Very interesting presentation this morning. Ólafsson was both low key and
optimistic that Holmlid is onto something important. Alan Goldwater also
presented his open source work on the basic glow reactor of Rossi/Parkhomov.
At first glance, there would appear to be no connection between the two …
but read on.

Holmlid is clearly the lead individual on the dense hydrogen phenomenon and
Ólafsson is interpreting his work going back to 2008 and before. However,
most of the proof is by process of elimination. This will be even more
controversial than cold fusion until proven. Again, what was demonstrated is
NOT cold fusion and not really hot fusion either. Copious amounts of
radiation would expected in such a laser driven reaction when it gets up to
the kilowatt level of thermal gain. Now it is subwatt. 

However, in different circumstances (electrolysis) the same reactant (which
is dense deuterium clusters) could explain P&F cold fusion, and explain the
lack of radiation in circumstances where a laser does not disintegrate the
reactant. IOW, there can be a range of circumstances– all involving dense
deuterium bound at a few picometers separation - where other outcomes are
expected: other than disintegration to mesons -> pions -> muons etc. With
the laser as the input power, when a deuteron disintegrates in a laser
pulse, over 900 MeV or ~ 40 times MORE energy is released than in fusion !

There were about 35 people in attendance including  a few heavy hitters who
prefer not to be identified. The venue is a stone’s throw from Sand Hill
Road. A video crew filmed the whole thing. Holmlid apparently wants to call
the phenomenon “Cold Spallation” but I think that is a bad choice, since it
does not look like nuclear spallation as we know it. And there is nothing
cold about the output. BTW – Ólafsson said that calling the Rydberg matter
“inverted” (in the paper with Miley) was not accurate.

The only thing needed now is replication. 

A professor whose name I did not catch (San Jose State ?) has been trying to
replicate LH but has not been successful. Holmlid recently told him that the
dense hydrogen takes several weeks to accumulate, and has an extended shelf
life thereafter. That seems to me to be the main takeaway lesson  ** weeks
to accumulate **. 

As I recall, a few years back, there was a message where Rossi mentioned
that his supplier in Italy required months to make a batch of active
reactant. Could it be that Rossi has been inadvertently getting dense
hydrogen all along?

The presentation of Alan Goldwater was very impressive. I am confident that
if and when Alan announces thermal gain in a Rossi style reactor – we can
believe it. That has not happened yet but he is very methodical and
dedicated. Like many others including myself, he accepts Bob Higgins
downgraded assessment of the Lugano report (slight gain – perhaps COP~1.2
see Bob’s white paper).

I encouraged Alan – in light of Olafsson’s presentation - to consider a
2-stage or compound system where he would manufacture the dense deuterium
separately from the reactor where it is to be converted to heat. At first he
seemed dubious that two steps would be required – in order to merge
Holmlid’s results with Rossi. But this strategy would allow a very low
powered continuous laser to accumulate the dense material over time. The
ideal situation, if one wishes to avoid radiation toxicitym seems to be: do
NOT to use a fast pulse intense laser to convert dense deuterium into heat
(this assumes there does exist the radiation-free route to convert it to

IMO - It will be very difficult to continuously resupply the dense Rydberg
matter in situ (in the same reactor it is being burnt in) and not see
harmful radiation. It can be done at the subwatt level, but those two
processes are fundamentally in conflict – especially when you get to high

Reply via email to