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:[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2015 7:57 AM
To: [email protected]
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 <[email protected]>
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: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
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.
