Heat Generation Above Break-Even From Laser-induced Fusion in Ultra Dense Deuterium (Leif Holmlid)

Thanks to Ecco for this post:

“Here’s the latest peer-reviewed paper by Leif Holmlid (of Rydberg matter/ultra-dense Deuterium studies), showing that break-even fusion power in a table-top experiment could be a reality”:

Article title: “Heat generation above break-even from laser-induced fusion in ultra-dense deuterium”


The conclusion of the article reads:

“The laser-induced nuclear fusion process in ultra-dense deuterium D(0) gives a heating power at least a factor of 2 larger than the laser power into the apparatus, thus clearly above break-even.This is found with 100-200 mJ laser pulse-energy into the apparatus. No heating is used in the sys-tem, to minimize problems with heat transfer and gas transport. This gives sub-optimal conditions,and the number of MeV particles (and thus their energy) created in the fusion process is a factor of10 below previous more optimized conditions. Several factors lead to lower measured heat than thetrue value, and the results found are thus lower limits to the real performance. With the optimumsource conditions used previously, a gain of 20 is likely also for longer periods”

PDF with full text can be found here.

So is this ‘hot fusion’, ‘cold fusion’, or something else? Using lasers to power the apparatus is certainly a technique used in the large hot fusion reactors, but this is done in a table-top environment like cold fusion experiments. According to Dr. Sveinn Ólafsson on the LENR-Forum, who has worked with Leif Holmlid, “this looks like hot fusion
but it is not only that, it is also behind LENR”

  • Curbina

    Frank, this is by no means “Hot Fusion”. Hot Fusion requires temperatures above 150 million degrees Celsius (at least, that’s what ITER project considers the starting point to see fusion reactions in hydrogen). Here the experiments are performed below 50°C, so, even if the heating is with lasers, this is completely in the realm of LENR. This is a really important paper as it proves excess heat at low temperatures, and as the power source is a coherent light ray, I see that this completely rules out chemical reactions.

    • Ecco

      It might be because of this, from the introduction:

      … The nuclear processes taking place in the D(0) material are probably not only ordinary D+D fusion. However, the typical 4 He and 3 He particle emissions from the processes have been reported together with a neutron signal with a temperature of 80-600 MK (7-60 keV).

      • Mats002

        Is that a ‘cold’ / ultra-slow-neutron or a ‘normal’ energy neutron signal?

        • Ecco

          As far as I understand (very little), that’s consistent with nuclear fusion processes taking place, but not as much as expected. Not cold/ultra-slow either. As Holmlid puts it, “probably not only ordinary D+D fusion” is occurring.

        • Gerrit

          Admin, I can’t find that quotation on the forum.

          I can only find: “I would say this lives inside a multi region comprising Surface physics, Catalytic chemistry, Nuclear physics, Particle physics, Atom physics and Quantum physics.In the end this is most simply stated as a breeding between nuclear physics and chemistry.”

          • ecatworld

            Thanks Gerrit, Maybe it is not on the site, but I got this in an email from LENR-forum yesterday:

            Dear Friends

            The third paper recent paper from Holmlid is now out, a calorimetry study he has been perfecting for the last two years.

            Heat generation above break-even from laser-induced fusion in ultra-dense deuterium


            As you note this looks like hot fusion

            but it is not only that, it is also behind LENR



            Research Professor
            Dr. Sveinn Ólafsson
            Science Institute
            University of Iceland
            Dunhaga 3
            107 Reykjavik

  • Mats002

    Laser of 100-200 mJ for one second is 0.1 – 0.2 W and you can find 25 W LED lasers on the market today. NIF is 1.85 MJ or 500 trillion W.
    Some difference there I think.

    • Ecco

      Holmlid et al. are using lasers with pulses in the nanosecond range, which are quite expensive. At 0.2J/pulse you can easily see that they’re quite different than normal lasers. I suspect that “ignition” in their case is not limited to them, however.

    • GordonDocherty

      Three ways to burn a piece of paper:

      1. crumple it up, put it in an ash tray, and set light with a match
      2. place it unfolded in a room in a large house, heat the house, douse the house with petrol and then set light to the house. Eventually the paper will burn. Keep pouring water on the flames to stop the house burning down completely.
      3. hold the paper stretched out in a hanging cradle. Aim a large flame thrower. Burn the paper.

      If you have multiple pieces of paper, then for :

      1. 1. – just have many ash trays (or 1 ash tray you keep refilling) and many matches
      2. 2. – pile up all the paper into the house before setting it alight
      3. 3. – burn the paper (and cradle), replace paper (and cradle), refill flame thrower and burn again

      Now we look at nuclear:

      1. is LENR
      2. is the tokamak.
      3. is the NiF facility

      This pulsed laser system is more akin to 1 than 3, and is definitely not 2.

      • Warthog

        The difference is in the amount of laser energy needed for “ignition”. This experiment uses a 200 MILLI-Joule laser….the NIF facility uses a MEGA-Joule laser. According to standard physics, such a process is just as impossible as the original Pons and Fleischmann electrolysis driven device.

        • Curbina

          You might be right, but in this case, the temp even with lasers on, is below 50°C.

        • Curbina

          This is exactly why this work is so relevant. Is another research team saying that you can have seemingly nuclear reactions under conditions that “Orthodoxia” says is impossible.

  • Gerrit

    I would like to know how these Holmlid papers are received within the science community.

    Are they noticeable enough to get any attention or are most of the scientists just too busy with the large hadron collider and ITER ?

    I mean, here is a well respected expert on Rydberg matter presenting experimental evidence that fusion of deuterium is possible at room temperature by shining a bit of laser light on it.

    The way I understand the scientific method, other scientists should now try to replicate these experiments and either succeed or refute the results. But if nobody is going to bother, science will never advance.

  • tobalt

    I have glanced over the paper and it reads nicely, obivously its also not the first experiment of this type by the author as he mentions some times that he made improvement over an earlier setup.

    The mechanism leading to fusion (according to him, but there is also a reference in the paper) is that the infrared laser changes the spin state of the “ultra dense deuterium” reducing the equilibrium d-d-distance to a low value (56pm) that allows spontaneous fusion at room temperature. in this respect it is similar to muon cat. fusion, which is also caused by a reduction of the equilibrium distance of two atomic nuclei.
    the used wavelength is in the near infrared which means that objects begin to thermally emit such radiation when heated to a few 100°C.

    things that puzzle me:
    1) usually such low energy spin changes are excited with a specific resonance frequency, but he doesnt emphasize what this frequency is, or whether it will only work with 1064nm. this could be answered in one of the refs i didnt read.
    2) I didnt get what the “ultra dense deuterium” is or how it is prepared. he just mentioned that there is somethin that contains this matter. And this thing is in a low pressure deuterium background. From here I am not sure if this method is applicable to (low density) deuterium molecular gas.

  • John Littlemist

    Can anyone explain how this ultra-dense deuterium concept relates to Mills’s hydrino concept? Are they the same thing, kind of?

  • GreenWin

    Another difference: NIF cost taxpayers $5B+ and has regularly failed to achieve “ignition.” In fact it has failed to produce even ONE WATT useful energy.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Ah yes, the infrared stretching frequency.
    See comments in link.

    • Alan DeAngelis


      It might be fun to use diborane, B2H6, a liquid, instead of deuterium gas to see if the following reaction could take place.

      B(11) + p > 3 He(4) 8.68 MeV