122 comments

1. In response to Barney: a metastable bound state between a proton and a heavy metal nucleus can be the answer.

   Let’s imagine that Hydrogen nuclei could be trapped in a high energy metastable states at the inside of the metallic lattice. When these protons are released, they possess the kinetic energy necessary to form the metastable state.

   A useful theoretical insight may be provided by this paper

   http://link.springer.com/article/10.1134%2FS1063784209020017

   http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0606082

2. Pingback: Mats Lewan | fusionefredda

3. Yes Barney, these questions have already been raised. I wouldn’t claim to have reproduced the entire theory, nor having the full understanding. And of course we still don’t know if it’s valid or not. Clearly there are some details which are outside established physics, such as the H- ion becoming very small. Yet, given Piantelli’s longtime experimental work, there are good reasons to investigate his hypothesis further.

4. I guess you speak and read italian (otherwise, let me know and I’ll translate for you. Google translate does a pretty nice job, but some idiomatic sentences can be lost).

   Please, have a look at this comment on your article:
   http://groups.google.com/d/msg/it.discussioni.misteri/v8h7kcg0rbo/mQSLQdmpJAAJ

   Cheers,

   Barney

5. It is becoming clear that the LENR reaction involves high pressure chemistry to generate metalized compounds involved in the production of the superconductivity and electromagnetic ordering required in exploiting chemical based nuclear effects.

   The question that now needs to be answered through research is how self-assembly of chemical compounds operating at room temperature can generate nanostructures that generate high pressure molecular characteristics at room temperatures.

   For example, carbon nanotubes must be ground on a particular substrate to provide a structural template upon which their crystal structures can form.

   From the research of Holmlid, we know that chemical catalysts based on potassium doped graphite are used to produce metalized hydrides that show LENR activity through the generation of high pressure chemistry catalysis. More explicitly, Rossi uses mica in his reactor and other LENR workers use powdered quartz in their fuel mix. This speaks to the possibility that hexagonal and trigonal chemical substrates are providing templates for the fabrication of metalized hydrides.

   In order to more fully study how this substrate based nanoparticle generation process might work, the LENR researcher could use the Molecular Foundry, a nanoscience User Facility located at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California. This research center is one of five Nanoscale Science Research Centers sponsored by the United States Department of Energy. The Molecular Foundry provides users from around the world with access to cutting-edge nanoscience expertise and instrumentation in a collaborative, multidisciplinary environment.

   Users of the Molecular Foundry are provided with free access to instruments, techniques and collaborators for nanoscience research that is in the public domain and intended for open publication. Proposals for user projects are solicited to promote interdisciplinary collaboration among scientists studying nanoscale phenomena in materials science, physics, electrical engineering, environmental engineering, biology and chemistry in six interdependent facilities:

   • 1 Imaging and Manipulation of Nanostructures
   • 2 Nanofabrication
   • 3 Theory of Nanostructured Materials
   • 4 Inorganic Nanostructures
   • 5 Biological Nanostructures
   • 6 Organic and Macromolecular Synthesis

   See
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_Foundry

   The US government has funded this freely available research capability as a way to support open source research capacity within the U.S. to advance the competitiveness and leadership of the U.S. in nano materials expertise and R&D.

   See

   http://foundry.lbl.gov/
   http://www2.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/MSD-Foundry-rating.html

   For the research center most convenient to you see
   http://science.energy.gov/bes/suf/user-facilities/nanoscale-science-research-centers/

   Be advised, if you decide to use this research resource, it would be prudent to keep your application secret because the LENR naysayers will attempt to kill your application. At the current juncture it is prudent to avoid the use of the word or concept ‘LENR’ in your dealing with the US government.

6. @Joshuacude:

   Gee wow, you would really like to make me appear wrong. Everybody give Cude an applause.

   Your statements are not completely true:

   “Most great new directions in science were indicated by many unequivocal experimental results. ”

   This is not totally true. Joshuacude you should not be so anxious to discredit me and go back and read my statement very carefully. I state at the threshold of science no one has seen beyond! Read this carefully as at the threshold and inward of man’s limited experimental effort is a tiny tiny observation of the vast possibilities and observations of the whole universe from the infinitesimal to the infinite. At such threshold man is as I stated as open to theoretical discovery as to experimental discovery. This is why Einstein stated: imagination is more important! Joshuacude you are so emotional tied up in this discussion trying to negate me that you have lost logic and you are not carefully reading before responding! There are many examples of important discoveries in science that were lead by theory prior to experiments just as there are some examples of experiments inducing discovery. In science the two are both important but in the end they need each other and must be consistent. One of the perfect examples is another of my 17 theories : “graphene”! In 2002, I first correctly reasoned the formation, existence, and stability of freestanding crystalline graphene in plasma at over 3000 Celsius, this was 3 years prior to experimental isolation of graphene my theory of graphene was contrary to all prior experiments in chemistry from its 270 year history as such would reason low temperature down to absolute zero for stability of an atomic sheet. But without experiments but imagination and reasoning I concluded correctly the other extreme of high temperature for the formation and stability of atomic sheet of carbon. I was latter shown right by experiments of over 20 different labs around the world. Not only me, but many other scientists have had ideas and inventions without prior experiments that led to major discoveries. Many many years ago this is why one of the greatest scientist (Prof Albert Einstein) once said “Imagination is more important!” In addition, over the 20th century physicists are involving mathematics for inducing discoveries beyond experimental capability; one great example is the Higg’s mechanism and particle. Theoreticians discovered the Higgs phenomena over 50 years prior to experimental verification; in fact at the time of the theory the 6 scientists had little idea how to experiment to prove their theory or if they would live to see an apparatus to test their theory. I say all this to give many examples of theory leading experimental work to progress science. But in the end both are essential. Just because you mention some examples of experimental ends where old paradigm were exhausted does not completely relegate theory as some one in many cases imagined or invented a new way forward rather than experimented forward. And in some other examples experiments may have progressed forward. But there are many cases where imagination progressed science with subsequent experimental verification. Actually currently in science top physicists are in debate about this very issue with regard to string theory and the bridging of relativity and quantum mechanics. String theory is not totally experimental as yet but many scientists think string theory can progress science prior to total experimental demonstration of string theory Other scientists disagree. Your argument is illogical and you did not thoroughly read and understand my prior comment.

   Your statement is not completely true or fair:

   “No they’re not. They represent examples of perpetual motion, but a “perpetual motion machine” (of the first kind) is usually understood to be, as wikipedia writes: “a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source”.

   In your prior argument you mentioned perpetual motion machine (without restriction/clarification to first, second, or third kind) and compared it to some emotional example of frog’s toe to generate energy. LOL! So thereby I responded and gave scientific legitimacy to the superconductor as within itself manifesting perpetual motion and being a machine in its motion (as I recently proposed in a new theory of High Temperature Superconductivity) as I discovered it can take in heat as a machine in my reasoning and perpetuate its motion for perpetual motion of the second type. As you spoke generally initially in your prior comment with no restriction of the kind of perpetual motion I had liberty to mention superconductors as perpetual of second kind. But you are so on your head to try to discredit me in this dialog that you subsequent unfairly extend me saying to perpetual motion of the first kind which breaks the first law of thermodynamics. In proposing superconductivity as perpetual machine I never proposed perpetual of first kind, I stated such based on second kind. Your argument is not fair as you accuse me unjustly of breaking the first law of thermodynamics and I never did. Internally a superconductor has perpetual moving parts and can take heat and transduced to mechanical motion even if internally.

   Finally your statement : “And this renders everything else you said on the topic nonsense.”

   This is totally illogical and false and without limit. If I (or anyone else for that matter) do say something wrong it does not logically follow that everything else is wrong. I (nor any other man) knows everything. This is contrary to your logic that every thing I say is wrong. Your senses and reasoning are not much beyond any other man. For that matter, you say many things wrong so what does this say about you? Does this mean by your logic that all else you say is nonsense? LOL! Really the universe is a mystery, I nor any other man knows it absolutely. The phenomena are as best we can perceive but the absolute truth we may never know. But you are so hot headed to try to make me incompetent; you have lost logic! LOL!

   You do not know; that why you should not be on here insulting these people and arrogantly telling them what will and will not work. Let them do experiments and let them find a better way by reason or serendipity of a lucky experiment. Let them enjoy science and hope they find a better way for science and the earth we enjoy. Who are you to know all of the universe? Who made you GOD?

   I just got to a point where I let you go because I no longer grow from this conversation!

7. Brian Albiston, with the exact same AH50 Hunter Nickel and Nanoshell Passivated lithium as used in GS5.2, following MFMP recipe as close as possible is, during first attempt at replication, seeing evidence of excess heat.

   https://plot.ly/818/~fear_nuts/

   In addition the reactor is shielded with some molten lead.

   Brian says that the cell has 10% error, and the calibration was not satisfactory in our opinion – but early data pointed to estimated COP of 1.25 which exceeds that we have had evidence of in a *GlowStick* to date. Brian would want to wait until a much more complete calibration was done as a basis for a future more rigorous experiment. The experiment is on-going.

   In addition, whilst it is hard for the low sensitivity radiation monitor he is using to see any potential ‘signal’ due to the lead shielding, he did place it at the end where there is a ‘gap’ in the lead – though at an increased distance. See this image.

   

   He noted earlier…

   “I did just witness something interesting though. I reduced pressure to ~0.25 bar several hours ago to see if it had any effect on estimated COP. I didn’t notice much difference so I just added Hydrogen in to bring it to around 1 bar. When I added the Hydrogen my Geiger counter went from ~13 uSv to ~30 uSv for about 15 seconds. This sounds very much like what MFMP observed when they would add fresh Hydrogen to their Celiani cells. I added additional Hydrogen to bring it up to ~9 psig but the effect did not repeat.”

   This is about the same order of change as we repeatedly witnessed in France in Celani cells in 2013 using a GMC-300 Geiger counter and given the distance of the sensor from the putative source, the decay time is in-line with our observations.

   Whilst Brian cannot do an exact replication of the GS5.2 for obvious reasons, he is a good candidate to get very close and we wish him well for the rest of this experiment and look forward to his next run where he intends to enhance the calibration phase.

   We must commend him on the solution to providing a molten lead jacket, whilst it is not directly coupled to the central reactor core, it is an excellent open innovation that takes the collective effort forward.

8. Alan Smith wrote:

   If J.Cude doesn’t think LENR is possible he has an equal right to say so, but there is a difference between saying someone is probably wrong and accusing them of trolling for cash. Which in the case of MFMP is just plain nasty.

   First of all, it was expressed as the beginning of a suspicion, not an accusation. And it was introduced by saying that the MFMP seems sincere. It is only the recent antics that raise some suspicion.
   
   Second, the MFMP *is* trolling for cash. The issue is whether it’s in good faith or not.
   
   Third, while the implied accusation of deception may be nasty, it’s no more nasty than accusing me and MY of being hired shills, or your calling Krivit a malevolent idiot.

   The real problem is that no test would ever be quite good enough for JC and MY.

   Why is that the real problem? If Rossi had unequivocal evidence for cold fusion, do you think denials from two anonymous skeptics would matter?
   
   And if you think that no test would ever be good enough for us, then you must either think
   
   (1) that a LENR powered car would not convince us, or a LENR powered heater available at Home Depot would not convince us, or even that an isolated device that produced energy equivalent to a1000 times its weight in chemical fuel would not convince us,
   
   or
   
   (2) that none of the things listed in (1) will ever come about.
   
   Of course, (1) is nonsense, and (2) makes you as skeptical as we are.
   
   And of course, our view is pretty representative of mainstream science. All the evidence up to now has not been enough to convince the mainstream that cold fusion is real, which is why the first aim of the MFMP is to provide that evidence. You have no reason to suspect that evidence that would convince the world would not also convince us, since it’s never been put to the test.

   Even the old head of the Swedish Sceptics got lambasted for adopting the view -post investigation- that LENR might well be real.

   Essen was a cold fusion advocate long before Rossi came along. He published a cold fusion theory paper in 2006, so he had a stake in it. In addition, he expressed sympathy for Rossi’s ecat even before he went to see it. And as MY said, he demonstrated his incompetence by assuming the steam in the old 2011 steam cats was dry without evidence, when simple considerations suggest it had to have been very wet.
   
   And while the Swedish Skeptics Society published a favorable piece on the ecat written by Essen, it also published at least two very negative articles, and at present, distances itself from Essen saying about Rossi and the ecat (via google translate of http://www.vof.se/blogg/andrea-rossis-energikatalysator/):
   
   “Nor have we any reason to think anything other than what the majority of physicists think, that there is nothing to discuss until there is reliable measurements and studies of how the device works.”
   
   and
   “Hanno Essén has spoken out on their own and the association does not endorse what he said about the e-CAT.”

   It is also to be expected that the independent evaluation of Rossi’s ‘1 year/1MW’ plant, which leaks suggest is positive, will also be greeted with claims by some that he must have hot-wired the electricity meters. Though hot-wiring the grid supply to produce an additional and invisible 750kW might not be easy for you and me, ‘Rossi could – and did- do it’ will be the cry.

   So far, all we know about this “test” is what Rossi has said, and he also said the ecat was market-ready in 2011, so he’s not particularly reliable. Certainly, producing a phony report is far easier than producing a scientific revolution. In any case, fraud of this sort is far more common than scientific revolutions of this sort.

   So why not accord those of us who investigate LENR in our own time with our own money – or with modest donations from those who can afford it – a little respect instead of animosity and slurs on their character?

   Well, because I don’t respect them, and I don’t like to be dishonest.
   
   It’s not so much that the experiments themselves are unworthy; it’s the interpretations. If Rossi’s and Parkhomov’s claims of high COP and high power had any merit, the experiments performed by MFMP would have probably been definitive, but in that case, probably unnecessary. But when the results came back consistent with no effect at all, the response should have been cautious, with a goal to improve or augment the experiments. Instead, their results have been grossly over-interpreted, with claims of absolute certainty, based on experiments not even reproduced by themselves.
   
   Based on recent interpretations, the MFMP deserves harsh criticism, not the least because positive claims can be used to support what is very likely criminal fraud.

   LENR research is currently entering a phase of peak interest, if there is no substance to it, rest assured that this interest will rapidly fade away.

   What objective metric do you base the notion that LENR research is peaking? It’s has nowhere near the level of interest it had at almost any time during the 90s, when even toward the end, close to 50 papers were published per year. Or in 2004, when the interest was high enough to convince the DOE to convene another panel to examine the evidence. Or in 2009, when 60 minutes did a piece on cold fusion, and when both the APS and ACS were running LENR symposia at their annual meetings, and SPAWAR had an active LENR program, and activity at NASA seemed to be on the increase. Since then, nothing comparable has appeared in the mainstream media, SPAWAR shut down the LENR research, NASA has gone quiet, and both APS and ACS stopped their LENR sessions, and both rejected publication of the final volume of papers representing one such session. For the last decade, the publication rate for new experimental results has been maybe 1 per year, and of those maybe two (in the decade) are excess heat claims. And except for a special LENR issue in a 3rd rate journal, containing (by design) mainly retrospectives and reviews, the total publication rate is only about 5 per year, excluding peripheral papers (helium in volcanoes) and negative papers.
   
   There may be some sort of surge in lay-interest, expressed in on-line forums, and in interest from companies trying to attract funding, but I don’t see it from credentialed academics, nor do I see any scientific progress.
   
   And as for it fading away in the absence of any progress, the past 27 years suggest otherwise.

9. Redgelittle wrote:

   Such statement applies to most science as at the threshold of research no one has done or seen anything that exposes for more effort;

   I disagree. Most great new directions in science were indicated by many unequivocal experimental results. QM was based on many robust and undeniable phenomena that had no explanation in classical science, such as the blackbody spectrum, discrete atomic spectra, the photoelectric effect, and so on. Relativity was borne of the inability to detect the rest frame of the ether. Newton’s laws, much earlier, were based on solid and unequivocal evidence, including the detailed planetary orbits measured by Kepler and Brahe. New directions in science are not brought to life by someone saying, “gee, our species really needs this or that”, or, “wouldn’t it be nice if that goose could lay golden eggs”.

   Your argument is illogical as the scientific method has distinguished perpetual motion machine from ‘toe of frog to boiling water produced free energy’ On the basis of the scientific method the inside of atom and molecules and even nanostructures are perpetual motion machines.

   No they’re not. They represent examples of perpetual motion, but a “perpetual motion machine” (of the first kind) is usually understood to be, as wikipedia writes: “a hypothetical machine that can do work indefinitely without an energy source”. And this renders everything else you said on the topic nonsense.

10. Sadly for him, Celani already accepts that Rossi is telling the truth!

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2927-Rossi-We-received-ERV%E2%80%99s-Report-Very-pleased-with-results/?postID=15820#post15820

    As for Krivit, he’s the one who went all the way to Rossi’s empty building he called a lab and factory in 2011. He’s the one who gave Rossi every chance to prove he had something valuable. He did a much better job of investigating Rossi than Lewan, Kullander and Essen ever did. And he uncovered all the unsavory details of Rossi’s extensive and damning criminal past as evidenced by article after article in a whole variety of Italian newspapers and interviews.

11. @Joshuacude
    Hi Sir I take your insult as a compliment. Go ahead and get such negative out of your inside. But it does not sway or bother me. If every man on earth derides and mocks me, so what so long as Nature gives some evidence of my thoughts. I have no negative attacks on my inside and I sympathize that you do. But go ahead spit out hate if it helps you somehow.

    Yes indeed, I stand on ‘the Shoulder’ and His Hand is Almighty! As you say I am afraid of such height, but I can do all things through Him who strengthens me! To you I appear clumsy, but that outward appearance is due to thousands millions of people like you negatively pushing, pulling and poking me down. But on the inside I TOWER! LOL. Thanks for your compliment. LOL!

    Please keep spewing hate and negatives that has nothing to do with science, I am not hurt by your remarks. It is a compliment to me. I will not be pulled down to your level!

    But as for the science you mentioned:

    cude: “Neither Greenyer’s work, nor his passion, have exposed anything that suggests more effort should be squandered on this field.”

    Such statement applies to most science as at the threshold of research no one has done or seen anything that exposes for more effort; so it seems outside the growth of science to ostricize this unconventional nuclear reaction. Many other topics in science (where millions are spent) could also be mocked and scathed. But the essence of creativity results in some of these leading to fruitful discoveries.

    Every theory (over 17) I have published has been demonstrated and developed by mainstream science. The only remaining is this unconventional nuclear phenomena. I think time will also further develop it. But I know you will take effort to try to attack me. Go ahead I do not care.

    cude: “Why could the same not be said about perpetual motion machines? Or if someone claimed that adding eye of newt and toe of frog to boiling water produced free energy, would it be unfair to dismiss the possibility as unworthy of investigation without some solid evidence in its support?”

    Your argument is illogical as the scientific method has distinguished perpetual motion machine from ‘toe of frog to boiling water produced free energy’ On the basis of the scientific method the inside of atom and molecules and even nanostructures are perpetual motion machines. Man has under some conditions (please note the use of differing condition as I noted to you before) created perpetual motion on macroscopic scales like cooling Hg below 1 Kelvin and observing by scientific method perpetual motion of electrons on macroscopic scales. 100 years ago Prof Onnes discovered this as superconductivity. At that time in 1911 scientists said the same of Onnes as you are currently saying of unconventional nuclear reactions (IMPOSSIBLE) but look at how it has grown over the last 100 years. ( I speak only wisdom and substance I have no time for your hate and negativity.) In fact one of my 17 theories I mentioned was my proposal in 2005 that high pressures and high temperatures on sulfur compounds with hydrogen would cause a BCS superconductivity with my associate mechanism of hydrogen nuclei acquiring a quantum motion in a triple as was just computed and substantiated in an article in Nature this week by some other scientists (http://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/research-news/high-temperature-superconductivity-yields-another-secret-2016-03/) and of course last year in 2015 scientists in Germany first experimentally demonstrated such ( http://phys.org/news/2015-08-temperature-hydrogen-sulfide-superconductive-high.html ). So it is non-science for you to compare perpetual motion to your emotional ‘toe of frog to boiling water produced free energy’ as the scientific method has not demonstrated the latter

    I will have to respond more later as I am busy.

    Reginald B. Little

12. redgelittle wrote:

    “You are right this unconventional nuclear phenomena is an extraordinary claim and the level of experimental evidence for it is lacking. But Mr. Greenyer is right as he encourages you to take notice of the tip of the iceberg that his work and passion has possibly exposed for investing in Mr. Greenyer’s venture for more equipment for more experiments for applying the scientific method to gain greater evidence for or against this extraordinary claim.”

    —
    If that second sentence is an indication of the clarity of your thought, then it is no wonder you support cold fusion research. Neither Greenyer’s work, nor his passion, have exposed anything that suggests more effort should be squandered on this field.
    —
    redgelittle wrote:
    “Mr. Joshuacude in all respect I think it is not fair to just totally dismiss the possibility without experimenting and applying the scientific method. Especially now at a time when man is frighten about the unknown of climate change and his role in climate change over the last `150 years due to carbon combustion technology and civilization’s need for a new source of energy to fuel and maintain the lifestyle.”
    —
    Why could the same not be said about perpetual motion machines? Or if someone claimed that adding eye of newt and toe of frog to boiling water produced free energy, would it be unfair to dismiss the possibility as unworthy of investigation without some solid evidence in its support?
    
    Cold fusion *has* been investigated. And in far more detail than it merits. According to Storms, something like a half a billion dollars has been spent on cold fusion research. P&F themselves were well-funded to the tune of $50M by Toyota. In 1989 and for a short period thereafter, thousands (probably tens of thousands) of scientists looked in to cold fusion. Hundreds of papers were published in the first few years after that, and dozens or hundreds of scientists have continued to work on the subject over the past 27 years. The DOE has enlisted 2 panels of experts, 15 years apart to examine the best evidence in the field, and both times their recommendation was the same: the occurrence of low energy nuclear reactions is not conclusively demonstrated.
    —
    redgelittle wrote:
    “It seems unscientific to claim something impossible without adequate experimental and/or computational effort. Math seems to prove such. Let’s just do science. Let’s respect science and its rich method.”
    —
    It’s not that the possibility of cold fusion is totally dismissed. It is a judgement regarding its likelihood, based on evidence, including a century of evidence about plausible nuclear reactions, and the absence of good evidence for nuclear reactions in cold fusion experiments. Those who have reached this judgement *do* consider it adequately supported by evidence.
    
    The accumulated results from a wide variety of cold fusion research fit nothing as well as they fit the classical pattern of pathological science. Whether it’s claims of excess heat from Pd-D or Ni-H, or claims of tritium or neutrons or any other kind of emission or transmutation — phenomena with sensitivities varying by factors of a million or a billion — the results (if they have suitable transparency) are always well within the range of artifacts, background, noise, or chemistry. And invariably, when the experiments improve, the effects get smaller. Sometimes they disappear altogether, although more often, the researchers change their approach entirely, embarking on new — again preliminary — approaches, where confirmation bias has a freer reign. Garwin called it the “quit while you’re ahead trait of cold fusion research”.
    
    It is because of this that in 27 years, there is not a single cold fusion experiment that a qualified scientist can perform with a predictable positive outcome, even on a well-defined statistical basis. There is not a single reaction that the community can agree is happening.
    
    It is precisely because of this lack of a definitive resolution that the MFMP was formed, as I understand it. Their goal was to deliver such a resolution. But instead, they’ve delivered more of the same, and descended to the same level as everyone else in the field, speculating without adequate foundation, and expressing certainty without justification. As a result, instead of letting their results be heard round the world (like P&F’s were), they resort to gimmicks and speculative videos to attract attention.
    
    It’s not enough that cold fusion would have enormous benefits for our species if it were real — that’s true of any free energy claim at all. If one judges the likelihood that the phenomenon is real to be negligible, like that of perpetual motion machines, then one is better not to squander effort on it.
    
    Of course, judgements differ. And those who regard the phenomenon as real, or having a reasonable chance of being real, are free to pursue it, and free to try to convince others to support their pursuit. It was always thus. At the same time, those of us who regard it as a waste (or worse, in some cases fraudulent), are free to express our skepticism. A free exchange of ideas should not exclude those ideas we don’t want to hear.

13. Yes, and only those believing in inference read the pathetic stories of Krivit!

14. Krivit is a malevolent idiot, who spins his little stories based on nothing but inference.

15. Domenico, Domenica, Funiculi, Funicula!

    Krivit’s take on IH silence at this supposedly critical time:

    http://news.newenergytimes.net/2016/03/29/industrial-heat-goes-cold-on-rossi/

16. You do know that Domenico (Domenica) Fioravanti is really a woman?

17. Wow! Famous NATO colonel, Domenico Fioravanti, rides again! Whooopeeee! Yay!

18. Andrea Rossi
    March 29, 2016 at 1:44 PM
    DEAR READERS:
    WE HAVE RECEIVED RIGHT NOW THE ERV’S REPORT WHICH HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO INDUSTRIAL HEAT AND TO MYSELF.
    While I cannot release the report publicaly at this time, I can state that I am very pleased with the results.
    I hope that Industrial Heat and I will be able to release the report publicaly in the near future.
    May God help us for the hard work waiting for us all.
    Warm Regards,
    Dr Andrea Rossi, CEO of Leonardo Corporation

19. “The real problem is that no test would ever be quite good enough for JC and MY.”

    One of many strawmen. I have said over and over again what would constitute an adequate test of Rossi’s claims. It starts with having Rossi uninvolved and the second item is proper calibration over the entire operating temperature range. It would also have been convincing had Levi repeated his liquid flow calorimetry experiment which yielded more than 10x the power and power ratio of current hot cat results, but with proper calibration. Krivit asked for this in 2011 and Josephson emailed Levi in 2014 about it and guess what, it has never been done. And of course, proper replication. No reason not to do that if Rossi has, as he claims, proper patent protection (he doesn’t).

    ========

    ” Even the old head of the Swedish Sceptics got lambasted for adopting the view -post investigation- that LENR might well be real ”

    The late Dr. Kullander was not lambasted for his view. It was because he allowed sloppy, deceitful, rigged experiments by Rossi with wet steam, misplaced thermocouples and who knows what else. Kullander never required Rossi to provide a proper calibration and never performed it himself. Same comment for Essen and Lewan. I’m pretty sure they were all honest but either incompetent or negligent. I guess they can tell us which.

    ========

    “. The fact that research and development (away from the glare of publicity) continues in Rayleigh, Lugano and Upsalla with positive – though as yet unpublished – results will also prompt further derision I’m sure. It is also to be expected that the independent evaluation of Rossi’s ‘1 year/1MW’ plant, which leaks suggest is positive, will also be greeted with claims by some that he must have hot-wired the electricity meters. Though hot-wiring the grid supply to produce an additional and invisible 750kW might not be easy for you and me, ‘Rossi could – and did- do it’ will be the cry. ”

    Anything Rossi says will prompt derision unless it is confirmed independently. Or do you think Rossi’s famous “ERV” (whatever the hell THAT is) will be some illustrious person doing credible work? More than likely, it will be one of Rossi’s friends, perhaps from his time in prison, like I suspect the never interviewed “NATO colonel” (whatever THAT is) was. But maybe we’ll see. F9. ROTFWL!

    Of course, properly done work demonstrating a new source of high power for this energy hungry world would be widely appreciated, announced, and rewarded. Too bad that none of LENR work qualifies.

20. Well said Mr. Little! People who are capable – as the MFMP group obviously are- should not be bullied or denied a voice as scientific enquirers. Barracking from the sidelines gets boring after a while. If J.Cude doesn’t think LENR is possible he has an equal right to say so, but there is a difference between saying someone is probably wrong and accusing them of trolling for cash. Which in the case of MFMP is just plain nasty.

    Trolling for cash, btw as in “I suspect you’ve come to realize that there’s considerable sympathy for the field from some very rich people. And if you can get their attention, they might well think nothing of dropping a few million in your lap…” (JC)

    The real problem is that no test would ever be quite good enough for JC and MY. Even the old head of the Swedish Sceptics got lambasted for adopting the view -post investigation- that LENR might well be real. The fact that research and development (away from the glare of publicity) continues in Rayleigh, Lugano and Upsalla with positive – though as yet unpublished – results will also prompt further derision I’m sure. It is also to be expected that the independent evaluation of Rossi’s ‘1 year/1MW’ plant, which leaks suggest is positive, will also be greeted with claims by some that he must have hot-wired the electricity meters. Though hot-wiring the grid supply to produce an additional and invisible 750kW might not be easy for you and me, ‘Rossi could – and did- do it’ will be the cry.

    So why not accord those of us who investigate LENR in our own time with our own money – or with modest donations from those who can afford it – a little respect instead of animosity and slurs on their character?

    This is an emergent field where reputation is everything, and where there are no grounds for attacking someone’s professional qualifications the next move is always to attack the motives of those making any claim to success. As Mr. S.Krivit has so amply demonstrated. LENR research is currently entering a phase of peak interest, if there is no substance to it, rest assured that this interest will rapidly fade away.

    Warm Regards (sic) Alan Smith.

21. @Joshuacude,
    You are right this unconventional nuclear phenomena is an extraordinary claim and the level of experimental evidence for it is lacking. But Mr. Greenyer is right as he encourages you to take notice of the tip of the iceberg that his work and passion has possibly exposed for investing in Mr. Greenyer’s venture for more equipment for more experiments for applying the scientific method to gain greater evidence for or against this extraordinary claim. Mr. Joshuacude in all respect I think it is not fair to just totally dismiss the possibility without experimenting and applying the scientific method. Especially now at a time when man is frighten about the unknown of climate change and his role in climate change over the last `150 years due to carbon combustion technology and civilization’s need for a new source of energy to fuel and maintain the lifestyle. At a time like this, why not simply do experimental science to test these ground breaking works of Greenyer and MFMP rather than insulting them and dismissing unknown possibilities of nature as impossible. It seems unscientific to claim something impossible without adequate experimental and/or computational effort. Math seems to prove such. Let’s just do science. Let’s respect science and its rich method. With all sincerity…

22. BG wrote:
    Our research before and through the 16th Feb and well past the establishment of the lack of sensitivity of the GMC-320+ and the publishing of the data including all of the discussion and analysis of “signal” was conducted live online from the first link on the experiment page here:
    —
    I admit I don’t read all the discussions on your blog. I assumed that analysis had taken place quietly because of what you called the “roll out tease”. Mea Culpa.
    —
    But that was a small side point anyway — just 26 words out of more than 1000, that did not affect the substance of my criticism, which was that the MFMP has been premature in claiming success before verification … that the significance of the experimental results have been grossly exaggerated to attract attention and support for your cause … that the evidence produced by the MFMP so far is no more persuasive of the reality of cold fusion than what existed before it was formed. If anything, the contrary is the case.
    —
    BG wrote:
    You should also read the courteous contribution of Reginald B. Little
    —
    My objection to cold fusion is first and foremost about the quality of the evidence for what is an extraordinary claim. Little does not address the quality of the evidence at all. You can’t just use the fact that something is a *new* phenomenon as an incantation that suddenly allows unspecified miracles of any kind to become plausible. He’s not standing on anyone’s shoulders. He’s too afraid of heights or too clumsy to actually get up on anyone’s shoulders.

23. Dear Joshua Cude,

    It is unfortunate that you make accusations without checking if you are being needlessly slanderous first.

    Our research before and through the 16th Feb and well past the establishment of the lack of sensitivity of the GMC-320+ and the publishing of the data including all of the discussion and analysis of “signal” was conducted live online from the first link on the experiment page here:

    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/515-glowstick-5-2

    People were looking the other way because of the conclusion of the 1 year test, we hid nothing even as we were announcing – we were still discussing the data and graphs on that link! We cannot police everyone and order them to follow our live work, week after week.

    You should also read the courteous contribution of Reginald B. Little whose insight and work pre-dated many other researchers in this field and who has also suffered the main affliction of this field – being ignored. RBL does contribute ideas from a his experimental and theoretical endeavour. Whilst you appear to pay attention, you demonstrate that you do not delve deep enough into the activity of those you attack, to have your facts strait first.

    If someone generates no new data, there is nothing they can share that isn’t easily discovered in a web-search and so they have no value if they are merely using this residual capability to try to pull down those that are practicing the scientific method to explore claimed phenomena. Some people use this gift of the internet in a positive way and have contributed much. Loud accusations and miss-information however, do not make truth. I have burnt valuable time and energy entertaining your well rehearsed lines that I have seen metered out to others in the past – I get it, you and a bunch of others don’t see truth in x,y,z – there now, you are free to spend time with your friends and family.

    I will still try to respond to any well though out analysis or reasoned suggestions you make based on sound understanding of our work, or refer you to someone with more suitable capability – beyond that, I feel the limited amount of time I have to volunteer for the research would be best spent researching and working towards settling this mystery rather than handing you spades to dig holes with.

24. @ Mr Joshuacude and Mr Ekstrom,
    I agree with you Piantelli is not the bee’s knee. Piantelli should be respected and honored for his pioneering work with Ni/H during the early 90s and throughout the 90s. But this prior work although very important did not sufficiently accelerate and reproduce the unconventional nuclear effects as later done by others during the new century after 2000! We should acknowledge Piantelli for his years of work since 1989, but it is unethical and immoral to totally credit him for things that others later discovered and contributed. Some here will do just this.

    For example, the hydride theory did not come intially from Piantelli. He first reported it in the literature in 2008 in a patent. { http://coldfusionnow.org/roy-virgilio-on-piantelli-plus-the-2008-piantelli-hypothesis/ } We should stick to literature and publications and patents for original dates and not off the record he said she said. RB Little had published the hydride theory many years before this hydride hypothesis of Piantelli. For example I gave details of such hydride in 2005 publications and a complete sound original theory of the hydride and explanation of compressed hydrogen and hydride with new theoretical reasons and explanations beyond Mills prior notion from the 1990s. See prior original RBL ideas (pages 33-37) in http://vixra.org/pdf/1212.0011v1.pdf . and a more recent article (pages 30-33) from 2015: http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/IJPS/article-abstract/592BAB049585 . During the 90 Mills possibly noted classical quantum for his hydrino. But in 2005, I proposed a general relativistic quantum mechanical basis for compressed hydrogen and hydride.

    Mr Joshuacude it is true that better experiments are needed. You are correct. But in all fairness you should take in to consideration that this research has been so pariah by the majority of scientists that funding has been essentially zero and research takes money for equipment which has been missing over many years. So more respect should be given in this regard to MFMP and Mr. Greenyer (and others) for their efforts with such limited resources. Like I noted above the mechanism and understanding has been missing for many years and is still debated (this is why we should not back date for Piantelli to the 90s, as if he solved it all in the 90s; as then the recent surge in interesting in this topic after 2009 would not be so!) so the story is not over and may not ever be as it is the nature of science to respect the mystery of the Universe. But there is reason to be excited and by the scientific method (which has been lacking in resources for this topic due to its ostracism) more measurements and calculations (and ideas) are needed. Ideas and concepts are key as they guide important subsequent measurements and ideas. I gave crucial very extremely important ideas and concepts that guided important subsequent experiments, credit should be give for such.

    Please do not attack and insult the investigators. Let’s take pleasure in wondering through Einsteins noted vast Library of the Universe as we should not be arrogant to think the one book has been written (quantum mechanics) by man. There is so much more unknown about the Universe.

    It was stated if x-rays where from excess heat then it is insufficient. Yes that is correct by the conventional nuclear processes. But these are different phenomena so the expected x-rays are not expected to be as much as from ‘conventional hot’ nuclear processes as the phenomana are different.

    Mr. Ekstrom you are correct by quantum theory (even dating back to Bohr) that the hydride exhibits (under some conditions) a line spectrum. But I encourage that we should keep in mind that under different more extreme conditions the emission may be continuous and the excitations may be continuous. I previously gave such concept and theory whereby conditions involve relativistic effects of the electrons whereby the electron can exist about hydrogen and the other elemental atoms in state manifesting continuum, I called such continuum states.. http://vixra.org/pdf/1212.0011v1.pdf . Sir, Mr Ekstrom in all fairness we must admit since the great work of Bohr many great scientists have modified the quanta with relativism. The great Prof Dirac I note in particular. So just because this prior great work of Bohr observed a discontinuum. According to Einstein the Library is vast and we are but a child wondering through this vast library. So there is the possibility of hidden states of continua ( as I pubolished in 2005). I should point out after me in 2005, an Harvard professor better computed such continuum states in 2007 he called them unparticles ( Prof Georgi ) ( http://phys.org/news/2007-06-professor-theory-unparticle-physics.html). So the continua of RBL (2005) and unparticle of Georgi (2007) surely avail the possibility of proton and hydrogen existing under some conditions within the core shells of heavy elements as I further noted in hydride theory of the unconventional nuclear process. The library is vast, we should not close our minds to the sound possibilities as such is the nature of research. I gave the conditions as in Ni and Fe I noted years ago that the ferromagnetic nature and in particular the single domain (Piantelli used Ni in the 90s but it was macroscopic Ni with hydrogen; the development after 90s was nano and single domain Ni which is very important) of Ni and Fe can more easily involve conditions whereby electrons, protons and hydride in such domains may be rehybridized by the ferromagnetism into novel discontinua, continua and even under more severe conditions core continua and discontinua whereby nuclear symmetry in the core is approached. Sir Mr. Ekstrom the library is vast, it is sound that such conditions in ferromagnetic single domain of Ni and Fe would involve phenomena not fully captured by Bohrs hydrogen atom. In all fairness, I mean less be mature and rational about this. So it is possible. We must respect the past architects like Bohr, Heisenberg, Piantelli, but the library is vast and we should encourage the younger to further explore and give credit to younger scientists like me who boldly venture and stood on mighty shoulders.

    I in no way disrespect your thinking or sneer at your remarks. I encourage excellence!

    Sincerely,
    Reginald B. Little

25. BG wrote:
    “I am not sure you are aware, but the members of the MFMP are skeptics”
    —
    Give it a rest Greenyer. Sometimes this sort of thing can descend to semantic arguments, but you can’t possibly argue a meaning of skeptic that would include the members of MFMP being skeptical of cold fusion.
    —
    Could you imagine skeptics of perpetual motion machines forming an organization whose first aim is to:
    —
    Show to the world that perpetual motion machines represent a new practical primary energy source we call the New Machine.
    —
    Of course not. The most optimistic goal one might expect from *skeptics* would be to *determine* whether the phenomenon is real or not. But if skeptics were to form an organization to study something they were really skeptical about, the most plausible aim would be to show that the phenomenon is not real and to find explanations for the observations that have led some to think it is real.
    —
    The aim of the MFMP reveals that the organization believes cold fusion is real, and at the same time that it is aware that existing evidence is not good enough to prove it to the world. Which means you believe an extraordinary phenomenon is real without unequivocal proof. You can’t fine any truer a true believer than that.
    —
    And then, when Parkhomov’s results became public, for my part, you lost all remaining credibility as an objective observer with your obvious gullibility displayed on ECW. For someone devoted to discovering the truth about this business, and actively involved in it, one might expect some objectivity — some kind of caution about a preliminary experiment that left a lot of questions unanswered. It took less than 3 months for Parkhomov to do the experiment. MFMP was mostly set up for it already, so why not wait to try it first before crowing that “Things will move very fast from here, hang on to your hats!” That is not the response of a skeptic.
    —
    That was 15 months ago, and no, things did not move at all, let alone fast. Except the other way. It only took a few days for inconsistencies to be revealed, and not just by skeptics, but by believers like McKubre and Lomax. In spite of that, and even when someone discovered Parkhomov had faked some data using photoshop, MFMP continued to consider Parkhomov as credible. Skeptics, indeed!
    —
    And finally, after a single anomalous spectrum that could plausibly have been produced by artifact or malfunction, instead of waiting to reproduce and to illuminate or explicate to some extent (as Roentgen did), you threw caution to the wind and declared “the end of the carbon age…” and “We did it … We lit the new fire together”. Not the response of a skeptic!
    —
    BG wrote:
    “We were genuinely surprised to repeatedly see signs of excess heat and emissions in Celani wire across 2012 and 2013 – likewise, we never expected to see what we did in GS 5.2, but data is data.”
    —
    But, you see, a skeptic is *not* surprised by slightly anomalous experimental results that could more plausibly be attributed to artifact than to unprecedented phenomena. They are aware that shit happens. Rather, a skeptic thinks it more likely that they are caused by artifact, and works to discover them. A true believer allows confirmation bias to maintain his true belief.
    —
    BG wrote:
    “the roll out tease started on the afternoon of the 22nd – it had been delayed because we had to run tests to understand why the GMC-320+ Geiger counter did not see the same signal, only after we had conclusively demonstrated via a range of check-sources…”
    —
    And about that… what happened to live open science in that time? Why was all this done in secret? Is truth the first casualty of success?
    —
    BG wrote:
    “…that the device was basically useless…”
    —
    It’s characteristic of true believers to work tirelessly to show a result they don’t like must be wrong or the result of useless instruments, but a result they do like is accepted with minimal scrutiny. And contrary to the above account, Higgins’ analysis published on Feb 23 says that the GM data was still being analyzed, not that its failure to detect the signal had been conveniently explained away.
    —
    BG wrote:
    “Your repeated claims suggesting that this is easy and we should have done multiple experiments by now, demonstrate a deep lack of understanding of the complexity of the work we are doing. Getting a high accelerating electric field, a heavy element target (such as W) and a heating low work function emitter to rapidly and repeatedly produce x-rays is trivial by comparison. If you looked at the experiment details you would understand that material preparation takes over a week on its own.”
    —
    Producing and *characterizing* x-rays, including the generation of images in 1895, without the hindsight of a century’s progress was not simpler than heating a powder and measuring gamma rays with off-the-shelf instruments you *already* have.
    —
    I was not suggesting the experiment itself was that easy (although Parkhomov did it in his living room with household artifacts). I was suggesting that *repeating* what you were already set up for would have been easy.
    —
    In both your case, and that of Roentgen, the apparatus that produced the anomalous result was *already* in place. It was just a matter of repeating the experiment, and then inserting absorbers of various types and thickness, and then running controls with just nickel, or adding tungsten, and so on.
    —
    If you really lacked the foresight to prepare enough fuel for more than one experiment the first time, then the first week after the big result might have been used to prepare more fuel — this time enough for a dozen attempts. Then, in the next 3 weeks you could have run it many times over, and this time you would have been ready when the emission came to insert lead and aluminium absorbers of different thicknesses to see where it’s coming from. And you would have been at the ready with GM tubes to read the signal live, independently of the NaI detector. And the NaI detector did indicate gammas with enough energy and intensity to register on a GM tube, if the result was not an artifact.
    —
    The response of an objective scientist to these results would have been totally different from that of MFMP, in my opinion. Understanding that the implications of proving cold fusion would be revolutionary, with Nobel prizes at stake, not to mention the enormous benefit to our species, they would be unable to think of anything else, and would have feared going public until it was repeatedly achieved and unequivocally attributed.
    —
    On the other hand, someone whose goal is to generate “26,000 views in 4 weeks and support from major institutions and the support of interested public”, and who realizes that too much scrutiny might reveal that nuclear reactions do not need to be invoked to explain the results, will *avoid* additional experiments, and instead do everything possible to wring every bit of publicity out of the result while they can. And so, a strip-tease type of reveal ensues, followed by a series of videos purporting to have all the answers to cold fusion ever asked.
    —
    It’s a variation on what Garwin called the quit while you’re ahead trait of cold fusion research. I know you haven’t quit, but I suspect that even if the signal does not turn out to be the big answer, the publicity you’ve generated will still benefit your purpose more than a mundane explanation or failure to reproduce after simple nose-to-the-grindstone investigation.

26. Dear Mary Yugo,

    I am not sure how many times I have to say this to make it clear – we cannot comment on Rossi’s specific experiments with any authority and so we shall not.

    We can and have drawn attention to where our experiments data supports the claims of a researcher in this field and points to deep logic in historical apparatus design choices. Our data on Celani’s wire support both the size of the excess heat and the presence of emissions claimed. Our data on Rossi’s patent formula fuel supports the nature of claimed emissions and the previously unexplained event in 2011and there is some evidence of excess – but nothing yet in-line with the scale of the excess heat claimed. We also provided key empirical data that brought serious doubt to the level of the excess claimed for Lugano and hard knowledge that 62Ni had been purchased before by Rossi.

    On the other matter, I also want to make it clear that I was not suggesting that you or any other particular individual was on his payroll – merely drawing attention to the strategy that disinformation is a tool in the corporate handbook and an effective one. One may have evidence to conclude that no help is needed in that department.

27. @BG

    “@Mary Yogo, Joshua Cude
    Not really anything new in your comments, over the years these same points have been made ad-infinitum – if I had anything to do with Randall Mills’ or Andrea Rossi’s strategy, I would employ people to say these things to put off potential competition.”
    *
    Let me be sure I understand you. You are suggesting that Rossi would give dozens of demonstrations to potential investors and the general public, including the invited AP reporter in 2011, and that he would deliberately sabotage every one of them so that critics and skeptics could claim they were bogus? For five years? And he did this to prevent competition? And he would pay people like Joshua and me to publicize his cheating and lying, all the way back to Petroldragon and the obvious thermoelectric converter scam? Really?

    Rather than do a proper demonstration for the US Patent Office so that they could not refuse him a real, protective patent?

    And instead, he would get a patent, essentially for an electrical heater, that was in no way protective of any possible Rossi IP? And he would tout that himself as a great achievement?

    Can you think of any successful product that was brought out and was protected by making the inventor look like a fraudster and scammer? Isn’t the supposition that Joshua and I are in Rossi’s employment plainly ridiculous? Is this really how you believe investors behave? Wow!

28. Dear Joshua Cude,

    I am not sure you are aware, but the members of the MFMP are skeptics – however, we are not people who argue for arguments sake based largely on supposition and recycling of old “known knowns” we are generating new types of experiments and data and work of that.

    We were genuinely surprised to repeatedly see signs of excess heat and emissions in Celani wire across 2012 and 2013 – likewise, we never expected to see what we did in GS 5.2, but data is data. The key spectrometer data from the 30/Jan – 2/Feb was published on the go well before someone in the crowd first analysed it on the night of the 16/Feb. We cannot speak for the results of others, however we can say with certainty when we released this information – the roll out tease started on the afternoon of the 22nd – it had been delayed because we had to run tests to understand why the GMC-320+ Geiger counter did not see the same signal, only after we had conclusively demonstrated via a range of check-sources that the device was basically useless (and had effectively hindered other researchers using similar devices over the past year) did we officially start the announcement.

    Your repeated claims suggesting that this is easy and we should have done multiple experiments by now, demonstrate a deep lack of understanding of the complexity of the work we are doing. Getting a high accelerating electric field, a heavy element target (such as W) and a heating low work function emitter to rapidly and repeatedly produce x-rays is trivial by comparison. If you looked at the experiment details you would understand that material preparation takes over a week on its own. Having said that, me356 has, in the weeks since, repeatedly run nickel wire experiments and seen COP 1.5 and emissions, but because he is only reporting the outcome at this stage – I am sure you would suggest it has less value than live data and analysis. Impatience is something I share with you – but even with determination, trying to do this right takes more time than I would like – but it is what it is.

    Alan is right – there are MANY other researchers both past and present that have seen emissions – you would do well to immerse yourself in their data.

    We have had experiments show signs of excess well beyond chemical, what we have not seen in our work is the high COPs claimed by the likes of Rossi and Mills (other 3rd party researchers have however) – maybe in time we will but we would prefer to work on making our data incontrovertible so that we can move on from the kind of he said / she said type of fruitless discourse being witnessed here.

29. Here’s a link to the paper below. Apologies for not posting it before…Page 29.

    .

    Click to access JCMNS-Vol13.pdf

30. Piantelli isn’t alone, btw.

    Investigation of Radiation Effects in Loading
    Ni, Be and LaNi5 by Hydrogen
    Yu. N. Bazhutov∗
    Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation Institute RAS (IZMIRAN), Moscow, Russia
    E.O. Belousova, A.G. Parkhomov, Yu.A. Sapozhnikov and A.D. Sablin-Yavorsky
    Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
    V.P. Koretsky
    Erzion Scientific Research Center, Moscow, Russia

31. BG wrote:
    “Not really anything new in your comments, ”
    —
    That’s true. They were assembled mostly by cut and paste. That doesn’t change the fact that they contradict or at least contest your statements.
    —
    BG wrote:
    ” if I had anything to do with Randall Mills’ or Andrea Rossi’s strategy, I would employ people to say these things to put off potential competition.”
    —
    No, you wouldn’t. When you run an investment scam based on a phenomenon that you can’t even prove is real, there are no competitors — only accomplices. Because every other claim of upcoming products just adds to your own credibility.
    —
    And even if it were real, you wouldn’t need to employ skeptics to cast doubt on your claims; it’s easy enough *not* to prove something is real if you don’t want to prove it.
    —
    Finally, if skeptics were paid by Rossi to suppress the truth, it should not be so difficult to counter our arguments.
    —
    BG wrote:
    “More specifically Joshua, I am not sure how many experiments you have run – but even with very significant funds, equipment in place and full time employees, experiment iterations can be lengthy. On the one hand, you go to great lengths to imply our work is rubbish and then castigate us for not being quick enough between experiments. We are instrumenting GS 5.3, the first of the exact replication attempts, with extra radiation monitoring and upping sensitivity. Just getting the modifications to the main scintillator will have taken 3 weeks by the time it is done and we are less than a month since we concluded we had something worth sharing.”
    —
    In the first place, you wrote “The end of the Carbon Age…” on Feb 22, and Higgins’ analysis is dated Feb 23, both more than a month ago, and these came well after you started to tease your fans indicating you had already concluded you had something worth sharing.
    —
    Secondly, while I’m all in favor of improving the sensitivity and adding radiation monitoring, it’s hard to imagine that you wouldn’t have been sufficiently impatient to use what you had already set up to do as much as possible over the next few days. What you had was enough to claim an effect, so it should have been enough to duplicate it, and then stick a few absorbers in front of the detector, change the fuel and try again, and you could get your hands on a few more GM tubes within days. Again, I refer you to the several weeks Roentgen spent more than a century earlier to characterize x-rays and making their production reproducible and unequivocal before making claims.

32. @Mary Yogo, Joshua Cude

    Not really anything new in your comments, over the years these same points have been made ad-infinitum – if I had anything to do with Randall Mills’ or Andrea Rossi’s strategy, I would employ people to say these things to put off potential competition.

    More specifically Joshua, I am not sure how many experiments you have run – but even with very significant funds, equipment in place and full time employees, experiment iterations can be lengthy. On the one hand, you go to great lengths to imply our work is rubbish and then castigate us for not being quick enough between experiments. We are instrumenting GS 5.3, the first of the exact replication attempts, with extra radiation monitoring and upping sensitivity. Just getting the modifications to the main scintillator will have taken 3 weeks by the time it is done and we are less than a month since we concluded we had something worth sharing.

    We will keep on experimenting regardless, when we have replicated we can explore the merits of changing the experiment in different ways – in the meantime, keep playing your role.

    @Axil

    We have obviously been deeply considering the findings of Holmlid and Olaffsson, I was the first to alert Celani to Holmlids work years ago and he is heavily focusing on this line of research and in regular communication with Holmlid right now. Obviously the MFMP shared a platform with Olaffsson at SRI and in the last round of *GlowStick* tests we added Fe and K based catalyst precisely to explore this line of research. Whilst Piantelli theory predicts much of the observations we have seen in our experiments and those reported in the past, we are practicing the scientific method – the hypothesis that Piantelli is in the right ball-park may be demonstrated in whole or in part to be fallible – we are instrumenting to give us the best data we can to understand who is closer to the truth.

    @Bob Higgins

    A typically measured and reasoned argument.

33. — Part 6 —
    BG wrote:
    “and we are in communication with Piantelli, who by the way, has published in a major physics journal despite the incredible resistance to LENR. ”
    —
    True, he has published, although calling it a major physics journal is a stretch, and I’m not aware of anything this century.
    —
    And there is no incredible resistance to LENR. There is a resistance to poor science, and LENR is nearly all poor science. Claiming unfair resistance is a fantasy used as an excuse by every fringe science for their failure to get recognition. Storms account of the scientific activity shortly after the 1989 press conference show that LENR was welcomed with uncommon enthusiasm. It was because the evidence did not survive scrutiny that the better journals rejected LENR papers.
    —
    Even so, advocates like to cite the hundreds of papers published in the field as evidence of its legitimacy, so it’s clear that LENR papers do get published. And if you examine the papers, it is obvious that there is no unfair barrier to publication. Most of them are poor quality, and the fact they were published suggests standards had to be lowered to accommodate them.
    —
    And Piantelli’s are among the worst. His 1999 neutron paper should never have been accepted for publication in that form. It’s full of almost impenetrable descriptions and compromises and excuses that you might hear in a late-breaking, breathless preliminary report at a conference. But in a journal article, it is inexcusable.When you read a sentence like the following, you wonder if the paper was refereed or edited at all:
    —
    “Because of the oneness of the experiment, the contemporaneity of the measurements in the two methods is only partial.”
    —
    Or how about: ” Both plots refer to the same short time period (12 h of 11 March 1995) because an electric breakdown on the week-end caused a loss of data.”
    —
    They are interpreting their data around electric breakdowns that affect electronics? And this remains their best evidence of neutrons after 12 years of research, according to a summary presentation in 2004?
    —
    They proceed to draw their conclusions from a hodgepodge of completely inconsistent data. In the 1999 paper, they claim further quantitative measurements are in progress to identify the nuclear chains, but the 2004 summary gives nothing more than what’s in the 1999 paper. And I’m not aware of any subsequent clarifications.
    —
    I have written quite a lot more about the Piantelli claims and papers as popeye on ecatnews.com. If you don’t mind seeing your hero criticized, there are multiple posts at
    http://ecatnews.com/?p=2140#comments
    starting at March 9, 2012 at 11:18 am.
    —
    The bubble chamber results claimed by Piantelli in that 2004 summary are particularly lame. They were described in 3 sentences which amount to little more than “we observed tracks of charged particles coming from the specimen”, with a figure showing one track. An untreated specimen showed no tracks. No information on how long they waited in the two cases.
    –
    “We observed tracks.” That’s it? Cloud chambers have been around a long time, and were used to discover the positron, muon, and the whole particle zoo in the 50s. What’s the charge, the energy, the mass? Compare their 12 years of investigation in the 90s to this abstract from Carl Anderson in (get this) 1932:
    –
    “Out of a group of 1300 photographs of cosmic-ray tracks in a vertical Wilson chamber 15 tracks were of positive particles which could not have a mass as great as that of the proton. From an examination of the energy-loss and ionization produced it is concluded that the charge is less than twice, and is probably exactly equal to, that of the proton. If these particles carry unit positive charge the curvatures and ionizations produced require the mass to be less than twenty times the electron mass. These particles will be called positrons. Because they occur in groups associated with other tracks it is concluded that they must be secondary particles ejected from atomic nuclei.”
    –
    They identified the sign of the charge, put limits on the mass, charge, and energy of it, and identified it as a new particle. Three years later, Anderson used similar methods to discover the muon; its mass and charge. But Piantelli, after 70 years of technological development, in 12 years of research, can only say: “we observed tracks”.
    —
    BG wrote:
    “At that time – we had no data that really supported his own research – now we do,”
    —
    No, you really don’t. In this day and age him saying vaguely that we saw gamma rays and you getting one continuum spectrum that could be from gammas does not represent support. Technology has moved forward. When you can get the same increase under the same conditions at the same energies and do it at will, then you can say you have supporting data.
    —
    BG wrote:
    ” is this not clearing the mud?”
    —
    Truly not. It is stirring it up.
    —
    BG wrote:
    “In your last paragraph, you seem to be supporting the point I made about how all kinds of top scientists ‘discovered’ things that turned out to be rubbish. Obviously I agree ”
    —
    The point was used to counter your certainty that Piantelli had to be right because otherwise nature would be “playing one hell of a cruel trick on him for over 1/4 century across 100s of well conceived experiments.” So, I’ll take this agreement as a concession that Piantelli’s hodgepodge of results do not justify your certainty.
    —
    BG wrote:
    “One last thing, I have had this open question out there for some weeks now, perhaps you or Peter Ekstrom or Stephan Pomp could show your creativity and aptitude by explaining why Piantelli can say that pretty much all Transition metals / Actinides and Lathanides will work.”
    —
    I am all but certain that none of them work, so speculating on why they all will seems kind of silly. But don’t let that stop you from suggesting it has something to do with gravity.

34. — Part 5 —
    BG wrote:
    “If you disagree with the methods of LOS, the medium is clearly not for you then, but it is delivering, the announcement blog has received 26,000 views in 4 weeks and support from major institutions and the support of interested public has never been stronger”
    —
    But these are not the deliverables MFMP has led us (or at least me) to expect. The uneducated public has always had a soft spot for cold fusion, and there is always a healthy appetite for conspiracy theories and far-out free energy claims that are denounced by mainstream science. And since cold fusion has a more than usual participation from legitimate academics, it represents truly fertile soil for pathological science or junk science or fringe science or pseudoscience and ultimately fraud to take root.
    —
    I have no doubt that you have attracted some attention to the field, and as I said in a previous message, it would not surprise me at all if someone with very deep pockets takes notice and rewards your efforts handsomely. So, yes, to that extent it is delivering. And if that’s your goal, you’re on the right track.
    —
    But you have attracted much less attention to the field than Rossi has, going by google analytics of search activity, and if you go by the financial support, Brillouin and BLP and Energetics, and other companies have also attracted considerable support. You may at some stage count among them, but based on what’s happened, there’s no indication that you will rise above them, and finally, once and for all, accomplish your first aim: “Show to the world there is a new practical primary energy source we call the New Fire”.
    —
    And for all the attention that you and Rossi and others have attracted to the field, there is very little indication that there is any increase in *legitimate* attention from the scientific community. In 2009, 60 minutes did a piece on cold fusion, both the APS and ACS were running LENR symposia at their annual meetings, and SPAWAR had an active LENR program, and activity at NASA seemed to be on the increase. But since then, nothing comparable in the mainstream media, SPAWAR shut down the LENR research, NASA has gone quiet, and both APS and ACS stopped their LENR sessions, and both rejected publication of the final volume of papers representing one such session.
    —
    The most common and objective way to evaluate acceptance of a field is by the refereed literature, and that continues to approach zero asymptotically, compared to close to 50 per year in the late 90s. For the last decade, the publication rate for new experimental results has been maybe 1 per year, and of those maybe two (in the decade) are excess heat claims. And except for a special LENR issue in a 3rd rate journal, containing (by design) mainly retrospectives and reviews, the total publication rate is only about 5 per year, excluding peripheral papers (helium in volcanoes) and negative papers.
    —
    So, whatever’s happening, from my perspective, you’re no closer to achieving aim # 1.

35. — Part 4 —
    BG wrote:
    “You are plain wrong about no major discoveries made being through “open” science – look up ‘coulomb explosion alkali metals’ – you will see even a report in Nature spawned from this Youtube/crowd science discovery.”
    —
    I did not find anything that suggests this discovery benefitted in any way from your sort of “live, open” science. There are a lot of playful videos of alkali explosions in water, but I found nothing to suggest that the discovery of the mechanism related to a coulomb explosion was made during or as a result of live on-line experiments rather than in-lab high-speed movies and simulations, the results of which were then distilled and submitted for public consumption, consistent with science as she is mostly practiced.
    —
    BG wrote:
    “Flight is FAR simpler than LENR,”
    —
    I agree. Flight is possible, and LENR almost certainly isn’t. You can’t get much more difficult than impossible.
    —
    But identifying flight in 1908 was *not* far simpler than LENR. And the discussion was about identifying the reality of the phenomenon.
    —
    Of course a modern airplane is obvious, but in 1908, it was necessary to specify what “flight” was by some minimum altitude, speed, time etc, because gliders existed, and a plane could be shot from a catapult, and is bouncing along a runway flight? Moreover, flight required skill, and therefore much practice to learn to react to changes in wind speed and so on. And it was dangerous. Many early aviators were killed in their experiments.
    —
    In comparison to this, demonstrating an energy density a million times that of chemical fuel in a device the size of bread box at ordinary conditions — if it existed — would be a piece of cake. Most cold fusion experiments run largely unattended — they don’t require training or muscle memory, and can be made as safe as you please.
    —
    BG wrote:
    “it is large and physical on a human scale”
    —
    So is the identification of cold fusion. Indeed, the propaganda for it is all about replacing fossil fuels on a *global* scale.
    —
    BG wrote:
    “and there were pre-existing things not only flying in nature but there were heavier than air objects, made by man long in existence called boomerangs”
    —
    These are reasons that flight was not contrary to scientific understanding, but have nothing to do with the difficulty in achieving it, or in demonstrating that it has been achieved. And they are also the reasons why the field was treated with respect in the best journals, including Science and Nature, and why most scientists at the time considered powered flight to be inevitable.
    —
    BG wrote:
    “the fact it was denied as possible at all in the light of the knowledge of boomerangs says more about the kind of nay-saying people that think they know better yet do not spend time either really thinking or experimenting.”
    —
    The denial of its possibility is usually exaggerated by believers of fringe science to provide an example misplaced skepticism. There were notable skeptics like Lord Kelvin, but as I already said, the field was regarded as entirely legitimate, and treated with respect, quite unlike cold fusion. It’s quite clear reading accounts of the research from before flight was achieved in the late 19th century and very early 20th century, that it was largely considered inevitable and imminent.
    —
    Indeed, the skepticism of particular claims of flight that are usually cited was not for the most part skepticism of the possibility of flight itself. Indeed, much of the skepticism of the Wrights’ claims came from other aviators, so they could hardly be dismissing the field. And alongside the oft-cited dismissal of the “Lyin’ brothers” by the Scientific American, one can find many references favorable to aviation research.
    —
    In fact, the skepticism of the Wrights’ claims are more suitably compared to skepticism of hot fusion research now, often by cold fusion advocates. Flight was obviously not contrary to scientific principles as you argued, and likewise, neither is hot fusion. It is the practical feasibility, or the time scale over which it might become feasible, that give rise to skepticism in both cases.

36. — Part 3 —
    BG wrote:
    “what confuses me about those that choose to mock our work, they rarely offer practical improvements. You imply that our our experiments are poorly designed – why not suggest the right affordable way to do them then?”
    —
    What’s wrong with your experiments has been all over the internet for years. There are detailed criticisms for many of the old cold fusion experiments, but in particular, many detailed criticisms (including several from me, since I’m here the one mocking your experiments) of Rossi’s, Parkhomov’s, Piantelli’s, and Celani’s experiments are in easily accessible discussion forums. It’s only a matter for you to take the time to educate yourself before designing the experiments, rather than expecting everyone else to take the time for you.
    —
    Measuring isolated temperatures with thermocouples would be adequate if you were to see a dramatic effect with a COP of 3 or more, but if the excess heat is only 10 % or so higher than the input, then for heaven’s sake, use calorimetry, and do it right. The problem with Piantelli, Celani, Rossi, and to a lesser extent Parkhomov, has been abysmal (or completely absent) calorimetry. In your last hot-cat type experiment, there was no proper calorimetry, and that’s why members of your team admitted the evidence for excess heat was not compelling.
    —
    The other obvious improvement was mentioned here already by Mary Yugo, and has been argued repeatedly in various forums, namely to increase the amount of “fuel” to look for a more manifest effect. The sort of scaling experiments that Antoine Lavoisier and Marie Curie famous for identifying respectively oxygen’s role in combustion and uranium’s in radioactivity, seem never to be done in the world of cold fusion. If you think Celani’s wires or Rossi’s powder are producing heat, set up a series of reactors varying only the amount of the alleged fuel over a wide range, and see if the excess power scales.
    —
    You made some excuses about not doing this, but they seem pretty lame. They should be a high priority, at least as important as using enriched fuel, and considerably easier, and yet you’ve gone to considerable trouble and expense to procure Ni-62.
    —
    And then, for these kinds of thermally induced LENR experiments, especially with high COP, all they would need to make them self sustain would be adequate insulation and some controlled cooling. The heat from the reaction if adequately contained could maintain the fuel at the necessary temperature for the reaction to proceed. But this never happens, and that’s almost certainly because there is no nuclear reaction producing the measured heat.
    —
    Measuring excess heat above some kind of input energy is perhaps interesting in the preliminary identification of a phenomenon, especially one induced electrically, as in the original electrolysis experiments. But now, after the phenomenon has been studied for 27 years, and especially in experiments where the effect is allegedly triggered thermally, it’s unlikely such claims will be taken seriously by the mainstream before the experiments can be made self-sustaining.
    —
    An energy source that requires an energy source is not much better than a heat pump, and heat pumps will not revolutionize energy production. That’s why it’s nearly certain that if anyone cites a COP for something intended to supply energy, he is either selling a heat pump or snake oil.
    —
    —
    As for the radiation measurements, again, the experiment performed would be perfectly adequate if you actually observed gamma ray spectra with peaks characteristic of specific nuclear reactions, and if these could be generated repeatably. But what you’ve seen is so far from that, it’s laughable. One spectrum representing a smooth continuum and an average count rate 5 times background is hardly a definitive result, particularly when nuclear reactions that produce measurable heat on that scale would have reaction rates billions of times higher. Artifacts of the nature you’ve reported are common in counting experiments, often from electrical glitches of one kind or another.
    —
    Of course, it’s an unexplained excursion, and should not be simply dismissed, considering you’ve gone that far. But to claim with near certainty that you’ve now proved cold fusion, and to reveal it in a kind of strip-tease way, is nothing short of drama mongering.
    —
    A good scientist encountering such an unexplained result would use the apparatus as it is and as quickly as possible try to duplicate the effect, and then to do all the experiments he could think of to isolate the origin and characterize the nature of the signal. One could simply determine the effect of a different absorbers (lead and aluminium) between the reactor and the detector, of different elements in the reactor. If it’s really brehmstrallung you’re seeing, then adding tungsten should produce characteristic x-rays within the range of your detector. And of course changing the composition (or amount) of the fuel should have an effect. Using a few additional inexpensive GM tubes place around the reactor to exclude individual detector malfunctions. In fact, there was a GM tube, and that data was to be analyzed. What ever happened with that? Surely, it should also show evidence of this excursion.
    —
    It just seems like there are a lot of obvious things a thoughtful person would do before shouting wild claims from the rooftops. You should read the account of Roentgen’s discovery of x-rays. The results seemed so extraordinary that he spent several weeks eating and sleeping in the lab trying everything he could think of to be quite sure of himself, before he came out and gave the world unequivocal evidence.
    —
    It’s almost 2 months since the anomalous spectrum was observed, and more than a month since it was noticed, but it seems no additional experiment has been performed at all. Instead you proceeded to produce a series of home videos, and your purporting to explain everything in cold fusion based on these results is arrogant clap-trap. I think you would be ashamed if you knew how imbecilic it looked to anyone with relevant experience. And you should be ashamed because you are helping to enable what is almost certainly criminal fraud, based on what can only be called pathetically weak evidence. Yes, you make the evidence openly public, but it is the nature of most of your audience to react not to the evidence, but to your antics.

37. — Part 2 —
    BG wrote:
    “We have made and continue to make the experiments and methods open in a way that has not been done before…We must agree to disagree about the value of doing live experiments – there is nowhere to hide running live and that is the point – the data is there and people can watch / download / analyse it and suggest tests as we go, safe in the knowledge they already know what went into the experiment.”
    —
    I don’t disagree that your way is new. But I don’t agree that it is better than openly communicated science as it is mostly performed in academic, and to a lesser extent in industrial settings. Scientific openness was critical to the breakneck progress made in the modern physics revolution in the first half of the 20th century, and in the electronics and computer revolution in the second half, as well as the genomics and proteomics revolution that straddled the turn of the 21st century.
    —
    Yes, scientists work in private in their labs, and they analyze the data in small groups. But then they do their best to distill their expositions to what is necessary to enable replication, and to support any interpretations they have to offer. These expositions are presented in more preliminary form at conferences, or after peer review in the literature. There is nowhere to hide here either, because if others repeat the experiments and fail to get the same results, then the claims remain unconfirmed. And most journals require disclosure of all the information necessary for replication, if not in the journal itself, then as raw data available on-line.
    —
    I find the communication of information from MFMP and the analysis of the results to be incredibly diffuse and inefficient. And simultaneous analysis by dozens or more people means duplication of effort as many people discover the same hitches or flaws or corrections. In the latest Celani experiment for example, many people were poring over the results that appeared to give some excess heat, only to find a simple error in the flow measurement. This did not demonstrate the strength of “live” science, but its weakness. Under ordinary conditions, eventually, the error would have been found by the primary scientists, and a great deal of time would have been saved.
    —
    Moreover, I disagree that there is nowhere to hide. The audience cannot know what goes on beyond the view of the camera, and fooling a camera is the easiest thing in the world. Therefore, trust is still required until others can test the claims independently.

38. Dear Bob Greenyer,
    I read your missive several times, and try as I might, I found nothing in it that contradicts my basic thesis that as of yet, nothing that the MFMP has done rises above the characteristically marginal, ambiguous, and erratic results that have been claimed in the field of cold fusion over the past 27 years. Indeed, it falls well short in the degree of the claimed effect, and in the quality of the evidence of many of the claims that have nevertheless been considered and rejected by reviewers for journals and granting agencies, including panels of experts enlisted by the DOE.
    —
    As such, MFMP has not brought any clarity to the field, and the effect of your videos, by e.g. suggesting that gravity plays a role, is quite the contrary. Many people praise them, but they just seem to like your enthusiasm, and the twinkle in your eye.
    —
    BG wrote:
    “For brevity, I did select key experimental moments in the MFMP journey…”
    —
    Surely you understand that it was not the brevity that was the problem with that list. One item is all it should take, but it has to be definitive. It only took one experiment to convince the world of HTSC, and it resulted in a Nobel prize the following year.
    —
    There are thousands of claimed sightings of bigfoot, and hundreds of thousands of claimed alien visitations, but the length of the list does the claim no good at all. In fact, more blurry photos of bigfoot makes it less likely — not more –to be real, because just by chance, one might expect someone to get a clear shot, and it suggests that when the camera is focused, the image can be explained without invoking extraordinary monsters. Just as when cold fusion experiments improve, the claimed effect becomes more modest, until it disappears.
    —
    BG wrote:
    “However, you may not understand that there has been more, so for clarity
    [descriptions of MFMP activity with Celani cells and the glowstick design]
    In both of the above experiment threads whilst you are right that the result scales are not earth shattering, they are honest, conservative …”
    —
    I certainly did not suggest that your efforts were not honest or conservative. What I suggested was that they were not in any way distinguished from the dozens or hundreds of results already claimed in the field. If you were to succeed at your goal of proving the reality of cold fusion, then the result *would* be earth shattering.
    —
    The very fact that many of these results are in the past, and have not really led to any sort of confidence from MFMP indicates their marginal nature. Step two in your mission is to facilitate replication by others, but those results were never considered adequate to justify that. It was the observation of a single spectrum that has led to this renewed evaluation of those experiments. Not that it’s not appropriate to re-evaluate old results under new discovery, just that the new discovery is itself no less marginal, and has not even been replicated.
    —
    I have a lot more to say, but I’ll break it up over a few more posts to keep them shorter.

39. @Bob

    Understanding the exact nature of what special form of hydrogen takes and how its production is caused by experimental processes is what Bob Higgins needs to do as an experimenter. It is clear to me that the existing collection of experimental results generated in LENR experiments over the years supports the observation that that special type of hydrogen is produced by high pressure exerted by molecular bonds of transition metals.

    The Holmlid and Miley experiments are definitive on identifying this special type of hydrogen. Metalized hydrogen produces the LENR reaction; all the evidence points to the formation of hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM) in the preparation processes that produce Rossi’s fuel and how HRM produces LENR effects.

    Bob needs to verify Holmlids finding in that the vast numbers of muons are produced by HRM by setting up muon detectors in his experiments. A cloud chamber is a minimum particle detection mechanism that should be used but a Holmlid muon detector would be best to use in your upcoming experiments.

    Bob, don’t let the invalid Piantelli theory blind you to the overwhelming evidence of subatomic particle production that goes on in LENR as shown by Holmlid and Miley.

40. @Peter
    It is well known that the hydrogen species in LiH is the hydrogen anion – LiH is an ionic hydride. So, the H- is known to exist in a metal lattice and in a liquid (molten LiH). That doesn’t mean that it can exist that way inside of a Ni lattice, but it is certainly not ruled out.

    Bob G. may have it a little wrong about where the “bremsstrahlung” comes from in Piantelli’s theory. Here is how I understand Piantelli’s theory.

    As Piantelli describes it, the atoms of a particularly sized metal grain collectively act [condensate behavior] on an H- anion on the surface of the Ni, drawing it into the Ni lattice and extracting energy via evanescent coupling to shrink it into a compact form [DDL]. At this point, all of the energy taken from the H- [perhaps 509 keV total] is shared among the collective set of lattice atoms at sub-keV excitations. These atoms will generally release this energy spontaneously as low energy photons.

    Meanwhile, the shrunken H- appears as a tiny, heavy composite fermion with negative charge – like a muon but heavier. The H- displaces an electron in a nearby Ni atom, and due to its extreme mass (compared to an electron), it quickly descends to a tiny orbital around the nucleus of the Ni atom. The H- anion radiates a bremsstrahlung-like radiation in its transient descent into the tiny inner orbital around the Ni nucleus. At this point, the composite atom can be considered a pico-molecule; or, because the orbital is so small for the shrunken H- anion around the Ni nucleus, the composite atom may appear more like an atom of Co chemically and spectrascopically. This shrunken H- anion orbital may be metastable.

    At some point, the shrunken H- anion in orbit only femtometers radius, has a nuclear reaction probably via tunneling. What exactly happens in this nuclear reaction is unclear, but Piantelli has observed energetic protons with up to 6MeV emerging as at least one branch of the nuclear reaction. What other branches there are is not clear. Piantelli was not willing to speculate without further data. The energetic protons would require mass deficit conversion to acquire 6MeV of energy – unlikely to have come from anything but a nuclear reaction.

    I had to ask myself, what happened to the electrons? I speculated that the electrons, in this branch of the reaction, would share some portion of the 6MeV energy given to the protons; making the proton energy variable [seen by Piantelli]. It is unlikely that Piantelli would have seen the electrons in his cloud chamber, so they are not ruled out. These electrons would have variable energy, shared from the nuclear reaction that sometimes gave the proton 6MeV. The variable energy of the electron emission would cause bremsstrahlung radiation as they are stopped in the apparatus. This could well have been what MFMP saw in the GS5.2 “signal”. The “signal” would have required source electrons with energies of at least 2 MeV and with a variable distribution. The average energy given to the electron may be 1800 times less than that of the proton (mass ratio) – which could put the average energy of the electrons in the 1-5 keV range.

    Note that no one has ever computed the DDL states for an H- anion (I have asked). Also, such a shrinking of an H- to compact DDL-like form may only be possible inside the Ni lattice. In which case, computation of the states of such an object in the lattice is beyond present capabilities. Piantelli infers that the shrinking of the H- happens from the data he has taken in his working and reproducible experiments.

41. @BG

    You think Mills’ recent demos involving a high power welding power supply dumping its output into a tiny volume to make an impressive explosion means something? Are you not aware that Mills has been claiming for more than TWENTY YEARS that his methods would provide industrial power levels within ONE year? And it was ALL LIES?

    As for Rossi, I am speechless that you still believe anything he says. Maybe you should try to buy one element of his so-called megawatt power plant. Or ask him to whom he has sold them. He claimed almost five years ago that he sold one to the military and had orders for 12 more. You believe that too, perhaps?

    Wow. Just wow.

42. Dear Peter,

    First, thank you for taking the time to review that video.

    Yes – I had never heard of it and have no shame in saying so as I like to keep things real – however, the MFMP, like many organisations is not restricted by the capabilities of one of its members. Bob Higgins had heard many times and Piantelli is very familiar with the concept.

    When we saw the data from *GlowStick* 5.2, we revisited what we had been told and we consulted many people before drawing public attention to our analysis of the pre-published data – We were only happy to report it after blind requests for opinions from former nuclear experts from the French Nuclear authorities – they were the people that gave the emphatic conclusion of its nature and from that we saw the strength of correlation with Piantelli’s theory. I stated this clearly in the “Implications of Signal, Seeing into the Cat with X-Ray Eyes” video.

    What I am putting across is an understanding of Piantelli’s theory to the best of my ability in combination with a fully described experiment and process which produced the supporting data – it is a third parties theory and a crowd supported and group developed experiment, this is not about me, I am just a messenger. I do draw inference however, but not without supporting material – the idea is to call out to people that may have seen similar things in other research that could not be easily explained and I can tell you that this approach is yielding surprising dividends. There are likely many embodiments of the New Fire that will work and if you look at all the permutations in Piantelli’s patent – it will take a 1000 years or more to have a good spread of tested variations – assuming machines don’t run experiments in the near future, which I would expect.

    As I said in “Opening the door – Part 1”, it took four years for Piantelli and Focardi to establish that H- was the key. Since it took so long for two eminent scientists to establish this – and it is a new discovery, it is no surprise that long-established (pre-existing) facts in nuclear physics would not have it documented it or have its properties and behaviour established. What I can say is that Piantelli has a 30m^2 floor to ceiling library and on every minute aspect of his theory – he referred to pre-existing literature (even showing us the pages in many books) as his basis for explaining the entire effect and its consistency with established physics, chemistry, material science, plasmonics, electrical properties etc.etc.

    I cannot agree with you more that much of LENR is in contradiction however and as I said in “ Implications of Signal 2, Seeing into the SunCell with X-Ray Eyes“, Piantelli spent many hours with us systematically destroying other theories based on established facts in a range of knowledge disciplines. I also say in that same video that Piantelli was VERY clear that the only theory that he gave credence to was Randall Mills’. He said that Mills was the closest, but had got a particular thing wrong (annoyingly he did not spell out what). A year later – you have a very clear demonstration from Mills of a near practical technology. What this demonstrates is that you do not need to understand fully what is really going on or even get it right – you just have to understand it may be possible and to start experimenting with what is known and best practice in the right ballpark. This is what Rossi did, and when he had the opportunity, he sought any member of the Piantelli/Focardi research team to work with him. A range of technologies with a range of outputs are at least in part explainable according to Piantelli.

    The spectrum in our data is only part explained by the H- shrinking, we are working hard to do replication and better experiments that will be able to see with more clarity any characteristic x-rays if present and also the hypothesis of stimulated gamma which may be an important factor – data is king.

    In terms of the longevity of H-, Piantelli established that it was effectively meta-stable through empirical evidence as I reveal in “Pre-Processing of fuel for low emissions”. This is supported by the fuel analysis and loading approach used in Lugano and also by Russian researchers that say that it is advantageous to salt fuel with fuel elements used in previously, seemingly positive experiments. We have the intention of testing the hypothesis that it is meta-stable with a cloud chamber experiments at some point with basic Celani wire as it is not covered with Lithium/Aluminium/Nickel/Hydrogen complex.

    Thanks again for taking a look at one of the videos. If you have not done so already, I recommend you look at the supporting links in the video description and where present download the linked presentations that also include many links to papers, reports and videos for context.

43. Bob,

    I have a few comments to your video:

    *************
    “Correlation between Piantelli’s and Randell Mills’ theories—Bremsstrahlung, Auger Electrons and more:

    This video discusses one of the key aspects of what Prof. Francesco Piantelli shared with us that helped us to conclude we may have seen a critical event occurring in the *GlowStick* 5.2 experiment. It is also what may tie the two leading emerging ‘New Fire’ technologies together.”
    *************

    Firstly: You say you you knew nothing about Bremsstrahlung. Would it not be useful for you to consult somebody who is knowledgeable in nuclear physics and the measurement of ionizing radiation? Also, with your limited knowledge of physics, I find it arrogant to pretend you have the solution to the alleged LENR effect. LENR is in contradiction with several long-established facts in nuclear physics. It is very difficult to reconcile existing measurements of radiation from LENR systems with established data.

    My main objection to your video is your description of what happens to the two electrons in the H- ion. You claim that they make a compact H- by losing energy through continuous bremsstrahlung. Electrons bound to a nucleus (in this case a proton) would be restricted to discrete states given by quantum mechanics. This would give a line spectrum and not a continuous spectrum, as established already in 1913 by N Bohr. In addition, the are no states in hydrogen below 1s. Randell Mills’ new physics is well-established pseudo-scientific nonsense! Also, I doubt that the H- would survive being immersed in Ni.

44. Dear Joshua Cude,

    I read your missive several times and try as I might, I could not find much that was not self evident, and little of real value – there was the usual sprinkling of ad hominem attacks and commentary that reflect little understanding of the work we have done with and for the community over the years.

    For brevity, I did select key experimental moments in the MFMP journey – so you are right there but this is because I don’t like being bored by long lists and so I feel others might like a “cut to the chase’ review. However, you may not understand that there has been more, so for clarity
    1. In dual Celani cells (both classic design and isothermal Steel and Glass) cells we saw repeatably similar results in 3 locations/labs and the excess was in favour of the active cell when present. After a few years, Celani accepted that our results in the original generation of his wires were closer to the real value, for various reasons which we identified, rather than the levels reported from NIWeek and ICCF-17. Repeated replications on basic Celani wire have be reported from China, Russia, Czech Republic and Ukraine – in addition to Celani’s on-going work. Furthermore, it is not so simple as to pile more in a cell with Celani wire as you need to have thermal gradients for it to be effective as was demonstrated by evenly heated wires in otherwise brilliant flow calorimeters used at SKINR that showed nothing, as expected.
    2. The GlowStick design, which was born out of solving the very complex construction of a DogBone also has an in-line control. Here, where signs of excess heat have occurred, again it is in favour of the ‘active’ side. In the case of GS 5.2 the reported 70W excess is conservative for a number of reasons, we could not get the ‘fuel’ holder out during the book-end calibration, so we had to use a lower differential – in addition – we considered the entire power (1150W) dissipated over the supply wires and both sides of the apparatus in the denominator when in fact less than half was dissipated in the active side heater.

    In both of the above experiment threads whilst you are right that the result scales are not earth shattering, they are honest, conservative and in line with the ambitions for ITER, should it get that far.

    We have made and continue to make the experiments and methods open in a way that has not been done before, what confuses me about those that choose to mock our work, they rarely offer practical improvements. You imply that our our experiments are poorly designed – why not suggest the right affordable way to do them then? We must agree to disagree about the value of doing live experiments – there is nowhere to hide running live and that is the point – the data is there and people can watch / download / analyse it and suggest tests as we go, safe in the knowledge they already know what went into the experiment.

    You are plain wrong about no major discoveries made being through “open” science – look up ‘coulomb explosion alkali metals’ – you will see even a report in Nature spawned from this Youtube/crowd science discovery.

    Flight is FAR simpler than LENR, it is large and physical on a human scale and there were pre-existing things not only flying in nature but there were heavier than air objects, made by man long in existence called boomerangs – the fact it was denied as possible at all in the light of the knowledge of boomerangs says more about the kind of nay-saying people that think they know better yet do not spend time either really thinking or experimenting.

    If you disagree with the methods of LOS, the medium is clearly not for you then, but it is delivering, the announcement blog has received 26,000 views in 4 weeks and support from major institutions and the support of interested public has never been stronger and we are in communication with Piantelli, who by the way, has published in a major physics journal despite the incredible resistance to LENR. Piantelli wholeheartedly agrees with you that there is a lack of clarity in the field – when we were with him, he held up the “Cold fusion research in Italy” book and disparagingly said that there were only around 3 papers of any value in it. At that time – we had no data that really supported his own research – now we do, is this not clearing the mud?

    In your last paragraph, you seem to be supporting the point I made about how all kinds of top scientists ‘discovered’ things that turned out to be rubbish. Obviously I agree – Piantelli would agree with you also and said as much on several occasions during our time with him, refreshing to see. As for myself, I know I am fallible, but as I said before I don’t care if I am wrong, I only care if I am right, even if only in part.

    Please, if you have any suggestions for practical tests or modifications / additions to our experiments, like Mary Yugo and Axil Axil do from time to time, please suggest them, preferably prior to the conclusion of an experiment as it is more useful then.

    One last thing, I have had this open question out there for some weeks now, perhaps you or Peter Ekstrom or Stephan Pomp could show your creativity and aptitude by explaining why Piantelli can say that pretty much all Transition metals / Actinides and Lathanides will work. I’d like one of you guys or your associates to hazard a guess before I explain exactly why (according to Piantelli) in another “minimum viable product’ video.

45. @BG

    One thing I don’t understand is why you or anyone is trying to replicate the hot cat. Levi’s 2011 tests with the original, small, steam ecat yielded far better results (at least an order of magnitude better), both as to output to input power ratio (“COP”) and also absolute power. Why not try to replicate THAT test, perhaps with some assistance from Professor Levi?

    The second thing I don’t get is why, if you insist on high temperature operation, you don’t use an extremely precise calorimeter developed for just this sort of application. See:

    https://gsvit.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/misura-del-calore-emesso-da-una-lampada-ad-infrarossi-da-2kw-tramite-calorimetria-a-flusso/

    … and note the nice tight calibration data. (Google translate works well on the original Italian text)

    And if you MUST do it your way, why not do away altogether with the thermal cameras and use thermocouples, or at least calibrate the thermal camera with the aid of thermocouples for the full operating temperature rang? I have not followed your newest work closely so apologies if you have done any of this.

    Thanks for the response about the Celani wires. Surely even Celani must recognize that it would be worth the work to make a dozen or so wires just once so as to get a whole order of magnitude improvement in signal and prove that excess energy is made in adequate amounts to rule out measurement errors!

46. Dear Joshuacude,

    Thanks for your excellent contribution! I will adopt it as my answer to Bob G. Since Bob seems to think that Piantelli is the bee’s knees of Science, I will have a look at the P site

    http://www.nichenergy.com/results.html

    There is a beautiful spectrum with a 411 keV peak which without any doubt shows the presence of neutrons. If these are LENR produced neutrons, P has the Nobel prize in a little box. Free neutrons can be captured in almost anything with a 8 MeV energy gain. Why has he not published? Without a publication, no Nobel prize! See what happened to Lise Meitner!

    My feeling is, however, that the spectrum is too good to be true.

47. @BG

    I look forward to your reply, although I’d prefer a report of better experiments to more argument.

    I have to say that I’ve heard a lot of arguments advocating cold fusion from Rothwell and Lomax and Alainco and Gluck and Shane and Storms and Hagelstein and McKubre and on and on. Maybe you have some new arguments, or maybe you can phrase them in just the right way, but I have my doubts that they’re gonna be any more persuasive coming from you, whether you wink and make jazz hands or not.

    The promise I thought of MFMP was the definitive experiment that left no doubt and that anyone could perform and would not lead to endless arguments in internet forums.

    Instead, you’ve delivered the same old marginal results that can be far more plausibly attributed to artifacts than to inconceivable nuclear reactions, that have indeed led to a continuation of the endless arguments on internet forums.

    The results of this latest experiment can be (and have been) presented in a few slides and graphs with a little text. The results do not, by the admission of MFMP members, provide good evidence for excess heat, but there is one spectrum that shows a higher count rate from a NaI detector, even though it remains many many orders of magnitude too low to be able to account for measurable excess heat. That’s it.

    But this experimental result is clearly not good enough to speak for itself, which again, was the promise of MFMP. So, you launch hours of videos to supplement the results, hoping *that* will persuade. And that just means that you’ve failed so far to identify the unequivocal experiment.

    If you were to ever produce unequivocal evidence for cold fusion, I guarantee you would not need hours of home-made video to draw attention to yourself. You’d be telling us about it from a podium in Stockholm and all the networks would produce videos for you … and with professional sound.

    —
    Now, to me the MFMP looks like a group of sincere people trying to prove something they already believe, but I have to say that these latest antics have got me a little suspicious. Whether or not you are in fact sincere, I suspect you’ve come to realize that there’s considerable sympathy for the field from some very rich people. And if you can get their attention, they might well think nothing of dropping a few million in your lap to see what you can do with it. If that happens, I expect you will cease to be a volunteer, and become a well-paid cold fusion researcher, even without good evidence for cold fusion. Just a hunch….

48. @MY

    Re: Thomas Clarke analysis of Lugano, a good chunk of it was based off our empirical data derived during DogBone week. Having said that, Bob Higgins assesses that Thomas Clarke has made some errors in his assumptions and underestimated the output even taking into consideration our data – it is to do with the bolometer and its wavelength sensitivity. Bob Higgins calculates that whilst Lugano was maybe well below the reports output energy claims, it was still well above unity.

    We’d rather take what we have learned from “Bang!” and GS 5.2 and let that guide us now. me356 and Bob Higgins are preparing replications (focussed on radiation) and Brian Albiston, Mathieu Valat and Free Phases (focussed on excess heat). SKINR will have a closer attempt next week. That is 6 at least outside the Santa Cruz experiment, there are many others. Each one tells us something – we shall see if it is useful.

49. @MY

    We have wanted to up the wire count – but shortage of supplies and of scientist time got in our way, wanting to do something isn’t always enough. In the end – we published on 1st of September last year a “how to” make basic Celani wire and this has been used by two teams, me356 and Ukranian/Russian group in their experiments in which they claim COP 1.5 upwards in repeated experiments, the data has not been made available so it is difficult to judge credibility.

    With respect to Rossi et al, we cannot answer for him or for his claims, we can only speak of our own experiments and where they might be in line with the claims that have been made by people we are attempting to replicate.

    @JC

    I look forward to addressing your discussion points in due course.

50. axil wrote:
    ” but arrogance and the certitude of Know-It-All-ism abounds in human nature.”

    …and one need not look further than the author of that line for the very best example of it.

51. “Rossi may invite many strong reactions, but if he does not have what he claims, one must conclude that he is able to influence truly independent LIVE experiments across continents in a range of different apparatus to produce results matching his historical off-the cuff claims – if he is able to do all that, he is much better than the best fraudster that ever lived – he is the most powerful magician that ever lived.”

    Rossi, via Levi’s 2011 experiment with mass flow calorimetry, documented briefly in NyTeknik by Lewan, claimed 135kW peak power and 15-20kW stable for hours, from a device the size of a tennis ball on a tabletop with only an 80W input! Please name someone or reference a link or publication, credibly and reliably claiming to duplicate THAT! And are you not amazed that Rossi and Levi never did it again? After all these years? And now they struggle to prove that the hot cat makes 3kW at a power ratio of 3! And that is on extremely doubtful grounds after analysis by Thomas Clarke and others.

52. @Bob

    “We have considered adding Samarium Cobalt magnets to Celani wires in past – however, not in this context.”

    Why not simply add many more Celani wires? They can be heated with a single heater of only slightly higher power (if any more at all), thus GREATLY increasing net power production (“COP”) and signal to noise ratio. I suggested this on MFMP’s web site more than a year ago.

53. It’s time to step back and look at the big picture. The road to LENR goes through high pressure physics. This field is a very difficult one because the means to experiment in this field take imagination and luck. But the proof that high pressure chemistry can produce heat from nuclear processes is found inside the cores of planets.

    If you take a look at the latest data from the Pluto flyby, you can see another cosmologic mystery rear its head that can be well explained by metalized hydrogen and compressed water as a LENR heat source.

    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/07/pluto-alive-where-heat-coming

    Pluto is alive—but where is the heat coming from?

    http://www.space.com/29968-pluto-charon-photos-active-icy-worlds.html

    New Photos of Pluto and Moon Surprise, Puzzle Scientists.

    There is a tremendous amount of heat coming from the interior of Pluto and its small satellite; so much so, that the surface of Pluto is resurfaced by the eruption of ice from the interior of Pluto. Also there is a constant replenishment of the nitrogen atmosphere of Pluto from the interior.

    The standard causes given for planetary heat production do not apply to Pluto, that being heat from the sun, radioactive decay, and friction caused by tidal stretching. Pluto should be a cold dark rock floating in alone outer space without any means of producing energy, but miraculously it does and it does it on its own hook.

    Furthermore, there is evidence that other smaller free standing bodies in the Kuiper belt sometimes called the Edgeworth–Kuiper belt, are at the far edge of the solar system are producing their own internal heat.

    Ceres is another supposedly frozen world that has a liquid core. That core has produced an ice volcano 3 miles high made of salt from the boiling hot salt sea that rolls under its frozen surface.

    Although to date most KBOs still appear spectrally featureless due to their faintness, there have been a number of successes in determining their composition. In 1996, Robert H. Brown et al. obtained spectroscopic data on the KBO 1993 SC, revealing its surface composition to be markedly similar to that of Pluto, as well as Neptune’s moon Triton, possessing large amounts of methane ice.

    In order to reproduce this nuclear heat source from chemistry, ways that produce the huge pressures inside these cold planets must be found. A way to do this seems to lay in nanotechnology and lattice compression of gases inside metal lattice imperfections and of course cavitation.

    This new science is not contrary to existing science, it is just new and unexplored. The naysayers really don’t know everything that the universe can do, but arrogance and the certitude of Know-It-All-ism abounds in human nature.

54. Dear Bob Greenyer,

    Between you and Peter Ekstrom, you are the one who comes off as inexcusably arrogant. Though you’re not yet rich, you seem to think of yourself as some sort of Donald Trump, cutting through established scientific elitism on the way to making the world great again, facts be damned.

    The truth is you’re yet another deluded fantasist with a chip on his shoulder.

    No scientist regards everything (even within certain fields, like nuclear physics) as having been discovered, because then (as you say) there would be no need for science. But some things *have* been learned, and progress is made by *using* what has been learned, not by ignoring it — standing on the shoulders of giants. Feynman — one of the most innovative scientists of the century — put it like this:

    “The whole question of imagination in science is often misunderstood by people in other disciplines. … They overlook the fact that whatever we are allowed to imagine in science must be consistent with everything else we know. … We can’t allow ourselves to seriously imagine things which are obviously in contradiction to the known laws of nature. … One has to have the imagination to think of something that has never been seen before, never been heard of before. At the same time the thoughts are restricted in a straitjacket, so to speak, limited by the conditions that come from our knowledge of the way nature really is.”

    Obviously, there have been many surprises in science, and one can’t allow generalizations of previous observations to exclude the possibility of phenomena that are clearly observed. It is the attribution of these observations that must remain consistent with other equally (usually far more) robust observations. But are the claimed phenomena in cold fusion clearly observed?

    Clarity.

    That’s what it’s about, and that’s what’s completely absent in the entire field of cold fusion. The claimed phenomena are *not* clearly observed. They are all marginal, inconsistent not just with established science, but within the field itself, notwithstanding your cherry-picked events. All the vague and ambiguous claims in cold fusion are far more plausibly attributable to artifacts, experimental error, and a healthy dose of confirmation bias than with some new exotic, unprecedented, and inconceivable family of nuclear reactions that somehow contrive to prevent discovery of their nature.

    What we have already learned about nuclear physics may not be enough to exclude cold fusion outright (which of course is why the world was so excited in 1989), but it is enough to show that it is an extraordinary claim, and therefore requires excellent evidence before it prevails over more mundane explanations. But the evidence is not even good, let alone excellent or extraordinary. And the kicker is that if an energy density a million times that of dynamite were accessible at such ordinary conditions, it *would* be easy to generate unmistakeable evidence.

    As I understood the motivation behind the MFMP, it was to *bring* clarity to the field, because of frustration with exactly the state of affairs described above. That is, to identify one simple experiment that gives unequivocal evidence for the phenomenon that anyone could repeat. And to provide freely the means for anyone to perform this replication, by making the experiments completely openly accessible.

    But it seems that after several years, you’ve become frustrated in this quest, and have simply become one more of the many participants in making ridiculously speculative claims based on exactly the same sort of marginal and ambiguous (and so far unreproducible) observations that have characterized the field for 27 years.

    None of those 4 observations that you list rises in any way above the dozens or hundreds of similar claims since 1989, and particularly not the claims of radiation a billion times too weak to be commensurate with measurable excess heat. They are distinguished in your eyes only because of your own involvement.

    Doing an experiment live and on-line does not add credibility to poor results from a poorly designed experiment. Which is probably why no great scientific discovery can be attributed to what you consider to be “open” science. In a year or a few years, there will be some new experiment that has the community all in a tizzy, and yours will join all the other nondescript and non-compelling results in cold fusion.

    BG wrote:
    “The argument you make about how long this research is taking is specious – 27 years is nothing even when the most brilliant minds are working with immense funding as Hot Fusion research amply demonstrates.”

    You clearly misunderstood the argument. It’s not about how long it takes to understand or develop something. We all know it took 50 years to explain superconductivity, and HTSC is still not well understood. But the phenomena were *immediately* accepted. In hot fusion, no one has claimed to have observed a phenomenon without generally accepted evidence. P&F claimed to have *achieved* cold fusion in 1989, and in 27 years, the *claim* is still rejected by most scientists. It would be more like someone claiming to have conquered flight and not being able to prove it in 27 years.

    BG wrote:
    “Piantelli is the most formidable multi-disciplinary scientist/experimentalist I have ever met and deeply sincere and serious. ”

    You are free to worship the ground upon which Piantelli walks, but the statement is kind of meaningless without knowing how many scientists you have met, and after seeing a few parts of your videos (it’s heeaavvyy), I’m not sure your adoration should be taken as particularly complimentary.

    For all this claimed greatness, Piantelli has hardly published at all on cold fusion in the refereed literature, and what he has published has been partly disputed, and none of it can be characterized as credible, let alone formidable.

    BG wrote:
    “If there is nothing – nature was playing one hell of a cruel trick on him for over 1/4 century across 100s of well conceived experiments.”

    You see how you’ve fallen from the lofty ambition of identifying an unequivocal experiment that proves cold fusion to using the same tactics that every advocate has used for 27 years — namely, arguing that surely all the smart people who think cold fusion real can’t be mistaken. And yet, smart scientists *were* mistaken about N-rays and polywater — phenomena that got far *more* respect in their time, being published in the best journals like Science and Nature. Scientists were mistaken about the ether and planet vulcan and almost certainly about dowsing and homeopathy and astrology and creationism. No one is infallible — not even Piantelli.

    And Nature would be playing an even more cruel trick if cold fusion were real, by somehow making the phenomenon completely immune to unequivocal proof, let alone detailed characterization. The sort of erratic results characteristic of cold fusion and attributed to some desirable phenomenon are common enough to have given rise to a special designation: pathological science. A real effect (particularly one of this alleged magnitude) so resistant to solid evidence is far more rare.

    BG wrote:
    “Rossi may invite many strong reactions, but if he does not have what he claims, one must conclude that he is able to influence truly independent LIVE experiments across continents in a range of different apparatus to produce results matching his historical off-the cuff claims – if he is able to do all that, he is much better than the best fraudster that ever lived – he is the most powerful magician that ever lived.”

    First of all, nothing matches his claims. If they did, there would be a Nobel prize. What you get is people like Parkhomov who depends on photoshop for data analysis, and who no one can replicate. Remember in Dec 2014 when you and Lewan were telling us to hang on to our hats — things would move very fast. And yet, you still haven’t produced good evidence for excess heat in a hot-cat type experiment.

    So, there is no magic required. A substantial cold fusion community existed before Rossi, with many similarly equivocal claims. It’s not magic that some of them would put confirmation bias to good use yet again to see something they desperately want to see when there is nothing there.

    And even if he were the greatest magician that ever lived — that’s easier to believe than him being the greatest scientist that ever lived.

55. The recent finding of ISOLDE/CERN experiment measuring PdD/H with PAC bring interesting inforations.

    Does it match the proposed theory ?
    https://indico.cern.ch/event/437713/session/4/contribution/28

56. @Axil

    We have considered adding Samarium Cobalt magnets to Celani wires in past – however, not in this context.

    When Mathieu has moved labs – we will try testing this hypothesis, thankyou.

57. Dear Peter Ekstrom,

    In the second line of my spreadsheet I say “NOTE: This spreadsheet is for comment only, It is subject to revision and may contain material errors”

    It is part of the Live Open Science process that people put hypothesis out there to be discussed and/or tested. If you are uncomfortable with Hypothesis>Test>Analyse etc, then there is nothing compelling you to read the rest of the freely produced and published sheet – however I did direct you to the exact lines and these were written at the beginning of last year long before Parkhomov published his latest results – You are right about the long reaction chains – but they are there, so doesn’t real world data raise your curiosity?

    For your information, when I sent the sheet to Piantelli at the beginning of last year – Piantelli wrote back and said “Yes, we did something similar early on – but it is much more complex than this”. I do not pretend to understand everything – but what I think I understand, I am prepared to share without requiring an NDA or the next grant cheque.

    The MFMP was set up to test the claims of others in an open and live way, to date we have seen evidence supporting the claims of 3 researchers directly, Celani, Piantelli and Rossi – and by virtue of the phenomenon being a natural process – it seams our data – published live – is showing that the observations (if not the mechanism) of many researched over the years have value. The Bohr model is utter rubbish – but chemists use it every day and it is taught the world over. A model does not have to be perfect to allow practical insight and development of process.

    I read New Scientist for 20 years cover to cover – and over that period, I saw MANY different things “discovered”, explored and then found to be different / wrong / artifact etc etc. This happens in science all the time – and just because our budgets are very small, and the amount of letters after our names are limited, it does not mean we are immune from the same difficulties faced in primary research at top institutions.

    The MFMP was also set up to be immune from the usual attack approaches metered out by the status quo. For instance, I have no interest in publishing a paper, having a university tenure – this is not my career, this is my passion. I simply do not care if I am wrong, I ONLY care if I am right – even if only in part. Intelligent people will be able to work out the wheat from the chaff.

    When it comes to mocking the MFMP or making personal attacks soft or hard at me – I just find interesting sociologically speaking – the actions and motivations of people engaging in the New Fire story fascinate me. You are playing a role and it does have value – but there are others that KNOW that we are not experts, but do see really interesting things in our data and the links to similar historical data and these “scientist, scientists” are seeking the raw data, asking to analyse ash or provide material support in other related areas. This is individuals, free thinking scientists and universities.

    This field is so multidisciplinary – it is simply not possible for a top Physicist or a top Chemist or a top Material scientist etc to get it – because is spans across all these areas of study. Perhaps the best people to work in this field first in the absence of people with the broad skill set required, is people that are blessed with a lack of per-conceptions about what is possible. Matter existed since the birth of the universe – but it took till 1932 for the splitting of the atom to be achieved deliberately, just because things exist does not mean everything should already have been discovered. The argument you make about how long this research is taking is specious – 27 years is nothing even when the most brilliant minds are working with immense funding as Hot Fusion research amply demonstrates. In the field of the New Fire – that research continues is because those that choose to look – sooner or later see the evidence.

    The fact is that we know less than 1% of how chemistry works – because most of the universe mass operates at pressures unattainable by man in the lab. What human arrogance does it take to conclude that there is no more to be learned about nuclear processes?

    I am not targeting my presentations at the black text on white page reading scientist – however – in my presentations I am linking to cutting edge research in a range of disciplines like solar panel manufacturing, Plasmonics, Material science etc.

    https://goo.gl/ueQV8w

    It does not reflect well when this brilliant work by a range of institutions around the world is so easily dismissed by you – what, I wonder, allows you this lofty position of superiority when I see little but cursory mocking of real work being done to get to the bottom of this mystery by volunteers. Furthermore, how can anyone essentially claim everything that can be known about the way to manipulate matter has already been established… if it has – then why is science practiced at all – surely all we need is “textbook facts”.

    Our experience shows that in the majority of experiments you do not see any of the claimed signs of LENR. In a number of recent *GlowStick* experiments in California and Czech Republic – we have seen signs of excess heat way beyond chemical – but personally, these are not interesting to me. The Celani “induced gamma” that we saw in 2013 in France was interesting and the spectra and excess heat in *GlowStick* 5.2 in Santa Cruz was interesting – particularly the latter as not only were they live, but they were the first time we had followed the processing guidance as per Piantelli and the Rossi patent formulae fuel – and what we saw in the live data was things that supported both individuals previous claims and moreover, their historical design decisions.

    I cannot possibly defend the commercial or professional motives that leads people like Rossi and Krivit to do what they do in the way they do it – but I can speak for our data.

    At the end of the day – no amount of entrenched views, derision, or name calling will stop us employing the scientific method to explore this field with all our lack of “acceptable approach” in full force – we are going to do this, warts and all – look away if it makes your blood boil.

    You know, perhaps if we had not seen

    1. 12.5% excess heat in Celani wire 12/12/2012
    2. Gamma on demand from Celani wire in Dec 2013
    3. “Bang!” analysis in Jan 2015
    4. Signal #7 before excess heat, then other <100keV during and only during excess heat in GS5.2

    My life would be a LOT easier and I would not be compelled by moral duty to share what I understand to the best of my ability – but, you know, I did see those things in LIVE ONLINE experiments that support the consistent claims of others – I can't un-see them.

    Piantelli is the most formidable multi-disciplinary scientist/experimentalist I have ever met and deeply sincere and serious. The man invited us into his home and lab for a few weeks and looked us in the eye and shared with us a wealth of consistent data correlating to facts long established. This is a man that is well beyond the age that many men die in his generation and he was deeply unwell – being at the end of years/days brings a certain clarity of action that people only realise in these last moments of life. Why would he waste that time with us from his one life? If there is nothing – nature was playing one hell of a cruel trick on him for over 1/4 century across 100s of well conceived experiments.

    Rossi may invite many strong reactions, but if he does not have what he claims, one must conclude that he is able to influence truly independent LIVE experiments across continents in a range of different apparatus to produce results matching his historical off-the cuff claims – if he is able to do all that, he is much better than the best fraudster that ever lived – he is the most powerful magician that ever lived.

    Right now – the only logical way that one could conclude that LENR in some form does not exist, is that Nature Lies and Magic is Real, is that your belief structure Peter?

58. Yes, I have it backward, ‘the electrical conductivity of the wire increases’

59. Hi Axil. You are really on a roll!

    But I am puzzled. If as you say ‘the electrical conductivity of the wire decreases’ – but it gets hotter, what has that got to do with superconductivity? Surely the resistance of the wire should be decreasing, not increasing if it contains superconductive patches?

60. Research by Miley and Holmlid show that the hydrogen in microcavities in iron oxide is superconducting. Holmlid states that this Hydrogen Rydberg matter (aka metalized hydrogen) is a Bose condensate. The same must be true for the hydrogen clusters that form in highly loaded palladium.

    The root of this superconductivity is in the SPP EMF that covers the surface of these nanoparticles.

    In the Calanti wire experiments, as the LENR reaction begins to manifest, the electrical conductivity of the wire decreases even as the heat production of the wire increases. The reason… the micro-cavities that cover the surface of the wire are filled with hydrogen Rydberg matter whose SPP surface is becoming more coherent (Bose condensation) as the LENR reaction sets in and is gaining strength.

    If a large magnetic field is applied to that wire, a pulse of x-rays will be produced as the Bose condensate is momentarily disrupted… try it.

61. When someone fails at LENR he has big problems, like a bemused traveler who stumbles into a den of pit vipers, there is no redemption. Damnation is a bitch. The lives and careers of Pons and Fleischmann were destroyed by their LENR failure. Have you noticed how Rossi invokes F8 and F9 anytime he says anything? Rossi will not take any small money investment; he uses only big money where the professional investors understand how failure plays a major role in the R&D game. Even the sainted Rossi knows how perilous the sin of failure can be among the proletariat.

    In the LENR religion, an erstwhile prophet will be hoisted up onto the cross by the screaming mob in a heartbeat when the dawning of failure is perceived if not understood. Poor Dr. Kim, like P&F, the purest of the sacrificial lambs is again offered up on the blooded alter of failure.

    But what is failure anyway. DGT failed to boil water, the true measure of LENR success. Their system wasted all its LENR energy on radiation, RF, and the production of magnetism. The Defkalion engineers were unable to turn the LENR reaction toward the production of steam. How sad.

    Rossi says now that his new system produces light and electrons. In this new dawning of the next LENR epoch, heat is just an afterthought. On their seats of judgement, this goes to show how fickle, arbitrary, and wrathful the gods of LENR can be.

    However, in engineering, determining why something fails is more important than observing success. We can learn much from the DGT failure.

    In the case of the DGT system, the barrier to their success is the electric arc reaction activation process that they used. When that arc was triggered, it disrupted the Bose condensate process that thermalized any LENR energy that was produced. Instead of producing heat, X-ray radiation and various forms of intense EMF resulted. The condensate was disrupted during the period of maximum LENR activity.

    In the Rossi system, Rossi uses an electric arc in the fuel preparation stage only where heat production is not required and x-ray radiation can be tolerated. When the fuel is placed on line, a Bose condensate thermalizes the LENR energy at high efficiency and no x-ray radiation is detectable.

    The same radiation production mechanism is seen in this spark based system.

    newinflow.ru/pdf/Klimov_Poster.pdf

    “It is revealed that the heterogeneous non-equilibrium plasmoid is an intensive source of soft X – radiation of 1 ÷ 10 keV quantum energy.”

    The most intense radiation occurs at the spark but as the LENR products moves away from the magnetic field produce by the spark, the x-ray radiation decreased by 20% at 100 Cm. As the LENR products travel away from the spark, a Bose condensate is beginning to set in to support the thermalization process of the x-ray radiation that was maximized at the spark.

    This is a lesson to be applied to engineering other LENR systems, even though electric arcs are required to produce the metastable exotic hydrogen species needed to support the LENR reaction, the spark must not be used in the on line system.

    The LENR reaction must be partitioned into two parts, one – to produce the Rydberg hydrogen matter during fuel preparation and two – the use of only heat during on line processes to keep the Bose condensate in place once it has formed.

    Any system that uses spark discharge in on line operation is destined for failure. The Defkalion clone, AIRBUS system is an example. Also any on line system based on electrolysis is also a failure waiting to happen.

62. @Bob

    How on earth would you get Ga-69? Ga-69 is Ni-58+3p+8n. That would be a long series of reactions, and there should be traces of all intermediate nuclides.

    The spread sheet and your videos are a mixture of trivial textbook facts and unsubstantiated speculation. The spread sheet is a mess, and I cannot make head or tail of it. If you really want to find out what is going on (I thought MFMP was about that) you have to focus on some subset of the data. If you just want to put up a show for the believers, continue in the same way.

    In the spread sheet there are lots of primary gammas and decay beta+/gammas. Why do you not see these radiations in the replication?

    I gather the primary reaction is the classical Rossi p+Ni (which he gave up since it was completely unbelievable). The fuel/ash analysis in this case (analysis arranged 2011 by Sven K) was obviously faked by Rossi since the copper content in the ash consisted of separate particles. That means that the copper could not have been produced with nuclear reactions in the nickel particle. Is there any reason to believe that the analysis is more reliable this time?

    Why are the results of the fuel/ash analysis so completely different in Rossis Lugano and your spreadsheet? It seems to me that whatever you do, you get LENR. If that is the case, why is it not established after 27 years?

    I thought the purpose of MFMP was that you should perform your own independent experiment and not promote one of many LENR projects. But maybe I was naïve there!

63. Dear Peter Ekström,

    Thank you so much for catching my sleep deprived, apparent schoolboy error. That is what peer review is for!

    As you can see in my spreadsheet from last year – I meant to write 69Ga as Parkhomov also reported recent

    https://goo.gl/s18aGa

    See lines 283 – 296.

64. @Bob Greenyer

    You are talking complete nonsense! Ga-59 is way off the line of stability, and you would not have time to observe it. Ga-59 is probably even unstable to proton decay:

    http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/

    This is alchemy and nothing but alchemy!

65. @Axil

    Nearly 10 months ago – I entered specific entries into the reaction hypothesis assuming Piantelli spreadsheet for “cool cat” because it predicted very low temperature operation, Rossi has recently been claiming such a thing.

    Prior to that – using the theory, I predicted that you might see sizeable increase in 59Ga in a Hot-Cat type reactor and Alexander Parkhomov has just reported such an observation.

    If Piantelli is wrong, his theory still predicts a wide array of hither-too unexplained real world observations – and apparently allowed the first live demonstration of X-Rays and excess heat – even with my limited understanding of it.

    The term LENR is low energy nuclear reactions… obviously that encompasses all reactions that are “low” energy and nuclear. Are they all exactly the same process?.. I do not think so… but there is a clear heritage between Piantelli and Rossi and guided by both parties literature we have apparently seen predicted and previously observed phenomena in our GS 5.2 experiment and we inadvertently did Piantelli’s preferred triggering method in 2013 in Celani wire and saw emissions also.

    We are using transition metals, Group 1 Alkaline metals and Protium. We are focused and disciplined – there is Millennia of research to come and we can’t possibly do it all, all at the same time, on a shoe string. Our main thrust is to attempt, until achieved, exact replication – and the only place that can happen is Santa Cruz.

66. The case of LENR must withstand the very high temperature conditions that exist in many types of LENR experiments. Very high temperatures are seen in the Proton 21 experiments, the 1500C and above Hot Cat, the vapor exiting the micro volcanos produced in palladium, platinum and tungsten electrodes in electrolysis experiments, the vapor produced in the exploding foil experiments including the exploding titanium foil experiments when titanium is vaporized in water, the SunCell by R Mills, and the plasma based experiments such as http://newinflow.ru/pdf/Klimov_Poster.pdf where solar level temperatures up to 7000C are produced.

    IMHO, there is recent independently derived evidence from observations of astronomical bodies such as the interiors of cold planets and the Sun that special forms of matter produce the LENR effect. These astrophysical observations provide insight and direction into how the cause of LENR forms. Specifically, matter exposed to both high temperatures and pressures become metalized and then become LENR active.

    Hydrogen is not the only substance that can be made LENR active. Gorge Egely has produced the LENR reaction in carbon and “Red Sludge” which is a mixture of many elements excluding hydrogen.

    Egely György – Nano Dust Fusion (40pages) – George Egely from Exopolitika Magyarorszag

    The SunCell is a high temperature water based LENR process.

    Then there is the carbon arc experiments in water that demonstrate LENR
    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/522-ICIDRET2016016-pdf/

    There is SmCo(n) the hexagonal crystal based rare earth based magnetic materials that produces LENR activity without hydrogen.

    Just about every planet in the solar system including the Sun has a liquid core that produces heat. Even the earth’s internal heat is only partly produced by radioactive decay of radioactive isotopes. The remaining heat is generated by LENR through the pressure and temperature that generates Rydberg matter. This includes the LENR effect where metalized hydrogen and other elements and compounds, including water are compressed and therefore transformed by extreme heat and pressure into Rydberg matter.

    The Surface Plasmon Polariton(SPP) is the basic and most fundamental functional building block of the LENR reaction, but that photon based EMF mechanism is amplified and focused through the action of solid hexagonal crystal based metalized Rydberg matter including hydrogen when the SPPs produce a high temperature Bose Condensate on the surface of the Rydberg matter.

67. @Axil

    Without a tame star in the lab – and all the attendant gravity, I wonder how you tested your hypothesis which you state emphatically as fact and how you cross correlated it to condensed matter experiments.

    We do know for a fact that “Hot Fusion” is not what goes on in stellar processes precisely because we cannot create the gravity here on earth that exists in, for instance, our sun – and so we have to compensate by changing the temperature.

    Piantelli normally does H- orbital capture sub 400ºC and this may indeed be limited by H- fragility in his system and we do know for a fact that H- is present in Li+ H- (Molten LiH) as high as 1000ºC – but since it is a dynamic system, there is always likely to be some H- in the molten Lithium as long as it is a liquid.

    Our real world experiments have supported Piantelli’s claims in Celani wire in 2013 in the several 100ºC and in GS 5.2 in excess of 1000ºC.

    What real-world experiments have you conducted that even begin to allow you to make such categorical statements as the one you made in your last post here?

68. Disproving Piantelli’s H- LENR causation theory

    In astrophysics, the photometric H band, centered at 1.65 µm, falls in a very special place, at or near the flux maximum in the energy distributions of nearly all stars cooler than the Sun. The reason is that this feature is caused by the wavelength dependence of absorption by the negative hydrogen ion (H− , being a proton with two electrons). Photons in the part of the spectrum shortward of 1.65 µm have enough energy to knock one of the electrons from an H− ion, being absorbed in the process while photons at longer wavelengths can be absorbed by a free free process (here a passing electron happens to be close to a neutral hydrogen atom when the photon comes by). The total absorption by H− is the sum of these two processes, which has a minimum value at 1.65 µm.

    At high temperatures, the the H- ion decomposes and therefore cannot be a cause in the LENR reaction since reactor meltdowns produce temperatures on the 4000 K range where H- ions would surly decompose.

    Stellar Spectra in the H Band
    aavso.org/media/jaavso/2016.pdf

69. Axil’s posts a pretty unique, don’t know what to make of them.

    Is he just trolling?

70. Multiparticle quantum entanglement has been experimentally verified through the detection of Hawking radiation coming from a acoustic EMF black hole.

    See

    Click to access 1409.6550.pdf

    “It has been proposed that a black hole horizon should generate Hawking radiation. In
    order to test this theory, we have created a narrow, low density, very low temperature
    atomic Bose-Einstein condensate, containing an analog black hole horizon and an inner
    horizon, as in a charged black hole. We observe Hawking radiation emitted by the black
    hole. This is the output of the black hole laser.

    We also observe the exponential growth of a standing wave between the horizons. The latter results from interference between the negative energy partners of the Hawking radiation and the negative energy particles reflected from the inner horizon. We thus observe self-amplifying Hawking radiation.”

71. The process of energy transfer an downshifting is more involved as follows:

    The SPPs concentrated on the surface of the hydrogen Rydberg matter(HRM – metalized hydrogen) where their collective activity is organized into a Bose condensate. This bose condensate is a dark mode soliton that can accumulate EMF but not broadcast it to the outside world.

    The monopole beam output of this condensate projects from the positively charged head of the HRM crystal. Any nuclear matter that falls in the path of this beam will experience proton and neutron decay while at the same time transfer nuclear binding energy down the monopole beam to the polariton bose condensate. The condensate will radiate away its accumulated energy content via hawking radiation in the infrared over time. It has been discovered that any dark system with a defined boundary will produce hawking radiation through that boundary where its energy content will be redistributed back to the environment through virtual particle quantum processes.

    An example of that process of hawking thermalization is as follows:

    http://www.laserfocusworld.com/content/dam/etc/medialib/platform-7/laser-focus_world/articles/print-articles/volume-46/issue-12/78424.res/_jcr_content/renditions/original

    FIGURE 6. A subretinal implant allows a blind patient to see again. (Courtesy of Implant AG)In a photonic setup that is not a simulation or imitation, but exhibits a fundamental effect of gravitational black holes, researchers from Universitá degli Studi di Milano, INFN sezione di Milano, Universitá dell’Insubria, and Universitá di Milano-Bicocca in Italy, and Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, Scotland use a laser pulse filament to create a traveling refractive-index perturbation within fused silica—with the result that actual Hawking radiation, which is normally only produced at the event horizon of a gravitational black hole, is instead created on an optical table. Hawking radiation is a purely quantum effect in which photon pairs arise from nothing, with one pulled into the black hole and the other radiated out into space. In the lab, the traveling index perturbation is what separates the quantum-vacuum-produced photon pairs.

    From

    http://www.laserfocusworld.com/articles/2010/12/technology-review-2010-scientists-and-engineers-a-vital-alliance.html

72. Its impossible to produce hawking radiation with current technology. There’s speculation that exawatt laser might produce concentrated mass-energy that hawking black holes will materialize before annihilating in a spray of hawking radiation 10 to the minus 30 seconds later. Its absurd to claim that low energy reactions can do that.

73. Why do both MFMP and Axil believe the reports rendered by Piantelli and Dr. Kim’s with regards to nuclear level radiation coming from the LENR reaction are totally reliable? It is because the source ot that information is impeccable and the reputations of the scientists providing that information are unblemished by a lifetime of work.

    As far as info that I get from Mary Hugo, I will say this…

    I employ the test for logical consistency between the items of information made available to me in this study of the LENR reaction. This is called synthesis or “connecting the dots”.

    Certain people use emotion in place of logic in making decisions about what is real and what is not. I believe that this method of thinking is the root of much pain and hardship in the human condition. The commenters who use emotion in their thinking are concerned about being hurt by others as their early life experiences in pre-school have taught them. They mistrust and maintain an emotional based shield that protects them from the possibility that information that they encounter is harmful and hurtful.

    I am sure that emotional based thinking is the great impediment to the proper analysis of the LENR reaction. For myself, I make a mighty effort to avoid emotion in looking at the information presented. This includes the output that certain commenters provide in the analysis of the LENR reaction. I realize that their output is colored by underlying emotional pathology and is not to be trusted.

    Anyone who undercuts others to their bosses or their backers suffers from physio-emotional pathology or is a paid hack. Reputation and intent tells the tail in the end.

74. You’re not getting it, as usual, Axil. The problem with Defkalion is that they were liars. Therefore nothing they said was credible including any reports of radiation from their tests. If they really had high power LENR, as they unequivocally said they did, they’d be rich, not dead as a company. If they had been able to demonstrate radiation consistently and credibly from LENR reactions, they would have been able to get research support. I guess you don’t get that either.

75. As usual, truth lurks undiscovered in the details. If the Dekalion reaction was completely ineffective there would be no radiation produced up to 300 KeV. The NON-production of excess heat is a false indicator of lack of LENR activity. The flaw in the Defkalion reaction was not that the LENR reaction that it truly produced was inactive; it was that it was ineffective from an engineering standpoint. The utility of the LENR reaction is almost universally judged to be based on the heat that it produces. Thermalization of nuclear radiation is absolutely required in the successful LENR reaction.

    To the credit of MFMP, they recognize that LENR activity is sometimes indicated by the production of radiation. The high voltage AC arc that Defkalion used was their Achilles’ heel. It made the LENR process ineffective since it destroyed the Bose condensate state that thermalizes nuclear radiation thus minimizing the hawking radiation that thermalizes nuclear energy in LENR.

    Politics, jealousy, slander, greed, and the other sinister forces that have plagued LENR from its beginnings are a fundamental impediment to the proper use of logic as a probe of the LENR reaction.

76. The main issue about Defkalion is that, based on their written claims in their own forum and presented at ICCF meetings, they were chronic, incorrigible, and consistent liars. They solicited and accepted money based on those lies and that makes them crooks. Fraudsters. It should tell you something that they vanished without a trace. If their claims had been real, they would now be billionaires instead of belly up. How quickly we forget the statements that were never true.

77. IMHO, Rossi partitions his reaction into two major steps, fuel preparation and on-line operation to avoid the burst radiation problem that MFMP has seen in their experiment.

    The analysis of the Lugano fuel sample presented in the Lugano report shows that Rossi uses an electrode make of tungsten doped with rare earth elements. This electrode could be a welding rod doped with rare earths to increase rod conductivity.

    Lanthanated tungsten electrodes (AWS classification EWLa-1.5) contain a minimum of 97.80 percent tungsten and 1.30 percent to 1.70 percent lanthanum, or lanthana, and are known as 1.5 percent lanthanated.

    The DC arc from the welding rods is used to sinter the 5 micron particles into a particle size profile as defined in Rossi’s patent: 1 to 100 microns with increased porosity of the resultant particles.

    In addition, the goal of the fuel preparation process is to produce metalize hydrogen which requires a very high nominal pressure of formation of 250,000 atmospheres.

    The pulsed high amperage DC arc produces a pressure based shock wave that in tern produces the high pressures required to generate the metalized hydrogen.

    The fuel pre-prep mix must also include lithium in pure from to reduce the pressure required to produce metalized hydrogen by up to 8 fold.

    Therefore, the lithium present in the fuel mix cuts the pressure to form metalize hydrogen to about 31,250 atmospheres. The shock wave from the DC arc and the molecular bonds that hold the hydrogen inside the Nano cracks of the porous nickel are sufficient to compress the hydrogen under high pressure to compression levels in which the metalized hydrogen hexagonal lattice will form.

    The online process where heat is applied to the metalized hydrogen activates the hydrogen nanoparticles into the LENR active state.

    As per Holmlid and supported by high levels of carbon in the Lagano fuel mic, Potassium doped graphite might also be present as a metalized hydrogen catalyst in the pre fuel mix.

    The fuel prep process produces radiation in preference to heat, but an amount of metalized hydrogen nanoparticles is seeded into the porous nickel fuel particles. When the online process is activated by the application of high heat, EMF forms on the surface of the metalized hydrogen which makes this special type of hydrogen LENR active,

78. Hi Axil. I have the greatest respect for Dr. Kim, he and I are occasional correspondents… But when Defkalion’s own staff admit they never got their reactor to work but pressed on ever hopeful that with enough cash (and the time it would buy them) they would achieve success without using stage magic you have to admit a little doubt.

79. @Alan Smith

    In this series of MFMP theory based videos that are under discussion here, MFMP used the radiation data from the defkalion !CCF-18 presentation as support for the MFMP burst radiation claim that they were analyzing. I feel that that MFMP claim based on Dekalion test data presented by Dr. Kim at ICCF-18 needed to be addressed. This president allows the use of Defkalion data and their system in general. Dr, Kim, the Defkalion researcher is just as imminent as Storms or Pons in the history of LENR. If Kim says he saw radiation, then radiation was truly present. This production of radiation by the Dekalion system could be why their production of heat was so low. Dekalion reported that a ton of radiation including RF radiation was coming from their reactor. This lack of heat in favor of these other types of radiation supports the Bose condensate idea for LENR in systems including the MFMP replication system of the Rossi system.

    In terms of the Defkalion system, their poor performance can inform LENR theory as well as successful LENR systems such as Rossi’s. Failure teaches lessens also.

    @Bob Higgins

    The reference to photons in the cloud chamber in the post that you question is a typo, so sorry, please excuse me.

80. Piantelli sees PROTONs not PHOTONs in his cloud chamber. You cannot see photons in a cloud chamber – it is for particles.

81. Hi Axil. An interesting and insightful analysis of a difficult problem as always. But I must caution you against using Defkalion data to support any hypothesis, since they never managed to produce anything more tangible than words and a very small amount of hot water. Let us just say that they were very imaginative in their approach. This view is not merely mine but born out by face to face and email interactions with some key players. They were also somewhat discredited by the old boss of their Italian investor MOSE in a public presentation. Very sad, but LENR research is better off without them being used as an example of anything beyond the power of hope.

82. Why does Piantelli see 6 MeV photons in a cloud chamber when he moves his nickel bar into the chamber?

    When the bar is removed from Piantelli’s reactor to the Cloud chamber, the state of Bose coherence is destroyed by the cooldown of the nickel bar. When the activated nickel bar is allowed to stabilize without being covered by the Bose condensate, radiation is not thermalized by super-absorption of the condensate. All gamma radiation is thermalized in the hot environment of the reactor where the photon pumping of the Bose condensate is enough to keep it from being disrupted. Like a laser, a photon condensate must be kept above a pumping threshold low point to keep itself coherent.

83. Unlike Piantelli, Rossi produces the radiation burst seen in the MFMP “signal” when he generates his fuel as an offline process. His fuel contains metastable metalize hydrogen that is produced during the fuel preparation process. This nanoparticle is superconductive and will create a global Bose condensate condition when heated which thermalizes the radiation produced by nuclear reactions.

    The MFMP signal was produced by a change of state between the incoherent stated of hydrogen and the coherent state of hydrogen as the Bose condensate was established. The incoherent hydrogen nanoparticles dumped their individual radiation store when they all entered the confiscate over a period of 4 seconds.

    There are a number of items that don’t fit into this description of the signal as seen in the video titled “Signal part 1” above that can be clarified if the radiation pulse is viewed as a burst of photons that are released as a Bose condensate is formed.

    1 – The signal only persists for 4 seconds and only appears once and only once in a very long test. If the signal was a result of a process that caused excess heat, it would persist as long as the excess heat was being produced.

    This one time burst of EMF looks like a change of state where the LENR process is beginning. The burst looks like photon radiation being released from a storage mechanism as the mechanism is change of state from many individual randomized photon holders to a coherent and entangled Bose condensate.

    It is this photon based Bose condensate (like a laser) that produces excess heat and eliminates further high energy EMF emissions.

    2 – Why is X-rays seen in the Defkalion system and not the Rossi system.

    The DGT system destroys the Bose condensate each time the high voltage spark is produced and it take time to get the Bose condensate established again. This time of incoherent behavior is when high energy radiation is produced.

    In the Rossi system, the Bose condensate once formed continues to thermalize the nuclear binding energy of the LENR reaction without a break.

    This leads to a prediction. Once excess heat is seen in a system, a application of a large magnetic field will produce a burst of high energy EMF after which thermalization of that EMF will begin again.

    3 – If the EMF seen in the burst was from Bremsstrahlung or “braking radiation”, a sharp peak of radiation would appear when the electron is produced. These peaks are called “characteristic lines” where the beta emission is generating the electrons.

    

    Since no characteristic lines are seen, electrons or negative ions are not being produced as the source of EMF. The burst of radiation has nothing to do with electrons. All radiation is strictly a photon release reaction from a storage mechanism.

84. Very true Alan.

85. Piantelli seems to have shifted ground on the topic of emissions as a constant feature of XSH in Nickel-Hydrogen LENR. In this patent he mentions ‘burst’ radiation from a reactor system, but then goes on to say.

    “The industrial applicability of the generation process and of the generator which actuates said process is, therefore, evident, given that they allow for the production of energy in the form of heat by means of nuclear fusion at limited temperatures, without emission of radioactive or otherwise dangerous particles and for long periods.”

    https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf;jsessionid=900135F932D69DEFEBB226713C8C9C60.wapp1nB?docId=WO1995020816&recNum=1&maxRec=1&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=ALLNAMES%3A%28Piantelli%29&tab=PCTDescription

    I think we all need to pay great attention to the radiation question, which could be a serious obstacle in the way of domestication of the E-cat.

86. Neil, that’s a good question. However, firstly note that Piantelli states that the energy ranges from 0 to 6.7 MeV. I know that Bob Greenyer is discussing with Piantelli to find out details on his calculations and experimental revelation regarding the protons. Second, as I added in point 8, fusion between protons and lithium, at kinetic energy of only 225 eV, is described by Unified Gravity Corporation in patent application WO2014189799A9.

87. Can you explain how chemically bound H ions can be accelerated to 6 MeV? Where does the energy to do that come from?

88. And here is different approach and concept to LENR https://hopecell.wordpress.com/ with hydrogen embrittlement in metal hydride lattice, have fun!
    Kind Regards

89. Bill, about fuel analysis:

    I am now in possession of the 2011 samples originally handed to Sven Kullander. We have done some micro-beam analysis, and we plan to do some more.

    Lugano fuel/ash:

    In video 2 after 12:30 Bob G says: The company told us that they had previously sold 62Ni enriched to Rossi.

    If that is true, what did Rossi use it for? Not as a catalyst since there was no trace of it in the unused fuel in the Lugano test. The ash from Lugano looks suspiciously like enriched 62Ni.

90. Neil,

    I agree. What comes down must have come up.

91. There is no way that a chemically bound proton is going to be shot out of a nucleus at 6 MeV. It seems like pseudo-science.

92. @Peter
    I read your comments on radiation and transmutation linked in your earlier post. I’m relatively new to this discussion and have been trying read up as much as I can to get the facts. Reading your analysis of the fuel samples from the two Rossi demonstrations, a rational conclusion could be drawn by some that Rossi is a fraud. So that I can better understand, can I ask what your role was in the fuel analysis?

93. To be a persecuted genius, it is not enough to be persecuted.

94. How true Henk! But we really need experimental data more than we need theories right now. We need new LENR candidate materials and methods if we are to avoid replacing the oil monopoly with a Nickel-Hydrogen one – no matter how benign its intentions are. It is my opinion that Ni-H LENR is the low-hanging fruit -but further up the tree are more apples -some of them perhaps tastier.

95. Mats,
    First they ignore you,
    then they ridicule you,
    ……
    …..

96. For some comments on radiation and transmutation:

    http://www.energikatalysatorn.se/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1564&p=34480#p34480

97. Making up a wacky hypothesis is one thing. Having this hypothesis anything to do with the physical world is quite another. One cannot just make up a series of ideas and say that this is how it works without confronting these ideas with what else we know.
    Take the H- for example. This is an atom! Atoms bind with other atoms they form molecules etc. They dont just suddenly act as if the where an electron and jump into another atoms orbit?!? Come on, where do you get this ideas from?
    If that could happen I have a suggestion. Use ordinary table salt. NaCl. Ask a chemist. The chemist will tell you that the salt conmsists of Cl- and Na+ ions arranging themselves in a lattice. Cant we make the Cl- just jump into an orbit around the sodium (Na) atom, have it act as an electron there and – tata! – fuse Na and Cl? Now THAT would be powerful …

98. Mats, great work! You are to be commended for putting all of this together and for all your work pushing the cold fusion field forward.

    Now, if the discussion of this over at ECW is any indication, there are still a lot of gaps, unanswered questions and unexamined assumptions in this explanation. I know that Rossi, following Focardi, has said that we need to stick with established physics. But that doesn’t mean that *we* have to, or even that we should. In fact that postulate seems suffocatingly and unecessarily dogmatic or doctrinaire — especially since establishment physics has been telling us for decades that cold fusion is impossible, and still does! I think it’s clear to many of us that the real answers behind cold fusion likely lay elsewhere, and I want to encourage you to look into the little known but very promising work of Miles Mathis.

    Miles is unique in the physics world, even counting cold fusion pioneers, in that he has really started from scratch and questioned everything from first principles, going back to Pythagoras. He has dug into the equations and original writings of Newton, Farraday, Maxwell, Gauss, Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Feynman, etc., etc. The theory he has developed is strikingly original and flies in the face of pretty much all of the received wisdom of physics. His work is truly revolutionary. So much so, that when you see how much he says modern physics is mistaken about, it’s easy to dismiss him as being off his rocker. If you see google him and see people on forums dismissing his work without offering any substantive argument against it, ignore them. Trust me, he’s worth a closer look.

    He has applied his theory to a wide range of phenomena, including solving the mystery of dark matter and explaining beta decay, entanglement, superconductivity, Brownian motion, ice ages, the tides, major solar anomalies, etc. etc.. He can explain why G (the gravitational constant) has the value it does, why the mass of the electron is about 1820 times less than the mass of a nucleon, and show how the magnetic moment of an electron is basically equal to its electrical charge. If he is a crank, he is a crank of the highest order and worth reading on that basis alone.

    I am convinced his theories could be applied to understanding the interactions between hydrogen and nickel or palladium in new and fruitful ways. In other words, his work could serve as a basis for understanding all known cold fusion reactions. Miles has fundamentally re-conceived the very nature of charge, electromagnetism and gravity, as well as showing how they are related (in other words, he has developed an equation that unifies gravity and E/M, which also subsumes nuclear forces). He has offered an alternative to the Copenhagen interpretation and developed a mechanical “spinning billiard ball” explanation for the observations of quantum mechanics, formation of elements and the nature of nuclear particles. And he has done this (and much more) using simple algebra. Reading his work is a pleasure, because he cuts through the BS like a sharp knife, even as he pushes us outside our comfort zone to recognize how much received wisdom in physics (and math) will need to go down the drain — without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

    Here is his website: http://milesmathis.com/

    And just to get an inkling of how his insights could be applied to cold fusion, read this exchange he had with a scientist working in industry who was trying to use nuclear magnetic resonance to speed up beta decay. Sounds like these kinds of insights could be *very* helpful for cold fusionists: http://milesmathis.com/main2.pdf

    PS. I think Rossi et al. (and the whole cold fusion field in general) really need to look into Miles’s work.

99. The hydrogen anion is a negative ion of hydrogen, H−. The hydrogen anion is an important constituent of the atmosphere of stars, such as the Sun. In chemistry, this ion is called hydride. The ion has two electrons bound by the electromagnetic force to a nucleus containing one proton.

    The hydrogen anion is the dominant absorber of photons in the interstellar medium. It absorbs energies in the range 0.75–4.0 eV, which ranges from the infrared into the visible spectrum (Rau 1999, Srinivasan 1999). It also occurs in the Earth’s ionosphere (Rau 1999).

    It is simple enough to prove that H- exist in Piantelli’s system by looking for the H- telltale energy absorption line spectroscopically.

    In point of fact, such a spectrum is available in the SunCell data. There should be an absorption line presented there.

    ​When I see those lines, I will believe it.

100. First the basics (Einstein ..) then the details. Well it reminds me of this: http://star.psy.ohio-state.edu/coglab/Miracle.html

101. The basic error seems to be in the first sentence. “seems to be consistent with both laws of physics and experimental results”. This refers to experimental results as if they are real. Check the history, check the so called results. A con job is a con job no matter how it is dressed or of course it could be straight stupidity but history is in favor of the first scenario.

102. Professor Gerald Pollack is working on a new model of the atom I think you will all enjoy 😉 please see Global Energy Corporation turning nuclear waste into inert aluminium and power

103. Respect Mats! and lots of appreciation.

104. The pseudo neutron theories are the bane of LENR because of the need to keep LENR theory consistent with nuclear theory where the neutron is always involved. So we must invent a neutron substitute to keep the meme of nuclear physics in play.

     But the S- theory does not work for the broad class of high energy LENR reactions such as Rossi’s E-Cat X where operating temperatures are at or above the melting point of nickel (1500C). At that temperature the H- ion cannot keep itself together. At that high temperature, H would be ionized.

     The high temperature environment of the Proton 21 experiment also puts hydrogen into an ionized state.

     Any electric Arc based system such as the Defkalion system cannot support the H- construction because of the high temperature of the arc.

     Another case is all the very hot EVs produced by Ken Shoulders in his decades of research.

     The SunCell works at temperatures above 5000C where hydrogen is ionized.

     The high temperatures produced by exploding titanium foils also speak against the H- theory.

     There are other high temperature systems that have recently come out of Russia that also use an electric Arc to produce the LENR reaction at ionizing temperatures.

     The H- theory is myopic concept designed to cover only the limited conditions that were produced by low temperature LENR reactions such as Piantilli’s reactor. The H- theory cannot be applied broadly across all LENR causation scenarios to be a candidate for a unified LENR theory.

     Now there is the detection of mesons, pions, and muons that come out of most LENR reactions as Holmlid suspects. How does the H- theory explain these sub atomic particles?

     How does H- theory explain all those electrons coming of the E Cat X when those electrons should still be connected to the H- ion?

     The H- theory is an old theory that has had it day in the Sun and has been disproven by the march of progress in LENR by a broad spectrum of LENR experimentation. H- Theory might give a warm emotionally based feeling about an imagined certainty in LENR, but it cannot be true.

105. Hi Sir, With all due respect to you I would like to note the fact that similar such mechanism was proposed in “Magnetocatalytic Adiabatic Spin Torque Orbital Transformations for Novel Chemical and Catalytic Reaction Dynamics: The Little Effect” (http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0608071 ) many years prior to Piantelli’s two patents with priority Nov 2008 (IT2008PI00119 20081124 ). I am sorry that you may not like me and may not wish to recognize me. But this mechanism has been proposed in full prior to Piantelli. In http://arxiv.org/ftp/cond-mat/papers/0608/0608071.pdf , I explicitly note similar such prior mechanism as I here quote from pages 28 and 29: “The mechanism based on magnetic orchestration of pycnonuclear reactions involves the following steps: 1.) under the prevailing conditions hydrogen uptake by the metal lattice and the high current density allow the formation of some amount of a hydride species (H-); 2.) the thermal and pressure fluctuations and magnetization cause the electronic rehybridization of the background Cu-Ag lattice with consequent sporadic localization and delocalization of these electrons and protons of hydride species (H-) within the Cu-Ag lattice; 3.) these protons and electrons of this hydride species exist delocalized in the 4d-like orbitals of the Cu-Ag lattice; 4.) localization of protons and electrons produces this hydride species in the metal lattice by the rehybridization of 3d, 4d, 4s, and 5s orbitals of the metal lattice; 5.) such localization by lattice rehybridization and confinement of H- within sd hybrid orbitals contribute to greater s character of the interacting electrons and protons in the form of (ea-p+eb- ) or (hydride species) within the sd hybrid orbitals within the metal lattice; 6.) within the sd hybrid orbitals the (ea-p+eb- )with its net negative charge is strongly attracted in the localization to the nucleus (M47+) of the metal atoms within the lattice; 7.) the (ea-p+eb- ) is heavier and more classical in its interactions with the nucleus; 8.) as the (ea-p+eb- ) approaches the nucleus the ea- is driven into tighter orbital correlation with the p+ in order to shield the proton from the nearby nucleus (M47+) in this confined s orbital state for the local metal nuclear compression of the ea- and p+; 9.) the spin and magnetic properties of the confined (ea-p+eb- ) state are more paramagnetic, an external magnetic field can therefore orients the nuclear spin of the metal atoms with the spin and orbital moments of the (ea-p+eb-); 10.) as the (ea-p+eb- ) approaches the nucleus (M47+), the nuclear spin torques the eb- by nuclear spin-orbit interactions for its intersystem crossing, so eb- changes correlation with the (ea- – p+), thereby driving the ea- into the p+ for even tighter orbits, this orbital compression is strengthened by the huge nearby electric field of the metal nucleus within the s orbital of the metal atom; 11.) the resulting aligned spins of the metal nucleus (M47+) and the eb- organize the steering of ea- into collapse onto the p+ for reverse beta to form neutrons, eb- may also collapse onto the metal nucleus; the p+ may collapse onto metal nucleus; the resulting neutron may also collapse on the nucleus for various rare transmutation processes. See Table 7. 12.) the proximity (less than 0.5 Angstroms) of the ea- — p+ to the eb- and the metal nucleus (M47+) within the s orbital allows huge local magnetic fields within the s orbital for extremely strong spin torque of ea- into the p+ thereby preventing gamma exchange as in isolated hydrogen thereby allowing the ea- — p+ to form a neutron. It is within the s orbital with finite nonzero probability of the ea- — p+ and eb- having very close proximity to the metal nucleus that length scales of 10-10 m such that the magnetic forces within the s orbital are on the order of 1/(10-5) 2 times the magnetic forces between lattice electrons in the domain of say a ferrometal. The magnetic forces between lattice electrons in the domain of a ferrometal of Fe are on the order of 1000 tesla. So the magnetic forces between the e- and p+ and the metal nucleus for very close nuclear approach of the hydride species to the nucleus of a metal atoms is on the order of 1010 X 1000 tesla or 1013 tesla. Therefore within the s orbital of the metal lattice, the e- and p+ of the hydride species would locally experience tremendous magnetic fields on the order of the magnetic fields in magnetars. An external magnetic field organizes (as in this work) the (ea-p+eb-) and metal nuclei for more favorable weak interactions, leading to enhanced cross-sections for fusion events. In zero applied magnetic field, the proper spin and orbital orientations for such fusion processes are much more random and less likely. The important of such left-right symmetry during weak processes has been demonstrated by Yang and Lee [40]. Yang and Lee determined that within an external magnetic field, the nuclear spin oriented such that during the beta process the release of electron has specific momentum relative to the nucleus that released it. Here on the basis of the Little Effect, it is demonstrated that an external magnetic field can orient the e and nucleus for the reverse process of reverse beta for greater probability of such rare fusion events. The external magnetic field in this way organizes the spins for such symmetry for the reverse beta process and e- or p+ capture process by the metal nucleus for greater rates and reproducibility of the pycnonuclear reactions. Without the external magnetization, the cross-section and probability are much lower. Here these still slow nuclear processes within the strong magnetic environment, high current densities, Lorentz compression and thermal fluctuations are observed due to the long period of these conditions, more than 2000 hours. Although, the rates of pycnonuclear reactions are still very slow under the conditions within the strong magnet, even greater energy input via laser irradiation of the Cu-Ag matrix can promote much greater pycnonuclear fusion rates for future practical energy sources. Large magnetic field can build up huge potential energy due to Pauli antisymmetry with faster spin torque of electrons into protons for faster neutron formation (reverse beta processes) and neutron, electron and proton captures by Ag and Pd nuclei. The greater spin torque on orbital motion and the greater nuclear induced intersystem crossing also contribute more pycnonuclear phenomena in 4d relative to 3d transition metals in strong magnetic fields.” The people here may not like me or chose to ignore my prior identical theory but that still does not negate thr truth. Sincerely Reginald B. Little

106. @Bob Higgins What kind of nuclear reaction can occur since the proton is ejected out? Because in that case we have only the nickel nucleus and electrons. Are you proposing K-capture? But K-capture cannot release energy for the stable nickel isotopes. The only potential exception is Ni58 which, although observationally stable, could in principle convert to Co58 and release 130 keV.

107. “Normally, the released energy in nuclear reactions is carried away as strong electromagnetic radiation, called high-energy gamma radiation, and as particles such as neutrons with high kinetic energy. In LENR—Low Energy Nuclear Reactions—however, almost no radiation is observed. Yet, the high energy release per amount of fuel (grams corresponding to tons of oil) indicates that it is a nuclear reaction and that it cannot be a chemical reaction.”

     WHAT high energy release? You would think if there were high energy release, it would have been clearly and unequivocally shown by now and by a number of researchers with identical results. Instead, we get only unproven claims with ever decreasing power and “COP” from Rossi. How does that work for you? To date, there is still not ONE properly controlled, blanked and calibrated experiment which shows high energy release. Not from Rossi, not from Defkalion, not from Miley, not from Nanospire and not from Brillouin — at least not any experiment which can be replicated or verified by properly trained people other than the original claimant.

     Respect requires a small device with continuous power >100W with a COP of >5. Better yet, self sustaining indefinitely. If your theory is correct, and if Rossi is truthful, this should be straightforward. So where is it? Other than simply unsupported or poorly proven claims?

108. Mats, why make the June 21 conference contingent on the results from the ERV for Rossi’s test? With the recent results from MFMP and subsequent replications (and no doubt many others to follow) in addition to the obvious and significant pre-commercialization efforts of Darden et al, it seems the momentum is established to make the conference a compelling event.

109. There is obviously is the possibility of different reactions in a Nickel Hydrogen system. All of the early experiments and tests in Bologna had David Bianchini on hand to measure radiation outside the reactor utilising every kind of detection equipment known to the art. The UofB probably insisted on it.

     . And before anyone suggests it, those little ceramic dog-bones have no room for internal shielding.

     Bianchini never detected radiation coming from the E-Cat, neither did the Lugano crew find any. It seems to be possible to get an E-cat to emit radiation, but it is far from inevitable. I suspect that the source of heat is actually Alpha particles which we all know would never make it out of the reactor. A gamma-emitting reactor is a rogue reactor.

110. You call this a theoretical model? You should know better than this, Mats. But obviously you don’t.

     And the reference to Norman Cook … eh. That’s a woo-woo theory. Not even wrong.

     If for some weird reason LENR as a phenomenon would be real, and I hope it is, you can never escape the fact that it can have very little to do with fairytales like this.

111. If I understand Piantelli’s theory correctly, for the H- anion to enter the Ni nucleus, it must be first shrunk to a more compact form. This because in free space the H- ion is physically huge (larger than a neutral H atom) and would only appear like a negatively charged body at a range greater than the size of the H- ion. So, this H- anion must be shrunken to fit into a Ni atom as a muon-like composite fermion. It is likely the condensate-like action applied to the surface H- anion by the atoms in the right-sized metal grain extract energy from the H- anion to shrink it into a DDL-like state (no one has ever done the math for DDL states of an H- anion).

     As you say, once the shrunken H- anion enters the Ni atom, it quickly descends into a tight orbital around the nucleus. All we can really say about what happens next is that in at least one branch of the reaction that occurs, a 6+ MeV proton is ejected. This is so much energy, it could only have come from a nuclear conversion of mass to energy – it does not come from simple Coulomb repulsion. So, some nuclear conversion occurs and at least part of the time a 6+ MeV proton is ejected.

     So, what happened to the 2 tightly bound electrons that comprised the shrunken H- anion? MFMP’s recent measurement of a radiation outburst showed a smooth distribution of photon energy to over 1.5 MeV, with the bulk of the energy being below 100 keV. This suggests Bremsstrahlung radiation, which only occurs from very high energy light particles (electrons, not protons). I suggest that it is possible that the electrons of the shrunken H- anion share in the energy provided to the proton in that branch of the nuclear reaction. I propose that the energy becomes randomly distributed between the electrons and the proton in this branch of the reaction. This leads to a distribution of energies between electrons and the proton. The statistically varied (shared) energy given to the electrons is responsible for electron emissions (not beta because there is no neutrino) that caused the Bremsstrahlung radiation that was detected by MFMP. The spectrum measured could only have come from electrons with a statistical distribution of energies – some of those electrons having energies over 1.5 MeV. To obtain such high energy electrons requires energy being created by nuclear mass deficit (the same for the protons).

     My posit is that the nuclear reaction that occurs with the shrunken H- anion in tight orbital around a Ni nucleus releases electrons and the proton with energy randomly distributed between them; this energy coming from a presently unknown mass conversion process in the nucleus.

     Evidence of the high energy electrons showed up in the measured MFMP Bremsstrahlung spectrum (GS5.2 by Alan Goldwater). It is believed that these high energy electrons may not have been observable in Piantelli’s cloud chamber, and so could also have been present during his proton detection.

112. I dont believe the following passage in Lewins article is credible-

     “If the distance is larger than 10-14 m, the proton is
     expelled from the metal atom through the repelling Coulomb force, with
     high kinetic energy (6.7 MeV) determined by Piantelli through
     calculation, and confirmed through cloud chamber experiments.”

     There is no source of energy to to accelerate chemically bound protons to 6.7 MeV

     I want a scientifically refereed journal reference to prove the above assertion.

113. A lot of research on H- ions has been done. Here is a conference paper from 1990 on this subject:

     Click to access tu101.pdf

     If H- ions could induce nuclear reactions I think it is safe to say that it should have been noticed long ago.

114. thanks Mats

115. Nuclear physics is not like lego. Step 4 is not consistent with known physics. If it were, the exposition of this theory would be in Science and Nature, and not in patents and obscure blogs.

116. Step 4 is not consistent with known physics. If it were, the exposition of this theory would be in Science and Nature, and not in a patent or on obscure blogs.

117. You will find these ideas Illustrated in this 2013 article http://chavascience.com/index.php/en/hydrogen/lenr-anomalous-heat

118. I’m not sure of this. However, as I just added, Unified Gravity Corporation describes in an patent application that protons with much lower kinetic energy fuse with lithium in a similar process.

119. In 7b, there is no nuclear reaction and yet one obtains 6.7 MeV of energy. How come?

120. Splendid stuff – I think that over the next 12 months in particular we will see much more blood sweat and tears shed over the adoption of this technology. Going to be fascinating.

121. Thank you for this very compelling theory!
     I am sure that Andrea Rossi must be aware of this, but did not want to publish it because it reveals the relatively simple process too much.
     I hope the theory will be confermed by many replications.

122. Not so impossible invention after all … 🙂
     Great article with great insights !
     Thanks for bringing out the info to the masses !