Re: [Vo]:Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium

2015-11-06 Thread David Roberson
I assume that any significant energy release must be due to true fusion since 
the potential energy of both states(H(1) or H(0)) are comparable.   Is there 
some other source of energy release contemplated?  Does it not seem strange 
that an effect as significant as this one remained hidden from physicists for 
so long?  I remain skeptical since it appears to be too good to be true.  And, 
the extreme density of this compressed hydrogen should have revealed itself.

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Mark Jurich <jur...@hotmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Thu, Nov 5, 2015 10:41 pm
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium




FYI:
 
All, please take a close look at Fig. 2 of this Holmlid Paper:
 
http://fuelrfuture.com/science/holm2.pdf
 
I think it will help explain how Holmlid had viewed/grasped the energylevels 
back in early 2014.  Also keep in mind that H(-1) is now calledH(0).  It was 
thought that the apparent Ultra-dense state was InvertedRydberg Hydrogen (IRH, 
hence the “-1”), but now this state is seen as somewhatdifferent. The “0” 
reflects that the orbital angular momentum of the electronsis zero.  The 
picture in Fig 1 may need some modification to take intoaccount the various 
apparent spin states of H(0).  Winterberg’s earlierdescription has slightly 
fallen out of favor in regards to more recent data, butI am not sure what the 
latest findings suggest.  Reading more of literatureshould help clear up the 
current understanding of H(0).
 
Mark Jurich




Re: [Vo]:Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium

2015-11-06 Thread David Roberson
Fran, are you thinking that this is a form of zero point energy?

Dave

 

 

 

-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X <francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Nov 6, 2015 7:21 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium



I think confusion will continue to reign for as long as researchers continue to 
attribute the energy levels solely to the atom instead of in combination with 
the dynamic Casimir environment through which it is randomly moving. IMHO 
molecular bonds formed in these regions have a non spatial component 
proportional to the inverse of confined spacing ^3  and become spring loaded 
when the molecule moves to a different confinement level which discounts their 
disassociation threshold.
Fran
 

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 11:44 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium

 
It’s very difficult to keep the terminology consistent.
 
I think Holmlid would be wise to ditch the present designations and start over.
 
 
From: Mark Jurich


FYI:

 

All, please take a close look at Fig. 2 of this Holmlid Paper:

 

http://fuelrfuture.com/science/holm2.pdf

 

I think it will help explain how Holmlid had viewed/grasped the energy levels 
back in early 2014.  Also keep in mind that H(-1) is now called H(0).  It was 
thought that the apparent Ultra-dense state was Inverted Rydberg Hydrogen (IRH, 
hence the “-1”), but now this state is seen as somewhat different. The “0” 
reflects that the orbital angular momentum of the electrons is zero.  The 
picture in Fig 1 may need some modification to take into account the various 
apparent spin states of H(0).  Winterberg’s earlier description has slightly 
fallen out of favor in regards to more recent data, but I am not sure what the 
latest findings suggest.  Reading more of literature should help clear up the 
current understanding of H(0).

 

Mark Jurich





[Vo]:Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium

2015-11-06 Thread Bob Cook
The Holmlid paper is a smoking gun for the mechanism of spin coupling in a 
coherent system that has been sought for some time.  

The paper suggests ultra-dense clusters—small vortex rod like clusters of 
molecular of P, D and T are possible.  Holmlid calls this H(-1)  which can 
exist in 3 spin separate spin states with the spin 2 state being most stable.

Holmlid suggests that the dense state H(-1) can oscillate with the H(1) state 
(a Rydberg hydrogen state) not the same as normal molecular hydrogen, which is 
identified as H2.  Holmlid identifies  normal molecular hydrogen with a nuclear 
separation of 74 pm, compared to the Rydberg state H(1)  with a nuclear 
separation of 150 pm and the ultra dense state H(-1) with a nuclear separation 
of 2.3 pm.  

Holmlid does not refer to normal molecular hydrogen as H(0) as best I can tell 
from reading his paper.  I would think that normal molecular hydrogen could 
have more than one orbital spin state for its two electrons.  Thus, a notation 
of H(0) would not be correct for some normal hydrogen. 

It would seem to be a small step to reach a more stable state than the H(-1), 
say He, with a transfer of energy to the rest of the coherent system via the 
phase transitions and their respective spin energy states.  Holmlid even goes 
so far to suggest that spin may not be conserved in rapid transitions.  (I 
doubt that conjecture.)  

In the case of ultra dense p molecules, D may form before the He finds itself 
possible. 

Bob Cook


From: Jones Beene 
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 8:43 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium

It’s very difficult to keep the terminology consistent.

 

I think Holmlid would be wise to ditch the present designations and start over. 

 

 

From: Mark Juric

FYI:

 

All, please take a close look at Fig. 2 of this Holmlid Paper:

 

http://fuelrfuture.com/science/holm2.pdf

 

I think it will help explain how Holmlid had viewed/grasped the energy levels 
back in early 2014.  Also keep in mind that H(-1) is now called H(0).  It was 
thought that the apparent Ultra-dense state was Inverted Rydberg Hydrogen (IRH, 
hence the “-1”), but now this state is seen as somewhat different. The “0” 
reflects that the orbital angular momentum of the electrons is zero.  The 
picture in Fig 1 may need some modification to take into account the various 
apparent spin states of H(0).  Winterberg’s earlier description has slightly 
fallen out of favor in regards to more recent data, but I am not sure what the 
latest findings suggest.  Reading more of literature should help clear up the 
current understanding of H(0).

 

Mark Jurich


[Vo]:Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium

2015-11-06 Thread Mark Jurich
I wrote:

  please take a close look at Fig. 2 of this Holmlid Paper:
  http://fuelrfuture.com/science/holm2.pdf
  [along with other stuff including an explanation of the figure]

to which Dave replied:

   I assume that any significant energy release must be due to true fusion 
since the potential energy of both states(H(1) or H(0)) 
are comparable.   Is there some other source of energy release contemplated?  
Does it not seem strange that an effect as significant 
as this one remained hidden from physicists for so long?  I remain skeptical 
since it appears to be too good to be true.  And, the 
extreme density of this compressed hydrogen should have revealed itself.
Dave, these are very good questions.  What do you mean by “true fusion”?  I 
assume you mean hot fusion but I may be wrong.  Even 
that term means different things to different people.  In this particular case, 
I would say that it is unconventional hot fusion, 
since particles such as muons/mesons are apparently seen coming from the 
material (which is yet another (related) topic to debate in 
itself).
With respect to some other source of energy release ... Sure, perhaps with the 
“right” ingredients, LENR (i.e., non-hot fusion) may 
occur, if that’s what you are addressing here.
Yes, it’s very strange that an apparent effect as significant as this seems to 
be “hidden” and I’m not aware (at this time) of any 
good arguments opposing it, other than the usual things like, “this isn’t a 
real scientist” and “if it isn’t published in PRL, it’s 
not worth looking into”.  Are you aware of any data/experiments that refute 
this?  I’d love to see/hear them...
I believe I am as skeptical as you are.  I am open to trying to understand what 
is happening, as I am sure you are...
It is my understanding that milligrams of this “stuff” may be possible to 
create.  Perhaps shining a variable frequency probe laser 
or X-Rays into it may reveal something, I don’t know.  Do you have an ideas how 
we can  possibly prove that it’s happening, 
density-wise?
Please take a look at what looks like Leif’s reply to something along the lines 
of your questions, recently (search in the comments 
for “Leif Holmlid”):
http://hackaday.com/2015/10/05/deuterium-powered-homes-and-the-return-of-cold-fusion-hype/
Let us know what you think!
- Mark
 


[Vo]: Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium

2015-11-06 Thread Mark Jurich
Bob Cook wrote:
Holmlid does not refer to normal molecular hydrogen as H(0) as best I can tell 
from reading his paper.  I would think that normal 
molecular hydrogen could have more than one orbital spin state for its two 
electrons.  Thus, a notation of H(0) would not be correct 
for some normal hydrogen.
Please take a look (for example) at:
Nuclear particle decay in a multi-MeV beam ejected by pulsed-laser impact on 
ultra-dense hydrogen H(0)
Leif Holmlid
International Journal of Modern Physics E, 24:11 (2015) 1550080 (18 pages)
>From the paper:
“Two different forms of ultra-dense hydrogen H(0) exist, namely ultra-dense 
protium
p(0)1 and ultra-dense deuterium D(0).2,3 The names of these materials have
recently been changed from p(−1) and D(−1) to indicate that the orbital angular
momentum of the electrons is zero.3”

Mark Jurich
 


RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium

2015-11-06 Thread Roarty, Francis X
zero point energy is  what keeps helium from freezing at 0 K, It also causes 
gas atom to have random motion but we are told this energy would require the 
fictional  “Maxwellian Demon” to rectify . Prof Moddel wrote a very plain 
language paper how this can occur “a Demon. A Law, and the quest for virtually 
free 
Energy”<http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/Papers/VacEnergyExtrac_Jan10.pdf> 
when DCE [dynamic Casimir Effect] meets ZPE, Random motion of gas is the 
baseline for vacuum engineering that occurs everywhere the same for every 
inertial frame. Vacuum engineering was coined by Hal Puthoff to describe things 
like Casimir effect where vacuum density can be caused to vary without the need 
for relativistic velocities. People like Lyne and Mohler  claimed anomalous 
heat with a theory related to the atomic vs molecular state of hydrogen inside 
their reactor tubes.  IMHO they were on to something but stopped far short.. 
their devices may have produced some thermal anomaly but we are only recently 
approaching the next level where this underlying bootstrap energy can fuel the 
types of reaction Jones and Axil are discussing..  I think the fact that these 
anomalies only occur inside the catalyst or nano powders [inverse catalyst] 
makes a strong case for the catalyst being the rectifier causing hydrogen atoms 
to change inertial state by changing vacuum density when the normally 
unrectifiable random motion of gas causes the gas atoms to move to a different 
size of  confined geometry – unlike cancellation of spatial vectors in 3d,  the 
tapestry inside Casimir geometry doesn’t require a specific direction, any 
motion that causes atoms to move into a less or more confinement qualifies as 
dynamic Casimir effect. IMHO molecular bonds try to prevent the individual 
atoms from contraction and thereby discount the energy needed to 
disassociate…if the molecules are already at a an ambient near the threshold 
temperature this reversible reaction could provide anomalous heat [OU] and 
either be the power source or more likely bootstrap power for any of  the 
multiple theories being discussed in this forum. I guess my point is that 
ultimately the energy has to be derived from the geometry working on something 
and if that something is vacuum density then yes I think it is fair to call the 
source as being derived from ZPE.
Fran

From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, November 06, 2015 10:20 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium

Fran, are you thinking that this is a form of zero point energy?

Dave



-Original Message-
From: Roarty, Francis X 
<francis.x.roa...@lmco.com<mailto:francis.x.roa...@lmco.com>>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>>
Sent: Fri, Nov 6, 2015 7:21 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium
I think confusion will continue to reign for as long as researchers continue to 
attribute the energy levels solely to the atom instead of in combination with 
the dynamic Casimir environment through which it is randomly moving. IMHO 
molecular bonds formed in these regions have a non spatial component 
proportional to the inverse of confined spacing ^3  and become spring loaded 
when the molecule moves to a different confinement level which discounts their 
disassociation threshold.
Fran

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net?>]
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 11:44 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium

It’s very difficult to keep the terminology consistent.

I think Holmlid would be wise to ditch the present designations and start over.


From: Mark Jurich
FYI:

All, please take a close look at Fig. 2 of this Holmlid Paper:

http://fuelrfuture.com/science/holm2.pdf

I think it will help explain how Holmlid had viewed/grasped the energy levels 
back in early 2014.  Also keep in mind that H(-1) is now called H(0).  It was 
thought that the apparent Ultra-dense state was Inverted Rydberg Hydrogen (IRH, 
hence the “-1”), but now this state is seen as somewhat different. The “0” 
reflects that the orbital angular momentum of the electrons is zero.  The 
picture in Fig 1 may need some modification to take into account the various 
apparent spin states of H(0).  Winterberg’s earlier description has slightly 
fallen out of favor in regards to more recent data, but I am not sure what the 
latest findings suggest.  Reading more of literature should help clear up the 
current understanding of H(0).

Mark Jurich


RE: [Vo]:Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium

2015-11-06 Thread Roarty, Francis X
I think confusion will continue to reign for as long as researchers continue to 
attribute the energy levels solely to the atom instead of in combination with 
the dynamic Casimir environment through which it is randomly moving. IMHO 
molecular bonds formed in these regions have a non spatial component 
proportional to the inverse of confined spacing ^3  and become spring loaded 
when the molecule moves to a different confinement level which discounts their 
disassociation threshold.
Fran

From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 11:44 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium

It’s very difficult to keep the terminology consistent.

I think Holmlid would be wise to ditch the present designations and start over.


From: Mark Jurich
FYI:

All, please take a close look at Fig. 2 of this Holmlid Paper:

http://fuelrfuture.com/science/holm2.pdf

I think it will help explain how Holmlid had viewed/grasped the energy levels 
back in early 2014.  Also keep in mind that H(-1) is now called H(0).  It was 
thought that the apparent Ultra-dense state was Inverted Rydberg Hydrogen (IRH, 
hence the “-1”), but now this state is seen as somewhat different. The “0” 
reflects that the orbital angular momentum of the electrons is zero.  The 
picture in Fig 1 may need some modification to take into account the various 
apparent spin states of H(0).  Winterberg’s earlier description has slightly 
fallen out of favor in regards to more recent data, but I am not sure what the 
latest findings suggest.  Reading more of literature should help clear up the 
current understanding of H(0).

Mark Jurich


RE: [Vo]:Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium

2015-11-05 Thread Jones Beene
It’s very difficult to keep the terminology consistent.

 

I think Holmlid would be wise to ditch the present designations and start over. 

 

 

From: Mark Jurich 

FYI:

 

All, please take a close look at Fig. 2 of this Holmlid Paper:

 

http://fuelrfuture.com/science/holm2.pdf

 

I think it will help explain how Holmlid had viewed/grasped the energy levels 
back in early 2014.  Also keep in mind that H(-1) is now called H(0).  It was 
thought that the apparent Ultra-dense state was Inverted Rydberg Hydrogen (IRH, 
hence the “-1”), but now this state is seen as somewhat different. The “0” 
reflects that the orbital angular momentum of the electrons is zero.  The 
picture in Fig 1 may need some modification to take into account the various 
apparent spin states of H(0).  Winterberg’s earlier description has slightly 
fallen out of favor in regards to more recent data, but I am not sure what the 
latest findings suggest.  Reading more of literature should help clear up the 
current understanding of H(0).

 

Mark Jurich



[Vo]:Re: Evidence for ultra-dense deuterium

2015-11-05 Thread Mark Jurich
FYI:

All, please take a close look at Fig. 2 of this Holmlid Paper:

http://fuelrfuture.com/science/holm2.pdf

I think it will help explain how Holmlid had viewed/grasped the energy levels 
back in early 2014.  Also keep in mind that H(-1) is 
now called H(0).  It was thought that the apparent Ultra-dense state was 
Inverted Rydberg Hydrogen (IRH, hence the “-1”), but now 
this state is seen as somewhat different. The “0” reflects that the orbital 
angular momentum of the electrons is zero.  The picture 
in Fig 1 may need some modification to take into account the various apparent 
spin states of H(0).  Winterberg’s earlier description 
has slightly fallen out of favor in regards to more recent data, but I am not 
sure what the latest findings suggest.  Reading more 
of literature should help clear up the current understanding of H(0).

Mark Jurich