can Verified User
  • Member since Jan 20th 2017

Posts by can

    The Rydberg matter which prof. Holmlid is talking about are atoms with circular orbitals similar to hydrino or Bohr model of atoms. They result from careful excitation of atoms in such a way, the electrons will remain on the verge of full ionization.

    The formation of such an atoms has been described multiple-times, they just require rather complex magnetic traps devices and precisely tuned masers (i.e. sources of microwave spectrum, where these atoms absorb) for to prepare them in high yield.

    This is true, but it doesn't seem that in his case this excitation occurs in a very careful manner; the formation of circular Rydberg states here seems to automatically happen as a result of a large production of low-l Rydberg atoms. InConditions for forming Rydberg matter - condensation of Rydberg states in the gas phase versus at surfaces (paywalled) Holmlid explains:


    Rob Woudenberg

    Rydberg hydrogen is the name for excited hydrogen atoms, which can also form in a plasma, or more in general when ions and electrons recombine. My understanding from Holmlid's work is that if a large enough amount of Rydberg atoms can form, Rydberg matter (a metastable phase of matter composed of Rydberg atoms) can also form, but also that its formation needs a surface for these collectively excited atoms to "condense" on in order to succesfully complete. The formation of Rydberg atoms and matter catalyzes also that of other gases and molecules (e.g. hydrogen). Hydrogen RM eventually spontaneously transitions to the ultra-dense form also responsible for most LENR anomalies.

    The Fe2O3-K catalysts used by Holmlid (or more in general, certain alkali-doped metal oxides) have the unique property of directly emitting from their surface K ions and Rydberg K. This can be defined for all intents an purposes a K plasma that catalyzes the formation of excited states and Rydberg matter of hydrogen atoms adsorbed on the surface of the catalyst and in its close vicinity.

    Given the process that is understood to be occurring with Holmlid's experiments, I don't think that plasma-based LENR is a completely different unrelated subject. If anything there might actually be more in common that it seems at first.

    In the latest paper Mesons from Laser-Induced Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(0) (open access), written by Holmlid, which I happened to read recently more carefully, it's interestingly suggested that other works from different authors are also about Ultra-dense hydrogen. He's citing them in support of his findings. Excerpt:


    Results on ultra-dense hydrogen from other groups exist. A superconductive hydrogen state consisting of very high-density hydrogen clusters in voids (Schottky defects) in palladium crystals has been studied experimentally by Lipson et al. [24]. This effect was attributed to Bose-Einstein condensation [25] or a Casimir effect [26]. Such ultra-dense hydrogen clusters may give increased fusion gains from suitably prepared targets [27]. The close relation between these hydrogen clusters and ultra-dense hydrogen H(0) has been pointed out [28].

    On a closer look it appears that these are mainly from Pd LENR work by George Miley et al. Have a look at the related references:

    This shouldn't a surprise for those who have read his papers, but perhaps it might be for others that don't see any apparent relation between Holmlid's work and LENR experiments from other authors. Basically, Holmlid is writing here that they're related each other.

    No, I'm not looking for a specific name to propose. For my experience, giving a specific name to an initiative like this could be misleading. Because you start mixing up the characteristics of both. I prefer a generic name such as bluff, and defining better the role and awareness of people and organizations involved.

    When you start suggesting that this bluff may be coordinated by people with military ties a PsyOp is one of the first things that would probably come to mind for many people.

    Anyway, funnily enough I do suspect too that there are several "poker players" in the LENR field. As for their motive, however, I'm not sure. Are they trying to divert attention from something else? Or perhaps hoping that by making skilled people focus on the subject someone will eventually come out with a truly working LENR reactor? Or are they just playing a confidence game for their own personal benefit?

    What's your take?


    Keep in mind that in that case the shielding itself would also have to be thick enough so that the gamma emissions from beta decays caused by the muon capture reactions and the neutrons produced by them within the material will not leak out significantly.

    Celani also checked emissions from a different room, according to this (actual link to the post here )


    Celani was asked about his secret spectrometric reading in the one e-cat test that he attended. He said that gamma radiation readings were off the chart of the instrument for a moment at about the same time the reactor started. He also took several other secret readings by pretending to go to the bathroom which was nearby. The instability of the emission was a good sign according to him.

    This transcript is from an old video (subtitled in English, starting from 20:14) and seems consistent with the previous quote:

    That is pretty much what we did yesterday. We went higher in pressure, 3 bar absolute. That was added over maybe 5 minutes. The bleed to vacuum also was done over several minutes. At no time during the entire run did we see a deviation (above measurement jitter) between active and null temperatures, nor did we expect to.

    The data and what I recall from the live test seemed to suggest that this was done over 10-15 seconds, but I guess I could be wrong or looking at something else. The data has a sample rate of one every 10 seconds, and the jumps here show 1 or 2 at most.


    The idea is something in the order of several minutes (for example 10-15 minutes, but the actual duration isn't that important as long as it's not fast) to reach 1-1.5 bar from a vacuum condition, then reverse the process by applying a vacuum at the same rate and possibly repeat a few times if time allows.

    If this requires constant manual fiddling with the pressure, nevermind!

    EDIT: the rationale for doing this comes in part from the studies of A.J.Groszek et al, who found that certain metals such as Pd that have previously adsorbed hydrogen show an anomalous oscillatory behavior in heat evolution during further sorption, if subject to a flow of H2/N2 (or H2 and a noble gas) at a low, controlled flow rate starting from a very mild vacuum. The conditions here in GS5.4 are different in that only hydrogen gas with Ni is used and different flow rates likely can't be consistently tried within reasonable time and effort, but perhaps it's still worth a try. The group didn't check for radiations. [Paper 1, 2]

    This is not about changes on the fuel, but about things which can be done immediately around the reactor.

    Here's one: introduce hydrogen at a controlled rate (for example, over the course of 30 minutes) up to 1-1.5 bar or more while keeping the reactor at elevated temperature. Then do the same by removing hydrogen down to the very mild vacuum range. Repeat a few times.

    Does the presence of dense hydrogen during cold fusion lead into some testable predictions? In this moment I can see none - except that it disfavors all proton capture based mechanisms (which were already proven experimentally). In construction of physical theories a simple rule exists: "hypotheses non fingo" (don't invent hypothesis, if you don't have to).

    [Ultra-]Dense deuterium atoms will eventually fuse each other spontaneously due to their short interatomic distance, and this can already predict many of the reported results in the LENR field. The material can also be stimulated for particle emission. Proton emission was reported in 2012 by Holmlid et al. in Detection of MeV particles from ultra-dense protium p(-1): Laser-initiated self-compression from p(1). A possible hypothesis/mechanism for this was provided (read excerpts below). This could predict several of the results of LENR researchers using protium with specific activation methods that include short energetic impulses.

    Before you start ranting (once again) that the laser used by Holmlid has a too high intensity and so it doesn't apply for LENR, complete Nd:YAG devices with similar laser pulse specifications are available for 1000-1500 euro on Ebay and are used among other things used for tattoo removal. They can be dangerous but they're actually not as powerful and specialized devices as you routinely make them seem to be. Economy of scale could probably make them much cheaper.


    I'm not an expert but after a very quick read to me that seems a relatively standard scintillation detector, only homemade.

    Holmlid's improvement for scintillation detectors is the addition of layers or plates of glass or metals to their front window (or in front of the photomultiplier, if detachable), which promotes the capture of slow muons potentially emitted by his reaction. This improvement can be applied to other common detectors, which MFMP already have.

    You've probably already read this paper:

    Muon detection studied by pulse-height energy analysis: Novel converter arrangements

    Good find but would this one in particular actually be suitable for detecting muons directly? The video description states "Pure beta emitters, gamma emitters, and x-rays do not trigger this kind of detector."