Quality in (working) “free” energy devices
    Steorn O-Cube R.I.P

    china imagesI’ve been having the odd discussions outside R-G with some selected people (notably Jones Beene and Abd ul-Rahman Lomax) on the subject of LENR, Mills and others, and maybe the last one would make a nice discussion-piece here. You’re of course welcome to say this proposal is cr@p and that you don’t believe any of the experimental results, but I figure there are too many experimental results that are unimpeachable and from honest researchers to ignore. Something nuclear does happen at energy-levels much lower than normal nuclear processes and there appears to be little nuclear radiation in the process. The conditions under which it happens are however so far uncertain, and we’ve only found conditions under which it sometimes happens. I think Mills has seen LENR but won’t admit it since it would destroy the basis of his patents, and I don’t think Mills is either crazy, fraudulent or all wrong. Maybe a bit set on trying to impose his theory onto Nature rather than seeing where the evidence leads – sometimes that works out but ignoring the contrary evidence is never a good idea. Parkhomov’s initial report had errors, and the improved results from collaboration and better measurement are not as astounding, but things do seem to be getting clearer there that his method does have both excess heat and isotopic changes. Leif Holmlid has been going his own way for years and the only references in his new papers are basically to his previous ones, yet the results seem pretty good though I may disagree with the interpretations at times. So far no replications of Holmlid.

    Here I’m trying to put forward ideas that synthesise the results I feel reasonably sure are real, and to put forward some explanation. There’s very little new physics here, with just a bit of extrapolation of what we already know to explain Shrunken Hydrogen and how to make it. This can be tested by experiment and the specific spectroscopic signature will either show this as true or disprove it.



    initial points:
    1: Mills’ non-radiative transfers of energy could make sense. If the Hydrino/fractional Hydrogen/whatever name you wish is instead a state where the s-orbital is multi-lobed and in a higher energy-state, and is physically too small to produce a photon of the energy it has in excess over the ground state, then it is in that state until it can pass that energy on by collision. Basically, the smaller the aerial, the shorter the wave that can be transmitted. I’ll call this state Shrunken Hydrogen, which isn’t trademarked. The critical difference is that I regard Shrunken Hydrogen as a higher-energy state than ground state. To make it, you have to put energy in. I’m proposing that the s-orbital becomes a tetrahedral arrangement of 4 positive-phase lobes (and 4 negative-phase) which are physically each a lot smaller than the original orbital. The actual size should be calculable. There should also be higher-energy analogues of this with more lobes, but if we’re going to make a lattice of this stuff then only the cubic-symmetry version (6 lobes of each polarity) would actually do anything.

    2: Holmlid used lasers to raise the energy-levels of his Hydrogen. Mix two laser beams in a non-linear substrate and you get sum and difference terms. Possibly the sum term is sufficient to push the Hydrogen orbital into a higher state, or there is a “stepladder” to get there of intermediate energy levels. However, it would be better to use one wave of the correct frequency, and for this we should maybe look to the Mills catalyst list and use a Potassium lamp with a low-enough concentration that the ions can gain the necessary 100+eV in the mean-free-path of the ions. This will probably be a pretty high-voltage tube, and maybe a better match than Potassium can be found. The necessary spread-spectrum to achieve exactly the right frequency somewhere in the range can be achieved by heating the tube and using the random velocity vectors and Döppler effect to get at least some photons of the exactly-right energy value. The closer the ionisation energy is to the “correct” value, though, the lower the temperature of the bulb needs to be and the more useful photons are produced.

    3: This EUV then needs to impinge on a lattice – maybe Nickel Hydride. This will probably need to be electrically-loaded to keep the Hydrogen where we want it, but pre-loaded material could work if you use enough pressure to keep it in the lattice. If the energy-quantum is correct, then the Hydrogen will absorb it and shrink. If there is enough Shrunken Hydrogen in close proximity in the lattice, then the new multilobed orbitals should result in tetrahedral 4-atom molecules of these shrunken Hydrogen atoms. The tetrahedron should have a central negative charge with the four nuclei being somewhat positive.

    4: How these tetrahedra then fuse is currently up for grabs. I’d suspect that the vibrations of the corners will be an accelerated charge which will radiate, and the larger size of the tetrahedron would allow a lower-energy photon to be produced. Each emitted photon would reduce the size and increase the frequency of the oscillation, so I would expect a “chirp” of increasing frequency from the relatively-long time it would take to collapse. This time would be of the order of thousands to tens of thousands of cycles with maybe 0.1% to 0.01% of the available binding energy emitted at each cycle. End-point when two electrons join with two protons to form neutrons (plus neutrino emitted) and we get Helium. Starting with 4 nucleons, that is the only stable nucleus. That might explain the general lack of Tritium production, neutrons, or other radiation other than  heat. We should be able to calculate the actual energy of the photons emitted (OK, someone should be able to but I can’t) from the mass and the shape of the potential well that is holding the tetrahedron together. If we go up to the 6-lobed Shrunken Hydrogen by putting more energy in in the first place, then we’d produce 6Li 8Be instead of Helium. (Note: edited here since a cube has 8 corners. Doh…. 8Be would disintegrate to 4He and some energy so we’d only see 4He as a result.)

    It also seems possible that this could happen in a gas tube where Hydrogen and the catalyst are mixed and run as a plasma. The difficulty there is getting the mean-free-path long enough to get enough eV in to kick the Hydrogen into the non-radiative higher-energy state. It might also run without the catalyst, with the same proviso of the difficulty of getting a long-enough mean-free-path. Still, the lattice would provide more confinement and thus increase the chances of the tetrahedron being formed. The material for the lattice should _not_ be a Mills catalyst, since that would allow the shrunken Hydrogen to lose its energy by collision. If this works, then we should see spectrographic evidence of Helium and maybe 6Li produced in the gas.

    If the Hydrogen, once shrunken, can only release that energy by collision to another atom that has an ionisation-level within a small delta of the correct energy, then once made it can be stored for some time, which matches Holmlid’s findings. The long initiation-time of P+F’s experiments can also maybe be explained this way, in that there will be a Boltzmann-like distribution of photon energies produced and there will be a small proportion at the relevant levels to shrink the Hydrogen. Once enough has accumulated to get a chance of 4 of these meeting each other (maybe as 2 shrunken H2 molecules) then we’d start to see a reaction. Any sharp change of voltage/current will produce more high-frequency photons, thus the natural bubbles produced would be important as well.

    If this is a reasonable explanation, we need to think of why we don’t see these shrunken Hydrogen atoms all over the place – they would show in spectroscopy. Notably, Mills sees the spectrum in cosmology, and there I could expect the mean-free-path and the voltage gradients to be sufficient. In life on Earth, though, achieving that high energy level is a little difficult and there will be a lot of collisions, with Sodium (another Mills catalyst) and Potassium available wherever humans are. Maybe therefore the lack of spectroscopic signatures is not so much of a problem.

    Is it possible to bend this explanation to cope with Brillouin’s results? Maybe yes, since his Q-pulse would produce some very high potential gradients and the particles can amplify that voltage-gradient, so even in a short mean-free-path we could get enough eVs to hit the correct value. I think Brillouin have good results but problems in scaling-up, since a bigger aerial won’t transmit the highest frequencies he’d need to get the voltage-gradient for long-enough relative to the frequency of collision.

    For Parkhomov and perhaps Rossi, a black-body radiator will produce all frequencies, with a pretty small number (but calculable) at the correct energy. Run it hotter and you get more of them. If the other ingredients are right, you’ll accumulate shrunken Hydrogen after a while and get more heat (and Helium) out of the system. Hard to catch the Helium in Parkhomov’s setup, though.

    This explanation may not explain Arata’s experiment, though of course a supply of Shrunken Hydrogen would provide for heat-after-death. I’m not however seeing how it would be made by Arata.

    It’s possible that Mills would see excess heat output, though maybe not at the low voltages he’s currently using (though there may well be inductive effects that make the effective gap voltage much higher than the applied voltage). Here, as in the plasma-tube, he’s got to get the eV high enough to get the Hydrogen shrunken and also needs to ensure that there is enough concentration of it to react with each other, form molecules of shrunken H2 and for two of these molecules to collide and stick. Since that’s looking a bit improbable by now then we need a way to get a high density of Hydrogen in a very-high voltage-gradient. Maybe there’s a possibility of seeing some excess heat, but maybe not at the level claimed and could be a few orders of magnitude smaller. Maybe random jets of gas would be produced and they’d accumulate on some surface and give the result. OK, maybe not….

    Interestingly, Alan Smith was going to run an experiment where, instead of Holmlid’s laser, he intended to use a common Sodium lamp. I haven’t asked him the results of that. If the explanation above is close, then I’d expect a null result, but there’s maybe a way he could modify it at the expense of possibly blowing a bulb. They aren’t expensive…. Drive it from a flyback coil in the region of 35kV rather than 110V, and if the envelope doesn’t filter out the EUV it just might work better.

    We have a lot of jigsaw pieces. It’s possible that the above explanation gives us an outline of the picture so we can fill in a few more bits. I’ve built a lot of maybes on the back of the published data from Mills, Holmlid and Parkhomov, but then that’s what these sorts of discussions are supposed to do. Some of the above ideas might even be right….

    Open for discussion!


    Quality in (working) “free” energy devices
    Steorn O-Cube R.I.P