Posts by can


    Can you help me understand why you're saying that Holmlid is fixated on fusion? (which you also mentioned in a different thread)

    He thinks that from two protons he's obtaining three kaons through a weak interaction; how would that be fusion?



    As far as I've been made aware of in private communication from different persons (unrelated to each other), the LiAlH4 compound alone is responsible for the excess heat observed in certain experiments as long as a proper protocol is followed, which reportedly involves cyclically going through its decomposition steps in a certain sequence; unfortunately I don't have the equipment to test it as I did for the carbon arc experiment (which almost anybody could literally "try in their kitchen", although verifying it would be a different story).

    If such triggering procedure truly exists, it should be possible to "self-calibrate" the experiment by first running it without following it through the temperature ranges of interest, and then in the same experiment following the protocol to trigger the excess heat. With this test, thermal conduction differences between air and hydrogen shouldn't pose an issue.

    The way the protocol has been described to me (apparently just a matter of specific chemical-thermal cycles) implies that the way the experiment is setup shouldn't matter too much and a typical Glowstick-type device with an external heater should be fine too as some results might have suggested.

    I'm pretty sure that other people who are in position of testing this in a suitable environment have been already told in private about the same findings, and likely with more details. Nobody seems to be reporting them properly, though (it should be able to work with LiAlH4 only - although I suspect the presence of transition metals is advantageous -, it shouldn't take "days" to run and it shouldn't require extreme temperatures).

    Your mileage may vary.

    However, I wasn't really referring to these details in my previous post here.

    What I meant was simply that there has been plenty of time for me356 to collaborate with others (e.g. MFMP) to replicate an experiment that he thinks truly showed excess heat, if he felt that it's been unfairly overlooked.

    You know him, know how to contact him, have already visited him in his premises; it doesn't have to be an insurmountable problem to just ask him for the missing details if they're needed.

    Has MFMP tried to replicate it? if not, why should have others?

    EDIT: to clarify, I just find odd that me356 is lamenting that nobody has attempted this while BG acknowledges the same. MFMP is the group with "direct access" to the inventor. It would have been in me356's best interest to work with them so that they independently replicated the experiment, if it successfully worked.


    What is a "weak interaction" as mentioned by Holmlid in the highlighted section in the excerpt I previously posted and that you quoted?

    I'm capable of using Google and sort of got what you meant, but it would be best if people didn't have to guess what you might have actually thought while writing certain posts.

    B) See snaps - world revolution or improper laboratory practices? This simple question must be settled before talking of caons, pions and mesons. Do you know one (1) indipendent check of Holmlid results?

    What could I add to what Holmlid wrote in a rebuttal rejected by the Int. J. Mass Spectrom. 2016-06-13? The main issue I see is that the complex explanation he gives can't counter in a very convincing manner the simple (and powerful) message that there might have been errors in one of his studies.

    As for indipendent tests, those are Rossi's specialty.

    NO. "Experiments" MUST belong to current scientific koinè, and not to a single researcher.

    Please clarify in plain English what you mean exactly with this.

    Incidentally, Holmlid NEVER declares the success rate of its experiences.

    As far as I am aware of, once the Fe2O3:K catalysts have been correctly prepared they start working within a couple hours of heating and hydrogen admission, and they can work for several months before their activity starts to fade off due to final K depletion. Or at least, that's what Holmlid has reported a few times.

    The issue here likely is the "correct preparation". The success rate apparently depends on this, not random factors. Such preparation has been summarily described in a few publications from past years (for example the ones linked below but in particular here) and you sort of have to dig for it, but to my knowledge it's not a trade secret (it's for the most part similar to what is commonly done with industrial catalysts in a hydrocarbon atmosphere, with the main difference that most of the K content also has to be removed by heating in a vacuum), and last time I asked him a few related questions via email (several months ago) he seemed willing to discuss about it and even gave some tips which unfortunately I didn't get to personally utilize.…cle=1221&context=cbe_pubs


    You might not like them, but the papers from which excerpts have been posted above (the last one in particular) are experimental too.

    Whether or not the analysis of the time variation of the charged particle current with an oscilloscope is a suitable method for determining the formation of specific mesons and muons is debatable, although I'd agree that it's not enough.

    If the ultra-dense protium is the only material in the zone of the reaction, by definition, no other material can interact with the ultra-dense protium. Only ultra-dense protium can interact with other ultra-dense protium.

    Since there would also be other materials in practice, emitted particles with MeV energy would inevitably interact with them to some extent.

    To further clarify, I'm referring to particles getting ejected from the ultra-dense layer.

    The Holmlid reaction only occurs if it is stimulated by a laser pulse or a spark. This is because ultra-dense protium must be activated by the Kerr effect. If this activation does not occur, then the reaction does not occur where fragments and protons are ejected at near light speed and with MeV energy from the ultra-dense layer.

    Holmlid et al have already written several times that the reaction can also occur spontaneously (albeit at a low rate). Spontaneously means without a laser or any other energetic activation. Example from below:

    I believe that this activation has nothing to do with fusion, but instead is produced by a state change where the ultra-dense protium becomes magnetically activated. Once ultra-dense protium crystal produces a magnetically activated proton decay reaction that imparts high energy of decay into a neighboring ultra-dense protium crystal thereby ripping it apart via explosion.

    Once activated, the ultra-dense protium crystal continues to produce mesons through another reaction called hadronization where energy is converted into particle creation..

    This seems your own personal interpretation of what Holmlid is writing.

    In one of the latest papers where he's described the reaction he's more simply suggesting that the distance between the ultra-dense protons (in state s=1, 0.56pm) gets so close that the quarks composing them may reorganize themselves in a more favorable arrangement through a tunneling and weak interaction, liberating significant energy in the process. As implied in the excerpt above, this can - at least with deuterium - either occur spontaneously at a low rate (= without a laser or other energetic activation), or at a higher rate with an energetic input.

    Where did I write that PP fusion is occurring?

    Here I was referring to D+D fusion (as in Pd-D experiments) or the fusion of p with other elements (as in Ni-H or similar experiments with protium).

    EDIT: for context and clarity, the points I was making were that:

    1. Nuclear fusion may (also) occur between the ultra-dense deuterium pairs (in addition to the meson-producing interaction).
    2. Nuclear fusion would NOT occur between the ultra-dense protium pairs.
    3. Some mechanisms described by Holmlid can cause ultra-dense protium (or deuterium) fragments and protons to be ejected with MeV energy from the ultra-dense layer. These may engage in nuclear fusion with other (non-protium) matter.
    4. Point 3 might explain some of the observations by LENR researchers in metal-protium experiments.

    Since the process is supposed to first involve the condensation of hydrogen atoms into the so-called ultra-dense state where the atom-atom distance becomes (eventually) similar to that of muonic hydrogen, it's inevitable that some amount of regular fusion when deuterium is used will also happen. This doesn't mean that the core mechanism is different between protium and deuterium or that the process is centered around ordinary fusion; it only means that nuclear fusion may occur in the latter's case as a result of the hydrogen atoms shrinking to the picometer-scale.

    Mechanisms exist (example) that would allow the ejection of energetic (MeV) protons or small fragments of ultra-dense hydrogen matter from the base ultra-dense layer before the meson-producing interaction occurs. If these energetic particles interacted with other matter, some the reactions that LENR researchers have sometimes observed throughout the years could also occur as a "side-effect".

    At one time, Holmlid did consider that the energy that he observed in his experiments came from fusion, but he has since changed his mind because of the very high energy imparted to particles. Also proton only reactions cannot produce fusion.

    That the high energy particles (mesons, muons) do not come from ordinary nuclear fusion doesn't automatically define the process as LENR. This is what I meant.

    The statement "similar particle velocities are obtained also from the laser-induced processes in p(0) " means that proton proton fusion is IMPOSSIBLE. Fusion cannot be where energy is coming from either in Holmlid's reaction or in LENR. Is that understood yet???

    The emission of mesons and muons does not exclude nuclear fusion processes also occurring when deuterium is used. He is not rejecting nuclear fusion; he's only saying that D+D fusion processes occurring within the ultra-dense hydrogen layer, as studied in ref. 14, wouldn't give rise to the particles observed here (besides, they are also observed with protium, so they can't be due to fusion).

    Shane D.

    I don't think Holmlid sees his work as LENR, but he's explicitly related it several times over the years to known work and observed effects in the LENR field, citing for example Storms or Miley et al.

    In short he's saying that the ultra-dense hydrogen produced can undergo nuclear reactions spontaneously (without significant external input) and that these reactions would be "similar to the ones often called LENR". Some examples below.

    Shane D.

    For what it's worth, about six months ago I emailed him for a couple questions on related matters and from what I could gather he expected work/studies from his group (which is not the same of Holmlid's although they authored a few papers together) on the subject to be published in 2018, so it's probably going to take some more time. He did also refer to ongoing replications in Oslo, which in retrospect were probably about Sindre Zeiner-Gundersen's work that was linked in the articles in the post(s) above.

    I don't know if there have been updates from him in the interim.

    A Google search shows pretty much zero references on the Internet about that so I'm not sure how Sindre Zeiner-Gundersen expected to raise funds. On the other hand by asking on E-Cat World MFMP managed to raise 350,000$ (+800,000$ offered) to save Suhas Ralkar's reactor; go figure.

    This 2016 article from the Norwegian Aftenposten, of which Russ George posted a translated version on his blog, was circulated and discussed more widely.

    I've just found out that there also was an other article (in Norwegian, untranslated) from about the same period which is the source for the cropped photo in the fundraiser linked above (in the same laboratory).

    Alan Smith

    Looking forward to reading the results. On a related note, I've recently learned that NaOH/KOH solutions are sometimes used in PET recycling to break the material down at elevated temperature and pressure through "alkaline hydrolysis", so perhaps it's not unreasonable that over the course of weeks some amount of degradation might happen at room temperature and ambient pressure with LiOH as well, especially if other materials act as catalysts.…i/S1110062115000148#s0100

    To steer the discussion back in-topic, perhaps rather than cloud coverage a more immediate concern should be that of nearby materials, If muon some other kind of unusual or "strange", low energy emission is present.

    As I previously wrote, it looks like what confused axil (motivating this thread) was that Holmlid referred in the abstract of one of his latest papers to particle velocity ("MeV u-1" or "MeV/u") and not actual energy (MeV). However in the actual paper he's also reported:


    [...] Both kaons and pions are possible. Also muons are possible, at >500 MeV u-1 or >50 MeV.

    This is not to say that more energetic emission is not possible, but it hasn't been reported yet by Holmlid.

    As far as I am aware of, Suhas' fuel there is composed of a LiOH-containing slurry with several metals. PET isn't compatible with soda or potassium lye. While lithium lye would be the least caustic alkali hydroxide solution, it could still damage the plastic container over time. An inexpensive test could be arranged on separate PET containers to check out the effects of a LiOH solution alone on this material over time. Hydroxides of other metals are strong bases too.

    EDIT: if the aim was to check out any possible effect caused by strange radiation on the PET container, a better idea could have been putting the powder/fuel in a thin-walled chemical resistant container (e.g. made of glass) and then placing the same in a suitable PET container.


    On a more careful read it's clear that Storms meant that the unstable elements are getting their decay accelerated, so 40K couldn't be a "typo" but actually what he intended to write. Still, it's interesting that there was a nearby isotope with virtually the same half-life he measured.

    I wonder if he's repeated the same test with thin layers of single-element materials placed directly in front of the window of his detector, or using a different detector window material altogether. I'm sure he must have had in private, but I don't know if it's been reported. That would be a very similar test to what Holmlid and Olafsson reported in 2015, but they didn't use unstable elements.


    Didn't you previously write this?

    muons have not been detected, nor noticeable radiations (and this is a problem for LENr acceptation by physicists), in usual LENR experiments.

    What Storms described in the paper linked by Ahlfors above can be defined as noticeable radiation. It even causes activation of materials of one of his detectors. What's described would be pretty convincing evidence for LENR, although probably not what most proponents desire.

    In one case Storms apparently thinks that it's the very small fraction of unstable 40K in the potassium in the mica window of the GM detector which is having its beta decay stimulated/accelerated, but the 109 minutes half-life reported would also be consistent with that of 41Ar (a very close match in fact). Muon capture reactions could cause 41K to become 41Ar.

    Granted, without additional and different measurements it could be due to something else entirely, but the point is that muon emission might have been already detected without researchers knowing.

    Before panicking about changing the climate (better to panic about current solar storm which as explained changing cloudiness thus weather/climate), we should battle to make reliable and convincing experiments, measuring all radiation and experiments, and understand what is happening .

    I know I wasn't panicking, and axil was just speculating on future possibilities as he often does.

    tons of experiments have been done with PdD electrolysis with radiation detectors, and muon or others they seldom found anything energetic...

    I get that you wanted to counter axil's extreme extrapolation based on the results from Holmlid's studies published in the mainstream scientific literature, but that doesn't sound like a very convincing answer; in which successful LENR experiments there has specifically been muon detection? And not just muons like those produced by cosmic rays which have energies in the order of several GeV at sea level, but low energy muons.

    Besides this, it looks like you misunderstood the rest of my comment. With "not necessarily be commensurate with" I meant that there would be more heat (ultimately) than radiation from nuclear processes (if any) in small-scale experiments, which is far from fear mongering.


    The inferred muons emitted from Holmlid's experiments do not have a very high energy. These would decay before reaching significant heights in the atmosphere. Are you referring to the hypothetical possibility that more powerful LENR experiments could emit much more energetic muons?


    Have they been searched or looked for? What usual LENR experiments are you referring to?

    Without knowing in advance that there could be the chance of having muon (and other subatomic particle) emission I don't think it would be simple to tell whether they are being emitted or not.

    Low energy ones may cause capture reactions in materials surrounding the reactor, which would in turn cause beta decay, neutron emission, etc. or also a 511 keV signal of electron-positron annihiliation as positive muons freely decay.

    At a small level, this radiation might not necessarily be commensurate with the excess heat observed.

    Not sure if this is the best place to write this, but since I previously reported a quick test, here's another report.

    I tried with a magnet (so, not the same arrangement as in Energoniva replications) but I think I got a different effect instead.

    I found that if I did the same arc discharge test under the influence of a Nd magnet in the close vicinity of both electrodes (through the glass jar), then depending on the magnet orientation, input current, proximity to the magnet, wire conditions and other factors the arc discharge will engage/disengage hundreds of times per second (approximately at 400-600 Hz according to sound analysis; it varies). The effect occurs when the external magnet is attracted to the jar/wires. If the opposite situation arises, the electrodes tend to stick and eventually weld together.

    What I think is happening here is that when a plasma is formed, electrical conduction is the highest, and so induced magnetism (especially because of the high currents involved). One of the electrodes is attracted to the magnet and the circuit eventually becomes open again, removing induced magnetism. Since the electrodes are being held against each other by spring tension, the circuit is then closed again, with arc discharge formation when electrical contact is renewed. The cycle repeats continuously. This is in some ways similar to how a loudspeaker works.

    Under these conditions the anode (positive electrode) erodes very quickly, with dark brown fine "dust" emanating from the electrodes at the point of contact where the blue-green copper plasma is typically generated. The cathode remains pretty much unscathed. Significant amounts of electromagnetic interference are generated too in the process, although I'm not sure whether this is due to the switching-mode power supply I used.

    Upon testing with the same magnet, some time after finishing the experiment, I noticed no ferromagnetic effect in the particles produced, a bit disappointing since I got a sort of "dark dust" effect that was briefly discussed in this thread. This time I used distilled water (grocery store-grade) and a thoroughly cleaned glass jar. Therefore last time's was probably contamination as I previously suspected.

    Max Nozin

    I deliberately did not follow any experimental indication from the various Energoniva replications presented in this thread. I only thought of using copper electrodes as suggested to see if any of the particles produced by low-voltage DC arc discharge as I previously did with graphite electrodes were too ferromagnetic. As for contamination I was referring to my own observations.

    Max Nozin

    The main reason for asking that question was because today I did some [silly-ish] tests by short-circuiting copper wires in a jar with tap water (obtaining interesting blue-green plasma from copper and sometimes red-violet likely from hydrogen-oxygen) using 5V DC, and at the end of the experiment some of the particles apparently ablated from the copper wires turned out to be weakly ferromagnetic, from a test through the same jar with a relatively strong Nd magnet. However they could have been either contamination from previous tests or the tap water (e.g. rust - although I hope not).

    I'm still unsure whether I should be dedicating budget (which so far has been roughly 0 euro) for more serious efforts. It would be best if other known experimentalists with far better equipment and experience than I have did these experiments. If I did them myself it would be more for the learning experience rather than the actual replication.

    From a comment made on 2017-02-07 20:55 in the "Playground" thread:

    Since no one bit on the Lugano reactors question - they were made by IH in Raleigh with Durapot 810, which per Cotronics, has between 75% and 85% alumina powder in the cement, batch dependent. You then get to factor in another tidbit - the Lugano reactor was apparently painted in Lugano by either Rossi or one of the testers. Specific paint color, make and model unknown.