New Paper by Leif Holmlid: “Mesons from Laser-Induced Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(0)” — (COP 450?)

There has been some discussion here already about the paper published on January 12 by Swedish scientist Leif Holmlid on the PLOS website titled “Mesons from Laser-Induced Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(0)”, and I thought it worth putting in its own thread. The article can be accessed here:

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

The paper describes the results of research in which Holmlid fires a laser at a potassium doped iron oxide catalyst which produces ultra-dense hydrogen (deuterium and protium), and then collects charged particles that are produced from the resulting reaction. He reports that “Mesons with different velocities are generated by the laser-induced nuclear processes in ultra-dense hydrogen D(0) and p(0).”

I must admit that the physics of the paper is difficult for me to follow, but the nice thing about this paper is that it is based on experimental results which are important if we are looking at things from a practical, technological point of view, Holmlid claims that his experimental work have shown a remarkable energy gain.

Here is an excerpt from the discussion page of the paper where Holmlid discusses the energy balance:

It may thus be interesting to estimate the total energy released by the nuclear processes initiated by the laser. From Fig 6 the total signal at the outer collector is approximately 100 mV in 50 Ω resistance with negative bias, or a peak current of 2 mA. The total charge per laser pulse collected at 163 cm distance is thus approximately 3×10−11 As. Assuming an energy of the particles of 20 MeV gives 6×10−4 J per pulse. The fraction of the total sphere around the target covered by the outer collector is 6×10−5. An isotropic distribution over the whole sphere is likely since the direction of the beam to the collectors is quite arbitrary relative to the laser beam (45°) and the normal of the target (60°). This gives total particle energy of 10 J, much higher than the laser pulse energy of 0.2 J. In the experiment in Fig 6, an inner slit was in fact used with an opening of 6.6×10−6 of the total sphere, an even smaller value. [b]This gives an energy of 90 J released, a factor 450 higher than the laser-pulse energy (emphasis added).

If Holmlid’s conclusions are correct here, then this would be a very important contribution to the body of LENR/cold fusion research.

  • sam
  • Zephir

    Holmlid has many things in common with Randell Mills: he produces plenty of publications based on one singular idea (ultradense hydrogen versus hydrino) and both of them are still one man show without independent replications.

    Note that ultradense hydrogen should exhibit the same Rydberg spherical orbitals, like the hydrino – except that electrons within hydrino occupy a subquantum levels. To be honest, I believe in both theories neither in similar way – IMO the truth is somewhere inbetween.

  • Axil Axil

    IMHO in the Holmlid experiment, ultra-dense hydrogen (UDH) is produced in the presence of hydrogen by the iron oxide/potassium catalyst and falls onto the collection foil. That foil is made of a noble metal: iridium, palladium, or platinum. What this metal is made of is important because that collection foil metal has a special optical property: it reflect high frequency laser light. The green laser light bounces between the collection foil and the hydrogen gas. This generates Surface Plasmon Polaritons (SPP), a boson that is the entangled combination of the electrons on the surface of the ultra-dense hydrogen spin wave and the photons from the laser light. These polaritons store the huge amounts of energy that the ultra-dense hydrogen extracts from proton decay. This energy protects the UDH from temperature disruption because it functions as a magnetic shield. This enables the metastable existence (or shelf life) of the UDH that Holmlid has found in his experiments. Based on its energy content, the SPP covering on the UDH can last for weeks or months even if it is not recharge with more nuclear energy.

    Holmlid has said that when the collection foil containing rydberg matter is exposed to room light, the production of muons increases dramatically.

    These production of muons continues for hours after the light is removed and gradually stops over an extended time.

    It seems to me, that the UDH is capable of long term energy storage that defuses gradually over time. When that energy loss is replenished by the action of applied light, the storage limit is reached and the UDH begins to produce muons again.

    Don’t be frightened by what follows:

    This behavior is what leads me to beleive that the UDH acts through hadronization.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadronization

    Furthermore, in string theory, the tachyon is postulated to act in this way. I have stated that the UHD might act as a tachyon quasiparticle and behaves as predicted by string theory.

    See

    http://slac.stanford.edu/cgi-wrap/getdoc/slac-pub-11616.pdf

    Quote on page 19:

    This effect is similar in some ways to the description of black hole evaporation via hadronization in [18].

    From reference 18

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0507219v3.pdf

    Plasma-Balls in Large N Gauge Theories and Localized Black Holes

    On page 6 and 7

    quote:

    The decay of the plasma-ball by hadronization maps to the decay of its dual black hole by Hawking radiation.

    http://cdn.iopscience.com/images/0264-9381/23/7/001/Full/cqg210762fig01.jpg

  • Gerard McEk

    The mentioned COP (450) is of light energy (200mJ pulses) input to heat output. Lasers of that kind of energy, able to release short 200 mJ pulses are not very efficient. If the efficiency of the laser would be 2% (electricity to light) and 50% conversion of heat to electricity, then tho overall COP (heat out/heat in) is 4,5….

  • Axil Axil

    Holmlid has been writing papers on ultra dense hydogen since the early 1990s. There must be 100 produce so far. It is unreasonable to expect all the details about UDH and Holmlid’s research into it over all those years to be recapitulated in this latest paper.

    Holmlid thinking on UDH has evolved as his experimentation has advanced. This makes reading through all those papers confusing with seeming contradiction between some of his works.

    Even in his new paper, there is an cut and pasted reiteration of some old stuff from previous research which suggests that fusion was the cause of some reaction characteristics, but latter in the conclusions Holmlid states a different case.

    Furthermore, Holmlid’s thinking has been greatly influenced by the works and theories put forth by J.E. Hirsch and his school of followers.

    In the introduction in his new paper, Holmlid states:
    .
    “They may all be characterized as spin-based Rydberg Matter (RM) [2]. This model is based on a theoretical description by J.E. Hirsch [7].”

    J.E. Hirsch has developed a theory for type 2 superconductivity that contradicts existing dogma called “Hole superconductivity”.

    There are another 200 papers on this subject to be found here:

    http://physics.ucsd.edu/~jorge/hole.html

    You can not really understand UDH unless you understand spin based Hole superconductivity,

    IMHO, following Holmlid’s theory is like following R.Mills alternative science. It is not easy and it takes a lot of convection and effort. I have begun that effort but it is not nearly enough. With all its complexity and revolutionary dogma, LENR is not easy to take on. Holmlid needs more validation before people will feel sanguine in investing the time and effort to take his science seriously.

  • Bob Greenyer

    The real problem with fracking and any unconventional oil and gas is the EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) tar sands being one of the worst since they burn a LOT of natural gas (fantastic fuel) to produce oil.

    Whatever LENR technology emerges in the coming years, it will take decades before it will be in every car / other use for the reasons you give.

    However, an oil/gas company would be complete fools to not use LENR as the “Energy Invested” – slashing that to near zero would massively reduce carbon emissions in production of oil and gas and spur on energy independence of the US during the transition period.

    This is the kernel of the argument that should be used to ensure delivery of this technology – fight fire with New Fire.

    • Warthog

      “The real problem with fracking and any unconventional oil and gas is the EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested) tar sands being one of the worst since they burn a LOT of natural gas (fantastic fuel) to produce oil.

      Sorry, but no. Fracking has nothing to do with tar sand. The problem with tar sands is that the oil is very “heavy” (i.e. high molecular weight, C10 and higher). Hence it has to be heated to the point where it will actually flow at all, which does require a lot of energy.

      Fracking is applied to shale. The hydrocarbons in shale are LOW molecular weight. Probably the heaviest is C8. This stuff flows well without heating. The problem is that the formation is “tight” (low porosity). Fracking simply makes “pores” that allow that flow to happen.

      Oil companies are well aware of, and have done work in LENR. One claimed successful effort dating from the 1990 era was done by Shell. You can bet that Shell and all the others are keeping very close track of LENR.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I think you miss-understood me.

        I completely know that fracking and tar sands are different technologies and based on different base reserves. I have studied deeply their respective processes. I understand where you may have got confused since I grouped them in same paragraph – but that paragraph was meant to be a succinct one to open the point on EROEI.

        Shale gas requires high capital investment since you have to do a lot of drilling on the reserve and the actual fracking process consumables production delivery and processing to activate the play. The well often produces 80% of recoverable inside 3 years. There is also shale oil, but I did not refer to that in my previous posting.

        In many cases shale gas can require $70 BOE (Barrel of oil equivalent) though some Bakken wells can produce as low as $11.72 – Tar sand oil is about $32 / barrel – Deepwater drilling is over $50 barrel.

        Saudi and Kuwait have $10 and $8.50 production cost respectively and no land-owner compensation to pay or in the case of Saudi, no bio-diverse environment to destroy.

        • Warthog

          “Shale gas requires high capital investment since you have to do a lot of drilling on the reserve and the actual fracking process consumables production delivery and processing to activate the play.”

          High capital investment has nothing to do with EROEI.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well, of course cash is not energy, that is self-evident. Unless I write a full detailed report on everything I wish to comment on there will always be areas to pick at, but the self-evident ones you can safely let go.

            There is less energy though involved with few shallow wells into conventional oil that requires no fracking (and yes I know that gas is not oil) and where recovery of the BOE goes on for sometimes decades (instead of a few years) with little intervention (and yes, I know that for instance when a conventional oil well de-pressurizes they can for instance pump water in to maintain production rate).

            Geez, it is so tedious to have to qualify everything one writes.

            • Warthog

              “There is less energy though involved with few shallow wells into conventional oil that requires no fracking (and yes I know that gas is not oil) and where recovery of the BOE goes on for sometimes decades (instead of a few years)”

              Yes, but the factor that you are missing is that the horizontal drilling that accompanies fracking allows a single well to access hugely more volume than is accessible with “single punch” wells, and add to that the much, much greater amount of total shale resource available than the “salt dome” type of geology. Capital costs are dropping as new and better techniques are developed.

              Horizontal drilling is also breathing new life into many old/shallow geologic structures. These factors will likely render continuing attempts to utilize tar sands unprofitable.

              But having the pipelines in place can only be a good thing, even if the tar sands don’t pan out, as they can also be used to distribute shale gas, both to Canada and the Gulf Coast refineries.

              • Bob Greenyer

                I am aware of horizontal drilling – which is also used in conventional oil wells. I have been aware of it since the first gulf war since Saddam invaded Kuwait in part because they were sucking the oil from under Iraq (little known trivia).

                The promise of LENR may be that it evens the production cost variance between Arabian oil and other producers. LENR will help Arabian oil production costs drop significantly since some of their major costs are re-pressurisation water injection and heat based processing – these can both be driven by another energy source.

    • Axil Axil

      If Holmlid is right about prolific production of muons in LENR, then LENR will look a lot like the use of oii and its associated CO2 loading at the beginning of the 20th century. But as the number of LENR engines increase into the billions, then the weight of muons on the byways and highways will grow so thick in the muon fog it could be to walked on.

      Any production of a toxic material is insignificant on the experimental level but under mass production, highly injurious if taken to an extreme.

      Is is why it is incumbent on LENR researchers to verify Holmlid’s observations about muon production to protect future generations at this earliest juncture.

      • Job001

        Misinformation at it’s worst! MUON official half-life is 0.00000219698 s or rounded off 0.000,000,22 s This means they don’t pile up anywhere because they rapidly decay.

        • Axil Axil

          https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=409957a091&view=fimg&th=159c24b9fa5e9857&attid=0.2&disp=emb&realattid=ii_159c247726a96182&attbid=ANGjdJ8cWpZlIbpmRsbwgynjspTH_znBXpArZQHrTAGoyCf9Rr6sHZmFlS8qVTey9R213dKEM_I4qgFsJWq493qrD9a3msGgrE32_8VZ8csnJ72I3VRc9bemda297Ck&sz=w588-h556&ats=1485133879521&rm=159c24b9fa5e9857&zw&atsh=1

          The 2.2 microsecond lifetime of the muon is a mean value. But from this exponential plot, more muons decay at the short energy of the mean value than at the high end because some muons can exist for a very long time.

          • Job001

            Such nonsense, of course some MUONs have a long lifetime, such being the nature of half life exponential decay. Still this does not mean any significant amount remains. For instance, in 100 half life times we have only 0.5^100 = 7.9×10^-31 remaining, and this is just after 100x2x10-6 or 0.0002 s. Likewise, after another 0.0002 we have only 6.241×10^-61 and after 0.0008 s we have only 3.9×10^-121 s. Thus it is less than 50/50 any are left, since the number of atoms in the universe is less than about 1×10^81.

            Are you Axil Axil real or just a ChatBot? Your research is wonderful but your rationality is strange indeed.

            • Axil Axil

              You state:
              “Still this does not mean any significant amount remains”

              axil answers:
              The LENR reaction produces a constant muon flux not a one time burst.

              This muon flux could be many times thermal power rating of the LENR reactor.

              For example, Rossi says that 20% of his COP is based on electron production from his reaction, In order to generate an electron flow(DC current) from muon decay, the muon flux would need to be enormous.

              The production of muons by a LENR reactor is a steady state situation where the flux of muons is constant. The distance that flux can reach is based on the muon decay time and speed the muons are traveling away from the LENR reaction zone.

              There is a constant flux of muons produced by cosmic rays that contribute to 1/2 our background radiation loading. Those muons come from a point in space that is 100 miles up. Those muons can penetrate through the atmosphere and into the earth up to 2 miles down.

              Any additional muon production of muons from LENR will just add to the background radiation loading.

              In a city where 10 million LENR reactors are produces terawatts of combined power in homes, cars, trains, boats, industries, etc, the muon flux produced by that reactor base will be enormous with a proportional increase in the associated background radiation loading form muon production.

              You are thinking about a one time situation, whereas I am thinking about a constant flux of muons like cosmic muons that exists 24/7/365 that never stops.

              • Job001

                Ok, Axil Axil, I understand your Chatbot spamish nature and yet perhaps you might be worth talking to rather than banning.
                If indeed LENR is occurring due to MUONs then this can be tested with CRIPT tomography detectors which are quite common, especially for use in noninvasive shipping container inspection for hidden drugs.
                This is great news since disproof of the MUON explaination is available and can be tested on operating LENR devices!
                At this point we have no reason to accept MUON or hydrino or any other LENR explaination until scientists use the scientific method to provide suitable independent observational data, including radiation in all forms; (MUONs, Xray, beta, gamma, visual, and UV spectrographic). Many of these radiations have been tested for and MUONs can also be tested with existing equipment. Super!

                • Zephir

                  /* If indeed LENR is occurring due to MUONs */

                  Except that muons don’t occur during LENR at all, only during Holmlid experiments – and Holmlid himself admitted, he’s doing hot fusion, not cold one. I’m explaining it here – it’s very easy to fall into verbose trap of Axil Axil’s semantic reasoning. https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4744-leif-holmlid-ultra-dense-deuterium-fusion/?postID=46365#post46365

                  As I already noted above, the laser pulses are most intensive source of antimatter known so far. Not surprisingly, many other energy rich artifacts
                  (kaons, mesons, muons, strange matter) get formed during it too. But
                  this fact is also trap for theorists, once these artifacts occur during
                  research of cold fusion: their emergence doesn’t imply, that these
                  effects are related to cold fusion.

                  Such a conclusion would be the AxilAxil’s associative / corelative way of thinking: but the corelation doesn’t imply causation. For example, you can kill the ants on the stone with hammer and during it some sparks also emerge – but it doesn’t mean, the ants get killed with these sparks. Actually Holmlid observed many effects during his laser experiments, except the cold fusion itself.

            • Zephir

              Axill Axill is just semantic searchbot – once he finds keyword hyped in a current month given in some article, he just incorporates it in his deductions. He has no idea, what he is talking about (plasmons-polaritons, polyneutrons, monopoles, muons, axions, tachyons, strange matter, ultradense hydrogen, Rydberg matter or boson condensate, hole superconductivity, entanglement formed spacetime and entropic gravity).

              • Job001

                Yep, that was my conclusion also, search chatbot.

                • Axil Axil

                  Both the L&W theory and the NASA patent back in 2011 identify the SPP as the prime mover in the LENR reaction. An investigation about how this item interrelates to other identified characteristics of LENR like superconductivity, John Fisher’s work, and UDH is not a chatbot capability.

  • Gerard McEk

    I am sure the eclipse would happen….

  • Axil Axil

    I seem to remember a old LENR truism that has come down over the years which remarks about how a shock is required before the LENR reaction starts. When I first began my studies of the LENR reaction so very long ago, I may have read this in regards to the work from perhaps the most famous Japanese cold fusion researcher: Yoshiaki Arata, from Osaka University, who claimed in a demonstration to produce excess heat when deuterium gas was introduced into a cell containing a mixture of palladium and zirconium oxide. But the LENR reaction did not begin unless the cell was shocked in any number of ways.

    Also from Brian S. Ahern patent (Amplification of energetic reactions
    US 20110233061 A1)

    quote:

    “Useful energy production can be obtained when deuterated/hydrated nanoparticles suspended in a dielectric medium are positioned interior to collapsing bubbles or dielectric discharges and their attendant shock waves. Highly self-focused shock waves have a sufficiently high energy density to induce a range of energetic reactions.”

    This leads me to the conclusion that Ultra-dense hydrogen right out of the nanocavity is not LENR capable until it is initially charged with any variety of EMF energy. Once the SPP has been charged up and it has acquired enough magnetic power to initiate the positive feedback loop between the nucleons within it range of interaction does the LENR reaction begin. The SPP just needs a slight push to get the process going. Oftentimes a spark is enough to get the LENR reaction off the ground. But unless that energy spike is provided with enough power to get going, that UDH just sits there and waits.

    And that energy need not be provided in a onetime spike. In the famous F&P meltdown where their reactor was feed 1 watt of power over months, one day when enough charge was accumulated in those SPPs, the LENR reaction took off with a vengeance and burned through a lab bench and then through the reinforced concrete floor in their lab rebar and all.

    We may think of the case of a pile of logs just waiting there in the fireplace waiting for the match to get their fire going, so too LENR waits for the spark that gets that energy feedback loop roiling.

    • Gerard McEk

      Indeed, I believe MFMP have mentioned a thermal shock and/or a sudden pressure change may help to start the reaction.

    • Zephir

      You already presented so many ideas (plasmons-polaritons, polyneutrons, monopoles, muons, axions, tachyons, strange matter, ultradense hydrogen, Rydberg matter or boson condensate – and I definitely missed something..) – that it would be surprising, if you didn’t guess at least something correctly. Ironically neither one of these ideas is typical for LENR and the basic mechanism is still missing: it’s hidden in answer of question, “how/why these stuffs emerged there”?

      The laser pulses are most intensive source of antimatter known so far. Not surprisingly, many other energy rich artifacts (kaons, mesons, muons, strange matter) get formed during it too. But this fact is also trap for theorists, once these artifacts occur during research of cold fusion: their emergence doesn’t imply, that these effects are related to cold fusion.

      Such a conclusion would be the associative / corelative way of thinking which you’re demonstrating here: but the corelation doesn’t imply causation. For example, you can kill the ants on the stone with hammer and during it some sparks also emerge – but it doesn’t mean, the ants get killed with these sparks. Actually Holmlid observed many effects during his laser experiments, except the cold fusion itself.

      • Oaklandthinktank

        I place holmlid’s work in the context of his instruments: he is measuring time of flight, observing particles /without/ their usual decay. Excess energy is an additional diagnostic for observing this peculiar coherence of hydrogen-esqueness… not a “free energy device”. His work points to a special liminal aspect of these strange and variegated reactions – I only wish he would test at various angles of deflection, and perhaps run Blind Source Seperation on those higher-frequency harmonics appearing in his time-charts! Moire, moire, adieu, moi rei!

  • Axil Axil

    The “potassium-doped iron oxides” are not inert to hydrogen. They’re the active component in the hydrogen abstraction catalysts widely used in the petrochemical industry and are capable of easily dissociating molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen. Holmlid observed that these surfaces (including the inner surfaces in the pores of the material) can also easily form excited atoms (Rydberg atoms), mainly thanks to the alkali promoter that they include. If conditions are just right these excited atoms can condense into a low density, long-lived state of matter composed of Rydberg atoms, called Rydberg matter.

    Finally, in recent years he also observed that this can spontaneously further condense into a much denser form that he dubs “ultra-dense hydrogen”, which has several unusual, exotic properties.

    Holmlid makes hydrogen (protium or deuterium) flow through a tube containing samples of these catalysts (in the form of pellets) and ultra-dense hydrogen comes on the other end. If disturbed, the produced material can undergo a change of state which makes nuclear reactions occur rather easily. Holmlid uses a focused laser for this.

    IMHO in the Holmlid experiment, ultra-dense hydrogen (UDH) is produced in the presence of hydrogen by the iron oxide/potassium catalyst and falls onto the collection foil. That foil is made of a noble metal: iridium, palladium, or platinum. What this metal is made of is important because that collection foil metal has a special optical property: it reflect high frequency laser light. The green laser light bounces between the collection foil and the hydrogen gas. This generates Surface Plasmon Polaritons (SPP), a boson that is the entangled combination of the electrons on the surface of the ultra-dense hydrogen spin wave and the photons from the laser light.

    These polaritons store the huge amounts of energy that the ultra-dense hydrogen extracts from proton decay. This energy protects the UDH from temperature disruption because it functions as a magnetic shield. This enables the metastable existence (or shelf life) of the UDH that Holmlid has found in his experiments. Based on its energy content, the SPP covering on the UDH can last for weeks or months even if it is not recharge with more nuclear energy.

    • Gerard McEk

      Yes, and when these little domains (Storms calls them NAE Nuclear Active Environment) are there it is easy to activate them electromagnetically of by laser to start/stop the LENR reaction. Once activated these NAE’s activate their surroundings (make new NAE’s) and the reaction spreads and can run out of control if not stopped in time, or come into a very delicate Self Sustaining Mode.

  • Axil Axil

    The significance of the theory that the Dutch theoretical physicist Erik Verlinde offers as an alternative to the dark matter particle idea has great import and application to the LENR paradigm.

    The basic idea behind Erik Verlinde theory is the gravity can be weakened when ambient matter in galaxies disrupts the entanglement that holds space time together. Impacting LENR, This Verlinde idea might well be extended to include the other fundamental forces.

    This ability for entanglement to affect the basic forces of nature is disruptive to the current science theories such as supersymmetry and general relativity. Science currently considers that the four fundamental forces only change in strength if substantial energy is added to those forces.

    In a nutshell, Erik Verlinde idea implies that when entanglement is added to space time, the forces of nature weaken, and when entanglement is increased, the fundamental forces are strengthened.

    The new theories of science attempting to unify general relativity to quantum mechanics develop the idea that entanglement is the basic mechanism in which space/time is built.

    http://www.nature.com/news/the-quantum-source-of-space-time-1.18797

    quote:
    “Among the enthusiasts was Van Raamsdonk, who started his sabbatical by pondering one of the central unsolved questions posed by Maldacena’s discovery: exactly how does a quantum field on the boundary produce gravity in the bulk? There had already been hints that the answer might involve some sort of relation between geometry and entanglement”.

    From the standpoint of engineering, Superconductivity/Bose condensation enforces a state of maximum entanglement and when this state of Superconductivity is disrupted, then entanglement is reduced.

    A possible consequence for LENR engineering of this idea is that the strong force can be weakened if the superconductive state inside the proton and neutron is disrupted. Most everybody knows that magnetism and superconductivity do not mix. The mechanism can disrupt this condensed state in the space/time inside the nucleon is substantive magnetism. As the experiments of Holmlid shows, when the proton falls apart, energy and sub atomic particle creation will result. The laser light excited ultra-dense hydrogen that Holmlid creates is a concentrator of highly focused atomic level anisotropic magnetism that can enter the nucleon and rip it apart.

    • Gerard McEk

      I admire your ability to interrelate unconventional science, Axil. Time will tell if this leads to New Nuclear Science.

  • Omega Z

    They are not married to the fossil fuel industry.

    Everyone needs to change their train of thought. Big business is about ROI. If there was a greater ROI on green energy, the fossil fuel industry “INVESTORS” would be all over it. Green energy needs huge subsidies at every level to attract investors. That speaks volumes about the ROI of green energy investments.

    It is not about Green Energy of Fossil fuels. It’s about Investors and ROI.
    If LENR proves viable and dependable, the “Investors” will be all over it.

    • cashmemorz

      Mostly new investors would be all over it. Old investors have been and are vested for the long term, decades. That is what allows them to get maximum ROI. Shorting has just started. To go from long term to short doesn’t happen overnight. That is what is holding back the traditional investors. Then, when you have a debacle like IH and Ross, with their court fight, new and old investors will further hold onto the tried and true old investment strategy until the court fight settles and gives an indication of who is right or wrong. Then investors will decide and not before.

  • nietsnie

    I think that there’s an awful lot of weight on that side of the scale now, so far as the believe-ability of the LENR effect goes. Rossi isn’t the only one. Although, to take your point, few seem to be as far along as Rossi seems to be at commercializing it. Even further – Rossi has become the face of LENR. If he were to be disproved it would, no doubt, be a blow to the industry – and probably delay it.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Undoubtedly a very interesting paper. However, the overall energy balance should be measured in order to confirm the theoretical estimations.

  • bfast

    Ultra-dense hydrogen. This sounds more like Dr. Mills’ theory than like LENR.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    So the demonstration was not required by the litigation, but its motivation is something else. What it is, I do not know. When someone asked, AR answered “to demonstrate”.

    • US_Citizen71

      Lets play what if. What if you needed to prove in open court that your LENR technology works and produces more energy than it takes in? If you have a reliable small reactor that produces say 20 watts from a 1 watt input you might decide to make a tabletop demo. Something simple like heating one liter of water with it and heating a control liter with a reactor with an inactive fuel. Measurement would need to be nothing more than temperature of the water, along with measurement of power in. For simplicity’s sake I would build a stand alone controller for each and measure the AC in from the wall. To prevent the charge of rigging you present 5 different controllers, retail outlet power measurement devices, laboratory grade alcohol thermometers and digital thermometers to choose from. You have the lead lawyer for the other side make the selection choosing one of each for the active and dummy setups. Assemble and turn on. I would insist on a large TV screens showing the display of a camera pointed at the digital readouts of the digital thermometers and power measuring devices be put in front of the jury, the judge and the gallery. Your 20 watt reactor only takes seconds to go active, so while your lawyer questions you about how it all works for 20-30 minutes the scientific magic of a 20 to 1 power differential plays out in front of the jury and the world. All without boiling any water.

      Would you show this ace in the hole until you had to?

      • Gerard McEk

        I think IH’s attorneys would desperately oppose such a demonstration of happening. So AR needs to prepare it silently, but that did not happen.

  • “Small-scale nuclear fusion may be a new energy source”
    Date: September 25, 2015
    Source: University of Gothenburg
    Summary: Fusion energy may soon be used in small-scale power stations. This means producing environmentally friendly heating and electricity at a low cost from fuel found in water. Both heating generators and generators for electricity could be developed within a few years, according to new research.

    ” A considerable advantage of the fast heavy electrons produced by the new process is that these are charged and can therefore produce electrical energy instantly. The energy in the neutrons which accumulate in large quantities in other types of nuclear fusion is difficult to handle because the neutrons are not charged. These neutrons are high-energy and very damaging to living organisms, whereas the fast, heavy electrons are considerably less dangerous.”

    “Neutrons are difficult to slow down or stop and require reactor enclosures that are several meters thick. Muons — fast, heavy electrons — decay very quickly into ordinary electrons and similar particles.”

    http://www2.chem.gu.se/~holmlid/ – Leif Holmlid Just Google his name and you can find lots of stuff. This is all very interesting.

  • Karl Venter

    There goes the FEB Demo?
    there goes the 2017 Demo?

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Jude Rabalais January 20, 2017 at 6:36 AM
    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi
    Is it confirmed your demo in the next couple if months?

    Andrea Rossi January 20, 2017 at 5:00 PM
    Jude Rabalais:
    It depends from the amount of work to make for the litigation, that in these last days has escalated enormously. The organization of a demo well done takes a lot of time and work.
    Probably we will have to delay the presentation of the QuarkX after the verdict of the litigation, that is expected by July. I matured this thought today returning from Raleigh, where work for the litigation has
    been made.
    The presentation of the QuarkX must be perfect and to make it perfect I have to work on it with maximum focus, that now I have not. I am under too much pressure. I must first win one battle, then make the next and the litigation is now.
    Probably we will start in March to receive visits of experts to make together with them closed doors measurements and tests.
    This is the idea I formulated today examining the situation.
    Warm Regards, A.R.”

    • sam

      The Rossi endurance test goes on.
      How many will drop out at this news.
      I am not to sure if I can endure much more.
      But we will see.

      • I think Frank should change the name to LENR World and de-emphasize Rossi.

      • SG

        Ironically, this decision by Rossi bolsters his credibility in my mind. Were I in his shoes, and had a working QuarkX, and was in the midst of this litigation, I would have done exactly the same.

        • sam

          But he should at least give us a one to two minute video
          of the working QuarkX like
          Mills did with the his Sun Cell.

          • US_Citizen71

            The moving blurs from Mills don’t convince me of anything except of the fact that his videographer doesn’t have the slightest clue of what they are doing. Better to do it right than put out a half baked demo video at this point if you are Rossi.

            • sam

              How about a few pictures taken by a professional photographer.
              Seeing is believing.

              • Stephen

                I the tests with experts in March could be a really good idea he could may be make some dry runs of the presentation with them to iron out any potential problems of conflicts with the real demonstration. Maybe those indepenent experts could also be available in the final presentation to help answer questions and enquiries.

                I guess he has professional or academic experts from the power industry in mind etc. but I hope he could take the opportunity to also choose people we already know and trust. My dream scenario would be for Matts, Frank and Peter Gluck (and perhaps even someone from MFMP or looking for heat if it was appropriate) to join the experts to help record the events for future release and maybe if possible to report back their initial impressions in a limited way with out giving detail. Perhaps they could also help Andrea flesh out a way to make the presentation really effective when he is ready.

                On the other hand I can understand why he may want to wait until the actual demonstration before releasing more information. Even if it’s hard on those who are patiently waiting for so long though I guess we can wait those months.

                In today’s context with such a new and potentially ground breaking thing I agree that the demonstration needs to be as prepared and as perfect and bullet proof as possible.

                I hope he gets the right help and support to achieve it.

                • sam

                  I hope he shows something of the QuarkX
                  before the court.
                  That would give me more confidence to
                  support A.R.
                  If it’s only words about
                  the QuarkxX then you
                  can think it’s only about
                  the $89 million for A.R.
                  and If he gets it he is gone.

                • Stephen

                  I understand that point of view. To me it feels unlikely but I also understand to others the opposite is true.

                  The truth is only the court has the information to judge.

                  But I would say my view is neither side is likely to deliberately lie in court. I guess if that happened it would be considered contempt of court? I suspect at most they may possibly be evasive, misleading with interpretation of data maybe or incomplete with the information.

                  It’s very hard to see where the middle is or what could be missing that could bridge the different positions. But I suspect something does.

                  Perhaps it’s down to how the fuel and catalyst materials were prepared or something that is external to the ECat tech its self. I’m curious if IH were able to get positive COP with material provided by JMP say but not with materials supplied by other suppliers. That might explain the apparent contradictions in the messages from each side. But that’s just conjecture in my part.

                  That said I agree that seeing something external to the court case like the QuarkX could really give hope abd help quench doubt in this difficult time.

    • roseland67

      So,
      If an “expert” from Fermi, Argon, Oak Ridge, Cal Tech, GE or Siemens shows up to do energy measurements they will be allowed to?

  • HS61AF91

    I know this is not an appropriate place to submit the following but events lead me to this. “submit a post to ECW” is a little dubious of effect. Anyway I think we all ought to send recommendations to the new WH website (which has big time interest in energy) to encourage looking into Dr. Rossi’s E-Cat and LENR generally. I submitted the following to the site:

    Yeah President Trump!
    New tech in energy is the solution. Get someone on the E-Cat that Doctor Andrea Rossi down in Florida is making. It already has a US Patent on this process that produces more energy out than in. It’s called LENR (Low energy nano-scale/nuclear reaction) and it’ll revolutionize energy for the American citizen worker/investor/patriot. If you want to kick start our greatness, as I do, then get somebody on this NOW!
    best regards
    Al S
    CMS, USAF, Ret

    • sam

      Have them check out Mills and Godes also.

      • HS61AF91

        Tks sam, it would have more impact if a second voice wrote to him.

        • sam

          I am from Canada.
          Does that matter.
          I hope The American
          commenters follow your
          lead.
          It would even be better if
          you could get an hour of
          President Trumps time
          and educate him on
          Rossi,Randal Mills,
          and Robert E Godes technology.
          Maybe one of his dancing
          partners whispered in his
          ear about LENR at the Balls.

          • HS61AF91

            Thank you for your good faith and suggestion. To follow my own advice, I’ll email the WH and offer to spend an hour in educating Pres T. Will never happen if I do not, and maybe if I try it will not as well, but per you advice, I’ll try. More to follow.

            • HS61AF91

              OK sam, it took some time and breaking messages into three 2500 character parts, but here is what the WH got from me.. us:

              • nietsnie

                Please keep us updated as to how that works out…

              • nietsnie

                Say Al – I was just looking at the pictures of all the Chief Master Sergeants of the Air Force for the past 49 years in Wikipedia. Oddly, none of them look at all like your picture – nor were any of their first names ‘Al’ and none of their last names begin with an ‘S’. So… if CMS isn’t short for ‘Chief Master Sergeant’ what is it an abbreviation for? Or, alternately, did you retire before 1967? Thanks.

                • HS61AF91

                  CMS is abbrev. for Chief Master Sergeant.
                  CMSAF is abbrev. for Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force.
                  Same pay grade (E9), different title.
                  Thanks for asking.
                  enlisted 1961, retired in 1991.
                  Very rewarding career.

                • nietsnie

                  Thank-you for clearing that up for me. That *is* confusing. I was beginning to wonder whether you were actually POTUS, pulling a Henry VIII: wandering around the camp the night before St. Crispin’s Day – assessing the troops morale and buttressing it when possible.

                • nietsnie

                  No, no… That should have been Henry V – not the VIII.

                • HS61AF91

                  well, your welcome, and kinda right on buttressing further awareness of LENR in ‘high places’ – we have a world to recoup.

    • nietsnie

      I don’t know how warm the reception will be from this administration. The other side of “cheap, plentiful, energy that does not pollute” is “many thousands of carbon energy workers out of a job – not only coal minors but now petroleum and natural gas too”. Trump’s promised plan is to put those coal minors back to work in the mines – damn the environmental consequences. No matter the climate you present it in, applied LENR is a nascent revolution and, like all revolutions, there will be winners and losers. Coal, petroleum, and natural gas are the losers here. If you ran stables for a living – the automobile was a disastrous, bankrupting, invention. When better solutions come along, the previous industry(ies) and all their employees, suffer until the new paradigm has settled into place and, in the meantime, they have been uprooted, re-settled, and re-educated for the new technology. Revolution is always painful for those in the middle. LENR is a long-term win. Trump’s core is looking for short term wins – regardless of their long term consequences. He’s not going to like LENR.

      • HS61AF91

        could he (Trump Admin) not do both? Reinstate coal, and introduce LENR gradually? That’s prob what’s gonna happen anyway. But if you don’t do anything, the guaranteed result is nothing will happen. Fully appreciate the stress of change to a better future.

        • nietsnie

          To be honest, I don’t think there is any way to stop an idea whose moment has arrived. But – you can slow it down. If LENR really hits it’s stride in the next couple of years, I fully expect for this administration to try to impede it. There are existing fortunes on the line here. There are powerful people who will be affected. What will Putin think about the replacement to his countries largest export? How persuasive a bargaining chip is the biggest threat to his existence? How much personal gain is available to the individual who can control it’s opportunity to flourish or be held back? I don’t have the same faith you do in the new guy to do the right thing. But, it’s the very beginning. There’s still opportunity for me to be wrong – and I hope I am.

          • Zephir

            /* What will Putin think about the replacement to his countries largest
            export? How persuasive a bargaining chip is the biggest threat to his
            existence? */

            Russians are slave nuts who just need their tsar – they will support the Putin the more, the more poorer they will get, because it will be evidence of evilness of the Western world in their eyes. These muzhiks don’t realize, they live for export of oil like the dumb Islamists, who sold oil whole years without building a single industrial production plant during it. So that Putin’s regime will get in no threat even if the price of oil will go down – which is not very probable anymore.

      • Zephir

        Trump team prepares to “roll back funding for nuclear physics and advanced scientific computing research to 2008 levels”

        http://thehill.com/policy/finance/314991-trump-team-prepares-dramatic-cuts

    • roseland67

      I would be astonished if anyone on this team has ever heard of Andrea Rossi

    • sam

      Sent recommendation to WH website.
      Mills,Rossi,Godes technologies

      • HS61AF91

        gosh, wish I would have seen this as I was in the middle of struggling to get three part response out to WH. But all for the betterment of humanity! You rock!

  • Axil Axil

    Holmlid states as follows:

    Quote

    “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 → 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.”

    Holmlid recognized that the DECAY or annihilation of protons pairs are where the mesons come from. This decay is a weak force reaction in which a huge amount of energy is produced…(1.88 GeV while three kaons correspond to 1.49 GeV).

    The use of Deuterium has nothing to do with proton decay. The protium nanoparticle can produce proton decay just as well as deuterium. The protium nanoparticle will still produce the 1.88 GeV as well as the deuterium nanoparticle.

    Fusion is just as secondary side issue.

    In order to form these ultra dense nanoparticles, the hydrogen isotope must be pure because the Hole superconductor will not form if isotopes are miked.

    This rule also applies to lithium which can also produce a ultra dense nanoparticle.

  • Axil Axil

    The first nuclear reaction that occurs in tha Holmlid experiment is meson production which as nothing to do with fusion:

    Holmlid writes:

    Quote
    “The time variation of the collector signals was initially assumed to be due to time-of-flight of the ejected particles from the target to the collectors. Even the relatively low particle velocity of 10–20 MeV u-1 found with this assumption [21–23] is not explainable as originating in ordinary nuclear fusion. The highest energy particles from normal D+D fusion are neutrons with 14.1 MeV and protons with 14.7 MeV [57]. The high-energy protons are only formed by the D + 3He reaction step, which is relatively unlikely and for example not observed in our laser-induced D+D fusion study in D(0) [14]. Any high-energy neutrons would not be observed in the present experiments. Thus, ordinary fusion D+D cannot give the observed particle velocities. Further, similar particle velocities are obtained also from the laser-induced processes in p(0) as seen in Figs 4, 6 and 7 etc, where no ordinary fusion process can take place. Thus, it is apparent that the particle energy observed is derived from other nuclear processes than ordinary fusion.”

    Like any good scientist, Holmlid has gotten over his preconception of fusion as the energy source for these sub atomic particles. In other words, the “primary” reaction of LENR has nothing to do with fusion or neutrons. Kaon production points to a amplified weak force decay process working to decay protons and neutrons providing a initial energy potential of a giga electron volts per reaction as all the mass of these nucleons are converted to mesons. There is a huge amount of energy consumed in meson production, and a trifling amount to heat.

    As a secondary reaction produced by sub atomic particles, muon and pion catalyzed fusion occurs away from the primary weak force decay reaction.

    In LENR, there is a large amount of electrons created when muons decay. This is where Rossi gets his electric production from.

    I would guesstimate that 99% of the energy output of a LENR reactor comes in the form of muons that will decay into electrons. Rossi says that his QuarkX reactor produces 20% of it COP as electric power (aka electrons).

    The QuarkX reactor must produce huge amounts of muons for all those electrons to form so close to the meson shower.

    • Valeriy Tarasov

      Nice to hear this conclusion from the experiments! In the h-space theory the proton decay to electrons and positrons is the only source for LENR energy in the devices with only hydrogen and nickel (palladium)), without lithium. I suggested this mechanism as a consequence of the theory several years ago. The theory was published on Rossi’s site as an article (not updated) and on amazon as a book (last update in 2015 and have to be updated this year). The h-space theory – https://www.amazon.com/h-SPACE-THEORY-Everything-Valeriy-Tarasov/dp/1494332612/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1485014892&sr=8-2&keywords=h-SPACE+THEORY%3A+The+Theory+of+Everything.

    • Zephir

      /* The first nuclear reaction that occurs in tha Holmlid experiment is meson production which has nothing to do with fusion: */

      I’m explaining it here with all source links.

      https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4744-leif-holmlid-ultra-dense-deuterium-fusion/?postID=46295#post46295

      I explained you, that Holmlids experiments and muons and kaons have nothing to do with cold fusion mechanism – and now Holmlid just said it himself. If I remember well, I repeated it you at least six-times (1, 2, ..). Holmlid didn’t change his mind – he knew about it from its very beginning – and you didn’t believe him.

      • Axil Axil

        The intense ionization that Me356 reports at 3 meters from his reaction and the disruption of his test equipment to the point of inoperability leads me to suspect that muons are being produced by Me356 reactor.

        Me356 also repost the production of neutral particles.

        The Safire project also reports transmutation of protium to He3 together with the disruption of computers across the room from their experiment.

        Their input is 200V at 300 milliamps but they generate plasma bursts at millions of degrees.

        • Zephir

          Muons are 2nd generation of matter – they generally require over 1 GeV gamma ray energies to form – it’s improbable, that hydrogen or deuterium fusion (20 MeV) could generate such a thingies by itself. Safire project is irrelevant to it.

          https://inspirehep.net/record/878412/files/11-13-15-fixed.png

          • Axil Axil

            If you read the Holmlid paper, the decay of two protons produce 3 mesons and 390 MeV.

            Quote:

            “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 → 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.”

        • Zephir

          Muons are 2nd generation of matter – they generally require over 1 GeV gamma ray energies to form – it’s improbable, that hydrogen or deuterium fusion (20 MeV) could generate such a thingies by itself. The Safire project is irrelevant to it – no need to raise it right here.

          https://inspirehep.net/record/878412/files/11-13-15-fixed.png

          The trick of laser light is, it has very high effective energy and temperature due to extreme narrow spectral width, so that even infrared laser can initiate reactions well above the GeV scales.

  • Axil Axil

    This new paper from Holmlid explains why he now deduces that LENR cannot be a fusion based reaction as a primary cause because the energy of the mesons produced are far to great. The energy produced is in the giga electron volt range. This is a change in Holmlid’s thinking. I respect a man that can change his mind under the weight of experimental evidence.

    The hydrogen nanoparticle that produces the mesons are 3 to 6 planes long.

    The fact that these ultra dense hydrogen nanoparticles are superconductive is the reason why no gammas are produced by the subatomic particles that they produce. Holmlid has found that these nanoparticles are small and look like this:

    http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0022286016311486-gr1.jpg

    The picture above shows a six plane nanoparticle. Each plane is comprised of a cooper pair of protons as a core and a spin wave sheet of electrons on the outside as a cover.

    quoted from the paper:

    “The initial laser-induced processes on the target are not yet known, so it is here assumed that kaons and pions are formed more or less directly at the laser target from small HN(0) clusters, probably with N = 3–6. Direct evidence of the size of these clusters exists (to be published).”

    Holmlid mentions the “Hole” superconductor theory of

    Hirsch JE. The origin of the Meissner effect in new and old superconductors. Phys. Scr. 2012;85:035704.

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/1201.0139v1.pdf

    In this theory, the positive charge is concentrated in the center of the nanoparticle and the negative charges form a spin wave on the outside of the positive core{see (a) in fig 2}.

    fig 2
    http://cdn.iopscience.com/images/1402-4896/85/3/035704/Full/pscr417844f2_online.jpg

    ————————————

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay

    QUOTE
    “In particle physics, proton decay is a hypothetical form of radioactive decay in which the proton decays into lighter subatomic particles, such as a neutral pion and a positron.[1] There is currently no experimental evidence that proton decay occurs.

    According to the Standard Model, protons, a type of baryon, are stable because baryon number (quark number) is conserved (under normal circumstances; see chiral anomaly for exception). Therefore, protons will not decay into other particles on their own, because they are the lightest (and therefore least energetic) baryon.

    Some beyond-the-Standard Model grand unified theories (GUTs) explicitly break the baryon number symmetry, allowing protons to decay via the Higgs particle, magnetic monopoles or new X bosons with a half-life of 1031 to 1036 years. To date, all attempts to observe new phenomena predicted by GUTs (like proton decay or the existence of magnetic monopoles) have failed.”

    The ultra dense hydrogen nanoparticle acts as a monopole quasiparticle which capitalizes proton decay. The structure of this nanoparticle focuses the spin from polaritons that forms on it surface to project forward in a tight SPIN beam to zap protons. The photons come from the laser beam that the UDH absorbs on it surface of the noble metal storage area to form polaritons. There is a superradiant based cause that also is in play to greatly amplify the magnetic power of the beam. The UHD BEC forms from many coherent UHD particles that multiplies the strength of the SPIN monopole beam.

    • Axil Axil

      http://restframe.com/mm/images/vs_large.jpg

      These particle tracks as shown above were formed when ash from a LENR reactor was placed on a photo emulsion. I beleive that these particles are ultra dense hydrogen nanoparticles that have formed a Bose condinsate.

      The highly visible tracks from the Figure below were digitized point-by-point in a graphics editor. It shows entangled motion of unidentified LENR based particles in a photo emulsion.

      These entangled particles are most likely ultra dense hydrogen that is metastable when excited such as via a laser.

      http://restframe.com/mm/images/vector_swarm_d.jpg

  • radvar

    Please to replicate, please. Please.

    • Zephir

      It shouldn’t be so difficult – a Q-switched Nd:YAG lasers with pulse energy of < 0.2 J at 532 nm and 10 Hz repetition rate are quite widespread already. But this research is still of very theoretical nature – for what some kaons could be good for by now? With respect to practical applications many other nuclear reactions deserve much higher attention.

      • roseland67

        Got 2 in my garage now😀

        • Can you please provide more information.

          • roseland67

            Doc,

            My sarcasm ray gun was in stun,

      • radvar

        Replication would reinforce the sort of models that Axil Axil is suggesting, which could let the experiments out the “bad science” category, allow funding, etc. Please.

  • Gerard McEk

    I believe this report of Leif Holmlid should shake the nuclear physisists! Get awake boys, something to chew on. It is time to dig into this.
    Russ George gave a very readable overview of this paper:
    http://atom-ecology.russgeorge.net/2017/01/19/ultra-dense-fusion-physicsenergy-magnum-opus/

  • Omega Z

    Frank states-

    “I must admit that the physics of the paper is difficult for me to follow, but”

    Six years ago Frank be like-

    This is just a buch of “gobbledegoop”

    We all have learned much since then..