Axil, I have those papers. A long CV doesn't make contradictory claims OK.
If you have a reasonable explanation for the contradiction of the notion of "Coulombic explosion" and the H(0) having a lower Hamiltonian than H2, I want to hear it. Otherwise, you've got nothing. On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > Miley and Holmlid had a lonf standing partnership in thier research where > Holmlids theories advanced in parallel with Miley. Maney of Holmlid's ideas > about LENR added hot fusion come from this partnership: > > http://www.rexresearch.com/holmlid/holmlid.html > > Quote: > > Another reason why Olafsson feels confident the research is real is the > work of Leif Holmlid. Holmlid is professor emeritus of chemistry at the > University of Gothenburg and has a long career. He has both helped assess > potential laureates for the Nobel Committee, and has published over 200 > scientific papers. Unlike most Cold Fusion/LENR researchers, the work of > both Olafsson and Holmlid very recently published their revolutionary work > on Rdyberg Matter in the prestigious journals of the American Physical > Society, with its 50,000 members it is the largest organization physicists > in the world. There will be no more “mainstream” than that." > > All Holmlid;s research is peer reviewed by the APS including his custom > made research instrumentation. > > Also see > > https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Rydberg_Atoms/Rydberg_matter/Wikipedia > > for other opinions about Holmlid's contribution to the definition of > Rydberg matter. Also other professional relationships are mentioned. > > Quote: > > *Ultradense deuterium**The existence of ultradense deuterium is suggested > by experiment. This material, at a density of 140 kg/cm3, would be a > million times more dense than regular deuterium, denser than at the core of > the Sun. This ultradense form of deuterium may facilitate achieving > laser-induced fusion.[27] Only minute amounts of ultradense deuterium have > been produced thus far.[28][29] At the moment, it is not known how the > material is produced or if it remains stable without applied pressure, > however, there is conjecture that it is possible to produce a new stable > state of matter by compressing ultracold deuterium in a Rydberg state.[30]* > [27] Anderrson and Holmlid (2009) > <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0375960109007622>[28] > Badiei, > Andersson and Holmlid (2009) > <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319908013785>[29] > Badiei, > Andersson and Holmlid (2009) > <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1387380609000724> This > is the foundational paper on ultra-dense deuterium, the experimental report. > [30} Winterberg!, 2009, but on arXiv. <http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.5414> Later > published in Journal of Fusion Energy (2010) > <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10894-010-9280-4#page-1> > > > > On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 2:58 PM, Bob Higgins <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> It is a "troll-ism" to presume that I have NOT looked at Holmlid's >> previous publications. In fact, as I mentioned (and apparently you didn't >> consider), I have been trying to trace the foundation for H(0)/D(0) back >> through his papers to find the crux. I have over 40 of his papers, going >> back to the more solidly based work on RM. I am not questioning his >> experimental data, just his interpretation of it. In his later papers, he >> presumes that a solid case for the existence of H(0) has already been >> made. >> >> For those of you so committedly supporting the suppositions of Holmlid >> regarding H(0)/D(0), have YOU read his papers? Do you understand his >> fundamental evidence for H(0)/D(0)? There is no underlying quantum or >> Millsian classical physics prediction for H(0) - not even a solution after >> the fact. His entire supposition rests on the absurd Coulombic explosion >> explanation for the energy in the particles he measures and how close two >> protons would have to be to release such energy (2.3 pm) by his >> calculation. Coulombic energy would have to be a potential energy (like a >> compressed spring) that would have to be ADDED to get that much energy in >> an H(0) 2.3pm state compared to a much greater spaced H2 (74 pm). Yet, in >> all of his energy diagrams he shows H(0) as being a lower Hamiltonian >> energy than H2. These claims are in direct contradiction. The foundation >> for H(0) is not there - not in any of his papers. Only a ridiculous, >> contradictory case has been made for it. >> >> Could there have been superfluid states on the surface of the metal? >> That is entirely plausible as rivers and islands of atom-thick RM form on >> the surface of the metal. It has absolutely nothing to do with an H(0) >> state. >> >> If we in Vortex want to make a useful contribution to Holmlid's reports, >> we should propose and consider what other explanations are reasonable for >> his data. Start with the possible superfluid/superconducting atom-thick >> layer of RM on the metal's surface. How would this be affected by a >> laser? How would plasmons form in layered structure comprised of >> dielectric, atom-thick superconductive film, and normally conductive >> metal? What would be the consequences of polaritons in such a system? >> >> Think before lobbing insults. >> >> On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Russ George <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Great comment on Holmlid’s body of work by Axil. I concur that people >>> who fire critiques of others work based on the fact that they are too lazy >>> to do anything other than make pompous comment on materials based on their >>> confusion stemming from the fact that everything in the author’s work is >>> not recapitulated in a single paper are not worthy of paying attention to. >>> Such behavior is characteristic of trolling not honest and earnest >>> productive dialog. But this is the nature of the internet which facilitates >>> spouting off from the lip/fingertip ever the bane of thoughtful exchange of >>> ideas. Vortex-l often digresses into a seedy barscape too late at night. >>> Ces’t la vie. >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Axil Axil [mailto:[email protected]] >>> *Sent:* Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:11 AM >>> *To:* vortex-l >>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:New paper from Holmlid. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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 <[email protected]> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
