Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Bob Higgins]

Jones,

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 3:29 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>
> Bob Higgins wrote:
>
>>  A long CV doesn't make contradictory claims OK.
>>
> Maybe not, but the combined reputation and many long CVs of the dozens of
> co-authors, overcomes many objections ... such as measurement error,  and
> can at least explain why the claims are not contradictory to known physics
> in the first place. There is an impressive list of co-authors and it is a
> mistake to gloss over the sum of their experience.
>

If they have an explanation of why it is not a contradiction, why haven't
they published a better theory or explain how an H(0) has simultaneously
tremendous Coulomb potential energy but is lower total energy than H2?

>
> If you have a reasonable explanation for the contradiction of the notion
>> of "Coulombic explosion" and the H(0) having a lower Hamiltonian than H2, I
>> want to hear it.
>>
>

> OK, no problem. There is no contradiction at all here, and in fact, the
> opposite correlation appears to be operative.
>
> The Hamiltonians of H(O) when considered as individual particles in not
> important to the outcome, since the ability of a combined system of many
> particles as a stationary target benefits from lower energy of particles -
> at least in the context of a chirped laser pulse operating on system where
> the lowest net energy at the target stage, not the highest, presents the
> opportunity for an annihilation event.
>
> The Hamiltonian for a large system of discrete UDH particles is a function
> of their combined coordinates and momenta, and for a target you want it to
> be minimized. In fact, the animation on Wiki's entry for "Coulomb
> explosion" can be read to explain exactly why lower Hamiltonian for the
> quantum dot (as a a target) prior to irradiation allow more coupling - not
> less.
>
> Holmlid shows an energy diagram for the coupled systems (molecules, Figure
1, page 4 in his latest paper).  In this chart, H2 is shown with an energy
minimum at 74 pm, and H(1)=RM with an energy minimum at 150 pm.  The energy
minimum for the H(1)=RM is higher than that for H2, which is as it should
be.  RM is a metastable state and in the presence of an energy disturbance,
the RM will spontaneously re-assemble into the lower energy state of H2.
In this same chart, Holmlid is showing a hypothetical H(0) with a 2.3 pm
bond distance having a lower minimum energy than H2.  This means that with
an energy disturbance, the H2 would spontaneously reassemble into H(0).
Barrett (*Structure and Bonding*) states that the H2 form is the lowest
energy and that any form of hydrogen molecules with a greater number of
hydrogen atoms is less stable than H2.  So, how can an individual particle,
imbued with such tremendous Coulomb potential energy, have an energy
minimum lower than that of H2?  As far as we know, it can't exist.  Holmlid
has provided nothing to show how this can be so.

Holmlid talks about the H(0) as a particle with tremendous Coulomb
potential energy in its molecular binding due to its 2.3 pm bond length.
Getting it into such a high potential molecular binding energy state would
require tremendous pressures like that inside the core of Jupiter.  This is
not something that can come from catalysis.  Catalysis is only going to
exchange a tiny amount of energy (endothermic or exothermic) like the
difference between ortho- and para-hydrogen.

When you talk about multiple particles, the distance between the separate
particles cannot be 2.3 pm or they would not be able to *be* separate
particles.  The multiple particles will have at minimum the total energy of
the individual particles + whatever kinetic energies they have in sum.  So,
if the individual particles have more energy than H2, then the sum of the
collection of particles would have more energy than the sum of H2
molecules.  If the collection of particles were in some form of condensate,
the minimum energy they would have is still the sum of the individual
energies plus whatever is their collective kinetic energy - still more than
H2.

Re: [Vo]:Tillerson Says China Should Be Barred From South China Sea Islands

[Daniel Rocha]

Save for China, the other countries are in a really sorry state... each of
them with its own reasons. India growth, in particular, is very irregular.
BRICS are in a worst state than EU, save for China.

Re: [Vo]:Fast particles

[Axil Axil]

I don.t think that Holmlid is producing a hydrogen plasma at the place
where the LASER strikes the collection foil, because the Ultra Dense
hydrogen on the collection foil is not ionized as it falls by gravity from
the iron oxide catalyst into the collection foil, A plasma would be too
energetic to allow that collection process, especially a wakefield
energized plasma.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:21 PM,  wrote:

> Dear Professor,
>
> The conventional means of producing muons is through bombardment with GeV
> particles in a particle accelerator.
> So if one had a cheap and efficient means of producing muons, then muon
> catalyzed D-D fusion might be economic.
> It seems you may have built such a particle accelerator, see
>
> https://phys.org/news/2015-11-discovery-enable-portable-particle.html
>
> The process upon which this is based bombards a very dense plasma, with a
> pulsed
> laser which seems to describe your experimental setup quite well.
>
> The particle accelerator might explain the energetic particles that you are
> detecting, while the muon catalyzed fusion may explain the excess energy.
>
> I might add that while muons catalyze fusion reactions, the same might
> also be
> true of negatively charged mesons, since they are even heavier than muons,
> so
> the tunneling time should be even further reduced. True, the  lifetime of
> pions
> is very short, but this may not matter in a very dense plasma, since the
> density
> means that the travel distance to the next atom is also very short.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk 
>
>

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Jones Beene]

Bob Higgins wrote:

 A long CV doesn't make contradictory claims OK.
Maybe not, but the combined reputation and many long CVs of the dozens 
of co-authors, overcomes many objections ... such as measurement error,  
and can at least explain why the claims are not contradictory to known 
physics in the first place. There is an impressive list of co-authors 
and it is a mistake to gloss over the sum of their experience.


If you have a reasonable explanation for the contradiction of the 
notion of "Coulombic explosion" and the H(0) having a lower 
Hamiltonian than H2, I want to hear it.
OK, no problem. There is no contradiction at all here, and in fact, the 
opposite correlation appears to be operative.


The Hamiltonians of H(O) when considered as individual particles in not 
important to the outcome, since the ability of a combined system of many 
particles as a stationary target benefits from lower energy of particles 
- at least in the context of a chirped laser pulse operating on system 
where the lowest net energy at the target stage, not the highest, 
presents the opportunity for an annihilation event.


The Hamiltonian for a large system of discrete UDH particles is a 
function of their combined coordinates and momenta, and for a target you 
want it to be minimized. In fact, the animation on Wiki's entry for 
"Coulomb explosion" can be read to explain exactly why lower Hamiltonian 
for the quantum dot (as a a target) prior to irradiation allow more 
coupling - not less.



Otherwise, you've got nothing.

You are going to have to do far better than that ...

[Vo]:New type of quantum phase transition...

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

FYI,

Nothing earth-shattering, but perhaps of some interest.

 

"Neutrons and a 'bit of gold' uncover new type of quantum phase transition"

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-neutrons-bit-gold-uncover-quantum.html

 

-mark

 

[Vo]:Fast particles

[mixent]

Dear Professor,

The conventional means of producing muons is through bombardment with GeV
particles in a particle accelerator.
So if one had a cheap and efficient means of producing muons, then muon
catalyzed D-D fusion might be economic.
It seems you may have built such a particle accelerator, see

https://phys.org/news/2015-11-discovery-enable-portable-particle.html

The process upon which this is based bombards a very dense plasma, with a pulsed
laser which seems to describe your experimental setup quite well.

The particle accelerator might explain the energetic particles that you are
detecting, while the muon catalyzed fusion may explain the excess energy.

I might add that while muons catalyze fusion reactions, the same might also be
true of negatively charged mesons, since they are even heavier than muons, so
the tunneling time should be even further reduced. True, the  lifetime of pions
is very short, but this may not matter in a very dense plasma, since the density
means that the travel distance to the next atom is also very short.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

I agree, the "Coulombic explosion" idea is wrong. I have my own theory
based of the onset of Hole superconductivity and the meissner effect, SPP
formation produced by the laser, and associated magnetic disruption of the
proton structure.

If you are interested, I will copy the relevant 5 posts onto vortex in a
new thread.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> Axil,  I have those papers.  A long CV doesn't make contradictory claims
> OK.
>
> If you have a reasonable explanation for the contradiction of the notion
> of "Coulombic explosion" and the H(0) having a lower Hamiltonian than H2, I
> want to hear it.
>
> Otherwise, you've got nothing.
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:
>
>> Miley and Holmlid had a lonf standing partnership in thier research where
>> Holmlids theories advanced in parallel with Miley. Maney of Holmlid's ideas
>> about LENR added hot fusion come from this partnership:
>>
>> http://www.rexresearch.com/holmlid/holmlid.html
>>
>> Quote:
>>
>> Another reason why Olafsson feels confident the research is real is the
>> work of Leif Holmlid. Holmlid is professor emeritus of chemistry at the
>> University of Gothenburg and has a long career. He has both helped assess
>> potential laureates for the Nobel Committee, and has published over 200
>> scientific papers. Unlike most Cold Fusion/LENR researchers, the work of
>> both Olafsson and Holmlid very recently published their revolutionary work
>> on Rdyberg Matter in the prestigious journals of the American Physical
>> Society, with its 50,000 members it is the largest organization physicists
>> in the world. There will be no more “mainstream” than that."
>>
>> All Holmlid;s research is peer reviewed by the APS including his custom
>> made research instrumentation.
>>
>> Also see
>>
>> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Rydberg_Atoms/Rydberg_matter/Wikipedia
>>
>> for other opinions about Holmlid's contribution to the definition of
>> Rydberg matter. Also other professional relationships are mentioned.
>>
>> Quote:
>>
>> *Ultradense deuterium**The existence of ultradense deuterium is
>> suggested by experiment. This material, at a density of 140 kg/cm3, would
>> be a million times more dense than regular deuterium, denser than at the
>> core of the Sun. This ultradense form of deuterium may facilitate achieving
>> laser-induced fusion.[27] Only minute amounts of ultradense deuterium have
>> been produced thus far.[28][29] At the moment, it is not known how the
>> material is produced or if it remains stable without applied pressure,
>> however, there is conjecture that it is possible to produce a new stable
>> state of matter by compressing ultracold deuterium in a Rydberg state.[30]*
>> [27] Anderrson and Holmlid (2009)
>> [28] 
>> Badiei,
>> Andersson and Holmlid (2009)
>> [29] 
>> Badiei,
>> Andersson and Holmlid (2009)
>>  This
>> is the foundational paper on ultra-dense deuterium, the experimental report.
>> [30} Winterberg!, 2009, but on arXiv.  Later
>> published in Journal of Fusion Energy (2010)
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Bob Higgins 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> It is a "troll-ism" to presume that I have NOT looked at Holmlid's
>>> previous publications.  In fact, as I mentioned (and apparently you didn't
>>> consider), I have been trying to trace the foundation for H(0)/D(0) back
>>> through his papers to find the crux.  I have over 40 of his papers, going
>>> back to the more solidly based work on RM.  I am not questioning his
>>> experimental data, just his interpretation of it.  In his later papers, he
>>> presumes that a solid case for the existence of H(0) has already been
>>> made.
>>>
>>> For those of you so committedly supporting the suppositions of Holmlid
>>> regarding H(0)/D(0), have YOU read his papers?  Do you understand his
>>> fundamental evidence for H(0)/D(0)?  There is no underlying quantum or
>>> Millsian classical physics prediction for H(0) - not even a solution after
>>> the fact.  His entire supposition rests on the absurd Coulombic explosion
>>> explanation for the energy in the particles he measures and how close two
>>> protons would have to be to release such energy (2.3 pm) by his
>>> calculation.  Coulombic energy would have to be a potential energy (like a
>>> compressed spring) that would have to be ADDED to get that much energy in
>>> an H(0) 2.3pm state compared to a much greater spaced H2 (74 pm).  Yet, in
>>> all of his energy diagrams he shows H(0) as being a lower Hamiltonian
>>> energy than H2.  These claims are in direct contradiction.  The foundation
>>> for H(0) is not there - not 

Re: [Vo]:Tillerson Says China Should Be Barred From South China Sea Islands

[Jed Rothwell]

Quote from Jack Ma:


> So what if the spent on Wall Street and the Middle East was spent on the
> Mid-West of the United States, developing the industry there? That could
> change a lot.”
>

I agree with just about everything he said, except that I quibble with
this. The U.S. does not need more industry. We really are in a
post-industrial era. We need things like basic research and improvements
that reduce the need for industry and material goods. For example, with
improved telepresence and telecommuting we can reduce the need to commute,
which reduces the need for cars and roads, and reduces the maintenance
burden. Another example is improved inventory control for the food chain
from farms to grocery stores. This reduces wasted food, and spoiled food.

You can often replace hardware with software. This will be easier with the
upcoming generation of AI.

If self-driving vehicles are deployed properly, they will also reduce the
overall need for material goods. For example, there is no need to make all
vehicles as large as an automobile that carries people. You could make
millions of smaller vehicles only large enough to deliver groceries,
packages or mail. The robot vehicles in Amazon distribution warehouses are
far smaller than forklifts driven by people, but they do the same job as
those forklifts, using less energy and less materials.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 2:46 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

The use of a well defied magnetic field in the experiment can delineate
> both the mass and polarity of the emergent subatomic particles.
>

As I mentioned, I don't trust Holmlid to do this right.  It's not
straightforward to differentiate muons from energetic electrons.

Eric

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[bobcook39923]

I agree with Axil’s comments about micro and nano domains.  However I would add 
that the domains are what I call coherent QM systems that can  initiate the 
change of nuclear potential energy/angular momentum to phonic lattice 
vibrations (thermal energy) of the coherent QM system with minor modifications 
to the system, such that it remains a single coherent system subject to other 
similar reactions.

The key to getting the reaction to occur in any given coherent system is 
matching resonant conditions that allow coupling between the potential energy 
of the nuclear species sub-system and the chemical electronic bonds of the 
lattice making up the coherent system.  

Any ambient conditions (electric field, magnetic field, temperature, lattice 
dimensions, ferro-magnetic and ati-magnetic tramp atoms,  etc)  that changes 
the energy states of the system and the corresponding resonances can effect a 
change of the potential energy to kinetic thermal energy of the system.  

Controlling the various ambient conditions is how the release of nuclear 
potential energy is controlled.  The physical size of the coherent system is 
another.  Thus, the importance of micro vs nano domains.  

Magnetic fields focus the dimensional parameters such that the coherent 
system’s effective resonant conditions encompass a larger range of reactive 
resonances, making an actual reaction more likely.  The system becomes a 
two-dimensional system at large B fields.  SPP’s as Axil suggests would help to 
create such a 2-D system.  In addition various magnetic tramp elements may also 
be important in the establishment of local energy states and resonant 
conditions.  The hysteresis of the magnetic tramps may be important in 
achieving good control of the resonant conditions.

A coherent system as is suggested does not include any particles with 
significant linear momentum and corresponding kinetic energy.  Thus, there is 
no likely option available for creating a particles with linear momentum.   A 
“soft” transition which conserves angular momentum is the easy way out for the 
coherent system to react. 

 If a reaction were possible in the coherent system that were to produce 
back--to—back energetic daughter particles, each with significant linear 
momentum adding up to zero, the elimination of the bad actors in the  
composition of the fuel would effectively control the potential of nasty 
energetic daughter particles.

Many of the design ideas for a coherent system in a LENR reactor have 
similarities to the concepts used in the physics design of fission reactors.   
The main difference if the concept of macroscopic coherent systems.  In the 
fission reactor physics two or three body reactions are dominate.  Resonance 
associated with neutron reactions with the various materials is all important 
in control, and temperature significantly 
affects the resonances, much like it seems to affect LENR control.  

 The “soft” nature of LENR without those nasty high energy neutrons and other 
fission debris associated with fission reactors is serendipitous but not 
miraculous.

Bob Cook

From: Axil Axil
Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2017 9:18 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

I seem to remember a old LENR truism that has come down over the years which 
remarks about how a shock is required before the LENR reaction starts. When I 
first began my studies of the LENR reaction so very long ago, I may have read 
this in regards to the work from perhaps the most famous Japanese cold fusion 
researcher: Yoshiaki Arata, from Osaka University, who claimed in a 
demonstration to produce excess heat when deuterium gas was introduced into a 
cell containing a mixture of palladium and zirconium oxide. But the LENR 
reaction did not begin unless the cell was shocked in any number of ways.

Also from Brian S. Ahern patent (Amplification of energetic reactions 
US 20110233061 A1)

quote:

"Useful energy production can be obtained when deuterated/hydrated 
nanoparticles suspended in a dielectric medium are positioned interior to 
collapsing bubbles or dielectric discharges and their attendant shock waves. 
Highly self-focused shock waves have a sufficiently high energy density to 
induce a range of energetic reactions."

This leads me to the conclusion that Ultra-dense hydrogen right out of the 
nanocavity is not LENR capable until it is initially charged with any variety 
of EMF energy. Once the SPP has been charged up and it has acquired enough 
magnetic power to initiate the positive feedback loop between the nucleons 
within it range of interaction does the LENR reaction begin. The Spp just needs 
a slight push to get the process going. Oftentimes a spark is enough to get the 
LENR reaction off the ground. But unless that energy spike is provided with 
enough power to get going, that UDH justs sits there and waits.

And that energy need not be provided in a one time spike. In the famous F 
meltdown where their reactor was 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Eric Walker]

Hi Russ,

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Russ George  wrote:

Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people who
> fire critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy to
> do anything other than make pompous comment on materials based on their
> confusion stemming from the fact that everything in the author’s work is
> not recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to.
>

There have been long threads on LENR Forum, where we've taken a detailed
and close-up look at various claims in several of Holmlid's papers.
Unfortunately the content from the old site is unindexed in Google and hard
to call up.


> Such behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest
> productive dialog.
>

Here are two definitions of trolling; readers will be the judge of who here
they might apply to:

1b. Noun
A person who, on a message forum of some type, attacks and flames other
members of the forum for any of a number of reasons such as rank, previous
disagreements, sex, status, ect.
A troll usually flames threads without staying on topic, unlike a "Flamer"
who flames a thread because he/she disagrees with the content of the
thread.

1c. Noun
A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses
others. Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation,
but rather continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as
thinks every member of the forum is talking about them and only them.
Trolls often go by multiple names to circumvent getting banned.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll


> But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates spouting off from
> the lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of ideas. Vortex-l
> often digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night. Ces’t la vie.
>

I've found such a low signal to noise ratio in your posts that I'm going to
add you to my killfile.  If I do not respond to further posts of yours, it
is only to keep the mood here light enough to focus on matters of
substance, rather than being detained in addressing further ad hominem
attacks.

All the best,
Eric

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

Holmlid is a worker in a science called metalic hydrogen. There a many
fellow researchers in this field with some mentioned here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallic_hydrogen

Quote:

"Shahriar Badiei and Leif Holmlid from the University of Gothenburg have
shown in 2004 that condensed metallic states made of excited hydrogen atoms
(Rydberg matter) are effective promoters to metallic hydrogen.[20]"

A hot topic in metallic hydrogen is related to the state of hydrogen inside
planets
and the Sun.

Much work and experimentation is associated with and allied field of study:
High pressure physics where elements and compounds are compressed in a
diamond anvil. There is also a field of superconductivity related to
Holmlid's work call high pressure superconductivity.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> It is a "troll-ism" to presume that I have NOT looked at Holmlid's
> previous publications.  In fact, as I mentioned (and apparently you didn't
> consider), I have been trying to trace the foundation for H(0)/D(0) back
> through his papers to find the crux.  I have over 40 of his papers, going
> back to the more solidly based work on RM.  I am not questioning his
> experimental data, just his interpretation of it.  In his later papers, he
> presumes that a solid case for the existence of H(0) has already been
> made.
>
> For those of you so committedly supporting the suppositions of Holmlid
> regarding H(0)/D(0), have YOU read his papers?  Do you understand his
> fundamental evidence for H(0)/D(0)?  There is no underlying quantum or
> Millsian classical physics prediction for H(0) - not even a solution after
> the fact.  His entire supposition rests on the absurd Coulombic explosion
> explanation for the energy in the particles he measures and how close two
> protons would have to be to release such energy (2.3 pm) by his
> calculation.  Coulombic energy would have to be a potential energy (like a
> compressed spring) that would have to be ADDED to get that much energy in
> an H(0) 2.3pm state compared to a much greater spaced H2 (74 pm).  Yet, in
> all of his energy diagrams he shows H(0) as being a lower Hamiltonian
> energy than H2.  These claims are in direct contradiction.  The foundation
> for H(0) is not there - not in any of his papers.  Only a ridiculous,
> contradictory case has been made for it.
>
> Could there have been superfluid states on the surface of the metal?  That
> is entirely plausible as rivers and islands of atom-thick RM form on the
> surface of the metal.  It has absolutely nothing to do with an H(0) state.
>
> If we in Vortex want to make a useful contribution to Holmlid's reports,
> we should propose and consider what other explanations are reasonable for
> his data.  Start with the possible superfluid/superconducting atom-thick
> layer of RM on the metal's surface.  How would this be affected by a
> laser?  How would plasmons form in layered structure comprised of
> dielectric, atom-thick superconductive film, and normally conductive
> metal?  What would be the consequences of polaritons in such a system?
>
> Think before lobbing insults.
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Russ George 
> wrote:
>
>> Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people who
>> fire critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy to
>> do anything other than make pompous comment on materials based on their
>> confusion stemming from the fact that everything in the author’s work is
>> not recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to.
>> Such behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest
>> productive dialog. But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates
>> spouting off from the lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of
>> ideas. Vortex-l often digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night.
>> Ces’t la vie.
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:11 AM
>> *To:* vortex-l
>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.
>>
>>
>>
>> Holmlid has been writing papers on ultra dense hydogen since the early
>> 1990s. There must be 100 produce so far. It is unreasonable to expect all
>> the details about UDH and Holmlid's research into it over all those years
>> to be recapitulated in this latest paper.
>>
>>
>>
>> Holmlid thinking on UDH has evolved as his experimentation has advanced.
>> This makes reading through all those papers confusing with seeming
>> contradiction between some of his works.
>>
>>
>>
>> Even in his new paper, there is an cut and pasted reiteration of some old
>> stuff from previous research which suggests that fusion was the cause of
>> some reaction characteristics, but latter in the conclusions Holmlid states
>> a different case.
>>
>>
>>
>> Furthermore, Holmlid's thinking has been greatly influenced by the works
>> and theories put forth by  J.E. Hirsch and his 

Re: [Vo]:Tillerson Says China Should Be Barred From South China Sea Islands

[a.ashfield]

Jack Ma had the best answer to Tillerson.

“Over the past thirty years, the Americans had thirteen wars spending 
40.2 trillion dollars,” said Ma, speaking at the World Economic Forum in 
Davos. “What if they spent a part of that money on building up the 
infrastructure, helping the white-collar and the blue-collar workers? No 
matter how strategically good it is, you’re supposed to spend money on 
your own people.”


“And the other money which I’m curious about is that when I was young, 
all I heard about America was Ford and Boeing and those big 
manufacturing companies. The last 10-20 years, all I heard about is 
Silicon Valley and Wall Street,” he continued.


“And what happened? The year 2008: the financial crisis wiped out 19.2 
trillion dollars in the USA alone and destroyed 34 million jobs 
globally. So what if the spent on Wall Street and the Middle East was 
spent on the Mid-West of the United States, developing the industry 
there? That could change a lot.”


According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute , the 
United States spent $596 billion, or 3.3 percent of its GDP, on military 
expenditure in 2015, which is higher than any other country in the 
world. In Ma’s opinion, this is partly responsible for the loss of jobs 
in America’s Rust Belt.


“So it’s not that other countries steal jobs from you guys, it is your 
strategy! You do not distribute the money in a proper way,” he summarized.


Ma also expressed the view that overall globalization was a positive 
thing as it had brought many benefits to both China and the world. 
However, it should be improved by making more room for small businesses 
rather than the current system run by the World Trade Organization 
(WTO), which was developed to protect corporate interests.


“The WTO was great but it was mainly designed for developed countries 
and big companies. There’s no opportunity for small business. We want to 
build up an EWTP – an Electronic World Trade Platform – to support young 
people, small business.”


https://youtu.be/Np-HQH_ruGY

On 1/22/2017 2:51 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:


Doubt it.  The BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, S.Africa) 
have launched a major global effort to provide a competitor to 
BIS/World Bank/IMF, and I seriously doubt if Russia would jeopardize 
all that by siding with U.S./Japan/Philipines on China’s expanding in 
S.China sea.


*From:*Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 3:14 AM
*To:* John Milstone
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Tillerson Says China Should Be Barred From South 
China Sea Islands


Perhaps the strategy is to get in good terms with Russia and both 
surround China?

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

Holmlid has been writing papers on ultra dense hydogen since the early
1990s. There must be 100 produce so far. It is unreasonable to expect all
the details about UDH and Holmlid's research into it over all those years
to be recapitulated in this latest paper.

Holmlid thinking on UDH has evolved as his experimentation has advanced.
This makes reading through all those papers confusing with seeming
contradiction between some of his works.

Even in his new paper, there is an cut and pasted reiteration of some old
stuff from previous research which suggests that fusion was the cause of
some reaction characteristics, but latter in the conclusions Holmlid states
a different case.

Furthermore, Holmlid's thinking has been greatly influenced by the works
and theories put forth by  J.E. Hirsch and his school of followers.

In the introduction in his new paper, Holmlid states:
.
"They may all be characterized as spin-based Rydberg Matter (RM) [2
].
This model is based on a theoretical description by J.E. Hirsch [7

]."

 J.E. Hirsch has developed a theory for type 2 superconductivity that
contradicts existing dogma called "Hole superconductivity".

There are another 200 papers on this subject to be found here:

 http://physics.ucsd.edu/~jorge/hole.html

You can not really understand UDH unless you understand spin based Hole
superconductivity,

IMHO, following Holmlid's theory is like following R.Mills
alternative science. It is not easy and it takes a lot of convection and
effort. With all its complexity and revolutionary dogma, LENR is not easy
to take on. Holmlid needs more validation before people will feel
sanguine in investing the time and effort to take his science seriously.



On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> So far, as I keep reading Holmlid's latest paper, I keep coming to a
> statement, and I ask myself, "where's the support for this?"  So I go
> through the string of references and find illogical hand waving or leaps of
> faith, but not logical support.  This business of the "2.3 pm" spaced seems
> to still rely entirely on the particle velocities whose measured energy has
> come entirely from an improbable conjecture of "Coulombic explosion".
> Coloumbic potential energy would have to be stored in the system - I.E.
> placed there by some process of squeezing the atoms into some metastable
> state.  Yet, the H(0) or D(0) state is being portrayed as having lower
> Hamiltonian (total energy) than H2.  Thus, one would expect ordinary H2 gas
> as having tremendous Coulombic potential energy - even more than H(0) since
> H2's total energy is higher than H(0) according to Holmlid (see his figure
> in the latest paper which is reproduced from his other works).
>
> Holmlid's background is in the study of hydrogen Rydberg matter.  These
> condensed matter particles have a good basis in science, and have been
> thoroughly characterized.  Hydrogen Rydberg particles are not dense - just
> the opposite.  The atomic spacing in RM particles is twice that of H2,
> making the local molecular density of H2 much greater than that for RM.
> There have been molecular RM models created and the rotational spectra
> computed and matched to observed spectra.  The basis and characterization
> of RM is very strong.  Holmlid seems to be trying to transfer that strong
> basis for RM onto his conjecture for H(0) and D(0) with what appears to be
> only hand-waving - and hand-waving with contradictory claims.
>
> H(0) and/or D(0) are supposed to be the lowest energy state of hydrogen
> condensed matter.  Such a low energy state cannot be planar like RM -
> though Holmlid is claiming that RM is a precursor to H(0).  In Holmlid's
> description of coupled D-D pairs, he describes coupled pairs at right
> angles which form a tetrahedron string having an atomic spacing of 5 pm.
> Evidence is claimed for matching rotational spectroscopy (2016, "Emission
> spectroscopy of IR laser-induced processes in ultra-dense deuterium").  To
> calculate the rotational spectrum, you have to have a model for the entire
> molecule.  The spectrum will result from an eigensolution of the quantum
> fomulation for rotational states.  With some hand waving, some modeling was
> done and some matching was found in his 2016 paper, but this is not
> convincing like the work to determine the structure of the RM particles.
>
> Basically, I cannot get past the fact that Holmlid is building a huge
> castle on a foundation of sand.  He has not produced a sound basis for
> H(0)/D(0) that underlies all of his conjecture.  His arguments of
> "Coulombic explosion" don't pass the common sense test as a similar CE of
> H2 should result in more energy release than H(0).   How can what is being
> proposed on the basis of H(0)/D(0) be taken 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

The use of a well defied magnetic field in the experiment can delineate
both the mass and polarity of the emergent subatomic particles.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Eric Walker  wrote:

> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
> If we in Vortex want to make a useful contribution to Holmlid's reports,
>> we should propose and consider what other explanations are reasonable for
>> his data.
>>
>
> The thing I would like to see examined experimentally is whether those
> charged particles are energetic betas.  I think they've been ruled out
> prematurely.
>
> Eric
>
>

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people who fire 
critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy to do 
anything other than make pompous comment on materials based on their confusion 
stemming from the fact that everything in the author’s work is not 
recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to. Such 
behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest productive 
dialog. But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates spouting off 
from the lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of ideas. Vortex-l 
often digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night. Ces’t la vie.  

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:11 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

Holmlid has been writing papers on ultra dense hydogen since the early 1990s. 
There must be 100 produce so far. It is unreasonable to expect all the details 
about UDH and Holmlid's research into it over all those years to be 
recapitulated in this latest paper.

 

Holmlid thinking on UDH has evolved as his experimentation has advanced. This 
makes reading through all those papers confusing with seeming contradiction 
between some of his works.

 

Even in his new paper, there is an cut and pasted reiteration of some old stuff 
from previous research which suggests that fusion was the cause of some 
reaction characteristics, but latter in the conclusions Holmlid states a 
different case.

 

Furthermore, Holmlid's thinking has been greatly influenced by the works and 
theories put forth by  J.E. Hirsch and his school of followers.

 

In the introduction in his new paper, Holmlid states:

.

"They may all be characterized as spin-based Rydberg Matter (RM) [ 

 2]. This model is based on a theoretical description by J.E. Hirsch [ 

 7]."

 

 J.E. Hirsch has developed a theory for type 2 superconductivity that 
contradicts existing dogma called "Hole superconductivity".

 

There are another 200 papers on this subject to be found here:

 

 http://physics.ucsd.edu/~jorge/hole.html

 

You can not really understand UDH unless you understand spin based Hole 
superconductivity,

 

IMHO, following Holmlid's theory is like following R.Mills alternative science. 
It is not easy and it takes a lot of convection and effort. With all its 
complexity and revolutionary dogma, LENR is not easy to take on. Holmlid needs 
more validation before people will feel sanguine in investing the time and 
effort to take his science seriously.

 

 

 

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Bob Higgins  > wrote:

So far, as I keep reading Holmlid's latest paper, I keep coming to a statement, 
and I ask myself, "where's the support for this?"  So I go through the string 
of references and find illogical hand waving or leaps of faith, but not logical 
support.  This business of the "2.3 pm" spaced seems to still rely entirely on 
the particle velocities whose measured energy has come entirely from an 
improbable conjecture of "Coulombic explosion".  Coloumbic potential energy 
would have to be stored in the system - I.E. placed there by some process of 
squeezing the atoms into some metastable state.  Yet, the H(0) or D(0) state is 
being portrayed as having lower Hamiltonian (total energy) than H2.  Thus, one 
would expect ordinary H2 gas as having tremendous Coulombic potential energy - 
even more than H(0) since H2's total energy is higher than H(0) according to 
Holmlid (see his figure in the latest paper which is reproduced from his other 
works).

Holmlid's background is in the study of hydrogen Rydberg matter.  These 
condensed matter particles have a good basis in science, and have been 
thoroughly characterized.  Hydrogen Rydberg particles are not dense - just the 
opposite.  The atomic spacing in RM particles is twice that of H2, making the 
local molecular density of H2 much greater than that for RM.  There have been 
molecular RM models created and the rotational spectra computed and matched to 
observed spectra.  The basis and characterization of RM is very strong.  
Holmlid seems to be trying to transfer that strong basis for RM onto his 
conjecture for H(0) and D(0) with what appears to be only hand-waving - and 
hand-waving with contradictory claims.

H(0) and/or D(0) are supposed to be the lowest energy state of hydrogen 
condensed matter.  Such a low energy state cannot be planar like RM - though 
Holmlid is claiming that RM is a precursor to H(0).  In Holmlid's description 
of coupled D-D pairs, he describes coupled pairs at right angles which form a 
tetrahedron string having an atomic spacing of 5 pm.  Evidence is claimed for 
matching rotational 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[mixent]

In reply to  Russ George's message of Sat, 21 Jan 2017 20:33:56 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>Heat moves at the speed of sound in solids but is made at a far faster rate. 

Actually, it moves much slower. The speed of sound in steel is about 6 thousand
meters/second. The length of a teaspoon is about 10 cm. At 6000 m/s, it would
take would take about 17 microseconds for you to burn your fingers when you stir
your coffee.


> 
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:Tillerson Says China Should Be Barred From South China Sea Islands

[MarkI-ZeroPoint]

Doubt it.  The BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, S.Africa) have 
launched a major global effort to provide a competitor to BIS/World Bank/IMF, 
and I seriously doubt if Russia would jeopardize all that by siding with 
U.S./Japan/Philipines on China’s expanding in S.China sea.

 

From: Daniel Rocha [mailto:danieldi...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 3:14 AM
To: John Milstone
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Tillerson Says China Should Be Barred From South China Sea 
Islands

 

Perhaps the strategy is to get in good terms with Russia and both surround 
China?

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

While I was ‘lobbing insults’ you were not the target. I have found your ideas 
and criticisms well thought out. Some others n Vortex-l not so. 

 

There is still the issue of Holmlid’s work being so very similar to some of the 
cold fusion work in terms of experimental design and operation. That he has 
some hits with similar data is intriguing and very suggestive. I for one read 
Holmlid’s papers with an eye for serendipity not profound independent proof. I 
forgive most for putting forth their ideas as to ‘theory’ especially when such 
ideas come from experimentalists. I have much less regard, often verging on 
utter disregard, for the theories of the armchair crowd though I do read such 
ideas. 

 

It is ‘troll-ism’ to hold single papers in a person’s decades of work to 
scathing critiques most especially when bathed in semantics. As Thomas 
Jefferson once said, “ I have no respect for a man who can spell a word only 
one way.” The same is even more true with scientific semantics. 

 

Progress in made more by active explorers following what seem to be good leads 
and not by those shooting down poor leads. This is why pioneers cross many 
bridges in the light of day and why trolls live festering in the dark and damp 
under said bridges. 

 

From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 11:58 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

It is a "troll-ism" to presume that I have NOT looked at Holmlid's previous 
publications.  In fact, as I mentioned (and apparently you didn't consider), I 
have been trying to trace the foundation for H(0)/D(0) back through his papers 
to find the crux.  I have over 40 of his papers, going back to the more solidly 
based work on RM.  I am not questioning his experimental data, just his 
interpretation of it.  In his later papers, he presumes that a solid case for 
the existence of H(0) has already been made.   

For those of you so committedly supporting the suppositions of Holmlid 
regarding H(0)/D(0), have YOU read his papers?  Do you understand his 
fundamental evidence for H(0)/D(0)?  There is no underlying quantum or Millsian 
classical physics prediction for H(0) - not even a solution after the fact.  
His entire supposition rests on the absurd Coulombic explosion explanation for 
the energy in the particles he measures and how close two protons would have to 
be to release such energy (2.3 pm) by his calculation.  Coulombic energy would 
have to be a potential energy (like a compressed spring) that would have to be 
ADDED to get that much energy in an H(0) 2.3pm state compared to a much greater 
spaced H2 (74 pm).  Yet, in all of his energy diagrams he shows H(0) as being a 
lower Hamiltonian energy than H2.  These claims are in direct contradiction.  
The foundation for H(0) is not there - not in any of his papers.  Only a 
ridiculous, contradictory case has been made for it.

 

Could there have been superfluid states on the surface of the metal?  That is 
entirely plausible as rivers and islands of atom-thick RM form on the surface 
of the metal.  It has absolutely nothing to do with an H(0) state.

If we in Vortex want to make a useful contribution to Holmlid's reports, we 
should propose and consider what other explanations are reasonable for his 
data.  Start with the possible superfluid/superconducting atom-thick layer of 
RM on the metal's surface.  How would this be affected by a laser?  How would 
plasmons form in layered structure comprised of dielectric, atom-thick 
superconductive film, and normally conductive metal?  What would be the 
consequences of polaritons in such a system?

Think before lobbing insults.

 

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Russ George  > wrote:

Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people who fire 
critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy to do 
anything other than make pompous comment on materials based on their confusion 
stemming from the fact that everything in the author’s work is not 
recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to. Such 
behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest productive 
dialog. But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates spouting off 
from the lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of ideas. Vortex-l 
often digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night. Ces’t la vie.  

 

From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com  ] 
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:11 AM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

Holmlid has been writing papers on ultra dense hydogen since the early 1990s. 
There must be 100 produce so far. It is unreasonable to expect all the details 
about UDH and Holmlid's research into it over all those years to be 
recapitulated in this latest paper.

 

Holmlid thinking on UDH has evolved as his 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

Miley and Holmlid had a lonf standing partnership in thier research where
Holmlids theories advanced in parallel with Miley. Maney of Holmlid's ideas
about LENR added hot fusion come from this partnership:

http://www.rexresearch.com/holmlid/holmlid.html

Quote:

Another reason why Olafsson feels confident the research is real is the
work of Leif Holmlid. Holmlid is professor emeritus of chemistry at the
University of Gothenburg and has a long career. He has both helped assess
potential laureates for the Nobel Committee, and has published over 200
scientific papers. Unlike most Cold Fusion/LENR researchers, the work of
both Olafsson and Holmlid very recently published their revolutionary work
on Rdyberg Matter in the prestigious journals of the American Physical
Society, with its 50,000 members it is the largest organization physicists
in the world. There will be no more “mainstream” than that."

All Holmlid;s research is peer reviewed by the APS including his custom
made research instrumentation.

Also see

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Rydberg_Atoms/Rydberg_matter/Wikipedia

for other opinions about Holmlid's contribution to the definition of
Rydberg matter. Also other professional relationships are mentioned.

Quote:

*Ultradense deuterium**The existence of ultradense deuterium is suggested
by experiment. This material, at a density of 140 kg/cm3, would be a
million times more dense than regular deuterium, denser than at the core of
the Sun. This ultradense form of deuterium may facilitate achieving
laser-induced fusion.[27] Only minute amounts of ultradense deuterium have
been produced thus far.[28][29] At the moment, it is not known how the
material is produced or if it remains stable without applied pressure,
however, there is conjecture that it is possible to produce a new stable
state of matter by compressing ultracold deuterium in a Rydberg state.[30]*
[27] Anderrson and Holmlid (2009)
[28]
Badiei,
Andersson and Holmlid (2009)
[29]
Badiei,
Andersson and Holmlid (2009)
 This
is the foundational paper on ultra-dense deuterium, the experimental report.
[30} Winterberg!, 2009, but on arXiv.  Later
published in Journal of Fusion Energy (2010)




On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> It is a "troll-ism" to presume that I have NOT looked at Holmlid's
> previous publications.  In fact, as I mentioned (and apparently you didn't
> consider), I have been trying to trace the foundation for H(0)/D(0) back
> through his papers to find the crux.  I have over 40 of his papers, going
> back to the more solidly based work on RM.  I am not questioning his
> experimental data, just his interpretation of it.  In his later papers, he
> presumes that a solid case for the existence of H(0) has already been
> made.
>
> For those of you so committedly supporting the suppositions of Holmlid
> regarding H(0)/D(0), have YOU read his papers?  Do you understand his
> fundamental evidence for H(0)/D(0)?  There is no underlying quantum or
> Millsian classical physics prediction for H(0) - not even a solution after
> the fact.  His entire supposition rests on the absurd Coulombic explosion
> explanation for the energy in the particles he measures and how close two
> protons would have to be to release such energy (2.3 pm) by his
> calculation.  Coulombic energy would have to be a potential energy (like a
> compressed spring) that would have to be ADDED to get that much energy in
> an H(0) 2.3pm state compared to a much greater spaced H2 (74 pm).  Yet, in
> all of his energy diagrams he shows H(0) as being a lower Hamiltonian
> energy than H2.  These claims are in direct contradiction.  The foundation
> for H(0) is not there - not in any of his papers.  Only a ridiculous,
> contradictory case has been made for it.
>
> Could there have been superfluid states on the surface of the metal?  That
> is entirely plausible as rivers and islands of atom-thick RM form on the
> surface of the metal.  It has absolutely nothing to do with an H(0) state.
>
> If we in Vortex want to make a useful contribution to Holmlid's reports,
> we should propose and consider what other explanations are reasonable for
> his data.  Start with the possible superfluid/superconducting atom-thick
> layer of RM on the metal's surface.  How would this be affected by a
> laser?  How would plasmons form in layered structure comprised of
> dielectric, atom-thick superconductive film, and normally conductive
> metal?  What would be the consequences of polaritons in such a system?
>
> Think before lobbing insults.
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Russ George 
> wrote:
>
>> Great comment on Holmlid’s 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

If we in Vortex want to make a useful contribution to Holmlid's reports, we
> should propose and consider what other explanations are reasonable for his
> data.
>

The thing I would like to see examined experimentally is whether those
charged particles are energetic betas.  I think they've been ruled out
prematurely.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Bob Higgins]

It is a "troll-ism" to presume that I have NOT looked at Holmlid's previous
publications.  In fact, as I mentioned (and apparently you didn't
consider), I have been trying to trace the foundation for H(0)/D(0) back
through his papers to find the crux.  I have over 40 of his papers, going
back to the more solidly based work on RM.  I am not questioning his
experimental data, just his interpretation of it.  In his later papers, he
presumes that a solid case for the existence of H(0) has already been
made.

For those of you so committedly supporting the suppositions of Holmlid
regarding H(0)/D(0), have YOU read his papers?  Do you understand his
fundamental evidence for H(0)/D(0)?  There is no underlying quantum or
Millsian classical physics prediction for H(0) - not even a solution after
the fact.  His entire supposition rests on the absurd Coulombic explosion
explanation for the energy in the particles he measures and how close two
protons would have to be to release such energy (2.3 pm) by his
calculation.  Coulombic energy would have to be a potential energy (like a
compressed spring) that would have to be ADDED to get that much energy in
an H(0) 2.3pm state compared to a much greater spaced H2 (74 pm).  Yet, in
all of his energy diagrams he shows H(0) as being a lower Hamiltonian
energy than H2.  These claims are in direct contradiction.  The foundation
for H(0) is not there - not in any of his papers.  Only a ridiculous,
contradictory case has been made for it.

Could there have been superfluid states on the surface of the metal?  That
is entirely plausible as rivers and islands of atom-thick RM form on the
surface of the metal.  It has absolutely nothing to do with an H(0) state.

If we in Vortex want to make a useful contribution to Holmlid's reports, we
should propose and consider what other explanations are reasonable for his
data.  Start with the possible superfluid/superconducting atom-thick layer
of RM on the metal's surface.  How would this be affected by a laser?  How
would plasmons form in layered structure comprised of dielectric,
atom-thick superconductive film, and normally conductive metal?  What would
be the consequences of polaritons in such a system?

Think before lobbing insults.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Russ George  wrote:

> Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people who
> fire critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy to
> do anything other than make pompous comment on materials based on their
> confusion stemming from the fact that everything in the author’s work is
> not recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to.
> Such behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest
> productive dialog. But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates
> spouting off from the lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of
> ideas. Vortex-l often digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night.
> Ces’t la vie.
>
>
>
> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:11 AM
> *To:* vortex-l
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.
>
>
>
> Holmlid has been writing papers on ultra dense hydogen since the early
> 1990s. There must be 100 produce so far. It is unreasonable to expect all
> the details about UDH and Holmlid's research into it over all those years
> to be recapitulated in this latest paper.
>
>
>
> Holmlid thinking on UDH has evolved as his experimentation has advanced.
> This makes reading through all those papers confusing with seeming
> contradiction between some of his works.
>
>
>
> Even in his new paper, there is an cut and pasted reiteration of some old
> stuff from previous research which suggests that fusion was the cause of
> some reaction characteristics, but latter in the conclusions Holmlid states
> a different case.
>
>
>
> Furthermore, Holmlid's thinking has been greatly influenced by the works
> and theories put forth by  J.E. Hirsch and his school of followers.
>
>
>
> In the introduction in his new paper, Holmlid states:
>
> .
>
> "They may all be characterized as spin-based Rydberg Matter (RM) [2
> ].
> This model is based on a theoretical description by J.E. Hirsch [7
> 
> ]."
>
>
>
>  J.E. Hirsch has developed a theory for type 2 superconductivity that
> contradicts existing dogma called "Hole superconductivity".
>
>
>
> There are another 200 papers on this subject to be found here:
>
>
>
>  http://physics.ucsd.edu/~jorge/hole.html
>
>
>
> You can not really understand UDH unless you understand spin based Hole
> superconductivity,
>
>
>
> IMHO, following Holmlid's theory is like following R.Mills
> alternative science. It is not easy and it takes a lot of convection and
> effort. With all its complexity 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Jones Beene]

Bob,

You have expressed the arguments against Holmlid's interpretation being 
accurate quite well. Thanks for taking the time to do this. As I 
mentioned before, these arguments can be generally condensed into "show 
me more." Yet Holmlid is doing as much with small funding as can be 
reasonably expected. Curiously, no one has taken the obvious approach of 
reporting a failed replication. If there was a failed replication, then 
deep skepticism would be more relevant.


Bottom line - in the big picture, Holmlid has presented a case for a 
breakthrough which is well beyond incremental. It would be a profound 
paradigm shift if accurate - of greater importance than the entire opus 
of CERN with the $20 billion spent there. Even if the chances of his 
results and interpretation being accurate are low, the payoff is so high 
that it is mind blowing.


The DoD/DoE has invested an obscene amount of money in ICF at LLNL. It 
makes no sense for them not to try to replicated.



 Bob Higgins wrote:
So far, as I keep reading Holmlid's latest paper, I keep coming to a 
statement, and I ask myself, "where's the support for this?"  So I go 
through the string of references and find illogical hand waving or 
leaps of faith, but not logical support.  This business of the "2.3 
pm" spaced seems to still rely entirely on the particle velocities 
whose measured energy has come entirely from an improbable conjecture 
of "Coulombic explosion".  Coloumbic potential energy would have to be 
stored in the system - I.E. placed there by some process of squeezing 
the atoms into some metastable state.  Yet, the H(0) or D(0) state is 
being portrayed as having lower Hamiltonian (total energy) than H2.  
Thus, one would expect ordinary H2 gas as having tremendous Coulombic 
potential energy - even more than H(0) since H2's total energy is 
higher than H(0) according to Holmlid (see his figure in the latest 
paper which is reproduced from his other works).


Holmlid's background is in the study of hydrogen Rydberg matter.  
These condensed matter particles have a good basis in science, and 
have been thoroughly characterized. Hydrogen Rydberg particles are not 
dense - just the opposite.  The atomic spacing in RM particles is 
twice that of H2, making the local molecular density of H2 much 
greater than that for RM.  There have been molecular RM models created 
and the rotational spectra computed and matched to observed spectra.  
The basis and characterization of RM is very strong.  Holmlid seems to 
be trying to transfer that strong basis for RM onto his conjecture for 
H(0) and D(0) with what appears to be only hand-waving - and 
hand-waving with contradictory claims.


H(0) and/or D(0) are supposed to be the lowest energy state of 
hydrogen condensed matter.  Such a low energy state cannot be planar 
like RM - though Holmlid is claiming that RM is a precursor to H(0).  
In Holmlid's description of coupled D-D pairs, he describes coupled 
pairs at right angles which form a tetrahedron string having an atomic 
spacing of 5 pm.  Evidence is claimed for matching rotational 
spectroscopy (2016, "Emission spectroscopy of IR laser-induced 
processes in ultra-dense deuterium").  To calculate the rotational 
spectrum, you have to have a model for the entire molecule. The 
spectrum will result from an eigensolution of the quantum fomulation 
for rotational states.  With some hand waving, some modeling was done 
and some matching was found in his 2016 paper, but this is not 
convincing like the work to determine the structure of the RM particles.


Basically, I cannot get past the fact that Holmlid is building a huge 
castle on a foundation of sand.  He has not produced a sound basis for 
H(0)/D(0) that underlies all of his conjecture. His arguments of 
"Coulombic explosion" don't pass the common sense test as a similar CE 
of H2 should result in more energy release than H(0).   How can what 
is being proposed on the basis of H(0)/D(0) be taken seriously without 
reasonable proof of the existence of the fundamentals?



 Bob Higginswrote:

I believe there are circular arguments going on here.  On the one
hand you are saying that neutral mesons are decaying into muons
(charged) far from the reactor.  But also there is the claim of
fusion in his reactor, wherein many are supposing MCF.  He is also
measuring charged particles in his reactor. The decay "times" are
statistical means and there will be some probability of a decay
from t = zero to infinity.  That's why it is possible to see
mesons -> muons in the reactor, more outside the reactor, and more
further away from the reactor.

So, I am saying that there are meson decays going on all along the
path from the reactor. Muons should be easy to detect because they
are charged and likely to interact with the scintillator
crystal/liquid/plastic or by exciting photoelectron cascades in
the GM tube. The fact that the corresponding muons are 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Bob Higgins]

Axil,  I have those papers.  A long CV doesn't make contradictory claims OK.

If you have a reasonable explanation for the contradiction of the notion of
"Coulombic explosion" and the H(0) having a lower Hamiltonian than H2, I
want to hear it.

Otherwise, you've got nothing.

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> Miley and Holmlid had a lonf standing partnership in thier research where
> Holmlids theories advanced in parallel with Miley. Maney of Holmlid's ideas
> about LENR added hot fusion come from this partnership:
>
> http://www.rexresearch.com/holmlid/holmlid.html
>
> Quote:
>
> Another reason why Olafsson feels confident the research is real is the
> work of Leif Holmlid. Holmlid is professor emeritus of chemistry at the
> University of Gothenburg and has a long career. He has both helped assess
> potential laureates for the Nobel Committee, and has published over 200
> scientific papers. Unlike most Cold Fusion/LENR researchers, the work of
> both Olafsson and Holmlid very recently published their revolutionary work
> on Rdyberg Matter in the prestigious journals of the American Physical
> Society, with its 50,000 members it is the largest organization physicists
> in the world. There will be no more “mainstream” than that."
>
> All Holmlid;s research is peer reviewed by the APS including his custom
> made research instrumentation.
>
> Also see
>
> https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Rydberg_Atoms/Rydberg_matter/Wikipedia
>
> for other opinions about Holmlid's contribution to the definition of
> Rydberg matter. Also other professional relationships are mentioned.
>
> Quote:
>
> *Ultradense deuterium**The existence of ultradense deuterium is suggested
> by experiment. This material, at a density of 140 kg/cm3, would be a
> million times more dense than regular deuterium, denser than at the core of
> the Sun. This ultradense form of deuterium may facilitate achieving
> laser-induced fusion.[27] Only minute amounts of ultradense deuterium have
> been produced thus far.[28][29] At the moment, it is not known how the
> material is produced or if it remains stable without applied pressure,
> however, there is conjecture that it is possible to produce a new stable
> state of matter by compressing ultracold deuterium in a Rydberg state.[30]*
> [27] Anderrson and Holmlid (2009)
> [28] 
> Badiei,
> Andersson and Holmlid (2009)
> [29] 
> Badiei,
> Andersson and Holmlid (2009)
>  This
> is the foundational paper on ultra-dense deuterium, the experimental report.
> [30} Winterberg!, 2009, but on arXiv.  Later
> published in Journal of Fusion Energy (2010)
> 
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Bob Higgins 
> wrote:
>
>> It is a "troll-ism" to presume that I have NOT looked at Holmlid's
>> previous publications.  In fact, as I mentioned (and apparently you didn't
>> consider), I have been trying to trace the foundation for H(0)/D(0) back
>> through his papers to find the crux.  I have over 40 of his papers, going
>> back to the more solidly based work on RM.  I am not questioning his
>> experimental data, just his interpretation of it.  In his later papers, he
>> presumes that a solid case for the existence of H(0) has already been
>> made.
>>
>> For those of you so committedly supporting the suppositions of Holmlid
>> regarding H(0)/D(0), have YOU read his papers?  Do you understand his
>> fundamental evidence for H(0)/D(0)?  There is no underlying quantum or
>> Millsian classical physics prediction for H(0) - not even a solution after
>> the fact.  His entire supposition rests on the absurd Coulombic explosion
>> explanation for the energy in the particles he measures and how close two
>> protons would have to be to release such energy (2.3 pm) by his
>> calculation.  Coulombic energy would have to be a potential energy (like a
>> compressed spring) that would have to be ADDED to get that much energy in
>> an H(0) 2.3pm state compared to a much greater spaced H2 (74 pm).  Yet, in
>> all of his energy diagrams he shows H(0) as being a lower Hamiltonian
>> energy than H2.  These claims are in direct contradiction.  The foundation
>> for H(0) is not there - not in any of his papers.  Only a ridiculous,
>> contradictory case has been made for it.
>>
>> Could there have been superfluid states on the surface of the metal?
>> That is entirely plausible as rivers and islands of atom-thick RM form on
>> the surface of the metal.  It has absolutely nothing to do with an H(0)
>> state.
>>
>> If we in Vortex want to make a useful contribution to Holmlid's reports,
>> we should propose and consider what other explanations are reasonable for
>> his data.  Start 

RE: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Russ George]

Thanks Eric please do add me to your kill file, nothing could please me more.

 

From: Eric Walker [mailto:eric.wal...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:39 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

 

Hi Russ,

 

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 12:28 PM, Russ George  > wrote:

 

Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people who fire 
critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy to do 
anything other than make pompous comment on materials based on their confusion 
stemming from the fact that everything in the author’s work is not 
recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to.

 

There have been long threads on LENR Forum, where we've taken a detailed and 
close-up look at various claims in several of Holmlid's papers.  Unfortunately 
the content from the old site is unindexed in Google and hard to call up.

 

Such behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest productive 
dialog.

 

Here are two definitions of trolling; readers will be the judge of who here 
they might apply to:

 

1b. Noun 

A person who, on a message forum of some type, attacks and flames other members 
of the forum for any of a number of reasons such as rank, previous 
disagreements, sex, status, ect. 

A troll usually flames threads without staying on topic, unlike a "Flamer" who 
flames a thread because he/she disagrees with the content of the thread. 

 

1c. Noun 

A member of an internet forum who continually harangues and harasses others. 
Someone with nothing worthwhile to add to a certain conversation, but rather 
continually threadjacks or changes the subject, as well as thinks every member 
of the forum is talking about them and only them. Trolls often go by multiple 
names to circumvent getting banned. 

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=troll

 

But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates spouting off from the 
lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of ideas. Vortex-l often 
digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night. Ces’t la vie.  

 

I've found such a low signal to noise ratio in your posts that I'm going to add 
you to my killfile.  If I do not respond to further posts of yours, it is only 
to keep the mood here light enough to focus on matters of substance, rather 
than being detained in addressing further ad hominem attacks.

 

All the best,

Eric

 

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Axil Axil]

If Holmlid is right about prolific production of muons in LENR, then LENR
will look a lot like the initial use of oil and its associated CO2 loading
at the beginning of the 20th century. But as the number of LENR driven
engines increase into the billions, then the weight of muons on the byways
and highways will grow so thick in the production of muon fog it could
become dense enough to be walked upon.

Like oil, any production of a toxic material by the use of its progenitor
material is insignificant on the experimental level but under mass
production, highly injurious if its usage is taken to an extreme.

Is is why it is incumbent on LENR researchers to verify Holmlid's
observations about muon production to protect future  generations from its
toxic consequences at this earliest juncture.

On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Axil Axil  wrote:

> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895
>
> Mesons from Laser-Induced Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(0)
>
> A new paper from Holmlid where he now deduces that LENR cannot be a fusion
> based reaction because the energy of the mesons produced are far to great.
> I respect a man that can change his mind under the weight of experimental
> evidence.
>
> The hydrogen nanoparticle that produces the mesons are 3 to 6 planes long.
>

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Eric Walker]

On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 9:08 AM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

Basically, I cannot get past the fact that Holmlid is building a huge
> castle on a foundation of sand.
>

This is my sentiment exactly.  Holmlid presents his work as experimental
work, but there's such a long chain of tenuous theoretical assumptions
woven into the reports that it make it difficult to follow him to his
conclusions.  There's something pathological about that.  That's a pity,
because he might actually be observing something anomalous and interesting,
whatever it is.  I am not surprised that mainstream scientists, from what I
can tell, are wary of Holmlid's body of work.  We should make an effort to
distinguish between good science that has been unfairly neglected and
discredited (e.g., some of the LENR studies) from tendentious science that
has further work to do to support its conclusions.

Eric

Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid.

[Bob Higgins]

So far, as I keep reading Holmlid's latest paper, I keep coming to a
statement, and I ask myself, "where's the support for this?"  So I go
through the string of references and find illogical hand waving or leaps of
faith, but not logical support.  This business of the "2.3 pm" spaced seems
to still rely entirely on the particle velocities whose measured energy has
come entirely from an improbable conjecture of "Coulombic explosion".
Coloumbic potential energy would have to be stored in the system - I.E.
placed there by some process of squeezing the atoms into some metastable
state.  Yet, the H(0) or D(0) state is being portrayed as having lower
Hamiltonian (total energy) than H2.  Thus, one would expect ordinary H2 gas
as having tremendous Coulombic potential energy - even more than H(0) since
H2's total energy is higher than H(0) according to Holmlid (see his figure
in the latest paper which is reproduced from his other works).

Holmlid's background is in the study of hydrogen Rydberg matter.  These
condensed matter particles have a good basis in science, and have been
thoroughly characterized.  Hydrogen Rydberg particles are not dense - just
the opposite.  The atomic spacing in RM particles is twice that of H2,
making the local molecular density of H2 much greater than that for RM.
There have been molecular RM models created and the rotational spectra
computed and matched to observed spectra.  The basis and characterization
of RM is very strong.  Holmlid seems to be trying to transfer that strong
basis for RM onto his conjecture for H(0) and D(0) with what appears to be
only hand-waving - and hand-waving with contradictory claims.

H(0) and/or D(0) are supposed to be the lowest energy state of hydrogen
condensed matter.  Such a low energy state cannot be planar like RM -
though Holmlid is claiming that RM is a precursor to H(0).  In Holmlid's
description of coupled D-D pairs, he describes coupled pairs at right
angles which form a tetrahedron string having an atomic spacing of 5 pm.
Evidence is claimed for matching rotational spectroscopy (2016, "Emission
spectroscopy of IR laser-induced processes in ultra-dense deuterium").  To
calculate the rotational spectrum, you have to have a model for the entire
molecule.  The spectrum will result from an eigensolution of the quantum
fomulation for rotational states.  With some hand waving, some modeling was
done and some matching was found in his 2016 paper, but this is not
convincing like the work to determine the structure of the RM particles.

Basically, I cannot get past the fact that Holmlid is building a huge
castle on a foundation of sand.  He has not produced a sound basis for
H(0)/D(0) that underlies all of his conjecture.  His arguments of
"Coulombic explosion" don't pass the common sense test as a similar CE of
H2 should result in more energy release than H(0).   How can what is being
proposed on the basis of H(0)/D(0) be taken seriously without reasonable
proof of the existence of the fundamentals?

On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Bob Higgins 
wrote:

> I believe there are circular arguments going on here.  On the one hand you
> are saying that neutral mesons are decaying into muons (charged) far from
> the reactor.  But also there is the claim of fusion in his reactor, wherein
> many are supposing MCF.  He is also measuring charged particles in his
> reactor.  The decay "times" are statistical means and there will be some
> probability of a decay from t = zero to infinity.  That's why it is
> possible to see mesons -> muons in the reactor, more outside the reactor,
> and more further away from the reactor.
>
> So, I am saying that there are meson decays going on all along the path
> from the reactor.  Muons should be easy to detect because they are charged
> and likely to interact with the scintillator crystal/liquid/plastic or by
> exciting photoelectron cascades in the GM tube. The fact that the
> corresponding muons are not detected in ordinary LENR with GM tubes and
> scintillators basically means that, in LENR, mesons are not produced.  They
> may not be produced in Holmlid's reaction ... but I have to finish reading
> the paper to understand the case he is claiming.
>
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>> Bob Higgins wrote:
>>
>> The descriptions in 5,8) below suggests that Holmlid's reaction produces
>> a high muon flux that would escape the reactor.  A high muon flux would be
>> very similar to a high beta flux.  First of all, it would seem that a flux
>> of charged muons would be highly absorbed in the reactor walls.
>>
>>
>> Bob - Yes, this has been the obvious criticism in the past, but it has
>> been addressed.
>>
>> As I understand it, the muons which are detected* do not exist* until
>> the meson, which is the progenitor particle, is many meters away. This
>> makes the lack of containment of muons very simple to understand.
>>
>> At one time muons were thought to 

Re: [Vo]:Tillerson Says China Should Be Barred From South China Sea Islands

[Daniel Rocha]

Perhaps the strategy is to get in good terms with Russia and both surround
China?