Nothing is better than field notes from observers of nature and its
ecologies. The jewel in this report is a big part of the solution to cold
fusion. It answers the question of how is the apparent energy of cold fusion
disseminated broadly instead of being locally destructive. That this layer
of UDD is able to withstand the laser, for more time than it ought to, is
quite sufficient evidence of the energy distribution characteristic of UDD,
and of the miracle CF clearly displays. We've known since Martin and Stan
showed it to be, nearly 30 years ago, that UDD is formed, they called it
high 'fugacity' but it is the same state. 


The high fugacity deuterium, HFD/HDD, is very much more flexible to the thin
layer of UDD in this work as it can and surely does exist in a variety of
bulk atom-ecologies. Clearly in some of those special atom ecosystems we
find cold fusion becomes prevalent. By the way such HFD is stable as Martin
used to say being 'gamma phase'.  In my work when sono-loaded palladium was
packed with HFD that HFD remained indefinitely stable as was evidenced in
x-ray diffraction studies of said material carried out by premier national
lab colleagues on the samples they assisted me in hands on effort to produce
on demand for them. Well not all of it was 'stable' as a great deal of it
was observed to have transformed into 4He deep inside the bulk metal. In
those helium rich ecologies the meta, palladium,  indeed was melted and
vapourized , but nearby the HFD/HDD remained in the less active sonofusion


From: [] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 4:59 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge




I had a similar question as to a measure of the energy produced by the laser
and the temperature of the material under the D protective coating. 


The following questions arise:

1.      Can H form the same protective coating?  
2.      Does the UDD have spin equal to 1  with its magnetic moment that
will not respond to the laser input?  I doubt it.
3.      Could the UDD be an  assemblage of Cooper pairs  with anti-parallel
spin  equal to 0 or a  BEC that reflects the laser photons?
4.      Are there minute impurities in the UDD that do absorb some of the
laser energy  and eventually get the UDD composite hot enough to come apart?
5.      Does the energy of the laser get transformed into potential energy
of the Cooper pairs suggested above during the long irradiation period?-
6.      Does increasing the power of the laser beam reduce the time required
to "blast thru" the protective coat  of UDD?
7.      How does a change of laser frequency change the results?



Bob Cook












From: Dave Roberson <> 
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:03 AM
To: <> 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge


I just read the article and was left wondering whether or not the hydrogen
deposited upon the surface of the metal made it much more reflective at the
frequency of the laser.  That might explain why it took so much longer to
cut the metal.  Does anyone know whether or not the actual energy deposited
by the laser was measured?




Sent from Mail <>  for Windows


From: JonesBeene <> 
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2018 10:25 PM
To: <> 
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Cold fusion research reported at Oak Ridge



This is good to see. 


I remember Mike from a few years ago. He is certainly diligent and
determined to find answers.  It is great to see that he has focused on
Holmlid - who is drawing experimenters because he offers a perspective that
is unique in a number of ways. 


Holmlid's work  is similar enough to Mills, for instance to give theoretical
credibility while also being different enough to allow easier replication.
Holmlid's recent patent application is almost a "how-to" since it discloses
almost every relevant detail of making UDD - unlike Mills who makes his
disclosures  as difficult as possible to replicate. 


The knock on Holmlid had been lack of independent replication. Now it looks
like that may change. One decent replication and the entire field can be
revived. New game.


But at least in this thread, it bears repeating that there are disruptive
technologies which may be best left to rot on the vine. at least so long as
there are terrorists out there. Not sure if UDD is one of those or not. But
Pandora's box is already open so there is no turning back on UDD.




From: Axil Axil <> 


Holmlid replicator


JonesBeene wrote:


Do "dark projects" exist in the National Labs? Of course they do. And a few
dark projects undoubtedly derive from disparaged civilian experiments or
uncrednetialed or cranky inventors. An example is the Hollywood actress who
invented Spread Spectrum technology but never got a dime from the Pentagon.

It's obvious that several National Labs have a strong  interest in the
complete understanding of cold fusion. If it is nuclear and if it is real,
then it is part of their mission.  They also have a long history of
nondisclosure -  a reflexive "top secret" stamp on the most mundane R&D.
This was engrained before the cold war.  All of the above is true, but it
does not imply that cold fusion can be weaponized or that any Lab is hiding

Yet, it is a fair appraisal to say that if cold fusion is real, then a
related dark project already exists in which important science may have been
learned but which is not in the public record. Only if cold fusion is bad
science would it be truly  ignored, and worse: it would be a likely ploy for
someone well-connected (Garwin?) to say it is bad science, if the motive is
to keep secrets deeply hidden. 

Remember the story (probably true) that the great Teller (co-founder of
LLNL) after first hearing about the cold fusion breakthrough in 1989 called
Fleischman and essentially had only one question - "can you make a bomb out
of it?" Teller got a "no" for an answer but that was probably not the
end-of-story. The fact that the Navy and NASA allowed a bit of R&D to be
published on LENR also means little - the information  could have been part
of a larger ploy where someone was metaphorically throwing the dogs a bone.
Look at it this way: there is always a downside to complete disclosure (from
the perspective of Labs which do military research) whereas the only
downside to secrecy is to delay civilian implementation. That may not be a
bad thing as there are a few types of disruptive technology which are
probably best to ignore.

Fast forward almost 30 years from Teller's inquiry and another detail
emerges that could be more ominous, assuming that "dense deuterium" is real
(but acknowledging that there is no public proof that it is real). If dense
deuterium exists as a resource for energy, then the answer to the original
inquiry would take a U-turn to: "yes, a few ounces of UDD should make one
hell of a compact explosive". Nobody really wants to hear that, other than

In fact, it could be the beginning of the end (for "civilization") if true.
not just the end of CO2 but the end of us. Planet of the Apes - here we

So, are we better off to continue to act ignorant as far as proliferation is
concerned -  or do we try to become proactive at some level? That is a very
difficult question since there are probably only a handful of researchers at
Los Alamos, Oak Ridge or LLNL who actually know the true answer to the cold
fusion enigma (assuming that it is not "pathological science" from the
start). They are unlikely to ever be talking about it. 

Anyway, the reason that Holmlid has not been replicated on UDD could be that
he is operating in the realm of self-delusion and never had what he thought
he had. He would be in good company there. In a way, it may be best if this
null assessment is accurate and there is no such thing as UDD, at least not
a resource which can be used for energy. It is impossible to have it both
ways - cheap energy at no risk of weaponization. 

Wind farms and solar cells may have to suffice as the best we can do in
clear energy  for the next few decades. But hey - that's not so bad. You
can't weaponize a wind mill (unless your name is Cervantes).

It bears repeating that a few types of disruptive technology are probably
best left to rot on the vine. at least so long as there are terrorists out









Reply via email to