Replicating the Holmlid Effect
This page is meant to be a growing resource for those who wish to attempt to replicate the Holmlid Effect using hobbyist science. If you are aware of beneficial information to add to this page, please comment. Many thanks to Jones Beene whose idea it was to start this resource and the first to promote the idea of this research focus.
In this page, we will discuss potential alternative methods for producing the Holmlid Effect, which is said to involve ultra-dense hydrogen and deuterium (UDH and UDD).
First, it is helpful to begin with some relevant definitions. Please see this discussion on Vortex-L where Bob Higgins provides some particularly useful definitions.
Proposed Replication Procedures
Some, including myself, have tried including Fe2O3 in E-Cat type replication attempts. There does not appear to be any evidence that this is fruitful in producing excess heat. Jones Beene is working to use a sodium vapor light (because of its high efficiency). He is utilizing a quartz tube, producing hydrogen with titanium hydride, and illuminating the Fe2O3 sample with the sodium vapor light (see Image 1 below for an image of his initial calibration efforts).
An Alternative Framework and Theory (by Jones Beene)
The Holmlid effect can be defined as the creation of an ultra-dense isomer of hydrogen (which is called UDD or UDH) and the subsequent reaction of the species. This species is produced as a clustered ensemble in a compact 2D surface phenomenon – which could end up being identified as a new form of metallic hydrogen (since it has a useful lifetime, unlike the normal version). The densification reaction is accomplished using a catalyst and laser irradiation, following which- the UDD can be further reacted to release excess energy.
This effect at first seems to differ significantly from “cold fusion” or LENR in that the laser pulse is extremely hot at its focus, so there is nothing cold about it. Not only that, the energy released apparently consists of a large component of muons, which if true, implies complete nucleon disintegration, which is more energetic than any kind of nuclear fusion. The practical drawback would be that muons are weakly interacting, and most of their energy is dispersed away from the reactor, where it decays to neutrinos and an electron, and normally avoids capture.
Despite the obvious differences, there are ways to rationalize LERN as being a less-efficient form of the Holmlid effect. Not only that, the Holmlid effect is also similar to the Mills’ effect, which involves a progression of redundant ground states, but happening for Holmlid all at once instead of in stages. We can save that argument for another time and proceed with the aim of understanding as much as possible about the effect – either a straight replication, or by manipulating the parameters.
Many who look at this strange effect have very different views on the details. The slant of this particular analysis is that the most important modality for the effect is SPP – surface plasmons polaritons. This is not the view of Professor Holmlid, nor is it part of Mills’ theory, but it is a composite view originating at NASA which can expand the understanding of all concerned, if accurate. A simple experiment may suffice to show that SPP are at least part of the active modality for energy gain.
SPP are interfacial surface waves that tend to arise from the interaction of photons and electrical current. Thermal (IR) or visible photons interact with electromagnetic waves, which travel along a dielectric interface, or especially condense as localized spin current (ring current) on hexagonal molecules. The SPP wave involves a set of interacting circumstances whereby a relatively long wavelength photon flux becomes focused as if in a swirling vortex to a focal point which is three orders of magnitude more compressed. The vortex can be thought of as ultimately providing the compression of hydrogen orbitals far below ground state. There is a good analogy to the EMP – a transient burst of electromagnetic energy of surprising intensity.
SPP do not require heat, only photons and electrons, with heat being counter-productive. In the “glow tube” type of reactor of Parkhomov, incandescence due to temperatures well above 1000 C supplies the IR photons for SPP – but they could in principle be made elsewhere and focused into a relatively cold reactor as a coherent beam (Holmlid’s laser) or as intense monochromatic light such as in the experiment to be presented here.
Incandescence is notoriously inefficient – typically 4% which means the other 96% of heat in the glow tube is superfluous and essentially wasted. Holmlid has a large COP using a milliwatt laser but scale-up is the problem, and it is solvable by going to monochromatic light. If focused photons irradiate a translucent reactor, the reactor would heat up of course, especially if there is resultant gain – but you wouldn’t have to deal with the 96% of the input heat that you do not need, but cannot avoid. It could then be possible to see gain in the low temp range of 250 C, which is consistent with Arata and other experiments which benefit from phase-change in hydrogen loaded nickel. Gain at 100 C is possible.
The first image is a shot of a calibration run looking down the chimney of a low cost reactor fabricated of mirrored foil. The sodium vapor lamp is on the right and the quartz tube reactor is on the left both standing about 30 cm tall. Eighty volts AC and .15 amp (less than 12 watts) are used to produce an intense flux of monochromatic photons. If SPP cause any reaction in the fuel inside the quartz tube, then this approach should be hundreds of times more efficient than incandescence – to supply the photons required.
An iron-oxide catalyst is activated (absorbs) at 585 nm or 2.1 eV which is close to where sodium vapor emits (a low pressure sodium lamp is naturally monochromatic at 580 nm.
Caveat: if SPP are not contributory as an active modality of LENR, then all of this is misdirected. My feeling is that SPP forming UDD in the context of Holmlid’s work and using some of Mills theory plus the Letts/Cravens effect – is the best explanation for gain. Mills may have missed the superlative feature of hematite as a catalyst having nano-magnetics properties, a dielectric with local conductivity around a hexagonal nanostructure to provide ring-current and photoelectric properties.
This simple setup can be referred to as “tanning-booth reactor” and uses no resistance wire, a big departure from Parkhomov, and a transparent low pressure container for fuel. There is no resistance heater to burn out or thermocouples to fry. If the laser is effective for the Holmlid effect and the Letts/Cravens effect because of coherent light at a resonant frequency, then monochromatic photons could also work, if the wavelength is resonant. That is a remise to be testedd A magnetic field from NIB magnets has been added under the quartz tube, and this would be impossible at elevated temperature. Once activated, the fuel could provide a continuous source of power for a significant period – thus full calorimetry can be delayed in search of the so-called “heat after death” phenomenon… which is close to solid proof of an anomaly, if it continues for a sufficient time.
Bottom line: if the SPP theory/modality is relevant, then energy gain of a simplified system should be seen at low temperature and in the form of continuous heat output after an extended loading stage. If not, move on to more sophisticated calorimetry but an ideal outcome would be to predict residual self-heating with no input – design the simplest system for accomplishing that, and document the result over a significant period. In keeping with Jack Cole’s precedent of fully documenting both unsuccessful and successful experiments, null reports will be published.
The larger hope is that this will inspire others to look for evidence supporting or clarifying the Holmlid effect in a number of ways, leading to a better understanding.