'Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Cold Fusion, But Were Afraid to Ask' (Olafsson & Holmlid Slideshow, July 2016)

A slideshow has been published by Sveinn Olafsson of the University of Iceland, and Leif Holmlid University of Gothenburg, Sweden which was presented at the Fifth International Symposium on Energy Challenges and Mechanics held in Inverness, Scotland this month. The title  of the presentation is “Everything you always wanted to know about cold fusion, but were afraid to ask.”

The slideshow can be seen here: https://drive.google.com/a/community.unipa.it/file/d/0B1_tFmz65k8BOE9iazZ1bW9LN0xFQXhKOFJ4bzgtNXNJeGtz/view

The presentation is 50 slides long. It’s a bit of a challenge to recreate a full presentation with just the slideshow, but there are many points clearly made in the slides. This presentation focuses on Holmlid and Olafsson’s own work with fusion production from ultra-dense deuterium. The last two slides are contain the references to their work in this area.

The conclusion of the presentation is this:

“Never use theory to deny experimental evidences even if the theory seems very obvious! . . . Ultra dense hydrogen can be the source of all or part of Cold fusion LENR related phenomena and more.”

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thought provoking

    • Rene

      Does it lead to new experimentation, or adjustments to the MFMP protocols?

      • Bob Greenyer

        It would be a different experimental thread.

    • Axil Axil

      Do you think that Holmlid’s experimental techniques are far better than the ones that MFMP are currently using? Is that what is provoking new thought?

      • Bob Greenyer

        We are working to find a way to up the rate of our experimental output – we have already presented on the same platform as Sveinn and are in contact with him and replication of their work is being considered – we already have the Styrene catalyst pellets and used them in a *GlowStick* experiment.

        It makes sense for to build a base of data which can be learned from so whilst our resources are tight – it makes little sense to chop and change between types of experiments.

        • Axil Axil

          did you see this? You can get some volunteers to put this together for you at little cost.


          Plastic or glass scintillator is mated using optical glue and shaped fittings to PMTs. The scintillators are covered with reflective material (aluminum foil works) and then with black paper and tape to make them “light-tight.”They are hooked up to the DAQ which feeds into the parallel port of a computer. When a muon passes through the scintillator, it causes a few photons to be emitted by impurities in the scintillator material. These are picked up by the PMTs, converted to an electrical pulse and amplified. Each PMT sends its signal to the DAQ.

          Muon Counting Experiment

          When counting muons, the DAQ looks for “coincidences”—two signals (one from each PMT) which are received within a very short time. These are reported to the computer; all other signals are vetoed as likely noise from the PMTs. The computer can count the number of muons that come in over an interval to get a rate count.

          • Bob Greenyer


          • Bob Greenyer

            I have a question, do we know the charge – are the u- or u+ ?

          • Axil Axil

            Both u+ and u-, but only the u- is seen outside the nucleus. The u+ blows the nucleus apart to form atomic fragments a therefore are transformed in the fission reaction.

  • clovis ray

    This is an interesting post, to me, (Ultra dense hydrogen) is the secret ingredient , well i’ll add it to the list, although they are getting more and more interesting, I must say.

  • Rene

    I’m sure you know the answer to:
    “What I want to ask is why LENR researchers are good at generating “claims” only, why they cannot translate the claims to products or acceptability”
    Because the researchers doing open experiments have either found nothing or found modest energy output too low to be outside of the margins of error. Only two people have said they have very high energy output. One of them wants to corner the market on LENR with his e-cat invention (more power to him), and the other person claims to have performed a replication of strong LENR but refuses to release details because he’s worried people might get hurt (seriously??!!). In both cases, we’re not getting anything until it is a done deal.
    Any theories to date have been based on scraps of data. Any of the modest open claims are at best susceptible to challenge. So, we wait until some experiment somewhere shows something more than a cat whisker’s departure from nominal.

    • Billy Jackson

      Only two people have said they have very high energy output. – Rene

      Wrong… i am pretty sure that more than just Rossi signed that 31 day report. or IH’s own patent with a COP of 11. not to mention all the other findings that have been posted in the last 2 years by other organizations.. that’s some serious ignoring of facts.

      • Rene

        I’m happy to be corrected. So, name all the people who have claimed to have run strong LENR reactions (not just reporters of experiments done by others), and by that I mean COP 6+ Here: I’ll start –
        Andrea Rossi

        • Mats002

          Hi Rene,

          If you are willing to accept a COP 3+ we can add Brillouin (Godes) to the list and with COP 2+ I think Parkhomov will make it.

          Both can replicate the effect at will, not only by Edisonian luck.

          COP 2+ over many days is well above error margins.

          • Rene

            I did not go lower than COP 6 because the lower ones have credible error margin challenges. Still, even if those were considered, the list is less than a handful and it is certainly not 11. Going back to the original post asking why we’re not getting anywhere, it is quite obvious whatever methods have been published openly do not lead to consistent and challenge survivable results, and in the cases of extraordinary high output, the means to those claims are kept secret and not verifiable.

          • Axil Axil

            We are not making progress in LENR development because the current reaction detection technique is not sensitive enough. If sub atomic particle emissions were used to detect LENR instead of excess heat, the R&D process would be more productive.

            This is why Holmlid is making so much progress in his research. He uses sub atomic particle detection to look at the LENR reaction.

          • William D. Fleming

            Error margin challenges or not, if an experiment utilizes two identical devices, one loaded with fuel and the other not, and if they are both subjected to the exact same conditions, then the errors would be the same for each device. Since the devices with fuel consistently obtain significantly higher temperatures for many hours, as in the latest MFMP experiment, then I believe something significant is happening.

            Also, you can not explain away the fuel analysis. LENR is real.

          • Rene

            Of course there is always the issue of chain of custody. The names of the people involved have yet to be divulged. But assuming that chain can be verified, I’m not trying to explain away the fuel analysis. Quite intrigued by the shifted ratios. Have you not read my comments on that?
            Oh, and as for the MFMP last experiment, there was quite a lot of concern that the blank was receiving less energy than expected, hence the extra heat in the fueled one might have been less anomalous that at first thought.

        • Steve H

          Try “me356” 🙂

          • Rene

            Fixed, thanks.

        • Billy Jackson

          Unfortunately you are redefining your original statement from high energy to a specific amount thus changing the parameters of the base disagreement.

          I Concede the point that very few have achieved a 6+ COP. But that is a far different statement than claiming only 2 people have achieved a high COP.

          As always much respect and thanks for your continuing contribution to the debate!

          • Rene

            I picked 6 because for a useful device, one needs that amount of difference to channel back some energy as the drive. Given generation efficiencies, COP 3 would be barely over unity in the total power budget. And also, 6 is what others including Rossi have mentioned as a workable minimum. Yes, for research purposes, a high COP does not matter as much, but then one is back to suffering challenges of merit.

      • Rene

        Still waiting for that list.

  • Gerard McEk

    I have great respect for these scientists. The question is though: ‘how can these Rydberg matter situations be generated in lattices without help of the laser photons?’ Maybe it is explained in their presentation, but I wasn’t able to open it.

    • Warthog

      The laser used in these experiments is not “super-high-power” as is used in the LLNL “Inertial Confinement” Laser Ignition Faculty. Laser power in the L & H work is in “milli-joules” per pulse, which is TINY in comparison.

      Although they used a Nd/YAG laser, there are diode lasers that will put out these sorts of pulse powers all day long.

      But here is work done BY PHYSICISTS using the standard tools of experimental physics in a setup completely different from Pons and Fleischmann, but yielding equally impossible results according to the “Coulomb barrier” objection.

    • Axil Axil

      LENR’s activity level is more easily detected from the generation of sub atomic particles than from excess heat. Holmlid detects LENR activity through the detection of muons.

      Holmlid says that he does not need a laser to fire up the LENR reaction. He can get a LENR response from just heat or the light from the fluorescent lights in his lab.

      • Rene

        What is the state of the art in muon detection efficiency?

      • Rene

        Here’s a muon detector, basically two scintillation phototubes wrapped in aluminum foil to keep the electrons out. It has a quantum detection efficiency of 10%.


        Is there anything better/cheaper than that?

    • Optimist

      The slides summarize basically the findings from their previous publications. The key points to take away are however the following.

      a) There is a graph on one of the slides showing the rate of hydrogen fusion through tunneling as a function of the distance between one nucleus from an other. To get any noticeable fusion rates, the distance must be well within 10 pm between the atoms. In standard D2 form, the distance between the atoms are more in the 100pm range, driving the likely-hood of tunneled fusion to close to zero.

      b) They point out that there is a known cold fusion mechanism since the 1950’s that is based on creating muons that take the place of the electron and as they are much heavier they cause the atom to atom distance to dtop to only being around 0.5pm, therefore providing high likely hood of fusion. The practical problem is that muons are hard to get and short lived.

      c) Unrelated to the muons method, Sveinn and Holmlid present the material form that they call ultra-dense deuterium D(-1) or Rydberg matter. This state also results in significantly reduced atom to atom distances or only around 2.3pm. This is also short enough to provide high likelihood of tunneling fusion, just like with the muons.

      d) To form deuterium in this D(-1) state seems to be relatively simple, and only requires the gas-formed deuterium to flow over a surface of a certain type of catalyse , such as Fe2O3:K. This forms a short lived Rynberg cluster including D(-1) that has a said above relatively good likelihood of self tunneling. With a little help from a low energy laser the efficiency of the fusion can be increased by “pushing” the atoms over the little that is left of the Coulomb barrier.

      e) To confirm that they have actually created a material with such a short atop to atom distance, they use “flight-time” measure. This is based on the following. If the two positively charged nucleus are indeed in a state where there is only 2.3pm distance between them, they store a lot of electro-potential energy because of the two positive charges. If the bondage is broken, such as with a low energy photon interrupting the party, the nucleus are pushed away from each other in opposite directions were the release speed depends on the original electric potential between the two. So, if the closest distance would only be around 100pm as expected for a normal Deuterium, the minimum flight time over a certain distance, like 3m would be let’s say T and longer if the atoms are in lower energy states.
      The graphs that they present actually confirm that they are picking up as expected particles with the standard flight times T or longer. There should however not be any particles with shorter flight times that T as that was the flight time of the expected minimum nucleus distance. They do however also get a peek with much shorter flight time, consistent with a 2.3pm atom distance. Time between laser triggering until receiving the particle is measured in micro-seconds so this seems to be a method that is hard to challenge.

      f) Very interestingly, the observation of the short flight time is only made when the laser hits the gas within the first 300um from the surface of the catalysis, probably showing that this state is very short lived.

      g) They have a slide showing energy measure experiment, based on the same method, using surface catalyst and low energy laser and calorimetry that results in over unity energy production as expected.

      h) At this point in the show, things are getting more tough to understand without the lecturer in the room, but it seems that they are also detecting the formation of high energy Mesons, such as Muons, that should not be formed even if fusion occurred so they ask if new physics is needed to explain how that is possible? Muons are charged and heavy particles that should be relatively simple to confirm by a standard mass spectrometer, right? but the slides don’t say if that’s what they did.

      So put simple, it seems that a surface catalyst can leave deuterium in a state with such a short proton distance that cold fusion can actually take place, its efficiency can be increased by low energy laser and they predict that this is most likely what is happening in all the different LENR setups that different groups are working with.

      • Axil Axil

        The fusion condition also applies with protium, right? deuterium is nothing special.

        • Optimist

          Isn’t the reason for deuterium that you need the neutrons to form stable He?

          • Axil Axil

            I found the reference in saying that either deuterium d(1) or protium p(1) produce fusion in Holmlid papers as follows:

            “The behavior for p(1) and
            d(1) is similar concerning the very fast particles. Thus, it is expected
            that a mechanism releasing MeV particles in d(1) also exists
            as shown here for p(1), and this may indeed be one further
            high-energy mechanism giving rise to the observed nuclear fusion.”

          • Optimist

            That’s actually great.

            The He-2 that results from 2☓ H fusion does however beta decay to deuterium almost instantly so the effective energy release from the whole process being the mass difference between 2 free protons and a single deuterium is if I recall correctly much lower that if stable He-4 is formed, if even positive?

          • Axil Axil

            The fusion process is call proton proton fusion


          • Optimist

            This process is actually shown on slide 6 in the presentation.
            p + p → D +e+ + νe + 0.42MeV and
            D + D → n + 3He + 3.3 MeV
            and more.

      • Gerard McEk

        Thanks for this, Optimist! It makes the presentation al lot more understandable.

      • Steve Savage

        Now I can understand it !! Thanks Optimist.

      • Axil Axil

        “but it seems that they are also detecting the formation of high energy Mesons, such as Muons, that should not be formed even if fusion occurred so they ask if new physics is needed to explain how that is possible? Muons are charged and heavy particles that should be relatively simple to confirm by a standard mass spectrometer, right? but the slides don’t say if that’s what they did.”

        Actually, Holmlid detected low energy muons which includes little or no kinetic energy.

        Holmlid invented his own muon detector that he had peer reviewed by the society of spectrographic instrumentation.



        • Optimist

          Sorry, actually what I ment is that mesons are of high energy, and they release that energy quickly when the decay down the ladder.

          DN(0) →···→···→ K± → π± → μ± → e±
          Nx4x938MeV →···→···→ 493MeV → 139MeV → 105MeV → 0. 511MeV

          Comparing those energy levels with the 3MeV released by conventional fusion even muons can’t be created. The only way this can be true is that the atom itself somehow broke up and lost all or most of its mass. While that’s hard to swallow it would indeed both explain the lack of neutron radiation and how direct electricity can be formed as indicated in the slides.

          • Axil Axil

            If you noticed, the production of the kaon is a unique sigh that the proton and neutron decay has occurred. The Kaon has a strange quark that can only form when quarks inside the proton are transformed.



            also see


            Science is looking for kaons in a big way, they should be looking at LENR in a big way.

          • Optimist

            Yes. And with the results that Sveinn Olafsson and Leif Holmlid have got, one would think that it would be the number one priority of the science world to replicate this at CERN with a big scale particle detector given the potential application and influence on particle science.

            The question is as usual in the LENR field why they are not or why that’s taking so long?

    • Axil Axil

      Potassium helps hydrogen out through the rydberg blockade mechanism.


  • Barbierir

    In a previous topic there is an interesting discussion between Engineer48 and Jed Rothwell about the flowmeter and possible source of errors. Unfortunately Jed isn’t free to discuss the details unless IH or Rossi do it first. Anyway the discussion casts more light on the contentious issues that IH described in their MTD as “flawed measurements […] using unsuitable measuring devices”.

    1. The model of flowmeter and its placement were intentionally chosen to produce errors.
    2. The serious problems with the flowmeter and some of the other instruments and reasons it produced errors are readily apparent from reviewing Rossi’s data.
    3. The flowmeter was not off by a factor of 50, he used other tricks to change other parameters.

    4. His methods of fooling the flow meter can be understood by reading the model’s manual.

    Engineer48 has raised some valid objections but not definitive answer is possible as long as the report remain unpublished. Now it would be interesting if Mats’ contacts that have insight into the report would analyze it, paying especially attention to the above points.

    The part that isn’t still clear to me is if the data Jed refers to are those from Rossi’s own instruments or from the ERV report?

    • wpj

      Jed always refers to it as “Rossi’s” rather than the ERV’s.

      Rossi DID have a duplicate set of instruments there (so he says) which were in agreement with the ERV’s instruments though the report data is from the ERV, not Rossi.

      It is stated that the ERV’s instruments were validated before and after the year long run to verify accuracy.

    • Curbina

      Where is that debate taking place Renzo? I can’t find It.

      • Barbierir

        It’s in «Rossi addresses some issues regarding the 1mw plant test» of July 3.

    • Axil Axil

      Excess heat is a poor indication of the presence of the LENR reaction. A more sensitive and reliable indicator is the detection of mesons.

    • Rene

      With sequestered reports, this is all speculation, not worth discussing simply because the arguments are onerous. So tired of “X is not true, but I can’t talk about the details because, reasons”.

  • Billy Jackson

    Alleged, i can accept that and am willing to acknowledge the point.

  • Axil Axil

    This might mean that Holmlid and Rossi are using the same LENR reaction mechanism, namely muon generation.

    • Zephir

      Nope, Rossi apparently doesn’t generate muons. Holmlid experiments are actually an overshot: he doesn’t just merges atom nuclei, he even fragments its nucleons, which is parasitic and wasteful way of doing of fusion. We just need to merge the protons with atom nuclei with exact amount of energy needed – we don’t have to fragment them. I already explained it here – but you simply cannot absorb any new information about it.


  • MasterBlaster7

    I only have one question about cold fusion that I am afraid to ask…..when the F is it going to hit commercial shelves!/!?!?….that is all.

    • Private Citizen

      will settle for open reproducability

  • Zephir

    Nice presentation – the problem is, what Holmlid is doing is merely hot fusion, in certain aspects even hotter than the fusion inside the tokamak (which doesn’t produce so much parasitic byproducts like the Holmlid fusion).

  • Alan DeAngelis

    This many be something to keep in mind here. Joshua Cude pointed out in the comments here that “… branching ratios in muon-catalyzed fusion are exactly the same as in ordinary thermal fusion…”
    So, if muons are involved we should see the following with nearly equal probability.

    D + D > T + p

    D + D > He-3 + n

    • Alan DeAngelis

      That’s why I think something like the following is going on.

      2D + Pd(108) > Cd(112)* 27.3 MeV

      Cd(112)* > Pd(108) + He(4)


      2D > He(4) 24 MeV

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yes, I know the Coulomb barrier is huge but it would be similar to the barriers of those in the EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS (not theoretical rumination) of the Mitsubishi transmutations where EVEN numbers of deuterons are reacting.


        • Axil Axil

          magnetism is not effected by the coulomb barrier and can pass through it uneffected. Magnetism is what decays protons and neutrons producing mesons.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            But in ACTUAL EXPERIMENTS muon catalyzed fusion has the same branching ratios as hot fusion.

          • Axil Axil

            If fusion occurs, its reaction products will be transformed by the LENR reaction…no gamma, no neutrons, no tritium.

            These transformations come from a modification of the weak force by EMF.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Muon catalyzed fusion is NOT hot fusion.

          • Axil Axil

            Without LENR, Muon catalyzed fusion will produce the same reaction products as hot fusion.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Maybe it’s unicorn catalyzed fusion.

    • Axil Axil

      T would stabilize instantly in full functioning LENR and become He3. No tritium would be found in the LENR reaction that is stabilizing radioactive isotopes.

      Tritium would be observed in a LENR reaction that has not achieved the energy level required to achieve isotope thermalization.

    • Warthog

      All the data says that they are not. Far the greatest product is He4, with T and He3 occurring in virtually trace amounts by comparison. If you haven’t watched the Miles video, you should do so.

      • Axil Axil

        In any case, LENR will stabilize fusion reaction products before they could be detected.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        That’s what I’m saying. It’s probably NOT muon catalyzed because they see mostly helium-4

  • Buck

    Hmmm . . . more scientists are generating articles about LENR and Rossi.

    Here is another piece published on JONP coming out of India’s by U.V.S.Seshavatharam and S. Lakshminarayana with a strong focus on Rossi and the E-Cat results:

    “Nickel – the ultimate substitute of coal, oil and uranium”

    LINK: http://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com/files/Nickel%20-%20The%20ultimate%20substitute%20of%20coal,%20oil%20and%20uranium.pdf

    Very interesting that the authors share the following in the introduction:
    “Very interesting information is that Mr and Mrs Bill Gates are planning to fund Italy’s ENEA for LENR/Cold fusion technology.”

  • Zephir

    I dunno why people here are so obsessed by utilization of Holmlid

    experiments for explanation of cold fusion, when Holmlid himself clearly said,
    that his experiments are about hot fusion with all its drawbacks and
    consequences. In particular the muons have nothing to do with cold
    fusion mechanism in the same way, like the paparazzi don’t help the rich
    people to get rich: they just parasites utilizing their presence.

    “No, I research not about cold fusion, I research on laser-induced
    hot fusion. It enables us to reach a temperature of between 50 and MK
    500 MK in the plasma. This one can measure both the neutron energy
    distributions and from electron energy distributions…”


    Many people here also don’t understand, that Holmlid can perform hot
    fusion at higher energy densities than the tokamak or even giant NIF
    despite he carries out his experiments in modest table top arrangement.
    This is because the modern infrared pulsed lasers utilize extremely fast
    mode locking technology and as such their pulses have higher energy
    density than the concentrated beams of many lasers in billion dollar
    priced National Ignition Facility. And the energy density – not the
    total energy – is what counts during fusion.

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    I was afraid ask but to ahead of Zephyr:What are the similarities between the hot laser synthesis and LENR?

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Yeah, he doesn’t seem to be a big fan of cold fusion but he may have a valid point about the branching ratios.

  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    What is the main reaction under the influence of muons or Rydberg state or occurrence of piezo nuclear reactions induced by laser?