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.

  • Max Nozin

    Please don’t put Mills and Rossi next to each other. It is unfair to Randy.

  • The cold fusion research suffers by lack of replications even more than mainstream science https://undark.org/article/replication-crisis-funding/

    Holmlid does hot fusion not cold fusion http://e-catworld.com/2015/10/01/leif-holmlid-comments-on-his-fusion-process/

    • can

      In answer to a more recent question Holmlid replied:
      https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_your_project_linked_with_the_Professor_Tony_Trewavas_paper

      I do not work with LENR even if our results explain a large part of LENR results.

    • Optimist

      Well, hot, cold or LENR? Edmund Storm once said that muon based fusion is hot because the Coulomb barrier has not been lowered in that process. The original name, Cold Fusion was however first used to describe that process. But things get really complicated with Holmlid’s process. From Holmlid’s publications, to form the Rydberg matter, Holmlid uses no external energy source but only a catalystic surface. The Rydberg atomic distance was measured so small that self occuring fusion proves to be quiet likely and was confirmed in a publication by Holmlid. With a little push using a low energy laser the fusion rate can be driven up. This was the original goal of Holmlid as I understand it. The even more interesting part and maybe unexpected is however that another outcome of exciting the Rydberg matter can be a decay of the proton that may as a secondary effect result in conventional muon based cold fusion.

      This resulted in a patent that Holmlid got approved in Sweden last month for a low energy muon device. One could speculate if the same process is happening in Rossi devices, that the catalyst works as a trap forming Rydberg clusters. They are then broken up by the movement of the hot surrounding atoms, taking the place of the laser, causing first proton decay followed by some level of muon triggered fusion. That could explain the transmutation that has been reported in some experiments.

      Is this hot, cold or LENR or do those terms not apply?

      • Axil Axil

        http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref007

        The origin of the particle signals observed here is clearly laser-induced nuclear processes in H(0). The first step is the laser-induced transfer of the H2(0) pairs in the ultra-dense material H(0) from excitation state s = 2 (with 2.3 pm H-H distance) to s = 1 (at 0.56 pm H-H distance) [2]. The state s = 1 may lead to a fast nuclear reaction. It is suggested that this involves two nucleons, probably two protons. The first particles formed and observed [16,17] are kaons, both neutral and charged, and also pions. From the six quarks in the two protons, three kaons can be formed in the interaction. Two protons correspond to a mass of 1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV. Thus, the transition 2 p β†’ 3 K is downhill in internal energy and releases 390 MeV. If pions are formed directly, the energy release may be even larger. The kaons formed decay normally in various processes to charged pions and muons. In the present experiments, the decay of kaons and pions is observed directly normally through their decay to muons, while the muons leave the chamber before they decay due to their easier penetration and much longer lifetime.

        IMHO. the energy production mechanism is magnetism produced by coadjuvant surface polaritons that are in a state of nonequilibrium bose condinsation. As such. each member of this polaritons aggregation must be feed with constant stream of energy during their brief lifetimes that last just a few picoseconds. This energy input is called pumping.

  • Gennadiy

    Principle Okama Razor says that you do not have to invent extra entities. πŸ™‚
    In the field of LENR already invented so many theories that you do not know who to believe … πŸ™‚
    The main thing: they all deny the direct proton-proton interaction at low temperature,
    because this contradicts the classical nuclear physics. πŸ™‚
    Some authors build complex schemes for the interaction of electron shells with nuclei and with atoms of the crystal lattice, other authors build long nuclear macromolecules, third authors talk about dineutronium, the fourth authors propose to break protons into mesons. πŸ™‚
    The most acceptable models explaining nuclear reactions in the phenomena of LENR, today are those that give an explanation of what is happening, adjust it to the the existing Standard Model.
    Well, the proton can not merge with another proton, if they are not speed up to millions of degrees, because this is written in the textbook of physics, and this is a sacred one, and can not be questioned.
    Since, according to the Standard Model, there can be no nonkinetic fusion of protons, and phenomena are observed, then exchange processes in nuclear reactions through neutrons or intermediate mesons are invented. If the fantasy is even richer, then the dried up hydrogen, or hydrino, is invented. πŸ™‚
    The neutron, as you know, can penetrate the core, turn into a proton, and this is allowed. Then everything depends on the imagination of the author. For this purpose, for example, a multi-pass scheme with heavy electrons, ultracold neutrons, which are captured by lattice nuclei, is invented, for example, in the models by the Vidom- Larsen, or hydrinos in Mills models, or ersions in the Bazhutov model, and so on.
    The authors of neutron models do not even think about where free neutrons can be from nickel-hydrogen systems.
    Let me remind you that it is extremely difficult to detect free neutrons on Earth. In large quantities, free neutrons are formed in a nuclear fission chain reaction in a nuclear reactor. In our case, they are not. There are also special sources of free neutrons.
    The free neutron is beta-radioactive with a half-life of about 10 minutes (611 seconds), which corresponds to a characteristic lifetime of about
    15 minutes (880.1 Β± 1.1 seconds).
    As for ultracold neutrons, they are obtained by separating the slow component of the Maxwellian spectrum of thermal neutrons, which again exits the reactor of the nuclear reactor.
    Question: Where can free neutrons appear in nickel-hydrogen and palladium-deuterium systems? In the end, as is known, beta-radioactivity in LENR phenomena is not detected.
    In general, any fantasy, other than proton-proton interaction
    For, within the framework of existing ideas of modern physics, this can not be.
    Common in all models is that they all deny the non-kinetic overcoming of the Coulomb barrier, the nonkinetic proton-proton interaction. All of them try to explain the phenomena of LENR only on the basis of the current scientific ideas in nuclear physics.
    And this is not surprising. Because there are LENR phenomena, there is a need to explain them somehow. The easiest way to do this is from existing worldview ideas, everything else is heresy ….
    It turns out a vicious circle. Phenomena of LENR are observed.
    This is a new type of nuclear reactions. And they try to explain it with the help of knowledge and existing ideas about classical nuclear reactions.
    And, of course, no explanation is perceived by the community of researchers as adequate. I’m not talking about the adherents of fundamental physics, which generally deny LENR, as a phenomenon.
    In fact, it is impossible to explain the phenomena of LENR using existing representations!
    All this will resemble the explanation of lightning from the ancient Greeks who thought lightning sparks from the wheels of the chariot of God Zeus.
    We need a scientific paradigm change! πŸ™‚
    ==================
    (Excuse my bad english)

  • AdrianAshfield

    ,With a plasma one has free electrons and protons floating around. Then add coupled charges that can carry ions and accelerated them to very high speeds. Mix in phonons that cause waves and you have a soup that is too complicated for me to figure out.

    Zephir, Fleischmann and Pons have been replicated ~ 100 times.
    Armoco was one of the first.
    http://newenergytimes.com/v2/library/1994/1994Lautzenhiser-Amoco-Cold-Fusion-Long.pdf

    Miles is more definitive.
    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf

    • cashmemorz

      Except for the reproducibility problem that Miles et al have, as stated in the first page of that report. Meanwhile, it seems, that Rossi was reproduced by Parkhomov. Also, Rossi on his own, has again a seeming, sigma 5, in the basic dependability of a few (5?) units over many days. Then again, from my rather deep and exhaustive scrutiny of Mills, and his professor, Haus, their theory (Grand Unified Theory-Classical Physics(GUT-CP))only just seems, but has corroboration by several others on several points. Chief among these is the very similar model of the electron and photon β€œa current ring generated by a massless charge that rotates at speed of light along a circumference whose length is equal to the Compton wavelength of the electron” as stated in articles by F. Celani, A. Tommaso and G. Vassallo. This is so similar to what Haus developed as a classical model of the electron in 1986 and Mills in 1988, as to be too much to be considered as just separate developments. The Free Electron Laser developed for the USA military by Haus using only that model of the electron, and not the quantum mechanical model, the Millsian app that is two orders of power better than any similar molecular modeling app based on quantum mechanics, the anti-gravity device in development at Massey University, Suncell in last stages of engineering for the commercial configuration, the near indestructible plastics, corroborated by at least three independent sources for the model of the infinite in time and oscillatory in space universe and all of these items based on the GUT-CP. All these points beg the question which of the several directions are to be taken as the correct one to be above the other in validity. Maybe all three are valid? Quantum mechanics is highly vested historically and huge amounts of peer reviewed papers? Large numbers, as in many people believing something does not make it the correct method. That would be just argument from popularity. Are those papers based on the very best theory? The QM theory strartred with wave mechanics of Schrodinger. Schrodinger disowned wave theory soon “after everyone got on the band wagon, and made it their credo”,as he put it. Also QM haqstoo many adjustable parameter,27, many more postulates behind each sub theory, and then interpretations as in many worlds. All these extras that lend too much incredulity to what the original theory was meant to do, that is to be explanatory and elegant, which sure misses that mark in many areas today.

      • Axil Axil

        Tell me more about: “the near indestructible plastics based on the ash from the Suncell”

        Is there a link to this info? I am interested in SunCell ash. Did not Mills say that the SunCell ash was dark matter?

        • cashmemorz

          The controversy is covered in its main arguments pro and con (establishment and others in competing mode) Subscription required$8.99 per month. The part that is free I tried to copy and paste but it replaces fonts to make it near impossible to read for free.
          You have to go to that site yourself and read it:
          https://www.scribd.com/document/260122240/Dark-Matter-as-Hydrinos-Mills-Camp

          The easiest and for me the most convincing of what the theory purports a lecture that is very eye opening but requires a need to suspend ones vestment in QM.

          minute 45 of :
          http://webcast.massey.ac.nz/Mediasite/Play/8ef7e03e26fc458b8eb7f351738f26811d

          The following link contains a listing with main headings: The Universe/Matter and Energy/Hydrogen and Hydrinos/Suncell/Double Slit Experiment/References:
          http://brilliantlightpower.wikia.com/wiki/GUTCP_Fact_Sheet

          The latest update of full thesis is available for free by download:
          http://brilliantlightpower.com/book-download-and-streaming/

          It is a long thesis, nearly 2000 pages so it can take while to download

          Or you can download it in three parts(much faster)
          You can use the table of contents in the front of the thesis or find the
          parts containing the term “dark matter” by reading in the Adobe Acrobat Reader and then using the top menu “edit” and scroll down to “find” click that and input “dark matter” or whatever word or term you are looking for then click on “next” or “previous” which will search the
          document and highlight the next or previous incidence of the term that
          you input:

  • Pekka Janhunen

    A personal opinion, not to be taken as advice or recommendation:

    – I have been impressed by Rossi several times, first by first public test/demo/whatever in Bologna, then later the same year by the fact that Kullen and Essen found him interesting. And later that he gave the device for physicists to test for 1 month without restrictions and they said it worked. If they were wrong, I would find it surprising. In any case Rossi played his part perfectly by giving the device for such testing.

    – Concerning BLP, I don’t find their activities interesting because I don’t see anything that would point towards anomalous phenomena. Claimed hydrino spectra might be just multiply ionised other atoms. I smell the “not even a claim” syndrome.

    – Concerning Holmlid, I was interested in it at first, but at closer look found that more measurements would be required to nail down the interpretation. Definitely he has a claim, but I’m waiting for someone to replicate it before taking it seriously.

    • Optimist

      But that is exactly the point. Holmlid has a well described setup that should result in a muon release that is again easily detected and measured due to the characteristic negative charge and heavy weight. Confirming this would be the strongest proof yet of feasibility of LENR and should be a low hanging fruit to pick to bring attention, resources and money to the field. Maybe something that MFMP could do for the rest of us?

      • Axil Axil

        LION plans to put his reactor into a cload chamber. We will see muons from LENR shortly.

    • Axil Axil

      Holmkid has measured the energy of the particles produced by the reaction and that energy is about 500 MeV or 3/4 the speed of light. This is an energy far greater than what fusion can produce so Holmlid now thinks that the haydon is decaying into kaons.

      Polaritons can produce extreme ultraviolet light by upconversion of heat.

      https://www.nature.com/articles/nphoton.2011.258

      Plasmonic generation of ultrashort extreme-ultraviolet light pulses
      ——————————-
      Light is convertible. The wavelengths composing the light can change through interactions with matter, where both the type of material and shape of the material are important for the frequency conversion.

      https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111017092344.htm

      Nano funnel used to generate extreme ultraviolet light pulses

      Mills is generating polaritons. These particles can produce light frequencies up to the x-ray level.

  • Dr. Mike

    I don’t agree the statement “the Holmlid decay of the proton would explain the large energy release without radiation in both the Rossi and Mills experiments” at least with regard to Mills’ results. Mills has a theory that fits his observations for his experiments in which he claims to get “only” a 200-500 times output from his SunCell as compared to what would be achieved with burning hydrogen to produce heat. Although we don’t know exactly what the fuel load is in Rossi’s QX device, a device that could produce 20W for a year with only milligrams of hydrogen would produce energy at 100,000 to 1,000,000 times what could be achieved by burning hydrogen. My guess is that Mills’ process does not produce high energy radiation (or transmutations) because it simply is not a nuclear process.
    Until LENR is better understood, it would be best to keep an open mind as to whether Holmlid’s results are applicable to Rossi’s devices. Another consideration that might be investigated is can Mills’ modeling of the proton (and the electron and neutron) be used to explain the observations in LENR experiments. In particular, it seems that Mills’ modelling of the proton (and the Li nucleus) might explain the results of Unified Gravity in which a proton with energies as low as 200eV was able to fuse with Li nuclei.

    • Axil Axil

      The fuel in the SunCell and the Holmlid reaction is different. The SunCell produces EVOs and holmlid produces Metallic hydrogen. The reason why there is no high energy radiation is because both of these LENR mechanisms are superconducting. This is because both form non-equilibrium bose condensates at extreme high temperature. It is the bose condensate the stores the energy extracted from the basic LENR reaction.

      the corresponding energy gap in the spectrum of the light produced by these coherent systems should exist when the coherence of the bose condensate is developed.

      As n increases in the members of the bose condensate, their coherent energy transfer occurs more rapidly; therefore, the energy splitting becomes large. In the limit of large n, the four possible radiative transitions from n + 1 to n sectors generate three emission peaks.

      This is the cavity system version of the Mollow triplet in resonance fluorescence.I point out that the Mollow triplet is a direct signature of the coherent coupling between the matter and light fields, i.e. strong coupling.

      https://media.nature.com/lw926/nature-assets/srep/2016/160519/srep25655/images/srep25655-f1.jpg

      I beleive that the Mollow triplet is what Rossi calls reflections in his spectrum.

      • Dr. Mike

        Would Mills agree with your statement: “The SunCell produces EVOs”?

        • Axil Axil

          If he is a competent experimenter, he would. But he would not reveal this discovery to the public because his followers would destroy his reputation and his ability to generate funding. A religious leader cannot preach heresy and still maintain his church.

  • Eirik

    Has Holmlid measured any heat generation as his metallic hydrogen is formed? Isn’t that to be expected?

    • Optimist

      Yes. Such as in the 2015 publication “Heat generation above break-even from laser-induced fusion in ultra-dense deuterium”

  • Gerard McEk

    The plasma based QX of Rossi seems to mirror Mills’ SunCell in some way. It is about time AR and Mills inverstigate or publish if transmutations and other nuclear reactions take place in the Quark and the SunCell respectively. If it doesn’t then Mills has a strong point for his theory and otherwise Rossi must find a good explanation how the Quark works. If indeed nuclear reactions like transmutation and fusion take place then the main question is why that is not coming with all kinds of radiation and then Holmlid’s results and theory is something to consider.

  • Engineer48

    Consider the requirements of LENR

    1) use an injected particle that can slowly carry away the nucleus stored strong force as non dangerous energy

    2) use an injected particle with no charge to avoid Coulomb barrier and other charged particle interaction

    3) use an injected particle that can interact with, exchange energy with, neuclus sub atomic particles

    The only particle I know of that can do this is the photon

    It can travel through the Coulomb barrier as if it does not exit.

    It can impact sub atomic particles.

    It can exchange energy with sub atomic particles.

    I can carry away energy from impacted sub atomic particles, increasing it’s energy, while reducing the particles energy. Thus carrying away neuclus stored strong force energy.

    Here is a pathway to LENR that functions inside existing physics.

    Recent experimental data supports the above conclusions.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      True, but if the released MeV scale reaction energy is packed into a photon, it’s a gamma ray photon.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Peak a,

        One impacting photon can only carry away some of the impacted particles energy.

        So not one high energy fusion or fission reaction created photon/gamma but LOTS of inbound low energy photons that impact pions and carry away a little bit of the energy.

        In other words, lots of low energy photons instead of 1 very high energy photon/gamma.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          The problem with the idea is what is the state of the nucleus between the successive events. It should be in some intermediate energy state, but the problem is that the nucleus doesn’t have such energy states: its energy states are separated by those large typically MeV-scale gaps.

          In my view, something else than the nucleus itself should buffer the energy, in order to release it graudally into the matrix. Such as high energy plasma oscillation modes that could be supported by effectively massless fermion fluid.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Pekka,

            Understand that as protons and neutrons are added to the nucleus the stored strong force will jump in large amounts.

            Also understand that most of the energy is transferred and exchanged between quarks via gluons, with the redundant strong force exchanged and transfered via pions between neuclons.

            As I see it the energy is divided in many chunks, between many quarks, gluons and pions.

            So many target particles for photon impacts.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d50199a31841d840e7a6381f500dec28c810975cd6f2552706726a81fb2e58ea.gif

            Which suggests much smaller than MeV energy chunks can be carried away by inelastic photon impacts on the various patricles.

            For sure the nucleus is not going to like this and will not carry on business as normal.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            First 4 paragraphs: agreed. The problem that I see is that in order for photons to carry out those multiple energy chunks, one should have many photons interacting with the nucleus in a very quick succession – so quick that the nucleus doesn’t have time between the events to settle to a well-defined energy state. According to energy-time uncertainty relation, if one wants the energy ambiguity (broadening) of the state to be 1 MeV, the two photons should come with time difference of (hbar/2)/(1 MeV)=3e-22 s. If the area of the nucleus is 1e-28 m^2 (1 barn), it corresponds to an enormous photon flux of 1/(1e-28 m^2 * 3e-22 s) = 3e49 photons per square metre per second. Even if those photons would be only optical (meager 3 eV energy), it would correspond to enormous 1e31 W/m^2 energy flux. The nucleus is very small and thus hard to hit with photons or anything else.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Pekka,

            Create a plasma external to the Ni. Make the plasma stream at the Ni surface 0.8 mm in dia.

            Consider that every photon that enters the matrix will eventually hit some particle, gain some energy from the higher energy particle and be emitted with higher energy.

            Depending on the photon freq and other factors, eddy currents / skin depth will limit their penetrative depth. Having a rough surface will help to break up the eddy currents, assisting deeper penetrative.

            Some photons will eventually find their way out and exit the matrix. Some will hit something and be absorbed and thermalised, red shifting into IR photons.

            Suggest the nucleus has little to say about what happens. As I understand it, there is no capacity to stop photon inpacts nor ability to control how much energy is drained by each photon nor to control / alter the emit process.

            The impact and emit events happens at the same time as CofE must be obeyed. So there is no time for any intervention.

            There is no reason I can see that an emitted photon can’t impact another patricle in the same nucleus soup or impact a particle in another nucleus. And so on…….

          • Pekka Janhunen

            A nucleus sees an ordinary low energy photon (IR or optical) as a slowly varying, almost DC field, because the wavelength of photons (excluding gammas) is tens of millions of times larger than the size of the nucleus. Such waves can move the nucleus around (phonon vibrations) because it’s charged and therefore responds to electric fields, but they basically cannot affect its internal structure, because affecting the internal structure would require that two nucleons in the nucleus would experience different external electric field.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Pekka,

            I work with microwave photons all the time and understand how they impact copper atoms in their matrix.

            For radiation pressure to exist, there needs to be photon impacts.

            Both impacting free electrons to generate eddy currents and impacting the neuclus to xfer momentum, both inelastic Compton Scatteting events.

            The neculus impacts transfer momentum to the neculus and matrix, both on impact and emit and generate force on the matrix as radiation pressure.

            I come to LENR as a semi retired power systems and microwave engineer with significant experience in regard to radiation pressure and how photons behave inside a waveguide when impacting a copper surface.

            It is an interesting subject about now photon momentum is xfered to mass and how photon energy does work while accelerating mass.

            Plus how the photons alter during this momentum xfer and doing work exercise.

            Basically we get more energy and momentum out of test devices than the energy and momentum in the photons.

            It seems we may be tapping into the KE stored in the copper neuclus.

  • Da Phys

    Excellent thread, thank you Optimist. Holmlid’s work is truly impressive. Some may not know that in 1991 he was the first to prove the existence of Rydberg matter, a phase of matter predicted in the 1980s. Nobody questions the existence or RM today. UDH is another recent beast with Holmlid starting to publish on it in the mid-2000s after having discovered that RM of hydrogen has unexpected properties. Hopefully, other groups are now working on it and it is only a question of time to prove/disprove UDH as primary explanation of LENR. I bet on the former simply because F&P experiments meet all necessary conditions to create UDH.