can Verified User
  • Member since Jan 20th 2017

Posts by can

    See if this excerpt from another recently written review paper is clearer to you:


    [...] For producing hydrogen [Rydberg matter], another aspect must be considered. The catalyst must also be able to chemisorb the hydrogen gas molecules. More reactive metals bind the atoms stronger to the surface, but this also means it is harder for the atoms to desorb, often leading to a volcano plot for useful catalysts [49]. Though the desorption of the Rydberg hydrogen atoms should be assisted by the formation of clusters, meaning it might be possible to use a more reactive catalyst.

    Ref. 49 is: "T. Bligaard and J. K. Nørskov, in Chemical Bonding at Surfaces and Interfaces, 1st ed. (Elsevier, 2008), pp. 255–321."

    To make another example: carbon alone does not dissociate hydrogen to atoms, but hydrogen atoms dissociated elsewhere can easily migrate to and desorb from carbon surfaces. Carbon works for points 2-3, but not at all for point 1. So you would need also a suitable metal surface for that, as suggested earlier. Metal catalysts supported (deposited) on carbon also already exist commercially, however.

    This could be a related topic:

    I think it should be nice to more deeply theorize this "post it " expectation, no ?

    Hydrogen bound to metals in the form of a hydride is not readily available for the clustering process (RM, UDH) proposed by Holmlid and colleagues.


    My understanding is that catalytically-active surfaces that can work have the following properties:

    1. Efficiently dissociate molecular hydrogen to H atoms;
    2. Collect the dissociated H atoms in large densities in an adsorbed state;
    3. Do not strongly bind with the dissociated H atoms.

    Platinum group metals like are generally good for point 1, but metallic Ni catalysts for hydrogenation reactions exist too, so they are not necessarily excluded from the process. Metal mixtures may be useful if they make for a more efficient catalyst improving points 1-2, but probably not so much if they form hydrides (e.g. Pd in bulk form), thus going against point 3.

    However, the usage of purely metallic catalysts appears to be intended as a combination of carbon+metal surfaces, with possibly iridium as an exception to this.


    Many transition metals like platinum, nickel and iron dissolve carbon at high temperature. This carbon segregates to the surface at lower temperature [86]. A heat treatment or temperature cycling gives a carbon layer on the metal surface. Thus such a metal surface is in effect similar to a carbon surface (see above). With a partial carbon layer, the remaining clean metal areas are dissociative (provide dissociation centres) for hydrogen and the carbon covered areas promote Rydberg state desorption, thus together giving a working H(0) catalyst.

    In the patent application discussed in this thread, nickel is an example of catalytically-active metal listed as suitable for absorbing the ultra-dense hydrogen produced.


    [...] Advantageously, the metallic absorbing member may be made of at least one material selected from the group consisting of a metal in a liquid state at an operating temperature for the apparatus, and a catalytically active metal in a solid state at the operating temperature for the apparatus.

    Examples of suitable materials for the metallic absorbing member include liquid or easily melted metals like Ga or K, and solid catalytically active metals like Pt or Ni etc.

    A mixture (or perhaps a layered combination) of various metals and non-metals having different functions will possibly be more useful or efficient for the process, but there have not been specific studies or patent applications for this, only hints and suggestions.

    Since I wanted to make sure of the behavior at high concentration, I made a few other tests up to 31V with a close-to-saturation KOH solution (35g KOH in 25g water, which would be 140g in 100 ml or almost exactly 25 molar concentration) and a flat copper anode. I used a 0.3 mm tungsten cathode as usual.

    The minimum breakdown voltage VB (voltage beyond which current starts dropping and the reaction transitions from normal electrolysis to plasma electrolysis) observed after adding about 16g of KOH or so was 12–13V, but as the electrolyte concentration was increased, this in turn increased to about 16–17V. Interestingly, though, the so-called mid-point voltage VD (voltage at which plasma electrolysis takes place at the minimum possible current) remained unaffected, with a minimum at 29–30V over a wide range of KOH concentrations.

    In the process, the KOH solution turned deep blue, reminiscent of copper sulfate solution. Unexpectedly, copper deposition on the cathode also occurred, which might have been part of the reason for the increase in the breakdown voltage (possibly due to the decrease in current density). Despite the high electrolyte concentration, I haven't noticed any blocking effect as with potassium carbonate, although I was looking at the reaction from afar and did not video the process.

    What compound was formed here in the solution? Copper(I) hydroxide is suggested to be an unstable orange-yellow compound that may turn red with impurities, and Copper(II) hydroxide should have negligible solubility in water. It might be something else, possibly some poorly-defined potassium–copper complex.

    The near room-temperature, strongly caustic blue solution showed a slowly falling precipitate which reflected light, although the effect ceased after a while:

    External Content
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    EDIT: upon looking for more information, it is plausible that the blue compound formed could be potassium cuprate K2CuO4 (or possibly KCuO2), which should be similar in some ways to the dark purple potassium ferrate solution that was previously formed under similar high-concentration conditions using a carbon steel anode.

    Rob Woudenberg

    Indeed the idea that hydrinos are lighter than air appears to be very different from that of UDH clusters having extreme densities. However I think one has to make a distinction between a continuous phase of matter composed of such clusters from the clusters in isolation.

    Isolated ultra-dense hydrogen clusters like the 3- or 4- atoms clusters (the ones that do not have super properties) should be expected to exist also in the gas phase and possibly be light enough to escape the Earth's atmosphere like helium does, as Mills suggests.

    Accumulation of many clusters and intermolecular forces would instead give a liquid phase of 'true' ultra-density. This excerpt from (open access) seems relevant:

    Whether accumulation (assuming the UDH model holds true there as well) occurs in Mills' reactors will depend on experimental conditions and materials used; it's difficult to say for sure what will happen given they are very different from Holmlid's—but liquid metals apparently are best suited for UDH cluster accumulation and Mills has used/is using them in some devices (gallium, silver?).


    [...] According to various embodiments, furthermore, the hydrogen accumulator may further comprise a metallic absorbing member for absorbing hydrogen in the ultra-dense state, arranged in the accumulation portion of the hydrogen accumulating member. Hereby, the super-fluid ultra-dense hydrogen can be retained in the accumulation portion, which provides for a more efficient generation of muons.

    Advantageously, the metallic absorbing member may be made of at least one material selected from the group consisting of a metal in a liquid state at an operating temperature for the apparatus, and a catalytically active metal in a solid state at the operating temperature for the apparatus.

    Examples of suitable materials for the metallic absorbing member include liquid or easily melted metals like Ga or K, and solid catalytically active metals like Pt or Ni etc.

    For what it's worth, in plasma electrolysis the voltage from which the process starts has been found to have a direct correlation with electrolyte concentration. Among many other parameters, Gupta and Singh made a study with potassium bisulfate (KHSO4), although the authors—like others—associate the effect with primarily electrolyte conductivity and did not investigate the change all the way to saturation concentration.

    E.g. see table 1 in (paywalled) :

    If you plot the mid-point voltage VD against electrolyte concentration using logarithmic scales, it seems as if it could be extrapolated all the way to voltages similar to the ones observed in this thread (factoring out dendrite formation from electrodeposition processes which would not occur with inert anodes like Pt). KHSO4 has a maximum concentration in water of about 3.6M at 20°C and 8.9M at 100 °C, however. Other studies likely exist but I'm not aware of them.

    If you instead decrease electrolyte concentration enough, it should take again kilovolts or anyway the expected voltage required for the breakdown of the gaseous layer formed around the cathode (or more likely water itself, since no significant gas layer would be formed at low concentrations).

    I think the electrolytic conditions used in these experiments are "special" in that a similarly large concentration of ions close to the cathode—mainly due to the electrolyte boiling action, as well as the applied current—is not very easily achieved in other environments; that does not necessarily mean though that more exotic phenomena are directly involved if the necessary electric field for electrical breakdown is attained anyway.

    Randell Mills' energy production process is based on the energy given by Hydrino formation, which could be considered similar to the condensation energy given by UDH formation. I don't think that accumulation is expected or desired in his case, and the hydrinos produced are sometimes regarded as an inert byproduct, e.g.:

    About | Brilliant Light Power


    [...]The overall reaction is H2O to Hydrinos, oxygen, and power of extraordinary power density with emission resembling the light from the Sun, but at thousands of times the solar intensity at the Earth’s surface. The safe, nonpolluting products can be vented to atmosphere. Hydrino is lighter than air and cannot be contained in the atmosphere such that it is vented to space where it is currently observed in vast abundance (approximately 95% of the mass of the universe is comprised of dark matter or Hydrinos).


    The Hydrino molecular product is safe being inert and is also much lighter than air; so, there is a fast rate of its escaping to space after being released into the atmosphere.

    Or: IE 17_IE - V3#17 (

    In principle the same condensation energy-generating process could be taken advantage for UDH too, if the production rate could be large enough. Holmlid et al pointed this out recently also in :


    It is possible to have an energy output by forming H(0) from hydrogen gas. This condensation energy will easily be believed to be non-chemical thus nuclear due to its size (of the order of hundred times larger than normal chemical energy output). It may be a large part of the energy which is considered to be caused by so-called cold fusion, as suggested previously by Winterberg [6,7]. Other nuclear reactions in H(0) may be the main processes considered to be cold fusion, with very little of normal fusion products like 4He and neutrons out.

    Rob Woudenberg

    I don't think that (so far) there have been deliberate suggestions that it takes less energy to convert stable UDH back to ordinary H than what is obtained from the initial condensation to UDH, if that is what you mean.

    If lower values than the bond energy of UDH clusters have been indicated for their destruction, that's probably due to a distribution of energies being assumed. In other words, converting UDH to H and then to UDH again should give zero net energy.

    Stable UDH clusters (which have already dissipated their condensation energy) in theory should be only destroyed by incident radiation (photons—including thermal photons—and particles) with energy larger than a significant fraction of their bond energy, i.e. at least hundreds of eV, which translates to several millions K. This was also suggested in some papers, e.g. in….1007%2Fs10509-019-3632-y :


    The stability of H(0) will be higher than for any other known material. Temperatures above the MK range are required to dissociate this material after it has been formed. Of course, fragmentation due to ionizing photons and fast particles will take place. When the energy density of the radiation field is lower than that corresponding to 1 MK, the ultra-dense hydrogen phase should be stable.

    In the latest paper on the catalysts it is suggested also that exposure to oxygen/oxidation at temperatures >1000 K and partial O2 pressure >10-5 mbar can also destroy such clusters (not temperature alone).


    H(0) with its bond energy of 500 eV [1] is the most stable condensed material that exists, so it remains for a very long time where it is formed until chemical or nuclear reactions can break it down. For example, endothermic oxidation processes at high temperature should be efficient for this. It is destroyed by its inherent spontaneous nuclear processes [9] and by the impact of charged particles and energetic photons. It is possible that all solid materials contain H(0) since it is so stable and forms so small molecules. Thus, experiments which indeed are able to detect H(0) may easily give a positive answer. The factor used in our experiments to destroy H(0) is high temperature, at least 1000 K, in an oxygen atmosphere at 10−5 mbar or higher.

    I think they would be converted back to regular hydrogen atoms. A similar process was suggested for the loosely-bound superfluid clusters above the superfluid transition temperature, in….1007%2Fs10876-018-1480-5 :


    [...] In Fig. 3, the signal of the small clusters at 200–500 ns TOF does not increase with increasing temperature at the transition temperature. This shows that the long-chain clusters do not dissociate to small clusters rapidly but rather decompose to atoms or pairs of atoms which are primarily incorporated in the D(1) cluster structure which seems to increase at high temperature.

    Alan Smith

    From a quick read, it seems mostly concerned with the breakdown of dielectric liquids under the direct application of high voltages (many kV) with moderately sharp electrodes.

    I think the circumstances in the experiments described in this thread are different, in that the electrolyte is instead highly conductive—it could be considered a liquid electrode—and the dielectric (insulating) volume subjected to breakdown is the gas layer (normally H2 and H2O vapor) formed around the active electrode/cathode with electrolysis at elevated voltage.

    Most importantly, in my tests the high electric field allowing a plasma to occur at all despite the low voltages used (30–40V or less) supposedly comes either from nano-sharp dendrites (at low pH and low voltages), and/or from the large amount of positive ions accumulating at the electrolyte-gas layer interface (mostly at high pH).

    The physical mechanism according to which actual electric breakdown is initiated could still be similar to what the paper describes, but I have no way for directly verifying it, besides acknowledging that the formation of a gas layer appears to be necessary, similarly to how bubble formation at the tip of the electrode is considered a basic premise there.

    Rob Woudenberg

    The theory underlying Piantelli/Nichenergy's recent patents and patent applications is based around the idea of negatively charged hydrogen ions H becoming a sort of very heavy electron, but whether they actually shrink or form clusters is not mentioned nor directly suggested there (last time I checked).

    The alkali metals (or other means providing electrons to the active environment) would favor the formation of negative ions H.

    As of a few years ago Piantelli should have been aware of Randell Mills' and Holmlid's research, but I do not know what is his opinion about their experiments and theory, other that he did not think for the latter that a fully described experiment had been published yet at the time (personal communication).

    In his latest publication Holmlid describes and illustrated one material that both generates atomic Hydrogen and K RM.

    I wonder whether it would be easier to use two methods in parallel to obtain the same but independently, so one method to generate atomic Hydrogen and another method to create alkali metal RM.

    It should be possible to apply different catalyst types in layers or at close distance within each other to obtain that. A similar idea is described in the text associated with figure 18 in this patent, although with no reference to RM and UDH: (from "[0161] With reference to Fig. 18 ...")

    The alkali metal compound (it seems implied that it's not in a metallic form or it would melt and not stay put) is called "electron-donor material".

    In fact in earlier papers he used a (heated?) palladium tube in addition to a Rydberg catalyst (Shell) which may indicate that using Shell catalyst alone may not work well.

    A platinum tube was used in the construction from https// but I don't think it was fundamental to its function in that form. Ideally one would want a hydrogen-active metal catalyst (e.g. Pt or Ir as often indicated) in a more active, higher surface-area configuration rather than just as a smooth untreated tube in the hydrogen flow path.

    Metal nanodust, O3, NOx and more can be produced in open-air electric discharges. The sharp acoustic noise produced by the discharges may also be strong enough (even beyond the human hearing range) to cause harm or distress especially to small critters. Biological sensitivity to strong EMF is debated but reported. Personally, I would first think about these before strange radiation.

    Just wanted to report that the same process using carbon steel (iron) at the anode does not seem to produce large dendritic deposition spheres as with nickel or cupronickel (not even after placing ordinary steel wool there), but appears to visually heat up more, producing stronger incandescence. A significant contribution to this could be due to oxidation.

    Adding some alkali impurities (in the form of KOH, which reacted with HCl to form KCl) appeared to help forming dendrites on the cathode also above the surface, likely due to the potassium as a helper.

    After this, as the electrolyte kept evaporating, occasionally small explosions could be heard and seen in the dendritic formation under the surface; I think that was due to alkali electrolyte getting segregated in the deposition layer and decomposing to alkali metal similarly to what occurred earlier on in strongly alkaline conditions using sodium or potassium carbonate. This is just my supposition, though.

    Rob Woudenberg

    No, either I missed or ignored it due to Pd and D2O being used. (EDIT: upon having a look at the paper, it looks like I just forgot about it)

    I just had a very quick look at the related paper uploaded by Ahlfors a few comments down the one you linked and the authors do point out that the electric field strength at the tip of the dendrites could be in the order of 10^9 V/cm.

    A more practical observation on this point is that in order for a visible plasma to occur in the tests I described in this thread, the breakdown voltage of the chaotic H2O/H2 gas layer formed around the cathode has to be overcome. This layer should be in the order of 0.2–0.5 mm thickness with atmospheric pressure or more. In the plasma electrolysis literature, electric field strengths in the order of 105–108 V/m have been sometimes pointed out.


    Regarding that, here at minute 7:45 in this older ColdFusionNow interview, Pamela Ann Boss said that they tried with nickel chloride as the deposition source, but it did not produce results, even if it produced a dendritic plating:…s-Cold-Fusion-Now-016.mp3


    [...] Using these detectors we showed that the palladium deposit was the source of the tracks; control experiments using either copper chloride or nickel chloride in place of the palladium chloride did not produce tracks in the detectors. And in all three systems the metals plated out in the presence of dissolved (?) deuterium gas, and all three systems formed a dendritic plating. The only thing that was again (?) different is that palladium loads the deuterium, copper and nickel do not.

    I don't know however if they examined the dendrites at a microscopic level. It's possible that more than nuclear effects the pits could be due to the very large electric field concentration occurring from the dendrite tips, from which a visible plasma is generated at low voltages. Different materials may lead to differently sized nanofeatures, but this will not be apparent just by eye.

    Furthermore, this also means that higher applied voltages would lead to a stronger effective electric field, so samples that do not work during normal electrolysis may show an effect if voltage is increased high enough to cause a visible plasma.

    Given past observations, I had a suspicion that adding slight amounts of KOH to the HCl/NiCl2 solution formed would make the plasma brighter, although to keep the solution acidic compensation by the addition of more HCl would be necessary. I added about 1g KOH and 10.5g 10% HCl to the previously used solution.

    This was the visible result:

    External Content
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    After turning on the first power supply at 31V, I engaged the other for a total of 62V. I then repeatedly switched one of the power supplies on-off. At 31V dendritic growth occurs on the cathode.

    As expected, the plasma at high voltages became much brighter, noisier and yellower, but Ni deposition at low voltages became slower and I couldn't obtain large dendritic Ni balls as earlier, not even by manually operating the cathode. Furthermore, the electromagnetic noise at high(er) voltages surprisingly became greatly reduced.

    Compare the right portion of the top graph here with the previously posted one:

    As for heat, I am not sure. The solution does appear to heat up quickly, but NiCl2 formation should be exothermic and it could be the main reason why this occurs. Much of the nickel deposited on the cathode appears to combust also, and the NiO there would readily turn into NiCl2.

    EDIT: I tried looking at the "Cosmic Ray Finder" application events, and although the average seems somewhat elevated today (for now at least), the actual number of events did not increase while I was experimenting, so it could still be part of normal background variation.

    [...] the reactive spiky surface appeared to burn/combust in air. I tried looking at it closer once and it had a dark green color (presumably from NiO)

    Here is a photo of that.

    When the solution appears to have a large amount of metal chlorides dissolved in it, growth up to a certain size is particularly fast; here with about 30V applied:

    External Content
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Here is another showing how switching between 31V (where deposition takes place) and 62V causes such deposition to get destroyed. Before it does, however, the plasma reaction looks stronger and produces a brighter light. In the final quiet state there appears to be a relatively large amount of electromagnetic noise getting produced, oddly.

    External Content
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    I see this electromagnetic noise from the appearance of a large "hole" in my DSL connection spectrum, which gets logged by my DSL router (Fritz!Box 7590); at the same time I get "unrecoverable errors". High-speed DSL connections are sensitive to electromagnetic disturbances.

    I used to have these often with the previous high-voltage power supply and cathodic plasma in diluted alkaline solutions at high voltages (800V). When the noise is bad enough, disconnections occur, causing new "synchronization" events. None occurred yet, but nearby electronics may malfunction or cause issues. Though, the webcam CMOS "cosmic ray detector" did not seem to be affected yet.

    I haven't tried higher voltages yet; I have about 10V headroom (up to 72V total). Alternatively if the HCl solution could be more concentrated that could possibly help, but chlorine tends to evaporate away from the solution with time and heat (as well as getting sequestered by metal chloride formation), so it will progressively lose potency.