Swedish Scientists Publish Paper Claiming “Ponderomotive Forces” Explain LENR (Mats Lewan)

As promised, Mats Lewan has published what appears to be some important news on his An Impossible Invention blog. He reports that two Swedish scientists will present a new theory about LENR in this paper titled “Nuclear Spallation and Neutron Capture Induced by Ponderomotive Wave Forcing” at the 11th International Workshop on Anomalies in 
Hydrogen Loaded Metals, that is being hosted this year by Airbus in Toulouse, France.

Mats’ post can be read here: http://animpossibleinvention.com/2015/10/15/swedish-scientists-claim-lenr-explanation-break-through/

This new LENR theory, developed by Rickard Lundin and Hans Lidgren, is based around a the phenomenon known as ponderomotive force (‘a nonlinear force that a charged particle experiences in an inhomogeneous oscillating electromagnetic field’ — Wikipedia), and that neutrons are “shaken loose” from matter at resonant frequencies through an electromagnetic interaction, and when those neutrons are captured by another element, energy is released in large quantities.

Lundin and Lidgren have been in communication with Mats Lewan and have explained that the energy release and isotopic shifts described in the Lugano Report on Rossi’s E-Cat could be explained by ponderomotive force. Subsequently, they did an experiment of their own which verified their theory, but quickly stopped the experiment over concerns about neutron production. A new experiment is planned under carefully controlled conditions.

Input energy is needed to shake loose the neutrons, and Lundin and Lidgren have written a patent around their process. They told Mats Lewan:

“Our method is more precise, using the lowest possible amount of energy [through resonance] to shake loose the neutrons. Others like Rossi are creating turbulence through square waves [in the electrical current feeding the heat resistors controlling the reaction — square waves containing a large number of harmonics and thus many different frequencies], and they get a turbulent wave spectrum risking that some frequencies become a little too high.”

Lundin and Lidgren claim this is a natural phenomenon which takes place inside the earth and would account for the high temperatures maintained beneath the earth’s crust.

93 Replies to “Swedish Scientists Publish Paper Claiming “Ponderomotive Forces” Explain LENR (Mats Lewan)”

  1. This sounds pretty much like Brillouin’s technique. It may be that different resonant frequencies result in maximizing different pathways, with one maximizing neutrons, another tritium production, and yet another simply heat. This appears to me to disagree with much experimental work, which pretty much says that MOST LENR does NOT produce neutrons.

      1. This is an excerpt from Mats Lewan’s An Impossible Invention describing a time when Rossi detected neutrons when pushing the E-Cat to its limits.

        “Rossi continued to experiment with his reactors in Bondeno, among other things to test the reactor’s limits. One way was to push it harder, to where it was self-sustaining, without assistance from the electric heating cartridges. He knew it was dangerous because the reaction could become unstable. He later described an incident one night in June 2010, when he was, as usual, working alone in the laboratory and the temperature inside the reactor began to rise uncontrollably.”

        “In the balmy summer night Rossi followed the temperature development in the device that was set up in the spartan hangar with its gray concrete floor and gray walls. None of his measures to suppress the reaction helped yet he stayed stubbornly to see what he could learn. It exploded finally and loudly while a couple of parts flew across the hangar. This time Rossi was scared. Unlike earlier explosions, this time he was wearing the radiation detectors Focardi had taught him to use and they were full of bubbles—a sure sign of dangerous neutron radiation. How strong the radiation dose was he did not know but it probably decayed quickly. He knew that the reactor materials were not radioactive and had now learned that the weak radioactivity during the reaction should subside within 20 minutes after the reactor was stopped. No harm done, he noted, but he also thought that he must establish greater safety margins and keep the reaction running with support from the electric heaters in the future.”

        Mats Lewan. An Impossible Invention (Kindle Locations 1436-1441). Mats Lewan.

        1. I don’t get this context:

          >>One way was to push it harder, to where it was self-sustaining, without assistance from the electric heating cartridges.

          What way? The context is not clear. What way is it to push harder? How is something being pushed harder here in this context? While I assume this means some kind of EM stimulation, the given quote says nothing about em stimulation.

          A remarkable account by the way! –

          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          1. I think what is meant is that the E-Cat was allowed to self sustain without any external stimulation to dampen the reaction. In the end it exploded.

          2. Right, but the external stimulation to my knowledge was
            NEVER used to dampen the LENR effect, but only enhance it.

            I am not aware that the EM stimulation is use to HALT or
            prevent the LENR effect, but only the reverse.

            So it is not clear why this setup would self-sustain
            without EM and melt down?

            The “difference” here in the setup that allowed the “run
            away” is not clear at all.

            I certainly understand that some design could be changed
            here, but why this setup would “run away” is not clear.

            A lack of EM field does not enhance or allow the LENR effect,
            but in fact it is the reverse and such EM stimulation enhances the LENR effect.

            I can only conclude that “some” context is missing here,
            since the statement as taken does not make sense taken alone..

            If EM is used to dampen and prevent the LENR effect, this is news to me (and a am most happy to be corrected on this view if I am wrong).

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          3. Yes, as far as I am aware, external stimulus has always been used by control the reactions and prevent them from becoming over-energetic, ‘running away’ and melting the E-Cat down.

          4. I would have to look back for supporting quotes, but I believe Rossi has several times in the past eluded to the reactor being able to self sustain after being driven to very high output and that power to the coil could prevent that from happening. The image of the red almost white hot steel pipe container HotCat was one time I remember him eluding to this.

            I believe that the PID controllers that many experimentalists are using prevent the reaction from happening due to a dampening effect caused by the random shutdown of the power creating uncomplimentary resonances.

          5. It’s simple: the heating increases COP and accelerates LENR up to level it becomes uncontrollable. So you should heat slower and admit lower COP for the sake of stability of reaction,

          6. Of course! – I feel stupid not realzing this! Thanks for pointing out the MOST simple issue. I mean, when the LENR reaction starts you turn off the heating element and let it slow down until it needs another kick. You simply keep the heat on – it will runaway and melt if you don’t turn things off. I was thrown off by the mention of EM etc. – how silly of me!

            Thanks kindly for point out what is so dead obvious.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          7. “Right, but the external stimulation to my knowledge was
            NEVER used to dampen the LENR effect, but only enhance it.”

            Correct…..but “if” the resonance idea is correct, I would think it would be possible using the same approach as in sound-damping headphones by feeding in an em pulse train properly tuned. If true, it should yield an exquisite method for control of the reaction. Feed one sort of pulse in to stimulate, and a different pulse to dampen runaway conditions.

          8. Sure, it could be possible – that’s not the CONEXT here.

            So perhaps EM could be used, but it NEVER been used
            before in the past in any LENR device I am aware of to STOP the LENR effect. We not speculation here, someone flat out stated that EM is being used to dampen the effect to slow down LENR.

            As Zephi point out even a drunken rodeo clown should realize
            that Rossi allowed the reactor to “run away” by simply keeping the driver (the heater) on as the LENR effect starts. Normally then one turns off the heater else LENR will cause the temperature to CONTINUE to increase.

            The error here is that someone suggested that EM was used to
            slow down LENR effect – Rossi has NEVER suggested this. Using EM to slow down LENR was a complete new bit of information that NONE of us here have EVER seen or heard about. And new information about Rossi’s reactor is ALWAYS VERY
            interesting. So you mean new information about LENR that we not see in 30+ years is being talked about here? Wow!!!!! So I pressed for more information and realized this was a wild goose chase.

            So introduction of EM into the account of Rossi allowing
            the reactor to run-away and melt down was incorrect, and complete out of context. Not the case, and no use of EM to slow down Rossi’s reactor occurred.

            Zephir explain of what (how) Rossi allowed this runaway
            is so stupid and simple and is of course what Rossi did here. (so I am embarrassed I did not realize this).

            Most interesting however is the significant release of
            Gamma radiation. The Airbus patient also mentioned this gamma radiation issue. In the Airbus patent, they mention that if the reaction goes beyond a certain point and strength, then significant amounts of gamma radiation occurs (a big story, as it suggests that Airbus has built working reactors else how would they know this?).

            And this issue of large releases of gamma radiation from
            a LENR device could be a HUGE stumbling block for regulators (governments) to allow LENR devices at the consumer level. I suspect this ONE big reason why few know of this Rossi account in which gamma radiation was released in a significant amounts.

            This in effect suggest that not only can LENR be dangerous, it also suggest that a nuclear device with significant risk could be built from such LENR devices by simply allowing the device to “run away”.

            Ad this opens up the doors for people to by intention modify such devices to go critical – in effect this becomes a dangerous nuclear weapon.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          9. 1) My comment had zero to do with Rossi, but with the Swedes published paper, and the idea of resonance frequencies.

            2) Since Rossi powers his heaters with AC, there is ALWAYS EM present. But with the possible exceptions of Godes and maybe SPAWAR, almost no work has been done on investigating the effects.

            3) The release of gamma radiation fits my notion of multiple possible reaction pathways (and has been mentioned regarding Rossi’s reactors since day one).

            4) I think it unnecessary to get into the whole FUD notion of “making a bomb” in the sense of an actual nuclear weapon. Can there be explosions….obviously yes, but I doubt that the rate of increase of output of a “runaway” is fast enough to release “kiloton-range” amounts of energy before the device self-destructs (and yes, this “is” an explosion, but of a much lesser regime that a nuclear device).

          10. No problem on your commands not being in regards to Rossi
            (but that was the context of this discussion).

            I agree with the FUD point. However, anything you deal with non-chemicalenergy and are talking about nuclear, then we are in a different ball game.

            Remember, P&F accident is what tipped them off to LENR in the first place. A small chunk of loaded metal melted though a steel lab table and about 1 foot into a cement floor. This is quite beyond what a chemical reaction with such a small mass can achieve. And now we have accounts from Rossi (and Airbus) of significant
            amounts of Gamma can be released from such devices).

            LENR may well provide a means to have a loaded meatal lattice
            go critical – especially if that is ones intention.

            While I think LENR technology is likely the safest form
            of energy we have, it does suggest like any great technology, the uses go beyond just providing heat for your home.

            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      2. I think this statistically unlikely. “Some” of the neutrons pretty much must get out.

        And I think Frank’s quote from Mats Lewans books (below) point to the “multiple pathways” idea. During normal, pseudo-steady-state operation, few or no neutrons produced. During “runaway” conditions a “many more neutrons” reaction path becomes prevalent.

    1. I had the same thought. I think Godes calls them Q-wave pulses. Also don’t forget that Sidney Kimmel paid for the Israeli firm Energetics to set up shop at the University of Missouri to investigate the effect of Irving Dardik’s “Superwaves” on LENR. If they’ve had any success, it’s possible that they operate through this mechanism. It would also explain the supposed importance of electormagnetic radation in LENR that many researchers/tinkerers have found.

  2. This idea along with Carl-Oscar Gullström’s paper earlier this week look interesting I wonder if these processes work together?

    I must say the Swedes are proving to be quite smart. I’m sure Matt’s would agree.

    It’s an interesting week… still 2 days or so to go.

      1. I would like to think that Bill no longer feels a need or desire to control more technology to his own advantage and his interest is altruistic.

        1. I hope so too.

          Bill Gates was until recently Microsofts largest individual shareholder, he is still 4th largest of all shareholders.

          When MS ran out of any useful ideas to bring any real value to their office apps and OS, to milk their customers – they first tried to make it look radically different from free alternatives by introducing, for instance, the ribbon bar and windows 8 (fail) – which crippled productivity across the globe, after that they went to subscription – meaning you no longer own the software and have to pay a corporate tax to continue to use it.

          1. As Jarea says. Bill is still Bill…
            Philanthropy is philanthropy. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation donates to causes such as clean water projects, medical supply’s that are distributed through the various organizations supported or run by him & other philanthropists.

            Bill’s investment in TeraPower & other energy ventures is money from his personal account. There is Nothing Philanthropic about it. He is investing in these things with the intent to make money.

            The B&M Gates foundation has about 35 Billion$ in assets. Bill’s personal asset’s are about 80 Billion$ +/- 10 depending on the stock market.

            I personally have no issue’s with someone getting rich or even filthy rich. What I consider is how they got rich, Thus I have a nasty opinion of people such as Bill Gates & Steve Jobs.

            I do however give Steve credit for at least admitting he never saw another’s Idea he wasn’t beyond stealing. The animosity between Jobs & Gates was that Gates wouldn’t fess up to this fact.

            The Story of Microsoft is not quite as portrayed in the movies. History rewritten & elements omitted. A Microsoft where Bill Gates was not the Master but just a mediocre programer in the group. A Microsoft that was disbanded & parceled out. Bill Gates & a couple others bought the rights to Microsoft Basic, the Microsoft name & a bare-bones DOS. Of course, when you’re worth Billion$ you can write the story anyway you like.

        2. I will bet that he is still Bill. i mean, i think he needs the power and control. if you reached where he is, then it is not because you let others decide. Probably, that control attitude and luck is more important that your own technical capabilities to become billionaire.
          Don´t misunderstand his social and help investments as lack of desire. They are still driven by control and power. In that case, to change and control the world for the better. (his own view of a better world)
          I think he does very good things but again he is not giving away his millions for nothing, they have a purpose.

      2. Bill Gates, if he gets his hands on LENR will be offering an UPGRADE from Quantum tunnelling to the latest Ponderomotive Wave or anything else that comes along. Ooops your Ecat software has run out. Too bad. Send money.

  3. This is a very interesting revelation. Mats’s article is full of tidbits that reveal that the interest in LENR is still a scientific risk for the interested, but that also, and mostly thanks to Sven Kullander’s lead, is also gaining momentum in the higher spheres of Sweden science. The fact that this paper was not allowed to even be subject to peer review by Arxiv, let alone by the journal to wich it was submitted in parallel, is very telling. The LENR battle is far from being over, but every meter of advance is a milestone.

  4. The theory seems promising. However neutrons are a problem. Even if this is a new sub class of lenr, and if devices are made using this method, the neutrons would make commercialization difficult.

    1. Wrap it with a dense metal. These neutrons are slow, and if there is enough non-reacting material outside the reactor all should be well.

  5. Seems easy to test: shine terahertz light on lithium and see if it emits neutrons. Will the TSA let me wear a neutron detector while I am being scanned at the airport? Far infrared lasers are going to become quite popular.

  6. searching for “Ponderomotive Forces LENR” yields a few hits on LENR experiments with lasers (Hora, Miley, Roussetski, Lipson)

    So the idea is not entirely new to LENR.

  7. interestingly Mats writes that a former ABB R&D Vice President informed him about this research. Rossi yesterday tells us his “robotic factory” is using ABB robots.

    Might be just a coincidence.

  8. “The forces are not intuitively predictable, and a bit strange, for example making hot bodies attract matter,” Lundin says.

    Are they saying that they can generate a gravitational force? How is that possible?

    I also noticed that the words “resonance” and “harmonic” are very often in the LENR papers…

    Another part of the text says:
    “Lidgren, M Sc in Physics Engineering, and co-founder of the oil exploration company Rex International Holding, started to investigate the phenomenon when he discovered strange characteristics of satellite orbits while analysing satellite altimeter surveys to detect potential hydrocarbon reservoirs.”

    This is the way EMDRIVE effect was also found. Is LENR and EMDrive somehow related?

  9. AR on this paper: “It is very interesting. I love his citation of the immense Prof. Sven Kullander, whi continues to look at our working 1 MW plant from the plate we dedicated to him. It is a paper to be studied with attention.”

    1. This paper contradicts his theory. Isn´t it?
      If i understood well Rossi says that the LENR fusion is produced by quantum tunneling with protons overcoming the coulomb barrier in the nucleus.
      This papers says, we shake the deuterium atoms to obtain some free neutrons (some energy to the system is added) and these neutrons will easily fuse with other heavier elements (because they don´t have charge) releasing energy.

      The trick is to extract with less energy the neutrons from deuterium so that we have more energy when they fuse again to heavier elements.
      I still don´t understand why do you consume less energy to extract the neutrons than you receive from fusing again with heavier elements.
      Can somebody explain?

      1. I am not sure if this “Ponderomotive Forces” theory can explain the creation of Helium, which has been measured in D/Pd systems.

        Maybe there are even more distinct LENRs and this is “just” one of them.

  10. Hey, where’s our royalties? 🙂

    From “Magnetic Control of LENR (Axil Axil)”
    Posted on March 30, 2015 by Frank Acland • 24 Comments

    Brokeeper > Axil Axil • 6 months ago

    Axil Axil, I think the shape of the wave could resemble a
    square wave composed of much hydrogen harmonic frequencies. It may be adaptive
    to changing high temperatures, hydrogen gas pressures and varying acoustical
    effects from the particle’s nano crevasse and tubule sizes.

    Followed later by:

    Axil Axil > Thomas Clarke • 6 months ago

    On page 6 of the Lagano report, a square wave waveform
    more or less is shown for the input power feed to the heater. Why is Rossi
    doing this? I know you think that Rossi is a fraud, but why in the world would
    Rossi design obscure circuity to produce such a complicated wave form and then
    keep it a secret?

  11. Some observations about their paper:

    * Their simulation agrees quite well with E-Cat performance. That could be an artifact though of what amounts to what is fundamentally an attempt to explain the E-Cat. Critics will say too that Lugano is flawed though and they have a point.

    * They do not report any independent experimental results, though they anecdotally say they have run an experiment that supports their theory. Seems a bit premature. They should have waited for at least basic confirmation with results they could publish.

    * There are a lot of assumptions about applying equations good for different domains to the conditions believed to be present in the E-Cat. They don’t seem off base but buyer beware.

    * I get the argument about how the Gradient force introduces enough energy through resonance to cause neutron spallation (ejection of neutrons). But the actual mechanism remains unclear to me. Maybe they said or maybe I missed it or maybe it’s supposed to be obvious in a quantum if-the energy-is-there-then-certain-things-can-happen sort of way. But accelerating the whole nucleus is not the same as ripping a nucleus apart. Do the resulting high energy coillisions cause spallation?

    All in all I like this theory a lot because it fits my notion of the main action being shaking loose of neutrons (somehow due to solid resonance) and subsequent gobbling of them by the hungriest hippo (Ni-64). But short on proof at the moment.

  12. They use equations mainly from the field of plasma physics to show that a (kind of obscure) force spikes in magnitude under certain electromagnetic inputs and provides enough energy to pry a neutron out of a Lithium or deuterium atom.

    They work up the math and run a simulation and it looks just like E-Cat behavior though they don’t back it up with the results of any of their own basic experimentation (though that’s in the works).

    If they are right they have the keys to the kingdom and report that other engineering choices can yield COPs of up to 1000.

  13. From Mats blog on Lundin and Lidgren’s earlier work:
    “What Lundin and Lidgren have investigated and published in 2010 is that the phenomenon has a resonance frequency, specific for each particle or cluster of particles, and that the force increases close to the resonance frequency, being repulsive on the low-frequency side but attractive on the other.”

    This sounds like a recipe for the emdrive to me. If you read their 2010 work they actually measured this effect.

  14. Ed Storms rightly criticizes charge as a causative factor in LENR because of the Pauli exclusion principle. A charged field that is strong enough to be effective cannot be created because electrons repel each other. The LENR causation force must be produced by a boson. This is where the polariton comes in. The polariton is an electron turned into of boson. Because they don’t repel each other, bosons could produce an EMF force of any strength. It is magnetism not charge where LENR causation comes from.

    1. “The LENR causation force must be produced by a boson.”

      I agree. And this has important implications on the type of theory underlying LENR.

    1. Light -> Gamma -> Beta -> Alpha

      If you can harvest Beta, then Alpha not happen and we have electricity instead of heat?
      Heat is IR light. This process is self looping = amplifying?

        1. Yes. They make neutrons ‘shake’ in resonance, that is heat, coherent heat.
          The process must start with heat which is IR light or laser light, I see no other option.

    1. It is quite cool that one of the members of the Nobel prize committee is writing a LENR paper. But I don’t understand how the neutrons are supposed to get separated from an atom. At first, the ponderomotive Miller force acts on charged particles. This force is zero for a neutron as it is not charged. I suppose the shaking out of neutrons from the atom means to act against the strong nuclear force. How comes there is no dependency on the strong nuclear force described in the paper? Also LENR-experiments produce heat but rarely neutrons or gammas. Therefore the proposed mechanism could not be dominating in these experiments.

      1. I am disappointed that LENR theories lack attention to detail. A theorists picks some obscure effect to explain some limited aspect of LENR. with all the other one million details are not considered.

        The Reminds me of L&W theory’s use of the Shukla & Eliasson effect. L&W has since gone over to SPP theory.

        “3. Lattice Energy LLC Shukla & Eliasson’s new mechanism provides an attractive force Background and objectives of this presentation Main Lattice reference to examine is a 92-slide August 23, 2012 PowerPoint presentation: “Speculation: evanescent exotic superconductivity (some form of HTSC) in heavy-electron patches?” http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen/lattice-energy-llc-hightemperature-superconductivity-in-patchesaug-23-2012

        1. /*A theorists picks some obscure effect to explain some limited aspect of
          LENR. with all the other one million details not considered.*/

          Yes, it’s exactly my perception too. But IMO this situation in research corresponds the situation in LENR, which is not a single-mechanism process and the actual nuclear reactions may be different from system to system (i.e. Palladium/H, Nickel/H, Li/D etc.)


          1. The fundamental causation of LENR must meet a global set of connected conditions. These common characteristics point to a fundamental single caution of the LENR reaction.

            These common and universal conditions include the thermalization of gamma radiation, the rapid to instantaneous stabilization of radioactive isotopes, lack of neutron emissions, and the wide variation of seemingly random transmutation results which includes fusion of light elements into heavier elements and fission of heavy elements into lighter ones, remote reaction at a distance from the location of the LENR reaction(aka NAE), and instantaneous cluster fusion involving huge numbers of sub-reactions that occur instantly and collectively.

            Even though the LENR reaction oftentimes occurs concurrent with the presence of hydrogen isotopes, hydrogen is not required as a fundamental cause of the reaction as shown in the experiments done at Proton 21 where a ball of copper is blasted with a high powered arc discharge, and the carbon dust experiments performed using microwaves conducted by George Egely, the new editor of infinite magazine. In the Proton 21 experiments, the nano-particles involved are copper based and in the Egely case the nano-particles are based on carbon. In the Papp reaction. The nano particles are based on chlorine and noble gases.

      1. Ok, well it looks like he Geneste had a couple of talks today and one called “LENR from experiment to theory” tomorrow. Lundin also speaks tomorrow in the morning, and I imagine he will present this paper with some Q&A after. Perhaps the most interesting talk of the day will be from JP Biberian from the University of Marseilles. He has been working on Parkhomov replication attempts and may have some new info to share. Is there anyone at this workshop who can share what they are hearing?

        1. Also on Friday October 16th. Metallurgy expert, Jacques Ruer, Deputy Director of Technology with oil and gas giant Saipem SA, will discuss, “Craters and hot spots explained by Erzions or exotic particles? | Analysis of the potential behavior of the [Rossi] energy catalyzer in the patent US 9115913 B.”

          Yet another big oilco openly studying E-Cat nanoparticle fuel and ways it achieves LENR. No wonder Exxon/Mobile stock has been downgraded to “non-perform.”

      2. But that paper you have linked says it can explain superluminic neutrinos and that was showed as not correct. Are you saying that there is still superluminic neutrinos? Or does this theory have wrong predictions?

        1. Geneste said that, not me. I wonder if he has changed his mind on that issue? His version of the theory might produce wrong predictions, my version will not produce invalid results.

    1. Apparently Yes-relates to Geneste (the chief scientist of Airbus)
      Excerpt from Mats blog

      This is what Rickard Lundin and Hans Lidgren, two top level Swedish scientists, claim, describing their theory in a paper called Nuclear Spallation and Neutron Capture Induced by Ponderomotive Wave Forcing (full length paper here) that will be presented on Friday, October 16, at the 11th International Workshop on Anomalies in
      Hydrogen Loaded Metals, hosted by Airbus in Toulouse, France.

  15. This mechanism of this ponderomotive force is based on the prior Little Effect (2000)
    and magnetic mechanism of Reginald B Little.

    I note from several prior papers (2000-2007) my prior similar concept.

    In 2006, RBL published “Magnetocatalytic Adiabatic Spin Torque Orbital
    Transformations for Novel Chemical and Catalytic Reaction Dynamics: The Little

    Therein such use of heat and pressure to excite virtual or continuum states in the metal hydrides in external strong magnetic field were proposed to cause antisymmetry of the step wise excitations for building up energy to excite the core electrons toward outer shells and drive protons and hydrides inward deep into the core shells and into the nucleus and to build up core lattice energies to nuclear energies involving such core virtual states and such anharmonic
    oscillations. The virtual or continuum states are of classical anharmonic nature and classical and s orbtials rather more easily accommodate such. This data of Lundin and Lidgren are very
    exciting. I just note that their recent theory is conceptually identical to the prior of RBL from 2003. I also acquired data exploring my theory in 2003 in strong magnetic fields of over 17 Tesla and iron lattice for some support although limited.

    In over 4 papers between 2003-2008, I noted similar such idea although my presentation was more conceptual theory and mechanism. For example:

    In Magnetocatalytic Adiabatic Spin Torque Orbital Transformations for Novel Chemical and Catalytic Reaction Dynamics: The Little Effect (2005). On Page 8 for this quote the ‘virtual state’ is synonymous with the ‘continuum’ and the thermal energy and phonons excite such virtual states and such phonons in the virtual states are classical vibrations of a continuum and irrhythmic and the same as the stated ponderomotive force!!!

    In 2005 US patent application I explicitly note such core excitations and core virtual states and anharmonic continuum motions accumulating energies of nuclear energetics and coupling to nuclei (target nuclei) and disturbing (shaking) nuclei for novel nuclear reactions. See clause [0078] therein.

    Moreover in “ A Theory of the Relativistic Fermionic Spinrevorbital” a explicit account, introduction and theory of novel continuum and the relativistic nonharmonic (nonquantal) motion is introduced therein and how such leads to novel effects as in pycnonuclear reactions as by exciting hydrogen atoms and hydrogen ions deep into the core lattices of pycnometal catalysts involving both harmonic and anyharmonic continuum vibrations and oscillations for building up energies for bosonic nuclear and fermionic nuclear processes as catalyzed even in other atoms by the consequent high energy core of the metal lattive.

    In 2003 (On the Enhanced Reverse Beta Processes in Graphene-Iron Composite Nanostructures at High Temperatures in Strong Magnetic Field) [http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0705/0705.1909.pdf] , the scenario of such thermal and pressure induced continuum excitations in iron-hydrogen and possibly carbon system in strong magnetic field and magnetization was proposed and measured to simulate the core of the earth and its possible unconventional nuclear processes in the terrestrial core. In this work in 2015 Lundin and Lidgren propose similar such terrestrial nuclear processes.

    1. The ponderomotive force is based on an oscillating charge. Your theory is magnetic. You have missed the distinction between magnetism and charge.

    1. Science
      corrupted by the cult of profit: Fabrication, incompetence, grant
      swindling, fraud, dysfunction, tricks and lies are epidemic.
      “The thing that should scare people is that so many of these important
      published studies turn out to be wrong when they’re investigated
      further.” Peer review, in which a paper is checked out by eminent
      scientists before publication, isn’t a safeguard.

    2. Barty- Excerpt from Mats blog

      Lundin and Lidgren submitted their paper to the open preprint website Arxiv.org and to the peer-reviewed journal Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion, PPCF, but both declined to even let reviewers have a look at it, the latter arguing “that the content of the article is not within the scope of the journal”. Arxiv.org even blocked Lundin from submitting further papers during July and August.

  16. As far as I can understand this theory, hydrogen is not e reactant in the Rossi reactor, but just lithium and nickel. Also does hydrogen not seem to contribute to the reaction, so why is ti needed, or isn’t it needed? What also is said to be important, is a very high EM frequency which should be in the Terahertz. It seems to me unlikely that AR was able to generate with his thyristor/triac unit. The heating coil is unsuitable for these frequencies, so I am not sure how Rossi would generate this high frequency. In my view there is more meat to the bone needed to explain the Ecat.

  17. A few points

    1. Terahertz is between IR and Microwave – if E-Cat can self sustain at all with this theory – the resonance must at least in part sit in the thermal temperature range.

    2. Hydrogen would not play a role (only fractionally present Deuterium) – this would sit well with the claim by Industrial heat patent application that the reactor need not be sealed completely. LiAlH4 would then only be a means of getting the Li into the right reaction matrix. If reactor was sealed, then LiAlD4 would have a better yield.

    3. This theory would need some energy interchange during the spallation of neutrons and their capture to facilitate the necessary energy barriers and low radiation characteristics of the E-Cat. The neutron interchange would also have to be controlled in such a way as to be a hand-shaking exercise such that there were no free neutrons, as there is no long term activation of reactor materials in the E-Cat.

    4. This theory makes it very unlikely that helium will be seen in the E-Cat.

    5. This theory may go some way to explain the results of Tadahiko Mizuno :



    6. This theory would explain the claim by Rossi that he never saw excess heat without Lithium.

    Perhaps not having Deuterium and keeping it to 7Li means that there is less/no chance of neutrons that can cause activation.

    1. regarding the ‘claim by Industrial heat patent application that the reactor need not be sealed completely’ where was that?…..I did not see that at all.

      1. WO 20151127263 PCT/US2015/016897

        [0008] In some embodiments, the reaction chamber is open such that it does not maintain a pressurized seal.

        1. [0073] Although the sealing members (14) may provide an air-tight seal, in some embodiments, the sealing members (14) are sufficient to retain the reactive material, but do not necessarily maintain an air-tight seal. An air-tight seal may be used when the reactive material includes the addition of a gas, such as pressurized hydrogen; however, in some embodiments, the reactive material does not require a pressurized gas, and an air-tight seal is not necessary. For example, nickel hydride may be used as the reactive material with or without a pressurized gas. In particular embodiments, the reactive material is not sealed and may even be in contact or in fluid communication with the outside environment. An unsealed device may be easier to manufacture, transport, and maintain. Moreover, reactive materials that do not include pressurized hydrogen may be safer to use than those that utilize pressurized hydrogen. One or more criterion configured for a control system may be modified based on the reactive material. In an embodiment, a control system may determine and control sealing based on information identifying the reactive material. Sealing of a reactor may be altered during operation based on input form a sensor, a timer, and/or any attribute accessible to a control system.

  18. In the Lugano test, each nickel atom comprising the 100 micro nickel particle swapped either 1, 2, 3 or 4 neutrons from multiple lithium 7 atoms to get to pure Ni62 from Ni58, Ni60 and Ni61 and this swap happened to all billion atoms of the that particle in one operation. This is what this latest neutron theory cannot explain. This is called cluster transformation.

    1. I wonder if thes kind of resonances can work collectively, could the Ponderomotive force somehow provide the means of coupling for these resonances or allow the nuclei act in a collective way to transform to a lower energy state?

      1. Consider how neutrons move from lithium 7, to the atoms deep inside the 100 micron nickel particle. Each low energy neutron is highly reactive and will combine with the first nickel atom that it encounters. This implyes that the nickel atoms on the surface of the particle would have more neutrons added to the nickel nucleus. We would expect to see at least Ni64 or een zinc near the surface of the partile. This atoms near the surface would all be heavier than the atoms at the center of the particle. But the nickel is pure with Ni62 at the surface and at the center.

  19. There is a lot in this paper it seems to have some very good well thought through ideas and deserves slowly digesting like a good meal. After an initial scan I’m currently only about half way through reading it and considering it more deeply.

    I was amazed by the process analogy to Alfvén waves. About 30 or more years ago as an undergraduate and a bit after I studied them as a phenomena in Solar Flares. It’s astounding that similar effects might be present at inter atomic and nuclear level and that similar phenomena are to be found in solids as in a plasma when considered in this way. I was thrilled to read the ideas and see the way that the Ponderomotive force behaves.

    Alfvén waves are a magnetohydrodynamic phenomena that propagate along the direction of the magnetic field lines.

    If I understand right there are a number of different types of Ponderomotive effects. The Gradient Miller Force, and an Abraham force due to an oscillating electric field are most powerful In a weak or magnetic field free environment, but they mention that depending on the heating method the magnetic gradient force is also viable.

    From fig 1. Perhaps the magnetic field is still important in LENR order to give direction to the electric field and pondermotive force.

    I guess I still need to read more and consider more deaply.

    I’m very glad that engineers and scientist of this level are taking courage and contributing to the field there is real hope now that we will get the understanding. A big thank you to Rikard Lundin and Hans Lidgren for that.

  20. I’m guessing it would be possible eventually but currently we’re still working on nanotech (working at a scale where we could manipulate atoms individually) and doing things on a scale where we’re building up materials directly would require femtotech (working with nuclear level particles such as protons, electrons and neutrons) which thus far would at best be theoretical. I figure we’ll get there, and further, but in what time frame is the question.

  21. “replicator machines” would probably only be beneficial in a Star Trek scenario where you don’t know exactly what you’ll need for the trip and have limited carry capacity. Energy equal to Matter, vice versa plus the energy consumed for the process. Not necessarily a good thing otherwise.

    Teleporting will be interesting.
    Are they disassembling you & reassembling you- OR
    Are they destroying you & merely creating a copy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *