Unexpected Plasma Behavior (Dieter Preschel)

The following post has been submitted by Dieter Preschel

I’ve seen Andrea Rossis demonstration of the Ecat QX, but I wasn’t impressed about the measurements he did, particularly with the oscilloscope. I’ve been a computer professional working for IBM from 1963 til 1996 and I really know how to use a scope. Andrea Rossi didn’t show very much. Actually he did hide a lot of important things. But there was a hint about what was going on. Every few seconds there was a flash inside the reactor. Many others have seen this and the common understanding is that Andrea Rossi restarted the EcatQX by igniting a plasma discharge every 7 or 8 seconds which then started the LENR process for a few seconds. The electricity and light generation is possibly only a byproduct from the plasma discharge.

I’ve got a few additional pieces of information about Plasma behavior which even Andrea Rossi may not know about.

In 2006 the US Sandia National Laboratory reported an unknown plasma behavior which I think Andrea Rossi is also experiencing. At least some of his controller issues may come from this.



ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. — Sandia’s Z machine has produced plasmas that exceed temperatures of 2 billion degrees Kelvin — hotter than the interiors of stars.

The unexpectedly hot output, if its cause were understood and harnessed, could eventually mean that smaller, less costly nuclear fusion plants would produce the same amount of energy as larger plants.

The phenomena also may explain how astrophysical entities like solar flares maintain their extreme temperatures.

The very high radiation output also creates new experimental environments to help validate computer codes responsible for maintaining a reliable nuclear weapons stockpile safely and securely — the principal mission of the Z facility.

“At first, we were disbelieving,” says Sandia project lead Chris Deeney. “We repeated the experiment many times to make sure we had a true result and not an ‘Ooops’!”

The results, recorded by spectrometers and confirmed by computer models created by John Apruzese and colleagues at Naval Research Laboratory, have held up over 14 months of additional tests.

A description of the achievement, as well as a possible explanation by Sandia consultant Malcolm Haines, well-known for his work in Z pinches at the Imperial College in London, appeared in the Feb. 24 Physical Review Letters.

Sandia is a National Nuclear Security Administration laboratory.

What happened and why?
Z’s energies in these experiments raised several questions.

First, the radiated x-ray output was as much as four times the expected kinetic energy input.

Ordinarily, in non-nuclear reactions, output energies are less — not greater — than the total input energies. More energy had to be getting in to balance the books, but from where could it come?

Second, and more unusually, high ion temperatures were sustained after the plasma had stagnated — that is, after its ions had presumably lost motion and therefore energy and therefore heat — as though yet again some unknown agent was providing an additional energy source to the ions.

The next links are patents from Paulo and Alexandra Correa about a plasma discharge device creating excess energy and a possible explanation from Harold Aspden.

“Direct current energized pulse generator utilizing autogenous cyclical pulsed abnormal glow discharges”

Energy conversion system “

“Electromechanical transduction of plasma pulses”

“Power from Space: The Correa Invention”


Essentially the core element of the Correa apparatus is an electrical discharge tube containing a rarefied gas. It is a tube having a special construction but which can be manufactured in much the same way as a fluorescent lamp.Its objective, when used in a special circuit, is not the emission of light but rather the generation of electrical power in excess of the input power needed for its operation.

This seemingly impossible feat is proved by providing a battery of electric d.c. storage cells large enough to deliver a high enough voltage to trigger the discharge which in turn feeds output to a separate battery of d.c. storage cells which store the electrical energy generated.Since the generation of electricity is the objective there can be no better way of proving that,over a period of time, the net energy output exceeds by far the net energy input. Measurements of instantaneous power and the energy transients can reassure an investigator that there is a power gain but sustained performance conditions are essential for a definitive proof.Indeed,this will be better understood when the principle of operation is explained. The pulse of energy input is ahead of the output pulse in time-phasing, owing to the intervening opening of the gate,otherwise described as the radial electric field, which allows entry of energy from the quantum activity of the vacuum field.The battery tests, repeated during a succession of charge and discharge cycles, using two banks of cells, one charging on output power as the other discharges input power, provide indisputable evidence of a substantial gain in power. This gives a verifiable accounting of an energy inflow that can be put to good use while enough energy is returned to sustain operation of the system. Though a cumbersome part of the overall apparatus in comparison with the small and light-weight tube, which is the heart of the system, such a battery of conventional electric storage cells satisfies a research need, but ultimately, since power feedback should make the device self sustaining, one can foresee a compact product not requiring these cells and which operates to deliver electric power, as if from nowhere.

A few words about Harold Aspden. He was working like me for IBM a long time. Harold Aspden died in 2011. He was a critic of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and had proposed a whole new concept of Physics. I don’t share all of his findings but there are a lot of gems in his work.


Most of his work is freely available on the internet. I got a message when Harold Aspden was very ill and I saved his work from his servers. After his death his wife gave his work free to the public.

  • Ted Rygas

    There is something in it. That something was in one Russian paper that I have seen, self sustaining “dusty plasna” I think. Although, it seems more close to the the “thorium plasma” generator… the inventors and re-inventors (about five of them) had very bad luck and died quickly, as per internet sources. The device, as in the article, would be much better than any of the Rossi’s inventions.

  • Dr. Mike

    The Correa patents claim to be able to produce more output electrical energy than the input electrical energy. Why haven’t any commercial products been developed in the more than 20 years since the patents were issued? There is not enough knowledge about the QX devices to determine if the processes described in the Correa patents are applicable to the QX devices, but are certainly worth consideration.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Paper by Haines et al. (Abstract + figures):


    Wikipedia article (with additional references):


  • Epi

    This is a hydrino reaction taking place. The temperature measurement was done spectroscopically which gives the same error as the measurement of the corona temperature. The underlying assumption with this temperature measurement technique is, that the involved atoms can only radiate x-rays with this frequency when extremly hot. This is not true. They can radiate this high energy x-rays also through the catalytic hydrino reaction.

    The development of a commercial device to harness the power output of this reaction is taking place in form of the suncell. For great experimental evidence and characteristics of this reaction read the following paper:

    There you can see extremly intense plasma forming with voltages below 20V. If Rossi is doing something similar is not known and if I should guess will never be known because of his extreme IP hiding behavior.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I also thought spontaneously of Mills’ hydrinos, but if you do the math you will see that the reported energies would require ‘shrinking’ the hydrogen atoms by more than 20 levels at once. I am not sure if this is consistent with Mills’ observations.

      I agree that the temperature measurements are tricky, since different sources of radiation (at least, atomic/ionic spectra and electron Bremsstrahlung) may be involved.

  • Max Nozin

    The output exceeded the expected can mean only 2 things: they used wrong physics or used it in wrong way.
    Correas had same issues as the most inventors – lack of relevant academic credentials and becoming paranoid after being rejected.
    For how long we are going to keep beating around aether tree?

    • Gennadiy

      I think that without understanding the ether and new physics, LENR will not be explained.
      But if Einstein said that there is no ether, then it is not. 🙂

      I ask many people what is a magnetic field?
      Most answer that this is a mathematical function (Laplace, spinor and so on :)).
      I ask: what is between the same poles of magnets?
      They reply that there are lines of force … 🙂

      No one is looking for physical substantiality.
      Physics today has become a division of mathematics.

  • Acecrafter99

    The Correa patents claim to be able to produce more output electrical energy than the input electrical energy. Why haven’t any commercial products been developed in the more than 20 years since the patents were issued? There is not enough knowledge about the QX devices to determine if the processes described in the Correa patents are applicable to the QX devices, but are certainly worth consideration

    • Gerard McEk

      Exactly, could be the words of Dr. Mike ;). It should be worthwhile to know why this isn’t commerciallized!

      • Dr. Mike

        Looks like Acecrafter99 had my exact thoughts- what a coincidence!

        • Robert Dorr

          You’ve been cut and pasted by a bot?!

  • iugsdfdud34 mfft_54hfsf

    Maybe LENR can bring down some huge buildings? Maybe it was already used in some evil way?

    • Monty

      ask bob about that 😉

      • Bob Greenyer
        • TomR

          Thanks so much for the list Bob. I tried to sign up for STEEM a few months ago but failed. I don’t remember what I had trouble with, I will try it again someday and see if I am successful.

          • Bob Greenyer

            No worries, Those that signed up to comment last year got 35 free Steem, which given that it hit $8 was a nice free-bee!

    • Hmmm…interesting thought. I did read that there was some evidence of thermite at the 9/11 site, as well as a bunch of holes burned through one piece of metal – like Swiss cheese.

      • Bob Greenyer

        All explained by what also leads to LENR, I will address these things specifically with government and other data asap. No need for thermite/mate to account for all strange effects.

  • Curbina

    I’ve been aware of the importance of the 2006 Z machine results all these years and of their paramount importance. It has been hard to watch them being mostly ignored and see Malcolm Haines passing without due recognition of his remarkable publication. The results that could have seen the start of a new era for mankind being completely neglected. Some of the people aware of it have speculated that the comparative simplicity of this approach to fusion could be in part responsible for its lack of recognition, as thid would be the end of current hegemonies so feared by everyone in the intelligence and national security bussiness. I’m glad this got posted, my thanks to Dieter Pretschel.

  • Some info about unusual heat formation in plasma https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics_AWT/comments/5ow3v7/vall%C3%A9e_synergetic_generator_a_simple_circuit/ (see for example J. Papp’s Plasma Engine , Petronov’s Plasma battery or Chernetski Plasmatron, which belong in most tabooed inventions of modern era). Also most of ideas of prof. Valleé remains accessible via Internet archives only (see also here , here and here.

  • /* First, the radiated x-ray output was as much as four times the expected kinetic energy input. */

    This is rather easy to explain with Astroblaster effect https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UHS883_P60
    The Z-pinch is based on formation of narrow stream of plasma, along which the ions collide in directional way, which leads into multiplication of their momentum (lattice Mossbauer effect know from solid state physics).

  • Bob Greenyer

    John Hutchison built Tyrotron based generators


  • Bob Greenyer
  • Jonnyb

    One thing that could be different over Rossi’s is the X-rays, I understand no X-Rays (very low) are given out by Rossi’s? am I correct or have I misunderstood it all these years.

  • Engineer48


    We need to understand that inside the nucleus there are 2 stores of potentially trappable energy:

    1) The redundant strong force energy that is carried and exchanged by pions inside the nucleus and that binds the protons and neutrons together.

    2) The colour strong force energy that is carried and exchanged by gluons inside the proton or neutron and that binds the quarks together.

    The 1st energy store is what is tapped in fission and fusion reactions and atomic weapons.

    The 2nd energy store is what makes up 99% of the non dark mass, if it is real, in the universe via m = e/c^2. Releasing it would be like a matter & anti matter reaction. Or energy availability that makes what we call nuclear energy seem like a firecracker compared to an atomic bomb.

    So when you wonder where the energy release from LENR or other plasma OU systems could come from, look no further that tapping the redundant strong force proton or neutron binding energy or doing a mind blow and tapping the vast store of quark binding energy.

    • Pekka Janhunen
      • Engineer48

        Hi Pekka,

        ElectroWeak forces are carried by the W and Z gauge bosons and not be the gluons that carry and exchange the strong force energy as either colour or redundant, while the photon handles the electromagnetic force.


        • Pekka Janhunen


          Nucleons cannot decay directly in the Standard Model, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay . It is thought, however, that in extreme conditions, quantum effects might create exotic objects called electroweak sphalerons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphaleron ) that can realise electroweak burning by turning baryons into antileptons.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Pekka,

            Haven’t been seen to decay. I’m OK with that.

            Can’t decay? Why not?

            What stops inverse Compton Scattering from impacting photons on neculon or pion quarks and carrying some little amount of energy away?

            Nothing that I can see.

            BTW I’m not talking about quarks self decaying into other particles but about carrying away very small amounts of the strong force energy.

          • Normally in nuclear reactions bringing the nucleus closer to Fe, binding energy is released, mass per nucleon decreases, and the nucleus is becoming more stable and tighter bound. Can this be generalised—when extracting energy carried by pions and gluons, will the nucleus and the nucleons respectively become more stable?

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mats,

            What I have learned is there is more than enough colour strong force to contain the almost light speed quarks and rhe excess spills out of the neuclons, forming pions that carry the excess as redundate strong force to other neuclons. Sort of a self leveling system that seems to distribute rhe strong force around so to both hold neculons together and to hold the neculus together.

            Nice system. I like it.

            I suspect that if photons do carry away some of the strong force, the neculus will keep adjusting the strong force that remains so to achieve the best neculus stability.

            It may be possible to extract a significant amount of this dual action strong force without causing any issues for neculus stability.

          • Amazing. I like to think about it this way, from a larger perspective: Unless you believe in a creating God, everything in the Universe is self-organised, from these intriguing aspects of sub-atomic scale mechanisms to our own man-made technology, which eventually is a result of self-organising, with us humans only being a small step—or a tool—on the road. It took some 15 billions years to get there, and it keeps accelerating exponentially. Self-organising and diversity are the fundamentals of the universe.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mats,

            With the Big Bang, a lot more was created than just time, energy and matter.

            Multiple self arranging, organising and management system were created.

            I siggest with a goal to create more and more complex and self management systems both energy and biological based.

            While randomness is a big part of all systems, it is not, I suspect, what drives biological systems to higher and higher levels.

            We now know species sperm and egg changes over a life time and passes on more than biological replication data. It passes on experience.

            Just maybe physics also has adaptive evolution and while tje laws may not have alteted, just maybe how energy systems self organise has altered.

            Einstein was once asked if he believed in God. His reply was something like, How can you look at a flower and not believe?

            The more we learn, the more we know now little we know.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            “Can’t decay? Why not?” All protons are identical and if one could decay, they all could, and we would have seen that.

            It’s possible (at least if one adds something to the Standard Model) that the proton actually can decay to something else, but so slowly that its expected lifetime is much much longer than the age of the universe.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Pekka,

            I accept your views, which are based on theory developed from experimental data.

            Likewise you must surly accept inverse Compton Scattering theory, which was also developed from experimental data.

            What I question is what mechanism will stop a lower energy photon ftom impacting on, being absorbed by and emitted by a higher energy quark, with more energy than on impact?

            Ie does the universe give us license to turn off inverse Compton Scattering when we don’t like the result?

        • Pekka Janhunen

          One thing is that solid state physics sometimes mimics high-energy physics (quasiparticles, condensed matter field theory, topological quantum field theory, etc.). The reason is that the same equations obviously have the same solutions, even when they occur in a different physics context. Maybe some nonlinear quantum objects analogous to electroweak sphalerons could exist that can realise (nuclear or quark) processes that are normally forbidden. Sphalerons are called “anomalies” in quantum field theory because one cannot explain them in perturbation theory i.e. one cannot draw a Feynman diagram corresponding to the process that the sphlaeron mediates. In a broad sense, something similar would seem to be needed to explain LENR: a net reaction which just occurs even though one cannot describe it in terms of more elementary processes i.e. one cannot draw a Feyman diagram of it.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Pekka,

            I agree there is no experimental data to support proton decay in a way as other structures are seen to decay.

            Likewise there is experimental data to support inverse Compton Scattering when lower energy photons impact higher energy particles.

            Which suggests that maybe it can occur.

            Biggie question is what happens as a photon carries away some small amount, say 5eV, of energy from a Baryon or Meson quark per impact, absorbion and emission ? Then multiple that a few billion times and try to model how the proton, neutron and neculus will react as the quark and neculon strong force binding glue drains away.

            Of course this is far and away from the work done today to probe the structure of Hadrons.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            The short answer is that low-energy processes cannot normally occur inside nuclei, because the quantised energy states of nuclei have wide typically MeV scale separation. The process you describe would be OK for the photon, but it’s problematic for the nucleus as a whole because it would involve carrying away a small amount of energy.

            For a similar reason, atomic spectra are quantised, and when an atom is in excited state, the excitation returns to the ground state by emitting a single photon, not a large number of radio frequency photons, for example. Emitting lots of low-frequency photons would be OK for the photons, but not for the atom because the atom doesn’t have such intermediate energy states. An excited atom can be thought of as a rough chemical analogue of an excited nucleus, just in different energy scale.

            In atoms there exist things like hyperfine interaction, which correspond to very low energies i.e. radio frequency photons. However, the hyperfine interaction does not give a dense spectrum of states, just one additional state which is slightly above the ground state.

            Combinations of atoms (molecules) have a richer and denser spectrum (e.g. vibration, rotation) than isolated atoms, that allow lower frequency (e.g. infrared) photons to exchange energy with molecules. Things like conduction electrons have an essentially continuum spectrum because they are coupled to the whole crystal lattice or large part of it.

            There doesn’t seem to be such things are nuclear molecules, i.e. there is no known way to couple nuclei together by nuclear or other forces, except by bringing them very close together using great force to overcome their Coulomb repulsion, like what happens inside neutron stars, and even then what forms is new nuclei rather than “molecules”. Would such coupling mechanisms exist (maybe in form of coupling together all nuclei of the lattice crystal), we might be closer to explaining LENR. My thinking is that such coupling might be provided electromagnetically by a population of effectively massless pseudoparticle electrons (“Dirac” or “Weyl” fermions).

          • Engineer48

            Hi Pekka,

            I’m not aware of any quantised energy levels as far as the colour and redundant strong forces.

            Then there are tbe energy requirements of the gluon tubes that stretch and increase the attractive force as the quark to quark seperation increases.

            Which suggests to me that the gluon activity involves highly dynamic and changing strong force energy requirements.

            I doubt those activities wpuld miss a small bit of energy being carried away by photons.

            Lets stop talking about atoms and orbital electron energy levels and focus on what will happen when say a 5eV, 400nm photon impact a quark inside a neculon and is emitted with more energy than it impacted with.

            We know that can happen, so lets discuss how tbe quark and gluons will react.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Excited states (quantised energy levels) of nucleons exist and they belong to the short-lived zoo of baryons that are produced copiously by LHC for example. For example, the delta-plus baryon can be considered as an excited state of the proton (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_baryon ). It has the same quark content as the proton, but somewhat higher mass. It decays quickly to proton and uncharged pion, or neutron and charged pion. It’s similar to proton, but the gluon tubes are in somewhat different “order” in there so that the energy is higher. The pion is a pair of quark and antiquark so when the gluon field discovers how to pull the valence quarks closer together (ie. when the delta-plus baryon decay to proton), the leftover energy gets materialised in a quark-antiquark pair, which is the pion. The gluon flux tubes are like rubber strings in that when they are stretched, they pull harder, and at some point they snap and produce a new particle-antiparticle pair.

            Even though the proton is a complicated particle with all those gluons and stuff (in fact, so complicated that no one really knows the details), the system keeps good record of energy and surely does not allow anything of it to be “stolen”, because the proton is already the ground state i.e. the minimum energy state. No matter how hard the gluons try to wiggle, they cannot find a lower energy state than the proton because such state does not exist. A rock resting at the lowest point of a valley cannot fall any lower even if someone jostles it.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Conversion to Leptons (Electrons, Muons, Tau) has experimental evidence, Shoulders ‘white EVOs’ shed 2keV electrons as they potentially consume matter. I propose that these electrons are responsible for the ‘glowing without extra heat’ that has been observed in many experiments by many researchers through a process similar to (but no necessarily the same as, since there may be an intermediary step) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathodoluminescence


        Muons in my opinion are observed from Holmlid because they can escape his apparatus, I predict that if Holmlid had apparatus like shoulders to observe 2keV electrons, he would actually see them too.

        Of course their may be other ways that the ‘glowing without extra heat’ effect occurs, but it seems to be present in systems that produce excess heat and transmutations, and also, as you will find out, direct electricity production.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Drawings in Shoulders’ patents look like (focussed) electron guns to me.

          • Bob Greenyer

            They are hard won designs to ensure reliable production and transport / sustenance of EVOs. Typically needle points wetted with mercury that further narrows the emission point, so requiring less temperature for thermionic emission, self healing and IMPO, since it has one of the few elements with an electron affinity of zero, it has no desire to scoop up the emitted electrons. The channels made of say alumina guide the EVOs to a target due to impedance mismatch through a Travelling Wave Tube that can directly harness energy until they impact the Anode where they can cause metal softening / transmutation, if they are dark at that point they can produce ‘cold electricity’.

            In the case of Hutchison, EVOs spontaneously formed on the macro scale on the surface when the fields were switched off from whatever process was building up the energy in the metal samples during field application.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.