Ken Shoulders ; The Man Who Made Black Holes


  • You predict hydrogen atoms can cluster independent of any matrix. I know of no evidence for the formation of hydrogen clusters outside of normal chemical interaction. If they should form, the conditions in the chemical structure must be very different from those normally present in a chemical system. A very rare and unusual condition must form first in which normal chemical behavior no longer applies.


    The clustering of hydrogen atoms forms the basis of Holmlid'e ultra dense hydrogen technology. The process by which these clusters form is through the formation of Hole Superconductivity. The formation of this state is driven by the minimization of energy. Rossi has referenced this process in his last paper and states in chapter 4 that these hydrogen clusters are the key to his reaction.

  • Chemical states are explained very well without the need to apply relativity corrections or space-time distortions. These concepts are applied when high energy is involved because they are needed to explain the behavior. They are not needed to explain the behavior of a chemical system because the energies are not large enough to justify such correction factors.


    The energies in electromagnetically based quantum states are indeed to small to justify relativity and to small to cause nuclear reactions.


    For years, fusion research has been trying to provide the promise of nuclear fusion using inertial confinement. Always there has been a need for better confinement. Now by using weak interacting quantum states, a new form of confinement allows fusion below the Lawson criteria. Rather than the forcing atoms into smaller space, weak interacting quantum states, (WQS) place atoms in in time-space that is dilated and contracted.


    WQS are accessed by absorption of high energy photons. There are 240 accessible states between hydrogen ionization and neutron decay (13.5878925 ev to 0.7824260693 MeV specific to within 2.0E-5 ev). These states have quantum numbers related as follows E=n2hv. The high energy photons required for WQS, phat photons, are supplied from hydrogen ionization. This relationship of hydrogen Phats have be known for almost 40 years. What is new is that they create a catalyst for fusion. The interaction of a phat with hydrogen is new chemistry. Chemistry is described by states, so the description of new states is required.


    These weak states are not electromagnetically based quantum mechanics. The weak force must use W particles or other weak force-based bosons. With WQS there is production of a W particles then its conversion to an antineutrino and an electron and back to W particles in a pattern that produces a non-transverse wave superpositioned on the hydrogen atom. Non-transverse because it uses quarks in the nucleus and the electron in its electromagnetically based quantum orbit and because instant relativity is one dimensional. The various weak based quantum states are specific to energy levels listed above. Only state n= 240 has the expectation to produce a neutron. One calculates expectations using shrinkage of hydrogen to a neutron and neutron decay time as a basis, one calculates L/L0 = m0/m =Δt0/Δt =Lorentz factor. Look at my pending patent to see details. Further, one can predict a rest mass for the anti-neutrino, assign a shrinkage value and a positive charge shielding value to each quantum state. One can insert the relative positive charge shielding directly into the equation for the coulomb barrier to predict how much less energy is required to bridge that barrier when either the projectile or the target has a WQS at a known quantum level. Relativity based on antineutrinos is the source of containment for each atom. Also, WQS create a giant dipole in the nucleus because instant relativity is one dimensional and the wave is non-transverse. The dipole results in a magnetic field so extreme that WQS affected atoms can bond magnetically. This extreme magnetic field is the predicted and the observed result of relativity; the relative motion of the electron and a nuclear dipole.

  • You predict hydrogen atoms can cluster independent of any matrix. I know of no evidence for the formation of hydrogen clusters outside of normal chemical interaction. If they should form, the conditions in the chemical structure must be very different from those normally present in a chemical system. A very rare and unusual condition must form first in which normal chemical behavior no longer applies. Simply using the description "superpostioning weak states" adds nothing of value because it does not give any information about how the rare condition can be produced. An explanation is useful only when it allows understanding to move forward by allowing the idea to be tested. How would you plan to cause and then test this behavior in the lab?


    I hope the detail in previous post helped with the " very rare and unusual condition" which results in new states and the co-incidence with reverse neutron decay such that a condition which produces hydrogen phats is a condition that produces a catalyst cluster. It was Santilli who created a plan and produced results to test this behavior in the lab. Although that wasn't his intension.


    Nothing in the above description of interaction (superpostioning) of a electromagnetically based quantum state with weak force-based quantum states requires a solid state. Although, it is possible to calculate the specific distance between conductive surfaces to produce a waveguide. A waveguide for specific wavelengths which are required to form the states of hydrogen above. The prediction is a form of dense hydrogen at the surface or inside of a hydrogen absorbing conductive metal. I’ve done the calculations and you can too. They require introducing some imperfections in the lattice structure to get the distance between layers of metal right. I have mentioned other evidences with tie to LENR as you define it. But, working with metals for proof is your limitation not mine.


    Rather the proof in my pending patent is analysis in the gas phase. I didn’t use Santilli’s explanation of magnecules or his theory because I did not believe it possible to deform hydrogen significantly from it quantum state. When I first saw all the mass spectra data showing all the new masses because of magnecules, I was astonished that such a result could be possible. In fact, based on electromagnetically based quantum states or chemistry as it is currently defined, it isn’t possible.


    Santilli’s data and experiment provided an opportunity to define the origin of magnecules differently from Santill. (see the previous post) . His data is certified data from an independent lab and I am independent of Santilli. So, thats where I started. I was puzzled by Santilli’s claim of intermediate fusion. I could see the data showed production of nitrogen, but he didn’t do a mass balance. Why? A nuclear transmutation may be expected to change a proton to a neutron or vice-a versa, but the total number of nucleons must remain unchanged. So I could do a mass balance and put the mass balance on that basis.


    Briefly this is how that is done. Change the before and after data to a nucleon basis and adjust the percentages to the same total nucleon basis. Take the difference between before and after. That difference is the chemical change and any nuclear change. One uses the idea of magnecules and statistics to assign unknown masses and couple of other things you can see if you read the pending patent. Then mass balance out the chemistry and you are left with the nuclear change. So there it was: nuclear fusion. WOW. But without the energy expected or high energy nuclear products or neutrons. Does that sound familiar to LENR?


    But that's not the best part. All atoms are discrete so if a reaction has occurred it has a balanced equation that can be determined by the usual methods of stoichiometry. Which it did. In my universe nobody can fake precise stoichiometry. So there you have proof:: 1) Data derived balanced nuclear equation. 2) a precise and accuracy proof of the formation of de-novo nitrogen. The reaction is reproducible and could be used to produce any amount of de-novo nitrogen.