Posts by Mats002

    The answer to the RATE of energy gain is in the ash.

    The inner workings of the process is not in the ash, I am pretty sure of that.

    Because we know a lot about isotope nuclear chain reactions but the mystery part is in the beginning of the process,
    How does the ultra-slow-neutron form??? Neither Widom-Larsen, Cook-Rossi, Storms or other theorists have explained this initial part
    of the process in a conclusive way that explains ALL path of LENR (PdD and NiH and D-D and...)

    Please help fill out this gap, what did the theorists say about the details of the initial part of the process?
    - NAE is correct but at an abstract level of understanding
    - CECR is correct but not the only way to trigger LENR
    - ...

    This presentation goes well with the question:…15/07/5043_Popa-Simil.pdf
    See slide 48 for example of theory at a level detailed enough to explain and by that optimize and design LENR.

    Yes but the linked page cover superconductors at very low temps, < 100 K, nevertheless I find this information interesting:

    lattice stiffens under pressure giving Debye temp increase giving superconducting temp decrease
    and if so we also have the opposite:
    lattice softens when pressure decrease giving Debye temp decrease

    Most LENR experiments are performed at low pressure or vacuum which would trigger the effect at lower temperatures, "loading" start at a lower temp.
    Lugano and Parkhomov hotcat experiments are performed at normal atm pressure, "loading" start at a higher temp.

    Just thinking and saying... :huh:

    Thanks, I am studying Piantelli, Focardi papers and it seems that hydrogen absorption is occuring around 120°C and more. Actually with temperatures under 200°C it can be few times faster.
    I think that we are doing this process incorrectly all the time. If it is done properly, we could see excess heat even at low temperatures.
    The problem is, we are not seeing it. Maybe it is prerequisite for Rossi effect, which is boosted by the temperature + Li.

    It seems as these papers are very usefull. Even excess heat triggering is described here. There is nothing different then in Rossi system, I think that Rossi found how to move from few watts to few kilowatts but the matter is very same.

    I am sure that we are incredibly near the success.

    I think you are going along the right track, but I would be careful about conclusions from temperature readings. Was 120°C inside or outside core? How was it measured? Hot spots/cold spots not only from the heater coil, but also locally inside the fuel material itself could be very different from any reading with a TC.

    If the cause for pressure decrease is not H packed into the lattice of Ni, but because of surface SPP and Rydberg matter formation then - as learned from Svein and Axil - the process we want to trigger is extremely fast and local. Debye temp for Ni (~178°C) can be a threshold that must be passed, but the average/slow and by that integrated temp readings of a TC or even a pyrometer is far from the true temp in each small spot of the Ni micro powder.

    Good idea with a window into the core. Not only will it give better/new measurements, but also opens a way to stimulate/trigger active sites with laser pulses, which might be an option equal to heat pulse or EM stimulation.

    But for now, I have full respect and understanding for replicating closer to Lugano/Parkhomov, having some good results in that realm first.

    Agree that paper Sankaranarevidencefo.pdf is of great interest to map to the me356/MFMP experiment, we would need:

    volume of the cell
    calculate dead volume (volume of the cell - volume of fuel)
    H2 pressure vs volume vs temperature graph or table - how to?
    Alan said that the pressure meter was not calibrated properly and fault marginal was somehing like 2% on 1600 psi (the total range)
    but I could not find that statement, he might said it in the youtube stream chat. This must be settled first I guess.

    I found this http://chemistry.stackexchange…-terms-of-required-energy

    Note that at the end of discussion says: "Hence, pressure change is more sensitive to volume change and is larger in magnitude."

    Parkhomov told MFMP that the reason they did not see as good result as him in the Padua GS2, might be because of "not enough dead volume"

    Hope for clarification from professionals :/ , and note that Sankaranarevidencefo.pdf experiments also had a geiger counter with background of 25 CPM (250 counts in 10 minutes) and observed increased CPM well over 10% which is well above error margins where as me356/MFMP observed almost 50 CPM at end of test :lenr:

    Jim, I know you understand a lot of this subject, please describe for a dummy :thumbsup:

    Rydberg matter is H atoms with excited electron making it 'larger' making more pressure - yes/no?
    But the NiH logic is that pressure DEcrease with 'loading', so do we have any reference to knowledge that pressure decrease with increasing amount of Rydberg matter? And can it be formed at atmospheric-ish pressure at 20 - 800 degree C?

    EM radiation (could be in the form of heat which is IR EM radiation) is needed to form Rydberg matter, but in experiments the normal way of creating Rydberg matter is laser - yes/no?

    This link show how to optimize Rydberg matter:


    Heat-pressure behaviour in NiH system could be explained by Rydberg matter formation instead of H absorption/desorption in Ni? ?(

    Many NiH papers I read describes pressure behavior with absorption/desorption, for example:
    "observed in hydrogen-loaded nickel rods"
    "hydrogen absorption occurred"…overviewOfH-NiSystems.pdf
    "The hydrogen absorption is..."
    "nickel alloy rods loaded with hydrogen"
    "absorption of hydrogen by nickel"

    Of course they could all be victim of the same wrong assumption, I am open for that.

    I spent a lot of time looking at MFMP/me356 Padua GS2 5 day run plotly heat-pressure behaviour and above papers are the base for this understanding:
    a) Heat stable and Pressure down = loading = absorption (or ADsorption but as you say the amount of H would be too small to explain the Pressure changes?)
    b) Heat down and Pressure up = desorption
    c) Heat up and Pressure up = added heat from external or internal source is the cause for incresed Pressure (Input power ON or OFF will tell the place of heat source, internal or external)
    d) Heat down and Pressure down = expected behaviour when no desorption occurs
    e) Heat up and Pressure down = loading = absorption, this is the goal in the long run
    Max loading of H into Ni is reached when Pressure can not go lower at high temp (after many cycles in many hours according to above papers)

    Behaviour in timing is also of interest: Pressure leading Temperature or vice versa? Increased Pressure because of increased heat is expected, how to explain pressure raise before heat raise? Or events where power is off, temp dropping but suddenly a bump of +4 degree C or more above signal-to-noice ratio occurs?

    I would be happy to learn more how above heat-pressure behaviour can be explained with Rydberg matter formation.

    Change is a driver for business. Retrofitting will make energy consultants like Swedish Ångpanneföreningen (ÅF) grow, another winner could be Atlas Copco (ATCO) who delivers innovative sustainable solutions for industry.

    Then looking at large energy consumers we have pulp & paper, steel and aluminium producers. Early adopters of cheap energy should be winners.

    What about the energy producers? They might loose big customers that become self-sufficient and go off-line.
    But then again energy producers can be winners if they offer cheap risk-free outsourcing solutions to industry.

    Not easy.…otic-pentaquark-particles

    Maybe this also helps to understand the behaviour of the nucleus in a LENR reaction ;)

    My understanding: The antiquark in this short lived pentaquark-state equals LENRs concept of a heavy electron. Next state after this is that a new ultra-low-momentum neutron is formed. This also show the weakness of the standard model; static, still pictures of a changing continous event combined with one-eyed high speed particle collisions are blind to LENRs.

    Thanks to LCD at ECW for looking at the history of the pentaquark, it could also be the history of cold fusion/LENR: :thumbup:

    Hi all,

    I am thinking of how to invest in LENR or possibly the cause of it.
    This is my situation, I am grateful for answers and tips:

    I am not a professional investor, neither am I rich, but have some money to put at risk, let's say in the range of $10K - $100K.
    I am not willing to put all money in one single company, risk should be some how distributed.
    I know about but as an individual am I two small for them ?(



    ... but rather that this effect seems large enough that a clever and deceitful person such as Rossi could have planned things out in a way that at a high temperature and sufficiently high voltage a substantial amount of power might be directly discharging into the nickel powder by design, and that this could have accidentally happened to some of the successful replicators.

    F&P original experiment did all known actions needed to trigger LENR in one go; load of H into Pd, trigger the effect by heat and arc stimulation, all sumultanously. This was hard to replicate. We now know from history that the solution to successful replication and understanding was to uncouple each parameter from each other doing the actions in separate and measurable steps.

    Rossi might found som clever combination that simplify his product, but for replication purposes I think separating parameters for individual test ranges is what Rossi did first, and also what all replicators of LENR should aim for first.

    Therefore I agree that separating the EM/Arc-stumulation from heat-stimulation and also control of pressure is the best way forward at this stage of replications.

    My brain can not wrap around the concept of a direct pulling force, to me all fundamental forces must be pushing. An expanding universe at the smallest scale might be a solution but better yet is the concept of a default pressure like Zero Point Energy, see

    "A major implication of the new model, is that the Strong force is understood to be an ultra-close range Casimir Effect, that literally holds the nucleus together from the outside by virtue of the continuous, impelling force from the photon, radiation pressure of the Zero-Point Field energy, estimated to be >1018 kPa, rather than the conventional view of internal “glue” like bonding."

    Hi Alain,

    Thanks for the link, really interesting analysis, and I know you are a very knowledgable person, but because I am Swedish - and I am very aware Swedish language is odd, having a hash sound, especially to the beautiful language of love, French - please allow me to educate on the matter of letter ö in koll; it does not exist in that word. O in koll is still an o, köll do not exist. Sifferkoll means 'in Control of Numbers'. I am sure that just gave me a ticket to a French language class ;-)

    Hello me, thanks for an exciting run! Can you share the free volume you had in this reactor? You can calculate it from your known data or sink all parts inside the reactor into a water tank to know the total volume of that stuff, then subtract that volume from the inner tube volume of the vessel, adding inner pipe volume going to the pressure meter. Well I guess there are a number of ways to know the free volume. <p> I have looked for, but not found, data on free space for Parkhomov reactor. If your pressure had the same path but 5x lower than Parkhomov then he might had 5x less volume than your reactor?<p> Hopefully just a few runs up to 200C are needed to find a free volume giving the same pressure path as Parkhomov reactor.