It looks like an interesting idea and not too difficult an experiment to set up and to perform. If it shows promise it could easily be adapted to use different frequency light maybe even IR and UV to see how it affects the results. What ever its result It could potentially give a good data point regarding Rydberg matter and SPP formation without other complicating or competing factors, and indicate what role a light source might play.
I hope someone is able to take a look at it and try it someday. Sent from my iPhone > On 30 Oct 2015, at 18:38, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > > There are a few possible ways in which the findings and the techniques used > to make dense deuterium for Holmlid could find a direct and easy > applicability in a glow-tube type of experiment – using the same type of > alumina tube (or mullite) used by Parkhomov. > > To be safe, this kind of hybrid should be done without a laser, using as a > substitute, a monochromatic light source. As for the fuel - I agree with > Robin that deuterium probably works better – after all, the nucleus is > bosonic and the proton is not, but Holmlid clearly indicates that either will > densify. Monatomic H, in contrast to the proton - is an atomic boson, so > maybe that is the feature which lets either isotope work. > > This hybrid version will be a two stage system – an activation stage and a > conversion stage. Both will use only photonic energy input, NO resistance > wire, which is a big departure from Parkhomov. There is no resistance heater > to burn out and the net gain should improve due to efficiency of SPP > formation. Both of the stages can be referred to as “mini-tanning-booths”. J > > The underlying concept is premised on SPP formation, both in the activation > stage and in the conversion stage. This requires a light source and a > magnetic field to optimize. The further assumption is that the laser is > effective for both Holmlid and Letts/Cravens because it is coherent light, > but that monochromatic photons will also work. The magnetic field does not > need to be strong, and can be provided by loudspeaker magnets placed outside > the hot zone. > > Holmlid is apparently seeing large amounts nucleon disintegration – which we > definitely need to avoid in a kilowatt level systems due to gamma radiation; > and therefore, it would be better to avoid the laser in favor of > monochromatic light. As fate would have it, there is an ideal light emitter > device in the sodium vapor lamp, which is the small version of the common > street lamp. It is the most efficient photon source known – better than the > best LEDs and single frequency. > > Sodium is naturally monochromatic at 580 nm, and not only that, mass > production has brought the cost of the bulbs way down - such that the 400 > watt bulbs are particularly cheap (this is apparently due to the widespread > hydroponic farming of a certain cash crop). Anyway, an efficient light source > makes much more sense than powering a ceramic tube with resistance heaters, > since it is the incandescence (photons) which you need for SPP – and not the > heat, per se. > > Obviously, one must buy into the SPP hypothesis for the operative modality > before any of this makes sense. But once you do buy into it – the absurdity > of using resistance heat to get surface plasmons is obvious. It is a no > brainer to start with photons, not electricity. > > 400 Watts should be an ideal size for the conversion stage but the activation > stage could best use a lamp in the range of 75 watts. The activation stage > will last for an extended time frame – say 100 hours of continuous > irradiation of the fuel-tube. This can be done safely with a lamp. The > alumina or mullite tubes being used are translucent, and will downshift the > 580 nm yellow light of the sodium bulb down to IR – which is ideal for SPP. > Once activated, the fuel is not removed from the tube – instead the same > ceramic tube is used in the conversion stage, as is. The conversion stage > looks the same but has a larger lamp for input triggering. > > The fuel mix which would work best, according to Holmlid would be mostly > Shell 105 catalyst. The rest of the fuel mix could include LAH as the > hydrogen source, and nickel powder. The idea is that two reflective and > insulated mirrored troughs are fabricated from aluminum foil or equivalent, > such that the loaded ceramic tube is irradiated all around by monochromatic > light and also heated to a modest level where hydrogen pressure is minimal. > Some insulation will be required. Magnets are outside the “tanning booth” so > they can be kept cool, but the net effect is that SPP should form more > readily than with Parkhomov – and over time, a population of dense hydrogen > will accumulate. This activate fuel will be converted in the adjoining > “booth” (actually bulbs could be swapped out in the same booth). > > Once activated, the fuel tube needs only the addition of thermocouples before > it is ready to be irradiated (at a much higher level) in the conversion > stage, where the monochromatic trigger, from the sodium vapor light is 3-6 > times more intense than in the activation stage. > > > If the SPP theory/modality is correct, and if the Holmlid dense hydrogen > modality is also involved, then the end result is that the COP of this system > should be higher than the Parkhomov system, where incandescence provides the > photons at perhaps 3-5 % efficiency. Sodium is a factor of 10x more efficient > for photons. > > Jones > >
