Quote from Alan Smith

This (pressurised electrolysis) would be a new field. A couple of things come to mind, most particularly that many chemical and (potentially) electro-chemical redox reactions change completely when you go over 100C. So you might have to create a new fuel system and use novel electrolytes to avoid the unexpected.

With the recent pathetic demonstration of Rossi creating more controversy about the feasibility of cold fusion, a re-think of the direction of the LENR movement is needed to make a crucial breakthrough. After 30 years of trying to get a low energy fusion device, Rossi seems to have come closest, but with lots of smoke and mirrors and associated disbelief.

As a newcomer to the LENR forum, I see a lot of re-iteration of theories and promising ideas that are fairly circular without leading anywhere: hence this stream titled 'What should we do next ?'.

I think that Takaaki Matsumoto stated that he only made advances when he became less focused upon the calorimetry side of his experiments. Perhaps, as suggested by Alan Smith, a look at higher temperature and pressure experiments would seem to be a good thing and, with significantly lower levels of neutron production, they won’t resemble pressurized water fission reactors in terms of nasty side effects (neutrons) and thus energy production cost.

The term 'pressurised electolysis' might be a bit restrictive: perhaps Low Temperature and Pressure (LTP) would be more inclusive.

To me as a newbie, there seems to be an unmistakable obsession with the fusion aspect of LENR, when the by-product elements of Takaaki Matsumoto’s experiments could well be fission related. I would suggest that the possibility of low temperature fission be given more attention within LENR.

With large unstable atoms, fission nuclear chain reactions would seem to be triggered and maintained by neutrons. Could not similar nuclear chain reactions triggered by electrons and/or ball lightning occur for far smaller, more stable elements such as potassium, iron, palladium and copper to produce fission products with minimal neutron production. The possibility of LTP fission and fusion reactions should be on the board at all times until one such interpretation leads to the desired low cost, low neutron LENR power generation.

And unless the LENR group can find the required answers, nobody will in the near future.

Quote from Cherepanov2020

The e-capture reaction is the key reaction in the LENR devices - we get a neutron -

1р1 + e + [ether - whose mass is equal to 1.531me] → 0n1

which is based on the assumption that a neutron is simply a combination of a proton and an electron. This assumption leads to...

Quote from Cherepanov2020

If we got a neutron as a result of the e-capture reaction, then further we can get deuterium -

1р1 + 0n1 → 1Н2 + γ (2.25 MeV)

Deuterium, in turn, quickly interacts with a proton, which in excess as a result of the destruction of water -

1p1 + 1Н2 → 2He3 + γ (6.02 MeV)

He-3 is stable, and if this were an easy-to-do reaction it could be expected to be a fairly common element. At 0.0002% abundance this is not the case. Also, both the above reactions are associated with readily identifiable γ rays, not detected in Matsumoto’s work. Without γ ray evidence, wouldn't H2 production from the simple electrolysis process be the more likely source?

Then onto the creation of tritium...

Quote from Cherepanov2020

The following reactions are also possible once we have neutrons -

1Н2 + 0n1 → 1Н3 + γ (6,276 МэВ)

If this were a simple sequence then we would have an easy way to generate lots of tritium. Instead we spend a lot of dollars in terms of time and energy recovering small quantities of tritium from water.

I am fully aware of your line of argument. The STEM line of argument covering these tritium-related issues are as follows:

The ₁Н² produced from electron capture (or its equivalent, β+ decay) by one of the protons within para-hydrogen and some ortho-hydrogen molecules.

The widely acknowledged equation for β+ decay is: P + e^- » N + e⁺ + v_e

Thus the converted hydrogen molecule is a deuterium molecule rather than a deuterium atom: both have one proton and one neutron, but the molecule is bitron bonded whereas the atomic form is strong-force bonded. And a deuterium molecule cannot easily be converted into a tritium atom. Thus tritium remains an expensive product to produce because the only supplies are remnants in water and the by-product of decaying unstable atoms, usually via a fission process.

So, as stated on page 25 of the STEM Atomic Structure paper, all forms of the ¹H₂ molecule, except for same-type proton ortho-hydrogen molecules, one can be nucleon-type converted into a neutron to produce a deuterium molecule (²H₁). This is a significant difference to your suggested process. I am not trying to prove you wrong: I am just suggesting feasible alternative processes based upon the STEM approach.

All your provided series of equations are fusion-related, and many of the ones that I provided are the reverse of your equations. The big difference is that your equations require a lot of He-4 to be created to sustain them, whereas He-4 is simply the (main) by-product of mine. As stated in my earlier post in this stream:

Quote

I would suggest that the observed ENR effects could be due to low energy fission rather than low energy fusion, because, according to the STEM approach, all those elements can created by the release of embedded structures which would represent fission processes.

Its all a matter of fission/fusion confusion.

Quote from Cherepanov2020

Реакция электронного захвата - ключевая реакция в устройствах LENR - мы получаем нейтрон

I don't understand Russian.

What has been cut-and-pasted is a list of well known and addressed fusion equations.

The response would seem to contain no sensible comment about the suggested low-energy 'cold' fission equations that can produce the same experimental by-product elements without having to first generate a lot of helium fuel from hydrogen for the fusion interpretation.

Are not the provided fission equations balanced and feasible? And certainly with the STEM approach they require no more applied heat and pressure than the equivalent chemical reactions involving chemical bond breaking and reallocation.

It would be useful to discus new approaches and the issues that surround them rather than to fire off about older interpretations re fusion which are well covered on this forum. I accept that you believe that these experiments represent cold fusion, but beliefs are not proof; and they certainly do not negate other feasible alternatives.

I have been having a look at Takaaki Matsumoto’s paper ‘Experiments of Underwater Spark Discharges with Pinched Electrodes’ published Winter1996 in the Journal of New Energy. I believe this is one of his later papers.

Matsumoto states that nickel (clearly identified by XS), calcium, titanium, sodium, aluminium, chlorine, cadmium and iodine were deposited on the palladium electrode. Such elements were not observed in a reference region of the wire, nor could they be assigned to impurities but rather suggested to be transmuted during the electrical discharges associated with the micro sparks.

The paper is very thorough in the description of the experiments and the observed effects, but I would disagree about the provided explanations in terms of low energy fusion as defined by the Nattoh Model. I would suggest that the observed ENR effects could be due to low energy fission rather than low energy fusion, because, according to the STEM approach, all those elements can created by the release of embedded structures which would represent fission processes.

From potassium (the electrolyte used was potassium carbonate): chlorine, phosphorus, carbon and aluminium atoms could result as shown below.

K-39/18+1=4-3; 8-3 à Cl-35/16+1=4-2; 8-3 + He-4

                                 àP-31/14+1=4-1; 8-3 + He-4

                                 àAl-27/12+1=8-3 + He-4

K-39/18+1=4-3; 8-1; 16-1 à Cl-35/16+1=4-2; 8-1; 16-1 + He-4

                                         àP-31/14+1=4-1; 8-1; 16-1 + He-4

                                         àAl-27/12+1=8-1; 16-1 + He-4

K-39/18+1=4-3; 8-1; 16-1 à Al-27/12+1=8-1; 16-1 + C-12

Any phosphorus could be expected to combust (possibly producing a slight glow). For the most part helium atoms would mix in with the emitted hydrogen generated by the electrolysis process, but some, caught up by the swirling plasmoidal energy plumes (itonic clusters and micro ball lightning), would be energised kinetically enough to pass through the thin glass of the beaker to create much diminished alpha radiation tracks in the film placed next to the beaker.

From the palladium: nickel can be produced via the following fission reactions, producing 3 possible isotopes of sulphur. Matsumoto does not mention or detect sulphur creation (it would possibly end up as SO₄^-- in the solution), but its presence is mentioned in the current pinch experiments of Bogdanovich et al.

Pd-100/46=4-1; 8-3; 16-2; 32-1 à Ni-64/28=8-3; 16-2 + S-32 + He-4

Pd-102/46=4-1; 8-3; 16-2; 32-1 à Ni-64/28=8-3; 16-2 + S-34 + He-4

Pd-104/46=4-1; 8-3; 16-2; 32-1 à Ni-64/28=8-3; 16-2 + S-36 + He-4

Calcium, titanium and chromium can be produced from iron electrodes as follow:

Fe-56/24+2=4-2; 8=1; 16-2 à Cr-52/22+2=4-1; 8=1; 16-2 + He-4

                                            à Ti-48/20+2=8-1; 16-2 + He-4

Fe-56/22+4=4-3; 16-2 à Cr-52/20+4=4-2; 16-2 + He-4

                                    à Ti-48/18+4=4-1; 16-2 + He-4

                                    à Ca-44/16+4=16-2 + He-4

Fe-56/22+4=4-3; 16-2 à Ca-44/16+4=16-2 + C-12

But neither chromium nor titanium is detected: only calcium and carbon.

Sodium can also be produced from copper electrodes as used in the Bogdanovich et al. experiments, as follows:

Cu-63/28+1=4-2; 8-2; 16-2 à Na-23/10+1=4-1; 8-2 + S-36/16=16-1 + He-4

According to the STEM approach, these fission products maintain the structure of the embedded forms, with the fission process only involving the breaking of bitron bonds rather than strong bonds of any of the nuclear structures. As the process of breaking bitron bonds is compatible with common ‘cold’ chemical reactions, there is no problem with it happening as a ‘cold’ fission process. I suspect that the fission processes at play here would far outweigh any parallel fusion processes.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Never heard about Ivermectin and the "India Ziverdo kit". Its a 99.99% insurance much better than vaccines and fights all version of virus.

A broad-spectrum antibiotic that is reported to reduce the severity and recovery time of COVID-19 patients: it is not a preventative measure. The evidence is also anecdotal and not from controlled studies. If I had a bad dose of Covid in spite of being innoculated, then I would probably want to give it a go.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The vaccines induce

1. neutralising antibodies preventing infection which alas decays quite quickly.

2. memory so that new neutralising antibodies can be regenerated in response to a new infection more quickly than in an unprotected individual

3. memory T-cell response.

Only 1. prevents infection. 2. & 3. help prevent severe disease.

In addition 1. and 2. are very specific to the spike proteins (1st gen vaccines use only those, and anyway they are better conserved than anything else). 3. is broader in response, and also it seems lasts longer.

So the idea is that for delta, 1. & 2. response is lower, but probably still there. 3. response remains almost as good as for original covid.

Display More

I repeat, in a slightly modified form, what I stated earlier: 'Its a no brainer. Vaccine is humanity's best bet', adding that the inoculation levels need to be in the 80% plus at the double dose level to keep Covid in check. Japan, with the aid of good hygiene and widespread use of masks, achieved control at a far lower inoculation rate, as flagged in Alan Smith's earlier post.

Quote from Alan Smith

What's behind the rapid disappearance of the delta variant in Japan? It could be self-extinction. Many scholars point to a variety of explanations for the sudden end of the fifth wave, but one research group says the coronavirus variant may have actually… http://www.japantimes.co.jp

The best thing anyone can do for themselves, their loved ones and their communities to reduce the affects of the Covid scourge, is to get the virtually painless two jabs, and so increase the community inoculation levels.

FM1 wrote....

Quote

Australia, which has seemingly imposed Chinese-style authoritarian measures across select states

and

Quote

But Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC News) doesn’t appear to be as alarmed as other news outlets. ABC is reporting Australian troops are being brought into the territories simply to help boost covid testing numbers because of a growing outbreak

The press in Australia, including the ABC, is alert for any new news story. Any would-be forced internment would be headline news. Your so called 'FactCheck organization' is a front for mis-information and built out of male cow manure.

The Australian Aboriginal community is vulnerable to most Western vices including alcohol, drugs, disease and mis-information. FactCheck styled mis-information is placing these vulnerable ethnic groups at increased risk, particularly as the new African strain advances.

Immunisation generates anti-bodies that afford a level of protection and a less severe dose of Covid should you contract it; Covid for the un-vaccinated provides post-infection anti-bodies if your body (your kidneys, spleen, liver etc.) survives; and if you survive a severe dose without dying, the health problems can continue for quite some time afterwards. Its a no brainer. Vaccine is your best bet.

Alan Smith wrote...

Quote

did you see this work from Edo another one of our members, reviewed here?

No, but I have visited the SAM web site on many occasions, and their video, which is really impressive.

SAM and Lyn Bowen's models have similarities: the former building atoms using deuterium structures and the other Helium/Alpha structures. The videos and graphics of SAM provide lots of eye candy and their full version of the Periodic Table is impressive. Perhaps the book applies the model to explain physical phenomena such as emission spectra and related EMR, electricity, chemistry etc... I will certainly try to get a copy.

All grist to the mill for the development of a structured nucleus model and to provide a valid alternative to the increasingly irrelevant orbital nuclear atomic model.

I would like to re-iterate that, as was stated in the opening gambit of this thread, that...

Quote

Rather than trying to fit the physical model to a mathematical model and interpretation of data, the STEM model has been developed and re-jigged on the basis of what it can and cannot explain: what I refer to as a pragmatic approach. Testing of the theory and underpinning hypothesis is thus in terms of how completely and logically it can explain known Physics and Chemistry related phenomena.

We can argue to and fro until the cows come home about the size of the electron, the 'e' of the electron (the Cherepanov2020 obsession), whether or not quarks exist, the symmetry of geometric shapes, the larger philosophical picture (Cydonia's call) and a myriad of perceived discrepancies and subtleties.

In the submitted papers, STEM develops scale models for atoms and uses them to create models for molecules such as water, oxygen and hydrogen at a scale that corresponds to their well known bond lengths. It provides an explanation of the the allotropic forms graphite and cubic/hex diamond, and a feasible explanation of nucleon-type conversion and the related beta decay process.

STEM blurs the differences between electric and magnetic fields, attributing the different electromagnetic characteristics to different flow patterns of field energy. It also provides an explanation for electric current formation within semiconductors without having to invoke the positive holes based upon static cation switching. The STEM approach also supports the simultaneous two-way electric currents required by the operation of photodiodes and the various common-pin configurations used for transistors: an area totally unexplained by conventional Science.

STEM provides an explanation for the particle/wave nature of light without the need for luminiferous aether (or Ether) to sustain a light ray's travel over vast distances through the near-to-vacuum void of outer-Space. It provides a physical model for light that conforms to the mathematical models in terms of the laws of optics and a logical explanation for the many different forms light takes (PPL, CPL, OVL etc.).

A measure of STEM's relevance is how well it explains observed physical phenomena, including issues relevant to LENR. Once it has been appropriately hacked, re-engineered and improved would be the time to develop the maths to quantify and fine-tune the approach - or, of course, to dump it. But at this point of time it is in the hypothesis testing stage, and a discussion of hobby-horse topics, the finer points of various mathematical theories and historical injustices would seem to be counter-productive.

Cherepanov2020 wrote...

Quote

You have the opportunity to compare my models and those of Lynn Bowen.

I think that I did that earlier in this thread. I would hope that some of her mathematical modelling can be adapted and applied to STEM at a later date.

Bayak wrote...

Quote

To make sure of this, look at the beginning of the preprint. As for the consequences of this mathematical fact in physics, then, probably, it can be used in the construction of an electron model

Thank you for that. From a purely geometric point of view it provides confidence that a toroidal model is compatible with a spherical interpretation of an electron or a CES. I suspect that it is also a better option in the wave equations if you are not going to assume that an electron has a point-form (i.e. to be dimensionless).

I must admit you lost me after equation 1.7. At least I now know what Villarceau circles are.

(Also, you may care to correct your spelling Villarso circle to Villarceau circle in your article).

'

Quote

Bayak wrote...the basic element of your model (STEM), represented as a torus stretched over a sphere with cut-out polar caps, has the symmetry of the group U(1) x SU(2) = U(2)

The torus R:r ratio is speculative and thus ill defined, as would be the latitudinal spread of your polar cap cut-outs. The CEWL calculations for electron radius referenced in the Atomic Structure paper influenced the dimensions used for electrons and CESs, that in turn produce atom sizes and bond length for molecules that seem in the right ball park.

The symmetry of the toroidal structures could well be group U(1) x SU(2): assuming this to be true, what are the implications?

Thank you for that video reference, previously unseen be myself. Ms. Bowen keeps her chains open whereas STEM’s are usually closed and can become embedded structures. I suspect that her electric and magnetic field calculations, with slight modification, could also apply to STEM structures. Pity there wasn’t more time for questions at the end of her session.

Certainly within STEM polygonal structures, repeat subsets of her ‘standard’ shapes can be identified, and I am pretty sure they would have the same number of quark connections. An interesting approach.

The first 10 to 15 pages of the Atomic Structure paper are the most difficult in terms of culture shock and intense in terms of model development. I hope you persevere and can comment further.

MagicSound wrote…

Quote

the question of dipole symmetry isn't discussed and some of the proposed nucleon structures seem to violate this principle

Electrons and CESs are considered to represent a dipole because the outflow flow side defines a pattern that we associate with an outflow positive or negative charge, and the reverse side by a corresponding inflow negative and positive charge. Molecular dipole symmetry would depend upon the layering, structure and bonding patterns, that I would expect would become apparent from computer modelling: an area in which Ms. Bowen’s model is currently far more advanced than STEM.

Cherepanov2020 wrote...

Quote

Today, the most difficult thing is to create a physical model, in which the ether should be presented as a "material substance", and not a mathematical one ... And on the basis of this model, mathematical formulas could be added ...

Difficult but far from the most difficult. You might care to check out STEM, which is a physical model that is the subject of the newly posted STEM: An Energy-Centric Model for Atomic Structure and the Nature of Electricity and Light stream.

As an added bonus, it makes reference to some of the physical models of Professor P M Kanarev, with whom I suspect you are familiar.

The Spin Torus Energy Model (STEM) is an energy-centric approach that is based upon the hypothesis there is only one type of energy, with electric and magnetic fields consisting of the same type of field-energy, but with different field-energy flow patterns.

STEM is a personal theory that been developed ad hoc over the past six years. Rather than trying to fit the physical model to a mathematical model and interpretation of data, the model has been developed and re-jigged on the basis of what it can and cannot explain: what I refer to as a pragmatic approach. Testing of the theory and underpinning hypothesis is thus in terms of how completely and logically it can explain known Physics and Chemistry related phenomena.

There are 3 STEM papers (all pdf format): one on atomic structure; a second about the electron and electricity; and a third about light.

All three papers are inter-related and inter-dependent. It is a bit of a chicken and the egg problem to decide with which to start. I would suspect that most LENR participants would be most comfortable starting with the atomic structure paper, but might need to look at the electron paper (the Duplicit Electron) to find out more about how electromagnetic fields are envisaged and the difference between positive and negative charge carriers.

The third paper, about the physical form and behaviour of the many types of EMR forms would probably be tackled further down the track.

A skeletal overview and flowchart of STEM can be found in the STEM Overview pdf: it also contains direct links to the three papers referenced above.

I have made several posts in Frank Gordon's "Lattice Energy Converter (LEC)" in the replications workshop that was related to ortho- and para-hydrogen explanations. Much of this suggested approach was based around pages 23 to 26 in the atomic structure paper, together with the explanation of why palladium can absorb up to 900% of its volume of H₂ (or D) gas being found on page 62 in the ‘And Beyond Silicon..’ chapter.

Ouch. That's a lot of reading that I suspect I don't have time for. From your readings has target C-12 type and atomic density factors been under consideration, or electron streams been used to increase the neutron hit rate and/or energy levels? But otherwise, thanks for the reference summary on the subject. It should prove useful over time.

GB Goble wrote...

Quote

Perhaps of interest. Also A curious similarity in names. Also Both with deep roots in the Austin Texas metropolitan region

Which is totally a mystery to me, but thank you for the Lawrence Forsley video - that I found interesting. I was a bit surprised that he was mainly talking about mini-fision setups than fusion.

In the video he show a reference to the 2010 Mosier-Boss et al paper 'Comparison of Pd/D co-deposition and DT neutron generated triple tracks observed in CR-39 detectors' which seemed more on subject.

This paper is pretty thorough in confirming the creation of a triple tracks from Pd/D co-deposition experiments. Triple tracks are purported to be due to the 12C(n,n'3a) fission of cubic C-12 atoms (I don't think it would occur for hexagonal graphite carbon), and the paper points out their similarity in form to the DT generated neutrons. The energy of neutrons responsible for the Pd/D triple tracks would seem to be 13.5 MeV or greater.

So, the name of the game would seem to be able to increase the number and energy of neutrons from the Pd/H process, and thus increase the number of C-12 atoms smashed and the energy so produced.

So, if my explanation for the increase in current for the Pd/H process is correct, which it may well not be, then how can an increase in atom smashing be achieved? What comes to mind is:

1. Increase the cubic C-12 density in the neutron targets (no info on C-12 density in CR-39s) to maximize the probability of a neutron strike.
2. Expose the Pd to an electron source (a simple electron gun would probably do). This is to increase the B+ decay (or electron capture) of para-hydrogen molecules, so creating more deuterium molecules that have the possibility of creating more neutrons as the deuterium molecules are split by internal buffeting (as do H₂ molecules). The increase in current flow might help to power the gun, and the gun might also provide an energy-output control mechanism should the approach work.
3. Keep the apparatus as heated as possible to increase the kinetic energy of the H₂ mix within the Pd deposits.

Perhaps some of the first 2 measures have been tried already; I am sure someone will know if they have.

That's my penny-worth for now.

Thank you for that link Curbina: it certainly has more detail than the brief copy I looked at.

Curbina wrote...

Quote

the underlying mechanism, it’s environmental energy making the shift between the two hydrogen states? It has to be coming from somewhere else.

I think that several interrelated processes are at work here. Firstly, there is the ionization effect of the para↔ortho hydrogen conversion process. This is the key process that makes the increased current flow possible.

Secondly, the electrons would seem to attach to molecules in the host gas (e.g. air). Under the applied voltage this causes ionic-based current flow. Current flow ceases in a vacuum.

Thirdly, there is the fogging, which has little to do with what is of interest: the increased current flow of the LEC. In the palladium-confined space, the speculation is that many electrons gain sufficient velocity to cause the B+ decay (or electron capture) of para-hydrogen molecules, so creating deuterium molecules. This process would release positrons that may in turn B- convert deuterium back into hydrogen or result in gamma rays via electron/positron annihilation. A equilibrium would most likely be established for these two inverse processes.

I find that, even in the fuller version of Rout's paper, he devotes too much attention to the film fogging. His arguments for the elimination of electrons and Beta particles is very terse and do not match the figure 4 graphs. But, as stated above, the fogging is relatively unimportant in terms of the increase of electric current, which is the real gem.

Stevenson wrote...

Quote

the LEC conductivity is approximatively proportional to the gas pressure (even when using air): this imply that the gas is involved in the process, not just the occluded hydrogen, that cannot be accounted for the relatively large conductivity observed.

The gas would almost certainly be involved as described above.

Stevenson wrote...

Quote

the isomer hypothesis would imply that just Pd or Fe and hydrogen would be sufficient so produce the effect (the co-deposition being irrelevant), that is not the case

You are perhaps overlooking the packing of H and D into the palladium lattice. A similar effect occurs for nickel and titanium, but with far less absorbed H/D resulting in far less spectacular results.

Quote

can you suggest an energy source and boundary of how much one could extract from it, in order to see how long would the reaction keep going?

The suggested source is the para↔

It would possibly continue indefinitely as long as the para↔ortho hydrogen conversion process is still possible. This is one of the main reasons why I find it so interesting.

Quote

Indeed- it's a nuclear battery.

I would term it a hydrogen battery, but unfortunately this has other connotations.

Quote

How would you explain the x ray fogging observed by Rout et al with hydrogen loaded Pd?

I would never claim to have all the answers. I was surprised how short Rout's paper was and I would have liked a bit more info.

My suspicion is that it is due to the released electrons occasionally causing the B+ decay (or electron capture) of para-hydrogen molecules to create deuterium molecules. This view, I suspect, will be quite contentious.

Quote

the system stops working in a vacuum -even though there is still adsorbed hydrogen present in the lattice

This might simply imply that the electrons need to attach to a molecule, and so the charge movement is closer to ionic movement as in a chemical battery as opposed to electron movement as in a diode.In a vacuum molecules are scarce.

Hi

I am new to the LENR Forum, but I have had a pretty good look at the site content and structure. The pursuit of practical cold fusion technology that could benefit mankind is certainly a worthwhile cause. Even by experimenting with cold fusion possibilities may lead to useful technologies that aren’t distinctly cold fusion, and that would be a positive outcome as well.

Frank Gordon's "Lattice Energy Converter (LEC)" has caught my eye. The increased electric current generation demonstrated in his 2020 video looks quite promising. However, I would like to suggest some alternative interpretation of the processes at work here that are related to ortho-hydrogen to para-hydrogen conversion and vice versa.

H₂ is considered to be a molecule consisting of two hydrogen atoms. It comes in two forms: ortho-H₂ (same-spin hydrogen atoms) and para- H₂ (opposite spin hydrogen atoms). In hydrogen gas approximately at room temperature (24^OC say)and above, the gas contains 75% ortho-hydrogen to 25% para-hydrogen, with the percentage of para-hydrogen increasing by reducing temperatures below 24^OC, with solidified hydrogen gas being 100% para hydrogen as 0^OK is approached.

At all temperatures above 0^OK, para↔ortho hydrogen conversion is taking place, but stabilising around 24^OC. The conversion process involves the breaking of the hydrogen bond, which releases an electron and two protons, is an ionisation process. As temperature of the mix increases (i.e. when Frank heats up the apparatus), the rate of conversion is increased significantly, as are the number of released electrons, but the para to ortho hydrogen ratio is still maintained at 3 to 1.

Palladium acts as a storage medium for hydrogen, being able up can store up to about 900% its volume of H₂ gas. With the internal surface having palladium deposits, what I believe is happening is that the electrons needed to support the increased electric current are being randomly produced by the para↔ortho hydrogen conversion process within the palladium, rather than a process related to cold fusion and/or the creation of deuterium. Whichever way, it certainly looks to be a promising bit of technology.