May 2017 be for LENR what 2016 wasn't

    Quote from MrSelfSustain

    The replicator community doesn't have a guaranteed, proven to work 95% of the time "recipe" for a high powered nickel-hydrogen reactor.


    However, I'm convinced that we are understanding more and more of what is required to clean the nickel, degas the nickel, force hydrogen into the nickel into specific spots where clusters of hydrogen atoms can accumulate, and then stimulate that hydrogen so that nuclear reactions can take place. Rossi figured out what was required long ago, and I think the replicator community is catching up with him very quickly.


    Here's where I get a bit confused on why Mills/BrLP meets such resistance on this board. Mills' device is now engineered at or close to the point of car engine reliability. The prototypes run at will, even in collaborators' labs. What's more, Mills announced his CIHT generation of Nickel-Hydrogen style anomalous heaters in 2008, at least a year before Rossi started making claims about a device that appears to be based on Nickel-Hydrogen chemistry. Mills shuttered this line of inquiry because, we know now, he was unable to achieve the energy density required for commercial competitiveness. The reaction was rate-limited, didn't scale, and required extensive reprocessing of the components over time.


    And here's the big part . . . he achieved the needed energy density only after realizing that the ionizing catalytic reaction required negative resistance such as provided in an arc current. Run the same reaction in an arc current and then you get BOOM. An ionizing catalytic reaction is the only mechanism that would go from negative feedback to positive feedback when the ambient environment goes from positive resistance to negative.


    Doesn't this fact pattern suggest a link between the LENR phenomena and hydrinos, and that Mills and his GUTCP seems to bring the control and predictability that so far has been missing in the general LENR setup?

    Quote from optiongeek

    Here's where I get a bit confused on why Mills/BrLP meets such resistance on this board. Mills' device is now engineered at or close to the point of car engine reliability. The prototypes run at will, even in collaborators' labs.


    Really? Are you sure about that? That sounds exaggerated. I have not seen any independent replications or evaluations of the claims. There are no published papers describing replications as far as I know. I am not opposed to Mills, or resistant, but until we see several independent replications his claims are not valid. They are waiting for validation, as they have been for decades. I got tired of waiting long ago, and stopped paying attention.


    I do not understand Mills, but I have talked to people who say they do, and who are sympathetic to him. They never said it was that reliable or well developed. Apart from the reliability issue, it is not even self-sustaining yet, which puts is far from being anything like a car engine. Over the years he has often claimed he is on the verge of making large generators or selling electricity, but he has not done it. I get tired of hearing him cry wolf. In that sense I guess am "resisting" him. I would call it ignoring or discounting.


    No one gets a free pass in experimental science. I don't care how many millions Mills has collected from big-name, intelligent corporate types. I don't care how solid his work appears to smart people. Without a published, independent replication he has nothing. Several other people are in the same situation, such as Piantelli and Swartz. I do not know of any published, independent replications of their work. I may have overlooked something but I doubt it.

    Quote from axil

    When LENR really gets going full blast and gigawatts are generated in cars, trains, planes, boats, houses, everywhere in everything, the muon loading will get into the terawatt levels.


    Cold fusion has been run at over 100 W for three months, continuously. I believe that if there were dangerous levels of muons, as you describe, they would have caused harm, and they would have been detected. There is no sign of them. So I expect you are wrong about this. No theorist has said anything about muons being produced by cold fusion in any paper I know of, and I know of all the papers. I have searched for the term "muon" and found nothing, other than the well-known discussions of muon-catalyzed fusion.

    Jed,


    "Have you heard any different? Do you know of any successful replications? At the ICCF conference I talked to several groups who spent months replicating, and came up with nothing. These people are far more skillful than Parkhamov and the other researchers who made the claims in the first place."


    There are a number of replications that we are both familiar with, but we disagree on the reality of the results. There are also some replications by obscure Russian teams that seemed to show excess heat, but are not often discussed on this or any other forum. Beyond that, I know of at a minimum three (just the first ones to pop in my mind) tests or series of tests by different teams of professionally educated scientists on the nickel-hydrogen system that I have been informed about, second hand. I trust my sources implicitly, and they told me that these parties have detected excess heat in nickel-hydrogen (sometimes with LiAlH4 as a hydrogen source) experiments. The results of their tests are not always successful, but in many tests the excess heat is significant beyond the "control" reactor. In some some tests, the excess heat indeed very high. Of course, I've heard from numerous other replicators about transient heating effects in these systems that are sometimes repeatable and sometimes not. Sometimes there are more mundane explanations for these apparent heating events -- molten or vaporous lithium corroding the heating wire and fuel tube. But other times "melt down" like events have been witnessed.


    I'm convinced that the Ni-H effect is indeed absolutely real. To be blunt, if there wasn't very significant evidence it was real, Industrial Heat wouldn't have purchased George Miley's patent portfolio. Because the basic mechanism for LENR reactions he proposes (defects or dislocations in the lattice being spots where hydrogen can "cluster" into highly pressurized exotic hydrogen species) would be the same for palladium and nickel based lattices. The main difference being that palladium absorbs and desorbs hydrogen at temperatures as low as room temperature at EXTREMELY faster rates than nickel. If his theory is appropriate for palladium based systems -- which I believe it to be -- then nickel hydrogen reactors should work equally as well as long as the dislocations are produced and they are filled with hydrogen.


    The problem is that creating these dislocations and filling them with hydrogen (through absorption) can be a very challenging and complex process. In the non-LENR literature on absorption of hydrogen by nickel, scientists have great difficulty repeatedly achieving the same levels/rates of absorption -- even when using the same exact brand of nickel power/bar/wire. For one thing, almost all nickel contains trapped gases that must be extracted. An old paper from fifty years ago discussed how the nickel wire sample had to be degassed for several days before each test in order for them to obtain consistent hydrogen absorption rates. In other papers, the grain structure of the nickel particles is claimed to be important, but these papers are often contradictory. In some experiments, very fine grain structures maximized hydrogen absorption. In other tests, grain structure had minimal impact. Then of course the level of contaminants plays a role as well. Mainstream non-LENR scientists have performed all sorts of tests trying to learn more about hydrogen absorption by nickel. Although I am not a scientist and I do not claim to have read every paper out there, the understanding of the finer points of hydrogen absorption seem less than fully determined.


    I seriously think that the reason most Ni-H experiments don't work is the complexities of maximizing hydrogen absorption. There are an enormous amount of variables involved that change with the batch/brand/type of nickel you're using, the temperature range you are working in, the pressure range your working in, any other substances/powerers mixed in with your nickel fuel, any pre-treatments you may have performed on your fuel, the age of your fuel, etc. There are simply a ton of considerations to think about when your planning your testing, and a ton of different techniques to try in order to maximize hydrogen absorption.


    When a "recipe" comes out, I expect it may only be completely applicable to one specific brand and type of starting nickel. Looking for Heat is planning on using a high purity "gem quality" nickel powder as a starting point. I think this is a good form of nickel to use, because it should minimize anomalies produced by contaminants.


    Re-reading the Miley patents (or I should say the Industrial Heat patents) has really helped connect more dots in my mind. George Miley's work fits very well with other patents and papers I've read that explain how excess heat can be produced by triggering reactions (via one of a number of different mechanisms) in cavities of ultra high pressure hydrogen. You may be surprised to hear me say this, but I think buying out his patents was probably a smart move in the legal sense. One of his patents -- pre-dating Fluid Heater -- even mentions the use of metal hydride as a hydrogen source inside of a reactor with layers of nickel and palladium. I know little about patent law, but this seemed at least *interesting* to me. I don't know if it means anything for "Fluid Heater" or not.

    Quote

    Here's where I get a bit confused on why Mills/BrLP meets such resistance on this board. Mills' device is now engineered at or close to the point of car engine reliability. The prototypes run at will, even in collaborators' labs. What's more, Mills announced his CIHT generation of Nickel-Hydrogen style anomalous heaters in 2008, at least a year before Rossi started making claims about a device that appears to be based on Nickel-Hydrogen chemistry. Mills shuttered this line of inquiry because, we know now, he was unable to achieve the energy density required for commercial competitiveness. The reaction was rate-limited, didn't scale, and required extensive reprocessing of the components over time.


    And here's the big part . . . he achieved the needed energy density only after realizing that the ionizing catalytic reaction required negative resistance such as provided in an arc current. Run the same reaction in an arc current and then you get BOOM. An ionizing catalytic reaction is the only mechanism that would go from negative feedback to positive feedback when the ambient environment goes from positive resistance to negative.


    Doesn't this fact pattern suggest a link between the LENR phenomena and hydrinos, and that Mills and his GUTCP seems to bring the control and predictability that so far has been missing in the general LENR setup?


    I don't doubt there could be something like a hydrino in which an electron goes down to a lower orbit around a proton. I'll even say it is likely BLP has measured excess energy from such reactions. But I don't think there is any link between the hydrino and LENR. In the Suncell, I think there are probably very few "hydrino" reactions. My best guess is that the same mechanism that happens to induce fusion in the ultra-dense nano-hydrogen bubble or cluster in a transition metal lattice is at work in the molten silver. The hydrogen probably forms high pressure bubbles that are then stimulated by the high current resulting in LENR reactions. These high current and/or voltage spikes are also one mechanism (in addition to pressure and temperature changes) that stimulates reactions in the E-Cat.


    If Mills can work all the many bugs out of his system, then the Suncell does have a lot of potential. Basically, I consider it to be a maxed out -- constantly in runaway -- version of the hot cat, but there are many engineering challenges he will have to face to make it run continuously for weeks or months at a time. So far, it has only ran for minutes at full output.


    The basic nickel-hydrogen system is much simpler in my opinion. Although they may not produce quite the same level of output, they can heat up reactor cores to over a thousand degrees in self sustaining mode. This is enough to change our world forever.

    Quote from MrSelfSustain

    The basic nickel-hydrogen system is much simpler in my opinion. Although they may not produce quite the same level of output, they can heat up reactor cores to over a thousand degrees in self sustaining mode. This is enough to change our world forever.


    Yes, Ni-H is a simpler set up. However, as you say above, no one seems to have a reliable way to get these devices running. But the one researcher I know of who tried on his own to get Mills' Cu(OH_2) and CuBr_2 set-up running on a completely independent basis *was* successful on his first try. Prof. Gil Crouse of Auburn read one of Mills' paper, decided to replicate, and was successful. Prof. Crouse was quite happy to describe his experience. If you want a reliable way to produce excess heat, why not try Mills' recipe?


    http://brilliantlightpower.com…/CrouseDSCReplication.pdf

    Quote from optiongeek


    Doesn't this fact pattern suggest a link between the LENR phenomena and hydrinos, and that Mills and his GUTCP seems to bring the control and predictability that so far has been missing in the general LENR setup?


    A plague on both your houses, Mills and LENR, hypocrisy runs thick as syrup here in both the LENR community and BrLP communities.


    Defkalion has been roundly castigated as a fraud here even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the Defkalion development and science approach was superior compared with most in use at that time and even underway today.


    Defkalion developed a real time spectrometer that showed transmutations occurring second by second while the LENR process was underway. What defkalion found was that light element transmutation was the majority transmutation reaction as described in a private message:


    Quote

    We can support with hard data now (based on the first results of our new real time spectroscopy) that heavy elements transmutations play a secondary role, even not absent, in heat production. Most of the transmutation effects are in the light elements zone (up to B).


    The SunCell is the exact same technology as the Defkalion system, an arc based plasma reaction. Therefore, transmutation must be occurring in the SunCell reaction.


    However, if you discount the Defkalion data as a fraud, then hydrinos are the only horse in the theoretical race. But I would love to check out the SunCell reaction with the Defkalion's real time spectrometer to remove all doubt.

    Option Geek,


    Two words: not nuclear.


    The hydrino reactions are usually only capable of producing around 200eV. However, a p+p, p+Ni, or p+Li reaction can produce MILLIONS of electron volts per reaction. Literally, even the weakest nuclear reactions produces over a THOUSAND TIMES more power than the strongest hydrino reaction. Proton lithium reactions could produce six or seven thousand times the energy per reaction. This is why the hydrino technology is only interesting to me only in terms of the hydrino hydrides that can be produced that could have a wide variety of uses according to Randell Mills. A hydrino reactor would have to be continually re-fueled with hydrogen, but an LENR reactor (because of the huge amount of nuclear energy released per reaction) could operate for months or maybe years between changing out the fuel.


    Since I'm convinced Ni-H reactors have indeed produced excess heat, I'm much more interested in optimizing this technology. I sincerely believe that 80% of the challenge is optimizing hydrogenation which actually FORMS THE DEFECTS that we desire hydrogen to collect in. A very significant method of optimizing hydrogenation may be the application of ultrasound to the nickel particles. This could be a fantastic first step that optimizes all additional processes. In short ultrasound irradiation of nickel particles in a hydrocarbon slurry:


    - Removes the oxide layer as the particles collide. (Absolutely Proven)
    - Atomically roughens the surface of the nickel enhancing its catalytic activity. (Absolutely Proven)
    - In some cases applies allotropes of carbon such as sheets of imperfect graphene that may further enhance the catalytic ability. (Strong evidence, but the carbon is not always deposited.)
    - Creates nanoscale defects inside of the nickel lattice. (Some evidence when ultrasound is directly applied at high intensity to bulk nickel. It is unknown if this will happen to particles colliding in a slurry. My thinking is that the powerful impacts could create shockwaves through the nickel that damage the lattice.)
    - Increases the catalytic power of nickel dramatically -- hundreds or thousands of times. (Absolutely Proven)


    Basically, what ultrasound irradiation does is turn ordinary oxidized nickel powder into a substance almost as catalytic as palladium or platinum black. Ultrasound irradiated nickel, despite not having an expanded surface area, is also almost as catalytic as Raney nickel!


    I think this technique holds huge potential. Of course, it is only the first step of several that should probably be taken. To maximize the potential of nickel to uptake hydrogen, it absolutely needs to undergo vacuuming for up to DAYS as the heat is gradually increased and other procedures.


    Once researchers get more serious about hydrogen absorption, I think we'll see a LOT more successful replications.

    Quote from JedRothwell


    Cold fusion has been run at over 100 W for three months, continuously. I believe that if there were dangerous levels of muons, as you describe, they would have caused harm, and they would have been detected. There is no sign of them. So I expect you are wrong about this. No theorist has said anything about muons being produced by cold fusion in any paper I know of, and I know of all the papers. I have searched for the term "muon" and found nothing, other than the well-known discussions of muon-catalyzed fusion.


    As a IH backer, you should sensitize yourself. It is in the interests of IH to find out how to detect muons because muon detection is not easy. Before they invest big money in bringing LENR into commercial usage, they should know what they are getting themselves into.

    Axil,


    I'm convinced that Defkalion was at least able to in some cases produce excess heat. However, I doubt they had a system nearly as stable and reliable as some versions of the E-Cat. Their system was remarkably similar to the E-Cat in some ways: nickel metal as a host for the hydrogen atoms, the use of metal hydrides as hydrogen sources (you have mentioned the two they used on this forum), and a "spark" that could create atomic hydrogen. My guess is that in some circumstances they produced excess heat. Although they did have total failures such as when their system of measuring water flow in one test was proven to be erroneous.


    In all of these Ni-H technologies the central theme seems to be finding ways of getting the hydrogen into the nickel. By utilizing a spark, they were able to disassociate molecular hydrogen so it could quickly penetrate into the nickel lattice. This in and of itself could stimulate nuclear reactions in "clusters" but the electromagnetic shockwave from the spark probably stimulated internal hydrogen clusters as well.

    MrSelfSustain,


    Ken Shoulders has shown how the SunCell and other plasma based LENR systems work. The key is the generation of metallic nanoparticles that condense from the metal vapor in the plasma. R Mills admits as much when he says that the silver vapor generates the self sustain mode in the SunCell. The interface layer between the nanoparticle and the hydrogen generates Surface Plasmon Polaritons that are the active agent in the LENR reaction. The heat and light of the plasma pump the SPPs to produce an anapole magnetic field that generate the LENR reaction.



    For an introduction to this idea See


    Brilliant Light Power <> UDH?




    Also See


    BrLP meeting today 6 Dec 2016


    Brilliant Light Power <> UDH?


    Electron-assisted fusion


    Hydrogen couln't be essential ?


    What you are interested in is the formation of ultra dense hydrogen (UDH) as a nanoparticle. SPP's and UDH work well together because the SPP cover the surface base spin layer of the UDH just like they do for any metallic nanoparticle. UHD/SPP based reactions are the most powerful and that is what Rossi is using in the QuarkX reactor.


    See


    Freethinker's replication attempts

    @optiongeek
    Mills is not opposed by all LENR followers. Only by some. I think it is because they don´t understand each other very well. Mills thinks LENR is bullshit because he just sees one possible mechanism for LENR and that is hydrino catalyzed fusion (shrunken H atom has much higher probability for “tunneling” or to be tunneled). And he expects hydrino catalyzed fusion to be in a non economic power/energy range. With saying “LENR is bullshit” Mills does not take some major experimental results of LENR research into account (like SPAWAR – Pamela Mosier-Boss et al) which show transmutation and thermal runaway which is not explainable with a simple hydrino reaction.
    The LENR folks on the other hand already work with the “crap science” stigma and studying the theorys of another “crap scientist” is probably too much. For most people (including LENR scientists) Mills seems to be too much away from established physics to put effort into understanding him.


    Bringing these two groups together is pointless right now. Mills (probably) will be able to show a closed loop system within the next two years that can run for a day or two. After this demonstration LENR researches will have to view all their results in the new (brilliant) light of GUTCP. My guess is that high power LENR is not so far away with a proper theory (GUTCP) and a working hydrino generator.


    @ Jed
    There are independent replications. Optiongeek posted one but there are also results of two world class plasma physicists that used their own equipment in their own labs. They looked at the spectrum of the plasma with the hydrino catalyst and with a chemically similar but different material.


    Conrads, H, R Mills, and Th Wrubel. (2003) “Emission in the deep vacuum ultraviolet from a plasma formed by incandescently heating hydrogen gas with trace amounts of potassium carbonate.” Plasma Sources Sci Technol 12: 389–395.


    Driessen, N. M., E. M. van Veldhuizen, P. Van Noorden, R. J. L. J. De Regt, and G. M. W. Kroesen. (2005) “Balmer-alpha line broadening analysis of incandescently heated hydrogen plasmas with potassium catalyst.” In XXVIIth ICPIG, Eindoven, the Netherlands. 18-22 July.


    There was a german report on BLP and the research of Conrads which gives some additional information to the first paper. Here is my translation of the relevant part:
    …Critics [of Mills] insist, that most external validations of his experiments are not independent because BLP has either consulted or the experiments were conducted in BLPs labs. These was avoided by the professor of physics Johannes Conrads. Conrads was personally interested in this work but his long time working place, the research facility Jülich, feared an image loss if replications of Mills were conducted in Jülich. The Ruhr Universität Bochum was more open in 2001 under the restriction, that his research was not about Mills “crazy theory”. But Mills plasma lamp burned. “I well remember the sun burn one day later” said the involved physicists Thomas Wrubel. The BLP reaction produced intense UV light. “From theory it is not predicted that such extreme UV radiation exists in this setup”, comments Gerrit Kroesen of technical university Eindhoven, who studies the BLP process himself. “You have to bend yourself a lot to find an explanation”.


    Conrads and Wrubel examined the mysterious glow with known methods. They also modified the experiment. They worked on it for one year, but an explanation for their results could not be found because “ the minimum energy [for their spectroscopic results] was not there. Either we have a new chemical reaction we could not identifiy or analyse or it is something very odd.” Wrubel said. Mills was added as a co-auther when they published their results in 2003, because he gave them the reaction vessel.

    Quote

    I think it is because they don´t understand each other very well. Mills thinks LENR is bullshit because he just sees one possible mechanism for LENR and that is hydrino catalyzed fusion

    It just illustrates, that Randell Mills isn't such smart, unbiased researcher the more - because many systems which he claimed as a hydrino processes were later proven being LENR transmutation with no doubt (like the nickel-carbonate electrolysis exhibiting isotope shifts). After all, the LENR is much wider concept involving whatever atom nuclei, not just protons - whereas the hydrino model remains constrained to hydrogen fusion in general. Therefore Mills cannot hope, he could explain with hydrinos all low energy nuclear reactions including these ones, which are running without hydrogen.


    There is still nonzero probability, that the evolution of heat during SunCell plasma isn't result of hydrino or even LENR/Cold fusion, but some unknown yet overunity process, which has been reported already for plasmas. Maybe the process in which the SunCell plasma gains additional energy isn't so different from processes, which the solar corona gets its high energy. Randell Mills is indeed saying, that in both cases the hydrinos are involved, but it can be still the dark matter related stuff. In particular, the highest temperature of solar plasma is observed above sunspots, which would indicate, that its powered with stream of axions or neutrinos from solar core, which are focused by magnetic field of sunspot.

    I think that right now is the big test for the suncell E.g. to close the globe and actually run it for a day pumping in significant amout of hydrogene. This means that we can start get reliable COP numbers that would match a real comercial setup and well proven with basic calormetry and also see how much hydrogene is actually consumed for each joule of energy. Also technically this is a critical thing to do. There are a ton of difficulties that can show up when they do this. In a sense the energy release is obvious if it is not a scam and I see the scam hypothesis as a very fringe and weird and unreal theory, but to make the next step is a critical test that their technical theory matches reality. Closing the loop is not that critical to my mind, in order to prove it's function, yes there is a few issues that will be on trial then but I think for accepting the machine as viable, this step of closing the gloibe and run it up in temperature and duration is the big step. Remember that if they miss the target and just reach say 2000 degrees celcius or that the sublimation e.g. risk of clogging the CPV panels materilize and if they can't overcome it, running a steam turbine is still profitable. Just closing the globe, prove it worksand then get e.g. MIT or any other high profile scientific organizarion testing it will essentially be a lackmus test - no need for CPV here. Think about it, you pump in litre after liter in it and if the output is hydrinos you would typically have a nice entertaining quiz of actually decide what the output is. In a sense you would realize that you have a materieal comming out that take up space and weight but is else invisible e.g. dark matter and science can do what it does best - discover it.

    Quote

    Here's where I get a bit confused on why Mills/BrLP meets such resistance on this board. Mills' device is now engineered at or close to the point of car engine reliability. The prototypes run at will, even in collaborators' labs. What's more, Mills announced his CIHT generation of Nickel-Hydrogen style anomalous heaters in 2008, at least a year before Rossi started making claims about a device that appears to be based on Nickel-Hydrogen chemistry. Mills shuttered this line of inquiry because, we know now, he was unable to achieve the energy density required for commercial competitiveness. The reaction was rate-limited, didn't scale, and required extensive reprocessing of the components over time.

    As always, a gullible enthusiast confusing claims with proven facts. Let me know when a lab independent of Mills runs a machine of his which can be proven to make more output than is input without constant addition of fresh fuel. Let me know when that lab is a reliable one like Sandia or ORNL or CERN or UL or even Google, GE, GM, or SpaceX. So far, everyone who agrees with Mills is obscure, at best and most are paid by Mills.


    Quote

    I'm convinced that Defkalion was at least able to in some cases produce excess heat. However, I doubt they had a system nearly as stable and reliable as some versions of the E-Cat.

    Complete nonsense. If they had had something, they'd be rich and working instead of belly up in ignominious oblivion like they are. They were nothing but arrogant, lying blowhards. And most of us know what Rossi is. Or we should by now.


    Jed wrote:

    Quote

    Cold fusion has been run at over 100 W for three months...

    Link, please?

    I am obliged to point out the Supersymmetry and grand unification of forces is junk science too. All the math that supports this junk is thought by science to be too beautiful not to be true, but as it is coming to be known, all that math is crap based on fantasy.


    Quote

    Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. - John Adams


    It is not necessary to look inside the SunCell to deduce how it works. Its emanations will tell the tale. If Mills does not vent the gases, then we know that LENR is the reaction because hydrinos need hydrogen to function. If Mill vents the exhaust gases then He3 will tells us that LENR is the reaction. If muons are detected being produced by the SunCell then we know that LENR is the SunCell's reaction. If the SunCell stops operating through helium 3 poisoning, then we know LENR is the SunCell's reaction.


    Mills will need to post guards around each SunCell that he leases to keep the facts from being revealed. The facts will not be denied.

    Quote from Epimetheus

    There are independent replications. Optiongeek posted one but there are also results of two world class plasma physicists that used their own equipment in their own labs. They looked at the spectrum of the plasma with the hydrino catalyst and with a chemically similar but different material.


    Conrads, H, R Mills, and Th Wrubel. (2003) “Emission in the deep vacuum ultraviolet from a plasma formed by incandescently heating hydrogen gas with trace amounts of potassium carbonate.” Plasma Sources Sci Technol 12: 389–395.


    Driessen, N. M., E. M. van Veldhuizen, P. Van Noorden, R. J. L. J. De Regt, and G. M. W. Kroesen. (2005) “Balmer-alpha line broadening analysis of incandescently heated hydrogen plasmas with potassium catalyst.” In XXVIIth ICPIG, Eindoven, the Netherlands. 18-22 July.


    This does not count. We need to see a replication of the excess heat effect, done with a method more understandable and reliable than the ones Mills uses. Even if these other anomalies are real, they do not prove that the excess heat is real.

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

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.