Mats Lewan Proposes Possible E-Cat Mechanism

Mats Lewan has published a blog post today on his An Impossible Invention website where he proposes a way by which the E-Cat could possibly work. He gives much credit to insights provided by Bob Greenyer, and also information found in the patent documents of Francesco Piantelli.

The full post is here (Mats says it will be expanded upon over time):

Here’s a very simplified summary of the steps that Mats thinks are possibly involved. Please refer to his post for details.

1. Expose a transition metal like nickel to hydrogen.

2. Obtain hydrogen atoms with one extra electron (i.e. Hydrogen ions).

3. Trigger the system somehow: e.g. thermal shock, mechanical shock, electric or magnetic pulse.

4. Triggering will lead to an electron in the nickel atoms being replaced by the H- ion.

5. The H- ion with a much larger mass than an electron orbits closer to the nucleus of the nickel atom than the electron, and sends out Auger electrons and X-rays.

6. Low energy X-ray photons are absorbed by shielding such as lead or tungsten creating heat and radiating infrared terahertz rays.

7. The H- ion near the nucleus of the nickel atom loses electrons and becomes a free proton.

8. This proton can react with other nuclei, causing more reactions. Interaction with lithium atoms results in the creation of alpha particles.

9. Alpha particles grab electrons to create helium, creating heat from kinetic energy as the particles are absorbed.

10. Low-energy X-rays could create electricity from a photoelectric effect.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Whether #8 is possible will depend on the kinetic energy of the expelled proton. Expellation would happen if there is no fusion of Ni and hydrogen. A very high energy of the proton would be required to enable its fusion with a nearby Li nucleus. But where does that energy come from if there was no nuclear reaction before?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Quantum Gravity Corporation – in 100s of experiments over a decade have shown you only need 225eV

  • Dr. Mike

    This is an interesting theory which certainly should be investigated further, especially to clarify some of the details from questions that have been brought up in the comments below. One issue with the Lugano results that this theory does not explain is what was the source of the hydrogen atoms that both converted most of the Ni to Ni62 and caused most of the Li7 to disappear (probably converted to He?). There was not sufficient hydrogen from the LiAlH4 to account for these reactions.

  • Zeddicus23

    As an addendum to my previous comment I note that Mayer and Reitz ( have postulated the existence of a ‘tresino’ which corresponds to a proton and two electrons and which is bound by magnetic dipole interactions (spin). Their model is a classical (non-quantum) one (mainly because they were unable to carry out a quantum calculation) but here at least the 1/r^4 dipole-dipole magnetic force is potentially strong enough to avoid the problems related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

  • RLittle

    Hi Sir, With all due respect to you I would like to note the fact that similar such mechanism was proposed in “Magnetocatalytic Adiabatic Spin Torque Orbital Transformations for Novel Chemical and Catalytic Reaction Dynamics: The Little Effect” ( ) many years prior to Piantelli’s two patents with priority Nov 2008 (IT2008PI00119 20081124 ). I am sorry that you may not like me and may not wish to recognize me. But this mechanism has been proposed in full prior to Piantelli. In , I explicitly note similar such prior mechanism as I here quote from pages 28 and 29: “The mechanism based on magnetic orchestration of pycnonuclear reactions involves the following steps: 1.) under the prevailing conditions hydrogen uptake by the metal lattice and the high current density allow the formation of some amount of a hydride species (H-); 2.) the thermal and pressure fluctuations and magnetization cause the electronic rehybridization of the background Cu-Ag lattice with consequent sporadic localization and delocalization of these electrons and protons of hydride species (H-) within the Cu-Ag lattice; 3.) these protons and electrons of this hydride species exist delocalized in the 4d-like orbitals of the Cu-Ag lattice; 4.) localization of protons and electrons produces this hydride species in the metal lattice by the rehybridization of 3d, 4d, 4s, and 5s orbitals of the metal lattice; 5.) such localization by lattice rehybridization and confinement of H- within sd hybrid orbitals contribute to greater s character of the interacting electrons and protons in the form of (ea-p+eb- ) or (hydride species) within the sd hybrid orbitals within the metal lattice; 6.) within the sd hybrid orbitals the (ea-p+eb- )with its net negative charge is strongly attracted in the localization to the nucleus (M47+) of the metal atoms within the lattice; 7.) the (ea-p+eb- ) is heavier and more classical in its interactions with the nucleus; 8.) as the (ea-p+eb- ) approaches the nucleus the ea- is driven into tighter orbital correlation with the p+ in order to shield the proton from the nearby nucleus (M47+) in this confined s orbital state for the local metal nuclear compression of the ea- and p+; 9.) the spin and magnetic properties of the confined (ea-p+eb- ) state are more paramagnetic, an external magnetic field can therefore orients the nuclear spin of the metal atoms with the spin and orbital moments of the (ea-p+eb-); 10.) as the (ea-p+eb- ) approaches the nucleus (M47+), the nuclear spin torques the eb- by nuclear spin-orbit interactions for its intersystem crossing, so eb- changes correlation with the (ea- – p+), thereby driving the ea- into the p+ for even tighter orbits, this orbital compression is strengthened by the huge nearby electric field of the metal nucleus within the s orbital of the metal atom; 11.) the resulting aligned spins of the metal nucleus (M47+) and the eb- organize the steering of ea- into collapse onto the p+ for reverse beta to form neutrons, eb- may also collapse onto the metal nucleus; the p+ may collapse onto metal nucleus; the resulting neutron may also collapse on the nucleus for various rare transmutation processes. See Table 7. 12.) the proximity (less than 0.5 Angstroms) of the ea- — p+ to the eb- and the metal nucleus (M47+) within the s orbital allows huge local magnetic fields within the s orbital for extremely strong spin torque of ea- into the p+ thereby preventing gamma exchange as in isolated hydrogen thereby allowing the ea- — p+ to form a neutron. It is within the s orbital with finite nonzero probability of the ea- — p+ and eb- having very close proximity to the metal nucleus that length scales of 10-10 m such that the magnetic forces within the s orbital are on the order of 1/(10-5) 2 times the magnetic forces between lattice electrons in the domain of say a ferrometal. The magnetic forces between lattice electrons in the domain of a ferrometal of Fe are on the order of 1000 tesla. So the magnetic forces between the e- and p+ and the metal nucleus for very close nuclear approach of the hydride species to the nucleus of a metal atoms is on the order of 1010 X 1000 tesla or 1013 tesla. Therefore within the s orbital of the metal lattice, the e- and p+ of the hydride species would locally experience tremendous magnetic fields on the order of the magnetic fields in magnetars. An external magnetic field organizes (as in this work) the (ea-p+eb-) and metal nuclei for more favorable weak interactions, leading to enhanced cross-sections for fusion events. In zero applied magnetic field, the proper spin and orbital orientations for such fusion processes are much more random and less likely. The important of such left-right symmetry during weak processes has been demonstrated by Yang and Lee [40]. Yang and Lee determined that within an external magnetic field, the nuclear spin oriented such that during the beta process the release of electron has specific momentum relative to the nucleus that released it. Here on the basis of the Little Effect, it is demonstrated that an external magnetic field can orient the e and nucleus for the reverse process of reverse beta for greater probability of such rare fusion events. The external magnetic field in this way organizes the spins for such symmetry for the reverse beta process and e- or p+ capture process by the metal nucleus for greater rates and reproducibility of the pycnonuclear reactions. Without the external magnetization, the cross-section and probability are much lower. Here these still slow nuclear processes within the strong magnetic environment, high current densities, Lorentz compression and thermal fluctuations are observed due to the long period of these conditions, more than 2000 hours. Although, the rates of pycnonuclear reactions are still very slow under the conditions within the strong magnet, even greater energy input via laser irradiation of the Cu-Ag matrix can promote much greater pycnonuclear fusion rates for future practical energy sources. Large magnetic field can build up huge potential energy due to Pauli antisymmetry with faster spin torque of electrons into protons for faster neutron formation (reverse beta processes) and neutron, electron and proton captures by Ag and Pd nuclei. The greater spin torque on orbital motion and the greater nuclear induced intersystem crossing also contribute more pycnonuclear phenomena in 4d relative to 3d transition metals in strong magnetic fields.” The people here may not like me or chose to ignore my prior identical theory but that still does not negate thr truth. Sincerely Reginald B. Little

    • Michael W Wolf

      Where’s their working device? Yep. Piantelli’s people have one. You can talk until your blue in the face, you have nothing but opinion to back it up. Sure, you want to raise your opinion to the level of fact, but have nothing to show for it. Go to nature mag., they’ll publish for you. And by the way, that truth you talk about is an assumption of truth. A big difference.

      • RLittle

        Hi Mr. Wolf, It may be true that they have a working device and I am very happy for them. But a fundamental breakthrough in science (well accepted among pure scientists) is ‘an original idea’. It is far more difficult and significant to put forth an original idea and set a new frame and foundation for a new direction as this is what I have done as for nanoparticles, nanomagnetism, hydride capture, Ni, Fe, Co, and the absorbance into core of the metal lattice. These are fundamental new paradigm which were my original opinion. In history of science, it is much easier to build on a new foundation and frame. I am happy if Piantelli, Rossi and Mr. Greenyer have working devices. Such working devices are bult on the paradigm (opinion) whic I established. Thanks for your point. RBL

    • Bob Greenyer

      Hi R Little,

      I did recognise you in the video I recoded on the 1st March and as I told you I had done before you attacked me. It is in the record, people will sort the facts out in time.

      I maintain that you have a greater mind than me, because I still don’t fully understand what you have written.

      • Michael W Wolf

        Well, why bother with what he has written? You have a theory backed up by a device. It is your attitude, not your aptitude that gives you altitude. If you succeed in what your are trying to accomplish Bob, All the know it all writing in the world won’t be able to take that feather out of your cap. Not because you are a genius, but because you are trying to change the world for the better, by believing what is known may not be all there is. Bravo.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Thanks Michael – it’s comments like that which help to make the sacrifices worthwhile, It is just lucky my partner is incredibly awesome!

          • hempenearth

            Please pass on thanks to your partner for all the time that she gives in sharing you with us here at E-Cat world and MFMP.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I will do – it is “International womans day” today, 8th, I want to get her a pair of shoes as last year I bought her a mop and bucket – but.. but.. it was a really good one!

      • jimbo92107

        “…but he got THIS wrong.”

        GOT WHAT WRONG??? Didn’t Piantelli send this information to Mills?? If not, why not?

      • RLittle

        Hi Mr. Greenyer,
        I never attack anyone. I am a struggling scientists for over 40 years and I have made many contributions that have been overlooked. I only asked you to give me proper credit that I earned. But I never attack anyone. As poor and powerless as I am how can I attack someone, I have no power. Furthermore such is not in my character. Reginald B. Little

        • Bob Greenyer

          As I offerred before, make a go fund me, state your case and situation, and I will add it to the links in the videos when I publish them.

    • Josh G

      Professor. Little,

      The use of spin in your explanation reminds me of the work of Miles Mathis, whose theory of particle interaction is based on spin. He abandons the Copenhagen interpretation and explains quantum mechanical observations in terms of the spins of atomic particles (which are essentially all the same particle with different spin dynamics). His rejection of most tenets of modern physics is difficult to accept, but worthwhile. Here is a link to his website:

      And here are some relevant papers related to spin and magnetism:

      • RLittle

        Hi Josh,
        Thanks for your positive professional friendly response. I will take a look at the information and get back to you. It may take me a day or so… RBL

    • jimbo92107

      Professor Little,

      Clearly you are a theoretical physicist, and few people here can match your kung fu of difficult nuclear concepts. Much respect.

      Meanwhile, with just a few dollars, Bob Greenyer and his friends are trying to figure out how to make practical LENR devices. In light of your own theory, do you have any specific suggestions for improving their recipe? Anything that enhances the power gain will make Bob’s efforts a lot more fun.

      Free beer for everybody,

      • RLittle

        Hi Sir,
        We are all students of Nature. I do not mean to come off as knowing everything. At this stage in my life it is important to try to reap whatever (honest, deserving) credit and profit I can from my effort in science. I am happy for the work and device of Greenyer, Celani, Rossi and Piantelli and others. There experimental efforts are essential. I had hope to do more experiments myself. Thanks for your friendly response. RBL

        • jimbo92107

          It is my hope that those who finally commercialize this nascent technology find it in their hearts to give credit to all the scientists that dedicated so much of their careers to revealing this vast new playground of lattice reactions. Our civilization today stands on the shoulders of many giants, yet neglects their care and feeding. Clearly there is something wrong with our system of patents, that it fails so often to credit those that have done the intellectual work, yet lacked the means to make their ideas into tangible products.

          • RLittle

            Hi Sir, Thanks for your integrity, decency and positive outlook. Your statement ” give credit to all the scientists that dedicated so much of their careers to revealing this vast new playground of lattice reactions” is traumatic in particular for LENR (unconventional nuclear) as LENR is not like other areas of science (where such lack of proper citation also is unfortunately prevalent) as LENR is/has been so unpopular and taboo and punished by mainstream scientists. Such ostracism of LENR required past scientists risk their career and reputation to even think on the subject much less write proposals, publish papers and submit patents on the topic. {I have had people laugh at me and insult me to my face even during the 90s.} Therefore much beyond other areas of science (lacking in proper priority) LENR is very, very needing for proper priority (as close as humanly possible) as scientists like me have been thrown out and ‘impoverished’ for publishing on the subject. So from such hard prior work and “RISK” it is truly disgusting that some corruption within LENR community would try to scoop impoverished poor scientists out of proper credit. I am decent honest and truthful, I would never disrespect Piantelli or anyone else for their prior work. I give proper credit where due. It is quite obvious that Piantelli introduced Ni-H LENR in macro systems in the 1990s (some say 1989). Only a fool would deny that. I am no fool! But the truth be told up into the new century 2000, the understanding of LENR and the acceleration of LENR and its reproducibilty in “Ni-H” was severely lacking. Younger scientists as myself had the nerves and boldness at the start of their careers to venture out on such controversial topic and I gave new ideas that appear to be correct. It is a CRIME that some would now try to later discredit me and ignore me and not recognize my bold effort as in the process (as well as other fruitful ventures but enemies used LENR against me in the past) I have loss everything. But large categories of what I published and patented (even limited experimental data I could get back over 12 years ago) many years ago appear consistent with recently reported successes. It is truly horrible and hypocritical that after such difficult effort and ostracism and poverty by me that some within the very LENR community would refuse to recognize such scholarship of mine. Sometimes I am amazed at how low some people can go!!! I mean come on where is the sense of humanity? Disgusting… But I thank you for your decency, professionalism and honesty.

          • jimbo92107

            I remember watching a summary video of the colloquium on LENR from MIT. Peter Hagelstein was brought to tears recalling all the scientists that had died of old age working on LENR theories and experiments. All of them worked unnoticed, unfunded, on their own time. Hagelstein himself spent decades working on the theoretical underpinnings of the phenomena. Nobody would do such a thing unless they were trying to explain a tangible reality that they had witnessed personally. That was when I realized there is almost no chance that LENR is some weird cult, or a massive scam among…physicists??

            This problem comes from a terrible lack of public education in sciences. This massive ignorance has rendered journalists and the general public incapable of discerning between something that is possible, like LENR, versus perpetual motion machines. So they lump both into the same bucket, and toss them both out.

            The other aspect of this tragedy is political. When politicians get their campaign money from established powers like Big Oil and GE, it may be in their personal interest to ignore endeavors that threaten their market dominance, and so liquid thorium reactors are dropped, and the difficult science of LENR becomes a public fiasco because researchers don’t yet know how to achieve consistent results.

            Meanwhile, a quarter century after Pons and Fleishman, we have continued to pump gigatons of CO2 into our planet’s atmosphere, and now another mocked science, climatology, is finally being recognized as valid. Who’s been paying congressmen to call global warming a sham? Big Oil.

          • it is unfair to blame the oil company, who did research, like did the industrialists, the militaries, the tycoons.

            who we have to blame is ONLY the public funded western academic science, the western funding panel, the western journalists, the western high impact journal editors.

            no more, no less.

            it is a failure not of greed, but of subsidized western groupthink, and associated morality claims.

            Thanks to greed and stubbornness.

            now, conclude on side subjects.

    • hempenearth

      Excuse my ignorance Reginald but can you tell me what an (ea-p+eb-) is?
      Also do you have a sister or other relation named Marissa who worked with Hal Puthoff?

      • RLittle

        (ea-p+-eb) is a hydride species with the two electrons labeled electron-a and electron-b about the proton (p+).

  • Mats002

    Maybe the Cat effect is laser as in thermalized/reflection of x-rays back onto the reaction site which produce muons.

    Mouse > x-rays > laser THz > muons = Cat

  • Zeddicus23

    I’ve just taken another look at the Mayer and Reitz paper ( and I’ve realized that their model does not make sense quantum-mechanically either, since they assume that the magnetic force is repulsive rather than attractive, e.g. they assume that the electrons are parallel and that the magnetic repulsive force between the electrons balances the Coulomb attraction to the proton. However, if the electron spins were antiparallel the model could make sense quantum-mechanically.

    • Josh G

      Hah, that’s interesting. I’ve just been making my way through the work of Miles Mathis, and he argues that there is really no such things a attractive charge — it’s just relative repulsion. Sounds weird, but it makes sense the way he explains it. Though you have to give up a lot the Copenhagen interpretation and a lot of other quantum ‘mechanical’ dogma if you want to follow his logic. But you really should give it a look — it’s really quite revolutionary, and I do not use that term lightly. Here is his site:

      And here are some relevant papers related to spin, magnetism and nuclear forces, but these aren’t in order. It’s best to go to his site and read in order, since he rebuilds physics from the ground up.
      (the first 1/3rd is mostly just polemical)

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        I certain like the way his Preface starts with a sense of humor: (:

        It has been known for millennia that the Earth rests upon the back of a giant turtle. Only in recent centuries has this knowledge been added to. In 1794, in one of the high valleys of the Himalayas, one of the wise was asked, “Master, what does the turtle rest upon?” The Master answered: “It is turtles all the way down, my son.” But now that scientists have finally succeeded in mapping the universe, a turtle controversy has arisen. It turns out that level 7,484,912 is occupied not by a turtle, but by a man dressed as a turtle. It is not known how this will affect our other equations.

        • Josh G

          He’s actually hilarious. And his commentary on contemporary physics is biting and incisive. He knows how to cut through the BS. I’ll be interested to hear your assessment of his work when you get through it (or enough of it).

  • Bob Greenyer

    It did Heisenberg, when he ran his cooking operation

    • LION

      Hi Bob, I saw your post the other day about Stoyan Sarg and it occured to me that you might find Ron Evans book on Project Greenglow, which he ran for BAE of interest, here is the link– and this youtube link will take you to a film that I think is very important, You Are Doing Great, all the best.—–—Zero Point – The Story of Mark McCandlish and the Free Energy Fluxliner Space Craft

      • Bob Greenyer


        Need to get this done first though eh?

      • LION

        it should be–
        and— —

        Zero Point – The Story of Mark McCandlish and the Free Energy Fluxliner Space Craft

  • Bob Greenyer

    MCF requires DD or DT.

    Piantelli is all about Protium, its negative Ion and protonic interactions.

    • Fedir Mykhaylov

      The reactor Piantelli natural isotopic abundance of D in hydrogen. The content of D Rossi in reactor fuel is not known . Think of it separately adding lithium metal .

  • e-dog

    sounds pretty good.

    • e-dog

      good summary Frank

      • e-dog

        Good summary Mats

        • e-dog

          Nice work Rossi and Co.

          • e-dog

            Go team MFMP!!!

          • Michael W Wolf


  • Pekka Janhunen

    My favourite meta-theory of CF, in brief.
    1) Some chemical effect creates effectively massless electron population. I don’t know what causes it, but prior examples are graphene (2D) and sodium bismuthide (3D).
    2) Electron plasma frequency is proportional to 1/sqrt(mass) so it goes very high. This prevents propagation of electromagnetic radiation, including gammas, in the same way as if one tries to transmit radio waves below local plasma frequency in Earth’s ionosphere. It also promotes all gamma-producing nuclear reactions by providing a wealth of exit channels. At the same time, the gammas are “intercepted” and turned to heat in the electron fluid. In fact they never exist as real gammas, but couple directly from the nucleus to electron plasma oscillation.

    3) In PdD, the reaction is D+D->He+Gamma, where Gamma denotes symbolically the intercepted gamma converted to electron plasmon mode. In E-cat, it might be p+Li7->Be8+Gamma, followed by ordinary reaction Be8->He4+He4+about 100keV.
    4) Small amount of X-rays is produced if a high frequency plasmon hits the nickel surface before dissipating.

    Motivation: The main question is how can low-energy chemistry couple to MeV scale nuclear phenomena. One needs some high energy mode to do it, either particle or some collective mode. Particles are all low energy so they have trouble doing it. But if some subpopulation of electrons is effectively massless, plasma frequency is almost infinite which corresponds to high energy of the collective mode.

    • Stephen

      Boron Nitrate Nano tubes BNNT might be interesting for generation of zero mass electrons. I think they have been used for this purpose.

      They can have 2D and 1D properties that are very interesting.

      CNT and BNNT have very different electrical properties though

      They can be doped with hydrogen and activated with transition metals.

      They are robust to high temperature

      I often wonder if they could be of benefit to LENR.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      That reminds me of Widom & Larsen’s concept of the surface plasmon polariton (one of Axil’s favourites) that soaks all the gammas up. I wonder if such an apparatus has ever been built and tested:

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I found it’s hard to make a model that would have absolutely nothing in common with something else:-)

    • Stephen

      Interestingly evanescent waves (those photons with energies below the plasma frequency) do not carry momentum in the direction of propagation as in normal propagating photons.

      Evanescent waves have recently been shown to carry the spin of the photon and a transverse momentum. I wonder if this is important somehow in the process.

      Evanescent waves can lead to resonance in the near field. I have been wondering elsewhere if this could lead to resonance of nucleus energy levels in multiple nuclei with evanescent X-rays of similar energy to the transitions, if the propagating gamma emission would be inhibited some how and then if the nuclei could climb up in resonant energy level steps to much higher energy levels by accumulating resonances.

      I was stuck with progressing this idea though since I could not see how we could get high frequency evanescent gamma. Assuming the electron density alone it seemed to me only UDH or UDD could possibly have sufficient electron density of valence or conducting electrons to have evanascent X-rays of maybe 10s of keV. Your idea about massless electrons makes evanescence at higher energies more possible even with out the need for UDH and UDD maybe .

      • Pekka Janhunen

        What are you referring to when saying that the nucleus could climb up to much higher energy? Could you give an example of a process which requires it?

        • Stephen

          Hi Pekka, the idea is somewhat speculative so I apologise for that:

          I was thinking of a kind of reverse cascade. i.e. say if we had broad spectrum stimulating energy source let say around 100 keV +/- 50 keV perhaps nuclei can absorb energies for transitions in that range. If the step to the next energy level above that was also in that range perhaps we could have a subsequent excitation to that higher energy level before it got the chance to de-excite back to its original level and so on. Rather like climbing a ladder. Ultimately we could possibly reach much higher energy levels than with one excitation of 100 keV alone.

          Its a little bit like Mossbauer resonance but with a broad spectrum source and multiple stimulations. (this is one of the reasons i thought the lack of momentum along the propagating direction in evanescent waves might be significant).

          At higher energy levels in many nuclei the gaps between the nucleus energy levels are in the 10s or 100s keV. Some nuclei especially more stable ones have larger gaps and in particular larger gaps for the first energy level above ground of maybe 1 MeV or more and so could not be initially energised by this range of energies. If the range of stimulation energy is extended up to the MeV range then perhaps these can be stimulated by this source.

          I was speculating that maybe the plasma frequency and evanescent gamma or X-rays could be a potential source for resonant stimulation of these transitions and perhaps even more speculatively sustain the excited states or inhibit to some extent the de-excitation transitions and generation of propagating gamma from the nucleus.

          Of course the conservation of states in the nucleus would need to be respected.

          If this was possible perhaps highly excited normally stable nuclei can have some interesting characteristics:

          Perhaps a nucleus in this state is more easily able to absorb a proton or example due to coupling between the proton and neutron.

          Perhaps a Neutron is more easily able to tunnel out of the nucleus.

          Perhaps an excited normally stable nucleus can gain positive Q values, and therefore decay via beta decay. If so this would be a kind of stimulated beta decay.

          Perhaps if sufficient energies are achieved other kinds of particles can be sgenerated such a neutral meson generation form a nucleon.

          Lots of perhapses and many speculations… but it seems to make some kind of sense to me.

  • Frank Acland

    If it’s not spam, sure.

  • Axil Axil

    The pseudo neutron theories are the bane of LENR because of the need to keep LENR theory consistent with nuclear theory where the neutron is always involved. So we must invent a neutron substitute to keep the meme of nuclear physics in play.

    But the S- theory does not work for the broad class of high energy LENR reactions such as Rossi’s E-Cat X where operating temperatures are at or above the melting point of nickel (1500C). At that temperature the H- ion cannot keep itself together. At that high temperature, H would be ionized.

    The high temperature environment of the Proton 21 experiment also puts hydrogen into an ionized state.

    Any electric Arc based system such as the Defkalion system cannot support the H- construction because of the high temperature of the arc.

    Another case is all the very hot EVs produced by Ken Shoulders in his decades of research.

    The SunCell works at temperatures above 5000C where hydrogen is ionized.

    The high temperatures produced by exploding titanium foils also speak against the H- theory.

    There are other high temperature systems that have recently come out of Russia that also use an electric Arc to produce the LENR reaction at ionizing temperatures.

    The H- theory is myopic concept designed to cover only the limited conditions that were produced by low temperature LENR reactions such as Piantilli’s reactor. The H- theory cannot be applied broadly across all LENR causation scenarios to be a candidate for a unified LENR theory.

    Now there is the detection of mesons, pions, and muons that come out of most LENR reactions as Holmlid suspects. How does the H- theory explain these sub atomic particles?

    How does H- theory explain all those electrons coming of the E Cat X when those electrons should still be connected to the H- ion?

    The H- theory is an old theory that has had it day in the Sun and has been disproven by the march of progress in LENR by a broad spectrum of LENR experimentation. H- Theory might give a warm emotionally based feeling about an imagined certainty in LENR, but it cannot be true.

    • Josh G

      Axil, please look into this guy’s work.

      I have a strong hunch that his work can provide the way forward towards an inclusive cold fusion theory, even though (or perhaps because) it jettisons much of the cherished abstractions of contemporary physics.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        Wonder if Rossi has read any of his works?

        • Josh G

          Maybe. If so, it hasn’t seemed to influence his thinking, since he’s still beating the conventional physics drum. Or maybe that’s just misdirection to keep people barking up the wrong tree…

  • Axil Axil

    The hydrogen anion is a negative ion of hydrogen, H−. The hydrogen anion is an important constituent of the atmosphere of stars, such as the Sun. In chemistry, this ion is called hydride. The ion has two electrons bound by the electromagnetic force to a nucleus containing one proton.

    The hydrogen anion is the dominant absorber of photons in the interstellar medium. It absorbs energies in the range 0.75–4.0 eV, which ranges from the infrared into the visible spectrum (Rau 1999, Srinivasan 1999). It also occurs in the Earth’s ionosphere (Rau 1999).

    It is simple enough to prove that H- exist in Piantelli’s system by looking for the H- telltale energy absorption line spectroscopically.

    In point of fact, such a spectrum is available in the SunCell data. There should be an absorption line presented there.

    ​When I see those lines, I will believe it.

  • Michael W Wolf

    Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments,
    and they wander off through equation after equation and
    eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”— Nikola Tesla
    What did Tesla know anyway? lol

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Although I’m reluctant to use the word impossible these days, I would think that it’s highly unlikely that a hydride would wind up in the s1 orbital of nickel.
    More than likely, the loan pair of electrons of the hydride (H-), a Lewis base (a ligand in this case) forms a complex via the d orbitals
    of the nickel, a Lewis acid that lowers the energy of the system (see 7:15 min).

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Pardon me,
      the 1s orbital.

      • Bob Greenyer

        You would be right Alan… and it wouldn’t

  • Bob Greenyer

    Explaining the lack of “Signal” in Lugano…

    I have already explained the lack of on-going emissions in Lugano by deriving that the reactor had a shield of Tungsten – however, that would not stop the kind of “turn on” emissions we witnessed in GS 5.2.

    In this short video, I explain, via empirical evidence, how one might be able to pre-prepare fuel that did not exhibit the high emission pulse we saw in GS 5.2 and that would be easy and comparatively safe to distribute and handle.

    • Axil Axil

      I did not see a circular path on that proton which Piantelli produced in the cloud chamber. That track could have been any type of particle including, exotic neutral particle, kaons, muon or electrons. The purpose of the magnetic field is to show the polarity of the particle and its momentum.

      I don’t understand how Piantelli decided that the particle coming off the rod was a proton with that energy when its path was not circular. Piantilli did not use a magnetic field in his cloud chamber.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Piantelli and Focardi determined that Protons came off, I am sure that between them – with all their physics knowledge, they know how to differentiate between particle types.

        I do not have access to all the images they took in their years together. What I know is that he said it was determined from cloud chamber experiments, it is in his patent and therefore would likely have to have been defended to the examiners. This is how they determined it and therefore it stands to reason that the bar would be activated to a certain degree for it to occur spontaneously after the bar is taken out of the reactor.

        I don’t know if it is a language thing Axil, but you appear to talk in absolutes often, ok – so he did not have a magnet in the chamber when THAT PARTICULAR image was taken – have you stopped to think why?

        One would not want to use a magnet if one was trying to calculate the mean free path, and hence the energy – it would be far easier to let it travel in a straight line or as much as possible than to have a curve in addition to defelections.

        • Axil Axil

          Correct experimental documentation is required on each and every piece of experimental data to show that the particle in that particular picture was a proton by describing all the equipment used in the experiment and how that equipment was used to produce the data.

          The experimenter just can not say that an observed particle is a proton. If the experimenter has an intent, he should state that intent clearly and not leave it up to the viewer to guess at that intent. He must prove it by specifying the magnetic field setup in the cloud chamber, the field strength, the direction that the particle followed in its circular path, an the equations used to produce the data. I should not need to stop and think why, I should be told explicitly in detail what went on in the experiment and why.

          That particle could well have been the S- ion or a muon. Just because another experiment was run in the past by Piantelli and he got results does not imply anything about the current experiment that you used here.

          Piantelli and MFMP must set an example of how to conduct experimentation for all the newbees getting into this area.

          Overkill is good.

          • psi2u2

            Good exchange.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We are planning to get a cloud chamber and have actively been looking since “Signal” – as suggested by us a long time ago. The issue is, as I explain in detail in this last video, that in the Rossi experiment – any expected ejected particles from the Ni would be masked by the solidified coating.

            Actually, It would be more relevant for Jeff Morris or Me356 to conduct this study so perhaps we can facilitate that.

            With regards to Piantelli, he is a consummate scientists as was Focardi, both deeply respected men at the top of their profession. I cannot compel an octagenarian to do my bidding. Everything he said adds up and is more coherent than the many flights of fantasy that the field of The New Fire is plagued with – plus, technologies based on his research seam to work. Conclusions may vary.

          • Ecco

            Jeff is apparently seeing the nuclear activation of materials lying outside the reactor, but even ~6.7 MeV protons as reported by Piantelli shouldn’t be able to penetrate most materials for any significant depth.

            Protons of such energy, according to a calculation performed with the SRIM software wouldn’t for instance be able to penetrate quartz glass (used by Jeff as a reactor tube container) for more than 300 microns.


          • Bob Greenyer

            You are right they would not.


            1. is his Nickel pure?
            2. radon?
            3. Is an interaction with a constituent in MACOR relevant?


            He needs to get the scintillator there so we have some better metrics.

          • Ecco

            Jeff is using commercial grade Ni 200 wire, just like Me356.

            Tests are being performed/suggested to check out if radon gas or contaminated dust could be a factor.

            I think his cell doesn’t include MACOR components, but recent and detailed photos of his set-up with this long Ni wire haven’t been provided yet.

            I’m looking forward to seeing measurements with a scintillator! Alan Goldwater wants to bring him one personally ASAP.

          • Bob Greenyer

            The answer will be in the spectra

    • Dr. Mike

      As I mentioned in an earlier comment, there is not enough mass (452gr) in the Lugano reactor to accommodate a W shield, even assuming minimum densities for the materials and using the dimensions that are listed in the Lugano report. Inclusion of a W shield would require the reactor to weigh 550-600gr. Have you calculated the minimum weight of your proposed cross-section for the Lugano reactor? I agree with you that there may have been considerable pre-processing of the Lugano fuel.
      Dr. Mike

      • Bob Greenyer

        I would immediately agree with you as we created a good number of dog bones and they were all around the weight of the reactor as shown in the Lugano report (See image). However – if just the ‘end caps’, that is the larger parts on the end, were replaced with commonly used lightweight refractory material as commonly used, then there would be a good amount of free weight which, when accounting for the displaced alumina from the Tungsten sheath would get us ball park there.

        In the IH Patent – they describe that the core could be a metal and describe that some insulating material would be between it and the heater coils. Whilst the outside was analysed, the inside was not and it could be that the core was in fact tungsten.

        • Dr. Mike

          Perhaps the end caps were not alumina. This would be just another bit of misinformation that Rossi failed to correct in the Lugano report.
          Dr. Mike

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hi Mike,

            When I visited the heat treatment congress in Cologne, there were many refractory materials that were Alumina based but not solid. There were some that were very porous and so light they were weird to hold like lava.

            This could easily have been what the end pieces were made of and then skimmed with a thin layer of Alumina.

    • MorganMck

      Somewhere in the back of my mind I recall Rossi saying that he had an older fellow pre-processing his fuel. I think the context was in show that “us old guys” (Rossi included) can still do technically demanding tasks. Not sure if I’m remembering this correctly but it seems to substantiate the notion that the Lugano fuel was pre-processed.

  • Obvious

    Hence the 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration thing…

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Just had another follow up thought:

    Tetrahedral nickel hydride complex absorbs its protons to become chromium and helium.

    Ni[H-] 4 > Cr + 4He

    • Alan DeAngelis

      Maybe nickel-62’s high packing fraction makes it too stable
      to undergo this reaction and remains in the ash while the other nickel isotopes are transmuted to chromium.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Isotopes of Cr are unstable. I’ll work it out later with fewer protons. No time now.

        • Alan DeAngelis

          Stable chromium-52 might be formed in the following reaction.

          Ni(64)[H-] 4 > Cr(52) + 4He(4) 7.77 MeV

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Rossi: “p.s.: the most focused Readers surely have noticed that I corrected the
    typo of this comment: I had written “rats” instead of “rays”: clearly a
    Freudian error of the Cat.

    Maybe he’s hinting that mouse=rat=x-ray. That was one of our speculations some pages back.

    If the nuclear reactions occur by effectively zero mass electron induced Gamma promotion as I wrote below, then the reaction rate, besides depending on the promotion, also depends on the ordinary tunnelling rate which can be affected by multiple things such as vibrations, X-ray induced local ionisation, vacancies, impurities, etc. According to that model, the X-ray/heat ratio, while nowhere large, should be higher in regions where the powder is fine.

    • Manuel Cruz

      The ‘t’ and the ‘y’ keys are next to each other in a qwerty keyboard.

  • pg


    • Pekka Janhunen

      Cat has nine lives?

      • Mats002

        It’s a negative number – COP -9 as in 9x energy in to get 1x heat out?

        • artefact

          No, 9 days to the report. (counter on the right)

          • Frank Acland

            I would be careful not to take the counter as being 100 percent accurate in this case. AR gave a guess that it would be issued in about a month from the end of the test, and that’s what the counter is based on.

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    With great respect to the Piantelli as the discoverer of hydrogen LENR in nickel, creator of the theory is necessary to the scientific data on the state of hydrogen in nickel. There is a huge mass of scientific papers on the state of hydrogen in nickel can not be H- ion in nickel.

    • Bob Greenyer


      • Fedir Mykhaylov

        Last year on this site published an article about micro accelerator mechanism of reactor E- Cat. There are references to the literature .

        • Bob Greenyer

          Can you be more specific?

          Piantelli has always had electric/magnetic fields in his reactors, as well as deep understanding of the role of phonons and shocks (of various kinds such as electrical and physical) in is patents and understands and employs the effect of surface plasmon polaritons – it is one reason why he specifies that the Nickel atomic clusters should be within a number of atoms range no fewer than a lower bound and no higher than an upper bound.

          • Fedir Mykhaylov

            I am familiar with Mr. Piantelli patents. All his calculations on hydrogen loading , nickel processing , methods of activation reactions do not cause problems . Just one question – the location of hydrogen in nickel in the form of a negative ion .

          • Bob Greenyer

            I will put forward my understanding of what he shared with us. A lot of this misconception comes from poor science education targeted towards practical use in chemistry.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Dear Paolo,

            This is interesting work, please can you share the paper?

            Please can you describe the nickel processing steps you went through clearly and why, before attempting to make the Nickel into a Hydride / expose it to H-.

            I don’t want to lead you, I need to understand what you did first.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            I remember that Paolo.

            I was thinking about the following reactions:

            H(1) + Ni(62) > Co(59) + He(4) 0.347 MeV

            H(1) + Ni(64) > Co(61) + He(4) 0.663 MeV

            Co(61) beta decays to Ni(61)

            H(1) + Ni(61) > Co(58) + He(4) 0.489 MeV

            Co(58) > Fe(58) + positron

          • RLittle

            Mr. Greenyer,
            What you say here is not totally true. You give Piantelli too much total credit. There are aspects of this systems that other scientists discovered prior to Piantelli. It is true that Piantelli first worked on Ni/H in 1990s but he was not able to accelerate the effect as others did after 2008. You should include the work of these other researchers and Piantelli should share credit with later revelations in all fairness!

          • Bob Greenyer

            It is true – there is just a deep lack of misunderstanding of the level of excellence in the Piantelli/Focardi cell design.

            I give FULL credit to Rossi for making Piantelli/Focardi technology into a practical energy system – there are many that tried, many more that hypothesised what worked. The result is something that is so simple that we can build a reactor in 30 mins – and following replication, soon the recipe will be much simpler – if someone had done any of these real practical steps sooner – we would never have formed the MFMP in 2012.

          • RLittle

            In truth and honesty, not only should credit be given to Rossi for making the system practically applicable, credit should be given to Reginald B. Little for first giving better theory and understanding of the mechanism as documented in publications. You miss represented and uncorrectly stated my contribution in your video. I not only first gave the first system using Ag/Cu with theoretical explanation of consistency to Mills. I also gave the first proper ferrometal (Fe, Co, Ni) example and theory and explanation. I also in a unified way bridged Pd to Ni.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Please show me a reactor that produced clear excess for a year or more and transmutations, something that Piantelli has done and Rossi apparently has done that the “R.B.Little” you refer to has done.

            Can you ask Mr. LIttle where the initial X-Ray pulse comes from, and can you ask him why you have to remove oxygen for the process to work at all.

            It is not interesting for you to answer these matters after I have revealed Piantellis explanation.

          • RLittle

            Mr Greenyer,

            If you read carefully the prior statement:
            ” credit should be given to Reginald B. Little for first giving better theory and understanding of the mechanism as documented in publications. ” then you should be able to determine that I ask not for credit with practical development of the idea. I ask more credit for the theory and for such it is not warranted that I provide a reactor operating for a year. Credit to me for the theory is only dependent on how my prior theory fits data provided by me and data provided by others. So you statement : “Please show me a reactor that produced clear excess for a year or more and transmutations, something that Piantelli has done and Rossi apparently has done that the “R.B.Little” you refer to has done.” is inappropriate as I seek no credit for the industrialization of this phenomena only the theory for understanding and accelerating it.

            I can and have given reason for the initial x-ray and the need to remove oxygen in prior publications. But I I present no new ideas in comment sections.

            Yes Piantelli should get credit for initial work on Ni/H and Rossi should get credit for developing such for industrial purposes. But between Piantellis and Rossi is Reginald B. Little who gave new ideas to explain and accelerate the phenomena intially noticed but not amplified by Piantelli and later after Little and based on Little’s theory applied by Rossi.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Could nanocavities in the nickel lattice provide an environment
    for lithium hydride, LiH to be more covalently bonded than it would be in bulk?
    Wikipedia mentions lithium hydride’s ionic character.
    However, this DFT (density functional theory) analysis (if I
    didn’t misunderstand it. I haven’t read it carefully yet) leads me to believe that the bond between the lithium and hydride may have some covalent character, therefore a sigma bond between them that could oscillate, Li~H.
    “For the alkali and alkali-earth metals hydrogen insertion
    introduces a hydrogen s state below the Fermi level. In lithium hydride this band s quite wide, explaining lithium hydride’s unusual stability.” (page 9)
    Then I found this:
    LiH has a vibrational frequency of 1405 cm^-1. Could this be the/an infrared, IR stretching frequency of a covalent sigma bond between the Li and the H, Li~H?
    Could this oscillation allow the Li and the H to get close enough to tunnel and fuse?

    Li(7)~p > Be(8)* > 2 He(4) 17.3 MeV

    Although this video is old, it may help us understand what may be happening with LiH if there is a covalent bond between the Li and the H, Li~H.