Holmlid has been writing papers on ultra dense hydogen since the early 1990s. There must be 100 produce so far. It is unreasonable to expect all the details about UDH and Holmlid's research into it over all those years to be recapitulated in this latest paper.
Holmlid thinking on UDH has evolved as his experimentation has advanced. This makes reading through all those papers confusing with seeming contradiction between some of his works. Even in his new paper, there is an cut and pasted reiteration of some old stuff from previous research which suggests that fusion was the cause of some reaction characteristics, but latter in the conclusions Holmlid states a different case. Furthermore, Holmlid's thinking has been greatly influenced by the works and theories put forth by J.E. Hirsch and his school of followers. In the introduction in his new paper, Holmlid states: . "They may all be characterized as spin-based Rydberg Matter (RM) [2 <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref002>]. This model is based on a theoretical description by J.E. Hirsch [7 <http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref007> ]." J.E. Hirsch has developed a theory for type 2 superconductivity that contradicts existing dogma called "Hole superconductivity". There are another 200 papers on this subject to be found here: http://physics.ucsd.edu/~jorge/hole.html You can not really understand UDH unless you understand spin based Hole superconductivity, IMHO, following Holmlid's theory is like following R.Mills alternative science. It is not easy and it takes a lot of convection and effort. With all its complexity and revolutionary dogma, LENR is not easy to take on. Holmlid needs more validation before people will feel sanguine in investing the time and effort to take his science seriously. On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote: > So far, as I keep reading Holmlid's latest paper, I keep coming to a > statement, and I ask myself, "where's the support for this?" So I go > through the string of references and find illogical hand waving or leaps of > faith, but not logical support. This business of the "2.3 pm" spaced seems > to still rely entirely on the particle velocities whose measured energy has > come entirely from an improbable conjecture of "Coulombic explosion". > Coloumbic potential energy would have to be stored in the system - I.E. > placed there by some process of squeezing the atoms into some metastable > state. Yet, the H(0) or D(0) state is being portrayed as having lower > Hamiltonian (total energy) than H2. Thus, one would expect ordinary H2 gas > as having tremendous Coulombic potential energy - even more than H(0) since > H2's total energy is higher than H(0) according to Holmlid (see his figure > in the latest paper which is reproduced from his other works). > > Holmlid's background is in the study of hydrogen Rydberg matter. These > condensed matter particles have a good basis in science, and have been > thoroughly characterized. Hydrogen Rydberg particles are not dense - just > the opposite. The atomic spacing in RM particles is twice that of H2, > making the local molecular density of H2 much greater than that for RM. > There have been molecular RM models created and the rotational spectra > computed and matched to observed spectra. The basis and characterization > of RM is very strong. Holmlid seems to be trying to transfer that strong > basis for RM onto his conjecture for H(0) and D(0) with what appears to be > only hand-waving - and hand-waving with contradictory claims. > > H(0) and/or D(0) are supposed to be the lowest energy state of hydrogen > condensed matter. Such a low energy state cannot be planar like RM - > though Holmlid is claiming that RM is a precursor to H(0). In Holmlid's > description of coupled D-D pairs, he describes coupled pairs at right > angles which form a tetrahedron string having an atomic spacing of 5 pm. > Evidence is claimed for matching rotational spectroscopy (2016, "Emission > spectroscopy of IR laser-induced processes in ultra-dense deuterium"). To > calculate the rotational spectrum, you have to have a model for the entire > molecule. The spectrum will result from an eigensolution of the quantum > fomulation for rotational states. With some hand waving, some modeling was > done and some matching was found in his 2016 paper, but this is not > convincing like the work to determine the structure of the RM particles. > > Basically, I cannot get past the fact that Holmlid is building a huge > castle on a foundation of sand. He has not produced a sound basis for > H(0)/D(0) that underlies all of his conjecture. His arguments of > "Coulombic explosion" don't pass the common sense test as a similar CE of > H2 should result in more energy release than H(0). How can what is being > proposed on the basis of H(0)/D(0) be taken seriously without reasonable > proof of the existence of the fundamentals? > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 3:55 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I believe there are circular arguments going on here. On the one hand >> you are saying that neutral mesons are decaying into muons (charged) far >> from the reactor. But also there is the claim of fusion in his reactor, >> wherein many are supposing MCF. He is also measuring charged particles in >> his reactor. The decay "times" are statistical means and there will be >> some probability of a decay from t = zero to infinity. That's why it is >> possible to see mesons -> muons in the reactor, more outside the reactor, >> and more further away from the reactor. >> >> So, I am saying that there are meson decays going on all along the path >> from the reactor. Muons should be easy to detect because they are charged >> and likely to interact with the scintillator crystal/liquid/plastic or by >> exciting photoelectron cascades in the GM tube. The fact that the >> corresponding muons are not detected in ordinary LENR with GM tubes and >> scintillators basically means that, in LENR, mesons are not produced. They >> may not be produced in Holmlid's reaction ... but I have to finish reading >> the paper to understand the case he is claiming. >> >> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 8:40 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: >> >>> Bob Higgins wrote: >>> >>> The descriptions in 5,8) below suggests that Holmlid's reaction produces >>> a high muon flux that would escape the reactor. A high muon flux would be >>> very similar to a high beta flux. First of all, it would seem that a flux >>> of charged muons would be highly absorbed in the reactor walls. >>> >>> >>> Bob - Yes, this has been the obvious criticism in the past, but it has >>> been addressed. >>> >>> As I understand it, the muons which are detected* do not exist* until >>> the meson, which is the progenitor particle, is many meters away. This >>> makes the lack of containment of muons very simple to understand. >>> >>> At one time muons were thought to exist as neutral instead of charged >>> (see the reference Bob Cook sent, from 1957) but in fact, the observers at >>> that time, due to poor instrumentation - were seeing neutral mesons, not >>> muons. >>> >>> As an example, a neutral Kaon decays to two muons one negative and one >>> positive. However, the lifetime of the Kaon which is much shorter than the >>> muon but still about ~10^-8 seconds means that on average 99+% of the >>> particles are tens to hundreds of meters away before they decay to muons. >>> Thus the reactor is transparent to the progenitor particle. >>> >>> This is why Holmlid places a muon detector some distance away and then >>> calculates the decay time. Thus he claims an extraordinarily high flux of >>> muons which assumes that the detector is mapping out a small space on a >>> large sphere. However, they are not usable any more than neutrinos are >>> usable, since they start out as a neutral meson. >>> >>> >> >
