The ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post)

The ZPED theory below by Jones Beene lends support to my own relativistic solution for the recent claims of  energy amplification by Italian researchers Rossi and Foccardi. the theory is only recently introduced on the vortex-l forumn.  http:[email protected]/msg43780.html

Although I agree with most of what Jones Beene writes below my position is that many of the non nuclear or hybrid theories like Mills’, Rossi or Haisch – Moddel depend on an ashless reaction as the predominant source of energy. Many contend that energy extraction from ZPE  violates the  first law of thermodynamics but this is because the first law assumes ZPE is too chaotic to be exploited. These claims of anomalous heat, IMHO, represent an interim ashless -ZPE- step to any of the nuclear paths being proposed. What Puthoff and others refer to as vacuum engineering or vacuum energy suppression provides a loophole to this assumption upon which a Heisenberg trap could be based.  The amount of ash seen in these experiments does not seem to be in keeping with the amount of energy released. The theory Jones presents below is itself a hybrid between nuclear and Zero Point energy where decay is “enhanced” by change in energy density / supression. this theory still results in an exchange of mass for energy in a manner which I completely agree with but still remain convinced that energy can also be directly harvested from zero point energy without decay or conversion of mass. I am alone in seeing a connection between spontaneous emission, pyrophoricity and radioactivity, Although the first two are not radioactive I propose that they are all a result of energy balancing  between a Puthoof atomic model ground state and vacuum energy density. Rapid changes in energy density are associated with catalytic action (pores in skeletal catalysts and nano powders) , spontaneous emission of photons and anomalous half life decays (cavity supression). My point is that these imbalances don’t have to result in radioactive decay but rather the ground state could alter the energy density or propell the atom between different densities given the proper environment (nano powder or skeletal cat) .

ZPED theory of quasi-nuclear gain (long post) Jones Beene
Sat, 19 Mar 2011 11:37:47 -0700

This concept has "a new kind of chain reaction" at the heart of a
complicated theory known as ZPED - zero point enhanced decay. Several
related old posts have been revised and included here for convenience.

Many observers have become increasingly open to the suggestion that what
Andrea Rossi has discovered, serendipitously and possibly unknown to
himself, can be characterized as a critical mass. "of something" operating
for large non-chemical gain, with mild radioactivity. Obviously, the
'something' is not directly related to nuclear fission, since neutrons are

The most puzzling detail is the lack of sufficient radioactivity to account
for the excess heat. However, energy from nuclear decay or isomeric
transition (IT) can be involved at a secondary level, if most of it can be
coupled to an exchange mechanism with the zero point field. This overall
modality is related to a physical mass of reactants, but it could easily be
leaning towards having additional intangible considerations - which casts
everything into a different light. 

Rather than change the well-known phrase 'critical mass' to the more
precise: 'critical accumulation' (in order to accommodate intangible
considerations) it seems prudent merely to acknowledge that this process is
not directly connected to standard uranium fission, except metaphorically;
but it does demand threshold levels of at least one variable and possibly

The important behavior of the underlying system becomes "emergent" - in the
way Ball describes in Critical Mass - How one thing leads to another, which
is online at Google Books. This does not delve deeply enough into quantum
mechanics to be helpful in the precise pursuit (explaining Andrea Rossi's
E-Cat discovery). However, the insight on emergent systems is helpful for
those who do not appreciate how a large jump in gain can arrive in such a
surprising way. The irony here is that QM and critical mass are antithetical
on one level of understanding - the small juxtaposed to the large.

One intangible consideration in the operation of any quantum mechanical
process is that 'probability' itself, in the sense of 'correlation fields,'
is responsive to accumulation - and/or to 'trigger' levels (leading to
emergent behavior) in systems which depend on a flux of
neutrons-substitutes, which will be called a "vector". A moderately high
stable temperature is one such trigger or vector, which operates to maximize
stress within nanocavities.

'Probability' is also found at the underlying level of 'critical mass' via
neutron interaction (fission chain reaction), but in this new form it is
related to the zero point field in two steps. There is a secondary,
accelerated nuclear decay (an isomeric conversion or a weak force reaction)
which can seem at first to be primary, without looking at all the clues. 

This process is mediated by a dense form of hydrogen known as 'pycno'. This
hypothesis is the merger of QM, cavity QED, and Casimir mechanics with
mainstream nuclear reactions, and it will lead to a theory called ZPED, or
zero point enhanced decay. The ultimate energy source is the atomic nucleus.
Let's make that clear, even though the way it arrives is not straightforward
and involves quantum mechanics, time shifting, and two distinct stages. Here
are specific details:

There is an unusual subset of heavy elements - four elements in the periodic
table which are heavier (in a.m.u.) than the next element above them in the
table. For instance, element 92 is heavier than element 93. There appears to
be only four such elements in this category.

As you might imagine (even not knowing the identity of the four) this
characteristic could be strongly indicative of nuclear instability. The
first three are quite well-known as the elements involved in nuclear
fission: thorium, uranium and plutonium. 

The 'nuclear fission' common denominator of these elements is a "too-heavy"
atomic mass, comparatively, and this property might indicate that the fourth
element in this grouping is heavy enough to have its decay rate altered.
However, this lesser known element is not known to undergo fission via
neutron capture, as are the three above - and it does not participate in a
chain reaction. At least not a chain reaction which is vectored by neutrons.
It is also the lightest of the four. It is also a singularity in having the
highest spread of atomic weight between its lowest and highest stable
isotope of any element. 

Does that make it special in any way for a new kind of nuclear reaction, not
involving neutrons as the active modality, but possibly involving another
vector such as "pycno", f/H or IRH (inverted Rydberg hydrogen) or other
names which were once more closely identified with the Mills' hydrino?

This fourth element is tellurium - element 52. It is best known in the
compound bismuth-telluride, used in thermoelectrics, or cadmium telluride in
photovoltaics. It is photoactive and tends to form into 2D layers in a way
that seems to mirror the dense hydrogen state - pycno which is also 2D.
"Topologically protected surface states" are the important 2D feature of
bismuth telluride. In the presence of spillover hydrogen, this points
directly towards the critical operative mechanism of the E-Cat device.
To help in understanding how "topologically protected surface states" might
relate to a new kind of sequential nuclear reaction of tellurium, it can be
helpful to start with the information on:
A topological insulator is a material that behaves as an thermal insulator
in its interior while permitting the movement of charges on its boundary. In
fact bismuth-telluride conducts electricity like a metal but conducts heat
poorly - like glass for instance. The internal stress resulting for this
contradictory set of physical properties on bulk bismuth telluride must be
severe. This will create nano-cracking and cavity formation.
On the surface of a topological insulator are special states which fall
within the bulk energy gap to allow good conduction. They also may allow
spillover hydrogen to accumulate via mirror charges and then further densify
in the nanocavities, which are more like nano-pits. Heat is retained in the
pit but not at the surface, providing a high stress-interface.
Once densified, there are many possibilities for excess heat. Those who
favor a nuclear-only pathway might look to the P-e-P reaction as the
aftermath. Some deuterium is expected in the ash. However, there are said to
be no detectable neutrons over background in the E-Cat, and there should be
neutrons with any significant level of fusion.
What is more likely, in my opinion is that the main initial source of heat
is NON-NUCLEAR. This creates an immediate local state of energy depletion,
which can the secondarily result in accelerated decay of a tellurium isotope
in such a way that that there is little remnant radioactivity. The most
likely isotope for this is Tellurium-125m, which should be responsive to
this kind of "balancing the books" scenario. Another unstable isotope -
previously mentioned is Zr-96, but bismuth telluride may best frame this
In either case, the "IT" kind of energy shedding may predominate. An
"isomeric transition" is a radioactive decay process that involves emission
of energy from a nucleus in a metastable state, referred to in an excited
state or deformed nucleus. There can be few traces of transmutation, when IT
operates to balance the energy withdrawn from the ZPF.
I am pretty sure that zirconia is the corresponding active material in
Arata/Kitamura/Takahashi/etc experiments, yet only used small quantities and
with less grain. Rossi may have found a much better "catalyst" (which is of
course his inaccurate description) or else he has found a critical mass
level. In both cases the nano nickel or Ni-Pd alloy can serve as spillover
Rossi's one liter capacity reactor indicates that he could not be using more
than a kilogram of powdered material - and for present purposes, it is
assumed to be mostly bismuth telluride with a few grams of a spillover
catalyst. To be a little more specific, then, in this hypothesis which I am
calling ZPED (zero point enhanced decay), most of the extra thermal energy
initiates in the first step from a known asymmetric manipulation of hydrogen
- the Lamb shift operating at infrared frequencies with a GHz offset.
Any excess energy is severely self-limiting at a low level unless there is
provided an in situ way to replenish the zero point field. The replenishment
can comes from weak force reactions in tellurium (or other candidate nuclei)
and this effectively replaces the energy deficit. Most of the emitted gamma
radiation couples to ZPF before it can be observed in out 3-space.
Continuing operation "appears to be" nuclear, when in fact that
characterization is not accurate, and the proximate cause in zero point,
while the ultimate cause is nuclear.
This mechanism happens in two steps beginning with an asymmetrical looping
effect of QED - quantum electrodynamics, and can be interpreted as the
influence of virtual photons from the ZPE which have been emitted and
re-absorbed by the densified hydrogen atoms. The value of the Lamb shift to
this explanation is by way of a tiny mass-energy equivalent, which is about
4^-6 eV = 1 GHz = 4^-23 joules which is not much to get excited about unless
you can recycle (pump) the change (asymmetry) rapidly. With your oscillator
in the terahertz range (higher than ambient - i.e. the 'trigger'
temperature) then the slight thermal gain can be made additive and
sequential, so long as the zero point field is continually replenished
The bottom line of the ZPED thesis is that the initial (non-nuclear) gain is
via QM effects and the zero point field (the Lamb shift and/or relativistic
acceleration) - in conjunction with the rapid IR (infrared) pumping
mechanism at a thermal trigger temperature. This creates a local energy
deficit - in which an unstable nucleus, like Te-125 or Zr-96 become far more
susceptible to decay, and can effectively 'regauge' the depleted local
field, while leaving some (but comparatively little) remnant radioactivity.
As for moving this from paper to laboratory, a set of definitive experiments
has been (is being) designed to falsify this theory.
-----Reply to jones -----
From: Roarty, Francis X 

Although I agree with most if not all of the proposed ZPED theory my
position is that many of the non nuclear or hybrid theories like Mills',
Rossi or Haisch - Moddel depend on an ashless reaction powered directly from
ZPE as the predominant source of energy. Many contend that any energy
extraction from ZPE violates the first law of thermodynamics but this is
because the first law assumes ZPE is too chaotic to be exploited (Apparently
true in an isotropic energy density but not confirmed when said isotropy is
broken into gradients). Many of the claims of anomalous heat all seem to
occur when this isotropy is broken and, IMHO, represent an interim ashless
reaction. The reaction can be a chemical or physical asymmetry such that the
gas atoms are modified in some way before returning to a particular energy
density - the asymmetry even opposes this return and it is left for ZPE to
overcome this opposition. Reifenschweiler effect may reflect how ZPE
manipulates Space-Time to satisfy this asymmetry in restoring an orbital to
ground state by dilating time.

What Puthoff and others refer to as vacuum engineering or, vacuum energy
suppression, provides a loophole to this assumed violation of COE upon which
a Heisenberg trap could be based.  The amount of ash seen in these
experiments does not seem to be in keeping with the amount of energy
released. The theory Jones presents is itself a hybrid between nuclear and
Zero Point energy where decay is "enhanced" by change in energy density /
supression. This theory still results in an exchange of mass for energy in a
manner which I completely agree with yet I still remain convinced that
energy can also be harvested directly (in exchange for time dilation) from
zero point energy without radioactive decay or conversion of mass. I am
alone in seeing a connection between spontaneous emission, pyrophoricity and
radioactivity, Although the first two are not radioactive I propose that
they are all a result of energy balancing  between a Puthoof atomic model
ground state and vacuum energy density. Rapid changes in energy density are
associated with catalytic action (pores in skeletal catalysts and nano
powders) , spontaneous emission of photons and anomalous half life decays
(cavity supression). My point is that these imbalances don't have to result
in radioactive decay but rather the ground state could interact with the
energy density to  be propelled through space and/or time as a result.
Reply from Jones:
Fran - I generally agree except the problem with Mills or Haisch/Moddel et
al. is that they make claims for the nickel hydrogen reaction alone, not
requiring a second stage nuclear 'makeup' reaction - but the claims cannot
be verified by others. They probably can do it, but not robustly and perhaps
not for extended periods.

Until they can do it 'on demand', it seems reasonable to suggest that Rossi
is essentially doing a similar thing, yet he (inadvertently) provided a
pathway for nuclear gain, and that extra detail seems to have allowed him to
demonstrate a robust reaction in circumstances where others get mixed

Mills has not asked me for advice but if he did, I would suggest adding an
active ingredient to his "solid fuel" reactor that does have this ZPED
pathway for accelerated decay. Same with Haisch/Moddel. 

The first thing to try is bismuth telluride, and the second is zirconia.
Either of these must be recycled with heat and pressure several times to
achieve nano-fracturing; but they probably do not need to be nanopowder at
the outset (hopefully). It is that simple (almost).

This setup might also require a nuclear trigger like thorium. 

Can you interest Moddel in trying this? It could be as simple as adding a
commercially obtained product to an earlier experiment.


-----Reply from Robin -----

>How would the nucleus deform into the active isomer is the real question,
>and/or can the deformation be itself be exothermic so that there is a
>'double exotherm' all caused by the same stimulus ? There are too few
>to base an informed opinion.

RvS - If so, it would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics, so
it's not
very likely IMO.

Robin - 

----- Jones reply to Robin-----
No, no. Nuclear fission or fusion do not violate CoE for the simple reason

that mass is converted to energy. This is no different.
Induced gamma emission (IGE) or internal conversion (IT) are both solid
fact, not hypothetical. Mass is being converted to energy as in fission and

The hypothetical part of it - especially as it might relate to the E-Cat via
the ZPED theory is that the gamma emission can be stimulated by a "deficit
in the zero point field", and that some (or most) of the induced emission
couples directly to the depleted field... and that isotope redistribution
reveals the ultimate mass deficit. 

That is not too big a stretch IMO. It does not violate CoE.

The few elements subject to so-called "isomer energy" are no different in
metastability than are the fission candidates Th, U or Pu - except the
excess mass "identity" is less clear; this is because the beginning and
ending element can be the same but not necessarily the isotope balance. I
have tried to find any study which connects IGE to isotope distribution
shifts, but if there are any - then they are classified.

"Isomer energy" itself is a newer field that was born out of top secret
military devices like the hafnium or tantalum (gamma) lasers, and especially
the UAV program. "What" the nature of the loss mass involved consists of, is
nebulous: Gluons? Pions? who knows? IOW - it is too early to say what kind
of mass is being converted, so one must simply consider this to be a
"subset" of IGE for now. (or else dismiss it as unproved).

For any CoE violation, one would need to show that no mass is being
converted, which is next to impossible with an element like tellurium that
has no many isotopes and isomers including the metastable Te-123, which it
is a most excellent candidate for any kind of isotope redistribution in the
conversion process.

If no mass is lost, then of course you are correct; but suffice it to say
that all of this hypothesis is on a fairly firm foundation due to IGE and
the undeniable billions that have gone into it from the USAF under the
blanket of the UAV programs. 

Best estimate is $12 billion since 2002 into UAV of which a quarter or more
of that figure has gone into isomer energy or IGE. That is new information I
got today from a reliable source, but it needs to be checked out. 

This kind of R&D focused on IGE/IT/IE etc could explain why there is such a
high level of "official indifference" at DoD to the E-Cat Rossi, which any
fool can see has enormous military significance. They are probably already
way ahead - and could have their own version of the E-Cat in an unmanned
drone, with an enormous range ready to fly if not in the air now. 

It would not surprise me if the USAF "borrowed" some of the technology
directly from Rossi a few years ago, come to think of it. The UAV program is
not just top priority. It is the crème-de-la-crème and certainly would be
expected to bring out all the spooks.