The great hangup on the replication of the Holmlid experiment is the time it takes the SPPs to become fully charged with energy. It takes weeks of laser stimulation. This delay might be greatly shortened through the use of an electric arc as a way to pump energy into the SPPs.
For example, in the titanium exploding foil experiments, the SPPs were fully charged in only one shot of the spark. A electric arc is the ideal EMF format for charging the rydberg hydrogen to optimum energy storage levels. In another example, the EVO experiments of Ken Shoulders produce a SPP reaction by using only one spark discharge. The arc will also produce a wave of UV and X-Rays that could be used to calibrate the arrival of sub-atomic particles. On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Bob, > > > > Let’s face it: the only thing which is going to validate Holmlid is > replication by an independent third party. This replication could happen in > pieces on many fronts, starting with testing for muons - but it must be > done. > > > > Holmlid seems to have an arguably valid response to most objections, but > the answers will not satisfy everyone since they form a house of cards. It > cannot all be correct – just as Mills theory cannot. > > > > You seem to buy in the DDL or some version of it, and that would be a fine > place to start to reconcile the conflicts. I am hoping Meulenberg jumps in > on this, sooner or later. His species, being “femto” is presumably even > denser than Holmlid’s. > > > > As to the expanded electron orbital of “normal” RM – Holmlid does see that > as a preliminary or oscillatory state, as you acknowledge. Presumably this > results in some kind of transitory reality … which is a step above > “virtual”. It seems like the RM must be transferred while still on its > substrate. > > > > The SRI slides starting at 25 provide further answers, but in the end, > Holmlid will end up in the same drifting boat as Mills, in the sense that > broad support from the physics community will not arrive until there is > totally independent replication. At least Holmlid is open enough to allow > and even encourage that. > > > > A step towards partial replication would seem to be to integrate Holmlid’s > method for producing dense hydrogen into ab ongoing experiment – like the > glow tube. > > > > *From:* Bob Higgins > > > > I would like to see more discussion of Holmlid's evidence for existence of > the ultra-dense deuterium D(0). > > > > From my reading, I understand the evidence for Rydberg Matter (RM) > particles, and it is strong. This evidence is based on rotational > spectroscopy of clouds of RM particles - the "snowflakes" I previously > mentioned. Because these RM particles have such large electron orbitals > (the Rydberg states), the RM particle spectra is highly susceptible to > electric fields (well known Stark effect) and magnetic fields (Zeeman > effect). In fact, the Stark effect is so large, it can be used with RM to > make tunable RM lasers. RM forms from many atomic species, not just > hydrogen isotopes. This RM is NOT dense, and even sodium RM particles are > detected in the Earth's upper atmosphere, some 80 km high. Obviously, to > float in such a thin atmosphere, the mass density of the particles must be > relatively low. > > > > Now we come to Holmlid's propositions. The first proposition is that RM > can form in monolayers on a metal oxide surface. This is not too far > fetched. One could easily visualize a self-assembling effect of the > hexagons under the right conditions. Has Holmlid proved a continuous > film? I haven't seen that evidence. In other words, the Holmlid surface > condensed H(1) / D(1) as a continuous film could simply be isolated RM > particles that have attached to the metal oxide surface. > > > > Holmlid's next proposition is the spontaneous switching on the surface of > the purported D(1) film with 150 pm atomic spacing to the ultra-dense form, > D(0) having 2.3 pm spacing. First, is Holmlid expecting us to believe that > the entire surface film shrinks in lateral dimensions by a factor of 65? > Even if such a state switch could occur, it would be unlikely to occur in > the entire film simultaneously - I think it would rip itself into small > islands. > > > > What is Holmlid's evidence for the 2.3 pm ultra-dense D(0) state? As near > as I can tell, the evidence comes from the energy calculated from a > supposed Coulomb explosion - I.E. sudden failure of the mechanism holding > the atoms at such a small inter-atomic spacing caused by an incident > laser. If such potential energy existed for Coulomb explosion, then there > would be no natural means for even individual RM particles to switch to > this state - I.E. how can D(1) RM particles spontaneously jump to a > configuration having so much higher potential energy as D(0) is purported > to have? > > > > So, how can Holmlid say that the cause of the measured ejecta atoms is > Coulomb explosion? Could it not be that some form of energetic reaction > occurred between the substrate, the D(1) particles on the surface, and the > laser? Perhaps a LENR reaction? > > > > Somewhere, Miley and Holmlid parted theoretical company. I think that > Miley may believe that the RM particles could be complicit in LENR, but > perhaps he didn't buy into the ultra-dense hypothesis. > > > > Bob Higgins >
