Louis DeChiaro of US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA) on Replicating Pons and Fleischmann

Thanks to Adrian Ashfield for sharing this information with me who tells me this information comes from the research notes of Louis F. DeChiaro, Ph.D, a physicist with the US Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), Dahlgren Warfare Center. I am told this text has been cleared for public dissemination.

As for duplicating the Pons and Fleischmann results, we now have a much better understanding of the phenomenon, and the list of prerequisite conditions is rather lengthy. Failure to meet even one of those conditions results in zero excess energy output. The data suggest that there may be more than one initiation mechanism, so I’m most qualified to comment upon what is known as the atomic vibrational LENR initiation mechanism (because my formal background is in Condensed Matter Physics). If one had to summarize the list in a fairly brief manner, I would write it as follows:

1. It is necessary to set up conditions favoring the formation of molecular hydrogen (H2 or D2) inside the solid lattice for a certain range of possible values of lattice constant and for some fraction of the allowed values for electron momentum. This condition alone rules out almost ALL the elemental , because the electron density is just too large to permit molecules to form, except near vacancies in the lattice where a metal atom is absent.

2. The overall hydrogen loading fraction (ratio of hydrogen to palladium atoms, for example) must exceed the minimum threshold of about 0.88, otherwise the “party” never even gets started. Achieving this level of loading in Pd is not trivial.

3. Conditions must be set up (by appropriate choice of materials parameters and achieved by the right kind of alloying) so that these hydrogen molecules can be caused to break up and then re-assemble very rapidly in a periodic time sequence when an appropriate physical quantity such as background electric charge, magnetic field, etc. is made to oscillate periodically over a small range.

4. The critical value of lattice constant at which this break up and reassembly occurs must lie very close to the nominal value of lattice constant for which the ground state energy of the lattice is minimal. This requirement alone rules out essentially all of the elemental lattices and about 99% of the binary and ternary alloys.

5. A departure from equilibrium must be established that will permit an external energy source (eg. the DC power supply in an electrolysis experiment and/or a pair of low power lasers as in the Letts/Hagelstein two laser experiment) to feed energy into the H-H or D-D stretching mode vibrations. The difference in chemical potential that is established in gas loading experiments can also serve very nicely; in this case the flux feeds energy into the stretching mode vibrations.

6. The nature of the lattice must permit these stretching mode vibrations to grow so large (over a period of perhaps many nanoseconds) that their amplitude becomes comparable to the lattice constant. When this occurs, the H atoms oscillate so violently that at the instants of closest approach, the curvature of the parabolic energy wells in which the atomic nuclei vibrate will become perturbed. Thus the curvature of the well oscillates as a periodic function of time. These very large amplitude vibrations are known as superoscillations in the Western literature and as “discrete breathers” in the Ukrainian literature. Under the right conditions, these oscillations can grow without impacting the atoms, which are much more massive than the hydrogens. We explored this computationally via Density Functional Molecular Dynamics runs.

7. When the curvatures of the parabolic energy wells of the nuclei are modulated at a frequency very near the natural resonant frequency, the quantum expectation value of the nuclear wave function spatial spread will oscillate with time in such a way that the positive-going peaks grow exponentially with time. Originally, I found this idea in the Ukrainian literature and was skeptical. So, we verified it by doing a direct numerical solution of the time-dependent Schrodinger Equation for a single nuclear particle in a parabolic energy well. These oscillations in spatial spread will periodically delocalize the nucleus and facilitate the tunneling of adjacent nuclei into the Strong Force attractive nuclear potential well, giving rise to nuclear fusion at rates that are several tens of orders of magnitude larger than what one calculates via the usual Gamow Factor integral relationship.

Almost none of this material was obvious back in 1989. Without knowing what one is doing and why it works, the probability of achieving successful results via the so-called Edisonian method of trial and error is disappointingly low. Reasonable scientists and engineers can be forgiven for their difficulty in believing that there might exist ANY circumstances under which such things could be possible. And to be blunt, it was only in the last few months that the causal chain finally became clear.

An old saying holds that it is easy to appear tall when standing on the shoulders of giants. My colleagues and I are most humbly grateful to have been given the opportunity to stand on the shoulders of such giants, however briefly.

I would also suggest that some praise might be due to people like Andrea Rossi, who (by and large) had little alternative but to employ the Edisonian method and nevertheless appear to have obtained positive results. We have run materials simulations (also known as Density Functional Theory simulations) on our best guess of Rossi’s alloy material. It satisfies all the conditions given above, while pure Nickel does not.

In like manner, the Naval Research Labs (NRL) ran over 300 experiments using pure Pd cathodes, all of them yielding negative results. Then somebody suggested that NRL should try an alloy of 90% Pd and 10% Rh. The very first such alloy cathode they tried yielded over 10,000 Joules of excess thermal energy – all from less than 1 gram of cathode material. I ran Density Functional Theory simulations on that alloy, and it, too, satisfies all the conditions given above, while pure Pd and pure Rh do not.

NRL christened this cathode with the name Eve, after the obvious Biblical analogy. I’m pleased to share the news that Eve had a number of “sisters” who produced equal and even greater excess thermal energy, among a number of other more interesting effects. Finally, I can observe that the materials simulations now make it fairly easy to evaluate any given solid lattice material and estimate its level of LENR activity. We have good correlations between the simulation results and the known levels of experimentally-determined LENR activity in a number of different alloys whose dominant elements come from the Transition Metal Group of the Periodic Table. Hopefully, we will be able to get all the details of this material released for publication to the general public over the next few weeks.

  • sam

    It is interesting that that they comprare Rossi method to Edison
    hunt and try method.
    This is exactly what AR has been doing.
    The fact they did 300 experiments before they had positive results
    is interesting.
    The person who wrote this sounds sincere to me.

  • Brent Buckner
  • Slad

    I have no problems with a sticky wig…

  • Slad

    The wig got full

  • Optist

    What’s the relationship between magnetism and localised high energy oscillations?

  • Roger Barker

    Hi everybody, Roger Barker here. I’ve posted on ecatnews before but got banned from there because I was taking it to Popeye, Mary Yugo and co. They didn’t like that much.

    This particular finding from navsea is very interesting. Where are they with their research now?

  • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

    I think that Mills theory for two atom molecules can be used to explain an increase in
    cross-sections that I’ve not seen mentioned when discussing the recent notes from
    Louis DeChiaro.

    The short story is that one of the factors that demand such high energies in standard theory
    is that any small deflection from a perfect hit will deflect the trajectory if the incoming nucleus is
    at small energies, so you you not only need to overcome the energy barrier to hit the target, you must also have such high momentum so that the repulsion have less impact on the deflection.

    What I can argue from reading Randell Mills GUTCP and perhaps one can copy the idea over
    to QM is that essentially the electron field and an interplay with angular momentum enable a focusing effect of the incoming nucleus at lower energies meaning that cross-section increases many orders of magnitude. If you then consider a condensed matter you could realize that this aiming is aligning the movements more and more for each oscillation and resulting in a nucleus
    hit at high rate. Also note that for high energy hits are at large relative speeds. But if we have
    an aiming effect in condensed matter we tend to have much lower relative speeds at an hit. Could this low relative hit mean that we have a more spherical symmetric interaction and much more balance essentially enabling other kinds of radiation phenomena then what is expected from high energy fusion experiments. Remember most of our experience is at high energy collisions.

    What is this aiming. Well, as the nucleus approach the target the most energy efficient electron distribution for the combined cluster is that of a cigar or ellipsoid with the angular momentum axis along the long axis of the ellipsoid. If the in-coming nucleus is missing the target we would essentially get an angular momentum that is varying if we assumed the minimal energy distribution if the electron field for each radial distance, but the system preserve the angular momentum. So a less energetically electron distribution must be the reality. In an oscillation the best energetically period is
    one that does a perfect hit e.g. there is a force that aims the nucleus to align perfectly. At least that
    is how I picture it myself the reality is more complex, but you get the principle from my argument.


  • Jarea

    Hi Frank,

    Next Big Future says that NASA subsonic ultra green aircraft reasearch has announced a report looking LENR.


    That deserves an article too XD

    • BroKeeper

      Published May 2012. But does not negate their goals.

  • Tadej

    Article about resonance and frequency in E-Cat:

  • RLittle

    The muon catalyzed fusion is feasible within the lattice of the pycnomedia involving the excitement of the core of the pycnomedia of the Ni and/or Fe as the excitements of many core electrons outward from the nucleus and penetration of the many hydrides, hydrogens and/or protons inward (core states) toward the nucleus via the continuum dynamics (virtual excitements via thermal energy) (which are anharmonic vibrations) [ as noted in http://www.google.com/patents/US20140140461 ] can cause high energy protons in the core of these metals as the pycnomedia. Some kind of sporadic perturbation of the pycnonuclear lattice can cause the sudden emissions of such high energy protons (in the core of these metals) which are of such high energy to be as cosmic rays. Such cosmic ray like protons can interact with electrons to produce muons in this pycnomedia; this mechanism would be a catalyzed formation of muons. The muons can thereby effect nuclear reactions. Holmlid noted recently to look for muons in LENR; but he halted as he noted his process generates muons via hot processes as excited by laser and it is so as he uses only hydrogen and it would be autocatalytic. But by these metal lattices and in particular (as introduced in http://www.google.com/patents/US20140140461) the cores of these metal atoms a novel catalytic process was introduced in 2005 by RBL! Based on the 2005 mechanism [ http://www.google.com/patents/US20140140461%5D muons can be produced by core high energy protons in such systems. (Quite beautifully I coupled such core states to surface states in April 2005 prior to Widom Larsen in May 2005) As the intrinsic nature by such mechanism is energy in the form of potential and fields in such pycnomedia the mechanism and dynamics would be different from the convention hot fusion dynamics and very high temperature environment. Such should be the case as in the Ni and Fe the process is catalyzed. Based on the mechanism [ http://www.google.com/patents/US20140140461%5D this catalytic mechanism would be accelerated in Ni and Fe due to the ferromagnetism. The process may be excited in Pd especially nano as hydrogen may induce weaker ferromagnetism in Pd nano but the process would be more fragile. I can easily reason Rh via its electronic vacancy at valence enhancing the magnetic of the Pd to accelerate the process in Pd/Rh alloy. Sorry to intrude – RBL

    • Axil Axil

      Holmlid has not detected high energy protons in his sensors. Even more surprising, He reports that muons are produced under the illumination of fluorescent tube lighting from his lab. Muons were detected in diminishing amounts even after the light were turned off. There is a energy storage and amplification mechanism at work here. Your theory would be well served to incorporate that idea into its workings.

      • RLittle

        You are correct Holmlid has not detected high energy protons in his system at least not as indicated in published communications; But I never said he did detect such high energy protons. I mentioned such high energy protons as they (as you know) are known to produce muons in interaction with electrons. Thereby my intent in the prior message was to note how such high energy protons may be produced in some metal hydride systems as I noted in patent ten years ago { http://www.google.com/patents/US20140140461} wherein I noted by energy accumulation and thereby just as high energy protons in cosmic rays can generate muons a mechanism thereby where the high energy protons in these metal hydrides can also generate muons and be a means of unconventional nuclear reactions. Thank for your note. I only clarify the prior. And it is not my intention here to get involved in a competitive discussion with you here. I have nothing further to discuss with you on the topic.

        • Axil Axil

          I am fascinated by how the light from a low power light source can be collected and amplified to such a huge level that that diluted energy source can produce muons. The CERN project wants to produce muons using a muon factory for research purposes at the cost of 20 billion Euros. CERN intend to use high energy protons to due this job. There is something amazing in Holmlid’s findings that begs for an explanation.

    • Stephen

      Hi RLittle, Your posts never intrude, You are certainly one of the most intelligent thinkers in LENR and I think you are highly respected and always welcome here. I for example was very impressed by this and your earlier posts and I very much respect your approach. I hope you continue to add your insights here they certainly help my understanding. Your knowledge and ideas are an important part of the LENR story and investigation and should continue to be part of it.

      • RLittle

        Hi Sir,
        Thanks for your kind encouraging words. Over so very many years with so little encouragement it is tremendous to me. Thanks very much. RBL

  • Sanjeev

    I suggest attaching a microphone (on a cold spot) to one of the reactors and plot the sound data. Probably we will see something interesting.

  • Manuel Cruz

    Because E-Cat stands for Energy Catalyzer

  • Alan DeAngelis

    I don’t get it. I’m too feeble minded. If it is d-d fusion, why doesn’t have the same branching ratios of products as muon catalyzed fusion (the other cold fusion)?

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Pardon me. I meant to ask: …why doesn’t this tunneling
      reaction have…

      I just think the theorists have been making the wrong assumptions since 1989. I think there is something going on that resembles d-d fusion in that deuterium is going in and helium is being created but it’s not d-d fusion.

      2d + ? > He + ?
      2d > He 24 MeV

    • Axil Axil

      If it was D-D fusion, we would see 50% tritium. No tritium is seen.

  • we need no public money, we are economically viable, provided we use good organizations (LENRG style) to bootstrap the market.

    we need no academic support, we have scientific evidence.
    we need no journalist support, we have good news.
    we need no political support, it is safe and cheap energy.

    all we need is they shut up, journalist, editors, scaremongers politicians, and academic, and let LENR scientists work, engineers develop, blogger inform, and investors invest, without being systematically attacked by FUD, mindguards scaremongers and conspiracy theorists.

    “Laissez nous faire !” (F**k)