Hi Mark,
Please ask about the lifetime of dense hydrogen, once formed, and the time frame for production (rate per mass of catalyst ??). Those are important details which are apparently not answered in Holmlid’s papers. Also the magnetic properties. My guess (in answer to Bob’s question) is that clusters can be moved using magnetic fields. The important paper: “Efficient source for the production of ultradense deuterium” by Patrik U. Andersson, Benny Lönn, and Leif Holmlid) is 5 years old now and many details may have changed. Rgds, Jones From: Mark Jurich Hi Bob (All): I can answer some of your questions now, but we are going to be continuing discussions of the talks at San Jose State University in an open discussion headed by Ken Wharton in the Science Building at 10:30 AM today (Friday) ... I will make sure all your questions are addressed as well as others. Due to lack of time, I cannot respond properly at the moment, but will do so soon. Thanks, Mark Jurich From: Bob Higgins <mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 7:57 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI Does anyone else find these just too incredible to believe? * That a dense hydrogen layer could form at all at room temperatures- and with a catalyst that is not even on the surface? So these catalyzed hydrogen atoms travel from the catalyst body to the receptor surface in some magic form that doesn't change en route despite many molecular collisions and arrive able to form this magic layer. * That the dense hydrogen layer could be so stable that it would accumulate over weeks? Ed Storms suggested that if metallic hydrogen formed it would fuse immediately. Holmlid's dense hydrogen sounds an awful lot like a layer of metallic hydrogen. What he describes may be even more dense than metallic hydrogen. * That a laser could induce a disintegration of a deuterium nucleus into sub-nucleonic matter? That sound like a magic feather being able to move a mountain. * That such a Rydberg assemblage of deuterons could survive even a single energetic event without being completely disrupted back into gas. While these things truly offend my physical sensibilities, having these nervous concerns also makes me worry that I am becoming a patho-skeptic. On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 7:55 AM, Stephen Cooke <stephen_coo...@hotmail.com> wrote: Thank a lot Jones Beene for this great and interesting report. If Holmlid process was some how creating dense material that enhanced the Stella type proton proton chain reaction, from deuteron proton reactions onwards that would already be amazing. That nucleons may actually disintegrate is nothing short of astonishing! Is this what they are actually saying? Did they really observe such huge amounts of energy? 900 MeV is close to the rest mass of a neutron (939 MeV) and proton (938 MeV), Half the mass of the Deutron Nucleus! When they 900 MeV is released I see 3 possible meanings for this: 1) Did they imply total disintegration of one of the nucleons to Pions to Muons to electrons and neutrinos and gamma? If so could it be the just the Neutron or Proton or either one that can disintegrate? 2) Did they imply this came the disintegration of both nucleons to Pions i.e (939 MeV + 938 MeV) - (6 * 139 MeV). If so even more energy would be released as the pions decay to muons and eventually Electron/Proton and neutrinos or gamma? 3) Did they imply something else. Which ever the case its astonishing amount of energy to release in one reaction almost up there with matter antimatter annihilation. _____ From: jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 17:16:42 -0700 Subject: [Vo]:Colloquium at SRI Very interesting presentation this morning. Ólafsson was both low key and optimistic that Holmlid is onto something important. Alan Goldwater also presented his open source work on the basic glow reactor of Rossi/Parkhomov. At first glance, there would appear to be no connection between the two … but read on. Holmlid is clearly the lead individual on the dense hydrogen phenomenon and Ólafsson is interpreting his work going back to 2008 and before. However, most of the proof is by process of elimination. This will be even more controversial than cold fusion until proven. Again, what was demonstrated is NOT cold fusion and not really hot fusion either. Copious amounts of radiation would expected in such a laser driven reaction when it gets up to the kilowatt level of thermal gain. Now it is subwatt. However, in different circumstances (electrolysis) the same reactant (which is dense deuterium clusters) could explain P&F cold fusion, and explain the lack of radiation in circumstances where a laser does not disintegrate the reactant. IOW, there can be a range of circumstances– all involving dense deuterium bound at a few picometers separation - where other outcomes are expected: other than disintegration to mesons -> pions -> muons etc. With the laser as the input power, when a deuteron disintegrates in a laser pulse, over 900 MeV or ~ 40 times MORE energy is released than in fusion ! There were about 35 people in attendance including a few heavy hitters who prefer not to be identified. The venue is a stone’s throw from Sand Hill Road. A video crew filmed the whole thing. Holmlid apparently wants to call the phenomenon “Cold Spallation” but I think that is a bad choice, since it does not look like nuclear spallation as we know it. And there is nothing cold about the output. BTW – Ólafsson said that calling the Rydberg matter “inverted” (in the paper with Miley) was not accurate. The only thing needed now is replication. A professor whose name I did not catch (San Jose State ?) has been trying to replicate LH but has not been successful. Holmlid recently told him that the dense hydrogen takes several weeks to accumulate, and has an extended shelf life thereafter. That seems to me to be the main takeaway lesson ** weeks to accumulate **. As I recall, a few years back, there was a message where Rossi mentioned that his supplier in Italy required months to make a batch of active reactant. Could it be that Rossi has been inadvertently getting dense hydrogen all along? The presentation of Alan Goldwater was very impressive. I am confident that if and when Alan announces thermal gain in a Rossi style reactor – we can believe it. That has not happened yet but he is very methodical and dedicated. Like many others including myself, he accepts Bob Higgins downgraded assessment of the Lugano report (slight gain – perhaps COP~1.2 see Bob’s white paper). I encouraged Alan – in light of Olafsson’s presentation - to consider a 2-stage or compound system where he would manufacture the dense deuterium separately from the reactor where it is to be converted to heat. At first he seemed dubious that two steps would be required – in order to merge Holmlid’s results with Rossi. But this strategy would allow a very low powered continuous laser to accumulate the dense material over time. The ideal situation, if one wishes to avoid radiation toxicitym seems to be: do NOT to use a fast pulse intense laser to convert dense deuterium into heat (this assumes there does exist the radiation-free route to convert it to heat). IMO - It will be very difficult to continuously resupply the dense Rydberg matter in situ (in the same reactor it is being burnt in) and not see harmful radiation. It can be done at the subwatt level, but those two processes are fundamentally in conflict – especially when you get to high power.