Posts by gameover


    Please download the Firefox extension "NoScript" and then try using LENR-Forum with it enabled.

    That extension can disable JavaScript selectively for each website. You will see that it is very difficult to participate normally here without JS enabled.

    The logout button is hidden in the "Control Panel" drop down button on the top and requires JavaScript to be clicked. Not good.

    This is in the granted (Aug 25, 2015) "Fluid Heater" patent:


    While nickel is particularly useful because of its relative abundance, its function can also be carried out by other elements in column 10 of the periodic table, such as platinum or palladium.

    Darden's interview where Palladium is mentioned on September 2015. He was referring to the above patent:…-energy-nuclear-reaction/


    Q: So you’re optimistic?

    A: Yes, In fact, Rossi was awarded an important U.S. patent recently, which is part of what we licensed, covering the use of nickel, platinum or palladium powders, as well as other components, in his heat-producing device. This is one of very few LENR-related patents to date.

    BTW, platinum does not normally form hydrides. It is formed at several GPa of pressure.…rties_of_platinum_hydride

    There is no immediately accessible logout button or link.

    Also, this Forum does not seem to work correctly (i.e. post comments) with Javascript disabled, which causes problems with web proxies and tight-security browsers.

    Also no powder here, but instead layers of micron-thick sprayed (deposited?) nickel alternated with alumina. There is a heater in the center, but the apparatus according to the description is also arranged so that electrical pulses (if I understand correctly from Table 4, 300V) are directly applied to the active nickel-alumina coating.

    This makes me recall that a similar situation may occur in the usual Lugano Dog Bone replications at high enough temperature, where the ceramic tube becomes conductive and currents may start flowing through the so-called fuel.

    ETA: but it is also stated that at high temperature > 600°C they get no excess heat so it is not clear how much or if this can be applied to those replications...

    This is the problem with openscience, some preliminary results may be corrected later... I remember scientists like Jean-Paum Biberian explaining the long work to check, debunk, cross check, confirm your own experiments...

    My interpretation of F&P tragedy is that it was too much open science (science by conference as they said), and that early results of all sides, yo-yo moods, created a disillusionment in many hopeful minds (see Morrison), which were exploited by vested interested to support motivated beliefs (Hot fusion budgets, particle physics dominance)...

    There is nothing wrong with sharing data and experimental information as-is and as it comes in an open source fashion. The problem is when ambiguous data is being repeatedly passed as an experimental fact.

    This 12.5% "apparent" excess heat claim from MFMP has been going on for years now. They cannot have it both ways: if they think that they are genuinely obtaining excess heat they should take responsibility for it and strive to validate the result with better methods, not keep repeating the claim under the premise that it may or may have not been real, especially when people are potentially donating or investing according to said information.

    This is a matter of integrity and intellectual honesty.

    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.

    Since muon emission is mentioned: the formation of Holmlid's ultra-dense hydrogen too liberates hundreds of eV per atom, similarly to Mills' Hydrino process***. If one could stop the process here and avoid this form of hydrogen to be further destabilized then it would still be possible to obtain energy in the ballpark of a couple orders of magnitude more than conventional chemistry could, but without any potentially harmful emission.

    Incidentally, this may also partially explain why in small scale, low wattage experiments there have rarely been reports of radiation emission.

    *** See excerpts from my notes taken from this paper from Holmlid:

    As a reminder on the topic of the muon emission discussed in this thread, it may be of interest what Mats Lewan reported several months ago on the Vortex-l mailing list:

    "xttp://[email protected]/msg108048.html"

    Mats Lewan wrote:

    I spoke to Holmlid, and one thing that he underlined was possible large amounts of muons from the reaction, and that muons were hard to detect. He said that he suspected that also LENR reactions could have this effect, without LENR experimenters knowing it.

    This is, by the way, what also comes across from the paper(s) published from Holmlid's group in 2015 and 2016.

    David.Daggett wrote:

    With regards to the aluminum shield, we can also try a thicker metal cover over the Geiger counter detector. I'll see what material we have in the shop and also try that during the next test.

    Good; the ideal situation would be arriving to produce anomalous radiation emission on demand and only then seeing if adding a thicker shielding causes counts to increase. On the other hand, using an additional shielded detector just for this task would also help making sure you are not missing out low level gamma/x-rays directly emitted by the GlowStick as other theories may predict.


    I don't think there is a correlation, but I'll mention it ... we did experience a very high radiation reading during the test with the SI-8B detector. I double checked the indicent with our old Victoreen CDV-700 unit, which didn't pick up anything. After I grounded the SI-8B detector's case, the reading went back to normal background.

    The (false?) radiation reading could also be made to subside when the GlowStick heater was shut off. We use a very high frequency PWM control circuit to regulate the heater, so I think there was some errant EMI causing the erroneous reading when the detector was not grounded.

    This is interesting because:

    1- Holmlid has recently reported in that a "large voltage disturbance in all parts of the apparatus" occurs when triggering the reaction (with a laser beam in his case), caused by the shower of charged particles produced in the process.

    This would not easily explain why the same was not reported with the other detector in your case however.

    2- I have unconfirmed third hand information that Rossi is using a modulated square AC wave in his coils in order to trigger the reaction. Apparently there is a specific frequency, in the order of a few thousand Hz, that once properly matched with the "fuel" is able to trigger the reaction. Your mileage may vary. I do not know if this could be applied with your reactor. Frequency control would have to be configurable, at the very least.

    Putting this aside, can you produce a detailed graph showing data from the SI-8B detector and pressure/temperature as previously posted?

    The Victoreen CDV-700 unit could be used in tandem with the SI-8B detector.

    The underlying general hypothesis here is the existence of [yet] another dense hydrogen species, in this case Santilli's magnehydrogen. I believe that in more recent times the group attempted to develop their own theory with their own exotic neutral particle.

    But speaking of Abundo et al. I am still waiting for the results of the "Parkhomov like" experiment that was prominently featured on LENR-Forum and other sites quite some time ago, but later than the paper featured in this thread.

    "Parkhomov like" experimentation at Open Power Lab has been started today!

    Alan Smith wrote:

    But this was written in 2014, when things were peachier. Ugo Abundo is a good guy, allow him a little slack.

    How does one join the good guys club? I believe that the results were shared within that circle.

    Axil, I had a look at how detectors like those are made.

    Wikipedia wrote:

    Spark chambers consist of a stack of metal plates placed in a sealed box filled with a gas such as helium, neon or a mixture of the two. When a charged particle from a cosmic ray travels through the box, it ionises the gas between the plates. Ordinarily this ionisation would remain invisible. However, if a high enough voltage can be applied between each adjacent pair of plates before that ionisation disappears, then sparks can be made to form along the trajectory taken by the ray, and the cosmic ray in effect becomes visible as a line of sparks. In order to control when this voltage is applied, a separate detector (often containing a pair of scintillators placed above and below the box) is needed. When this trigger senses that a cosmic ray has just passed, it fires a fast switch to connect the high voltage to the plates. The high voltage cannot be connected to the plates permanently, as this would lead to arc formation and continuous discharging.

    I think it can be safely stated that building a similar detector would be a complicated job for most garage experimentalists.

    A shielded Geiger counter would do the job perfectly and show that something odd is happening if counts increase when the shielding is placed.

    The thickness number for the Geiger counter cover was a typo. It should have read 0.040 inch thick, not 0.40".

    0.40" was about right but 0.040" is too thin for the previously described suggestion. Which is why I also suggested that a cheaper, less sensitive GM detector like those made by GQ Electronics - which you may already have - could be added and appropriately shielded for the intended purpose.


    I've attached the calibration curve for the empty tubes. There are two curves, as there is a temperature divergence between the left and right sides of the GlowStick at high temperature.

    I assumed that the temperatures were measured at the surface of the tube: is the calibration chart above by any chance suggesting that the temperatures reported in the other message were internal?

    David.Daggett wrote:

    We use a 0.40" thick aluminum shield in front of the Geiger counter sensor as a heat shield. Attached is a picture.

    That should work as a converter material for the supposed muons emitted by the reaction, although it may be a bit on the thick side.


    Unfortunately, our GlowStick developed a pressure leak, so we had to stop the test after 11 hours of testing. No excess heat was observed as the fuel side remained cooler than the null side (as was observed during the calibration with no fuel). No radiation was detected either. I've attached a summary chart of the temperatures and pressure.

    That is unfortunate. However, I am wondering if the data is showing more than it seems at a first glance. I made parallel lines in the provided graph to show the T changes more clearly:

    At the end of the third power cycle Fuel Side temperature was about 15°C higher than at the end of the first one. Also the way temperature appears to increase and then slowly drop off is intriguing. Was input power applied all at once (high/low) or was there some sort of ramp or modulation?

    To summarize, these are the persons who to my knowledge have reported an enhancement in detection counts by putting a material in front of their gamma detector. Whatever the actual reason for this finding actually is (muons or something else), I find it significant and more people should also be encouraged trying this out with layers of metal of varying thickness:

    Leif Holmlid
    See abstract in “Muon detection studied by pulse-height energy analysis: Novel converter arrangements”:


    Muons are conventionally measured by a plastic scintillator–photomultiplier detector. Muons from processes in ultra-dense hydrogen H(0) are detected here by a novel type of converter in front of a photomultiplier. The muon detection yield can be increased relative to that observed with a plastic scintillator by at least a factor of 100, using a converter of metal, semiconductor (Ge), or glass for interaction with the muons penetrating through the metal housing of the detector.”

    LENR-Forum member “Eros” (claim taken at face value)


    [...] Shields depends what agains need to shield. So I put some shields then I see increased count rates outside of shields as inside of shields. [...]
    Then three day ago I got hint from Homlid paper that Cu can detect muons. So I put GM tube inside copper tube installed it outside of reactor shields and see too much counts.

    Russ George


    [...] Once while running an experiment I happened upon a distinct highly reproducible radiation measurement. My Geiger Counter signaled the first hint of it and upon fiddling about with my “hey that’s strange” reaction to the enhance rate of Geiger clicks I managed to make the Geiger record vastly more counts, even saturating the detector. I did that by placing various different elementary foils between the source and the detector. Normally when one puts something in between a radiation source and a Geiger Counter the count rate inevitably goes down, not up. In my work a thin Silver foil sent the Geiger over the moon.

    Alan Smith


    Yes they have. The lead member of the Catalytic Carbon research group I work with has done this independently of Russ. Incidentally, I have a lot of copper foil in stock, if anybody would like to 'try this at home' email me via this forum and I'll post you a sample big enough to use as a screen.

    @ Axil: that's your chance! Do a repro and show that the energy is radiated away by muons with about 16.5 MeV. Only a thin foil (Cu) is needed to stop them and a cheap giger!

    Again, some time ago, using tables from this paper:

    I made the following graph:

    There is no copper here but it will be probably between Pb and Al2O3. ~4 mm of material stop muons of about 15 MeV. This is more than a ""foil"".

    I think this may be starting to get too much off-topic by the way.

    [...]. Anybody with a Geiger Counter using the Holmlid covering metal foil method can test for muons coming off this reaction.

    More than foils, which I assume would normally be in the tens of microns of thickness, Holmlid's paper linked in the other thread and muon stopping tables available in the literature indicate that sheets of thickness in the order of millimeters should be used to enhance the (supposed) muon signal. However I guess this would also depend on the energy of the muons emitted and therefore it would probably be desirable to experiment with metallic sheets of different thicknesses - in case this suggestion is taken into consideration.

    magicsound wrote:

    For this run, Dave is using LiH, not LAH. So the phase changes in the hydride don't start until ~500°C, and the initial pressure data seems to confirm this. The protocol is a departure from my GS5 tests, and I expect the data will give valuable insight into the system.

    Where can the data be observed?

    David Daggett,

    There are suggestions based on the experimental findings of prof. Leif Holmlid of the Univesity of Gothenburg that putting metallic plates of a few mm of thickness (Al, Cu, Pb, steel, etc) directly in front of, essentially in contact with the window of the Geiger-Müller detector may increase the chances of seeing some sort of signal from the reaction. Apparently LENR may generate muons, which are captured by such relatively dense metallic materials. The GM detector would then indirectly measure the emissions caused by such muons inside the metal.

    Do you have any interest in putting at some point during the test such material in front of the SI-8B detector or to arrange a secondary detector (even a cheap GM counter should be fine) behind said metal plate?

    This was also discussed today in this thread on LENR-Forum: Leif HOLMLID: Ultra-Dense Deuterium Fusion

    According to the PNNL shielding bible the bigger problem of muon interaction with condensed matter is not gamma emmission, it's the "evaporating" neutrons!

    I do not have a table for muon interaction yields for copper, but indeed this seems what happens for many isotopes. Example for 27Al (look at "Total yield" for the percentage).


    Interestingly: assuming something similar happening for copper, for 63Cu and 65Cu the most probable outcome would be the formation of 62Ni and 64Ni (and a neutron).

    Speaking of my previous message I overlayed the graphs in Holmlid's paper in a single one, showing the signal magnification using converters of different materials. Note that the "No converter" scenario still had an aluminium flange in front of the photomultiplier, apparently.

    [...] To start off this post, I'd like to share a classic post by Andrea Rossi to the Journal of Nuclear Physics.

    Tangentially in-topic: some time ago I collected some selected comments that Rossi made in 2010 in his blog, which appeared to show more clearly than in recent times what he used to think of his reaction. Here are those comments:

    On the same topic, in the recent past Holmlid has used plates of varying thickness (2-3 millimeters) of Pb, Cu and Al, in front of a photomultiplier, resulting in a substantial increase in detection counts. However he has not applied yet (or at least described in a research paper) the same finding with more common (and cheap) GM detectors.

    The paper where this is described more in detail is:
    "Muon detection studied by pulse-height energy analysis: Novel converter arrangements "

    In his case Al seemed to work somewhat better as a muon detection enhancer than Cu:

    Yes they have. The lead member of the Catalytic Carbon research group I work with has done this independently of Russ. Incidentally, I have a lot of copper foil in stock, if anybody would like to 'try this at home' email me via this forum and I'll post you a sample big enough to use as a screen.

    I have not seen a report of this finding before. One would think this should be of interest to every LENR experimentalist, especially MFMP who declared a few months ago that certain Geiger detectors may not be sensitive enough for these experiments due to differences in the material of the front window.

    An example here, which referenced previous news:…ct/posts/1132279306802767


    [...] Using the MFMPs GMC-300 Geiger counter (which is now known to be only slightly better than the useless GMC-320+) he observed counts rising from 20-40/minute to 60 sporadically. [...]

    Did you take note of this gem of wisdom, and apply it to your own experimental methods?

    A Geiger Counter does not see muons, but when the counter is covered with an appropreate metal, the nuclear reactions that muons produce generate gamma counts in the detector. Eros found this to be true when he covered his Geiger Counter with copper.

    Good catch, and very interesting to see that other persons have successfully tried this "trick" with just a Geiger detector.

    A few posts up, there has been presented as proof of hydrino theory that a hydrino molecule of up to 25 hydrogen atoms can form a hydrino What a Witchy. How can such a large blob fit through the lattice of a thick high density tungsten containment structure of the SunCell?

    Funnily enough and speaking again of similarities, there is a similar suggestion (but no theoretical proof) in one of the Holmlid papers published in 2016:


    [...] Due to the large difference in scale between the ultra-dense material and the carrier surface (typically 2 pm instead of 200 pm for the carrier), many novel effects may be possible. It means for example that an entire chain cluster H2N may fit in between two metal atoms on the surface, and that diffusion of small clusters into the surface may be fast.

    The ash is hydrino, a form of hydrogen "below" ground state that QM postulates can't exist but which common sense tells us must be the identity of dark matter. Hydrinos form di-hydrino gas which is super-stable, lighter than air and very difficult to contain. It escapes harmlessly into space.

    This is the main difference from Holmlid's ultra-dense hydrogen, which on the surface has many similarities to the Hydrino. It can be considered a lower than ground hydrogen state, Its formation does liberate significant amounts of energy energy, and it is pretty much transparent from the visible range to the IR when left undisturbed, which makes it "dark" and a good candidate for dark matter as Holmlid has also suggested in the past.

    However it is not a gas, can be contained in limited quantities on metal surfaces and acts as a superfluid at room temperatures. It is not intangible matter and due to its density it makes for a good nuclear fuel. While Mills has been mostly concerned with the heat of formation of the Hydrino, Holmlid's work has been mostly characterizing the properties of this ultra-dense hydrogen.

    Who has it wrong? Are Mills and Holmlid observing the same thing? To me it seems hard to believe that they are two entirely different things.

    There are probably dozens. I can't find any stills, but this is the lab version of the MW reactor that I was involved with. 4 minute video.[video]

    I searched for "microwave sphere" "microwave doorknob" and I did not find anything. Maybe the search terms were too technical. But it is Christmas, right? Surely somebody has already tried microwaving Christmas Balls:

    The EMDrive folks routinely use software for calculating the distribution of the standing waves in their asymmetric resonating cavities for a given microwave input power and frequency. It would be interesting if in addition to energy and transmutation one could make these seemingly unrelated LENR reactors to also produce thrust.

    Put a spherical metal doorknob into a microwave and turn it up to full power. If you survive (don't do this at home, folks) you will understand why they use quartz.

    Hard to believe that there is not such a video on Youtube.