RE: [Vo]:Is the proton friable?

[Jones Beene]

Bob,

 

Here is more detail with a lot of reference which I am trying to wade through 
-- but you may find easier to navigate.

 

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Strong_gravitational_constant

 

Obviously – if there were a solid case for this proposition, it would have 
gotten traction many years ago in the Ivory Towers, and Dufour would be better 
known in the broader field of Physics. 

 

Maybe he is way ahead of his time?

 

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

After having read Dufour's paper, it appears that it is complete hypothesis on 
the basis of the fact that the other forces seem to converge in magnitude at a 
sub-nuclear scale - so why shouldn't gravitation?  He presents no apparent data 
that his hypothesis has any basis.  Gravitation would have to change radically 
from the 100 micron scale to the 1 fermi scale.  While possible, it would be 
nice to have some real evidence.  It would seem like it would create a 
measurable change in the lines of hydrogen as predicted by the Dirac equation 
because this nonlinear gravity is not accounted in the Dirac equation (we know 
that the Schrodinger values are off for lack of inclusion of special 
relativity).

 

Jones Beene wrote:

One other thought about Dufour’s hypothesis of a VERY SIZEABLE INCREASE OF 
GRAVITATION AT PICOMETER DISTANCE (on the order of Coulomb repulsion). This 
provides the effective pressure, on the order of hundreds of gigapascals, which 
is required for the known version of metallic hydrogen. The denser version is 
merely a further step and not unexpected if gravity operates this way.

 

 http://www.iscmns.org/asti06/J-DUFOUR%20-%20ASTI%20PRESENTATION%20-%202006.pdf

Ten years ago, Durour is talking about a model with several binding energies 
for hydrogen in the range of several hundred eV and actually mentions the value 
of 650 eV which Holmlid settles on. No one paid much attention then.

But Dufour goes further to imply that LENR does not need nuclear reactions if 
“picochemistry” involves any kind of asymmetry since the chemical energy level 
is so great. That would open a Pandora’s box which apparently he wishes to 
avoid, so the details of how picochemistry would ultimately be powered (ZPE ?) 
are missing. In so doing, he left open the door for Holmlid to get most of the 
credit… but LH deserves it. He has taken a huge risk, published tirelessly - 
and could come out of it with a big prize.

 

Re: [Vo]:Is the proton friable?

[Bob Higgins]

After having read Dufour's paper, it appears that it is complete hypothesis
on the basis of the fact that the other forces seem to converge in
magnitude at a sub-nuclear scale - so why shouldn't gravitation?  He
presents no apparent data that his hypothesis has any basis.  Gravitation
would have to change radically from the 100 micron scale to the 1 fermi
scale.  While possible, it would be nice to have some real evidence.  It
would seem like it would create a measurable change in the lines of
hydrogen as predicted by the Dirac equation because this nonlinear gravity
is not accounted in the Dirac equation (we know that the Schrodinger values
are off for lack of inclusion of special relativity).

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 6:53 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> One other thought about Dufour’s hypothesis of a VERY SIZEABLE INCREASE
> OF GRAVITATION AT PICOMETER DISTANCE (on the order of Coulomb repulsion).
> This provides the effective pressure, on the order of hundreds of
> gigapascals, which is required for the known version of metallic
> hydrogen. The denser version is merely a further step and not unexpected
> if gravity operates this way.
>
>
> *http://www.iscmns.org/asti06/J-DUFOUR%20-%20ASTI%20PRESENTATION%20-%202006.pdf*
> 
>
> Ten years ago, Durour is talking about a model with several binding
> energies for hydrogen in the range of several hundred eV and actually
> mentions the value of 650 eV which Holmlid settles on. No one paid much
> attention then.
>
> But Dufour goes further to imply that LENR does not need nuclear reactions
> if “picochemistry” involves any kind of asymmetry since the chemical energy
> level is so great. That would open a Pandora’s box which apparently he
> wishes to avoid, so the details of how picochemistry would ultimately be
> powered (ZPE ?) are missing. In so doing, he left open the door for
> Holmlid to get most of the credit… but LH deserves it. He has taken a
> huge risk, published tirelessly - and could come out of it with a big
> prize.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Is the proton friable?

[Axil Axil]

Bob Higgins question about the size of the hydrogen bonds in metalized
hydrogen might be best seen in the light of how a snowflake formed from a
seed. The seed around which a snowflake gets it structure can be
microscopic in size and yet provide the snowflake with all the instructions
it needs to grow into all sorts of patterns and symmetries.

Then there is the patterns stored in DNA that can reproduce all sorts of
body forms from bacteria to whales.

Mark Leclair believes that the water crystal, a form of metalized water
provided the template for the creation of the DNA molecule when a asteroid
produced cavitation is a protein rich soup. The structure of the water
crystal and DNA are the same.

So the way metalized hydrogen forms may be the same process as what created
life...the finger of GOD.



On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> One of the things I don't get about Holmilid's theory for RM formation is
> that the small RM cluster has a 150pm atomic separation, or about 300pm
> radius.  The Fe-K Fischer-Tropsch catalysts typically have pore diameters
> of 10-20nm, or nearly 100 times the size of the already huge RM cluster.
> How can this large catalyst geometry be responsible for producing UDH
> almost 100x smaller than the original RM cluster?  Experiment has shown
> that porous F-T catalysts are able to catalyze formation of RM.  It is
> interesting to note that the size of the UDH/UDD is much smaller than even
> the lattice parameters for Fe2O3 which are in the 500pm range.
>
> Also, it is not clear to me how currents from RM inside one of these pores
> could produce a "vortex".  The magnetic field is already the curl of the
> current.  If the current (electron or proton) was flowing around the ID of
> the pore, the magnetic field would be a closed toroid.  It would not have
> extents outside of the diameter of the pore because current flow on one
> side of the pore would cancel the current flow on the opposite side.  To be
> able to create a magnetic field that has a larger extent than the diameter
> of the pore, the current would have to be flowing as a tube in the
> direction of the axis of the pore - in which case, what is the current
> flowing from and to?
>
> Any thoughts on these?
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> *From:* Bob Higgins
>>
>> Ø   What you describe is certainly an interesting and scary
>> proposition - that protons could be sheared or broken apart.  However, it
>> is hard to imagine a number of thing in this hypothesis and that of
>> Olafssen/Holmlid.  First of all, where did the potential energy come from
>> to put two hydrogen nuclei in 2.3pm proximity?
>>
>> My view on this differs from Holmlid and incorporates Lawandy’s view.
>> For the sake of argument, consider that SPP are the formative cause of
>> densification. They form a magnetic vortex on a surface between a
>> conductor (not necessarily a metal) and a dielectric, and if hydrogen is
>> also there, the H orbitals become entrained in the catalyst, powering
>> the ring current and leaving Cooper pairs of protons as the end product,
>> which can then further group into clusters. The hexagonal structure of
>> hematite is critical.
>>
>> Yes, this requires energy from a flux of photons and is lossy. So the
>> cumulative photons would supply the energy of densification. Any excess
>> comes later.
>>
>> Ø   Second, SPP is an electron resonance at a metal/dielectric
>> interface, but the electrons themselves are in the metal (AFIK).  How would
>> these electrons that are in the metal (resonant in SPP or not) be complicit
>> in a UDD/UDH breakup?
>>
>>
>>
>> IMO the electrons appear as ring current around the hexagon structure of
>> iron oxide in the same way that electrons appear around the hexagonal ring
>> of graphene oxide. A “local conductor” has substituted for the metal of
>> the normal SPP and that is hematite, which fills both roles – dielectric
>> and local conductor.
>>
>> Ø   Thirdly, why would UDD/UDH be stable?
>>
>> Now that is a big mystery. Unlike metallic hydrogen, which is only
>> stable so long as high pressure is applied and maintained, and which is
>> far less dense than UDH, what we are probably seeing is a new isomer of
>> metallic hydrogen which does not require continuous pressure.
>>
>> Holmlid is the expert but his view changes over time and he is probably
>> incorrect on some points. Same with Miley, Lawandy, Mills, Winterberg,
>> Hora, Olafsson and everyone else who comes into this field with their own 
>> background
>> and preconceived notions.
>>
>> IMO – everyone can cherry pick up to the point that a defining experiment
>> comes along and this may come from an unexpected source, maybe one of
>> Holmlid’s students… who knows? Thankfully there does seem to be a cadre
>> of younger researchers, mostly Nordic, getting involved in this R
>>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Is the proton friable?

[Jones Beene]

One other thought about Dufour’s hypothesis of a VERY SIZEABLE INCREASE OF 
GRAVITATION AT PICOMETER DISTANCE (on the order of Coulomb repulsion). This 
provides the effective pressure, on the order of hundreds of gigapascals, which 
is required for the known version of metallic hydrogen. The denser version is 
merely a further step and not unexpected if gravity operates this way.

http://www.iscmns.org/asti06/J-DUFOUR%20-%20ASTI%20PRESENTATION%20-%202006.pdf

Ten years ago, Durour is talking about a model with several binding energies 
for hydrogen in the range of several hundred eV and actually mentions the value 
of 650 eV which Holmlid settles on. No one paid much attention then.

But Dufour goes further to imply that LENR does not need nuclear reactions if 
“picochemistry” involves any kind of asymmetry since the chemical energy level 
is so great. That would open a Pandora’s box which apparently he wishes to 
avoid, so the details of how picochemistry would ultimately be powered (ZPE ?) 
are missing. In so doing, he left open the door for Holmlid to get most of the 
credit… but LH deserves it. He has taken a huge risk, published tirelessly - 
and could come out of it with a big prize.

RE: [Vo]:Is the proton friable?

[Russ George]

It seems that when hydrogen/deuterium becomes ultra-dense as Homlid and 
Fleischmann have shown and said all bets are off as to what is the atom ecology 
character of those hydrogen nuclei. In my work many years ago a good friend who 
won the Nobel prize for the ‘Quark’ and a gaggle of other Nobel laureates he 
and I collaborated with introduced me to his notion that very likely the ‘quark 
bag model’ would be what enables cold fusion. It effectively takes ‘protons’ 
and ‘neutrons’ off the list of being characteristics inside a nucleus, they 
only congeal and exist outside a nucleus. 
http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2016/04/18/cold-kaon-fusion/ 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 2:03 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the proton friable?

 

One of the things I don't get about Holmilid's theory for RM formation is that 
the small RM cluster has a 150pm atomic separation, or about 300pm radius.  The 
Fe-K Fischer-Tropsch catalysts typically have pore diameters of 10-20nm, or 
nearly 100 times the size of the already huge RM cluster.  How can this large 
catalyst geometry be responsible for producing UDH almost 100x smaller than the 
original RM cluster?  Experiment has shown that porous F-T catalysts are able 
to catalyze formation of RM.  It is interesting to note that the size of the 
UDH/UDD is much smaller than even the lattice parameters for Fe2O3 which are in 
the 500pm range.

Also, it is not clear to me how currents from RM inside one of these pores 
could produce a "vortex".  The magnetic field is already the curl of the 
current.  If the current (electron or proton) was flowing around the ID of the 
pore, the magnetic field would be a closed toroid.  It would not have extents 
outside of the diameter of the pore because current flow on one side of the 
pore would cancel the current flow on the opposite side.  To be able to create 
a magnetic field that has a larger extent than the diameter of the pore, the 
current would have to be flowing as a tube in the direction of the axis of the 
pore - in which case, what is the current flowing from and to?

 

Any thoughts on these?

 

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net 
<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> > wrote:

From: Bob Higgins 

*   What you describe is certainly an interesting and scary proposition - 
that protons could be sheared or broken apart.  However, it is hard to imagine 
a number of thing in this hypothesis and that of Olafssen/Holmlid.  First of 
all, where did the potential energy come from to put two hydrogen nuclei in 
2.3pm proximity? 

My view on this differs from Holmlid and incorporates Lawandy’s view. For the 
sake of argument, consider that SPP are the formative cause of densification. 
They form a magnetic vortex on a surface between a conductor (not necessarily a 
metal) and a dielectric, and if hydrogen is also there, the H orbitals become 
entrained in the catalyst, powering the ring current and leaving Cooper pairs 
of protons as the end product, which can then further group into clusters. The 
hexagonal structure of hematite is critical.

Yes, this requires energy from a flux of photons and is lossy. So the 
cumulative photons would supply the energy of densification. Any excess comes 
later.

*   Second, SPP is an electron resonance at a metal/dielectric interface, 
but the electrons themselves are in the metal (AFIK).  How would these 
electrons that are in the metal (resonant in SPP or not) be complicit in a 
UDD/UDH breakup?

  

IMO the electrons appear as ring current around the hexagon structure of iron 
oxide in the same way that electrons appear around the hexagonal ring of 
graphene oxide. A “local conductor” has substituted for the metal of the normal 
SPP and that is hematite, which fills both roles – dielectric and local 
conductor.

*   Thirdly, why would UDD/UDH be stable?

Now that is a big mystery. Unlike metallic hydrogen, which is only stable so 
long as high pressure is applied and maintained, and which is far less dense 
than UDH, what we are probably seeing is a new isomer of metallic hydrogen 
which does not require continuous pressure. 

Holmlid is the expert but his view changes over time and he is probably 
incorrect on some points. Same with Miley, Lawandy, Mills, Winterberg, Hora, 
Olafsson and everyone else who comes into this field with their own background 
and preconceived notions.

IMO – everyone can cherry pick up to the point that a defining experiment comes 
along and this may come from an unexpected source, maybe one of Holmlid’s 
students… who knows? Thankfully there does seem to be a cadre of younger 
researchers, mostly Nordic, getting involved in this R

 

Re: [Vo]:Is the proton friable?

[Axil Axil]

Mesoscopic Rydberg-blockaded ensembles in the superatom regime and beyond

   - T. M. Weber
   ,
   - M. Höning
   ,
   - T. Niederprüm
   ,
   - T. Manthey
   ,
   - O. Thomas
   ,
   - V. Guarrera
   ,
   - M. Fleischhauer
   ,
   - G. Barontini
   
   - & H. Ott
   


   - Affiliations
   
   - Contributions
   
   - Corresponding author
   


Nature Physics 11, 157–161 (2015) doi:10.1038/nphys3214Received 11 July
2014 Accepted 01 December 2014 Published online 12 January 2015
A

The control of strongly interacting many-body systems enables the creation
of tailored quantum matter with complex properties. Atomic ensembles that
are optically driven to a Rydberg state provide many examples for this:
atom–atom entanglement1
, 2
,
many-body Rabi oscillations3
,
strong photon–photon interaction4
 and
spatial pair correlations5
. In
its most basic form Rydberg quantum matter consists of an isolated ensemble
of strongly interacting atoms spatially confined to the blockade volume—a
superatom. Here we demonstrate the controlled creation and characterization
of an isolated mesoscopic superatom by means of accurate density
engineering and excitation to Rydberg *p*-states. Its variable size allows
the investigation of the transition from effective two-level physics to
many-body phenomena. By monitoring continuous laser-induced ionization we
observe a strongly anti-bunched ion emission under blockade conditions and
extremely bunched ion emission under off-resonant excitation. Our
measurements provide insights into both excitation statistics and dynamics.
We anticipate applications in quantum optics and quantum information as
well as many-body physics experiments.

---

Rydberg-blockade uses entanglement to provide a template for the formation
of the metalize hydrogen. Potassium doping in the iron oxide provides the
Rydberg entanglement template that causes the hydrogen atoms to fall into
place with the desired hydrogen bonding.

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> One of the things I don't get about Holmilid's theory for RM formation is
> that the small RM cluster has a 150pm atomic separation, or about 300pm
> radius.  The Fe-K Fischer-Tropsch catalysts typically have pore diameters
> of 10-20nm, or nearly 100 times the size of the already huge RM cluster.
> How can this large catalyst geometry be responsible for producing UDH
> almost 100x smaller than the original RM cluster?  Experiment has shown
> that porous F-T catalysts are able to catalyze formation of RM.  It is
> interesting to note that the size of the UDH/UDD is much smaller than even
> the lattice parameters for Fe2O3 which are in the 500pm range.
>
> Also, it is not clear to me how currents from RM inside one of these pores
> could produce a "vortex".  The magnetic field is already the curl of the
> current.  If the current (electron or proton) was flowing around the ID of
> the pore, the magnetic field would be a closed toroid.  It would not have
> extents outside of the diameter of the pore because current flow on one
> side of the pore would cancel the current flow on the opposite side.  To be
> able to create a magnetic field that has a larger extent than the diameter
> of the pore, the current would have to be flowing as a tube in the
> direction of the axis of the pore - in which case, what is the current
> flowing from and to?
>
> Any thoughts on these?
>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> *From:* Bob Higgins
>>
>> Ø   What you describe is certainly an interesting and scary
>> proposition - that protons could be sheared or broken apart.  However, it
>> is hard to imagine a number of thing in this hypothesis and that of
>> Olafssen/Holmlid.  

Re: [Vo]:Is the proton friable?

[Bob Higgins]

One of the things I don't get about Holmilid's theory for RM formation is
that the small RM cluster has a 150pm atomic separation, or about 300pm
radius.  The Fe-K Fischer-Tropsch catalysts typically have pore diameters
of 10-20nm, or nearly 100 times the size of the already huge RM cluster.
How can this large catalyst geometry be responsible for producing UDH
almost 100x smaller than the original RM cluster?  Experiment has shown
that porous F-T catalysts are able to catalyze formation of RM.  It is
interesting to note that the size of the UDH/UDD is much smaller than even
the lattice parameters for Fe2O3 which are in the 500pm range.

Also, it is not clear to me how currents from RM inside one of these pores
could produce a "vortex".  The magnetic field is already the curl of the
current.  If the current (electron or proton) was flowing around the ID of
the pore, the magnetic field would be a closed toroid.  It would not have
extents outside of the diameter of the pore because current flow on one
side of the pore would cancel the current flow on the opposite side.  To be
able to create a magnetic field that has a larger extent than the diameter
of the pore, the current would have to be flowing as a tube in the
direction of the axis of the pore - in which case, what is the current
flowing from and to?

Any thoughts on these?

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:05 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
> Ø   What you describe is certainly an interesting and scary
> proposition - that protons could be sheared or broken apart.  However, it
> is hard to imagine a number of thing in this hypothesis and that of
> Olafssen/Holmlid.  First of all, where did the potential energy come from
> to put two hydrogen nuclei in 2.3pm proximity?
>
> My view on this differs from Holmlid and incorporates Lawandy’s view. For
> the sake of argument, consider that SPP are the formative cause of
> densification. They form a magnetic vortex on a surface between a
> conductor (not necessarily a metal) and a dielectric, and if hydrogen is
> also there, the H orbitals become entrained in the catalyst, powering the
> ring current and leaving Cooper pairs of protons as the end product,
> which can then further group into clusters. The hexagonal structure of
> hematite is critical.
>
> Yes, this requires energy from a flux of photons and is lossy. So the
> cumulative photons would supply the energy of densification. Any excess
> comes later.
>
> Ø   Second, SPP is an electron resonance at a metal/dielectric
> interface, but the electrons themselves are in the metal (AFIK).  How would
> these electrons that are in the metal (resonant in SPP or not) be complicit
> in a UDD/UDH breakup?
>
>
>
> IMO the electrons appear as ring current around the hexagon structure of
> iron oxide in the same way that electrons appear around the hexagonal ring
> of graphene oxide. A “local conductor” has substituted for the metal of
> the normal SPP and that is hematite, which fills both roles – dielectric
> and local conductor.
>
> Ø   Thirdly, why would UDD/UDH be stable?
>
> Now that is a big mystery. Unlike metallic hydrogen, which is only stable
> so long as high pressure is applied and maintained, and which is far less
> dense than UDH, what we are probably seeing is a new isomer of metallic
> hydrogen which does not require continuous pressure.
>
> Holmlid is the expert but his view changes over time and he is probably
> incorrect on some points. Same with Miley, Lawandy, Mills, Winterberg,
> Hora, Olafsson and everyone else who comes into this field with their own 
> background
> and preconceived notions.
>
> IMO – everyone can cherry pick up to the point that a defining experiment
> comes along and this may come from an unexpected source, maybe one of
> Holmlid’s students… who knows? Thankfully there does seem to be a cadre
> of younger researchers, mostly Nordic, getting involved in this R
>

Re: [Vo]:Is the proton friable?

[Axil Axil]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:05 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
> Ø   What you describe is certainly an interesting and scary
> proposition - that protons could be sheared or broken apart.  However, it
> is hard to imagine a number of thing in this hypothesis and that of
> Olafssen/Holmlid.  First of all, where did the potential energy come from
> to put two hydrogen nuclei in 2.3pm proximity?
>
>  This idea by Jones is close to the truth. In most
cases, hexagonal crystal structure forms a template for how the nanowire of
metalized hydrogen will form.  Rossi uses mica, and others uses quartz.

>
> Ø   Second, SPP is an electron resonance at a metal/dielectric
> interface, but the electrons themselves are in the metal (AFIK).  How would
> these electrons that are in the metal (resonant in SPP or not) be complicit
> in a UDD/UDH breakup?
>
SPP is not a ring of electrons. they are a ring of photons that are
entangled with electrons that are still in the dipole connected to a hole
in the metal lattice. The electron is not physically co-located with the
ball of light. SPPs are a light plasmoid.

The SPP is a quantum fluid that produces a monopole flux tube. See

Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.3564.pdf

Ø   Thirdly, why would UDD/UDH be stable?
>
The SPP produces a monopole flux tube the confines the metalized hydrogen
nanowire. The SPPs form a Bose condinsate on the outside of
the hydrogen nanowire. It is that SPP condensate that keeps the structure of
the RM together.

A photo condinsate stores energy as the photons gain mass and slow down.
Photons actually gain mass in a condinsate of light.

I whote a post on all this as follows:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3009-Dualism-makes-LENR-go/

also see my posts here

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3007-LENR-Cage-entrapment-hypothesis/

RE: [Vo]:Is the proton friable?

[Jones Beene]

Bob,

There is one other paper I keep forgetting to bring into this discussion on 
ultra-dense hydrogen. It is Dufour’s brilliant hypothesis of a VERY SIZEABLE 
INCREASE OF GRAVITATION AT PICOMETER DISTANCE 

http://www.iscmns.org/asti06/J-DUFOUR%20-%20ASTI%20PRESENTATION%20-%202006.pdf

This can explain how dense clusters of same charge can stay together despite 
electrostatic repulsion. It could be a critical piece of the puzzle which 
combines Holmlid, Lawandy, Mills and the rest into a package which has few lose 
ends, and is almost ready for prime time – as soon as that pesky radiation 
signature turns up at 511 keV. (noting again that the signal may be low at any 
single spot within the huge bubble of muon decay, but when the totality of 
dispersal is considered – it will be very significant.

From: Bob Higgins 
*   What you describe is certainly an interesting and scary proposition - 
that protons could be sheared or broken apart.  However, it is hard to imagine 
a number of thing in this hypothesis and that of Olafssen/Holmlid.  First of 
all, where did the potential energy come from to put two hydrogen nuclei in 
2.3pm proximity? 
My view on this differs from Holmlid and incorporates Lawandy’s view. For the 
sake of argument, consider that SPP are the formative cause of densification. 
They form a magnetic vortex on a surface between a conductor (not necessarily a 
metal) and a dielectric, and if hydrogen is also there, the H orbitals become 
entrained in the catalyst, powering the ring current and leaving Cooper pairs 
of protons as the end product, which can then further group into clusters. The 
hexagonal structure of hematite is critical.
Yes, this requires energy from a flux of photons and is lossy. So the 
cumulative photons would supply the energy of densification. Any excess comes 
later.
*   Second, SPP is an electron resonance at a metal/dielectric interface, 
but the electrons themselves are in the metal (AFIK).  How would these 
electrons that are in the metal (resonant in SPP or not) be complicit in a 
UDD/UDH breakup?
  
IMO the electrons appear as ring current around the hexagon structure of iron 
oxide in the same way that electrons appear around the hexagonal ring of 
graphene oxide. A “local conductor” has substituted for the metal of the normal 
SPP and that is hematite, which fills both roles – dielectric and local 
conductor.
*   Thirdly, why would UDD/UDH be stable?
Now that is a big mystery. Unlike metallic hydrogen, which is only stable so 
long as high pressure is applied and maintained, and which is far less dense 
than UDH, what we are probably seeing is a new isomer of metallic hydrogen 
which does not require continuous pressure. 
Holmlid is the expert but his view changes over time and he is probably 
incorrect on some points. Same with Miley, Lawandy, Mills, Winterberg, Hora, 
Olafsson and everyone else who comes into this field with their own background 
and preconceived notions.
IMO – everyone can cherry pick up to the point that a defining experiment comes 
along and this may come from an unexpected source, maybe one of Holmlid’s 
students… who knows? Thankfully there does seem to be a cadre of younger 
researchers, mostly Nordic, getting involved in this R

RE: [Vo]:Is the proton friable?

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

*   What you describe is certainly an interesting and scary proposition - 
that protons could be sheared or broken apart.  However, it is hard to imagine 
a number of thing in this hypothesis and that of Olafssen/Holmlid.  First of 
all, where did the potential energy come from to put two hydrogen nuclei in 
2.3pm proximity? 

My view on this differs from Holmlid and incorporates Lawandy’s view. For the 
sake of argument, consider that SPP are the formative cause of densification. 
They form a magnetic vortex on a surface between a conductor (not necessarily a 
metal) and a dielectric, and if hydrogen is also there, the H orbitals become 
entrained in the catalyst, powering the ring current and leaving Cooper pairs 
of protons as the end product, which can then further group into clusters. The 
hexagonal structure of hematite is critical.

Yes, this requires energy from a flux of photons and is lossy. So the 
cumulative photons would supply the energy of densification. Any excess comes 
later.

*   Second, SPP is an electron resonance at a metal/dielectric interface, 
but the electrons themselves are in the metal (AFIK).  How would these 
electrons that are in the metal (resonant in SPP or not) be complicit in a 
UDD/UDH breakup?
  
IMO the electrons appear as ring current around the hexagon structure of iron 
oxide in the same way that electrons appear around the hexagonal ring of 
graphene oxide. A “local conductor” has substituted for the metal of the normal 
SPP and that is hematite, which fills both roles – dielectric and local 
conductor.

*   Thirdly, why would UDD/UDH be stable?

Now that is a big mystery. Unlike metallic hydrogen, which is only stable so 
long as high pressure is applied and maintained, and which is far less dense 
than UDH, what we are probably seeing is a new isomer of metallic hydrogen 
which does not require continuous pressure. 

Holmlid is the expert but his view changes over time and he is probably 
incorrect on some points. Same with Miley, Lawandy, Mills, Winterberg, Hora, 
Olafsson and everyone else who comes into this field with their own background 
and preconceived notions.

IMO – everyone can cherry pick up to the point that a defining experiment comes 
along and this may come from an unexpected source, maybe one of Holmlid’s 
students… who knows? Thankfully there does seem to be a cadre of younger 
researchers, mostly Nordic, getting involved in this R

Re: [Vo]:Is the proton friable?

[Bob Higgins]

Hi Jones,

What you describe is certainly an interesting and scary proposition - that
protons could be sheared or broken apart.  However, it is hard to imagine a
number of thing in this hypothesis and that of Olafssen/Holmlid.  First of
all, where did the potential energy come from to put two hydrogen nuclei in
2.3pm proximity?  If they are able to release this potential suddenly, then
it had to have been established in the first place.  Second, SPP is an
electron resonance at a metal/dielectric interface, but the electrons
themselves are in the metal (AFIK).  How would these electrons that are in
the metal (resonant in SPP or not) be complicit in a UDD/UDH breakup?
Thirdly, why would UDD/UDH be stable?

Thanks for posting the link to the Olafsson presentation.  I captured it in
.PDF to be able to access offline.

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:33 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> fri·a·ble is an adjective meaning “brittle” or easily broken - having
> little to do with applied heating, as would be expected of “fry-able” if
> it were a word. Actually “friable” can have something to do with lack of
> heat, in practice.
>
> A few of the toughest steels become friable at low temperature and
> resilient rubber from tires will become friable – such that it can be reduced
> to powder at the temperature of liquid air. These are good metaphors for
> the proposition that there is a narrow quantum state where the proton
> becomes friable. To further the metaphor, there is common industrial tool for
> steel called a “cold shear”- meaning the steel must be cold to be sheared
> cleanly. Is the Holmlid effect analogous to cold shearing of metallic
> hydrogen ?
>
> A friable proton, neutron or both would partly explain the Holmlid effect.
> That is to say, a nucleon could have a physical state of extreme density -
> in which it becomes friable at ambient temperature, and if subject to a
> shearing force (from SPP) it would tend to disintegrate instead of fuse.
> The result would be the so-called kaon chain of Holmlid, with the most
> visible species being the muon (with half-life several hundred times
> longer than the other particles in the chain).
>
> The end result (of protons being sheared into muons) and dispersing at
> lightspeed - is undetectable neutrinos, which can be ignored. Fortunately
> there are detectable positrons. The signature of muon decay is 511 keV
> from positron annihilation. Unfortunately, so far at least – there does
> not appear to be overwhelming evidence of this signature from Holmlid’s
> papers, but the signal is hard to detect since muons live long enough to
> travel hundreds of meters before disintegrating - and do not bunch at the
> reactor. The detector must be mobile to a decent job – sampling a bubble,
> so to speak.
>
> That cold-shear (friable) state of hydrogen could be the one which is
> predicated on vastly increased proximity to other like particles – which
> is pretty much the definition of the ultra-dense state. Gravity could be
> involved, or electro-gravity. But from the massive amount of hydrogen in
> stars, we can be pretty sure that lots of heat and pressure, combined, does
> not make a proton friable.
>
> As for natural evidence looked at in retrospect, about 5 years ago the
> Fermi gamma telescope found indisputable evidence of positrons in
> hurricanes. Not many, but they were totally unexpected.
>
> As an explanation for this, consider that we have UDH forming in the
> solar corona, where it cannot shear since it is not friable there, but it
> is dispersed and arrives in the solar wind, and is collected in the
> oceans. When caught up in hurricanes – the UDH can be sheared. That may
> be too much of stretch for you, but the point of this piece is that it is
> absolutely necessary – to prove the Holmlid effect – to look for a special
> radiation signature at 511 keV.
>
> It is special since it will appear over a large physical area, instead of
> at a reactor - which corresponds to the decay bubble of muons - and it
> will be weak at any one spot, so the accumulated space must be sampled.
> This can be done, but it is certainly out of the ordinary.
>

[Vo]:Is the proton friable?

[Jones Beene]

fri.a.ble is an adjective meaning "brittle" or easily broken - having little
to do with applied heating, as would be expected of "fry-able" if it were a
word. Actually "friable" can have something to do with lack of heat, in
practice.

A few of the toughest steels become friable at low temperature and resilient
rubber from tires will become friable - such that it can be reduced to
powder at the temperature of liquid air. These are good metaphors for the
proposition that there is a narrow quantum state where the proton becomes
friable. To further the metaphor, there is common industrial tool for steel
called a "cold shear"- meaning the steel must be cold to be sheared cleanly.
Is the Holmlid effect analogous to cold shearing of metallic hydrogen ?

A friable proton, neutron or both would partly explain the Holmlid effect.
That is to say, a nucleon could have a physical state of extreme density -
in which it becomes friable at ambient temperature, and if subject to a
shearing force (from SPP) it would tend to disintegrate instead of fuse. The
result would be the so-called kaon chain of Holmlid, with the most visible
species being the muon (with half-life several hundred times longer than the
other particles in the chain). 

The end result (of protons being sheared into muons) and dispersing at
lightspeed - is undetectable neutrinos, which can be ignored. Fortunately
there are detectable positrons. The signature of muon decay is 511 keV from
positron annihilation. Unfortunately, so far at least - there does not
appear to be overwhelming evidence of this signature from Holmlid's papers,
but the signal is hard to detect since muons live long enough to travel
hundreds of meters before disintegrating - and do not bunch at the reactor.
The detector must be mobile to a decent job - sampling a bubble, so to
speak.

That cold-shear (friable) state of hydrogen could be the one which is
predicated on vastly increased proximity to other like particles - which is
pretty much the definition of the ultra-dense state. Gravity could be
involved, or electro-gravity. But from the massive amount of hydrogen in
stars, we can be pretty sure that lots of heat and pressure, combined, does
not make a proton friable.

As for natural evidence looked at in retrospect, about 5 years ago the Fermi
gamma telescope found indisputable evidence of positrons in hurricanes. Not
many, but they were totally unexpected. 

As an explanation for this, consider that we have UDH forming in the solar
corona, where it cannot shear since it is not friable there, but it is
dispersed and arrives in the solar wind, and is collected in the oceans.
When caught up in hurricanes - the UDH can be sheared. That may be too much
of stretch for you, but the point of this piece is that it is absolutely
necessary - to prove the Holmlid effect - to look for a special radiation
signature at 511 keV.

It is special since it will appear over a large physical area, instead of at
a reactor - which corresponds to the decay bubble of muons - and it will be
weak at any one spot, so the accumulated space must be sampled. This can be
done, but it is certainly out of the ordinary.