Rossi’s Catalyst: Electron Clusters Light Up Christmas This Year (Hank Mills)

The following post has been submitted by Hank Mills

There’s something truly special that makes Andrea Rossi’s Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat) devices produce excess power. Speculation has raged for years about the nature of his so-called secret sauce. Every time a nugget of information is provided about a design element added to a new reactor model or some additional fuel component, hundreds of online posts are made. Yet progress towards mainstream acceptance of the technology remains dreadfully slow. I believe this may now change. I suggest that a unifying catalyst for the E-Cat has emerged that allows us to make sense of the processes taking place in his reactor, the rationale for his various fuel components (along with their sizes, properties, and composition), and the reasoning behind the various reactor designs he’s tested. The application of this knowledge could allow for a wide range of devices that not only produce energy from novel nuclear reactions but manipulate the underlying medium of the vacuum in useful ways. You may not believe in Santa Claus, but in this article I’m about to propose a phenomenological nexus that could keep Rudolph’s nose aglow, provide all the electricity needed to keep Santa’s factory humming along, and keep his sleigh soaring through sky, defying gravity.

When an adequate electrical potential is applied to a cathode in proximity to an anode, a complex series of processes, many simultaneous, take place. The result can be an accumulation of electric charge localized to a tiny region of the cathode surface, usually at a surface irregularity such as a crack, pit, or protrusion. Once a critical level of charge is accumulated, an “ecton” explosion takes place, allowing an almost fluidic stream of electrons to surge out of the cathode. These electrons exist amid a spray of metallic vapor from the “cathode spot” and positively charged gaseous ions. By a process that is not fully understood, these electrons – along with a much smaller quantity of positive ions – self organize into a structure that allows the electrons to stick together in close proximity, defying their mutual electrostatic repulsion due to their like charge. These mysterious objects have been described by scientists around the world going back at least a century. Although referred to by many different names including strange radiation, ectons, charged clusters, electron clusters, exotic vacuum objects (EVOs), charged plasmoids, and micro-ball lightning, they are truly ubiquitous in that they have been produced in an extremely wide array of circumstances in various experimental apparatuses.

One researcher in particular, Kenneth Shoulders, the author of EV – A Tale of Discovery and numerous shorter online documents, spent many years of his life investigating these objects, which he described as exotic vacuum objects or EVOs. Among many other interesting effects, he discovered that some unknown property of this high density, likely torodial structure of electrons could nullify almost its entire effective mass, along with the much higher mass of heavier positive ions trapped inside. The result is that once created, the input energy cost to accelerate an EVO from a cathode to an anode was minuscule, perhaps less than a thousandth of what would be expected. Moreover, if during the course of travel the torodial plasmoid was to interact with physical structures, truly bizarre effects would take place that defied all current scientific knowledge.

As an example, if a one micron sized EVO was made to follow an undersized channel (let’s say perhaps a tenth of a micron in diameter) between two slabs of a dielectric material such as aluminum oxide, the object would atomize the obstructing material into a liquid via a non-thermal process while boring an appropriately sized channel. The aluminum oxide slush would be rapidly ejected out of the channel along the same path as the EVO. In other cases, if an EVO carrying internal positive ions was accelerated into an appropriately configured anode, nuclear reactions could be produced by a number of different mechanisms, including the anomalous kinetic energy acquired by the heavy ions. In many of these impacts transmutation products could be identified.

From his relentless experimentation, Ken Shoulders learned that these EVOs could transform from a “white” excited state in which they emitted electrons (allowing them to be filmed in his custom-made electron pinhole camera) through many intermediate gray states to a “black” state that was for all intents and purposes, invisible. In the black state, the EVO interacted only very weakly with matter. However, with a proper stimulus in the form of an externally applied electric field or several cycles of RF frequencies, the ghostly structure could be brought back to life as a white EVO.

Eventually, Shoulders gained the experience to produce EVOs of various diameters (from hundreds of nanometers to perhaps a few tens of microns or even larger in some cases), maneuver them through the equivalent of small scale obstacle courses including right angle turns, split individual EVOs into multiple smaller units to recombine them at another location on the guidance track, and even fire them off from cathodes at frequencies of up to the megahertz range. Perhaps equally importantly, he learned how to identify the evidence of their presence – their varied but unique signatures.

Ken Shoulders found the track marks of EVOs in a wide variety of materials, including the spent fuel of LENR or cold fusion experiments. However, he was not alone in identifying strange marks left behind by these anomalous self-sustaining structures of electric charge. Other teams around the world, going back decades, had found the same fingerprint markings produced by their experiments.

Exploded wires, high current arc discharges through liquid, electrolytic cold fusion cells, plasma based abnormal glow discharge tubes, Tesla coils, electrical components pushed until dielectric breakdown, and many other apparatuses could produce these self-organizing structures. Even cavitation bubbles produced by ultrasound in a liquid have proven to create them. High voltage isn’t even always needed to create them: tracks have been discovered on the electrodes of six-volt electrolysis cells!

Since they often produce x-rays or low-level gammas when impacting metals, the remains of exploded wires or electrolytic electrodes have been placed near detectors. Up to a couple days after the initial experiment was completed, the tracks of “strange radiation” along with x-rays were found – sometimes at the distance of a meter or through barriers that would have blocked alpha or beta rays! In some experiments, magnetic materials like nickel or iron were found to trap, absorb, or at least prevent the passage of these anomalous emissions. Other materials, like aluminum, sometimes had little effect at all, allowing them to pass through. Likely, a spectrum of EVOs spanning many “gray” levels were passing through space and eventually being detected. Many others were likely lost to the environment. Everywhere this extremely intuitive and highly skilled inventor looked, the evidence of charge clusters seemed to exist. There’s no escaping their presence or effects!

The majority of energy gainful, exothermic processes within the entire range of cold fusion reactors that have been built to date are likely directly related to the initial synthesis, purposeful guidance, and resulting actions of EVOs. Andrea Rossi’s energy catalyzer models from his first powder based systems to the E-Cat QX are no exception. In each model of his reactors, he built in mechanisms – perhaps in his earliest systems unknowingly – that produced both EVOs and the conditions for them to catalyze LENR reactions. As his knowledge of what was transpiring in his reactors grew more complete, he made appropriate enhancements that increased the reaction rate or even allowed the direct production of electricity. But before any examples of such improvements can be provided, another physical phenomenon must be briefly discussed that has been fully and wholly accepted by mainstream physics: surface plasmon polaritons (SPP). I’ll effort to describe this topic in a plain and intuitive manner, which means readers will have to perform their own online research for a more comprehensive summary of the topic. But my explanation should be good enough to convey the fundamental concepts that are critical for grasping what I believe is Andrea Rossi’s now not-so-secret catalyst.

An electrically conductive metal has some number of mobile electrons that are free to move about. Without these charge carriers being able to move about, there could be no such thing as a surface plasmon polariton. Now, let’s examine each component of this potentially confusing term.

The first word, “surface” means that this phenomenon takes place on the surface of a metal. More precisely, SPPs can be found at the interface of a metal surface and a dielectric (which can be a gaseous environment, a solid, or even free space). All the action takes place just above or below the surface.

Next, at this surface is a, “plasmon” which can be very roughly conceptualized as an undulating or bobbing collection of electrons from the metal pushing up from the surface, extending above some distance, and crashing back down again below the surface. Even though the lattice of the metal is solid, these free electrons have the mobility to travel freely and slosh about like a liquid: almost like waves or ripples on a pond.

Finally, we come to the word, “polariton” which refers to how these ripples of electrons (plasmons) at the surface interact with various stimuli from the environment. If an electromagnetic wave in the form of photons (two examples of photon sources could be a laser or infrared light from a hot surface) impacts the metal-dielectric interface at the surface of the metal, the electric component of the photon imparts momentum to the free electrons creating potentially powerful ripples of electrons that spread out in all directions, rapidly dropping in magnitude.

However, there are additional ways to produce surface plasmon polaritons (couplings of plasmons and stimulus at a dielectric interface) other than the impact of photons. Electrically charged particles such as electrons, protons, or ions impacting the surface can also produce the same collective projections of electrons rolling across the surface. Likewise, SPPs can be generated on the metal-dielectric interface of a cathode pulsed with a voltage source. The whole system of the pulsating “surface plasmon” along with the source of stimulus is referred to as a pseudo-particle, hence the overall “surface plasmon polariton.” Now, since we have the word salad sorted out, we can move on!

SPPs are not necessarily EVOs; however, they are important in the creation of EVOs for multiple reasons. They facilitate the electric field amplification on a sharp tip or surface protrusion, such as the pointed wires used by Kenneth Shoulders or the large number of nano-needles found on the surface of planar electrodes in other systems. This allows for the “ecton explosion” that releases a burst of electrons, metal vapor, and ions. Furthermore, SSPs may generate the orientations and organized structures of surface plasmons which, once ejected into the internal space of a reactor from a discharging cathode, might lead to the formation of the EVO.

A good analogy could be a lump of clay on the spinning wheel of a potter. The spinning blob is not a vase or watering pot. To be transformed into a usable, functional piece of pottery, an external force (in this case the hands of the artisan) must intelligently mold and shape the raw material into the desired structure. Similarly, I believe the creator of the universe, devised a method that allows his hands – through the dynamic forces of the active vacuum or aether – to combine the undulating, patterned SPP with some number of heavier ions while shaping the plasmoid that will become the EVO.

Given the above, a reasonable thought would be that by further enhancing SPPs on a metal-dielectric interface, more “ecton” events could be triggered, and, hence, EVOs created. The good news is that there are multiple methods of enhancing SPPs.

To be best of my understanding, here are a several methods that have proven to work in mainstream optics research labs: placing surface protrusions on a planar surface that will produce a large electric field pushing the plasmon upwards, creating pits or cracks on a surface which will make the plasmon project horizontally into each side of the crevice, utilizing an array of differently sized spherical particles that will strengthen the plasmons where the particles make contact, utilizing a dielectric of higher permittivity and/or a conductor of greater conductivity, matching the size of surface irregularities (or powder sizes) to the wave length of oncoming photons to produce resonant conditions, utilizing smaller surface area wires instead of large planar surfaces to reduce dissipation rates for a giving stimulation, and setting up specific patterns of surface features with the goal of creating lenses that can focus plasmons.

But the most obvious way of enhancing the production of a SPP should be obvious: striking the material with an EVO! According to Kenneth Shoulders, in addition to producing various kinds of structural damage, the EVO can dump a massive electrical charge onto a target in an extremely short period of time, perhaps in a picosecond or less! He demonstrated that a hundred billion electrons from a single EVO of approximately one micron in diameter can be imparted during such an energetic strike.

The plasmon undulations of electrons rippling through the surface layers of the target material would be immense. Although Kenneth Shoulders, as far as I’m aware, never referred to SPPs in his writings, he elaborated on how such impacts could create self-sustaining chain reactions. He called them “wildfires.” His reasoning was straightforward. If you have an embrittled surface – such as nickel loaded with hydrogen to create a hydride layer – the kinetic damage of the strike could damage the lattice creating breaks, fractures, and cracks. The result is fracto-emission of electrons – a well-documented phenomenon in scientific literature.

However, going beyond what’s currently understood by mainstream science, he claimed that the wildfires he observed (in addition to heat after death in LENR systems) were due to EVOs being produced by those incidents of fracto-emission. These emissions of charged clusters, likely carrying some number of protons, would then inflict additional damage, creating a semi-perpetuating cycle that could go on for extended periods.

In one experiment that may be useful in visualizing the effect of SPPs, Shoulders placed the exposed, uncovered end portion of a length of insulated wire – 1/64th inch diameter covered with Formvar insulation – within the guide path of an EVO. He then allowed it to be struck multiple times. Under a critical voltage of 4.8 kilovolts, nothing significant happened. However, upon hitting that input voltage, sparks (which always indicate an EVO has been created) were emitted from the entire length of the wire which were powerful enough to blast off chunks of the insulation.

In subsequent strikes, sparks would only emerge from the insulated portions, and not where the insulation had been blasted off. The explanation here is pretty straightforward. Upon being hit by an EVO, the small diameter, low surface area wire allowed for the resulting surface plasmon polariton spikes to be intensified rather than spreading out over a large area and fading out. The SPPs were intensified even further where the dielectric insulating material covered the wire! Where the Formvar was not present, the only dielectric present was the low pressure, perhaps near vacuum gases of the surroundings. Here is a great example of how one EVO strike can trigger the production of many more.)

In recent years there have been many papers and patent applications published that revolve around the concept of powerful surface plasmon polaritons inducing nuclear reactions and isotopic shifting in a more direct manner. Often, the SPPs are stimulated with a specific type of laser, perhaps focused on a hydrogenated surface. Although the scientific jargon can be challenging to mentally digest at times, one explanation is that powerful SPPs on appropriate surfaces can liberate or produce a certain type of “slow neutron” with a large “cross section” that can easily penetrate into the nucleus of nearby atoms to induce isotopic shifting and/or exothermic nuclear reactions.

Another line of thought suggests that such intense SPPs can produce “heavy electrons” that can penetrate the electron shells of an atom to produce other types of reactions that produce energy. Some researchers cojecture that these heavy electrons may actually represent some form of electron cluster shielding the electrostatic charge an interior proton. Whatever the primary nuclear mechanism(s) of the reactions reported in such literature turn out to be, SPPs and the EVOs they help generate are intricately involved – without a doubt.

Using the understanding these two phenomena – SPPs and the “strange radiation” they generate – we can begin to examine how Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat technology evolved over time. In the following I hypothesize several optimizations made on the E-Cat is by no means complete or even totally accurate. But I believe it can provide insights into how Rossi produced SPPs, generated EVOs, and intelligently guided them to generate excess power. I’ll try to be brief on each point.

1 – In at least some if not all of his earliest systems, we know Andrea Rossi degassed his fuel under high vacuum to remove trapped gases. This removes trapped oxygen, water, and carbon monoxide among other contaminants that can hinder LENR reactions for multiple reasons – including the fact they take up space in the lattice where you want absorbed protons to go! If you don’t remove these gases, the hydrogen embrittlement process can’t happen. Another problem they cause that is directly relevant to this article, is that they can hinder the production of EVOs in a plasma. Kenneth Shoulders explained that water, oxygen, and electronegative gases can “suck up” electrons which inhibits the processes that produce charge clusters in a plasma environment. Cycles of heating and degassing may eliminate this problem.

2 – Andrea Rossi chose nickel powder with a high surface area. The carbonyl nickel he used (a specific type of nickel powder that’s commercially available and not the highly toxic gas) is covered in sub-micron spikes, tubercules, valleys, and protrusions. Not only would these features increase the effective surface area, but they would allow for SPPs to be enhanced. According to the Fluid Heater patent, he baked his particles to heat trapped water molecules which produced internal explosions that further enhanced the surface features.

3 – Nano-particles of palladium and other elements were mixed in with the nickel fuel. Utilizing nano-particles as “reverse spillover catalysts” can dramatically boost the adsorption and absorption of hydrogen into the nickel below. However, in regards to SPPs, the textured surface produced either by sputtering of the nickel or applied metallic nano-powders allows for an amplification effect in which the magnitude of the plasmons are increased.

4 – Ultra high temperatures are generated inside the reactor that can produce infrared photons, split molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen, and emit electrons. One possible way he has done this is by sometimes utilizing tungsten heating elements which can withstand the temperatures required. In addition to creating atomic hydrogen that can be much more rapidly absorbed by the nickel than molecular hydrogen, any free electrons, charged ions, or sufficiently energetic photons will be capable of producing SPPs on the surface of the fuel. These may be enhanced by the nano-particles coating the surface of the nickel powder or the spikes and protrusions found on the particles.

5 – In some setups, with or without other forms of stimulation or enhancement of SPPs, pulses of direct current may be applied through the body of the reactor. This likely not only creates intense plasmons ripples on the fuel but may ionize the gaseous environment to some extent. This can create additional free electrons and ions that may impact the fuel, enhancing hydrogen absorption and/or further magnifying the SPP effect. As will continue to be discussed, the production of plasma by some mechanism seems to be a common and repetitive theme.

6 – The individual modules of the original one megawatt plant tested in Italy utilized RFGs (radio frequency generators) that activated after a certain temperature profile had been reached. This would have produced a hydrogen (with perhaps a touch of lithium or other elements) plasma that not only could dramatically accelerate the hydrogenation process – yielding a brittle surface – but also generate EVOs. Kenneth Shoulders discussed and provided evidence that a pure plasma, with no metallic nano-particles from a cathode, could produce tracks and holes in a target called a “witness plate” that was either charged positively or grounded. In the reactors of this first one megawatt plant, some EVOs could have randomly impacted nickel fuel that may have been embedded onto the inner walls of the reactor body. However, Andrea Rossi used copper outer shells in at least some of his reactors. If the conductive exterior of such a reactor had been either grounded (earthed) or attached to a positive electrical potential, the EVOs would have been much more likely to impact the fuel on their way to the anode. Such impacts would have produced immense SPPs – which could then have stimulated nuclear reactions!

7 – Although I cannot find the reference, I specifically remember a reference that has always intrigued me, yet only in recent weeks have I recognized the full significance. In this very early article about one of Andrea Rossi’s first public tests of the E-Cat, an attendee reported a box attached to the reactor that was labled, “Tesla Coil.” For a long time, I thought that he was simply using the Tesla Coil to produce plasma capable of dissociating molecular hydrogen. Now, I recognize that there was another important reason. Kenneth Shoulders and others have been able to produce the signature tracks of EVOs by allowing the glowing streamers of a high voltage Tesla Coil to hit a target. According to him, an EVO leads each of these streamers as they travel towards a target. Connecting this to Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat, such an EVO at the tip of a streamer would produce powerful SPP waves upon striking hydrogenated, embrittled nickel powder. Not only would initial nuclear reactions take place via multiple possible routes, but the powerful strike could produce fracto-emission of electrons from broken bonds in the lattice the lattice. The continual cycles of EVO production could allow for periods in which the reactor could operate in a self-sustaining mode without input.

8 – Some of his reactors, such as the Lugano Device, could have produced plasma in their interiors due to high amplitude harmonics or resonance frequencies produced by the three phase AC applied to their resistance coils. At already very high internal temperatures, the barriers to plasma production could have been lowered enough so that this sub-optimal, indirect method was at least adequate to allow for EVO production. Utilizing the highest AC voltage possible would also likely help.

9 – Perhaps the most important fuel additive Rossi has utilized so far is lithium. Over the years and decades, multiple teams and scientists have discovered ways of inducing fusion between forms of hydrogen (protium, deuterium, or ions) and lithium at energies far below what’s officially predicted by mainstream physics. Two in particular stand out. In one series of papers available online, a prestigious researcher successfully and dramatically increased the rate enhancement of proton-lithium fusion by firing hydrogen into molten lithium. By keeping the lithium both in the molten state (near the melting temperature) and the surface clean of contaminants (no oxides or nitrides creating a barrier), he could induce individual fusion events using strikes with an energy of only a few thousand KeV.

Additionally, Unified Gravity Corporation has published results in which protons and lithium in the plasma state can undergo fusion reactions within a very low (if narrow) window of around 200eV. Due to these results, the idea of independent protons, accelerated to moderate energies, impacting and fusing with lithium atoms in an E-Cat seems quite feasible. Even more interestingly, the thought of EVOs carrying protons striking lithium wetted nickel powder is exciting!

Due to these charged clusters reducing mass and inertia somewhat like a hypothesized warp bubble, they could accelerate protons to far higher energies than those existing normally in the plasma. With proper tuning of whatever mechanism may be producing the plasma (ultra-hot heating element, radio frequency generator, high amplitude harmonics from the resistors, electrical impulses sent through the fuel) certain windows of collision energies could be carefully tuned in. Finally, lithium (like potassium and sodium rumored to have been used as a catalyst in some of his previous systems) is an electro-positive element that may help induce the production of EVOs.

10 – The Quark, or E-Cat QX, represents the current pinnacle of Andrea Rossi’s development of the energy catalyzer. A comparison of this device to some of Kenneth Shoulders test systems yields striking similarity. Moreover, the basic idea of a discharge tube with a cathode and an anode achieving a mode of excess power generation – in the forms of heat, light, and electricity — isn’t new. If his device works in a similar manner to others (some of which were focusing on electrical production rather than generation of thermal energy) then EVOs are without doubt involved.

We know so that there are two electrodes with a narrow channel between them that’s almost certainly composed of a dielectric material like quartz. As Kenneth Shoulders has explained, a narrow channel surrounded by dielectric is an ideal guide for an EVO. If there is a significant gas pressure and the surface is even reasonably smooth, the charge clusters will travel through such a cappilary tube from one end to the other, not touching the surface! The narrow tube may service another purpose. If the overall size of the electrodes are larger than the diameter of the hole in the dielectric, a field intensification process may boost the electric field in that region and allow an EVO to be generated more easily. Additionally, we don’t know anything about the surface characteristics of his electrodes. However, if they have been roughened up in some manner, this would assist the formation of EVOs. Likely, the electrodes have been embrittled due to being loaded with hydrogen and perhaps some quantity of lithium. Shoulders has described a method in which he coated a cathode with titanium hydride. The brittle and self replenishing nature of the surface – in addition to the hydrogen it continually emitted – was said to be useful in generating the EVO discharges. I expect that a nickel or nickel-manganese electrode (the manganese helping eliminate oxygen and sulfur which are contaminants) with a hydride layer would work in the same manner.

To produce huge amounts of energy, only the smallest quantities of hydrogen and lithium would be required. Thin coatings on the electrodes would likely be enough. Another reason for this is that those who have seen the actual reaction chamber report no sign of foreign material: the tube seems clear, transparent, and obscured. Perhaps an interesting thought is that over time molten lithium could, perhaps, work its way from the outer area of the cathode to the tip. One of the problems that Kenneth Shoulders had to overcome was the degradation of his sharp points on the tips of cathode wires. After many firings, the sharp points would become so blunted that higher and higher voltages would be required to emit EVOs. In addition to using metal hydride coatings, he also used reservoirs of low melting point conductive substances such as mercury to overcome the problem. Gradually attracted by electric forces towards the tip of the cathode, the minuscule quantity of mercury would wet the tip, form the needle like launch point of the EVO, and be ejected off during the explosive discharge. I can’t help but wonder if almost imperceptable quantities of lithium in the E-Cat QX have replaced mercury in Shoulder’s test systems. Or, perhaps, other electro-positive elements with a low melting point such as sodium could be used. The light from his reactor, a slightly orange bright yellow, sure does look similar to the glow of a sodium plasma tube.

Once the E-Cat QX is discharged, a burst of EVOs are likely generated. Many of these may be too small to be seen by the naked eye; however, Frank Acland has reported seeing a tiny dot of light positioned in the central tube between electrodes. Ignoring a wide range of possible nuclear reactions that might happen mid-flight, the EVO strike on the anode could induce a number of effects. Direct thermonuclear fusion by slamming transported positive ions to anode surface is one; the application of an anomalous kinetic energy capable of being thermalized is another; a powerful triggering of Surface Plasmon Polaritons of extreme magnitude capable of producing neutrons or heavy electrons (more EVOs) is exciting, and the continuing cycles of fracto-emission could be an explanation for how the plasma may be sustained with such a low voltage. Most likely, a couple of these mechanisms are dominant. Regardless, the EVO strike would be a potential trigger for all of them!

To go into the possible dynamics of the next series of reactions that would occur after such an LENR event on the anode would be an exhausting task. So, in short, I’ll simply say that I imagine a series of ejected particles, ions, and EVOs traveling back and forth between the electrodes helping the plasma sustain at nearly zero energy cost and an ultra low voltage.

The direct electrical production reported by Rossi would likely emerge from at least two sources. First, Kenneth Shoulders reported that EVOs can deposit their charge on an anode or secondary electrode target. The anode in the E-Cat QX is likely being bombarded by EVOs, and the impacts will be temporarily reversing the positive charge of the anode to a negative charge. This could likely be producing excess power spikes being fed back into the power supply. Secondly, Harold Aspden’s Law of Electrodynamics predicts that oppositely charged particles of different mass (in this case massive protons and light electrons) traveling in opposite directions would produce a linear electrodynamic force in a plasma – what I understand to be a flow of magnetic vector potential in one direction. This would produce multiple effects that could lead to electrical energy production and the overheating of Andrea Rossi’s power supply. Due to the nature of this “cold electricity” the engineering required may be challenging, because this type of electricity may abide by a different set of laws than ordinary “hot electricity.”

As a final note about the E-Cat QX, I’d like to point out that some suggest that the EVOs are a form of “magnetic monopole” ejecting a beam of magnetism. This would be in direct contradiction to the observed behavior of a charged cluster that closely resembles that of a negatively charged electron. EVOs are propelled linearly along electrical fields, are repulsed by like charges, continuously emit electrons observable in electron cameras, and seem to project a narrow beam of pure “magnetic vector potential.” This makes sense due to their torodial nature. The simplest way to think of them are tiny versions of macro scale perfectly wound torodial inductors – such as those used in electrical transformers. Their magnetic of an EVO is contained within the body of the torus while vector potential sprays out from the center hole like a jet of liquid. This narrowly confined powerful electric field likely extracts electron-positron pairs from the seething zero-point energy field to power the entire structure. Due to the fact that Maxwell’s original equations were gutted by Heaviside, many physicists (although not all) treat the scalar and vector potentials as mathematical abstractions. I’m looking forward to the EVOs inside the E-Cat QX proving the absolute reality of the scalar and vector potentials.

As you can see, I believe that Andrea Rossi’s true catalyst hasn’t been a particular ingredient, fuel additive, or stimulation method. All of these modifications have likely been useful and helpful – some working better than others. Fundamentally, though, the EVO is the true prime mover of the E-Cat. These entities hurriedly extracting energy from the vacuum and applying it to the reactor by a number of different mechanisms are responsible for the production of heat, light, and electricity in his systems.

This makes E-Cat technology even more interesting because it’s a hybrid system: extracting nuclear energy and zero-point energy at the same time. By examining the work of numerous researchers who have been investigating these electron clusters for decades, we can begin to understand how to optimize LENR systems. We’ll probably learn much about manipulating the zero-point energy field in the process – guiding us towards an understanding of the anomalous electrogravitic craft (including the man made ones) flying in our skies. The physics of the E-Cat won’t simply power out planet but also lead humanity to the stars, at warp speeds!

I encourage readers to spend a little time this holiday season considering the dynamics of how photons, electrons, ions, and plasmas may interact with roughened, properly sized surfaces to produce powerful Surface Plasmon Polaritons and EVOs that can induce nuclear reactions. Then, of course, how these EVOs can keep the process going by exciting even more intense SPPs and fracto-emission of additional charged clusters from hydrogen embrittled metals. Perhaps this coming year will be an exciting one with many detailed replications of the Rossi Effect.

Merry Christmas and an Energetic New Year!

Hank Mills

  • sam

    Tom Conover
    December 24, 2017 at 8:30 AM
    Greetings Andrea,

    Glory to God and peace among men of goodwill!


    Luke 2:6-14

    6 While they were there, the time came for her to give birth. 7 And she gave birth to her son, the firstborn, and she wrapped him in strips of cloth and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the lodging place.8 There were also in the same region shepherds living out of doors and keeping watch in the night over their flocks. 9 Suddenly Jehovah’s angel stood before them, and Jehovah’s glory gleamed around them, and they became very fearful. 10 But the angel said to them: “Do not be afraid, for look! I am declaring to you good news of a great joy that all the people will have. 11 For today there was born to you in David’s city a savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this is a sign for you: You will find an infant wrapped in strips of cloth and lying in a manger.” 13 Suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God and saying: 14 “Glory in the heights above to God, and on earth peace among men of goodwill.”

    Andrea Rossi
    December 24, 2017 at 8:37 AM
    Tom Conover:
    Thank you for reminding us that Christmas is a lead to the New Testament for us Christians.
    Warm Regards,

  • Hank Mills


    I’m not an expert in calorimetry, but I’ve been personally convinced, right or wrong, in the past after studying all the comments and arguments presented that the calorimetry was adequate and highly likely showed excess heat. The first such example is Dr. Levi’s 18 hour flow calorimetry test which produced spikes of output up to 130 kilowatts with an input power of only 100 watts (most of which was consumed in the control box) after a brief initial period in which a couple kilowatts were input. The test was not the most sophisticated in the world and perhaps less than extremely precise but adequate, at least in my non-professional opinion, to show massive excess heat was likely produced.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Can someone point me to a text which defines what an “EVO” is, or is claimed to be, with reasonable accuracy? By googling, I can only find descriptions like which don’t really tell me what an “EVO” is.

    • Bob Greenyer

      It is a self organising cluster of at least electrons but can include ions of any elements. Theory has lagged behind repeated and independent observation of their reality however, one theory for how they can exist is written by the Physicist Dr. Harold Puthoff and employs casimir forces to bind them together.

      An EVO can take several forms, they tend to express themselves as Torus, or Rings of Torus. The Rings of torus can form strings and these strings can braid together into filaments. They can be white or dark and can switch modes and behave very differently based on the impedance of a medium. They can be stored in metals and in traps. In white mode, they shed 2keV electrons in all directions – when in metals, this aspect along with a process called cathodoluminescence might explain the ‘glowing without extra heat’, observed by Hutchison (1979+), 911 (for 8+ weeks after event), Ralkar (2013), Rossi (Lugano core glowing through heater wires) and me356 (2015/16).

      The natural equivalent of EVOs are ball lightning which is why the whole field is called “Cold Nuclear Transmutations and Ball Lightning” in the Russian influenced research world. Shoulders did high speed photography of lightning and observed that all bolts have their ionisation channel first formed by a ball lightning and that it can switch from light to dark mode during an individual strike with all the dynamic nature of storms. The macro effects of Ball lightning as observed throughout history match those of Shoulders Charge Clusters – causing wires to explode, boring holes through ceramics and making them vapourise etc.

      In their formation, or during instability, they can spit out super-massive ‘new kinds of radiation’ (Adamenko/Vysotskii 2006), I have observed the related ‘strange radiation’ in the structure of the LION reactor and being emitted from Suhas Ralkars fuel. Stable new elements can form inside them and be ejected or their impact can stimulate transmutation due to their ability to screen mass, charge and inertia – enabling massive momentum to be imparted on encapsulated ions via low level electrostatic fields.

      They can store unimaginable power density. This can be released by application of targeted energy to create on-demand effects – one such example is EMP with beta-burst like signature with no characteristic x-rays, and this is, IMPO what we observed repeatedly in 2013 with Celani wires (‘Gamma’) and in 2016 with *GlowStick* 5.2 (‘Signal’), in the case of the latter, it disabled the connected power monitor for some minutes and saturated the not-connected Spectrometer, causing a large amount of dead time.

    • LilyLover
      The page has been removed.
      Very nice informative and reasonably detailed summary of Exotic Vacuum Objects. Looks like the enterprise has begun to killoff the knowledge.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Thanks to Bob and others who gave links. It brings to mind, perhaps EVO is a closed electron beam which forms a knot with itself, such as a trefoil knot. The magnetic field of an electron beam is known to be directed so that it shepherds electrons back into the beam, i.e. the beam self-focusses. The same might happen if the beam is not straight but knotted.

      I looked the lightning videos under . The lightning channel is opened by so-called stepped leader which explores its way through atmosphere. Once the ionisation channel is open, the much brighter main stroke propagates along it fast (about 30% of speed of light). The channel takes some time to decay and several strokes sometimes manage to use the same channel.

  • Gennadiy

    It is believed that the Earth has a negative charge.
    It is also believed that a thunderous cell accumulates a negative charge.
    It is also believed that lightning is a gas discharge between a thunderstorm cell and the Earth ….. 🙂
    We do not consider discharges inside the clouds yet.
    Here in the lightning, just the clusters of Schulders, about which the author of the article writes, should be.
    That is, both in the cloud and on Earth, a negative charge …
    How can this be?
    I may be objected that positive ions accumulate in the cloud.
    Then the question is: which ions are positive?
    And where are the traces of these elements after the storm?
    Do the author and readers of the blog have answers to these questions? 🙂
    Maybe, in today’s physical picture of the world something is wrong? 🙂

    • Bob Greenyer

      Relative charge. Some negative charges are more negative than others.

  • Bob Greenyer

    According to Ken Shoulders high speed filming of lightning, all standard lightning starts with Ball lightning, this makes an ionised channel to ground and then the actual lightning ‘bolt’ flashes that channel and it can appear that it is coming from the bottom up.

    With regards to other atmospheric plasma/aura effects you would be better to ask Stoyan Sarg.

    • Gennadiy

      Bob, in the process of development of the lightning channel, we see a large number of branches that do not reach the Earth. Are those also fireballs?
      And these branches are not directed to the Earth.
      Moreover, in some pictures we see how lightning makes a loop, heading to the opposite side of the Earth.
      Everyone is used to treating lightning as a gas discharge between two points of space.
      For branches, these points of space are parallel to the Earth.
      For branches of lightning this discharge is not between the earth and the cloud.
      Then the question is: where are these second points for the branches of lightning?
      Bob, I have never met direct lightning. 🙂
      Maybe an ionization channel is just a visualization of other processes? 🙂
      Perhaps, lightning is not a gas discharge in the atmosphere, but a redistribution of density in the ether?
      Unfortunately, the existing scientific paradigm, based on the general theory of relativity and quantum physics, can not clearly explain even the lightning and processes in the thunder cell.
      Genius Einstein said that there is no ether. And if the genius said no, then no. 🙂
      There are electro-magnetic waves. And the environment in which they are distributed, no …. 🙂
      Modern physics has ceased to be friends with common sense.
      Everyone complains that today there is no LENR theory that satisfies all.
      I can say why it is not.
      Explain LENR, relying on the existing scientific paradigm is impossible! 🙂

  • Gerard McEk

    Thanks Hank for this very extensive and interesting analysis where you try to explain the QX with Ken Schoulders EV’s. I agree that sodium may be used to wet the electrodes in the QX. I think the conection to monopoles is a bit speculative, but EV’s may explain its operation. I do not see the need to involve zero point energy either. .

    When EV’s hit and explode on the anode they may release a lot of electrons there, leading to a short negative peak. These peaks may actually cause the heating problem of the controller. I have no idea if Ken has witnessed these peaks as well.

    • Axil Axil

      There is no wetting going on because there is no condinsation of that material appearing on the very cold dielectric tube material.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Please refer to Hal Putoffs paper on the subject, it is quite easy to find.

    People debate Hal on this matter which shows that he is not the only one to take it seriously.

    “Pressure is mounting for Shoulders, Sarfatti and Puthoff to write a
    joint paper together showing conflicting models of the phenomenon.
    Puthoff uses a model of Casimir’s “Type II” in which there is a positive
    zero point energy pressure outside the thin shell of electrons and
    vanishing zero point pressure inside it. Sarfatti says Casimir made an
    error by assuming that the well known “dubya factor” (i.e. w =
    (pressure)/(energy density)) is +1/3, which it is for real photons
    propagating energy to infinity as electromagnetic radiation. Sarfatti
    objects that w = -1 for the virtual photons of the zero point vacuum
    fluctuations. That w = -1 for this case is well known to cosmologists
    working on the “dark energy” (e.g. Mike Turner’s Op/Ed in April 2003
    Physics Today). “w = -1 follows from Einstein’s equivalence principle
    together with Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Furthermore, boson
    statistics require a positive virtual photon energy density, therefore an
    equal and opposite negative virtual photon pressure. Virtual quanta are
    directly observable in their warping of spacetime. You cannot subtract
    them out. The pressure warps space-time three times more than the energy
    density. The negative pressure makes repulsive anti-gravity that is the
    ‘Right Stuff’ for weightless warp drives, wide wormholes and,
    unfortunately ‘universe destroying’ weird weapons.” said Sarfatti.
    Sarfatti cited Sir Martin Rees’s book “Our Final Hour” on this subject.
    Sarfatti’s model is the mirror opposite of Puthoff’s. “The zero point
    pressure is negative inside the thin shell of typically a trillion to ten
    thousand trillion electrons in the observed EVOs 10^-5 cm to 10^-5 meters
    across and is zero outside. Negative zero point pressure makes the vacuum
    like a spring and the electric repulsion does work against the vacuum to
    create a metastable EVO. The electrons make a bottle or container for the
    anti-gravity dark energy vacuum core of the EVO. Break the bottle to
    release the Dark Energy Genie as ‘Cold Fusion’. Mike Turner wrote that it
    couldn’t be done, apparently Ken Shoulders has done what was thought to
    be an impossible dream.” says Sarfatti.”

  • Unfortunately there is zero evidence, that Quark-X reactor of A. Rossi does more than Lipinski fusion: p+ 6Li→3He(2.3 MeV)+4He(1.7 MeV) p+ 7Li→4He(8.6 MeV)+4He(8.6 MeV) the mechanism of which is understood well (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7). There is no evidence of EVO’s or overunity, so that whole above article is just a speculation.

  • Engineer48


    The electron charge strength is the same as the proton, just opposite polarity, so the energy needed to force electrons together is the same as that needed to force protons together.

    Classical charge repulsion is in operation and that classical charge repulsion needs classical fusion like energy input to force electrons together. ie Coulomb barrier energy levels.

    If there is some short range attraction force between electrons, it needs to operate at say 100 fm, so to reduce the energy needed to force the electrons close enough together for the attractive binding force to take over.

    Then this force would need to become repulsive as the electrons get too close, as does the proton strong force, to stop the electrons merging and becoming one massive new to physics particle.

    Such an electron strong force would be complex as it needs to maintain a stable electron cluster diameter as occurs in the nucleus for protons.

    It is hard to believe the existance of such a electron strong binding force would have gone unoticed by all the accelerator experiments, which are done to look for new binding forces and particles.

  • Axil Axil

    Its is a good bet that EVOs are produced in the QX and is the root of the LENR reaction. But Rossi has said that a quadrupole magnetic field produces the LENR reaction. How to connect these two ideas together in a way that makes some sense.

    First, the EVO is not confined by matter. The EVO will escape the dielectric tube material that confines the QX’s hydrogen envelope. This means that unless Rossi can confine those EVOs that he produces with each high voltage spark discharge, he is just wasting his time.

    Guess what will keep those EVOs inside his reactor and prevent them from escaping into the outside environment…a quadrupole particle trap.

    The quadrupole magnetic field does not produce the LENR active causation elements, This field just keeps the EVOs inside the QX reactor after they are created.

    Rossi is just confused by his experimental results and is mixing up production with confinement.

    For anyone who wants to build a sucessful LENR reactor, plan to use a magnetic bottle or trap integrated into your design to keep the EVOs inside your reactor.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Axil,

      If you accept EVOs are real, how has the electron to electron strong force that binds them together escaped being identified?

      Some have suggested the Casimir force does this but their calculations suggests the electrons need to be closer than 5.5 pm or 1/300 times smaller distance than the diameter of a proton.

      • can

        Shoulders mentioned that in one of his last patents (US 5,123,039):

        An EV is formed when the concentration of electrons reaches a threshold, that is, when the charge density is sufficiently high. Then, Casimir or Van der waals type forces, whose origins are in the zero-point energy, cluster the charges into the single EV entity. Once the electron cluster has been so formed into an EV, the EV entity is apparently held together by zero-point energy forces. A large portion of the electron charges contained within an EV are masked, so that the EV itself does not manifest to external measuring devices a charge size equal to the total charge contained within the EV.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Can,

          The problem with that theory is the repulsion force between electrons is of the same magnitude as the proton to proton repulsion force.

          As the Casimir attraction force has been calculated, unproven, to equal the repulsuon force at 5.5 pm, much closer than the proton strong force at 15 fm, the energy needed to penertate the electron Coulomb barrier is 1,000 of times greater than that required to penetrate the photon Coulomb barrier.

          Shoulders and others seem to totally ignore the known and proven energy requirements to get electrons as close together as protons in the nucleus. Ie same energy requirements.

          It would seem those proposing EVOs have decided to ignore the electron Coulomb barrier.

          • can

            I merely reported that Shoulders mentioned those forces too.

            He didn’t ignore electron repulsion, he was well aware that his theory was in contrast with generally accepted science. From the same patent linked above (although more recent examples of him acknowledging that he was a “heretic” can also be found elsewhere):

            1. Definition and Some EV Properties

            An EV is a discrete, self-contained negatively charged bundle of electrons. While not yet fully understanding the configuration of an EV, I believe the self-containment to be due to electromagnetic fields set up between the electrons within the bundle, based upon my many observations of EV behavior. This, of course, is in sharp contrast to a conventional electron beam in which the containment of electrons is due either to an external electrostatic field or an external magnetic field. As is well known in the art, electrons, each being negatively charged, tend to repel each other.

      • Axil Axil

        If you read the reference from the nature magazine it states:

        Not-quite-so elementary, my dear electron

        “Isolated electrons cannot be split into smaller components, earning them the designation of a fundamental particle. But in the 1980s, physicists predicted that electrons in a one-dimensional chain of atoms could be split into three quasiparticles: a ‘holon’ carrying the electron’s charge, a ‘spinon’ carrying its spin (an intrinsic quantum property related to magnetism) and an ‘orbiton’ carrying its orbital location”

        A very sharp electrode point will provide a 1 dimensional electron chopping device.

        Cracks and bumps on the surface of metal are small enough to do the same thing.

        There are 1000’s of papers on this subject that can be used for one to understand the true nature of the electron.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Axil,

          “In the 1980s, physicists predicted that electrons in a one-dimensional chain of atoms”

          One dimensional chain of atoms?

          I call that out as techo babble rubbish.

          BTW current QM says electrons are primary point like particles and are NOT composed of smaller particles.

          • Axil Axil
          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil,

            And your explination of why low energy photons can trigger deturium fusion is?

          • Axil Axil

            LENR is not based on deuterium fusion. LENR is more likely related to quark fusion.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil,

            Low energy photons can trigger deturium fusion. If not LENR what do you call it?

            Please explain the quark fusion process? What happens to the gluons?

          • Axil Axil

            IMHO, LENR causation is centered on the unique nature of the magnetic field line configuration that can destabilizes the proton. This non typical magnetic field line configuration creates instantons inside the proton that destabilizes it.

            There are LENR reactions occurring at room temperature without the generation of plasma. The golden sphere demo by D. Cravens is an example of a rare earth magnet as the source of the anisotropic field that destabilizes the proton. The SmCo7 anisotropic rare earth magnet has been shown to produce a weak LENR reaction.

            Besides EVOs, metallic hydrogen also produces the LENR reaction.

            The spin wave on the surface of the metallized ultra dense hydrogen nanoparticle could be another place where monopole magnetism form.

            There may be any number of ways to produce anisotropic magnetic field lines that have the ability to destabilize the proton.



            An instanton is critical in the decay of the proton. An instanton is a pseudo particle that is produced as a condensate inside the hadron of magnetic force.



            The Standard model (SM) has predictions that have not yet been realized. Since matter in the universe exists, conservation of Baryon number(B) and lepton number(L) must not have applies at some point in the evolution of the universe. If B and L were always conserved, than matter and antimatter would have canceled themselves out into energy thereby destroying all matter in the universe. But in the latest epoch of the universe, these two conservation laws seem to apply absolutely. The conclusion is that something is wrong with the SM and the universe in general.

            There are two main interpretations for this disparity: either the universe began with a small preference for matter (total baryonic number of the universe different from zero), or the universe was originally perfectly symmetric, but somehow a set of phenomena contributed to a small imbalance in favour of matter over time. The second point of view is preferred, although there is no clear experimental evidence indicating either of them to be the correct one.

            GUT Baryogenesis under Sakharov conditions

            In 1967, Andrei Sakharov proposed a set of three necessary conditions that a baryon-generating interaction must satisfy to produce matter and antimatter at different rates. These conditions were inspired by the recent discoveries of the cosmic background radiation and CP-violation in the neutral kaon system. The three necessary “Sakharov conditions” are:

            • Baryon number B violation.

            • C-symmetry and CP-symmetry violation.

            • Interactions out of thermal equilibrium.

            Baryon number violation is obviously a necessary condition to produce an excess of baryons over anti-baryons. But C-symmetry violation is also needed so that the interactions which produce more baryons than anti-baryons will not be counterbalanced by interactions which produce more anti-baryons than baryons. CP-symmetry violation is similarly required because otherwise equal numbers of left-handed baryons and right-handed anti-baryons would be produced, as well as equal numbers of left-handed anti-baryons and right-handed baryons. Finally, the interactions must be out of thermal equilibrium, since otherwise CPT symmetry would assure compensation between processes increasing and decreasing the baryon number.

            There is a condition where CPT symmetry can be violated so that B and L conservation is violates. These are called the electroweak sphaleron anomaly at high energies and temperatures.

            A sphaleron is similar to the midpoint of the instanton, so it is non-perturbative. An instanton is a tangling of force lines that resolve into a creation of a pseudoparticle. This means that under normal conditions sphalerons are unobservably rare. However, they would have been more common when unusual conditions appear in the forces that existed during matter formation in the early universe.

            Such instantons have appeared during the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect where a magnetic field creates two fractionally charged pseudoparticles.

            To simplify things, there are conditions where a magnetic field can get tangled up inside a proton where instantons form and quarks gain weight so that so that the proton decays into kaons.

            Monopole flux line will interconnect as shown above in the figure to form a particle of magnetic flux. These instantons form inside the proton in the presence of monopole magnetic field lines. These instantons destabilize the actions of the quarks inside the hadron and the hadron decays.

            I have always wondered why magnetic field lines that don’t connect were important to the LENR process. This instanton creation process inherent in the connection between magnetic flux lines is made possible by the parallel topology of these monopole flux lines.

            The QCD vacuum angle θ (AKA theta angle) is central to the decay of the proton, When this angle is very small, the proton does not decay. But when instantons are formed inside the proton, the theta angle increases and the quarks get heavier. This change in the nature of the vacuum produced by instanton formation generates proton decay.


            Effects of instanton interactions on the phases of quark matter

            IMHO, this thesis is a goldmine for LENR theory.

            This paper explains how the formation of instantons inside the proton will produce P symmetry breaking which will result in proton decay.

            Another example of pseudo particle formation from magnetic energy is the formation of magnetic instantons in the fractional quantum hall effect. This demonstrates an example of how magnetic field lines can generated fractionally charged pseudoparticles as typified by composite fermion theory.


          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil,

            So you have no LENR theory that works inside existing and proven physics?

            Inelastic Compton / Raman scattering between photons and Pion mesons (really quarks) can slowly extract stored strong force energy, while reducing the nucleus’ hold on it’s neuclons.

            So no generatuon of high energy gamma photons, nucleon exchange between nearby nucleus & strong force KE export from momentum exchange. All inside existing physics.

          • Axil Axil

            The decay of the proton is existing physics and is being researched now. The generation of huge magnetic fields at the nanoscale just accelerates this decay.


            “Experimental evidence

            Proton decay is one of the key predictions of the various grand unified theories (GUTs) proposed in the 1970s, another major one being the existence of magnetic monopoles. Both concepts have been the focus of major experimental physics efforts since the early 1980s. To date, all attempts to observe these events have failed; however, these experiments have been able to establish lower bounds on the half-life of the proton. Currently the most precise results come from the Super-Kamiokande water Cherenkov radiation detector in Japan: a 2015 analysis placed a lower bound on the proton’s half-life of 1.67×1034 years via positron decay,[4] and similarly, a 2012 analysis gave a lower bound to the proton’s half-life of 1.08×1034 years via antimuon decay.[5] close to a supersymmetry (SUSY) prediction of 1034–1036 years.[6] An upgraded version, Hyper-Kamiokande, probably will have sensitivity 5–10 times better than Super-Kamiokande.[4]”

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil,

            Who wrote:

            “To date, all attempts to observe these events have failed.”

            While inelastic Compton & Raman Scattering are well understood physics.

            While there are existing physics pathways to explain all the observed LENR characterists, why engage with unproven fringe physics?

          • Axil Axil

            When Proton Meets Monopole


            MFMP among many others have seen in experiments the distinctive and unique tracks of monopoles in the fuel and ash of LENR reactors in SEM micrographs. This experimental verification proves the monopole theory of LENR.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil

            Who referenced:

            “Published in the July-1984 issue of Analog Science Fiction & Fact Magazine;”

            No verified experimental data. Just more unproved theory.

            Bottom line is there are no verified experimental data that EVOs and/or magnetic monopoles exist.

            However there are existing physics pathways and experimental data to demonstrate low energy photon trigger LENR is very real.

            Maybe time to shift gears and work to explain how low energy photons, say 1100 nm wavelength, trigger fusion nuclear reactions.

          • Axil Axil
          • Axil Axil

            “Published in the July-1984 issue of Analog Science Fiction & Fact Magazine;”

            Sometimes a professional popular writer can get through when a ton of papers produced by scientists can’t.

  • Axil Axil

    Not-quite-so elementary, my dear electron

    Fundamental particle ‘splits’ into quasiparticles, including the new ‘orbiton’.

    In order to understand what the EVO really is, we must understand what the plasmoid is. That also means we must understand what the electron is in solid state physics.

    The electron can be split into three separate parts called quasiparticles: a ‘spinon’ carrying its spin (an intrinsic quantum property related to magnetism), a ‘holon’ carrying the electron’s charge, and an ‘orbiton’ carrying its orbital location.

    When a plasmoid forms not all of these electron parts are confined inside the plasmoid. Only the spinon goes into the structure of the plasmoid. The holon and orbiton remain connected to the Exciton which is the the mother of the polariton.

    The Spinon and the photon combine together into the polariton soliton. The main part of the electron is still confined to the metal in which the exciton formed. The spin is confined in the plasmoid where no electron charge or orbital complications are at play. Those behaviors of the electron are still associated with the exciton that can be far removed from the mobile plasmoid in terms of distance.

    The plasmoid starts out using heat photons to form polaritons, but these polaritons can increase in energy by increasing the frequency of the original heat photons to visible light and beyond into the x-ray range at the high end.

    But without the activation signal that produces the KERR effect, there exists two counter rotating spin currents in the plasmoid, one clockwise and the other counterclockwise. Spin also has a north and south pole and at this initial point so does the polariton soliton.

    But what the activation signal produces is a soliton with only one magnetic pole, a monopole. This change in the nature of the spin inside the soliton is caused by a change in the index of refraction of the VACUUM in the space that the soliton occupies. This change of state in the optical properties of the vacuum combines the two counter rotating spin currents into a single monopole current.

    It is this huge magnetic field produced by the combined spins of many electrons and photons that produces a disruptive effect on the nature of matter as the source of LENR based energy. Without that activation signal, the spin of the soliton is weak and the associated LENR reaction is also weak. But with the activation signal, the strength of the spin becomes strong and so does the associated LENR effect.

    The EVO is a non-equilibrium process that requires continual energy input to sustain itself. However, it can self-stimulate in a process commonly called self-sustain mode. This EMF stimulant is what makes the EVO effective in the macroscopic world. In the QX, light is the EVO stimulant. Even when the RF pumping is shut down in the 7 second cycle, the light produced by the QX continues to be produced. But after 4 seconds of self-sustain operation, the 7 second cycle must be renewed with a high voltage spark and another 3 seconds of RF. What most LENR reactor builders don’t appreciate is the absolute requirement for self-sustain stimulation.

    Ed Storms now recognizes the existence of an energy storage mechanism in LENR. What is stored is light energy. Gamma radiation, a form of high energy light, is extracted from subatomic particle decay and stored for later release, but that high energy based form of EMF is transformed by interference as an energy mixing process with other lower frequencies of light to store the gamma energy as frequency increase. This stored light is the self-stimulant that keeps the LENR reaction going. The baseline light frequency is that light that a High intensity light (HID) would produce without any LENR energy input.

    In the QX as an example, the light that the LENR reaction produces can vary from red to blue based on the energy pumping that is happening in the LENR storage mechanism. If the RF portion of the cycle is increased beyond the 3 second time slice, the energy stored by the LENR reaction will increase to a blue color, but if the RF portion of the cycled is shortened to 3 seconds, then the color produced by the pumping is lowered to red.

    If the RF stimulant is kept constant throughout the entire QX pumping cycle then the QX will be overstimulated into super criticality and it will then meltdown.

    The confusing thing about the QX is that whatever the amount of pumping is used and the color of the light that the QX generates, the heat output of the QX remains the same.

    There is a side channel of energy release in the infrared frequency range that is constant. This side channel of light production is fixed in frequency regardless of the pumping with RF. This side channel of light production is called hawking radiation because the EVO is an analog EMF black hole.

  • Axil Axil

    Hank Mills is mixing two similar but distinct producers of the LENR reaction, metallic hydrogen and EVO. Rossi’s offline fuel preparation process involving nickel powder is engineered to produce metallic hydrogen. Rossi’s secret sauce is used as a template that hydrogen will follow to form metallic hydrogen in the cavities of nickel micropowder. Holmlid uses potassium. Rossi most likely started out using potassium but latter switched to lithium. Lithium required only 1/4 of the pressure compared to hydogen to metalize.

    When Rossi designed the QX, he switched his LENR production mechanism to the EVO. In both these mechanisms the SPP performs the same function…that is to convert light into monopole magnetism.

    The EVO will produce negative particles via particle creation from the energy that they store. Those particles are muons that decay in about 2.2 microseconds into electrons. This is how the EVO acts like an electron with a negative charge.

    We know that metallic hydrogen and EVOs act the same when they consume matter and store its energy content because they produce the same types of herringbone tracks in X-Ray micrographs as typified by monopoles.

  • PhysicsForDummies

    Is it just me or does everyone else see the name Mills and hope it Randell posting with real theory and experimental results, rather than Hank with his babbling? What is the point of trying to tie together every fringe theory? Will Hank’s next post tie together LENR, UFOs and the Hollow Earth? I think the LENR community needs to concentrate on experimental results from competent researchers, not hucksters.

    • Bob Greenyer

      And the value in your comment is?

    • “Is it just me …?”

      – yes, it IS just you!

  • Hank Mills


    I want to thank you for bringing surface plasmon polaritons to my attention. I realize that I have a lot to learn about them.

    However, I disagree that EVOs are magnetic monopoles. Instead, they sure seem like nano-scale versions of macro-scale torodial inductors with electrons swirling along the outer surface of the torus and protons swirling along the inside. In this model the magnetic field would be kept in the body of the torus and a magnetic vector potential would spray out through the center hole. Ken Shoulders has said that they eject a forward beam outwards that appeared as light. If these were emitting a beam of magnetism, then an EVO wouldn’t fly strait in an electric field. Instead, their movements would differ as the “curl” of the beam interacted with the electric field. I even found a paper on the “Rest Frame” website in which EVOs are said to be subluminal tachyon magnetic monopoles. To avoid admitting that a beam of magnetic vector potential is spraying out, they go so far to say that in a superluminal frame the beam would be magnetic but in a subluminal frame the H and E shifts so that we observe an electric field or beam projecting forward. I think it makes much more sense to accept that these are torodial clusters of electrons projecting magnetic vector potential.

    • Axil Axil


      See the bottom of page 4

      “Under the conditions of white and black EV looping as stated above, there is an electrical peculiarity worth noting. The current flows in only the white EV direction thus giving the basic conditions for magnetic field generation without closing the current loop. The return charge flows around the other half of the loop without being registered in our instruments. This might be the basis for predicting something like a magnetic monopole.”

    • Axil Axil

      Aslo see

      Half-solitons in a polariton quantum fluid behave like magnetic monopoles

      Polaritons are not generally monopoles.

      Polariton soliton does not produce a monopole magnetic field unless it is exposed to the KERR effect. When this exposure happens, it becomes a half solution as I have explained below. This is why the QX requires a high voltage spark discharge to convert the EVOs to half solitons. A laser would also work to perform the soliton conversion.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I have results of several experiments to release – and a whole experimental series to set up. Something like 10 presentations in the works. I don’t mind being wrong on the journey, this is an iterative process – besides, most of what I have had the opportunity to digest, internalise and share is work done a long time ago, I am not the originator, just a messenger.

    I can say that of the 130-150 theories in LENR, the vast majority don’t even come close to accounting for all the specific and repeatable phenomena. If a theory must have a lattice, it is wrong, if it must have cracks, it is wrong, if it must have lithium or an isotope of Hydrogen, it is wrong. That is not to say that LENR cannot occur in these scenarios. Many varied systems and approaches end up with the same outcomes, which means the process is likely the same, even if at first some may seam different. Several theories are subsets of the whole overarching theory.

    Hank has done a fair job above and must be given credit – a little off in areas and some possible loose connections, but he is only 2-3 months into studying this science – Shoulders was dedicated for 33 years. Hank has not had the opportunity to see some of the effects hands on.

    This is much more than just excess heat, transmutation, antigravity, teleportation, super luminal, etc. etc. It’s the whole toolbox and I fully understand why this technology is actively crushed – once you get it, it shocks you to the core.

    My understanding evolved through experimentation to discover Shoulders – and realised that his work and Hutchisons explained everything we see in LENR and so much more, then I quickly discovered that Hal Puthoff, who had been apparently interacting with the MFMP, funding our Spectrometer in 2013 after ‘Gamma’ and offering other assistance but without ever revealing it was him – it dawned on me after interviewing Peery and cross relating his work to things Piantelli said (including the 2016 addition to his patent adding MW as preferred trigger and sustain method). The rest takes a strong stomach – Sure I shocked and put off some people earlier in the year, but I stand by everything I said – my research and books I have been pointed to since then all point to the exact same thing to varying degrees. What is amazing is that most of these authors of these books and people I have met, have at some point had Hal Puthoff, his representatives or one of a few groups at least approach them – going all the way back to early 80s – but only after they have made a discovery or done work.

    Some in the community have started to dip their toe in, Hank, Axil, Can, Smith – it is a one way door, especially if you can visualise it, everything starts to make sense and you don’t have to start fiddling around with maths since everyone will have experienced aspects of the phenomena in their every day lives – and that is because, as Shoulders says, it is ubiquitous.

  • – Well, if PhysicsForDummies conflates Hank Mills’ constructive ideas with belief in the Earth being hollow, I’d say that’s dirty pool. As for kids making ‘fine foods’ out of Tesco/Walmart offerings, there are many people who cannot afford to buy at “superior” places and they must make the best of what they can get.

    Very much like the funding for LENR, which is still in “crumbs from the table” mode compared with boondoggles like ITER.

    • Axil Axil

      If you put a million monkeys in a room with typewriters, given enough time, they will eventually author the complete works of shakespeare.

      I am proud to be one of the moneys in the LENR effort.

      • Me too – well said! The great thing about ECW is that, depending on the “topic-du-jour”, it can switch between several modes.

        There is “reporting” mode, in which Frank typically alerts us all to the latest developments from Andrea Rossi and others.

        Then there is “hard-nosed” mode, in which everyone contributes their wide-ranging knowledge and skills to critically analyse a specific set of observations and measurements.

        But then there is “brainstorming” mode, in which everyone is entitled to throw into the ring ideas and phenomena that, in their initial, raw form, may not be on the mark but, with some lateral thinking and serendipity, may well end up as valuable contributions to the theory.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Well, in theory they can do this, but two things must done
        first. (What we call prior intelligence, or the theory of intelligent design).

        First, the experiment is not writing the works of Shakespeare
        by “random” event. The reason of course is that you MUST have an intelligent designer
        make the keyboard, and give meanings to the keys. In other words, if you
        replace the keys with random symbols, or meaningless symbols, then the output
        and result is random and will have zero meaning.

        So the monkeys cannot create, nor type the works of Shakespeare
        UNLESS you pre-design the experiment with a set of KNOWN rules, and KNOWN values
        (keys with meaning). So you using a set of knowledge that been pre-made. And
        then you need someone to write Shakespeare. This is important concept, since
        this means the monkeys cannot create by a random act the works of Shakespeare
        unless you pre-design the experiment based in PRIOR intelligence.

        Without this intelligent designer, then keys without meaning
        can be hit for all eternity, and no work of Shakespeare will result. It is the
        act of prior intelligence and design of creating an alphabet, and giving
        meaning to that alphabet, and then someone creating + writing the works of Shakespeare.
        Without this prior intelligence and design and act of creating Shakespeare, the
        then those monkeys cannot and will not create nor write the works of Shakespeare.

        As noted, an unfortunate rise in the physics community is
        the idea of breaking with casualty, or the idea that a random event actually
        exists – they don’t and no such experiment I am aware of shows the existence of a random event.
        (I am open to something occurring in nature without a cause – but I not found such a creditable observation).
        However, of course you were talking about offering and writing of ideas! It is of use however to de-bunk the conclusions that people often make from the monkeys experiment – that monkeys by random act can create the works of Shakespeare (they cannot – and their choices are not random).
        The monkeys can only achieve such a result by having a intelligent designer create and setup a experiment in which the monkeys are LIMITED to a set of pre-defined choices (the keys), and those pre-defined choices have been assigned a prior meaning. So in fact you are limiting the choices of the monkeys to that set of choices you created. If the monkeys choices were random, then no such set of limited choices would exist for those monkeys.
        The above very much explains the concept of “prior” intelligence, or what is referred to intelligent design. You can’t claim that something is a random act when in fact the monkeys been given a limited set of choices, but even more significant is those choices have been assigned a PRIOR meaning by someone of intelligence. In other words, a random act cannot create information nor intelligence on its own.
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

        • Axil Axil

          According to the many-worlds interpretation every event, even microscopic, is a branch point; all possible alternative histories actually exist.

          There exists a universe in which the monkeys have done their work. The majority of physicists beleive this is fact.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Well that branch point is not random. You can’t tell me that
            a baseball flying through the air makes some decision to ignore the laws of
            physics, and then decides to alter its path. That baseball will behave the SAME
            every single time for a given event. (Unless you think the outcome of math
            changes because the baseball now decides to ignore math??).

            There is no such thing as an event without a cause. Because
            I may not have sufficient instrumentation to read the current state of affairs
            simply means I resort to a statistical branch of math. So I say with 80%
            certainly that the baseball will land in the baseball park. However such a concluding
            would not result in a logical idea that the baseball is now not subject to a
            set of physics laws and math – it still is.

            The outcome for a given event is always the same. If the
            outcome is to change, then a force or “act” occurs on that matter. Objects don’t
            move themselves. Because I don’t have sufficient instrumentation to tell where the
            baseball is going to land, or the quantum particle position does NOT THEN lend
            one to conclude that such objects don’t behave in a set way. If the outcome of an
            experiment changes due to me observing the event, then that “act” of
            observation MUST be changing that outcome – but that just means we need a
            better or different means of observation
            – not that we toss out causality.

            If I can’t see the wind, so I hold up a toy windmill and see
            it spin, then Cleary that windmill is changing the path of the air molecules
            passing the windmill. You would not then make a silly logic concluding that air
            molecules are changing their path for no reason, but the instrument I use is
            the reason for the air molecules changing their path – not that no reason
            exists for this change in outcome of the air moving.
            So no, there are no branch points – but a outcome based on laws. And that branch point is always the same for the same given event – you have to provide proof that this is not the case. And not knowing where a baseball is going to land simply means you don’t know where it going to land – not that we toss out math and physics for the given event.


            Albert D. Kallal

            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Bob Greenyer

    Must see/listen video, wish I had seen this earlier.

  • Axil Axil

    LENR is the father of all rabbit holes. The deeper that you get into LENR, the more complicated that it gets. String theory has be shown to be a good predictor of things that are found to exist in condensed matter physics. For example, this article explains how a tachyon/black hole will behave.

    The Inside Story:
    Quasilocal Tachyons and Black Holes

    Don’t feel sad if you don’t make much sense out of this article. One thing that I got out of this article is that tachyons will store energy and release it gradually as hawking radiation and mesons. Page 18,19

    “From the dual field theory point of view we expect forces from °ux tubes
    to dynamically force them to shrink toward the size scale of the glueballs in the confining theory. The forces we analyzed in this section, which act to force excitations into the bulk gravitational solution dual to the con¯ning geometry, may provide a gravity-side manifestation of this phenomenon. This e®ect is similar in some ways to the description of black hole evaporation via hadronization in [18].”

    hadronization means the creation of mesons from energy.

  • Engineer48

    Consider the requirements of LENR

    1) use an injected particle that can slowly carry away the nucleus stored strong force as non dangerous energy

    2) use an injected particle with no charge to avoid Coulomb barrier and other charged particle interaction

    3) use an injected particle that can interact with, exchange energy with, neuclus sub atomic particles

    The only particle I know of that can do this is the photon.

    It can travel through the Coulomb barrier as if it does not exit.

    It can impact sub atomic particles.

    It can exchange energy with sub atomic particles.

    I can carry away energy from impacted sub atomic particles, increasing it’s energy, while reducing the particles energy. Thus carrying away neuclus stored strong force energy.

    Here is a pathway to LENR that functions inside existing physics.

    Recent experimental data supports the above conclusions.

    • Axil Axil

      Magnetism is the photon carrier into the hadron as input process activation energy and gamma radiation based photons are the output energy carriers to the EVO.

      What the EVO does is convert light energy (gamma radiation) to magnetism and stores energy in the form of light. The more energy that the EVO stores, the more magnetic strength that will be created until the EVO energy storage capacity limit is reached whereby it will explode in a flash of light and heat.

      The EVO releases energy to the far field as light, heat, and subatomic particles (electron creation)

      But things get more complicated when the EVOs become entangled with each other in a bose condinsate and share energy between the trillions of them in the condinsate aggregation. So the ways that energy storage from the condinsate is lost is when EVOs leave the condinsate and go it alone, eating matter as the travels.

      I believe that the QX reaction stops at the end of the seven cycle cycle when the EVOs that had been produced by the initial spark exits the reactor and hits the road and goes it alone. The escaping EVOs then act independently in the neighborhood around the QX eating whatever matter that the run across.

      We have seen these lone EVO travelers in the micrographs of LION’s reactor ash as an EVO bounces across the outside of the reactor eating matter as it goes.

      • Engineer48

        Hi Axil,

        I await the verified EVO experimental data that supports so many EVO theories.

        Meanwhile I’ll continue to develop my photon > Compton/Raman Scattering pathway that needs no new particles nor physics to explain now LENR could occur.

        • Axil Axil

          Look for strange particle tracks produced by LENR ash and other EVO generation method. See the web site of Keith Fredricks.

          Start with this

          • Engineer48

            Hi Axil,

            As the strong force is slowly exported, at various decreasing strong force energy levels, the neculus will start to decay and fall apart.

            Would expect a few strange things will happen.

            BTW it is not theory that:

            1) inbound photons are not effected by the Coulomb barrier.

            2) inbound photons will impact nuclide particles.

            3) new photons will be emitted by most impacted sub atomic particles.

            4) newly emitted photons can have a higher energy level than of the impacted photon.

            5) a higher emitted photon energy level results in lower energy level of the emitted particle.

            Again this is existing physics that obeys CofM and CofE.

  • Bob Greenyer

    No confusion.

    I speak to Hutchison daily, he is lucid. Carla is more than it seams – ask yourself, why you would do it, if you were him?

    When you see the exact correlation between Hutchison’s transmutations and LENR, I think it will make you think. Need to verify with samples we now have.

    We have been loaned an advanced MW controller device with no constraints. Norris Peery’s claimed 2us on and 10us off into PdD wire in a glow discharge yielded all elements in the periodic table – unlike Rossi’s QX – the work is well described and seemingly in our capacity. We are keeping true to our roots and aiming at testing claims.

    Bob Higgins is working on MW/US and Alan has got his Hydrogen safe outbuilding lab built.

    There is our desire to work with LION also in the first part of the year.