Ólafsson has gotten the reaction (LENR?) to work without LASER activation...just by using heat. I remember somebody tell us about this a few days ago.
On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > *From:* Bob Higgins > > > > Jones, can you elaborate on Holmlid's call for replication? > > > > He (Ólafsson) did not suggest anything specific, but it will be helpful > when/if someone starts a dedicated site (or subsite addition) for > experimenters to use specifically for the Holmlid effect, since there are a > number of approaches to either Holmlid or desktop ICF which can be included > under the same umbrella – which is a far cry cost-wise from what is > practiced for ICF by the big labs. Jack Cole or Alain could be interested > in branching out this way - or MFMP. It is a bit surprising that > replication attempts have not been forthcoming. > > > > The difficult part is verifying muons – but that can come later if any > evidence of excess heat turns up. Hopefully MFMP will consider radiation > testing for devices of others - using the same sophisticated equipment > which Alan Goldwater is using … at least for any experiment in Silicon > Valley which can be moved to another location. > > > > There are a number of ways to proceed with a hybrid of the Holmlid laser > technique combined with something else, such as the obvious addition of low > powered laser irradiation to the glow-tube (as in Letts-Cravens) or as a > complete substitute heat source - so that resistance wire can be ditched. > The Letts-Cravens effect combines electrolysis with low powered lasers and > magnets. AFAIK this is the only experiment which EarthTech in Austin has > said was found to be gainful by them, including lots of failed Pd-D failed > trials over the years, which did not employ a laser. The big benefit is > moderate overall temperature. > > > > My recent approach to a hybrid setup is to use semi-coherent > (monochromatic) photons as the light source – with which to irradiate a > translucent cell. This could work with a glow tube if it was translucent. A > laser is more efficient for incandescent photons from Kanthal wire but both > a 20 times less efficient than sodium vapor. This should work at low > temperature, assuming SPP can be produced by the photons. This approach is > low budget and is almost ready for testing. > > > > In terms of economics, a low pressure sodium vapor light source, > ultra-efficient at 15 watts - costing about 1,000 times less than a laser > for equal number of photons – has the obvious drawback of lack of full > coherency. It could be that the Holmlid effect demands full coherency but > SPP do not demand it. That is the goal and advancement which could come out > of a simple test - to see if focused monochromatic light (same wavelength > at the YAG, in the yellow-green) will make SPPs as well as laser light. > > > > Note – Holmlid was not aware of an SPP modality, when asked about this > last year, but one thing he does better than any other scientist I know of > - is to evolve based on collaboration. Not many top scientists have > controlled their ego so as to have so many talented collaborators as LH --- > and now it looks like Ólafsson is the heir apparent, so I hope he continues > the tradition. >
