Edmund Storms: Q&A ON THE NAE

  • The lead isn't formed during cold fusion. During hot fusion everything is possible in similar way, like during Holmlid's experiments.
    It just depends on how much of energy would you pump into it at start, because hot fusion apparently has no upper limit of hotness.

    You can be as ignorant, as the worst cold fusion deniers, if the facts don't play well with your toy ideas (theory is too strong denomination here).

    See for example my list of helium-formation citations.


    Notice the evidence of fission where the percentage of heavy elements elements have been reduced.


    LENR-Induced Transmutation of Nuclear Waste


    Abstract —
    Quantum Rabbit (QR) research on the low-energy fusion and fission (low-energy nuclear reactions, or LENR) of various elements indicates possible pathways for applying that process to reducing nuclear materials. In a New Energy Foundation (NEF)-funded test conducted at Quantum Rabbit lab in Owls Head, Maine, QR researchers initiated a possible low-energy fission reaction in which 204Pb fissioned into 7Li and 197Au (204Pb → 7Li + 197Au).1 This reaction may have been triggered by a low-energy fusion reaction in which 7Li fused with 32S to form 39K (7Li + 32S → 19K). These results confirmed earlier findings showing apparent low-energy fusion and fission reactions.2 Moreover, subsequent research with boron indicates apparent low-energy fusion reactions in which boron fuses with oxygen to form aluminum and with sulfur to form scandium.3 At the same time, the QR group has achieved what appear to be low-energy transmutations of carbon using carbon-arc under vacuum and in open air.4 The research group at QR believes these processes can be adapted to accelerate the natural decay cycle of uranium-235, plutonium-239, radium-226 and the fission products cesium-137, iodine-129, technetium-99 and strontium-90 with the long-term potential of reducing the threat posed by radioactive isotopes to human health and the environment.

    Note that the reaction that Ed Storms proposes does not address this sort of transmutation process that is described here, and nether does hydrinos or the Asstroblaster.

    Edited 3 times, last by axil ().

  • Quote

    Notice the evidence of fission where the percentage of heavy elements elements have been reduced.

    And what? You talked about fusion and the whole story is about cold fusion: neither fission, neither hot fusion is interesting for anyone here..

    • Official Post

    There is a problem about way to consider theories, ideas, to be sure or to discuss.

    Ed follows a method, and assumptions, concluding not Hydroton, but NAE having some deduced characteristics.

    Hydroton as metallic hydrogen is more a proposal.

    There are many good reason to oppose hydroton as-is, and there are to oppose all other theories as-is.

    First don't fall into the "strawmanization" of any theories, by taking them as exact, and challenging this single option.

    Today any theory is a work in progress, if not part of the big game.

    What i like in ed's theory is the way it is build.

    Hydroton is not part of the part I love, even if it is an interesting speculation.

    Slow Fusion, NAE, coherence, are what convinced me... but it may be wrong, especially if the initial assumptions are refuted (physics and chemistry conservatism, conservation of miracle, exploited pile of replicated experiments).

    Competent people could simply try to fill the hole in his theory, propose alternative, play like kids with Lego, laugh at problems, smile at progress, instead of trying to defend a candidate for Presidential Election.

    What is killing LENR is that instead of trying to improve others works, most people battle for their own pet-theory.

    This statement is part of the talk of Michael McKubre in last two ICCF.

    Ed needs help, because there is hole in his theory, and because probably Hydroton need more ideas to work, or to be replaced by a better idea.

    He proposes, not only few ideas, few conclusions, but most of all an approach.

    Starting from his travel into the challenges of LENR experiments and physics rules, one may find a missed turn, and take it toward another place. William Colis seems to have gone to the concept of Exotic Neutral particle... why not.

    Axil, Zephir, Holmlid, need helps too, and may help too.

    And the 10T gorilla in the kitchen is compatibility with experiments, and choice of what we consider as confirmed results, vs to be confirmed results.

    As long as theorist will oppose the mass of replicated experiments, exploiting few experiments who please them, there will be risk of unrealism.

    Ed is also accused to ignore some results (eg: Erzyon ), but they are less replicated results than the mass of PdD and the Iwamura thin-film line of experiments. It is not easy...

  • It seems to me that the present difficulty on the research side of LENR is not that people battle for their own pet-theories; if anything, they do not defend their theories enough and effectively enough, ignoring potent critique. It seems to me that the difficulties are that (1) there are not enough systematic experiments to fill in gaps in the experimental record needed to narrow down the theoretical possibilities; (2) theory building often proceeds in a vacuum anyway, ignoring existing experiments altogether; (3) theories that attempt to be cognizant of experiment nonetheless fall back on unwarranted assumptions and strong opinions about what must be concluded from existing experiments, abetted by polemic; and (4) people are willing in this way to make due with the patchy experimental record when they really should wait for further experiment before disqualifying a number of possibilities that are still in play. The challenges boil down to a need for further experiment, systematically planned and carried out, to probe the predictable consequences of theories, and to support or chip away at basic, low-level assumptions that go into theory building, such as whether deuterium is even a fuel. Of course, there is a financial difficulty that has hindered such an effort.

  • Do researchers – who are capable to investigate the theoretical and experimental difficulties about LENR – have problems about the present situation? I don’t think so.

    In other words, every person who is disappointed about the way it goes, has the problem that he cannot change the situation.

    He is dependent on 2 types of other people who have to solve the problems. First dependent on researchers who solve the theoretical and experimental problems and second on the scientific authorities who tell him that he can trust the results of the researchers. These are the “daily” problems every layman has to face: a double dependence. He cannot do the work and he cannot judge the results.

    • Official Post

    It is true that we should at least agree on questions like, for good old PdD electrolysis with Excess Heat:

    • Is there He4 produced , which relation to heat (seems so)
    • Is there DD our HD or HH consumed ? (tritiums have been seen consumed, but for H/D hard to measure)
    • Is there heavy atom transmutations commensurate with heat production?
    • Is there Iwamura (X+2,4,6d )style transmutations in wet cell?
    • is there tritium production, and what is the relation wif H/D ratio, temperature, heat
    • is high loading necessary for heat production, and wht is the law?
    • is temperature an important factor, and what is the law?
    • are X-rays/gamma, of which energy produced systematically or occasionally ? is there relation with heat? are they coherent, oriented, focused, originated? specifically
    • is there systematic, occasional production of magnetic of RF field? of Current ? is ther relation to heat ? which orientation and structure ?
    • is there muons production in wet cell ?
    • is there neutron production in wet call, which energy, and which relation to heat ?
    • is there anomalous radiations, particles that can be observed reliably ?

    I also see alternative question away from PdD electrolythic cells :

    • can a working wet-cell electrod work in dry permeation experiments ? (Ed seems to predict yes)
    • what is the minimum size of powder that produce excess heat ?
    • does NiH, NiD,TiD, TiH, WD,WH work in dry or wet cells ?

    I've seen many papers proposing some experimental results, and some nice review...

    Not all is accepted, and not all can be accepted.

    One problem is to have a good "lab rat" of known efficiency, to measure and test new ideas, to compute ration, estimate laws, rule-out claims.

    For Edmund Storms the PdD cell is a good lab rat that can be easily replicated... easily for him, with a carrer of experiences in the domain.

    If dogbones were reliably producing excess heat, sure it would be an alternative, a complement.

    Dry PdD cells may be interesting (Miley seems to follow that direction).

    Holmlid is interesting, but it seems to be in conditions very far from usual LENR, not far from hot fusion. Maybe is he exploring an extreme side of the LENR parameter space...

  • axil, It ta

    I am sorry but I have to interrupt your enthusiasm. There is quite a difference between Holmlid’s experiments and Pd-lattice fusion. I don’t think that you can find any theoretical physicist who believe that a small electric current at the cathode can produce proton decay.

    Relating to your point on LENR reaction stimulation, Holmlid has detected latent energy storage capacity requirement that once met supports the preservation of a metastable state that allows the ultra dense hydrogen to persist for many weeks or months. This energy storage mechanism requires a variable time-frame for charging that is proportional to the average input energy stimulation rate. From Holmlid experimental experience, it takes some weeks to activate the UDH when laser light is used as a stimulant.

  • axil,

    I don’t know much about Holmlid’s experiments with Rydberg matter. I have read a paper he wrote about it a year ago and the only thing I remember well was the similarity between the described experiment and Pd-based LENR. However, LENR is thought to be an efficient way to convert nuclear energy into thermal energy. Using Rydberg matter to do the same is not easy and efficient. In my opinion it is a waste of time to try to establish cold fusion with the help of Rydberg matter.

    A cluster of hydrogen atoms in Rydberg state is a bit comparable with a chemical covalent bond. You have to supply a lot of energy at once to disintegrate the chemical configuration to get every constituent of the molecule on its own. In a palladium lattice it is the mass of the palladium atoms (106 x hydrogen atom) and their metallic bonding that is responsible for the stability to withstand the electrical stimulation.

    In other words, to prevent a hydrogen atom from tearing off – to influence the boundary of the nucleus – is possible in more than 1 way. However, replacing palladium by a chemical bond is very difficult because the electron of the hydrogen atom will interact with one or more atoms of the molecule. That’s why is is sensible to replace the hydrogen atoms by a molecule that consist of 2 hydrogen atoms and an intermediate atom, like the H2O molecule.

    There is a lot known (site by Martin Chaplin) about the behaviour of water molecules and Pd based LENR is not possible without some of these properties. Maybe you have asked yourself how a small DC current (~1,5 volt) can stimulate cold fusion by electrolysis.

    Water molecules can have some kind of behaviour that is a bit analogue to Rydberg states (excited states). The clusters of water molecules accumulate electromagnetic radiation by the electrons of the electric current but suddenly break up. The result is a bit comparable with nuclear fission (a configuration splits and energy is released). So there is a local increase of conductivity by a sudden supply of a dense electromagnetic wave pulse in the direction of the cathode.

    Maybe you might conclude that these dense electromagnetic pulses can elucidate Ed Stoms hypothesis about “Hydrotons” (by the way, the name “Hydroton” is coined for the small clay balls in hydroculture).

    The proposed hypothesis assumes that single hydrogen atoms form some kind of a chain that fuse at (the brim?) of nano cracks. If we propose that these hydrogen atoms are launched by the dense electromagnetic wave the result have to be some kind of hot fusion. Because the intermediating mechanism is not the increase of the boundary of the hydrogen nuclei, but it is the suddenly increase of the velocity of the hydrogen atoms/nuclei. However, there is no observation of the whole amount of hot fusion radiation. So the Hydroton hypothesis is not according to the experiments. It is a “best try”.

  • Hydrogen atoms confined in a cavity just don’t behave in the way Ed Storms predicts because of influence of Quantum Mechanics on them. When atoms are confined in a tight cavity, they gain energy because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

    Adding atoms into a confined system such as a cluster is like putting a tiger in a cage. A tiger in a big zoo with open fields will act more relaxed, because he has a lot of room to wander around. If you now confine him in smaller and smaller areas, he gets nervous and agitated. It's a lot that way with any particle. If they're free to move all around, they have low energy. Put them together and confine them in a small cavity, they get very excited and try to get out of the structure.

    This energy from confinement can be removed by the medal lattice in which the hydrogen atoms are confined.

    This heating based energy transfer process is similar to what happens in the refrigeration cycle.

    In this refrigeration cycle, a circulating refrigerant such as Freon enters the compressor as a vapor. The vapor is compressed at constant entropy and exits the compressor superheated. The superheated vapor travels through the condenser which first cools and removes the superheat and then condenses the vapor into a liquid by removing additional heat at constant pressure and temperature. The liquid refrigerant goes through the expansion valve (also called a throttle valve) where its pressure abruptly decreases, causing flash evaporation and auto-refrigeration of, typically, less than half of the liquid.

    In like manor, the hydrogen is compressed inside the cavity and this compression produces heat. The heat is removed from the cavity by the lattice as the hydrogen transfers energy to the walls of the cavity through collision. In this way the energy of hydrogen compression is converted to lattice phonons. The lattice will dissipate the energy produced by hydrogen compression as more hydrogen enteres into the cavities.

    Over time, the hydrogen will shed all the energy of compression and the hydrogen enters a state of minimum kinetic energy,

    According to J. E. Hirsch


    The origin of the Meissner effect in new and old superconductors


    I propose that the Meissner effect can only be explained if: (i) superconductivity is driven by lowering of the kinetic energy of the charge carriers[6], and (ii) superconductors expel negative charge from the interior to the surface in the transition to superconductivity[7]. This physics results in a macroscopically inhomogeneous charge distribution[8] and in the existence of macroscopic zero-point motion which manifests itself in the form of a spin current[9] in the ground state of superconductors. Neither BCS theory nor London electrodynamic theory describe this physics. Nevertheless, parts of both BCS theory and London theory are undoubtedly correct. The points (i) and (ii) are intimately connected. Kinetic energy lowering means, e.g. via Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, expansion of the electronic wave function which in turn implies outward motion of negative charge. That outward motion of negative charge explains the generation of the Meissner current is immediately seen from the action of the Lorentz force[10]. That the Meissner effect is impossible in the absence of outward motion of charge is immediately seen from the equations of motion[11] and from the fact that there is no other source of electromotive force[12]. That kinetic energy lowering drives superconductivity follows from the fact that the Meissner effect cannot occur unless there is outward motion of negative charge; outward motion of negative charge implies charge separation, hence increase in potential energy, so the ‘emf’ driving it[12] has to be lowering of kinetic energy.


    The appearance of the Meissner effect produces the configuration that Holmlid has documented through his experiments: a cooper pair of protons surrounded with a spin wave of negative charge.


    The origin 0f the "Signal"

    In one of the MFMP experiments, a burst of x-rays were detected just before excess heat was observed to begin in the dog bone reactor.

    That burst took the form of Bremsstrahlung but without the characteristic spikes of the x-rays producing the Bremsstrahlung resulting in a total smooth power curve.

    This Bremsstrahlung was produced by the onset of the Meissner effect expelling electrons from the lithium positive core when lithium in the MDMP reactor became a superconductor.

    Edited 2 times, last by axil ().

  • axil,

    When we start the DC current to an electrochemical cell with a palladium cathode, the water molecules are split into H-atoms and O-atoms at both electrodes. The palladium cathode adsorbs hydrogen atoms and – according to your hypothesis about Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle – these atoms will change their energy state and will enter – after some time – their mutual lowest energy state, Rydberg matter.

    The cluster of hydrogen atoms in a Rydberg state is obstructed by the electrons of the palladium lattice and the free electrons of the DC current. There isn’t even space for a hexagram of hydrogen atoms within a captivity of the palladium lattice. So it is very difficult to imagine there is a Rydberg cluster of excited hydrogen atoms inside.

    Moreover, superconductivity is known by its absence of electrical resistance. So it is hard to imagine how these super conductive electrons can force fusion. I am afraid you have to switch to some experiments to prove everyone that your hypothesis is correct. My imagination is not flexible enough to understand all the causal relations that you showed me.

  • See



    Edmund Storms: Q&A ON THE NAE

    New (vol. 17) Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science


    page 3

    Calanti wire also shows a reduction in electrical resistance when loaded with hydrogen.




    We believe the two phenomena, LENR and high Tc (critical temperatures) superconductivity, are related and that both need to be investigated in order to gain an understanding of the processes occurring inside the Pd lattice,” the reported concluded.

    Edited once, last by axil ().

  • Quote

    Moreover, superconductivity is known by its absence of electrical resistance. So it is hard to imagine how these super conductive electrons can force fusion.

    It is a common misconception that the primary LENR reaction is fusion. This misconception is distrutive to the comprehension of how LENR works. LENR produces muons and pions that in turn produces fusion and fission.

  • Quote

    LENR produces muons and pions that in turn produces fusion and fission.

    Nonsense, the muons and pions would make everything around LENR reactor permanently radioactive, which simply doesn't happen.

  • Quote

    Why does an asstroblaster produce less radioactive fusion than a muon?

    At first, the Astroblaster effect is required by itself for production of muons. The plain saying "voila, cold fusion runs because of muons!" doesn't explain anything, because the muons spontaneously don't form at the Earth. Once you involve muons into cold fusion mechanism, you should also explain, how the muons could form there.

    At second, the thermal vibrations are chaotic and their energy density is lower than this one of coherent laser beam. Such a beam spontaneously doesn't form in nature, it's also human invention, so it cannot be included into a cold fusion mechanism. And muons don't form during normal cold fusion without lasers and vice-versa: the Holmlid experiments with laser pulses did allegedly produce many things - except the evidence that some fusion really runs there, cold fusion the more.

    Therefore the connection of muons to cold fusion remains very disputable, to say at least. The muons are highly energetic particles, their formation requires much higher energy density, than the cold fusion itself. Therefore if some cold fusion really runs during Holmlid's experiments, then it will run way more probably as a byproduct of muon formation or like some parallel reaction rather than as a main reaction. The corelation doesn't imply causation, the fact that some things occur together doesn't imply they're dependent each other. In addition, my suspicion is, Holmlid is inexperienced in measurement of natural muon background and he could easily involve it into his measurements of muon flux with his rather primitive and nonspecific detection methods with UV scintillators. Holmlid's experiments deserve independent replication, their interpretations the more (and I even don't talk about your private interpretations of Mr. Holmlid interpretations).

  • a possible low-energy fission reaction in which 204Pb fissioned into 7Li and 197Au (204Pb → 7Li + 197Au).

    Alas this "fission" reaction is endothermic (by 8.875 MeV). It also violates parity conservation. If you want to make gold this is probably not the way to go!

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.