Nano-gap Hydroton Reaction Proposed by Ed Storms in New Video (Cold Fusion Now)

Ruby Carat at Cold Fusion Now has posted a new video on YouTube titled “Edmund Storms HYDROTON A Model of Cold Fusion”.

Here’s the description:

“HYDROTON A Model of Cold Fusion describes the nano-gap and hydroton theory with Dr. Edmund Storms, a nuclear chemist and cold fusion researcher now retired from Los Alamos National Laboratory .

“It picks up where Storms’ 2014 book The Explanation of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: An Examination of the Relationship between Observation and Explanation left off.

“He proposes a unique chain of hydrogen and electrons that would assemble in the nano-cracks and nano-spaces of materials, fusing through a slow resonance process where smaller bits of mass are converted to quanta of energy through coherent photon emission.

“If true, it would describe an extension of the 100-year-old conventional nuclear theory.

“Several of the Nano-gap Hydroton Hypotheses are now being tested for confirmation.”

  • The theory is compelling. Storms may have figured it out.

    I wish there was a little less hand-waving and a little more hard evidence presented. Or at least what experiments are being conducted or planned to nail down whether these ideas approximate reality.

    • Brokeeper

      based on the induced hydrogen resonance (square wave as AR proposed). However, there
      are many star/snowflake arrays that should provide similar results depending on
      the nano size and shape cracks and pits.
      Nickel powder provides significantly more fractural possibilities.

      • I find the mental model of hydrogen pinned into one and two dimensional configurations by host structures and then rocked by thermal resonances and subjected to artificially choppy hurricane force plasmas coursing over them… to have all the right ingredients for squeezing juice from nuclear walnuts.

        • Brokeeper

          “It slices! It dices!” Veg-O-Matic

        • Chapman

          Mmmm… Nuclear Walnut Juice!

          That DOES sound like a great new Energy Drink!

          You could give Red Bull or MONSTER a run for their money!

      • CambriaJohn

        Since LENR is a surface phenomenon, I suggest electroplating a stainless steel rod with nickel. Impurities in the plating can cause stresses in the nickel lattice that in turn cause the NAE. It would be a big research project in itself to determine what doping would induce the optimum opportunities for NAE. If successful, the stainless steel rod could conduct away spot heat to avoid burnouts that have plagued experiments in the past..

        • suhas R

          this is what rubiit technology is doing in preparing Ni foil

  • Thomas Baccei

    Does anyone have any ideas about creating such “nano-cracks?” If we knew how to create them, experimental verification and reproducible experiments should follow quickly. However, like all theories of “new” phenomena they must feed back into empirical research. It is either that, or, examining the fuel from a large number of successful experiments as well as fuel from a large number of not successful experiments to show the correlation between crack size and energy production.
    So, it is possible that LENR will come down to nano engineering, something that I have suspected for a long time.

    • Brokeeper

      From what I understand Andrea Rossi was manufacturing the nickel powder at the Doral Lab through his client’s (JMP) manufacturing processes using the heat provided from the 1MW E-Cat plant. No one knows the actual process.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Maybe nickel-coated carbon nanotubes would be worth a try?

    • YOu can create them with the sinterization process where a metal is melted onto the lattice structure of a host metal at high temperature and pressure.

    • Zephir

      I already noted above, that I consider nickel whiskers of Piantelli as the most reliable nickel based cold fusion system. They’re formed with single dislocation along their axis – essentially a thick wall pipe for metallic hydrogen formation in their centers. And they’re perfectly linear. Piantelli prepares them by deposition of nickel in high vacuum in Knudsen cells – the low concentration of nickel vapors promotes the formation of whiskers. Also Szpack’s codeposition LENR experiments could utilize the whiskers – the palladium ones this time.

  • Bob Greenyer

    It is a plausible idea for the storms chain …. protons lead to helium – but does not account for the dusty plasma transmutations/fusion which is far easier to achieve it would seam as many have re-created the phenomena leading to predictable reaction products which are all fused nuclei.

    Then there is Norris Peery, static glow discharge with 2.45GHz microwave pulses with duty cycle – he says it ONLY occurs in a liquid – were, of course, there are NO cracks. And apparently, it happens basically every time. Peery does load his Pd with D or H electrolytically.

    Peery’s theory is based on the Negaton, which is basically the same composite particle ( two electrons and a proton ) as Shoulders, Piantelli, Little, Santilli – in which case storms theory is an outlier. Could it be right in a lattice… perhaps, but a liquid, no. Perhaps it is a different effect.

    • Axil Axil

      Polaritons are a mix of electrons and photons that are produced in cracks and bumps on the surface of a metal. It is this mixture of light and electrons that allows concentration of this spin only quasiparticles to aggregates to such a large and essentially unlimited extent that low energy nuclear reactions will occur.

      Ed Storms once said that there was no way that electrons can axxumulate to such and extent to produce nuclear reactions. Ed Storms is wrong. The production of polaritons is how that accumulation can occur.

      Ed Storms said:

      “Attempts have been made by various theoreticians to propose a mechanism to explain how the Coulomb barrier can be reduced within the PdD lattice. These models generally involve changing the energy or local concentration of electrons. Initiation of a nuclear reaction in ordinary materials by such processes is prevented by chemical effects, as is shown later in the paper.”

      The theoreticians Ed Storms was referring to was Ken Shoulders.

      The polariton is what Ed Shoulders produced in his experiments and is what the other plasma based reactions you had in mind use to produce LENR.

      If you want to understand LENR, learn about the polariton.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Kenneth Shoulders – @41m29s – On the Cold Fusion community

        “I can take the top list of everybody that I know of in cold fusion…
        where its at… that is supposed to be a forward moving field… it’s dead…
        dead in the water… they really are bad… take a list of the top guys in
        that business, or ex-business – I can name guys like Storms, McKubre,
        Miley – all those and everybody of their ilk – that I know well – that I
        have associated with closely – and when I look at what they do – I have
        very little admiration for it – I guess I put storms at the top of the
        list – those that seemingly survived all the pitfalls and perils of
        being at a high echelon in the field – and that’s about it on that

        “…Sono fusion is just charge separation when the bubble is formed and it creates EVOs”

        “SPAWAR has EVOs and they don’t know they have them”

      • Hey Axil:
        Is there such a thing as a 1 dimensional Polariton? A linear Polariton, if you will.

        • Axil Axil

          A one dimensional polariton on the surface of a nanowire.

          • I need to adjust my V1DLLBEC theory to allow for 1 dimensional polaritons. Wait… aren’t Polaritons BECs?

          • Axil Axil

            If a sufficient number of polaritons are brought together they condense to form a high temperature Bose-Einstein condensate. The BEC remains in a steady state called non equilibrium condinsation by continuously being irradiated or pumped by an energy source like heat, light, or a laser that counteracts the natural losses of the system,

          • Cool, then my V1DLLBECs are all one dimensional right along with your polaritons. That calls for a 1D party!.

    • dusty plasma are not so foreign with hydroton ideas.
      it is metal particles floating in a plasma.
      the nanostructure of those particles is probably strange.

      probably the structure is a bit different from the one of electrolysis electrodes, but the plasma is more energetic and maybe the NAE is different, why not smaller because there is more energy in the plasm.

      maybe also Ed is only wrong on the shape and host of the NAE, not a crack but somewhere differet, with the same idea of having an insulated structure with hydrigen under collective quantum interference…

      question is not if Ed is exactly right, but if he is in a better direction, in a more fruitful direction than other theory.

      • Axil Axil

        I cover this issue in this post

        Magnetism is the bottom line generator of the LENR reaction. Learn about the Fractional Quantum Hall effect and what produces it. This magnetic based mechanism is basically the same causation mechanism as occurs in LENR.

        Magnetism produces Instantons inside the proton. This makes the proton decay.

      • Bob Greenyer

        that is the question

    • It happens ONLY in a liquid? Perhaps a Luttinger Liquid? Like my V1DLLBEC theory predicts. 1Dimensional Luttinger liquids form at much higher temperatures than ordinary liquids, and 1DBECs should also form at much higher temperatures as well.

    • Zephir

      The pulses force the water molecules jam and collide in low-dimensional manner (the Le-Claire “water crystals” formed with laser pulses near wall also belong here)

      It means we aren’t really forced to leave low-dimensional theories of cold fusion even if fluid/plasma physics.

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Right or wrong, he has a theory that respects the current laws of physics, does not conflict with the chemical environment and explains what is missing in our understanding of cold fusion in a way that should be possible to test and be proven right or wrong.

    Problem is, his is one of many LENR theories, but at least he tells it in a way I can (almost) understand 😉

  • clovis ray

    I’m talking from under my hat here , but the way I have it is it’s all about surface area. As in not big,if big particals are cracked or split does very little to increase the surface area, the way I see it is this action takes place on the surface and only the fuel is stored deeper .I thought this was already well known, Dr.Rossi has a way to consecrate and improve the process so I am bit out of the loop on the Qx.

  • Axil Axil

    Has anyone looked into the cross section of PP fusion? PP fusion is the type that is supposed to happen in the Ni/H reaction. Well here are the numbers:

    “For consistency, all time scales reported here are taken from Clayton (1968). The only reaction that is of uncertain time scale is the initial proton-proton fusion, which is too slow to measure in a laboratory. So the time scale is computed from basic theory. Hansen & Kawaler (1994) give the time scale 6,000,000,000 years, whereas Clayton gives 7,900,000,000. Bohme-Vitense (1992) gives 14,000,000,000 years, but for the lower temperature of 14,000,000 Kelvins. The one thing that is certain is that the reaction is slow.”

    p + p –>…. d + e+ + nu…… 7.9 x 10^9 years
    p + p + e- –>…. d + nu……. 14 x10^12 years

    With these slow reaction times in mind, tt makes sense that LENR does not involve any type of fusion reaction (as the PRIMARY energy producing mechanism).

    • Bob Greenyer

      And this is why Piantelli says PP fusion is, to all intense and purpose, impossible.

      However, you could get Helium from successive additions of a pseudo particle (H-, Negaton, e- p e-, etc) to Titanium isotopes or Carbon for instance. 12C is in this way a true catalyst.

      Lastly, Shoulders says that very large charge clusters turn the charged ions into a sub-nucleon soup, which makes these reaction calculations irrelevant.

      • Axil Axil

        Regarding: “Shoulders says that very large charge clusters turn the charged ions into a sub-nucleon soup”

        The monicare we use: cold fusion is so misleading and damages the prospects of LENR greatly with professional science. LENR has never involved fusion as its primary driver. It is only a side reaction that rarely happens among the zoo of other subatomic particle based reactions that are going on.

        And yet the old timers hang on to the fusion myth so tenaciously to the detriment of this subject.

        • Bob Greenyer

          LENR is so much more. Agreed.

  • Chapman

    The only thing worse than getting sucked into watching this video is when it is posted TWICE, and I follow each one, wondering if it is really the same. 5 minutes into it the first time and the lady’s voice had me wanting to smash my speakers. The.. second… time… through.. I.. wanted.. to.. pierce… my.. eardrums… with… a.. knitting.. needle…! YIKES!!! Did she go to the William Shatner School for Voice Over Diction Training??? She sounds like she is either stoned, or on a respirator. She speaks like bad SciFi directors portray alien envoy’s speaking on first encounters when they have only had bits and pieces of old radio broadcasts from which to learn our language!

    As for the theory, sorry, but Storms talks a lot without really saying anything. His claim to fame was always saying, “there is something going on, and we need to define how it happens…before we can understand how it happens”.

    He has been talking about nano cracks since the beginning. I do not buy it. Such a condition would be TOO COMMON! The reaction MUST be subsurface, as we see it is dependant upon achieving a high degree of loading. Loading would not be relevant to a surface reaction.

    • There are a lot of indicators that it is a subsurface condition. For instance, when POns & Fleischman ran a 1cm^3 cathode over night, it melted down. The surface wasn’t that much more than an ordinary strip, but the volume was a heckufa lot greater and the effect was a heckofa lot greater — ergo the effect is volume, not surface.

      • Chapman

        Yeah. And yet these are the FIRST things we learned, way way way back. New info should ADD to our knowledge, not replace it as the newest fad, to be paraded around and declared as the new ultimate truth, until something shinier and “niftier” comes along to fascinate us.

        • What are you talking about?

          • Chapman

            I am saying you are right! 🙂

            But new papers come out, or some new article is brought up regarding totally unrelated processes, and it seems like a lot of folks just forget all those things YOU REMEMBER, and go chasing after wild new speculations about the LENR reaction that actually contradict the few well established facts we have to work with.

            I am “complaining”. And being just a bit pissy about how spastic some of the posts are around here whenever there is a new article published in Science Digest. Regardless of whether it relates to LENR or not, someone will bring it forward as the secret force behind LENR. That alone is annoying enough, but now we have Storms back on the front page saying it is cracks again. OY!!!

          • Chapman

            I am agreeing with you…

      • an agreement is that is is shallow, not surface, but not bulk.
        the accident you refer too can be interpreted in a compatible way with shallow effect.

        this 1cm3 of Pd, fully loaded as F&P were able too when running for weeks, have a modest macroscopic surface (6cm3 I imagine), and the usual surface condition of todays experiments made with foil or wires, after high loading.

        the interpretation may be that the bulk was just there a tank , a reservoir, for hydrogen, which fed the NAE at the surface for hours of “Heat-After-Death” phenomenon.
        never forget it is nuclear so , the energy is huge, even if the power is just high.

        this does not exclude Ed Storms theory, or any shalow effect theory.

        note also that high loading, as Michael McKubre have shown was required and predictive condition, may not be required for the reaction, but just (as Ed says) for the creation of the NAE.

        This si something Ed and other are working on.
        Ed have observed that once heavily loaded as McKubre says, an electrode produce heat even with modest loading

        another claim is that a working electrode once working, may be properly stored, and reused and working.
        It is to be confirmed/replicated (maybe it was already done, analysing papers may be great)

        Note that when you hear expert of hydrogen in metals (Nicolas Armanet of I2HMR explained it very well at RNBE2016), you realize that high loading and deloading, and the temperature of the loading phase, have a huge effect on the lattice structure.
        The loading is complex as there is two phase of hydrogen in Pd (like hydrogen in Ni, but it is harder with Ni), the initial alpha phase at low loading, and then the betah phase at higher loading, which propagate as a phase front from outside, deforming the lattice anisotropically if the initial shape is anisotropic.
        At low temperature, high loading is inducing huge deformation of the lattice, that for example may deform the macroscopic shape of foils or wires to increase their form factor.

        There are few candidates for the NAE, and Ed have good argument to propose the nanocracks, and criticize the vacancies.
        Some have arguments for vacancies, and against cracks.

        Ed even considered an hybrid kind of NAE, with nanocracks and vacancies, working together, mixing Hydroton and Takahashi’s 4QD, why not Hagelstein and others…

        I have reason to predict all theories, even Ed’s, are wrong in detail, but I suspect Ed is not far, as many others.

        I would bet the revolution will came from Dennis Letts as he is focused on experimental method before theory.

        Just an innocent impression, from few words we exchanged long ago and few reports of his modest work.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      Chapman, you obviously have a personal reaction to Ruby Carat. A very nice woman, enthusiastic about LENR, not a nay-sayer (she does not ask difficult questions, her goal is to allow those she interviews to express themselves). She can sound like a little girl, but … she has a degree in physics and she has been working for years, getting out into the world, meeting the personalities and interviewing them (such as Rossi and Miles and many others) Since you are allergic to the voice, you can read the transcript I made:

      I have not critiqued this video yet. I just took the time (several days) to create an accurate transcript. If any errors are noticed, please comment! The video is also open for general comment. Storms ideas are being discussed privately on the CMNS mailing list. The discussion is … interesting.

      While Storms goes, in my opinion, too far with his theories, becoming dogmatic about them, his position on nanocracks is one of the strongest aspects of the theory, well-grounded in high experience with electrochemistry and review of the literature. It is correct that LENR initiation, as far as is known from PdD work, is well correlated with loading, but Storms considers that this is an effect of what loading and deloading does to the Pd surface, Loading ratio alone is not a sufficient condition for PdD LENR. Storms also has an experimental result that he interprets as showing that XP can continue unabated as loading declines because electrolysis current has been shut off. It does indicate that, but, as with much work in LENR, that result has not been verified.

      As to “must be subsurface,” the evidence is strong for surface reaction (or very near-surface). From PdD, helium is being generated, commensurate with the heat, and helium is readily trapped in palladium, the behavior is well-known. What the evidence shows is that roughly 60% of the helium escapes, indicating a near-surface production of helium. Then there are two experiments (SRI M4 and ENEA Laser-4) where the cell polarity was reversed, causing some of the palladium surface to be etched away. In both experiments, the full expected ratio of heat to helium was found, within experimental error.

      There is little or no evidence for the reaction taking place in the deep lattice. The cracks that Storms proposes are clearly not ordinary cracks, they are a specific size (which will go away if cracks close, as they do, or expand, as they do). They also must fill with hydrogen to make a single-chain “hydroton.” The details of what happens then is where I see Storms as going off the deep end. Contrary to what he claims, the idea of “slow fusion” is based on a highly defective model of nuclear process that thinks there is some “mechanism” to mass conversion, when mass itself is simply an effect of energy concentration. Storms, in my view, does not understand how ordinary fusion works, what specific process releases energy from the collapse under the strong force. He’s a nuclear chemist and I’ve seen his understanding of modern physics to be defective in many ways, over the years. It is outside his expertise.

      So he thinks his ideas do not contradict extant physics, they merely add to it. So far, he has not addressed the severe problems with his “explanation,” the most I’ve seen him do is to suggest, on occasion, that these will be worked out later.

      The tragedy here is that “slow fusion” does not address the real-world experimental problems in cold fusion. The rest of his theory, such as reaction site, is important for that; and we can hope for experiments that will test these ideas. The other major thrust is about vacancies, and “superabundant vacancies” as being involved. I’d bet on cracks, myself. But the involvement of vacancies has some circumstantial evidence, and it is possible that the reality is some combination.

      The science of LENR has been badly damaged by the strong avoidance of internal criticism, so ideas accumulate and continue to compete, long past their natural time, and then contaminate the appearance of LENR to new examination. Old objections have often been answered in the literature, but clearly independent secondary source review is rare, that would distinguish between objections that were nonstarters (or that became so when the evidence became known, at least) or that remain as possibilities to be tested.

  • Chapman

    Every time something new comes along, everyone seems to forget, or just abandon, every prior experiment and observation to date, and skip tracks going off on an entirely new direction!

    I will not even attempt to explain things better than Zephir does. To understand the issue to which I am referring I would, therefore, humbly suggest you review his posts regarding low-dimensional collisions in which the degree of freedom of motion for large numbers of electrons are reduced as they are confined by the lattice structure, and random motion is transformed into coherent collective mass/momentum. This results in point collisions occurring with net forces that are orders of magnitude greater than simply particle-particle interactions. It is HERE that something happens. Within those below-surface domains.

    These collisions require a level of high saturation of the substrate. We do not know exactly how large a cross section of 90+ loading is required, it may be 10’s. 100’s. or even 1000’s of atoms. These form internally. Now, it is obvious that these domains will FIRST be achieved closer to the surface of the lattice, as loading progresses. It is perfectly valid to observe that domain formation ITSELF follows the same migration as the hydrogen loading, sinking deeper into the matrix over time and exposure. This leads us to an intuitive understanding that domain formation (the REAL NEA) is directly related to pressure, time, and surface area, and as a result, micro/nano fractures and cracks increase the surface area, and thereby increase the total cross sectional area where these loaded domains may develop in any given time frame. BUT… these cracks are NOT where the reaction takes place! They simply increase the rate at which those domains may develop under the surface, because THE SURFACE IS INCREASED!

    Setting aside any Deuterium nonsense, the primary reaction is simple and clean and rather ho-hum when it occurs deep in the lattice. The most you will likely see is a minor temperature anomaly, and a later forensic analysis will reveal a few odd nickel transmutations. But the real leap in power output comes from those reactions that occur close to the surface, and where secondary reactions are then stimulated by interaction with the contaminants outside of the lattice, such as the Li. THESE are the reactions that are observed and seen as surface reactions, but they are not the actual LENR reaction. These are straight forward events you can observe in any laboratory playing with particle acceleration, transmutation, or elemental synthesis. There is no mystery regarding those, other than scanning the ash and determining which actions took place. FROM that we then dive deeper to determine what events took place WITHIN the lattice to stimulate the emission of WHAT particles that CAUSED those mundane surface events.

    You are getting effect confused with cause, and focussing on a secondary effect as though IT were the mystery being pursued.

    Now, we have the QX. And the theory paper published describes a proposed mechanism that is a bit “out there”, but in presenting it they explain a few little useful bits regarding the specific environment the QX creates. There is a specific correlation between a solid lattice and aspects of that EM environment that may well produce the same required condition for the actual PRIMARY LENR reaction.

    I will leave it to Zephir, Axil, Cash, or any of the other brilliant physics minds to deduce WHY a P&F wet cell, a classical E-Cat, or a QX (operating in PLASMA mode) can produce the same prime reaction. Hint: the plasma does not have any “cracks”…

    • ” low-dimensional collisions in which the degree of freedom of motion for large numbers of Hydrogen atoms are reduced as they are confined by the lattice structure, and random motion is transformed into coherent collective mass/momentum. ”
      ***Sounds like my V1DLLBEC theory. 1 dimensional collisions created inside the lattice, leading to 1D Luttinger Liquids and then 1D BECs. A stacked ball drop in 1D leads to 800% more kinetic energy transfer, so on the atomic level I would expect to see this be 4 or more orders of magnitude.

      • Chapman


        What we DO know is that the primary reaction is being caused by a UNIQUE situation, NOT a common occurrence. The extreme conditions of high H loading in the transitional metal is exactly what we would expect. It is not new physics. It is not a new fundamental force. It is not teleportation!!! But when that state is achieved then certain OTHER things occur, that are just as straightforward and understandable. I could best compare it to the Drake Equation, and compounding improbabilities. It is not a matter of any single impossibly rare circumstance, but rather a series of perfectly reasonable, but improbable, conditions which must occur in the same place, at the same time, to cause the LENR anomaly. From there, we see a whole series of secondary reactions triggered in the surrounding area which are totally dependant upon WHAT ELSE IS FLOATING AROUND. But none of those secondary reactions are earth shattering news either. The truth is that the whole thing is rather straightforward and not such a fantastic discovery after all, but that does not make it any LESS wonderful as a potential energy source, or lesson the wonder at how strange and novel an environment it is that actually sets the stage for the fireworks. The magic is in discovering that what we could not get the fine control to force to happen within a construct the size of a mountain, will nonetheless happily self-organize on the microscopic scale if we just give things a gentle nudge!

        • The DRAKE equation? He postulates that the possibility of surviving chance upgrade to lifeform and surviving evolution is 1/100. Coppedge proved it is far more than 1/10*23 or more, considering that optimal conditions for the formation of life were simply granted.

          • Chapman

            Yeah. I know. And it gets even worse the more we learn!

            But in general I was simply referring to the way a SET of conditions compound the improbabilities for a single possible outcome. As “chances” go, each condition exponentially increases the improbability. LENR does not need to have a world changing physics discovery causing it, it simply requires a number of specific conditions which are unlikely to happen without someone applying deliberate intent. But the underlying physics are old news.

          • Zephir

            /* It is not new physics. It is not a new fundamental force. It is not teleportation! */

            There is hidden secret in quantum entanglement due to its shielding mechanism – the long chains of strictly collinear particles get entangled and condense way more intensively than these randomly scattered ones. This is really new physics.

            All other mechanisms of cold fusion, like the astroblaster/Mossbauer effect or electron shielding can be deduced from classical physics though.

        • Zephir

          /* EXCELLENT Video link! A really great example of shared energy */

          The astroblaster videos were linked here many times, for example here and here

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Could coherent Fröhlich oscillations in microtubules be
    initiating LENRs in yeast? We discussed this before.

  • Axil Axil

    ​Researchers from Crete have just discovered that if a polariton BEC is squeezed between two metallic contacts, and excited by applying a tiny voltage pulse over these contacts they could change the spin state of the condensate. Because all particles in a BEC occupy the same quantum state, the whole BEC responds in unison, assuming one of the two spin states, up or down. This process operates like a memory cell, and the information is kept in the spin state. This sounds like a possible LENR activation stimulant that might apply to the Quark reactor.

    They use extremely low power in the voltage pulse to switch the optical state. The switch is actually bistable. The voltage is only required to switch the device between states, and the total energy required is just 0.8 femtojoule.

    The other find was that the light emitted by the polariton BEC demonstrates clarity of the optical signal. This signal has a pure, 100-percent polarization state, in contrast to spintronics, where you have both states, and one state is stronger than the other, This switch mechanism might be a result of the KERR effect.

    The activation stimulus changes the magnetic nature of the polariton BEC so that it emits a pure monopole magnetic beam. A typical polariton lasts for just a few picoseconds so this activation signal must be reapplied at a rate that can activate the new polaritons as they a reformed.

    Another indicator that the Quark reactor is using this polariton activation process is the nature of the light that it emits. If the light that the Quark reactor emits is in a pure, 100-percent polarization state​, we know that Rossi is using a polariton BEC in the Quark reactor and a high frequency low powered activation signal.

  • Zephir

    IMO at least four mechanisms participate on cold fusion the most: the Astroblaster effect and quantum entanglement/condensation within oriented low-dimensional particle lattices, the electron shielding and metallization of hydrogen in hydrides. The hydroton theory fullfills at least three aspects from above.

    Prof. Storms theory is interesting as it’s based on observation of neutron production from superconductors, which are materials which highly oriented and densely packed electron orbitals around hole stripes, which are packed with fast moving electrons. Also in connection with fusion within Piantelli’s whiskers, which are crystals formed by single large dislocation. But it can be hardly applied to all cold fusion systems observed, the plasma based systems in particular. It’s just an important piece in the puzzle. But now we need more experiments – we have more theories of cold fusion than coherent experimental results.

  • georgehants

    Forgetting the nuts and bolts arguments that go on all the time, some commenters seem to be unaware of the Fact that everything is Quantum at base, classical physics is just a higher level restricted observation of the Quantum reality.
    It can be well compared to Newtons gravitational work and Einsteins discovery of the deeper reality below.
    Classical physics (like Newton) is fine for general applied basic, rough and ready work in many cases, but is of completely no use in describing the reality leading to those observations.
    Research at last is ongoing into that Quantum reality and one day hopefully work will begin on what reality lies beneath that Quantum reality.

    • Zephir

      /* everything is Quantum at base, classical physics is just a higher level restricted observation of the Quantum reality */

      In dense aether model the classical physics dominates the observable reality – the quantum and relativistic scales are derived from it and they represent only narrow slices / distance scales of observable reality. The reality which lies beneath relativistic / quantum reality is actually merely classical one (in dense aether model it’s an geometric/moire effect of highly dimensional observer interfering with otherwise random space-time fluctuations).

      • georgehants

        Zephir, the last hope denials of those materialistic flat Earthers, No classical theory can account for all the observed anomalies of QM.
        I am open-minded to any other theory that will explain every Quantum observation if it where to appear.
        In the meanwhile I will forget the theories and just concentrate on the confirmed observations, that at present put the Quantum into a World of it’s own.

        • Zephir

          /* No classical theory can account for all the observed anomalies of QM. */

          The hydrodynamics analogs already exist for most aspects of quantum mechanics: double slit experiment, tunneling, orbitals, Zeeman effect.

          At the moment, when we have derived complete hydrodynamic analogy of Schrodinger equation, then we just can wonder, which quantum mechanics phenomena cannot be simulated with Schrodinger equation.

          • georgehants

            Zephir, again you are describing a theory not experimentation that confirms the
            de Broglie–Bohm theory, I have already said I am open and ready to except any theory that is proven to account for all the anomalies of QM, in the meanwhile QM stands in complete contradiction of what we except as materialistic classical physics.
            Nuff said

          • Zephir

            DeBroglie theory is just based on hydrodynamics, deBroglie was himself an aetherist (which is the reason, why pilot wave theory has been ignored with mainstream physics so long – and it still is…)


    • Alan DeAngelis

      Neils Bohr was aware of Boscovich (1711-1787) and his
      unified field theory.

      • georgehants

        Alan, all good stuff but as I say below only working on the known and confirmed effects of Research can any theory be advanced, at this stage it does not matter what it is called, follow all avenues and the QM guys are advancing fast these days.
        Micro tubules may turn out to be of a pure origin to exploit QM or over time fit into another origin, it at this point does not matter they are way beyond conventional, materialistic science which just opens another door into the unknown.
        One can see with the nuts and bolts approach of Cold Fusion that everybody is working virtually blind but if Experiments continue to unearth anomalies they will either fit QM predictions (if we knew enough about QM to give predictions) or point toward another theory.
        At this time it does not matter but many predictions from what we do know about QM are turning out to be correct.
        Three Experiments That Show Quantum Physics Is Real

  • Axil Axil

    Valley-Polarized Exciton-Polaritons in a Monolayer Semiconductor

    Polariton condinsates come in two orientations, either with spins pointing in both the up or down orientation or with spins pointing in either the up or down orientation. Only one of these spin polariton orientation types as are capable of producing the EMR reaction. Only polaritons that have had their spins aligned using the KERR effect in a single up or down orientation are LENR active,

    Unlike traditional microcavity exciton-polaritons, these spin aligned light-matter quasiparticles emit polarized light with spectral Rabi splitting.

    This requirement is why the LENR reaction must be activated using a EMF based simulation process that allines the spin of the polariton condinsate in a single direction.

    A light emitting LENR reaction will emit polarized light with spectral Rabi splitting.

    In addition, as a prediction, that 10mm light that Mills uses as a proof of the hydrino theory will be found to polarized with spectral Rabi splitting.

  • Gerard McEk

    According to Rossi things do not seem to work as Storms says:

    Gerard McEk
    August 20, 2017 at 11:08 AM
    Dear Andrea,
    During a while now I have been wondering how it can be that you are able to get nuclear reactions in a plasma, as described in your and Carl-Oskar Gullström latest paper. Circumstances seem similar to hot fusion, only the temperature is many orders of magnitudes less. Most metals you are using are in vapor in your reactor, so ‘solid state physics’ seems impossible.
    1. Do you still think reactions are taking place in the lattice of a metal or some metals?
    The circumstances of the reaction in the E-cat and the E-cat QX seem to differ a lot. In the past, you said that the reaction would stop if the nickel would melt. Now you are operating it in vaporized nickel.
    2. Do you still believe that both types of reactors are functioning on the same principles?
    I hope that you can answer this in general terms.
    3. If not, will you explain these apparent differences between the two reactor types during/after your demonstration in October?
    Thank you.
    Kind regards, Gerard

    Andrea Rossi
    August 20, 2017 at 1:26 PM
    Gerard McEk:1- the thing is not as you describe and I cannot give more information
    2- yes
    Warm Regards

    • Axil Axil


      It is not true that the Rossi plasma in the Quark reactor has no lattice. Rossi provides a secret additive to this plasma and that additive produces the lattice needed to support the LENR reaction.

      That additive is a metal whose boiling point is at or just under the 2700C operating temperature of the Quark. The boiling point of that metal provides a setpoint for that Quark reactor’s operating temperature and controls how hot that temperature can get through its solid vapor transition temperature.

      Like snow, water vapor will condense into ice at 0C, Chromium with a vaporization point of 2670C seems to be the best fit to set the Quarks operation temperature at 2700C. That operating temperature can be adjusted by replacing Chromium with another metal with either a higher or lower vaporization point.

      At the vaporization temperature of the secret metal additive, nanoparticles of that metal with form when the temperature drops below the operating temperature. The LENR reaction will stop when the secret metal additive boils off and then there is no Lattice( nanoparticles) to drive the LENR reaction forward.

      • Gerard McEk

        Thanks Axil for your response. I would think that not the vaporization point but the (just below-) melting point would be the temperature that is needed for vorming a lattice. Can you explain?
        How do you see the in my view remarkable differences between the E-cat and E-cat QX? Would the same mechanism that you describe also work for the E-cat?

        • Gerard McEk

          BTW, Rossi seems to deny that lattice plays a role: “It is not as you describe”…

        • Axil Axil

          In the low temperature E-Cat, the mechanism for producing polaritons is mostly cracks and bumps in the lattice. There is also nanoparticles and microparticles involved so the LENR mechanism is based on both the crank and bumps in the lattice of large microparticles (greater that 100 micrometers) and the smaller microparticles( a few micrometers) and nanoparticles that produce optical cavities when the touch each other.

          The quark reactor uses just small nanoparticles. that may aggregate to form optical cavities.


        • Axil Axil

          In nanoparticle production there are two methods, a liquid based process and a plasma based process, The melting of a metal corresponds to the liquid process and the vaporization of a metal correspond to the plasma based process. Because Rossi’s reactor is plasma based, the metal additive is vaporizing.

  • P. Oeoht

    Consider volcanic lava flowing along a slope on the surface of the ground for day after day, at about 1 metre per minute, without a source of heat to keep it molten.

    Now consider a ton of molten aluminium applied to an identical slope, also without a source of heat. How long would the Al remain molten? One minute, perhaps!

    One of the standard volcanic temperature anomalies is seen when the temperature of the lava at the mouth of the volcano is found to be significantly LOWER than that up to 100 metres down the lave stream.

    • Eirik

      Volcanic rock is porus, thus insulates well. Lower potential energy (100m) gives higher thermal energy (temperature)

      • P. Oeoht

        Until someone investigates anomalous heat of volcanic lava, we won’t know where the heat comes from. What has not been looked at is whether the origin of the heat is the lava itself.

  • LION
  • Zephir

    Binuclear Atoms: a model to explain Low Energy Nuclear Reactions In this paper Paolo Accomazzi shows that Helium-like Hydrogen spectra obtained by Randell L. Mills and Ultra Dense Hydrogen obtained by Holmlid are interpretable as experimental evidences of Binuclear Atoms. “The Hydrogen Binuclear Atom, a model proposed 25 years ago, is a metastable configuration in which the two nuclei are held together at a very short distance in an atom-like configuration.”