The following post was submitted as a comment on this thread.
So we have a nuclear level energy release but little or no radiation. Rossi obviously isn’t sure what is going on and thinks it might be antimatter. Mills on the other hand believes due to the lack of radiation that it must be chemical Hydrino based.
But then we have Leif Holmlid that is not speculating but has repeaded, peer-reviewed and published results proving the formation of H(0) ultra dense hydrogen. If the formation of H(0) is followed by breakage of the bond, using for example a low energy laser, this results in a split of the proton and delivers mesons and energy. This has been proven with direct measure of muons that can either cause regular muon cold fusion or decay directly to electrons. In the process the proton mass is mostly lost with the applicable energy release and as the mesons are charged and fast moving, the energy can be harvested directly to electricity. Sounds familiar?
Where Holmlid triggers the H(0) process on a flat and observable 2D surface, Rossi and Mills are burried in a 3D material providing no direct line of sigth on the process happening.
So, if Holmlid’s results are accurate, the Holmlid decay of the proton would explain the large energy release without radiation in both the Rossi and Mills experiments.
Then why are we not regarding this as the primary explanation for LENR and why are we not focusing on repeating Holmlid for further proof? It would sound strange if the three processes are totally unrelated.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Holmlid, Rossi, Mills and Lack of Radiation (Optimist)
The following post was submitted as a comment on this thread.
So we have a nuclear level energy release but little or no radiation. Rossi obviously isn’t sure what is going on and thinks it might be antimatter. Mills on the other hand believes due to the lack of radiation that it must be chemical Hydrino based.
But then we have Leif Holmlid that is not speculating but has repeaded, peer-reviewed and published results proving the formation of H(0) ultra dense hydrogen. If the formation of H(0) is followed by breakage of the bond, using for example a low energy laser, this results in a split of the proton and delivers mesons and energy. This has been proven with direct measure of muons that can either cause regular muon cold fusion or decay directly to electrons. In the process the proton mass is mostly lost with the applicable energy release and as the mesons are charged and fast moving, the energy can be harvested directly to electricity. Sounds familiar?
Where Holmlid triggers the H(0) process on a flat and observable 2D surface, Rossi and Mills are burried in a 3D material providing no direct line of sigth on the process happening.
So, if Holmlid’s results are accurate, the Holmlid decay of the proton would explain the large energy release without radiation in both the Rossi and Mills experiments.
Then why are we not regarding this as the primary explanation for LENR and why are we not focusing on repeating Holmlid for further proof? It would sound strange if the three processes are totally unrelated.