Good point, Mark – since this detail is easy to overlook. I wonder how many of the geniuses at Livermore really have understood what Holmlid is saying.
Amazingly, if we can believe it - the Holmlid work not only provides a shortcut to achieving breakeven in laser fusion, BUT ALSO explains why the high energy billion dollar approach cannot scale-up adequately … and ironically, that reason is that the high energy approach actually makes some of the dense deuterium in situ, which causes instabilities. (I hope this is not reading too much into it) From: Mark Jurich Just in passing, I would like to note (to others, at least) that this Nature Paper is Reference [4] in Holmlid’s 2014 Paper: Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(−1) as the Cause of Instabilities in Laser Compression-Based Nuclear Fusion http://fuelrfuture.com/science/holm2.pdf and that I don’t believe the term “Ultra-dense Hydrogen” or the material itself (as Holmlid characterizes it) was understood/identified back in 1999 when the Nature Paper came out. Mark Jurich From: Jones Beene <mailto:[email protected]> This is from the journal Nature in 1999 – and it reads like “déjà vu all over again”… since it was done with a table top laser and clusters of deuterium - but is hot fusion on a small scale – ICF … and way ahead of its time … since it is also very much like Holmlid’s claims, with one notable difference … http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v398/n6727/abs/398489a0.html … one of the authors, Ken Wharton was present at the Ólafsson SRI colloquium and indicated that he had not been successful making the dense deuterium, but it is really only that one “detail” which ties everything together into a game changer technology. Which is to say that LENR and ICF hot fusion are so very close to becoming a hybrid, and now we see that they have been close since 1999 – such that a hybrid with LENR, using even lower energy - will be readily accepted by the mainstream (after all this is Nature) … if and when … the dense deuterium for ICF targets is replicated. Everything else is in place… essentially. It is mind boggling, in a way that the wording of the 1999 Letter is so similar…
