LENR is a catalytic process

  • This post attempts to justify the statement as follows:

    “LENR is a catalytic process.”

    To understand LENR we must first understand how a catalyst works. A catalyst is like adding a bit of magic to a chemical reaction. These reactions need a certain amount of energy in order to happen. If they don't have it, oh well, the reaction probably can't happen. A catalyst lowers the amount of energy needed on the average so that a reaction can happen more easily. A catalyst is all about energy. A catalyst gathers together, amplifies, and focuses the ambient energy in the environment so that a chemical reaction can happen more easily.

    The energy needed to make a reaction happen is called the activation energy. As everything moves around, energy is needed. The energy that a reaction needs is usually in the form of heat.

    There is also something called an inhibitor that works in exactly the opposite way as catalysts. Inhibitors slow the rate of reaction. Sometimes they even stop the reaction completely. You might be asking, "Why would anyone need those?" You could use an inhibitor to make the reaction slower and more controllable. Without inhibitors, some reactions could keep going and going and going. If they did, all of the molecules would be used up. That would be bad if those reactions are not wanted. An inhibitor must work in a way that is opposite to a catalyst. They must spread out, weaken, and defocus the ambient energy available to the reaction.

    It looks like catalytic action involves the management and control of heat. Heat is a form of electromagnetism commonly called light.

    The question that now arises: “how can we control heat in a chemical reaction”?

    The area of catalytic control that most interests the study of LENR is nanoparticle control of a chemical reaction (1).

    Nanoparticles of palladium, iridium, platinum, iron, nickel, titanium… have all shown the capacity to control heat to speed up chemical reactions. In LENR we are interested in how these nanoparticles control heat and then understand how this control can be amplified to move the catalytic process out of the range of the chemical reaction into the range of the subatomic reactions.

    Section 2: Controlling LENR through the proper use of micro-particles

    Micro-particles provide the ability for the amplification of the catalytic effect through the application of many forms of resonances. One such amplification mechanism involves the reception of heat energy by the metal particle as it acts as an antenna which reaches out over a great distance to bring in heat energy from a very long distance away from the particle. All that heat energy is converted into dipole electron motion. But now we must understand what the Nuclear Active Environment (NAE) is, it is useful to know how to build the NAE.

    How to build a nano-cavity

    To illustrate a pivotal principle from Nano-engineering that bears upon LENR, in experimental results from that field involving Nanoplasmonics, the electromagnetic field strength in the spaces between nanoparticles is exponentially strengthened based on the number of nanoparticles in contact with each other.

    In more detail, heat is converted into electromagnetism through the action of dipole motion on the surface of the metal particles. This dipole motion produces an alternating current that is tightly confined to the skin of the metal particle.

    Dipole vibration generates a positively charged side of the metal particle and a negatively charged side. Heat induces an electrostatic charge on the surface of the metal particle through the action of coherent alternating currents of the free electron gas that live on the surface of metals.

    A strange thing happens to the electrons on the negative side of these metal particles. The electron becomes entangled with the photons of heat when the energy level of the electrons and photons of heat become equal. A compound waveform is produced called a polariton(2).

    Because the polariton is mostly light, it is a boson, there is no limit to the number of these quasiparticles (the electron half of the dipole combined with light) that can be packed into the NAE. The other positive “hole” part of the dipole resides within the walls of the NAE.

    This coupling of the electron gas with the infrared EMF is the first and most basic level of resonance in the LENR reaction.

    One very important way to increase the strength of the LENR reaction is to increase the density of the electron gas that floats around on the surface of the metal particle.

    Amplification in the density of the electron gas will amplify the LENR reaction. In the same way, a big capacitor will produce a bigger spark than a very small capacitor.

    Needless to say, enhancing heat production is the other method that increases the strength of the LENR reaction, but in Nanoplasmonics, heat and the density (like amperage) and energy levels (like voltage) of the electron gas are directly connected.

    I am interested in the system that uses micro-particles for the lattice because this type of system provides additional opportunities for resonance development to increase reaction intensity by increasing the density and energy of the electron gas.

    This amplification process through the use of micro-particles is the subject of the next section of this description.

    Remember, strengthening the density of the polariton gas is a prime LENR design goal. Electromagnetic field strength amplification is what we really want to do.

    Particle aggregation is a polariton amplification mechanism.

    Micro and nano sized particles will come together and aggregate under electrostatic attraction. Large particles will pass on their compliment of polaritons down to its smaller particles in the aggregate. It has recently been discovered that this transfer of polaritons is a one way operation. The nano engineers call this one way traveling polariton the topolariton.

    The flow of topolaritons go from the large particles to the very smallest particles where they become captured in the gaps between the very smallest particles.

    Because the topolaritons are bosons, there is no limit to how many can be packed into the nanoscale cavities between nanoparticles. These waveforms travel in a circle and form a soliton as a result of whispering gallery wave confinement and self-interference.

    The point is that EMF can be collected, concentrated, and focused to such a huge extent by many and varied nanoparticle based mechanisms that the catalytic process can advance from the realm of chemistry to the realm of quantum mechanical driven sub atomic particles effects. These effects can amplify EMF by a factor of many trillions of times or 10^^20 to equal or surpass the power of the most powerful lasers.

    These NAE like other catalysts are not consumed like neutrons but keep producing disruptive subatomic particle effects for many days after they are formed and fully loaded with EMF energy. These solitons can hold up to 1,000,000 GeV of power.

    The pictures below are found in 4.


    Figure A - Optical enhancement of nanoparticle clusters with coordination numbers (points of near contact or nano-gaps) from 1 to 7.
    Comparison between the enhancement factors obtained for each sample, normalized to the enhancement produced by a single particle excited with a 633 nm laser line.

    Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering (SERS) spectra of benzenethiol on the pentagonal bipyramid (CN 7).

    The enhancement factor of the electromagnetic fields in the nano-gaps is proportional to the capacitance that the particle can impose on the dielectric material in the gap.

    Simply put, the number of topolaritons that can be packed into the dielectric medium filling the gap is directly proportional to the amount of charge difference that the particles can bring to bear in the immediate neighborhood of the nano-cavity.

    The micro-particle has a far greater capacitive potential than a single nano-particle or even a large cluster of nano-particles because its bulk and surface area is orders of magnitude bigger than those particles that are sized on the nanoscale. But critically, there needs to be a way to increase both the effective surface area of the micro-particle and the coordination number (nano-gaps) when two micro-particles grow close together.

    This is cleverly engineered by covering the micro-particles with nanowires like the spines that cover the surface skin like a sea urchin.

    The nanowires draw close and touch as the micro-particles draw together but the charge on the surface of the micro-particle largely remains in place because current does not readily flow accoss these filamentary points of contact. The nanowires provide a gage or better described as a spacing mechanism so that the micro-particles maintain the optimum nano-metric capacitive distance between their respective micro-particle surfaces.

    1 - Nanomaterial-based catalyst From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    2 – Semiconductor exciton polaritons

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    3 – The Topolariton, a New Half-Matter, Half-Light Particle http://www.caltech.edu/news/to…half-light-particle-48222

    4 – Organized Plasmonic Clusters with High Coordination Number and Extraordinary Enhancement in Surface-Enhanced Raman Scattering (SERS)

    5 – Whispering-gallery waves

  • For novices who have not had organic chemistry at a post Linus Pauling level (that is no majors or A-level after say 1955), catalysis can be easily understood using the Reaction Coordinate Diagram. Catalysis is a very general process from that perspective. The concept is easily applied to nuclear reactions, although is admittedly often not. And surely there are a huge number of specific catalytic mechanisms. Understanding their exact nature is informative but is in practice quite unnecessary, and indeed can misdirect the goals of utility/useability shared by many here. For a reminder of how a reaction coordinate diagram is laid out, go here:


    Ea [E sub a], or activation energy, is often understood as energy input in a statistical thermodynamic sense. This is the "reaction in a pot" and has billion dollar applications, including in hot fusion. But also can be understood in a specific reaction at the atomic or subatomic level, as orbital orientations, phase and distance. And in those senses, much more likely to be easily examined at the bench top level.

    As a "teaser" example: protons are often understood to be in nuclear orbitals. Protons can also exist in extra nuclear and even extra atomic orbitals. Just as muons can be in orbitals much closer to nuclei, imagine the possibility that protons, which are about 9 times the mass of a muon and have nearly infinitely longer lives, might be in an orbital (perhaps ever so brief) with respect to some relatively rigid electronic bond in a molecule or metal alloy with great collective mass. Hartree-Fock like assumptions, but this time the wave function applies to the proton or deuteron or hydride ion, and not to the central, massive negatively charged anionic or otherwise "electronic" core such as metallic bonding molecular orbital.

    Protons or deuterons or any charged particle can be moved by SPR (surface plasmon resonance). Do they then become SPPs, that is polaritons? Certainly coordinated SPR is far more probable in a laser induced, "magic angle" reflection at an interface with suitably large permittivity (refractive index) differential. That is at the junction of a oxide insulator and say a transition metal. See this article for a concise review of the basics of SPR and SPP:


    The Kretschmann configuration could be at a junction of 99+% sulfuric acid (perhaps the most readily available source of mobile protons) and a smooth palladium or other "noble" transition metal surface. The exciting radiation producing "evanescent waves" could/should be a tunable laser. Instantaneous assessment of nuclear events might be with GM (Geiger-Mueller) or other sensors. ULM neutrons, if they were produced, could be detected by means I have discussed here before. Electrostatic potentials (DC, pulsed or radio, up through microwave could readily be conducted along the surface at the permittivity (dielectric / metal) interface... in stripline fashion, for example. Fast pulse events could be examined in this system as well... see old "Amateur Scientist" articles in Scientific American magazine on building pulsed UV lasers using a "Blumlein" (named after a very famous and widely productive British scientist, Alan Dower Blumlein), that is a sparkgap-initiated nanosecond pulse generator (a home built simple version of the so called TEA laser in photonics trade lingo). See that referenced here:


    All within the grasp of dedicated amateurs. But, regard the suggestions above as extremely dangerous... especially for those with little or no experience with lasers, strong acids, high voltages, microwaves, and so on. There is always the possibility that some configuration may well produce huge amounts of energy--- that is energy densities at 100s to millions of times that seen in ordinary "electronic" or shall we say "redox" chemistry. I have warned of that here before as well. One joule released in one nanosecond is roughly the peak power of one billion watts, that is well over one million horsepower.... imagine that in your "little" garage experiment... before, during and after experimenting.

  • Rossi understands that his invention is based on catalysis. That is the reason why Rossi named his invention “The Energy Catalyzer” (also called E-Cat) (6). In order to understand how Rossi’s invention works, it is important to understand the nature of catalysis as supported by nanoparticles. There may be other modes of catalysts that might confuse the issue of understanding Rossi’s work, so I will focus my discussion on nanoparticles and how nanoparticles when properly stimulated by light can extract energy from the environment. Metal nanoparticles have unique catalytic properties that lend themselves to the backbone energy generation function in the E-Cat.

    In his research and development, Rossi’s goal was to increase the catalytic power of his invention to a high enough level to extract energy from the environment. The patent that Rossi has recently been granted defines the energy source as a catalytic process. It does not mention nuclear causation. LENR is not nuclear centric based on neutron stimulation for energy production but a greatly amplified catalytic process has been enhanced to such a huge degree that a positive feedback loop between the NAE and the environment is generated. This feedback loop is based on an electromagnetic connection between the NAE and the environment and works at a distance from the NAE. When the NAE has accumulated enough energy, then it becomes to a degree self-sustaining and supported by this energy feedback loop.

    I would like to continue on and explain in more detail how Rossi has achieved the ability to produce a self-sustaining energy feedback mechanism in the catalytic process.

    Metal nano and micro particles produce vortexes of light in what can be termed as polariton solitons. (7)

    It is worth explicitly point it out because it is such an important reference (7) “Plasmonics with a twist: taming optical tornadoes on the nanoscale”. This article provides a wonderful explanation of how metal nanoparticles integrate with polaritons to form EMF energy concentrations.

    Nanoplasmonics provide many types of EMF amplification mechanisms. One of the more difficult mechanisms to understand is how a pile of nano and micro particles greatly amplify EMF. The reference provided in this post shows how the topology in the way particles aggregate explains how EMF is concentrated through vortex formation. The reference defines an analogy between a vortex and a gear. Like a funnel, a large particle gathers the energy from a wave of EMF far larger than its diameter, In the case of the Rossi system, this type particle according to the patent between 1 to 100 microns but mostly 5 micron nickel particles available commercially off the shelf (COTS). Other nanoparticles are produce as an ongoing process during E-Cat operation by what is termed “Secret Sauce” chemical additives. These additives provide the smallest nanoparticles in the particle aggregations. A picture of how these particles aggregate is now worth understanding (8). But there is a constraining factor that limits the aggregation of a certain size limit due to dipole forces (9).

    This large particle produces relatively huge amounts of dipole generated current. . Other particles of various sizes accumulate around the large nickel particles. Each of these particles produces a photonic vortex proportional to the size of the large particle member of the aggregation. These vortexes fit together like gears where the large vortex provides a large amount of power concentration, and the other smaller vortexes provide a gear train that speeds up the rotation rate of the smaller gears down the train.

    Finally, the smallest vortexes associated with hydrogen crystals, spin at high rates of speed providing large EMF power amplification.

    The take away is that a large spread of particles sizes produced within an aggregation of particles generates the most powerful EMF amplification effects. This fact explains why the “secret sauce” effect provides such a large EMF power amplification result. These alkali metal hydrides supply the intermediately sized gears that allow the large nickel gears to transfer their vast store of energy with little loss to the smallest hydrogen based gears down a smoothly running vortex power transmission chain. The smallest particles are the hydrogen Rydberg matter which has its own unique supercharged EMF amplification mechanism.

    I venture to say that there is randomness associated with this particle aggregation process that enables a sort of natural selection where the most effective dust pile configurations provide the most EMF amplification. When there are an abundance of particles, the chances are good that some of these piles will be LENR capable. That is to say, when there are a large number of particles, the chances are good that some of their aggregates will produce EMF implication great enough to catalyze quantum mechanical level effects.

    There is also a certain lifetime associated with particle formation. Particle piles are constantly falling apart. These particle aggregates must be constantly rebuilt to maintain a sustained reaction rate.

    6 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Catalyzer

    7 – Plasmonics with a twist: taming optical tornadoes on the nanoscale

    8 – Particle aggregation

    9 – The effect of the dipole-dipole repulsion on the size of the L-J particle aggregation

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

  • Did the "father of the hydrogen bomb"', Edward Teller, get this right back in the earlier days of CF?

    From “The Scientist” 1989:
    “Teller, who attended the three-day workshop at NSF headquarters but not the press conference, hypothesizes “an as-yet undiscovered neutral particle” as the catalytic agent for the cold fusion reaction. But in front of the press, one scientist after another declined to read the statement. One of the sponsors of the workshop, NSF’s Paul Werbos, says, “I didn’t want to appear on TV saying what Teller had written.” Why? Because it was considered a “discredited field” - “It seems unfortunate that an NSF office is now appearing to encourage such discredited work,” wrote Marcel Bardon, director of NSF’s physics division

    Teller in 1992:
    Around 1992, McKubre says, he was summoned for an audience with legendary physicist Edward Teller.:"He asked probing questions, in better depth, I think, than anyone else on the planet. You could see what a giant intellect he must have been in his time. I was subjected to this interrogation for four hours. At the end of it Teller said that he did not think that cold fusion was a reality, but if it were, he could account for it with a very small change in the laws of physics as he understood them, and it would prove to be an example of nuclear catalysis at an interface. I still don't understand what he meant by that, but I'm quite willing to believe that it's correct."

    “nuclear Catalysis”?

  • @oystla

    Teller was truly a smart dude. He was 100 years ahead of his time. I intend to show in a step by step fashion that the catalytic particle so mentioned is the monopole tachyon and that it is the source of both dark matter and dark energy.

    I am forced to give credit where credit is due. R. Mills has proposed these ideas already and has run experiments to prove it, even if the hydrino is a mistaken experimental observation.


  • Let's see, "100 years ahead of his time". So he died before he was born? Or his ideas were so advanced that he foresaw the triumph of LENR in the marketplace of energy sources-- and hence became hostile to Bohm? Or he was so smart, he tried to destroy his own creation by failing to recognize the contribution of lithium in lithium deuteride to the catastrophically larger yield of the Enewetak thermonuclear device? Or perhaps he foresaw that "dude" would move from "overly fastidious in dress or manner" to a designation such as "cool" as in "hot"? Or perhaps he saw that the destruction of Stalinist Leninism would help bring about the triumph of archaic and fundamentalist religiosity, and yet another path to global disaster besides nuclear "mutually assured destruction" or MAD of the Cold War?

    Certainly he did live in the era of the concept of tachyons, and of monopoles. But did he foresee "monopole tachyons"? And would it make any difference at all?

  • This thread has sort of drifted off course. Simply stated it's transmutation of hydrogen to helium when the catalyst allows Coulomb force to be nulled by proton-nickel-oxygen interaction. Nothing magical about this unless the basic stellar fusion going on in the universe is looked on as magic. We're slightly ahead of cave-man interpretation potential, let's take a little advantage.

    &"And would it make any difference at all?"

    I like that statement! Right on for the conjecturing display in the post.

  • Thanks for the reminder, Ogfusionist. With respect to LENR as catalysis:

    For doubly deuterated D2SO4, one could purchase, or one could make using D2O in an H2SO4 mfg process.

  • Magnetic monopole beam

    One of the amazing revelations that has come out of nanoplasmonic research and experimentation is the explanation of how the “dark mode” polariton soliton can produce a monopole magnetic beam. This amazing revelation is not theory; it is based on experimental results. But there is a theoretical explanation that goes along with the experimental data (10). The monopole magnetic beam becomes pronounced at polariton soliton (PS) intermediate energy levels since the Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP) aligns all the spins of the polaritons inside the soliton to project out of the soliton from its center perpendicular to its direction of wave rotation.

    The polariton has a spin of 2. The number of polaritons that can be absorbed into the soliton is not limited by the fermion exclusion principle. There is even an experimental micrograph that shows the soliton and the monopole beam coming out of it.

    This beam can project out to 100 microns away from the soliton.

    It is not only the spin of the polaritons that contribute to the power of the monopole beam but it is also the angular momentum of polariton rotation that multiplies the magnetic power of the beam. The vortex rotation rate acts like a train of gears where the microparticle (large gear) drives the angular momentum of the hydrogen Rydberg matter (small gear).

    In the most dramatic case, the 100 micron particle transfers angular momentum to a hydrogen Rydberg matter particle which is comprised of a large number of graphite like layered hexagonal disk assemblages with a diameter just a few atoms across.

    Each atomic layer receives angular momentum from the vortex on the surface of the micro particle and that vortex motion is transferred to the small atomic hexagonal disks comprising the Rydberg matter. The spin multiplier that comprises the monopole beam is proportional to the ratio between the circumference of the 100 micron particle to the circumference of the hydrogen Rydberg matter hexagonal disk.

    The monopole magnetic beam is a primary mechanism of catalytic action in LENR. The beam can reach out without being depleted and disrupt an indeterminate number of atomic sites. The experiments of J,C.Fisher can be explained by the action of this beam.

    http://www.markfisher.net/john…rs/Bigshower.pdfEnergetic particle shower in the vapor from electrolysis

    This experiment informs us about the nature of the NAE. The experiment related in this article uses CR-39 particle detectors to show the production of energetic particles in the mobile NAE afloat in the vapor above an electrolytic LENR cell. This NAE has become mobile after it has become detached from its point of creation somewhere on the lattice of the electrodes within the cell as it moves upward in the vapor produced by the action of electrolysis and the heat that this electrode produces. This NAE produces hundreds of thousands of charged particles as it floats upward out of the cell. This reaction most probably produces alpha particles as the NAE raises on the vapor currents upward out of the cell. The analysis in the article finds that this NAE is a point source of these alpha particles by correlating the angles of the pits produced by the charged particles as the NAE rises. This behavior implies that the NAE supports a continuous and long lasting LENR process that proceeds over a considerable duration of time. This mobile type of NAE must decouple from its point of creation on the lattice of the electrode and floats on air currents like a particle of dust. The mesoscopic NAE must be massive in size to be so driven by molecules of air and water vapor. In this experiment, the monopole beam projects out of the center of the mobile soliton up to 100 microns as it floats upward. The mobile SPP soliton can produce LENR reactions at a distance or it can enter the CR-39 detector strips and initiate LENR reactions inside the structure of the detectors as John Fisher has reported in his experiments.

    10 - Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles

  • Axil wrote:

    "This amazing revelation is not theory; it is based on experimental results."

    My recommendation: Try to study science and hypothesis testing, instead of following and reposting web derived "new physics" news items that look revolutionary, and happen to somehow resemble something in the LENR idea space.

    It should be easy to identify some testable ideas. Every example you suggest as relevant to LENR, unfortunately depends on coherent photonic / matter interactions. Unfortunately, few if any of the over-unity experiments in the history of LENR / CF have both coherent components either at the photonic or even the matter level (actually claims that non-periodic lattices are more likely to be seen in the successful reports). Of course we MAY one day see coherent systems evolve LENR, given sufficient magnitude and persistence of funding.

    Remember this counter-intuitive but vital part of good science: "falsifiability". Strive, Axil, to find ways to definitively disprove your own hypotheses and/or ideas. If they repeatedly fail honest efforts to disprove.... then we all want to know of them. Until then, save your energy for the lab you may wish to visit sometime.

    Anyone can say or write what they wish. Gaining consensus is the hard part. Demonstrability in LENR is difficult without adequate funding.... so your're lucky for now.


  • @Longview

    I have made predictions and have explained the behavior of LENR engineering as seen in LENR experiments within the context of the catalytic exotic neutral particle: the polariton soliton (SPP). Continuing on, this thread describes the latest prediction of LENR as a catalytic process produced by an exotic neutral particle that is consistent with the unique behavior of the SPP. For a list of other engineering predictions, see the following:

    Polariton engineering imperatives

    A goodly amount of experimental data which is called by many names by many people might be explained by the same physical process.

    One name is the SPP which is a ball of light that can pass through material that is transparent to the EMF that the SPP contains.

    The SPP is central to the Widom-Larsen LENR Theory theory of LENR. The SPP is listed as a LENR causation the the NASA LENR patent application.

    Tachyons are another name seen in LENR theory for very energetic particles that pass through material and leave tracks on photographic emulsions.

    Another name is Polyneutrons. They are heavy particles that leave track on CR-39 radiation detectors and can even produce reactions inside that plastic material as it passes through it.

    There is a major school of LENR thought in Russia that believes that plasmons or ball lightning are a cause of the LENR reaction.

    Ken Shoulders came up with a term for balls of EMF that he created with electric arc called EV and then later EVO.

    Edward Lewis believed that LENR revolved around the plasmoid theory.

    Mark LeClair saw these particles come out of his cavitation reactor and punch holes in the walls of his lab and even punched holes in the trees outside his lab. These particles were very heavy and powerful.

    I believe, this ball of EMF that has many names is all one and the same thing. It is the ultimate cause of LENR in all its many forms.

    The experiments of J.C. Fisher are definitive and impose very tight theoretical constraints on the fundamental causation for LENR. LENR must be produced by a mobile exotic neutral particle(ENP) derived from electromagnetic stimulation which is most likely light and electrons. Fisher theorizes that the ENP is a neutron cluster, but neutrons cannot cluster.

    In addition, Keith Fredericks show that the ENP must be a monopole, very massive (1,000,000 GeV), mobile and long lived(days) based on tracks seen in photographic emulsions from ash samples produced by long lived ENP radiation. These tight constraints on the behavior of the ENP points with high probability that the ENP must be the SPP. I have repeatedly failed honest efforts to disprove the SPP as the ENP cause of LENR. If you can help in this falsification effort, the field of LENR will be better for it and then I can redirect to another causation thread.

    From the recent experiment by Holmlid, Rydberg matter is central to the LENR reaction.


    Rydberg blockade is the quantum mechanical mechanism whereby one type of rydberg matter forces its quantum state onto another type of matter.

    Potassium or lithium can force hydrogen into the rydberg matter state through entanglement. This is why a alkali metal is always present as a secret sauce in the gainful LENR process.

    But it is not rydberg matter that produces LENR effects. It is the surface plasmon polariton (SPP) condensates that rydberg matter catalyzes which produce the nuclear effects. These are balls of EMF that form when light and matter(electrons) combine through entanglement.

    The electron brings dipole energy to the polariton marriage, and light brings the ability of the polariton to aggregate in limitless density because it is a boson where the Pauli exclusion principle does not apply.

    Holmlid does not see the causative role of SPPs yet. These SPPs must be charged with huge amounts of energy (1,000,000 GeV) before they become active in subatomic particle production through tachyon (Keith Fredericks prediction) condensation. This is why LENR fuel preparation takes a long time.

    The great hangup on the replication of the Holmlid experiment is the time it takes the SPPs to become fully charged with energy. It takes weeks of laser stimulation. This delay might be greatly shortened through the use of an electric arc as a way to pump energy into the SPPs.

    For example, in the titanium exploding foil experiments, the SPPs become fully charged in only one shot of the spark. A electric arc is the ideal EMF format for charging the surface of rydberg hydrogen matter to optimum energy storage levels.

    In another example, the EVO experiments of Ken Shoulders produce a SPP reaction by using only a single spark discharge.

    The arc will also produce a wave of UV and X-Rays that could be used to calibrate the arrival of sub-atomic particles at the detector which show what type of mesons are being generated.

    I was thinking of a way to do calibration in the Holmlid experiment. If a electric arc was used to produce excitation of the Holmlid experiment rather than a laser, the EMF and electrons from the arc could be used as a benchmark for time of arrival of XUV, x-rays and UV radiation and high energy electrons at the detector. A run with the catalyst could then be compared to the null run where only the electric arc produces excited subatomic particles.

    Now, let us consider what makes Hydrogen Rydberg matter special in LENR engineering. Holmlid knows that Rydberg hydrogen is important, but he does not know why it is so.

    One cause for the special nature of the hydrogen Rydberg matter nanoparticle is its potential to focus SPP radiation from the tip of the hydrogen Rydberg matter particle.

    The plains of the Rydberg matter particle could accumulate, transfer through parabolic reflection, and focus the SPP magnetic beams that are generated along the entire length of the Rydberg nanoparticle into a tightly focused spot in front of the nanoparticle.

    The water based particle produced in cavitation has a similar structure of reflecting plains where hydrogen and oxygen atoms form a layered structure of planes in a nanowire construction. Here again, the SPP mechanism causes LENR in cavitation.

  • There seems to be two broad schools of thought in LENR: those who believe that LENR is catalytic and those who don’t. Peter has educated me in the catalytic paradigm and I now join him in his thinking on nuclear catalysis. Ed Storms is not in the catalytic school of thought. It seems to me that the school of catalysis considers the production of the catalytic effect must originate from the catalytic action of an Exotic Neutral Particle. There are a dozen ideas as to what that particle is but it can be tested for. To illustrate for example, the experiments doing the Cathode 64 test could have placed the cathode on a photographic emulsion immediately after LENR activity has stopped to check for particle tracts. If an experiment does not show ENP tracts, than the concept of ENP is falsified.

    Ed Storms says: “It is well known in research that we see only what we are expecting to see. This is a universal experience and says nothing about the competence of the researcher. For example, if radiation were expected, a detector would be set up. If radiation were not expected and a detector was not used, any radiation would not be seen. The radiation would remain invisible and be ignored. It would not be discovered no matter how competent the researcher.”

    Researchers that expect to see ENP particle tracts have seen them. If the ENP camp wants to kill off the catalytic ENP school of thought, falsify the all ENP theory by testing for the ENP when excess heat is observed in an experiment.

    • Official Post

    Hydroton is not a catalyst, but in Ed Storms theory the crack are geometric catalyst, which lower coulombic barrier.

    Note about co-deposition that it seems to be a nanostructured material, where components like hydroton and cracks may be synthetized.
    I won't be surprised if the NAE is not an hydroton in a crack, but something 1D or 2D in some slightly different environment. Hydroton is one of the only speculation of Ed. the rest of his theory is just Occam razor assumption and elimination of the impossible under those assumptions.

    The best way to find an LENR theory is not to look for a detailed "story telling" of how it works.
    I think it would be more productive to find the characteristic of the "animals" in that story.

    Ed propose a "NAE" animal.

    For me one key characteristic of LENr, to confirm, is the huge preference for low energy outcome.
    Low energy radiations, low energy isotopes.
    This mean that the reaction does not works like hot fusion by overcoming a high energy barrier, but the opposite way.

    For me, based on what I read in various papers, and what I did not read, it seems LENR is like filling a barrel from the bottom, until a floating ball can get out.

    Ed propose a quantum mechanism where a Schrödinger cat NAE radiates energy from the possible pep fusion. This is compatible with that idea...

    Maybe is it premature to talk of crack and hydroton ?
    I would talk of an animal.
    This animal is lasy, avoiding to radiate energy quickly...

    This animal is insulated from chemistry or it would obey usual rules preventing high energy concentration and LENR.

    Alternative to hydroton, I may consider something inspired by [lexicon]WLS theory[/lexicon], with a 2-D schrodinger cat NAE, or why not a fractal network NAE like the one discovered recently to explain HTSC.

  • @AlainCo

    I have proved that the SPP can produces a monopole magnetic field. Experimental data from many LENR experiments show that the exotoce neutral particle(ENP) that causes LENR is a monopole. Any competing ENP must be shown to produce a monopole magnetic field. Ed Storms has not meet this theoretical requirement. So far, the SPP is the only ENP that meets this difficult requirement.

    Please explain to me the flaw in this logic if any.

  • http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0801/0801.2752.pdf

    Here is the math support for the “Mössbauer Effect”. It shows that a monopole magnetic field is the most sensitive element to the Mössbauer effect.

    From the Urutskoiev exploding titanium foil experiment experiment

    4) Various difficulties of interpretation gradually led Urutskoiev and his research team to the conclusion that magnetic poles could be a possible source of the strange radiation effects they had observed. They became aware of the present author’s work and a fruitful collaboration has been initiated.

    From the very beginning, an important experiment was realized by Urutskoiev and Ivoilov [54], using the fact that 57Fe is at the same time magnetic and the most sensitive element to the Mössbauer effect. They irradiated, at some meters from the source of the supposed monopoles, a sample of 57Fe . Behind the iron sample was one pole of a long linear magnet, in order to repel the monopoles of the same sign and attract the monopoles of the opposite sign. Owing to the Mössbauer effect, they found a distinct shift of a characteristic γ ray.

    They repeated the experiment with the other pole of the magnet behind the iron sample and, with the same exposure they found a γ ray shift in the opposite direction [54].

    One can make two remarks about this experiment :

    a) This is one of the most brilliant proof of monopole magnetism. But there are others : for instance, the fact that Ivoilov focused a monopole beam with an electromagnet.

    b) If the 57Fe target sample used in the Mössbauer experiment is abandoned for three days, the preceding characteristic γ ray spectrum goes back to its mean normal position. This half-life effect seems to hold for all the effects of magnetism induced by monopoles: they seem to have a limited time of life (not predicted by theory). But other effects, such isotopic shifts are definitive.

    From this experimental result, the half life of SPP monopole magnetism is three days.

    54. N. Ivoilov & L. Urutskoiev, The influence of « strange » radiation on Mössbauer spectrum of F57 in metallic foils, Rus. Applied Physics, N° 5, 2004 (in Russian).


  • Clustered LENR reaction require that LENR be a catalytic reaction both in the cause of the reaction and the effects of the reaction.

    Bose condensation in LENR requires that LENR must be a catalytic effect. Only a catalytic based reaction can support Bose condensation. A catalytic object is the same before and after the reaction...it does not change. The LENR reaction cannot continue as a Bose condensate unless the Exotic Neutral Particle(ENP) is unchanged by the LENR reaction. This implies that any change such as energy gain that LENR produces must be shared equally by all the members of the Bose condensate.

    This clustered reaction effect in a Bose condensate is called super-absorption. But in the experiments of J.C. Fisher, he shows that tens of thousands of LENR reactions are caused by a single catalytic exotic neutral particle (ENP). It is possible that this free moving particle is entangled with others of it kind in a bose condensate which shared equally in the energy produced in the clustered reaction.

    For example in a extreme case, it looks like the 100 micron nickel Lugano ash particle #1 was converted to Ni62 in one clustered LENR reaction involving many billions of nickel and lithium atoms. The energy produced by this huge clustered reaction could have been buffered by a Bose condensate of ENPs.

  • Axil Wrote:

    I have proved that the SPP can produces a monopole magnetic field. Experimental data from many LENR experiments show that the exotoce neutral particle(ENP) that causes LENR is a monopole. Any competing ENP must be shown to produce a monopole magnetic field. Ed Storms has not meet this theoretical requirement. So far, the SPP is the only ENP that meets this difficult requirement.

    Longview responds:

    Without even looking at your "proof" I can say one thing, it is exceedingly unlikely you have "proven" anything in a positive sense. In formal mathematics, yes, in physical science no. Absence of disproof is the best you can hope for, and that would be after extensive and critical examination by others following your very detailed and published experimental protocols.

    But I am willing to examine your experimental protocols when they are published. Others, will doubtless be the final arbiters of your self ascribed "proof".

    Weblinks to cartoons and photos from diverse experimental publications, while sometimes interesting, will not suffice to prove much at all. They might be suggestive of future paths of research.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Want To Advertise or Sponsor Us?
CLICK HERE to contact us.