Frank Znidarsic and A Paradigm for Classical Physics (Guest Post)

The following is a guest post written by E-Cat World reader Gordon Docherty

Frank Znidarsic is a physicist and electrical engineer who has been investigating new sources of energy for twenty years, examining research done in cold fusion and antigravity, looking for common themes and elements in that research.

The eventual product of his investigation has been the development of a startling new theory of quantum reality, the Z-theory, which states that “The constants of motion in a Bose-Einstein Condensate tend toward the electromagnetic, when stimulated at a dimensional frequency of 1.094 megahertz-meters”. In deriving this theory, Znidarsic paid particular attention to what, over the years, has tended to be ignored by the physics community – the (local) magnetic component of the gravitational, electrical and nuclear forces, that is, the magnetic component of the gravito-magnetic, electro-magnetic and spin-orbit forces.

He has published several essays on the subject that he hopes will one day be peer reviewed – if any physicists care to do so (an example paper may be accessed through the following URL):

Until now, whilst his theory is undoubtedly brilliant, it has languished somewhat “in quiet waters” due to Znidarsic’s own quiet nature. Now, however, a physicist who has enthusiastically looked into Znidarsic’s work, Lane Davis, has put together an informative set of excellently produced 20 x 10-to-15-minute YouTube videos, the first of which is shown below:

A full list of the videos can be found here.

All the videos are well worth watching, and are presented in a form that is accessible to both young and old, lay person and expert alike (although the background music is likely to be appreciated more by younger viewers than older ones!). Still, the main aim of Lane in producing these videos is not to produce a set of dry tombs lacking in any form of inspiration, but a set of videos to help inspire and speed understanding, by stimulating multiple senses in the “viewer” to make a deeper, even lasting, impression, in order to encourage viewers to think about Frank Znidarsic’s theories and so help “spread the word”.

The YouTube videos start by reviewing the story of “cold fusion” as it has unfolded since Pons and Fleischmann’s initial announcement in 1989, before moving on to “Plasmonics” (Plasmons being electrons stimulated by an external source such as a laser or heat source to form coherent waves), Bose-Einstein condensates and the vibrational stimulation of Bose-Einstein condensates with a dimensional frequency of 1.094 MHz-metres (1.094 million m/s), and eventually onto the subject of the “quantum transition”.

In the process, the videos look into the 100% energy transfer seen when a photon transitions after striking other particles, and the importance of matching impedance in attaining this 100% (loss-less) energy transition, before considering how cohering the (local) magnetic components of the gravitational, electrical and nuclear forces can be used to induce localized lossless impedance on the macro scale (think of stepping from one vehicle to another when both vehicles are twisting and turning in unison – it doesn’t matter if one is big and one is small, the rate of change in their relationship is at all times 0, so the step is easy and “time forgiving”, requiring little effort or haste).

Particularly covered in the videos is the importance of matching the speed of light (normally around 300 million metres per second in a vacuum, but variable in Bose-Einstein condensates in particular, where photons has been slowed down to around 17 metres per second without an overall loss of energy) with the speed of phonons in a material (induced by plasmonic stimulation). Of particular significance to this “slowing down” is the transitioning of photons from “open” waves to “closed” virtual particles of diameter lambda (the frequency of the wave), as they collide with other particles or light waves in the Condensate. From this, Znidarsic goes on to observe that photons, with a positive and negative part, form a natural capacitor when they collapse to virtual particles, and, using the relation between energy and capacitance, and the speed of phonons stimulated in the Bose-Einstein state to achieve the observable effects on gravitational and nuclear forces, derives a value that has, until now, just been a number “magically produced out thin air” – Planks’ Constant. All this Znidarsic does within a classical physics framework, without breaking any laws (including conservation of energy): the videos by Davis also go on to stress how quantum physics should be seen as a subset of classical physics, not the other way around.

Most importantly for LENR, Davis covers Znidarsic’s observation that, as magnetic components are local in nature, they can be changed up and down without violating any of the laws of the conservation of energy, and it is manipulation of the magnetic component of the three forces of electro-magnetism, gravito-magnetism and spin-orbit forces that produces the apparently “magic” effects. In particular, for LENR, manipulating the magnetic component of the spin-orbit (strong nuclear) force allows the forces to be magnified outside of the Coulomb barrier without the need for massive brute force.

Instead of using brute force to overwhelm the Coulomb barrier, in other words, by amplifying the magnetic component of the spin orbit force, the range of this strong nuclear force can be expanded out beyond the Coulomb barrier, so allowing adjacent nuclei to reach out “and reel each other in”.

To illustrate this effect, Davis shows an “everyday” example from the equivalent effect seen with electro-magnetic forces: Davis presents the example of how a (passive) iron bar, inserted into an electrical coil with a hitherto “air” core, magnifies the magnetic component (the “magnetism” of the electro-magnet) without requiring any more current to be drawn or voltage increase in the electro-magnet, something that is demonstrated day-in, day-out in school physics labs around the world. Davis then goes on to apply the same concept to the gravitational force (however that is understood), pointing out that amplifying the gravitational field of a cluster of atoms can produce an effective artificial gravity force (or repulsion, depending on geometrical configuration), as has been claimed in several, independent experiments that all involved gyroscopic rotation in one form or another.

Davis also mentions that, at least to date, we have been unable to produce large clusters of atoms (Bose-Einstein Condensates) where photonic and phononic speeds are equivalenced, except initially at very low temperatures (2K), where Helium was used and, later, at 90K, for another more complex material. It would appear, however, that small, localized Bose-Einstein Condensates can be induced more easily, by applying the correct plasmonic stimulation frequency to (faceted) granular powders, provided the dimensions of the granules and the plasmonic stimulation frequency combine to produce a dimensional frequency of 1.094MHz-metre.

So, for example, when using granules in the 50 nanometre range, a plasmonic stimulation frequency of 10^14 Hz produces the dimensional frequency of 1.094MHz-metre. This is exactly as is seen in the e-Cat, Defkalion and Blacklight Power devices (Znidarsic recognized the significance of matching size to frequency BEFORE work by the likes of Rossi empirically showed up this relation).

According to Znidarsic, a Nickel powder placed under pressure (to allow transmission of phonons created through plasmonic stimulation) and then loaded with monatomic Hydrogen, is likely to produce significant excess heat — exactly as seen in the E-Cat, Defkalion and Blacklight Power devices. Of course, heat and some form of catalyst is required to increase the dissolution and mobility of the Hydrogen atoms and their absorption into the Nickel lattice and, likely as not, some form of heavy electron shielding is also playing a significant part, but it would appear that what is being described by Znidarsic does come into play in a significant way: indeed, this multiple combination of engineered factors is a likely reason why a glass of water, when poured over an old, worn, EPNS fork, does not cause a spontaneous increase in heat, nor why this effect is not readily observed in nature.

Now, like all ideas and theories, there is plenty of room for discussion, debate, argument and reframing, but the observations, theory and mathematics that flow from Frank Znidarsic’s work and ideas does provide a set of useful concepts, tools and models – as the saying goes, a (mental) picture is worth a thousand words.

Finally, for those who are worried about the (measurable, observable and calculable) dimensional frequency of 1.094 million m/s being somehow just another “magic number”, remember that it is a number derived from observation and measurement, a number that is, in every way, a factor as solid and reliable as “c”, the speed of light, and so much preferrable to a “truly magical number” such as Plank’s constant, produced just to make the equations work. This having been said, by using this dimensional frequency to derive Plank’s constant, Plank’s constant is, itself, now also elevated to a solid, derivable value, rather than just a magic trick to make things work.

Gordon Docherty

  • Venno

    Please help
    What is a dimensional frequency
    Is this effect known amongst the LENR community eg MFMP rossi defcalion etc

    • Gordon Docherty

      Imagining a point, the sum of all distances traveled by that point as it is subject to (moves up and down on) a wave in one second. So, if you had a buoy on the ocean, and a wave comes past so that the buoy moves up 0.5m, down 0.5m and comes back to its starting point in 1 second, the dimensional frequency is 1Hz-metre. Increasing the frequency would increase the dimensional frequency, while decreasing the distance moved “up and down” (amplitude) because of the passing wave would decrease the dimensional frequency. So, a 1Mhz frequency causing an object to displace 50nm up / 50nm down would have a higher dimensional frequency than a 1Mhz frequency causing an object to displace only 5nm up / 5nm down. Note that a higher dimensional frequency does not necessarily mean more energy required. When a point being displaced is subject to greater and greater constraint, but the energy being put into the wave remains the same, the point will still move less – that is, the dimensional frequency will fall. Dimensional frequency, in other words, is proportional to the energy in the wave AGAINST the energy being used to constrain the medium through which the wave is moving. So, it can reasonably be assumed that as a wave passes from a liquid (less constrained) to a solid (more constrained), and there is 100% energy transfer, the frequency will remain the same BUT the dimensional frequency will fall, while moving from solid to (free moving) gas would see the frequency remain the same but the dimensional frequency rise. Indeed, across an imperfect metal lattice, whose pockets are filled with gas, the compressional wave speed through the solid / gas should remain the same BUT the dimensional frequency should vary greatly between the heavily constrained atoms in the lattice and the much less constrained atoms in the gas, causing an effect not dissimilar to a striker on a pinball machine as the “bottled up” energy in the lattice is transferred without loss (that is, when the whole structure is in coherence so that there is matched impedance between solid and gas) transfers to the much less constrained monatomic hydrogen atom – with that impedance between solid and gas (and one atom and another) seemingly being at its lowest when the dimensional frequency hits 1.094MHz-metre AND electromagnetic energy also hitting the same areas is transferred across the area at the same speed (allowing energy to transfer from photon to phonon to nucleon / electron and back again with 100% “lossless” ease.

    • Gordon Docherty

      What I meant to write:

      The Dimensional frequency is the sum of all distances traveled by a point as it is subject to (moves up and down on) a wave in one second.

      Imagining, for a minute, a buoy on the ocean: as a wave travels past the buoy such that the buoy moves up 0.5m, down 0.5m and comes back to rest in 1 second, the dimensional frequency of the wave is 1Hz-metre.

      Increasing the frequency increases the dimensional frequency, while decreasing the distance moved “up and down” (amplitude) decreases the dimensional frequency.

      Examining this further, a 1Mhz frequency wave that causes an object to displace 50nm up / 50nm down has a higher dimensional frequency than a 1Mhz frequency wave causing an object to displace only 5nm up / 5nm down.

      This having been said, a higher dimensional frequency does not always mean a wave of greater energy: when a point being displaced is subject to greater and greater constraint (while the energy being put into the wave remains the same,), the point will move less and the dimensional frequency will fall, even though the energy in the wave remains the same.

      Dimensional frequency, in other words, is proportional to the energy in the wave MINUS the energy being lost due to constrains in the medium through which the wave is moving.

      So, it can reasonably be assumed that as a wave passes from a liquid (less constrained) to a solid (more constrained), and there is 100% energy transfer, the frequency will remain the same BUT the dimensional frequency will fall, while moving from solid to (free moving) gas would see the frequency remain the same but the dimensional frequency rise.

      Turning to the imperfect metal lattices (loaded with hydrogen atoms) such as those found in the e-Cat, the compressional wave speed through the lattice will remain the same BUT the dimensional frequency will vary greatly between the heavily constrained atoms in the lattice and the much less constrained hydrogen atoms, causing an effect not dissimilar to a striker on a pinball machine as the “bottled up” energy in the lattice is transferred without loss to the much less constrained monatomic hydrogen atom – and this is where matching impendances becomes so important, for, when impedances match, the whole structure enters a state of (macro) coherence.

      Empirically, this has been found to be the case when the dimensional frequency hits 1.094MHz-metre.

      At this point, the collapsing photons, in a transitional quantum state as they enter the lattice, are travelling at the same speed as the phononic compression waves travelling (generally) at 90 degrees to the photons, allowing energy to transfer from photon to phonon to nucleon / electron and back again without loss.

      So, we now have monatomic hydrogen atoms, with electrons that have absorbed photonic / phononic energy to become heavy electrons, being “catapulted” across fissures in the lattice (“vibrating” in unison with the phononic wave) to strike other (monatomic) hydrogen atoms that have also been stimulated so that their spin-orbit forces now reach out across the Coulomb barrier, resulting in either transmutation (shielded proton-heavy electron forming a neutron, then proton-neutron binding) or fusion (proton-proton binding), all this made possible by the ease of energy transfer between photon, phonon, proton and electron.

      The correct dimensional frequency, in other words, is critical to the success of any LENR venture.

      • Venno

        Hi Gordon
        Just another question on this most interesting subject
        Is this information well known in the LENR community as I have not heard of it yet( I am by no means an expert just a curious LENR Fan)

        • Gordon Docherty

          The simple answer is that, until I came across Lane Davis’s excellent videos, I had never seen Znidarsic’s work presented in such an easily digestible, contextual and relevant form.

          What is good about the Internet, and forums such as E-Cat World, is that community of interest focal points are provided that support and encourage the rapid dissemination and interchange of information old and new. This, in turn, encourages a combinatorial explosion (snowball effect) of knowledge and new ideas that feed back into the communities via the focal points…

          • clovis

            very well said , my friend

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Just want to say thanks for your answers Gordon.

      • Gordon Docherty

        Interestingly, a colleague of mine has just put together an oscillating circuit in which the voltage climbs and climbs way above the voltage of the input batteries – hundreds of times more, in fact. The oscillating circuit uses two inductors. Each inductor is 0.99 meters long. The frequency at which oscillation occurs is ~1.1MHz, delivering the 1.094MHz-meter dimensional frequency. It would appear that it is the total distance of a material through which a wave must travel that determines the dimensional frequency, not the movement of a single elementary particle. What appears to be the case, in other words, is that if you had only 1 electron, you would need to move it by 1 meter with a frequency of 1.094MHz to get the 1.094MHz-meter dimensional-frequency. Subjecting electrons in a 1 meter metal lattice to the same frequency, on the other hand, even though each electron moves only a very small amount (say 10^-40 meters), the sum of all those movements is also 1 meter, delivering the magic 1.094MHz-meter again. At least, that is what this oscillating circuit indicates, something to bear in mind when creating grains of Nickel (or whatever substance is being used)

      • Rockyspoon

        Sort of like atomic harmonics–if out of phase, it doesn’t work (like being out of tune); if in phase (in tune), it produces something amazing (and perhaps useful).

  • Gordon Docherty

    Just one comment – 10 to the power 14 (10^14) Hz came out as 1014 Hz – please mentally insert the caret (^)

  • georgehants

    Would like to thank Admin and Gordon Docherty for trying to give this work the opertunity to be discussed and argued as should the work of every scientist etc.
    As science seems incapable of acting like scientists and investigating the unknown it falls to Websites such as JONP and this one to replace the ridiculous comics that only cover basic classical topics.
    This page is peer review, open to all and not restricted to incompetent, bias, corrupt, designated reviewers who debunk a subject because of their psychological inability to move beyond a steam engine.
    Even if an idea, theory or work is ultimately in error that is no bad reflection on the scientists involved as all research is useful and one never knows that at a later date with more knowledge that his thinking may still turn out to have merit.
    If not then his work saves others from repeating the same path.
    There should be Nobel Prizes for scientists etc. that work for years on Wonderful ideas that turn out to be unproductive.
    Good luck to Frank Znidarsic and all other scientists who try to move knowledge forward and not stagnate like most “experts” today.

  • georgehants

    Andrea Rossi
    August 19th, 2013 at 7:49 PM
    Dear Ron:
    Thank you for your kind words.
    About the Sterling: we of the R&D division, that I lead as the chief scientist, did not find any manufacturer with a product really ready for the market. We have found many conceptual proposals, but too far from an industrial application. Anyway, all the known producers of prototypes in the world know that as soon as they will have a product, we will be delighted to buy a model and test it.
    For the moment, this is all, regarding this issue.
    Warm Regards,

  • georgehants

    Corrupt science sets standards for all
    People don’t realize how corrupt science is. They need to know, because science is where the standards of rationality are set for the rest of society. A better realization of what’s going on in science should result in science being criticized for validity and evidence, like everything else in society.

    • Allan Kiik

      This is a complete rubbish, does not make sense at all.
      Science may be corrupt indeed, some parts of it definitely are, but stating that nobody knows where Einstein got his most famous equation is not evidence of deep knowledge about the state of the science.
      An easy example (high-school level education is enough) of derivation is presented here:

      • georgehants

        Hi Allan, just to clarify your point could you say where you think, say Ramanujan found his formulas.

        • Allan Kiik

          While I don’t get how this could clarify my point about the junk written in the (“pravda” means “truth” in russian – this was the name of the communist party newspaper, actually the last place in the world to look at for the truth), I guess it was something called intuition, plus hard work after that, for rigorous proof.

          • georgehants

            Hi Allan, just to clarify your point could you say where you think, say Ramanujan found his formulas.

    • GreenWin

      George, it is discouraging to see so much classical dogma at a time when great strides forward occur outside the mainstream box.

      As for LENR, each day it is kept muzzled, hidden, underfunded, exposes innocent human beings to the colossal dangers of nuclear fission. Even the Bebe’s Matt McGrath is worried:

      “Tepco says this is the worst so far in terms of volume – and it is also highly radioactive, with levels in the leaked water of 80 million becquerels per litre, some eight million times above the limit for drinking water in Japan.” BBC News,

  • Roger Bird

    I don’t understand the use of the phrase “speed of sound” when the number cited was not even close to the speed of sound: 1,096,000 meters per second”. I guess I missed something.

    Otherwise, this is a very interesting set of videos. I am now on 13 or 14. And, yes, I do hate the music. (:->) I expect that I will have to watch the entire set twice, and even then I will not fully understand. And I expect that people here will be mulling over these videos for a long time.

    • Gordon Docherty

      The term speed of sound is used because of the reference to phonons – waves that cause a horizontal compression and relaxation (like sound waves), not vertical oscillation (like light waves or ripples on a pond) – I guess its just easier to say sound waves than waves of horizontal compression and relaxation .

    • Rockyspoon

      Wait until one of the last video, in which he RAPS the whole thing! It took me 3 times through to understand it. And I still hate rap.

  • daniel maris

    Can’t say I can really follow all the physics but I was interested to see the article reference the experiments where they slow down light to “walking” speed. I have always thought those experiments must be a source of real insight into the world of the sub-atomic and so it appears to be the case.

  • Stephen

    Oh my… this is discouraging.

    • Roger Bird

      You mean because your position that LENR is not true may not be true? Or because it is so difficult to understand? Or what?

  • New very objective german mainstream media article about cold fusion, ICCF-18 and Defkalion Demo:

    • AB

      It starts with the same old misconception that P&F have never been replicated.

  • theBuckWheat

    The surprise for me about the recent public online Defkalion test was the news that it produces such a large magnetic field that it must be run in a shield. That ought to set a lot of theoretical physicists scurrying to figure out.

    • Boris Ivanoff

      I was surprised they talked about a Faraday shield. That doesn’t work to shield magnetic forces.

      • theBuckWheat

        But the presenter said that the shield was necessary to not interfere with the instrumentation due to magnetism. Obviously we have a bit of a contradiction that hopefully can be resolved in time.

  • Chris I

    So far I only looked at this guy’s abstract, which begins with:

    “The quantum condition has historically been described in terms of the stationary quantum states and the Planck constant.”

    But this is not true at all. He appears to be like many folks I’ve come across, whose understanding of elementary QM is limited to the so-called “time independent Schrödinger equation” (which actually is just the Hamiltonian’s eigenvalue equation) and who mistake the Schrödinger equation for being no more than that. In actual fact the SE is what gives time evolution (though this falls into woes in Lorentz-covariant formalism).

    That’s why they call it quantum mechanics and not “quantum statics”. QM is very much based on either Hamiltonian or Lagrangian formulation of dynamics. Even Feynman diagrams are justifiable in terms of Lagrangian dynamics</i<, much as they are used to get around the intractibility it runs into for most subatomic processes.

    BTW Einstein was not ostracized, he simply had no idea of how to go looking for the kind of career he wanted to pursue. Zur Electrodynamik bewegter Körper gained interest rapidly, despite his sloppy job which Minkowski very soon sorted out.

    • Chris I

      What’s wrong with editing today? I couldn’t get that tag corrected.

    • Gordon Docherty

      Good catch – but it still doesn’t negate the underlying concepts: let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Ultimately, while mathematical models attempt to describe a situation unambiguously, those models are built on assumptions and simplifications imposed on one particular view of the world we inhabit. What Frank Znidarsic is attempting to do in presenting a paradigm is to work on another view of that same world that will provide useful insights into its behaviour: that the formulae he derives may or may not easily map onto other world view formulae is of secondary concern here. After all, most mechanical engineers are happy with E = 1/2 * m * v^2, although applying that to bodies accelerating up to the speed of light is not likely to win them many friends…

      • Chris I

        Well, youìre not providing any support or even just clarification; what you say goes for just about anything.

        I would need to read his article when I’m less busy with my own fish to fry. However, when somebody starts their presentation with that kind of style, it perks up my bullcrap radar quite a bit. Especially when they say things as false as Einstein being ostracized, that’s a bit more historically fallacious than the misconceptions about Galileo and his opponents and in any case it just comes across as an excuse for the work failing to be hailed as a breakthrough.

        • Rockyspoon

          There was a petition signed by 100 of the most emminent scientists of his day saying Einstein was wrong. To which Einstein supposed responded: If I am wrong, it woult take just one experiment, not a hundred (or words to that effect).

          Einstein wasn’t embraced immediately–he being only some Patent Office clerk. From what I’ve read, that would seem to show ostracism by the mainstream scientists of the time.

          • Roger Bird

            But Einstein was also embraced by several top notch scientists of his day, top notch dudes who went into the jungle just to get photographs of an eclipsed Sun to prove Einstein right. If those dudes had not had very high prestige, their trek into the jungle would have been useless.

          • Chris I

            First of all: Wrong about what?

            Second: A petition? To whom? That’s not a part of the typical process and, to bot, it would make no sense in it.

            Oh, wait, you must be thinking of Lenard. Not that it matters, he simply led the Deutsche Physik campaign and persuaded Hitler that Deutschland would well do without all that fallacious Judische Physik. But Einstein was not (obviously) the only one to get chucked out of the Prussian Academy of Sciences. Oh and it was a smite after 1905, when there was no such thing as the Nazi yet.

            Oddly enough, Lenard did agree with Einstein on one thing: his analysis of data on the photoelectric effect. Wow, how could he have brought himself to deny that?

            For the rest, his 1905 papers were noticed by Max Planck who was one of those at Annalen der Physik reviewing theoretical submissions. He especially noticed Zur Electrodynamic Bewegter Körper, on which he immediately gave a lecture at Berlin University. Call that ostracizing.

  • Sandy


    Rossi has reported that his E-Cat generates a very strong magnetic field. Is that field important to the functioning of the E-Cat or is that field just an interesting by-product?

    • Gordon Docherty

      The overall (electro-)magnetic field being strengthened is as a result of the magnetic component of (all three forces) in the Bose-Einstein Condensate clusters being strengthened AND, at least for the (electro-)magnetic field, those fields overall combining and cohering. So, yes, this resultant macro effect may well be usable, although it would likely have to fluctuate to induce an electric field remotely – either that, or an object would have to spin in and out of the e-Cat’s magnetic field. Still, there may be someone reading this who has an idea of how to induce a current from a static (but strong) local magnetic field.

      • Stephen

        Static magnetic field? Sure, you can use a dynamo

        So we are ending up saying that one should run a nuclear fusion to get a static magnetic field of one and something Tesla. I think you can buy that kind of “strong” magnets down in the shop for a few bucks, no need to fuse any atom. 100, 1000 Tesla is strong… 10 Tesla is not bad… but not so impressive… 1 Tesla is just boring: break apart your old hard drive and you get one magnet doing that, the one driving the read/write heads. If you can get even one watt out it let me know: you have a great deal, it works forever and without any plug. Please…

        Ok, I think for me it’s time to go to sleep now…

        • Blanco69

          The pitson of a Stirling engine within the ecat module itself could be used to provide the necesary movement to generate a useable magnetic field.

          • Rockyspoon

            True, but the mechanical force (via a crankshaft) coupled to a generator or directly to a differential would undoubtedly provide better effeciencies. The nice thing about steam is that it requires no gearbox and no lubricant, other than the steam itself.

  • Bruce Fast

    If these devices, the e-cat and Defkalion’s reactor, produce very strong magnetic forces, they should be able to produce electricity directly. Eliminating the need for a heat engine would be very exciting indeed.

    • AlainCo

      Not sure if that field is static.
      the claimed field (not yet confirmed not detailed) is comparable to a top permanent magnet.

      if the field is changing, it may cause induction, thus may produce electricity. However this may not be efficient, and using the electric energy may stop the reaction.

      We need more data.

      Note also that E-cat don’t have the same structure as Hyperion.
      Hyperion is probably producing a more static and anisotropic field, because of the plasma excitation.
      E-cat is probably more isotropic because excitation seems to be mostly by heat. Note that maybe there is magnetic excitation beside heat (which explain why rossi hide the shape of signal after the control box), and thus maybe it is like Hyperion.
      There is also a possibility of symmetry breaking, with an emerging coherent magnetic field , build from random local fields which reinforce each other.

      the possible magnetic field is a great element for building theories… but we need to confirm and have details.

      • Stephen

        Well, about the magnetic field… first of all we have to rely on what DGT told in the video. Evidence in this case is totally unexisting: for now we are 100% basing this on faith so I am not sure how much it makes sense to speculate on it.

        Static, I doubt. They claimed they screened it with the box. As far as I know it is not so easy to screen a static magnetic field… you could do it using a superconductor, but discovering cold fusion and room temperature superconductivity in a single shot seems a bit too much to me…

        • Paul Stout

          Screening a static magnetic field is fairly simple. When shipping strong magnets, the ideal solution is to put them in a metal can within a metal can. That does a very reasonable job of collapsing the magnetic field lines.

          • Stephen

            Indeed, you are right. Not perfect screening but quite good.

          • MuMetall for shielding:
            The high permeability makes mu-metal useful for shielding against static or low-frequency magnetic fields.

        • Sanjeev

          Its very easy to screen a magnetic field. They use pieces of Mu metal which short the north and south poles, these are called keepers.
          The trick is to provide a low resistance (reluctance to be precise) path to the magnetic field, so it won’t leak into the air.
          It still leaves the question open , whether DGT’s box has magnetic fields inside. You have Prof Kim’s word here so imo its not entirely false.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      As far as I know, only Defkalion has claimed magnetic field, not Rossi.

      • Roger Bird

        I want to go on record that I doubt a strong magnetic field. I know that “strong” is a relative term. How about I doubt a significant magnetic field. I am inclined towards NO magnetic field.

        For 3 years we heard exactly zip about a magnetic field, and then all of a sudden we get a rumor of a magnetic field. I think that what we are seeing is wishful thinking.

        The other reason I think NO magnetic field is that the reactions are not lined up. They are all pointing in random directions.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Me too. I agree with Ed Storms: should have some more measurements and consistency checks before taking it seriously. They claimed that an “initial” field of 0.6 tesla increased to 1.6 tesla when the device was on. What was this initial field they didn’t tell. Both 0.6 T and 1.6 T are huge values.

          • fortyniner

            Possibly meaning a field of 0.6T that appears immediately on powering up, and which continues to increase to a maximum of 1.6T as the device ‘warms up’.

            The alternative – that the unpowered reactor produces a 0.6T field would imply the presence of a powerful (rare earth?) magnet as an intrinsic part of the device, the field of which is augmented additively, or distorted during operation in a way that ‘concentrates’ the field at the measurement point.

      • Omega Z


        Rossi did talk about Direct conversion due to an unexpected phenomena, BUT, Gave Zero clues as to what that was.

        Only mention of Magnetic fields of the E-cat was Speculative posters on JONP.

    • Jim

      I’m having difficulty in making a mental model of how a LENR reaction could produce a magnetic field AT ALL. Would anyone care to proffer a speculative hypothesis that would connect 1) what is generally known to be required to produce a magnetic field, and 2) how a set of LENR micro-reaction sites, such as we suppose exist in e-Cats or Hyperions, might fulfill those requirements?

      • hempenearth

        Wild speculation: in the Defkalion trial, changing electric current through the coiled copper pipes around the reactor could produce a magnetic field.

    • Boris Ivanoff

      Have Defkalion or Rossi measured these large magnetic fields and described how they did it? Hall probes and other sensitive magnetometers are very susceptible to interference and it is easy to see large fields where only artifacts exist.

      Really large fields can be demonstrated most positively by their effects on magnetic materials such as iron. Did anyone do this?

  • georgehants

    Worst Radioactive Leak Yet at Japan’s Fukushima
    Aug 20, 2013
    Some 300 tonnes of radioactive water is believed to have leaked from a tank at Japan’s crippled nuclear plant, the worst such leak since the crisis began, the operator said Tuesday.
    Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) said the leak was believed to be continuing Tuesday at Fukushima and it had not yet pinpointed the source of it.
    TEPCO said puddles with extremely high radiation levels — about 100 millisieverts per hour — have been found near the water tanks at the ruined plant.

    • fortyniner

      No problem – if you are happy and drink lots of beer, radiation can’t affect you, apparently:

      A personal account by an intelligent and informed Japanese woman of the type of propaganda employed by the Japanese government following Fukushima, and the real (deadly) effects radiation exposure is having on people, particularly children, who continue to live in contaminated areas.

      • georgehants

        11 Facts About The Ongoing Fukushima Nuclear Holocaust That Are Almost Too Horrifying To Believe
        Read more

        • Roger Bird

          I don’t believe it. This is sort of the hysteria we got from you liberals about 3 Mile Island, and then Chernobyl and every other fission accident.

          • fortyniner

            Believe what you want Roger – it doesn’t affect the facts. Is ‘liberal’ your term for anyone who doesn’t agree with you?

          • Roger Bird

            Facts: the hysteria over Three Mile Island was way beyond what was appropriate. The hysteria over Chernobyl was way beyond what was appropriate. I have heard that Bikini Atoll is livable. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are obviously livable. Fool me once, or even five times, shame on you. Fool me a 6th time, shame on me. Your credibility on this issue, the credibility that you need to make me believe what you are saying ARE facts, is zero. I won’t buy into your hysteria. Hysterians like you LIED at least 4 times before, perhaps 5 if we include Bikini Atoll.

    • fortyniner

      “Over the coming years, this ongoing disaster could potentially affect the health of millions upon millions of people living in the northern hemisphere, and the sad thing is that a lot of those people will never even know the true cause of their health problems… (bolding mine)

      This is a nightmare that has no end. Every single day, massive amounts of highly radioactive water from Fukushima is systematically poisoning the entire Pacific Ocean. The damage that is being done is absolutely incalculable.”

  • Eric

    Well, I hate to kill the positive atmosphere, but this is nonsense.
    Frank, please keep focus.

    • daniel maris

      Maybe but when you have a 100 contending theories in sub atomic physics, presumably 99% are wrong.

    • hempenearth


    • hempenearth

      Hi Eric,
      Are you saying the maths does not support the theory? Maths is not my strong field but I couldn’t fault it. And I haven’t seen supporting maths for any of the other theories.

    • Gordon Docherty

      As this is a forum to stimulate discussion and ideation, do you have a contending / complementary theory to discuss? I am sure there is plenty in what is presented that could be reviewed and tidied up or re-framed in some way. Just to say it is nonsense, however, is not very productive, nor does it stimulate the mind to think laterally (“outside the box”). The world is already full enough of people waiting to be fed the next line…

      • Eric

        Ok, I was in a bad mood yesterday, I admit. But I think there’s a HUGE difference between observed (unexplained) effects and some guy that builds up a new theory based on assumptions and math, and then says “hey, my theory predicts anti-gravity and cold fusion.”.
        I’m convinced that the “Rossi effect” is real, and I follow it quite closely. But to start in the other end, finding TWO holy grails (free energy and anti-gravity) seems improbable to say the least.
        If you like politicians and the mainstream science community to take LENR/Rossi seriously, you do not want them to see this guys work being praised on one of the bigger LENR sites like ECW.

        • Gordon Docherty

          I must admit, there is the flavor of “Women like things covered in crocodile skin. Crocodiles are covered in crocodile skin. Therefore, women like crocodiles.” about it, but, then, we can see where to improve things and carry on (like adding man-made before crocodile in the example above). What I really liked about the videos is that they pulled a whole lot of basic observations together, and such cross-fertilization is always a good idea… Now, if they could only do that with QM and General Relativity 😉

        • Gordon Docherty

          One consensus that does appear to be emerging, however, is that the secret to LENR (and other, hitherto, esoteric topics) lies in coherence of QM effects to create macro effects not usually observed in our everyday lives (how often do you see your cup of coffee crawl up the side of the cup!)

          The nearest macro analogy I can come up with is the effect of flutter (a self-feeding and potentially destructive vibration where aerodynamic forces on an object couple with a structure’s natural mode of vibration to produce rapid periodic motion), such as was seen with the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

          So, going down to Quantum Scale, as all “stuff” appears to be basically made out of the same set of elementary particles (according to the standard model) with some sort of behind the scenes Boson (the Higgs Boson), maybe this 1.094MHz-metre dimensional frequency value has something to do with a flutter effect on the Higgs (or the Aether or other larger set of particles or field), or is a shared harmonic that affects all the standard elementary particles in some way: whatever the reason, as 1.094MHz-metre is a dimensional frequency, by making it harder (in some way) for materials to vibrate (for example, by compressing the material or “squashing” the time dimension,), the frequency applied to the material would have to increase to maintain the dimensional frequency – unless the wave were “self-feeding” and able to draw in energy from its surroundings somehow, like borrowing from the compressive force or “internal energy” of the material through which it was traveling.

          It may just be that the compression wave increases and decreases in energy according to the energy in the local environment through which it is traveling – this reminds me of one of the effects observed in a Bose-Einstein condensate, namely zero internal friction – if the forces that would lead to friction are simply absorbed and lost by the wave as it meets areas of greater and lesser resistance, this would appear to be the same thing, and this should readily be the case where the energy in one force can readily transfer to another AND be used in the direction of travel of the wave (now, there’s a trick, and, indeed, perhaps it is the secret behind coherence, as waves line up… as the resistance of energy transfer between waves approaches zero, so the energy quanta can move between waves without loss, perhaps from the smaller wave to the bigger (or the other way around, due to some sort of internal pressure effect)).

          Anyway, it is only by thinking up how the very small can be turned into the very large, and testing such thoughts out, that the bridge between QM and General Relativity can be made AND interesting effects uncovered and utilized: for example, conservation of energy, which we tend to think of in terms of macro scale effects. At the nano scale, however, we need to think slightly differently, for example, that energy can “disappear” into the virtual Aether, only to re-emerge somewhere else.

          Finally, the point I found most interesting in the videos was the observation that, without “smoke and mirrors” or “hidden energy sources”, an iron bar inserted into an electric coil can magnify the strength of a magnetic field many times without any extra energy being supplied – as clear a demonstration of the effect of resonance / coherence as a laser … or the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. What else is out there…?


        • Rockyspoon

          Having gone through this series of presentations by seattle4truth a year ago (several times, actually), you’ll be happy to know that Znidarsic just happened to be present when some of the first cold fusion and anti-gravity lab experiements were being undertaken.

          In both cases, he asked them what the parameters were, and he uses those to derive Planck’s Constant, not the other way around.

          To me, having a theory that is mathematically robust based on the characteristics of physical experiments into these two phenomena shouldn’t be surprising–anything and everything that operates in nature is mathematically correct, meaning it follows certain laws each time, every time.

          (And for those that dislike the music, try to ignore it–the content of these presentations is worth the annoyance.)

  • Damien

    I’m sure this phenomenon has been exploited for its antigravity effects throughout history at sites all over the world.

    There are numerous sites where myths exist about the levitation of large stones.
    Coral castle in America is a popular one, where the original builder could supposedly lift large blocks of stone with a tripod, frequency generator and a cable wrapped around his target.

    Such a technique could be used to explain the movement of the 1000 ton giants at Baalbek in Lebanon, the 100 ton blocks at Tiahuanaco, and even the blocks in the pyramids of Giza. (To name a small few. )

    I guess for me, it’s comforting to know there is still science being discovered that helps dispel mystery and mysticism still prevalent in the modern world.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    I’ve tried to look at the first two videos and I think the content is quite good. However I stopped viewing because of the godawful music that went with it. Someone please tell me not all 20 videos have music on it.

    • Roger Bird

      LOL, ZZZ. I am listening to Brahms Piano Concerto even as I type this. So you can imagine how I felt having to listen to the music. Apparently I am made of sturdier stuff because I am up to #13 and will continue today.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Great, so all of them have that music with them…

        You sure are made of sterner stuff than I am. Wish you a speedy recovery though.

        So I will have to improve my tolerance level. Let’s see, couple of glasses of Glenfiddich, a bottle of Wine or a sixpack Beer? Come to think of it, all three together should do the job. Wish me luck!

  • Sanjeev

    A bit OT, but related.
    Dwave quantum computers have a story that closely mirrors that of lenr or of the things mentioned in the article. Here is a link to the relevant part which I’d like to show readers, which shows what usually happens when you have a totally new device or theory. Its interesting to note that almost all such claim go through the same old reactions and behaviors.

    The video will start at the relevant part but all of it is great actually. Dr. Geordie Rose is a founder and Chief Technology Officer at D-Wave Computers.

  • Nixter

    I noticed that Dr. Rossi now uses, “The Rossi Effect”, to describe his process, I searched his entire Blog for the first use of that term, it was first used by, Julian Brown on June 10th, 2011 at 5:09 AM

  • DaPhys

    In quantum mechanics, the time-dependent Schrödinger equation describes how a quantum system evolves with time. Therefore the main criticism of “stationary quantum states” given in the Abstract is wrong and suggests that the author does not have a background in QM. Then in the movie the claim “for the first time QM is explained by classical physics and not the other way around” neglects the fact that the time-dependent SE can be obtained from Maxwell equation, i.e. from classical electrodynamics. The TDSE with a massless vector field is nothing else but Maxwell equation. Actually that’s how the TDSE is usually presented for the first time to undergraduate students in physics. Also, in the 1920’s, the main achievement of the SE was the prediction of the energy levels of the electron and their computation in the hydrogen atom is one of the first exercises that is given to undergraduates students in QM. Nothing new here in Znidarsic theory. And finally plasmons are not electrons stimulated by an external source, plasmons are quasiparticles associated to the quantization of plasma oscillations.

    Not saying that the theory is bogus and not worth to be studied in more detail (I’m a firm believer that a BCS-type theory based on electron-phonon/plasmon interactions is required to understand LENR), but it is always frustrating to see that the persons who propose new theories do not make the effort to learn how the mainstream theory works and make basic errors in their claims. The same applies for LENR: it is up to those who develop new LENR theories to make the effort to understand the mainstream theory and see how the new theory fits (or does not fit) in the mainstream theory, and not the other way around. LENR will be accepted only when this additional burden will be met.

    • georgehants

      DaPhys, you say —-
      “see how the new theory fits (or does not fit) in the mainstream theory, and not the other way around. LENR will be accepted only when this additional burden will be met.”
      May I ask you to further justify your above statement.
      I am having trouble understanding the connection between theory and Fact.
      If the Evidence shows an effect, then if there is, or is not a theory fitting that effect, is irrelevant to it’s existence.
      You seem to be saying that something can only exist if there is a theory that science excepts.

      • DaPhys

        The effect is the production of heat, the cause *may* be LENR and the link between these two remains unclear. I guess that some systems producing heat can be developed following an empirical approach and at the end they can be sold if they meet some basic safety requirements, but on the other hand LENR will be accepted only when some physicists having a strong background in quantum field theory (and an opened mind…) will work on it. Look at ICCF-18: too many (weird) theories that at the end discredit the whole LENR community.

        If Frank Znidarsic was born at the end of the 19th century, maybe today we would have the Znidarsic equation instead of the Schrödinger equation, but the history cannot be neglected and all physicists who propose a new theory have the additional burden to be up-to-date with the mainstream theory.

        • georgehants

          Will you please answer clearly, are you saying an effect cannot exist unless there is a theory that scientists except.
          Thank you.
          May I ask you to further justify your above statement.
          I am having trouble understanding the connection between theory and Fact.
          If the Evidence shows an effect, then if there is, or is not a theory fitting that effect, is irrelevant to it’s existence.
          You seem to be saying that something can only exist if there is a theory that science excepts.

          • DaPhys

            The production of heat (the effect) is not evidence of LENR (the cause). Other causes can produce heat, e.g. some nickel hydride phase transitions are known to be exothermic.

          • Rockyspoon

            Except you neglect the constraints of the system in which the reaction occurs–there’s no known way the heat could be produced by “some nickel hydride phase transition” even if they are know to be exothermic. That leaves the more likely LENR cause.

            You can’t discredit something by ignoring the constraints under which it operates. That’s not being honest or logical.

          • DaPhys

            and no I’m not saying that an effect cannot exist unless there is a theory that scientists expect. Example: in superconductivity there is still no theory that *fits* all different effects that have been observed.

          • georgehants

            Well done 🙂

        • Roger Bird

          A new theory does NOT have to incorporate an old theory. A new theory DOES have to incorporate all data, new and old.

    • hempenearth

      LENR will be accepted when there are working commercial products, not only when a theory fits.

      • DaPhys

        Commercial products will show evidence of the production of heat, not that the heat will come from LENR (and I’m not even saying HOW…). Today development is based at 99% on an empirical approach, that’s why it takes so long to have a robust and efficient reactor.

        • psi

          But isn’t this, in the end, just a semantic argument? If the observed effect is inconsistent by orders of magnitude with the maximum energy release from chemical reactions according to known laws, is it not by definition either 1) nuclear in character (in which case, LENR seems as good a name as any other) or 2) a case in which the laws pertaining to chemical reactions are incomplete and require modification?

  • Invy

    I watched these videos at least two years ago… At the time I thought his theories were fascinating, I read his papers. over the years I’ve made inquiries it various physics boards/forums… The main argument is he is using circular derivation, where he solves for a constant, he actually used a constant which was found by using the constant he derived.

    I can’t remember exactl what it was that turned me away from his theory, but eventually someone made the case well enough for me to stop being interested… May still be true, and I hope it is as it is the simplist theory I know of to explain lenr.

    Readers here may be interested in the video of the Russian scientists which discovered spinning super conductors causes a repelling force, although the person who procured the video has some out their views, the scientist in the video appears to be genuin in the sense that an effect had been seen.. Here is the link,

    Edit: wanted to add that the good thing about franks theory it can be experimental verified…

  • Gordon Docherty

    Swedish TV’s show “Vetenskapens Värld” (The World of Science) Documentary about Cold Fusion and Andrea Rossi, posted December 19th 2012, with English sub-titles: