Posts by can

    And yes, I will use pulsed laser of course. It can be modulated in any way since electronics is prepared for this.

    A continuous wave (CW) laser electronically modulated to irradiate the target impulsively will not work as a pulsed laser.

    The energy of each individual pulse will be several orders of magnitude lower.

    In the excerpt above Holmlid used his laser at 0.4 J/pulse, with each pulse having a 7 nanosecond duration.

    Since [W=J/s], each pulse would have a peak power of about 57 megawatts.

    These lasers are actually not that much specialized or expensive, but they're on a different category than ordinary laser pointers.

    For what it's worth...

    The reactor is just a jar with electrodes and piece of electrical tape.

    So, keeping the spirit of low-cost experimentation, will/does it still show heightened radiation emission with:

    • H2O instead of D2O
    • Sodium or potassium carbonate instead of Lithium carbonate (not that it's significantly more expensive but the former are more readily available)
    • Large current through the wire (short-circuit or capacitor bank discharge) instead of a laser

    Laser is 70mW green 532nm with focus lens.

    If you're trying to replicate to some extent Holmlid's work, you're doing it wrong. He does not use continuous wave lasers, but instead pulsed nanosecond lasers that provide much more intense triggering. When focused, such lasers are capable of quickly ablating metal surfaces.

    Here's an excerpt from the experimental section of his latest paper.

    Wikipedia wrote:

    Laser ablation is the process of removing material from a solid (or occasionally liquid) surface by irradiating it with a laser beam. At low laser flux, the material is heated by the absorbed laser energy and evaporates or sublimates. At high laser flux, the material is typically converted to a plasma. Usually, laser ablation refers to removing material with a pulsed laser, but it is possible to ablate material with a continuous wave laser beam if the laser intensity is high enough.

    The histogram goes up to 3500keV and you do also an x-scale compression...

    The histogram originally provided by JohnyFive is obviously incorrectly scaled. In other words, the data is incorrect.

    I showed (post #746) that by adjusting the scaling, the general shape and peak location of the spectrum match those of an ordinary background gamma spectrum.

    Furthermore, I showed (post #743) that both the counts and the energy scale can be arbitrarily altered in the multi-channel analyzer (MCA) program used to save the spectra. Therefore, given that the energy scale was incorrect, the count scale cannot be trusted to be correct either.

    Post #738 shows counts with a Log1.5 scale. This is the default setting for that MCA program (Theremino MCA).

    This can be changed in program options. In the screenshot of post #746 I set it to a more widely used Log10 scale. It can be done like this:

    Thus, with the Y axis set to Log10 scale, I imported the histogram in the program (which has wrong scaling) and adjusted the "energy trimmer" shown below so that the peak on the right matches the K40 line. You can see that other peaks typical of a background spectrum also align well. This confirms that it's showing a background spectrum (for the most part—no way to know at the moment if there's something else hidden).

    Then I got this NaI background gamma spectrum on the internet:

    And using a vector image editing program (Inkscape) I roughly aligned both graphs together. I previously left the graphs somewhat separated on the Y axis to highlight more the peak location, but I could make them more closely match if you so prefer:

    And they do match, except for a region around the Potassium-40 peak, as I previously highlighted (post #673).

    Why are you doing this??

    Because you've formulated a hypothesis on the process (post #737) upon shaky data and I thought (exceptionally) that it would be appropriate to point that out, even though I decided earlier on to not post any more on the subject (post #700).

    Who could have imagined that what seemed pretty much self-explanatory required a step-by-step break down—perhaps due to some sort of language barrier?

    Definitely not going to invest any more of my time in this thread for the time being.

    Isn't that spectrum from breaking radiation which is produced when high energy particles collide with matter?

    No; this is apparent when using a base 10 log scale for the counts (Y axis) and comparing the spectrum with a typical one that can be also found on the web (here scaled for increased clarity).

    Whether it worked like Rossi claimed or not, I recall that potentially dangerous voltages were used during the Stockholm demo. Rossi and Fabiani were very careful in making sure that nobody got fingers or other body parts too close to the device and the cables while it was operating.

    I tried to equalize counts and energies between both spectra posted thus far, formatting the graphs in a more familiar scale (to me at least). It looks mostly like a background spectrum except for the region around the Potassium-40 peak—shifted due to energy range miscalibration—which looks proportionally peakier/higher now.

    Anyway, I'm not going to bother writing more on the subject here if JohnyFive intentionally keeps making any analysis more difficult (I can only wonder why now also the count range got removed).

    Using data from the same website I added silicon dioxide to the graph, which should have a density comparable to mica (slightly lower). What would be the beta decay endpoint energy of tritium?

    EDIT: this source mentions 18.6 keV


    Tritium is a radioisotope of hydrogen whose nucleus contains one proton and two neutron. It has a half life of 12.32 years, and decays via img61.gif. Tritium is the lowest energy beta emitter known with a total transition, or endpoint, energy of 18.6 keV.


    He uses what he calls a dimensional constant which he found years ago to be valid also for ordinary Rydberg matter. With that, the calculated interatomic distance for the ultra-dense form appears to be close to that inferred by time of flight and other spectroscopic techniques (about 2.3 pm in the normal state). The theory uses a work from Hisch as a basis and was first introduced in 2013 here. I'm not going to turn this into a Holmlid theory discussion thread, though.

    [...] and IMHO, the LENR active agent is an Ultra dense material...most likely lithium.

    FYI, in his latest published paper Holmlid reiterated:

    In any way what I could later try is to put the radioactive paper on scintillator overnight and see what spectrum I can get. Maybe bremsstahlung can be observed, but I rather doubt due to low energy.

    If the pancake Geiger counter is capable of measuring it, I think the spectrometer should be able too. Perhaps part of the signal is due to activation of the elements composing the paper material (chemical pulp and up to 25% wt. filler material, generally CaCO3. Source 1, 2).

    If you will post such spectrum, please set the axis scale to linear so that will be far easier to digitalize. Theremino MCA doesn't use a standard logarithmic scale.

    EDIT: or better, try using the export pulse height histogram function and attach the file on the forum as a zipped archive:

    I'm all for giving people the benefit of the doubt, but when 1/3 of the planet carries a camera phone in their pocket, refusing (at least) three polite requests for a photo stretches my credulity to it's breaking point.

    Perhaps I'm sympathizing because when a while back I documented on LF some of my "short-circuiting tests" (i.e. carbon arc experiments) I really didn't feel like showing to the world what sort of "laboratory" I was doing these experiments in, regardless of privacy issues. On top of this I also couldn't provide any decent photo of what I was doing due to the potato-quality camera phone I had at disposal at the time (a half-broken Nokia from the early 2010s).

    I do realize that some of the latest claims here are difficult to believe, however. If experimental data is being logged, that's what should have been shown first.

    Where I come from, "Let's Pretend" is the name of a TV program for people aged 4 and younger.

    "Let's give him the benefit of the doubt for now" is a more nicely worded way to write the same thing.

    Maybe it could be better to move all these replies to a dedicated thread.

    As we dont know how much it is related to Atom-Ecology.

    It would be useful to have a dedicated thread.

    Yes, I can show you the spectrum. But as far as I can see there is nothing interesting visible.

    Gamma counts are very close or identical with background. So definitively it is not normal fusion.

    If your pancake GM detector is measuring a background of 80 counts/minute while the paper cover is now showing 300 counts/minute like you previously mentioned, it's significantly above background. So it would be interesting to also check out the gamma spectrum.

    [...] Of course I could have been super lucky but I don't think so. Yes, instruments I have here are not the cheapest.

    With cheap chinesee GM detector there is no change in count. But this is correct. The betas can't even reach tubes there.

    Can you show some data? What spectrum is your NaI 3 x 3" scintillator probe showing?

    What about logged counts from the pancake detector? Etc.

    This smacks of a social experiment more than an LENR one.

    Far too many experiments in the LENR field feel like social experiments, but let's pretend this is not one.

    On the other hand if DD reaction is working it is enough to get Muon source to get just Helium + muon out of this thing.

    I think that this could be called CAT, but Mouse is still missing.

    If you're into Holmlid's muon explanation, he observed such signal (at an intensity apparently of the same order of magnitude, at least), both spontaneous and laser-induced, also using protium (natural hydrogen), although no DD fusion with it.

    However, I suspect that protium might require at least one initial igniting impulse to get the reaction going on its own.

    What sort of paper are we talking about here? Standard white, bleached paper?

    What are your electrode materials?

    By the way, despite appearances I was actually serious with the previous short circuiting suggestion.

    I tried it myself in some tests, but I don't have any ionizing radiation detector, and I haven't used Pd/D, so it would be interesting to confirm if this worked for quickly producing some sort of increased/burst radiation signal from experiments that are already showing elevated radiation.

    Wouldn't the repeatedly changing magnetic field of the 300-400W pulse-driven heating coil provide one kind of stimulation?


    [...] It takes 300-400 watts of heat in pulses to bring our reactors full thermal mass to any given set point temperature. The higher the set point the more pulses of full power. Once at that set point they sip power less frequently

    EDIT: I guess the knobs were mentioned here on ECW:


    Russ are you doing anything special at the time of day when those spikes appear. Stimulating a mouse or something?

    If not are they occurring at a particular times of day when something is occurring in the lab? Maybe power on of equipment or something?

    Or correlated with other external events affects, such as solar or lunar rise or middays etc. as has been suggested by Richard above? It will be interesting to see if any correlation comes with something and if so what it mean.


    Yes I've been twiddling with the knobs and switches and all manner of things seeking to understand this robust persistant cold fusion reactor, sometimes less is more and vice versa. Just posted an updated chart of the lovely gammas today on my blog. Eagerly awaiting switching on the new gamma spectrometer and starting to better identify some of the several, at least, particular cold fusion reactions producing those lovely gammas.

    Later on it was mentioned that the regularly recurring gamma spikes were spontaneous and not caused by manual intervention to the system, if I understand correctly.


    I guess much would depend on how it is heated. Russ George mentioned that their cells are heated with short 3-400W DC pulses, which probably implies 25-30A pulses or more depending on coil characteristics. You didn't include this information in the summary you previously posted.

    In your specific case—since you're using electrolysis—have you tried for example short-circuiting the electrodes and checking out if anything interesting arises on your detectors? (if your power supply allows to do this safely)

    We cannot discount the "negative energy'' solutions since the positive energy solutions alone do not form a complete set. Many theorists discount the negative solutions as non physical but these solution are in many cases in fact physical. For example,in the Dirac equations the electron which is localized in space, will have components of its wave function which are "negative energy''. The more localized the state, the greater the "negative energy'' content.

    Source (quoted verbatim): https://quantummechanics.ucsd.…0a/130_notes/node490.html

    I think that Nitrogen is involved somehow hence need for Air to be present.

    What sort of experiments are you conducting exactly?

    In those where elemental alkali metals are involved (i.e. Lithium in relatively large amounts), non-metal impurities like nitrogen (in particular, in the case of Lithium) can affect significantly their capability of dissolving the elements they come in contact with.


    Holmlid did indeed mention in a paper submitted at a later time but published earlier of his health problems. This was also reported in the previous page in this thread.

    Anyway, besides results in optical spectrometry I think the most relevant practical observation in the latest one is that the so-far observed meson-producing nuclear processes apparently take place in the small non-superfluid H(0) clusters. In a previous paper (open access) it was pointed out that a transition temperature exists above which the H(0) is present only in the form of small clusters, which in turn should imply that such reactions would be more easily seen above that temperature. This might be consistent with similar observations in the LENR field.

    Please layout (graphically represent) what these molecules look like as follows:

    pN, pD (identified previously) , pD2, p2D and (pD)2

    In the paper he provides this diagram showing pD pairs in the cluster. I could try making a clearer representation in 3D of the other ones, but you'll have to wait.

    What does the p designate in the formulas above? Does this mean that the UDH molecule can be formed from a mixture of deuterium and protum?

    p is for proton. It indeed means that UDH can be formed from a mixture of deuterium and protium.

    He's also explicitly pointed out in his patent (linked in the opening post in this thread) that the gas can be a protium-deuterium mixture. attached some representations both from Holmlid and that I've made.

    To clarify the wording above: I did acknowledge that the trend in the graph could indeed be interpreted as the water flow getting interrupted and that there's not enough information in the report allowing to tell that it [the flow] didn't [get interrupted].

    No need to shut the door angrily.