• Sam Hansson

    Not intending to comment on the transmutational data but happy to read other comments and expertise, but always grateful for the very hard effort put in by the MFMP

    Instead I would like to ask authors to elaborate on the statement “there were signs that the active side ran hotter than the null side”. Please define what is meant by that and what conclusions you draw by that.

    • Andrew

      There was indications of excess heat however it was within the margin of error.

    • nietsnie

      In case ‘active side’ and ‘null side’ seem confusing, this has to do with the way the experiment was built. There are essentially two reactor containers of the same size that are both heated and both measured for temp. One of them contains the ‘active’ fuel that is hoped will demonstrate an energy producing reaction. The other contains a ‘null’ substance, which should not exhibit a reaction. After heating both using the same heater coil, and in the event that the active side measures consistently hotter than the null side, then one way of explaining that result is that LENR occurred within the active side but not the null side – and, of course, that is the hoped for result. However, it is also possible that, in spite of all efforts, there is some other unknown variable that is different between the two sides which accounts for the difference in temp.

    • Bob Greenyer

      nietsnie gives a good overview.

      In the case of this experiment – the Optris showed live that the “active” side was running hotter, no attempt was made to determine an estimate for COP, however, the conclusion was that, despite the plan to do an isotopic analysis on the ash anyway, the case for doing so became a little stronger.

  • Anon2012_2014


    Did you retain a small sample as the control before running it in the reactor?

    • Bob Greenyer

      We have plenty of the Parkhomov Ni + LiAlH4 held back.

      With regard to the Fuel, it is expected that the following elements at least would be present in their natural isotopic ratios.

      Some trace Noble gasses

      The cell was loaded in air, hence some of the potential elements above. There was no reaction vessel – so no steel. The reactor in this case was 99.8% Coorstek Alumina (Al2O3)

      The fuel was 100% Parkhomov Ni and LiAlH4 – several analysis were conducted on this fuel and published already, one by Parkhomov, and 4 via us

      1. Ubaldo Mastromatteo (SEM EDX)

      2. Edmund Storms (SEM EDX)

      3. University of Missouri (ICPMS)

      4. Earthtech (ICPMS)

      Therefore, the fuel is very well characterised.

      The Nickel was found to be natural isotopic ratio – in some tests it showed some small carbon – but this could be from the analysis approach.

      The Lithium was found to be natural isotopic ratio and contained Chlorine which is a residue left from the production of LiAlH4.

      You can see links to tests of the fuel on our main blog.


      • Anon2012_2014

        If you have an uncooked sample it might be good to run it through the same TOF machine so as to eliminate variation in machine calibration and minor uncooked sample normal variation from the natural mean for each ion mass percentage.

        • Bob Greenyer


  • pg

    last day of test!!

  • Bob Greenyer

    A questions/suggestions/notes document has been started to capture crowd input and post to the testing party


  • bachcole

    Looking at the graphs, it is not real clear to me if we got transmutation of element or not. Can people with know their a$$e$ from third base on this subject chime in and let us who don’t know their a$$e$ from third base on this subject whether we got transmutation of elements or not.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I think we need the raw data and some questions answered from the testing party


      • bachcole

        Thank you, BG. If the graphs showed greater differences, and the original material, then perhaps I wouldn’t need to ask.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I am no expert but I did this.

          UOM determined the Parkhomov LiAlH4 fuel component to have a 7Li/6Li ratio of 12.48 (average from five runs)

          Parkhomov’s precedent independent testing by Vernadsky Institute of the Parkhomov LiAlH4 fuel component shows it to have a 7Li/6Li ratio of 12.51

          Both of the above testing was done by ICP-MS

          The Padua Cell ash by my calculation from the raw Danish university TOF-SIMS has a 7Li/6Li ratio of 9.96

          Yes, I know they are not directly comparable.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Here is the data as CSV and ODS https://goo.gl/ue6DcW

  • Bob Greenyer

    I sampled

    6Li 6.010182 – 6.300047

    7Li 6.998976 – 7.300138

    7Li ratio

    6Li ratio

    Since we know from previous ICP-MS testing that the Lithium ratio was natural in Parkhomov LiAlH4, then the relative amount of 6Li has increased by

    0.091 / 0.075 = 1.213

    Relative 6Li proportion may have increased by over 21%

    Sputter cleaning and much longer integration times are important now, as is an expert eye to discount other potential 6 and 7 masses such as [6Li, 7Li] [H, D] and 12C++ and 14C++ and 12CH2++

  • Bob Greenyer

    Attached is the amount of Lithium determined by Parkomov arranged independent ICP-MS

  • Bob Greenyer

    Analysis from “DAK” captured into the Live document

    “This is an expanded area of the SIMS data taken from the ash of the Padua sample. Note the numerous peaks at the nominal masses. The peak at m/z 57 was especially interesting. If it were Fe-57, then the ratio of Fe56/Fe57 would be very far off. However, note that the exact mass for Fe56 is very close to correct (also for Co59, indicating that the calibration was OK – blue diamonds show the expected position), whereas the exact mass for m/z 57 is too high. This indicates that it cannot be Fe57 but is more likely a complex ion of CaOH, whose calculated mass is shown. Also, note the large number of peaks with mass excess (mass greater than nominal). In this mass range this is unusual and can be attributed to hydrocarbon peaks.

    A similar analysis can be done at m/z 63-65 for copper. The ratio of nominal masses is incorrect. However, closer inspection indicates that the masses are not copper but hydrocarbons as they all show mass excess.

    Thus, just looking at nominal mass would lead one to believe that transmutation had occurred as the hydrocarbon and molecular ion peaks would provide incorrect ratios for elements in this range. That is why SIMS needs to be analyzed VERY carefully. In this case [ for this region – ed.], one is mostly looking at background with no evidence of transmutation.”

    It is therefore very important to have a null TOF-SIMS and perhaps use a substrate other than Carbon tape – and of course longer integration times. Then to do ICP-MS on it also.