eternal universe. So the observations confirm, not the BB, but an eternal universe. There have also been made observations made of stellar objects that are many billions of years older than the universe's age as estimated by a BB model.
There are just too many predictions made by GUT-CP to be written off as interpretations that differ from that of accepted cosmology. Also the three working devices made according to predictions. How many items, full working according to predictions of Standard Quantum Theory? None. All are either in research stage or a basic lab model that does the absolute minimum to be counted as working. More developed items are too complex, too large, or too cumbersome as to be of little worth. Because of curve fitting the math, by artificial means, like adding special numbers, free parameters, to make it seem to work.
Big Bang or microwaves from the earth’s oceans. (12:16 min.)
What Holmlid gas not yet provided is a mechanism that keeps ultra dense matter from interacting with bright matter.
However if ultra dense matter acts as a host for polaritons, the negative mass of the dark mode polariton condensate that might form on the surface of the ultra dense hydrogen would supply the mutually repulsive nature that is required to keep ultra dense hydrogen away from bright matter: stars, black holes planets, dust clouds.
Physicists Say They've Created a Device That Generates 'Negative Mass'https://www.sciencealert.co...
Polaritons behave like slightly less dense places or energetic bubbles inside normal matter, i.e. they have absolutely positive mass. Interior of hot potato is thus also of blob of "negative mass" from this perspective, because density of matter decreases with increasing temperature.
"Negative Mass" is what's needed for Warp Drive. You can't move faster than light (FTL) "in" space, but in theory you can move a "pocket" of space FTL. The theory says that you need negative mass.https://www.space.com/17628...
What exactly are tachyonic fields?
Domino Valdano, PhD Theoretical Physics
In Einstein's theory of special relativity, the relationship between the energy, momentum, and mass of a particle is E2=(pc)^2+(mc2)^2It was realized early on that if you plug in a negative value for m2 into this equation, you get a combination of momentum and energy that implies the particle must always travel faster than light. That is, v=pc2/E>cWhile the equations are consistent, it was never clear whether such a particle, which would have to have imaginary mass, could make sense or exist in the real world.In light of quantum field theory, now particles are thought of as excitations of a quantum field near the minimum of its potential energy curve. And there are now a couple different definitions of mass. One of the definitions of mass (sometimes called the "bare mass") is the square root of the quadratic coefficient of a quantum field in its potential energy. In many cases, this mass can be imaginary, and so it is sometimes called a "tachyonic mass". However, in any known physical cases where this happens (the most famous case being the Higgs boson), there is a change of coordinates one can do such that in the new coordinates, the mass is real and the physical particle travels at less than the speed of light. The "physical mass" of a particle is the square root of the quadratic coefficient of a field at the minimum of it's potential energy curve, which is by definition always real.If the mass-squared for some field like the Higgs is negative, what that means is that you're looking at a maximum (unstable point) of the potential energy curve rather than the minimum. Excitations near the maximum are not actually particles. If there is a field which has only a maximum and no minimum, then it is truly a tachyonic field (since there is no coordinate transformation you can do to make the mass real). This signifies that there is something wrong with the theory because there is no ground state energy for the field--and hence it cannot exist in the real world. Some people like to say that a tachyonic field represents an "instability of the vacuum". I would go a step further and say that it represents a field which has no vacuum (ground state).In summary, tachyons do show up in theoretical physics sometimes, but because physical particles must have a real (not an imaginary) physical mass, there are no particles in the real world which can travel faster than light.
A tachyonic field is a field that produces and instability in the vacuum. The Higgs field is the the primary component of the vacuum and it is like a large pole that is finely balanced on the sharp point of a pin. A tachyonic field produces an instability of the vacuum like a force that disturbs the finely balanced pole that when perturbed will cause that pole to fall to a minimum energy state.
In his lecture on string theory and m-theory Lenny Susskind says that tachyons don't really move faster than the speed of light, and only "crackpots" will tell you that. Instead it has to do with that the vacuum is unstable, and that this is the source of the tachyons. If you want to watch the whole thing you can see it here:
He starts to talk about the tachyonic field somewhere about 46:00
In summary, what Holmlid has done is create a mechanism that creates a tachyonic field (a Higgs field) that produces an instability is the vacuum that causes matter to become unstable. This mechanism is the fundamental basis behind the transmutation process in LENR.
The ramifications of cosmological red-shifts and CMB (cosmic microwave background) measurements being off even just a small amount would be a big deal with the cosmology people.
A physicist friend suggests that with H(0), to cover the amount of dark matter that exists you would need a generation process that produces 5 times more H than assumed by the current baryogenesis
Let the debate begin. However, as far as I have understood, Holmlid’s ideas also cover that aspect setting a completely different baseline.
This article provides a more lay person-level description of Holmlid's work:https://coldfusionnow.org/t...
In particular it describes how/why Holmlid and his associates measure/believe in the existence of ultra-dense hydrogen.
Dr. Sveinn Ólafsson is the guest on the Cold Fusion Now! podcast with Ruby Carat
“He (Holmlid) uses a very common techniques which is time of flight spectroscopy, or sometimes time of flight mass spectroscopy. This is widely used in all kinds of chemistry experiments. “
“What is different here, is that Leif has a different production unit of ions – or sample – which he is studying. So he was initially just interested in the Rydberg states of atoms, and this whole time, he has been improving techniques to study that.”
“And by chance he noticed that the time of flight was too short, actually, so that started the ultra-dense hydrogen.”
In time of flight, he is referring to is the time it takes a particle from the sample region to be ejected and travel down a tube to a detector some distance away after being stimulated by a laser. Dr. Ólafsson explains the process.
“What the laser is doing, since it has wavelength of say 1 micron, it’s actually letting zillions of electrons and protons to oscillate. So it’s joggling something there, and these millions of particles somehow react and something flies out.”
(image: Time of Flight Set-up. Slide from Experimental Techniques for Studying Rydberg Matter of Hydrogen by Sveinn Olafsson from the 2019 CF/LANR Colloquium at MIT.)
“The time-of flight is measured initially in the normal state of hydrogen Rydberg matter. When the laser breaks up these clusters, the individual atoms travel apart because of the positive charges. Some times of flight are so short, that the energy, or the closeness of these two entities, is so close, they would have to be 2.3 picometers apart initially – that is the ultra-dense state.”
“But also at the same time, you can see they were close at normal chemical distances also. So you can see both the normal state and the dense state using the same instrument. What is different is that in one case you’re having time of flight in microseconds, and the next you have time of flight in nanoseconds, or that range.”
“Time of flight is a technique used in normal chemistry all the time. You hit it with a laser and these chemical entities fly apart, usually just 5 eV, and that’s it. ”
Why does Holmlid need a laser pulse to fire up the dissolution of matter actioned by light activated Ultra dense hydrogen?
Background light from the laboratory illumination as noted in some publications, results in a low level of reaction of the ultra-dense hydrogen.
Piper supplies anther clue. The level and nature of the input light energy is a function of the level of reaction intensity. Now why would that be so? Also, when keeped in the dark, the ultra-dense hydrogen eventually goes quiescent.
It's fed by light 💡!
Best I can tell he's only using the laser to cause an interaction that lets him detect "time of flight", i.e. how long it takes for the chemical entities (i.e. protons in the H2) to fly apart. Evidence of UDH is that some of the protons fly apart very quickly, which is interpreted as meaning that the protons were very close together, i.e. ultra-dense, to begin with.
Of related interest is the claim by NurrontFusion that they can generate copious muons using lasers, and they use UDH in an intermediate stage to get to that. So they apparently have a way to generate UDH at will.http://www.norrontfusion.co...http://www.norrontfusion.co......and they say they are working on how to make that useful, e.g. electrical generation.
Why does the laser pulse cause the reaction? Why does the laser pulse when it falls onto the surface of the Ultra Dense Hydrogen make protons fall apart?
The onset of the laser is the setting point that starts the reaction of proton decay. When the laser light hits the surface of the UDH, the decay of matter happens almost instantaneously. BUT HOW???
Holmlid's paper got bounced from publication by peer review because the Holmlid reaction violated the Conservation of baryon number.
The hypothetical concepts of grand unified theory (GUT) models and supersymmetry allows for the changing of a baryon into leptons and antiquarks (see B − L), thus violating the conservation of both baryon and lepton numbers. Proton decay would be an example of such a process taking place, but has never been observed.
Protons cannot decay into mesons because that would violate the Conservation of baryon number and the conservation of charge.
Quarks cannot just vanish, three quarks cannot transform into two quarks. But if quarks do, then WHY? I want to know WHY...WHY...WHY?
This Holmid inspired company used a nuclear process that results in a massive muon production, why it seems more mainstream and transparent. I visited the website and wouldn't be surprised if Holmlid and Mills to are onto different parts of a package of real processes.
Rossi isn't helping with his scammer reputation by claiming nuclear level energy that doesn't conform to E=mc^2. Best bet for him is charged kugelblitz black hole analogs surrounded by dense matter soup and muons working eventually to release matter into energy (light/electricity/neutrinos).
i will clam this, the LENR based reactor processes conform to E=mc^2 or likely don't exist. Their is a lot of energy in matter way more than what we release currently. Whether it's a novel extraction of hydrino-like potential or a myriad of processes for the productive annihilation of matter both are vastly more likely than vacuum energy without any matter annihilation energy.
What the Holmlid reaction shows is the naked transmutation process. This naked transmutation process is not hidden from our reality by superposition caused by the coherence of the LENR causative agent. The laser pulse does not form a coherent system therefore the destruction of matter is not hidden from our reality.
In transmutation caused by the LENR reaction, muons are produced, but they are hidden by quantum mechanical superposition of the active agent. All that we see is the cold ash that remains after the transmutation process has terminated, the muons are not realized or observed in our reality.
matter annihilation energy occurs in the LENR reaction but it is hidden from our view. It happens but it is invisible. We cannot feel its results. We cannot see or fell the mesons and muons that fly off into wherever and/or whenever. They are invisible to us and have no impact in our world.
In the case of the Holmid reaction and the resulting proton decay, all the steps that occur in transmutation are realized in our reality as all the steps that occur are visible for our inspection.
Such is a concrete example and a primer of how quantum mechanics works.
Would a symbiosis of the hydrinos supposed process and Holmid's reaction have any benefits?
What I currently beleive is happening is that Mills has come up with a way to generate ultra dense matter using many hydride based chemical compounds, far more that Holmlid has. But the method that generates these ultra dense hydrides is based on Holmlid's research and is quantum mechanical in nature that is centered on Rydberg matter. Mills has shown that just about anything can be converted to the ultra dense form. But Holmlid has shown how ultra dense matter can dissociate matter into mesons. Mills thinks that it is just a chemical reaction whereas Holmlid knows it is a sub nuclear reaction but Holmlid does not know what that reaction is in detail.
Mills is in for a rude surprise when his reactors fall to dust due to the dissociation of matter that the production of EVOs bring and what their actions cause.
What strange radiation shows is how ultra dense matter can be transformed into EVOs, how these EVOs are metastable, and form the basis of the LENR reaction.
Think tiny black hole analogs but charged and not so dense. Also read somewhere that the matter to produced power conversion in accretion disks of a spinning black hole are better than fusion. Gobble up matter digest a condensed soup then spew out useful energy in a way more manageable process than antimatter/matter but busting through the constraints of fusion/fission/decay. There is no 'waste', it is all beautiful. Just way more efficient matter conversion. It's possibly right there hidden in all these mainstream science articles. The x rays and what not are down converted and anything not traveling at the speed of light stays inside.
Therein lies the kernel of the LENR reaction as I see it, with the EVO as being the mini black hole.
Yes, so it isn't infinite energy just substantially denser than fusion without being as dense as antimatter/matter annihilation. Because of the density we expect it's easy to jump for vacuum dark energy or aether spirit dimensions etc... but we need to keep the theories as grounded on the floor as possible because that is what will make this grow! This is coming from a very spiritual and somewhat religious person! Holding hard onto personal pet theories while developing technology may get in the way of smooth production!
Rossi probably realised how much energy was coming from it and how matter seemed to just disappear instead of transmute or radiate proportionately, then said this isn't nuclear it must be interdimensional/vacuum. If what I read is true it's likely this is somewhat efficient matter to power annihilation, just like a standard black hole you don't see a process all the time but it eventually evaporates and explodes in a residual energy fart in the far future when out of mass.
Again mostly a guessing brainstorm.
EVOs are also called plasmoids, and the famous first “picture of the hyper massive” black hole we were bombarded with a few months ago is showing, and this is not my opinion but of many Electric Universe proponents, and I think it may be right, a huge astrophysic plasmoid.
The DoD has accepted two items from Mills. So you are saying the military are also using things that will eventually surprise them also, since 1986, when that same model of the electron has been used by them? Seems nothing has happened to make the DoD mistrust Haus/Mills model of the electron, but the complete opposite. They went to Mills for another item. And don't forget, the Millsian modeler, a third item based on GUT-CP, is also working perfectly, without falling apart, since 2010.
Also there is a competitor, Evaco LLC that is also using the same theory, to develop their version of a device similar to the Suncell, and then there is Huub Bakker, who also is using the theory to develop an item very different from the Suncell or the Millsian, or for explaining the mechanism allowing their free Electron Laser to work; an anti-gravity device. Is Bakker also using Rydberg matter to levitate? That Rydberg matter must be very versatile, in exactly the same way that Mills' model of the electron is.
But that is not enough, GUT-CP just must be wrong and QWM just must be right. Why? To show that you, as you say, "believe" to happen to have been using the better theory, all this time, and dare not agree to GUT-CP, in order to avoid having to save face.
Two can be true in there own way, with flaws in both theories leading individuals to thinking it's incompatible.
The work of Holmlid is not new at all to many of us inhabitants of LENR land (Or LENR fantasyland as pseudoskeptics might want to call it). But, the level of support (both institutional and financial) is what is is impressive in his case, he has been able to keep publishing in peer reviewed journals and very prolific, too. This late paper is of huge importance, tho, as it shows the experimental and observational basis to put mainstream cosmology on its head.
Mills made the case for ultra dense Hydrogen as dark matter long before Holmlid. He also projected the acceleration of the universe before data supported it. He also described haw mainstream cosmology is wrong. It is interesting to me that Mills work is mainly discounted, but when others claim similar results they are give credit.
Mills has shown that the hydrino is paramagnetic whereas dark matter does not respond to EMF.
It is not the Hydrino/dark matter itself that is paramagnetic, but the whole Hydrino-hydride molecule, which is seen in Mills video of smoky filaments. The hydride end of the molecule is changed from being magnetically inert to having paramagnetic properties from being compounded with a Hydrino atom. Good to keep the argument in context, instead of just assuming something that is not actually happening. That is the attitude that got the whole Standard Quantum Wave based Mechanics into the shitload of trouble it is in.
Now that Mills has corrected that problem, critics say Mills theory does not agree with SQM. Of course Mills theory does not agree, that was the whole point of correcting incumbent physics.
This Hydrino-hydride molecule is the normal state after hydino formation. Mills has not shown the Hydrino atom as an independent entity. If Mills has, then show me the picture.
Hydrinos are too difficult to contain. They are much smaller than Hydrogen atoms and therefore are abler to exit any container much faster than Hydrogen atoms, itself a slippery atom to hold onto. Most instances of contained Hydrogen is in the molecular form, reasonably well contained due to its size. Heat and pressure in the reactor chambers make the Hydrino produced escape almost immediately upon being catalysed. How to contain it might be a project of others who could then become suppliers of the smaller atom.
You keep bringing up challenges to Mills that are a bit unrealistic. Containing the Hydrino, just to satisfy others curiousity, is low on his list of prioities and more likely not a concern for Mills at all. He is far past the point of convincing anyone. The Hydrides are well founded as they can be made by anyone, if that is so crucial to confirmation. All that is required is a binding agreement that prevents the technology from being exploited for purely fudiciary gain, or to prevent taking the tech out of Mills control. Certainly that, as a reciprocal requirement, is not too much to ask for, in light of the potential for benefiting all people. That is the only goal Mills has, as a medical doctor and as a humanitarian. He already has his riches made in farming and other inventions made earlier. Also learn about the theory yourself, and get a toe hold in the new physics. You will be glad you did.
Holmlid has faced less opposition because he is working within the current bounds of the predominant paradigm, and this has helped his work gain acceptance, along with the experimental success.