New Fire's 100+ Year Gestation Part 1 (New MFMP Video)

Bob Greenyer of the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project has released a new video called “New Fire’s 100+ Year Gestation Part 1) in which Bob discusses the results of research he has done, and conversations he has had, and looks into historical references in the scientific literature that he feels could significance to the LENR field.

One interesting focus here is that Bob highlights an article published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London in 1867 by Thomas Graham titled “On the Occlusion of Hydrogen Gas by Metals” where Graham discusses the behavior of hydrogen absorbtion/adsorption/loading into metals. It’s a fascinating discussion because it is looking at subjects that are discussed at length by LENR researchers today, and this article is over 100 years old.

Video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgcF2iE0-pA

  • Andre Blum

    What a nice, clear and informative presentation, Bob! Does the canon patent only describe higher gamma radiation? Or do we know what excess heat / COP they were getting?

    • Bob Greenyer

      They claim that they can get practical excess heat controllably and repeatable in their expired patent.

      In addition – they say they observe photons in the gamma range. Sadly – there is a need to try and find supporting data to know the type of energy.

      Remember this is an awarded LENR patent that claims useful excess heat and nuclear level emissions.

      • A few of us repeated this work with fine success, scaling has always been an issue with most cold fusion methodologies.

        • Mats002

          May I ask what was the claimed XH from Cannon?

  • Andre Blum

    What a nice, clear and informative presentation, Bob! Does the canon patent only describe higher gamma radiation? Or do we know what excess heat / COP they were getting?

    • Bob Greenyer

      They claim that they can get practical excess heat controllably and repeatably in their expired patent.

      In addition – they say they observe photons in the gamma range. Sadly – there is a need to try and find supporting data to know the type of energy. I hope the crowd can find that data.

      Remember this is an awarded LENR patent that claims useful excess heat and nuclear level emissions.

      • A few of us repeated this work with fine success, scaling has always been an issue with most cold fusion methodologies.

        • Mats002

          May I ask what was the claimed XH from Cannon?

  • wpj

    Sorry, be we chemists have used “occluded” all our careers (in this context).

    • Bob Greenyer

      That may be so, but in the context of LENR – I’d never clocked its use, I mean, my use of it in 3D rendering let me know immediately that it was an appropriate term – but ask 10 people interested in LENR if they had heard of occluded before in this context and I’m pretty sure many would not have done so.

      For me, it does not matter, my lack of familiarity in this context led me on a sequence of discoveries that I would not have had otherwise.

      Since then, I have searched the LENR-CANR.ORG data base and I have basically only found a few old papers, from japan, using this term and then, long after my discovery of the Canon patent and my journey, the Clean Planet patent uses the term.

      • wpj

        There was a lot of work done in the 1970s using occluded hydrogen in metals as a potential for transport in hydrogen vehicles. The hydrogen was released by electrical heating. It never progressed due to the fear of what might happen in an accident (plus probably the oil lobby).

        I have mentioned before on this forum about the occlusion of hydrogen in Ni and how Raney/Sponge (a bit of humour there!) a large amount is occluded when they are formed (which is why they are stored over water).

        Having looked at the patent status, I am amazed that they paid all of the fees (for GB, Fr, DR) for the full term of the patent.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I think this is the work that Piantelli was referring to when the Ni temperatures were established as I said in the video.

          I am amazed that more people have not explored this route since it is such a clearly written patent – though as I said in the video – it does look a lot like you would imaging DGTs internals to be based on.

        • Warthog

          Actually, the sorption storage of hydrogen metals and alloys in the ’70’s was developed to PREVENT accidents in storage and use. There are videos of hydrogen storage vessels being shot with tracer bullets…the sole result is a small puff of flame at the impact point…..no explosion.

          Any of the materials used for this purpose are possible candidates for LENR substrates.

          • wpj

            Yes, I saw those pictures which were done to convince people of the safety. Didn’t seem to work though.

          • Warthog

            These approaches ultimately failed because of economics, not tech. Unfortunately, there is a cult among the partially technically educated that hydrogen is horribly, terribly dangerous material….usually accompanied by pictures of the Hindenburg.

            The reality is that hydrogen is a standard industrial gas used safely in hundreds and thousands of locations in quantities from cc/min to tons/hour. But the anti-H folks seem unaware of this reality.

          • wpj

            True, though fuel cells seem to have increased the interest again.

          • Warthog

            I think if you check, you will find most of the interest is in oxide cells “burning” natural gas. Likely driven by the increasing availability and dropping price of shale-derived gas. If my home had piped-in natgas, I’d think about getting one myself.

    • GiveADogABone
  • wpj

    Sorry, be we chemists have used “occluded” all our careers (in this context).

    • Bob Greenyer

      That may be so, but in the context of LENR – I’d never clocked its use, I mean, my use of it in 3D rendering let me know immediately that it was an appropriate term – but ask 10 people interested in LENR if they had heard of occluded before in this context and I’m pretty sure many would not have done so.

      For me, it does not matter, my lack of familiarity in this context led me on a sequence of discoveries that I would not have had otherwise – I did chemistry to A-level and material science at university – and I never cam across it. Sometimes it is important to be ignorant but observant.

      Since then, I have searched the LENR-CANR.ORG data base and I have basically only found a few old papers, from Japan, using this term and then, long after my discovery of the Canon patent and my journey, the Clean Planet patent uses the term.

      • wpj

        There was a lot of work done in the 1970s using occluded hydrogen in metals as a potential for transport in hydrogen vehicles. The hydrogen was released by electrical heating. It never progressed due to the fear of what might happen in an accident (plus probably the oil lobby).

        I have mentioned before on this forum about the occlusion of hydrogen in Ni and how Raney/Sponge (a bit of humour there!) a large amount is occluded when they are formed (which is why they are stored over water).

        Having looked at the patent status, I am amazed that they paid all of the fees (for GB, Fr, DR) for the full term of the patent.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I think this is the work that Piantelli was referring to when the Ni temperatures were established as I said in the video.

          I am amazed that more people have not explored this route since it is such a clearly written patent – though as I said in the video – it does look a lot like you would imaging DGTs internals to be based on.

        • Warthog

          Actually, the sorption storage of hydrogen metals and alloys in the ’70’s was developed to PREVENT accidents in storage and use. There are videos of hydrogen storage vessels being shot with tracer bullets…the sole result is a small puff of flame at the impact point…..no explosion.

          Any of the materials used for this purpose are possible candidates for LENR substrates.

          • wpj

            Yes, I saw those pictures which were done to convince people of the safety. Didn’t seem to work though.

          • Warthog

            These approaches ultimately failed because of economics, not tech. Unfortunately, there is a cult among the partially technically educated that hydrogen is horribly, terribly dangerous material….usually accompanied by pictures of the Hindenburg.

            The reality is that hydrogen is a standard industrial gas used safely in hundreds and thousands of locations in quantities from cc/min to tons/hour. But the anti-H folks seem unaware of this reality.

          • wpj

            True, though fuel cells seem to have increased the interest again.

          • Warthog

            I think if you check, you will find most of the interest is in oxide cells “burning” natural gas. Likely driven by the increasing availability and dropping price of shale-derived gas. If my home had piped-in natgas, I’d think about getting one myself.

    • GiveADogABone
  • georgehants

    Interesting that these observations seem to have been published 100 years ago for anybody to replicate if they wished to confirm.
    Has anybody else heard the rumour of a guy called Rossi who has been claiming for over 5 years already, to have discovered a new form of fire and yet up to now has not published anything worthwhile for an open replication to take place anywhere.
    maybe he is trying to beat the hundred years wasted on this reported work.

    • Bob Greenyer

      As the next segments of this video will reveal, the information is hidden in plain sight.

      • georgehants

        Bob are you confirming that with the information that Mr. Rossi has so far given, you (MFMP) can now do an open public replication of his work, showing a worthwhile COP?

        • LuFong

          Wow!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks LuFong, and thanks for your unstinting support, you are a very real part of making this journey worthwhile.

          • Mats002

            Ok, I read the Canon patent. Very clear, detailed, consistent with what is learned as a follower and ends with “Thus, the nuclear fusion reaction can be efficiently occasioned and the heat energy can be generated relatively easily.”

            Russ George told us below in this thread he and others replicated it back then but LENR is hard to scale up. I take it Russ says that the gamma radiation was termalized to a low COP of – let me guess until he tell the answer; 1.1-1.3 ish at max.

            The trick then is how to make the small (mouse) effect amplify into the Cat effect! Me356 told us the answer that Li should be in direct contact or in a visible path from the NiH activity. Canon says nothing about Lithium from what I can see.

            Did Rossi introduce Lithium to CF? I think Piantelli did, but looking back the timeline might show some revelations. I guess this is what Part II will tell.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well, I asked me356 to test free Li only on the treated Ni and gave a full reason as to why I was asking him and what I expected the result to be – get the Al outta the way! He did it though! and… as they say, actions speak louder than words – I am looking forward to seeing the results myself.

            The problem that I have noticed in the field is that everyone tries to develop their own versions rather than replicating what has shown to work (it was a motivation to form the MFMP) – there are commercial reasons for doing this – but for open replicators, there is no reason to not learn from the Canon patent since there is nothing to loose and you can only gain and improve it within the very wide scope of its simple claims. It made sense to test and then move on in Russ Georges replication of the Canon patent, now it does not.

            The Canon patent writers must be applauded for writing a no-nonsense clear patent that is easy to follow and is not padded out with endless embodiments and meaningless data and theory. They are straight to the point, state the purpose of each part and the overall process and effect without any obfuscation.

            Pons and Fleischman did – they used LiOD as I have previously reported, as their electrolyte in their electrolytic cells (we even have a vial of their original stock).

            For electronics and control designers – the Canon patent basically spells out how to get a working embodiment.

          • Mats002

            First, congratulation to your predictions. I understand that me356 got a little scared from having a neutron source from your recipe, correct? (Who would not).

            That is also a driver for Bob Higgins to open source a neutron detector for MFMP?

            And I agree that Canon is clear on what kind of EMF stimulation is needed to make the reaction go. I can see why Pantelli found XH at -150 C (he was trying to deep freeze a sample of a brain cells when he accidently discovered anomalous heat for the first time) and I can see the reason for more than one cable feeding the E-Cat, maybe not for three phase but to separate discharges making plasma between clusters of metal powder, from temp cycling and from DC potential between fuel and the cathode.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Oh yeh – the whole section on cooling for effective loading made me go “ah hah! that explains Piantelli’s moment of serendipity” – so much of everything will become clear and coherent as we move forward. In part, I want people to have a little fun with this, it is clear that me356 at least has claims that are consistent with what would be expected if he bothered to follow the evidence. I am really hoping that the community go to great efforts to pre-empt what I am going to say.

            When me356 started reporting and the clean planet patent came out, I started to get a little frustrated that I had not had time to do the presentation I wanted to do due to GS 5.2 and GS 5.3 – I am not complaining, since they were very important data points. I did try to assuage my guilt at having given me356 a head start on my insight on March 10th on his very sight since I knew I was going to bogged down with other MFMP commitments and life. No one paid attention then though.

            me356 should be given full credit for actually pursuing it and adding his on flair and insight. More people need to move on this though and with your help on control and monitoring – we’ll make good progress.

            As for the reasons for building an open source neutron detection system – that stemmed principally from our live observations in GS 5.3 and the rest of the main justification is here:

            http://goo.gl/H1wQeC

          • SDH harrison
          • Warthog

            “Did Rossi introduce Lithium to CF?

            No. All the electrolytic approaches contained LiOD (the deuterium equivalent of lithium hydroxide). Made by reacting lithium metal with deuterium oxide (deuterium equivalent of water). Rossi “might” have been the first to introduce it into a non-electrolytic system.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hmmm, is Rossi’s system really not electrolytic… is it not just a solution that carries Li+ and H- ions, albeit at a far higher temperature?

            We already know that Alumina conducts electricity as the temperature gets high.

          • Axil Axil

            It’s nanoparticles of lithium and hydrogen that are causative. That is, particles made of multiple atoms. That is why pressure release increases LENR activity, because that release forms nanoparticles.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I would agree that nanoparticles of materials in a reactor and/or reactants/reaction matrix are critical, I could not comment with the same level as defined certainty as you that the causative nano particles are formed from Li and Hydrogen.

          • Warthog

            I hate to “go all Clintonian” here, but “it depends on your definition of electrolytic.” A better phrase might be aqueous electrolytic. Certainly things like solid oxide fuel cells are “electrolytic”, but definitely not aqueous.

          • Au contraire, most frequently there is NO gamma nor any other ionizing emissions. 4He in abundance is born cold. Many materials and many methods reliably produce the effect. It takes engineering development not physics research to scale up, therein lies the major issue as playing it safe as a physicist is the most courage all but very few cold fusioneers have been willing to dare.

          • Eyedoc

            Is there a link to the Canon patent ? (Sorry I apparently missed it somewhere;)

        • Bob Greenyer

          I am saying that the cannon patent claims this. me356 claims this post learning about it on the 11 Nov 2015 (though I do not know for certain that his embodiments are derived from this other than the celani/rossi mashup that was designed to in part take on this learning)

          I do know me356 has Argon by the bucket load and he has been doing discharge plasma based experiments.

          • georgehants

            Many thanks, so my observation regarding Mr. Rossi is correct until it is confirmed, that this 11 Nov 15 post gives the information necessary for a replication.
            Good luck to MFMP on that endevour and to be the first to openly replicate the possible live saving technology of Cold Fusion.

          • Dr. Mike

            Bob,
            Nice presentation of some of the original background science of LENR. You might also be interested in reviewing patent# 6,248,221.
            Also, somewhat off topic- Has anyone written up reports on the experiments done by MFMP? I haven’t seen any such reports summarizing the work done and the conclusions of each experiment run.
            Dr. Mike

            P.S. Would you check your dictionary for the proper pronunciation of “patent”?

          • Bob Greenyer

            I am English, so I say “Pay tent” not “Pat ent”

          • cashmemorz

            England has original rule for what the letter “e” does to the vowel before separated by a consonant. Makes the earlier vowel long as in “a” is pronounced “ay”. USA corrupts the rule by popular use to ignore the rule.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well – it gives guidance on replication of the Canon patent, but as you’ll see in the upcoming parts of this video, things are connected.

          • Bob Greenyer

            The patent is not 11 Nov 15 – this patent is from 1989, it was 11 Nov 15 when I drew me356’s attention to it knowing that he had stacks of Argon on tap, a hydrogen generator and a range of reactor components and his own expertly crafted control and monitoring solutions.

        • Warthog

          Arrggghhh!! The information is great, and very important.

          The video itself, OTOH, basically sucks.

          Next time, PLEASE use a projector, and keep you and the slide in the field of view throughout. The switching back and forth just doesn’t work.

          Also, with the back and forth, the slides are not left visible long enough to actually read what is there (and I read pretty darned fast, so if I am having the problem, I’m sure others are as well). Using a projector fixes this. Or break the slides down with only one or two points per slide instead of five or more.

          And lastly (and as usual) the Closed Captioning stinks. This is a real thorn in my particular flesh, as my hearing is very bad, even with hearing aids connected by bluetooth directly to the computer (which, unfortunately, for some reason, was cutting in and out….so I was wholly dependent on the CC).

          • Andre Blum

            Sorry to hear it wasn’t a good experience for you. I found the production pretty good and very clear and entertaining, and the pace just right.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I have made the entire presentation, as all my presentations, freely downloadable. You can click through on your computer and leave it up as you choose. The links to patents are in the descriptions of videos and the links to web pages, papers and patents in my presentations are included in the patents for ease of reference.

            To save you the trouble of looking in the Youtube description, the link to the downloadable, full quality printable PDF of the presentation is here:

            https://goo.gl/X1xetw

  • georgehants

    Interesting that these observations seem to have been published 100 years ago for anybody to replicate if they wished to confirm.
    Has anybody else heard the rumour of a guy called Rossi who has been claiming for over 5 years already, to have discovered a new form of fire and yet up to now has not published anything worthwhile for an open confirming replication to take place anywhere.
    Maybe he is trying to beat the hundred years wasted on this reported work.

    • Bob Greenyer

      As the next segments of this video will reveal, the information is hidden in plain sight.

      • georgehants

        Bob are you confirming that with the information that Mr. Rossi has so far given, you (MFMP) can now do an open public replication of his work, showing a worthwhile COP?

        • Bob Greenyer

          I am saying that the cannon patent claims this. me356 claims this post learning about it on the 11 Nov 2015 (though I do not know for certain that his embodiments are derived from this other than the celani/rossi mashup that was designed to in part take on this learning)

          I do know me356 has Argon by the bucket load and he has been doing discharge plasma based experiments.

          • georgehants

            Many thanks, so my observation regarding Mr. Rossi is correct and this cannon patent of 11 Nov 15 post gives the information necessary for a replication.
            Good luck to 365 and MFMP on that endevour and to be the first to openly replicate and free the possible live saving technology of Cold Fusion.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well – it gives guidance on replication of the Canon patent, but as you’ll see in the upcoming parts of this video, things are connected.

          • Bob Greenyer

            The patent is not 11 Nov 15 – this patent is from 1989, it was 11 Nov 15 when I drew me356’s attention to it knowing that he had stacks of Argon on tap, a hydrogen generator and a range of reactor components and his own expertly crafted control and monitoring solutions.

  • Private Citizen

    So, is MFMP going to try to replicate Thomas Graham next?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Well – it would be something rooted in Cannon patent that draws from TG – our next generation GS is intended to take on board this learning. We have to conduct some planned experiments first.

  • Private Citizen

    So, is MFMP going to try to replicate Thomas Graham next?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Well – it would be something rooted in Cannon patent that draws from TG – our next generation GS is intended to take on board this learning. We have to conduct some planned experiments first.

  • Mats002

    Great discovery about the patent status Bob!

    We all are waiting (well, ehum, me myself and I for one) to see the replication of me356 experiment, again and again until enough jaws have dropped benieth their upholding knees to get this phenomena spread around the whole world.

    When can we expect the first replication of me356 setup?

  • Mats002

    Great discovery about the patent status Bob!

    We all are waiting (well, ehum, me myself and I for one) to see the replication of me356 experiment, again and again until enough jaws have dropped benieth their upholding knees to get this phenomena spread around the whole world.

    When can we expect the first replication of me356 setup?

  • Barbierir

    Has there been any update from me365? Any visit by a third party that witnessed the claims?

    • Bob Greenyer

      He wants to publish his paper on his findings. He has said I would be first to witness and be able to test.

      • Barbierir

        Good to know, that would change everything

      • The way you phrase it, sounds like this paper already exists in some form

        A public vetting of a draft of the paper could strengthen it significantly.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I have not seen anything, I have just been told there is a paper in progress.

  • Steve Savage

    This sounds to me as if Rossi’s patent could be invalidated due to prior art ?

  • Warthog

    Arrggghhh!! The information is great, and very important.

    The video itself, OTOH, basically sucks.

    Next time, PLEASE use a projector, and keep you and the slide in the field of view throughout. The switching back and forth just doesn’t work.

    Also, with the back and forth, the slides are not left visible long enough to actually read what is there (and I read pretty darned fast, so if I am having the problem, I’m sure others are as well). Using a projector fixes this. Or break the slides down with only one or two points per slide instead of five or more.

    And lastly (and as usual) the Closed Captioning stinks. This is a real thorn in my particular flesh, as my hearing is very bad, even with hearing aids connected by bluetooth directly to the computer (which, unfortunately, for some reason, was cutting in and out….so I was wholly dependent on the CC).

    • The video is terrific, what sucks are idiots who bitch about such fine work. Anyone incapable of hitting the pause button to read a slide is clearly incapable of making a pertinent comment. I suggest you will find plenty of cartoons on the web which will meet your viewing needs.

      • Warthog

        No, the science is terrific. The video sucks. It is amateurishly done. I give Bob kudos for the science work he does, but he is NOT a videographer….not even close.

        And I think you will find most of my commentary here pertinent to the science under discussion.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I am a firm believer in minimum viable product, yes we could fritter away precious donations on a production studio and videographers and editors – I could spend a few more months holding onto the information, but I do not think that is the best interests of the community at large.

          If people are unable to take away the message with the freely downloadable and distributable PDF of the presentation slides containing links to all relevant documents and websites in combination with the video, then I need to try harder, or, someone else is more than welcome to deliver something more professional.

          • Warthog

            See my reply to Russ George just above.

        • Scott Harrison

          I’d rather have Bob get the information out for us to chew on ASAP rather than spending big time and big money making them CBS news quality. Remember, he is a volunteer…..

          • Warthog

            See reply just before your comment.

        • We differ there Bob’s video presentation is delightful…. if you want action video go to the new StarTrek movie that has just been released

          • Warthog

            Actually, I would prefer less action. Keep the slides on the screen and add a voice-over. Bob ain’t bad-looking, but watching him wave his hands doesn’t contribute a lot to transferring the information. This can be done without any video equipment at all…not even a camera.

    • Andre Blum

      Sorry to hear it wasn’t a good experience for you. I found the production pretty good and very clear and entertaining, and the pace just right.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I have made the entire presentation, as all my presentations, freely downloadable. You can click through on your computer and leave it up as you choose. The links to patents are in the descriptions of videos and the links to web pages, papers and patents in my presentations are included in the patents for ease of reference.

      To save you the trouble of looking in the Youtube description, the link to the downloadable, full quality printable PDF of the presentation is here:

      https://goo.gl/X1xetw

  • Dr. Mike

    Bob,
    Nice presentation of some of the original background science of LENR. You might also be interested in reviewing patent# 6,248,221.
    Also, somewhat off topic- Has anyone written up reports on the experiments done by MFMP? I haven’t seen any such reports summarizing the work done and the conclusions of each experiment run.
    Dr. Mike

    P.S. Would you check your dictionary for the proper pronunciation of “patent”?

    • Bob Greenyer

      I am English, so I say “Pay tent” not “Pat ent”

      • cashmemorz

        England has original rule for what the letter “e” does to the vowel before separated by a consonant. Makes the earlier vowel long as in “a” is pronounced “ay”. USA corrupts the rule by popular use to ignore the rule.

  • Ophelia Rump

    I watched twice, brilliant!

  • Ophelia Rump

    I watched twice, brilliant!

  • So…

    Bob looks like the cat that ate the canary, name dropping me356 and telling us that me356 expects to publish a paper and then show him the goods… all while telling us there is a clear thread from the 1800’s all the way to Piantelli, then him, then me356. And thanks to Canon, it’s all public domain because their patent was broad and has expired.

    Also hinting at the end that they’ve got a lead concerning Argon being used in the QuarkX.

    Seems like Bob is hinting at imminent success.

    But I don’t get it entirely. Sounds promising regarding me356, but until he goes public we won’t know for sure. And the revelation about occluded hydrogen is confusing. We know that hydrogen gets absorbed into these metals, basically injecting itself into the metal lattice in equal measure, but we still don’t know how that winds up causing excess energy. What happens next after that metal hydrogen lattice is formed that makes things get all hot?

    And if Canon saw excess heat and 20x gammas… WTF? Did they just say ‘that’s nice’ and walk away?

    Here’s a link on Palladium occlusion of hydrogen:
    http://palladium.atomistry.com/hydrogen_occlusion.html

    • Warthog

      “And if Canon saw excess heat and 20x gammas… WTF? Did they just say ‘that’s nice’ and walk away?

      Without funding of some sort, what “could” they do?? Remember…this work was from 1989. Given the successful poisoning of the atmosphere by the hot fusion brigades and their skeptopath allies, anything CF related was ignored. There was no LENR-CANR.org biblography with hundreds and thousands of papers for investors to check out the tech.

      When the honest history of this fiasco finally gets written, I think people will be shocked at the opportunity lost.

      The only comparable loss i can think of is when Henry VIII disbanded the English Catholic monasteries…one of which was on the verge of inventing the Bessemer process centuries before it was re-invented by Bessemer. I

    • Bob Greenyer

      The Canon patent is a broad based starting point that no one has any reason to not pursue – except, that is capability and resources. What is increasingly clear is that the truth is out there for those willing to use their eyes to see.

      In the next videos, I hope to convey reasoned arguments in relation to other patents that part way through their life and other linking research that may explain the observed phenomena without invoking exotic science – it was not my aim, it is just what came from looking.

      • Axil Axil

        Please explain what causes nuclear reactions to be produced sometimes as Cannon shows in his reaction and sometimes without nuclear reactions as Rossi and many others claims, Do this without resorting to exotic science.

        • Bob Greenyer

          In the next videos I will extend the coherent arguments based on tested observables.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Would this not suggest we have a conflict effect? You want to load the metal with H, but when you heat the device (or presumably heat is produced), does that not then drive the H out of the metal with the higher temp? Inquiring minds wonder!

        However, there are some “hints” that the LENR effect can occur when the metal is liquid, or at least metal liquid “spots” occur on the surface.

        And there are a number of theories that some type of “metal” H loading is how the sun works – it not a simple ball of gas and H.

        So does LENR need a loaded metal with H, or does the H change as a result of being loaded into the metal, and that creates the LENR effect?

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Bob Greenyer

          The trick is to drive the active mass into the lattice and capitalise on the energy release away from the lattice. That way you can have a cooler reactor than you might otherwise think.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Ok, so these higher temp ecats and quarks are using some trick we don’t know about. And how can such devices reach or run so close to nickel melting point?

          • Bob Greenyer

            I have already given reasons in previous postings why I think it is Platinum based. Even still, I believe that thermal energy is harvested away from the reaction.

          • Axil Axil

            Where is the lattice inside of chickens and microbes?

          • Bob Greenyer

            horses for courses.

            Where is the Styrene catalyst or UV light?

          • Axil Axil

            metalized hydrogen produces anapole magnetic flux lines

            What is required in LENR is anapole magnetic flux lines.

            SmCo5 magnetism produces LENR effects because anapole magnetic flux lines are produced by this type of magnet

            Calculation of magnetic anisotropy energy in SmCo5

            http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0303368.pdf

            This SmCo5 magnetic dust powers the Cravens/Letts golden ball.

            See

            https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2860-The-Dennis-Cravens-Golden-Ball-reaction/

          • Bob Greenyer

            I suggested to Celani the use of SmCo5 in the lobby of our hotel during ICCF18 before knowledge of the contents of the balls. The problem for his experiments is the Curie temperature.

            Yes it was used in the golden balls, but there is some debate that that device could simply rely on a hydrogen deuterium exchange reaction and as LaNi5 (one of the other components in the balls) is a very good hydrogen storage material – there could be a lot of exchange possible.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I signed up for 2 Rossi home E-Cats almost as soon as the pre-Order became available,

            I was VERY disappointed to have to pay 5000 euros to re-line my very long chimney and install a new boiler last autumn.

            I would very much prefer to have an E-Cat providing energy in my home and then I can move on to other pursuits I enjoy.

            Sadly, I like everybody else is waiting. When I have finished this series of videos, you can judge for yourself who deserves credit for what.

            What I know is we have spent a big chunk of our lives and a lot of donors good will securing results little more satisfying than Celani wires produced on our third time by following the useable information Rossi has made available. It is not for want of trying.

            What it seams however, is that in this Canon patent – there is a very clearly defined approach that has no patent protection that they really did devise that could yield us our best results yet if me356s experience along a similar path turns out to be verified.

            The wafer Flat design was detailed in his patent which became available in the latter part of last year. From a scientific point of view it might not show us more… I personally only realised the structure of the overall design following my analysis of GS 5.2 in mid to late February and we as a team have been engaged since then.

          • Rene

            I too signed up for 3 domestic e-cats the moment the preorders opened up. I ordered 3 because back then COP6 was the max and 3 of them made it possible to have one always running. Well, so went the thinking at the time.
            In my case, I stretched the lifetime of my then 10 year old batteries to 16 years. Am now getting Aquion batteries and a few more PV panels. Done.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well my solar system sorted me for the whole time I was in India (best part of a decade) and ran my E-scooters for transport too.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Right now I am considering leasing roof space on the building next door and putting some solar panels there.

        • Axil Axil

          The loading of the hydrogen and lithium into the metal forms metalized hydrogen and lithium nanoparticles from compression by the metal bonds. Holmlid has shown that metalized hydrogen produces the LENR reaction.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Assuming all reactions are the same, which they may be, but one wonders why we get different outcomes under different conditions. In chemistry, there are many outcomes when one changes parameters (unless you term it as electron interactions) – thankfully otherwise life would not exist – could it really be there is only one reaction in this field (unlike in conventional nuclear science) – Ed Storms thinks there is only one mechanism, and that isn’t the one proposed by Holmlid.

            I like Holmlid’s work – I introduced Celani to it long before it became fashionable to talk about it, even before Sveinn came onto the scene – and Celani changed his approach as a result.

          • Mats002

            IT-Architects always look for one common denominator as the underlying explanation to complicated things. Axil is an IT-Architect.

          • Bob Greenyer

            you mean like the fundamental building bloc – the logic gate that can only have two states…

            Until someone invents quantum ‘logic’

          • Mats002

            What’s the difference between a quanta and a bit?

            Possibly the quanta can enter many dimensions but so can also the bit.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks Chapman, we of course will not get things right all the time, I know I will not, who does? As I have said before, I am not worried about being wrong, I am worried about being right and not passing that insight / data on. My view on learning is – get it out there, and hopefully, with well reasoned and qualified criticism, collective understanding will advance.

            By the way, I intend to do an animation to show how occlusion is affected by structure.

          • Axil Axil

            We all fell deeply about what all the members of MFMP do and thinks because they are the tip of the LENR open source spear. The worse fate of all is to be ignored as being without any value or worth.

          • Axil Axil

            Nucleon decay is the reason for the LENR reaction. There are a number of ways that EMF can be amplified to a level strong enough to produce this effect.

          • Bob Greenyer

            How does that explain all the observed reaction products by various researchers.

          • Axil Axil

            LI7 to Li 6 is neutron decay.

            Ni/X to Ni62 is energy transfer by BEC into Ni nucleus,.

            Alpha decay by meson+ exposition of nucleus. (fission)

            He4 and He3 by muon catalyzed fusion. (fusion)

          • Bob Greenyer

            I tentatively agree with one of those statements as you will see, and I will base my argument on research dating back around 40 years.

      • Axil Axil

        Quantum mechanics is exotic science and LENR is all about quantum mechanics. If people are to understand LENR, they also need to understand quantum mechanics on a seep level. Observed LENR phenomena must be explained as a consequence of quantum mechanics.

        • Bob Greenyer

          But the beauty of the cannon patent, it’s description is so clear that, if it works and seemingly me356 claims success, then the replication community do not need to know the ins and outs of quantum mechanics to play a role.

    • Axil Axil

      True, hydrogen gets absorbed into these metals accumulates and forms crystals. These crystals are superconducting and are metastable. These crystals can leave the lattice and remain intact. It is the metal bonds in the imperfections in the metal lattice that compress the hydrogen together to form metalized hydrogen.

      EMF does not enter into the hydrogen crystal, this behavior is called the Meissner effect. Magnetic fields do not enter this superconductor. In addition, electons are repelled away from the surface of the hydrogen crystal. This EMF shield makes this crystal very tough. This EMF shell enables this crystal to withstand very high heat and pressure.

      LeClair says that the ability for cavitation to erode any substance including diamond is due to the shielding that superconductivity of metalized water provides.

      There is a partnership that exists between superconductivity and LENR that makes LENR do unbelievable things.

  • So…

    Bob looks like the cat that ate the canary, name dropping me356 and telling us that me356 expects to publish a paper and then show him the goods… all while telling us there is a clear thread from the 1800’s all the way to Piantelli, then him, then me356. And thanks to Canon, it’s all public domain because their patent was broad and has expired.

    Also hinting at the end that they’ve got a lead concerning Argon being used in the QuarkX.

    Seems like Bob is hinting at imminent success.

    But I don’t get it entirely. Sounds promising regarding me356, but until he goes public we won’t know for sure. And the revelation about occluded hydrogen is confusing. We know that hydrogen gets absorbed into these metals, basically injecting itself into the metal lattice in equal measure, but we still don’t know how that winds up causing excess energy. What happens next after that metal hydrogen lattice is formed that makes things get all hot?

    And if Canon saw excess heat and 20x gammas… WTF? Did they just say ‘that’s nice’ and walk away?

    Here’s a link on Palladium occlusion of hydrogen:
    http://palladium.atomistry.com/hydrogen_occlusion.html

    • Warthog

      “And if Canon saw excess heat and 20x gammas… WTF? Did they just say ‘that’s nice’ and walk away?

      Without funding of some sort, what “could” they do?? Remember…this work was from 1989. Given the successful poisoning of the atmosphere by the hot fusion brigades and their skeptopath allies, anything CF related was ignored. There was no LENR-CANR.org biblography with hundreds and thousands of papers for investors to check out the tech.

      When the honest history of this fiasco finally gets written, I think people will be shocked at the opportunity lost.

      The only comparable loss i can think of is when Henry VIII disbanded the English Catholic monasteries…one of which was on the verge of inventing the Bessemer process centuries before it was re-invented by Bessemer. I

    • Bob Greenyer

      The Canon patent is a broad based starting point that no one has any reason to not pursue – except, that is capability and resources. What is increasingly clear is that the truth is out there for those willing to use their eyes to see.

      In the next videos, I hope to convey reasoned arguments in relation to other patents that are part way through their life and other linking research that may explain the observed phenomena without invoking exotic science – it was not my aim, it is just what came from looking.

      • Axil Axil

        Please explain what causes nuclear reactions to be produced sometimes as Cannon shows in his reaction and sometimes without nuclear reactions as Rossi and many others claims, Do this without resorting to exotic science.

        • Bob Greenyer

          In the next videos I will extend the coherent arguments based on tested observables.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Would this not suggest we have a conflict effect? You want to load the metal with H, but when you heat the device (or presumably heat is produced), does that not then drive the H out of the metal with the higher temp? Inquiring minds wonder!

        However, there are some “hints” that the LENR effect can occur when the metal is liquid, or at least metal liquid “spots” occur on the surface.

        And there are a number of theories that some type of “metal” H loading is how the sun works – it not a simple ball of gas and H.

        So does LENR need a loaded metal with H, or does the H change as a result of being loaded into the metal, and that creates the LENR effect?

        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Bob Greenyer

          The trick is to drive the active mass into the lattice and capitalise on the energy release away from the lattice. That way you can have a cooler reactor than you might otherwise think.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Ok, so these higher temp ecats and quarks are using some trick we don’t know about. And how can such devices reach or run so close to nickel melting point?

          • Bob Greenyer

            I have already given reasons in previous postings why I think it is Platinum based. Even still, I believe that thermal energy is harvested away from the reaction.

          • Axil Axil

            Where is the lattice inside of chickens and microbes?

          • Bob Greenyer

            horses for courses.

            Where is the Styrene catalyst or UV light?

          • Axil Axil

            metalized hydrogen produces anapole magnetic flux lines

            What is required in LENR is anapole magnetic flux lines.

            SmCo5 magnetism produces LENR effects because anapole magnetic flux lines are produced by this type of magnet

            Calculation of magnetic anisotropy energy in SmCo5

            http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0303368.pdf

            This SmCo5 magnetic dust powers the Cravens/Letts golden ball.

            See

            https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/2860-The-Dennis-Cravens-Golden-Ball-reaction/

          • Chapman

            You are absolutely right!

            AND, if you polarize the garphenblastmetric dipoles and refurbulate them via potasium necronomica phosphate you can invert the excrementum bovinia into a semi-solid plasmodial state! My calculations PROVE it!

            Eureka!!!

          • Bob Greenyer

            I suggested to Celani the use of SmCo5 in the lobby of our hotel during ICCF18 before knowledge of the contents of the balls. The problem for his experiments is the Curie temperature.

            Yes it was used in the golden balls, but there is some debate that that device could simply rely on a hydrogen deuterium exchange reaction and as LaNi5 (one of the other components in the balls) is a very good hydrogen storage material – there could be a lot of exchange possible.

        • Axil Axil

          The loading of the hydrogen and lithium into the metal forms metalized hydrogen and lithium nanoparticles from compression by the metal bonds. Holmlid has shown that metalized hydrogen produces the LENR reaction.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Assuming all reactions are the same, which they may be, but one wonders why we get different outcomes under different conditions. In chemistry, there are many outcomes when one changes parameters (unless you term it as electron interactions) – thankfully otherwise life would not exist – could it really be there is only one reaction in this field (unlike in conventional nuclear science) – Ed Storms thinks there is only one mechanism, and that isn’t the one proposed by Holmlid.

            I like Holmlid’s work – I introduced Celani to it long before it became fashionable to talk about it, even before Sveinn came onto the scene – and Celani changed his approach as a result.

          • Mats002

            IT-Architects always look for one common denominator as the underlying explanation to complicated things. Axil is an IT-Architect.

          • Bob Greenyer

            you mean like the fundamental building bloc – the logic gate that can only have two states…

            Until someone invents quantum ‘logic’

          • Mats002

            What’s the difference between a quanta and a bit?

            Possibly the quanta can enter many dimensions but so can also the bit.

          • Axil Axil

            Nucleon decay is the reason for the LENR reaction. There are a number of ways that EMF can be amplified to a level strong enough to produce this effect.

          • Bob Greenyer

            How does that explain all the observed reaction products by various researchers.

          • Axil Axil

            LI7 to Li 6 is neutron decay.

            Ni/X to Ni62 is energy transfer by BEC into Ni nucleus,

            Alpha decay by meson+ exposition of nucleus. (fission),

            He4 and He3 by muon- catalyzed fusion. (fusion).

          • Bob Greenyer

            I tentatively agree with one of those statements as you will see, and I will base my argument on research dating back around 40 years.

          • roseland67

            Bob,
            May help to get closer to an answer if all the various researchers successfully replicated each other’s experiments.
            Appears they each try their own experiments and go off in different directions.

          • Bob Greenyer

            As I explained below, there is a personal and commercial driver to that… Now, with a quality clear patent such as this Canon one in the public domain, there is every incentive to build on it since, if it works as described, there is no restriction to use it as a foundation for improvement.

      • Axil Axil

        Quantum mechanics is exotic science and LENR is all about quantum mechanics. If people are to understand LENR, they also need to understand quantum mechanics on a seep level. Observed LENR phenomena must be explained as a consequence of quantum mechanics.

        • Bob Greenyer

          But the beauty of the cannon patent, it’s description is so clear that, if it works and seemingly me356 claims success, then the replication community do not need to know the ins and outs of quantum mechanics to play a role.

    • Axil Axil

      True, hydrogen gets absorbed into these metals and accumulates and forms crystals. These crystals are superconducting and are metastable. These crystals can leave the lattice and remain intact. It is the metal bonds in the imperfections in the metal lattice that compress the hydrogen together to form metalized hydrogen.

      EMF does not enter into the hydrogen crystal, this behavior is called the Meissner effect. Magnetic fields do not enter this superconductor. In addition, electrons are repelled away from the center of the crystal and expelled from the surface of the hydrogen crystal. This EMF shield makes this crystal very tough. This EMF shell enables this crystal to withstand very high heat and pressure.

      LeClair says that the ability for cavitation to erode any substance including diamond is due to the EMF shielding that superconductivity of metalized water provides.

      There is a partnership that exists between superconductivity on the nanoparticle level and LENR that makes LENR do unbelievable things.

  • Axil Axil

    The field of LENR is a field where patents will be hard to write successfully. Most of the LENR tech has been documented publicly and is therefore open source.

  • artefact

    OT: New video from BLP:

    http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/

    “… Engineer witnesses said that they have never seen power density so extreme, impossible with known technology! … “

  • artefact

    OT: New video from BLP:

    http://brilliantlightpower.com/plasma-video/

    “… Engineer witnesses said that they have never seen power density so extreme, impossible with known technology! … “

  • Mats002

    Ok, I read the Canon patent. Very clear, detailed, consistent with what is learned as a follower and ends with “Thus, the nuclear fusion reaction can be efficiently occasioned and the heat energy can be generated relatively easily.”

    Russ George told us below in this thread he and others replicated it back then but LENR is hard to scale up. I take it Russ says that the gamma radiation was thermalized to a low COP of – let me guess until he tell the answer; 1.1-1.3 ish at max.

    The trick then is how to make the small (mouse) effect amplify into the Cat effect? Me356 told us the answer that Li should be in direct contact or in a visible path from the NiH activity. Canon patent says nothing about Lithium from what I can see.

    Did Rossi introduce Lithium to CF? I think Piantelli did, but looking back the timeline might show some revelations. I guess this is what Part II will tell.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Well, I asked me356 to test free Li only on the treated Ni and gave a full reason as to why I was asking him and what I expected the result to be – get the Al outta the way! He did it though! and… as they say, actions speak louder than words – I am looking forward to seeing the results myself.

      The problem that I have noticed in the field is that everyone tries to develop their own versions rather than replicating what has shown to work (it was a motivation to form the MFMP) – there are commercial reasons for doing this – but for open replicators, there is no reason to not learn from the Canon patent since there is nothing to loose and you can only gain and improve it within the very wide scope of its simple claims. It made sense to test and then move on in Russ Georges replication of the Canon patent, now it does not.

      The Canon patent writers must be applauded for writing a no-nonsense clear patent that is easy to follow and is not padded out with endless embodiments and meaningless data and theory. They are straight to the point, state the purpose of each part and the overall process and effect without any obfuscation.

      Pons and Fleischman did – they used LiOD as I have previously reported, as their electrolyte in their electrolytic cells (we even have a vial of their original stock).

      For electronics and control designers – the Canon patent basically spells out how to get a working embodiment.

      • Mats002

        First, congratulation to your predictions. I understand that me356 got a little scared from having a neutron source from your recipe, correct? (Who would not).

        That is also a driver for Bob Higgins to open source a neutron detector for MFMP?

        And I agree that Canon is clear on what kind of EMF stimulation is needed to make the reaction go. I can see why Piantelli found XH at -150 C (he was trying to deep freeze a sample of brain cells when he accidently discovered anomalous heat for the first time) and I can see the reason for more than one cable feeding the E-Cat, maybe not for three phase but to separate discharges making plasma between clusters of metal powder, from temp cycling and from DC potential between fuel and the cathode.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Oh yeh – the whole section on cooling for effective loading made me go “ah hah! that explains Piantelli’s moment of serendipity” – so much of everything will become clear and coherent as we move forward. In part, I want people to have a little fun with this, it is clear that me356 at least has claims that are consistent with what would be expected if he bothered to follow the evidence. I am really hoping that the community go to great efforts to pre-empt what I am going to say.

          When me356 started reporting and the clean planet patent came out, I started to get a little frustrated that I had not had time to do the presentation I wanted to do due to GS 5.2 and GS 5.3 – I am not complaining, since they were very important data points. I did try to assuage my guilt at having given me356 a head start on my insight on March 10th on his very website since I knew I was going to bogged down with other MFMP commitments and life. No one paid attention then though.

          me356 should be given full credit for actually pursuing it and adding his own flair and insight. More people need to move on this though and with your help on control and monitoring – we’ll make good progress.

          As for the reasons for building an open source neutron detection system – that stemmed principally from our live observations in GS 5.3 and the rest of the main justification is here:

          http://goo.gl/H1wQeC

          • Chapman

            Mr. Greenyer,

            What can I say? I am sorry to see you being beaten up on this page by some who never miss a Star Trek rerun, but apparently can’t take the time to do a little simple research before bashing the work of real scientists, and dreaming up preposterous theories just for novelty’s sake.

            You guys are rock stars. Keep up the great work. PLEASE do not let belligerents weaken your resolve to continue sharing!

            Also, your video editing is FINE!!! Next thing you know folks will be demanding you use computer graphics and animations!!!

            I know none of this NEEDS to be said, as you know these things already, but sometimes things SHOULD be said just for the sake of the saying.

            Thank you , and all at MFMP, for all you work and research.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks Chapman, we of course will not get things right all the time, I know I will not, who does? As I have said before, I am not worried about being wrong, I am worried about being right and not passing that insight / data on. My view on learning is – get it out there, and hopefully, with well reasoned and qualified criticism, collective understanding will advance.

            By the way, I intend to do an animation to show how occlusion is affected by structure.

          • Chapman

            You could keep the animation budget to a minimum if you were to use stop action filming of colorful felt cutouts, ala “Southpark”!

            How are you with humorous accents?

            Maybe you could get Les Claypool to do a catchy theme song for you too, as he seems to have a pretty good sense of humor. (and an obvious interest in chemistry…)

            You could just use blue blobs for all the BEC’s. 🙂

          • Bob Greenyer

            I was the first registered trainer of Lightwave3D in the UK and designed core functionality of 3D Coat’s re-topology engine in its early years. I can do animation.

            I like your idea though and I have done paper cut-out animation before.

          • Axil Axil

            We all fell deeply about what all the members of MFMP do and thinks because they are the tip of the LENR open source spear. The worse fate of all is to be ignored as being without any value or worth.

          • Chapman

            Axil, that is one statement over which you and I can shake, and exchange air-kisses! At last – common ground!!! 🙂

          • TomR

            Thank you Chapman for putting into words what a lot of us are thinking. Bob Greenyer, you are a rock star to us. I also like Axil Axil, I just wish he wasn’t so positive about all he says.

      • SDH harrison
    • Warthog

      “Did Rossi introduce Lithium to CF?

      No. All the electrolytic approaches contained LiOD (the deuterium equivalent of lithium hydroxide). Made by reacting lithium metal with deuterium oxide (deuterium equivalent of water). Rossi “might” have been the first to introduce it into a non-electrolytic system.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Hmmm, is Rossi’s system really not electrolytic… is it not just a solution that carries Li+ and H- ions, albeit at a far higher temperature?

        We already know that Alumina conducts electricity as the temperature gets high.

        • Axil Axil

          It’s nanoparticles of lithium and hydrogen that are causative. That is, particles made of multiple atoms. That is why pressure release increases LENR activity, because that release forms nanoparticles.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I would agree that nanoparticles of materials in a reactor and/or reactants/reaction matrix are critical, I could not comment with the same level of defined certainty as you that the causative nano particles are formed from Li and Hydrogen.

          • Chapman

            Mr. Greenyer,

            If you would kindly review your posted image of the quark, I believe you must agree it comes from a Bose-Einstein Condensate. The evidence is clear, but being repressed and ignored. The ease by which Bose-Einstein Condensates form is a totally overlooked field of research! I believe the Hindenburg was destroyed because of an accidental Bose-Einstein Condensate formation initiated due to poor exoskeleton grounding. If you review this image you can clearly see a Bose-Einstein Condensate descending my Grandmother’s staircase during a full moon. Bose-Einstein Condensates are EVERYWHERE and disrupting the natural Lay Lines. Also if you… OUCH!! DAMN – A Bose-Einstein Condensate just bit me on my leg! I hate it when that happens…

            Those damn BEC’s are everywhere, and messing up my TV reception.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Gosh, your right dammit Chapman, I noticed one above my kettle just now and… come to think of it… in the hi-fi speaker shop the other day I saw a definite grouping … they are everywhere! Run I tell you, run for you lives!

          • Chapman

            And here I thought only Clovis got my jokes!!!

            I just thought you needed a break from the onslaught… 🙂

          • Bob Greenyer

            Oh, I get something similar with everything I put out there, I am doing it for those that care.

            ICCF19 was interesting – it was so polarised, but one thing seamed apparent, open source was not to be easily tolerated. The disparaging looks were the best, it felt great to be an outcast amongst outcasts.

        • Warthog

          I hate to “go all Clintonian” here, but “it depends on your definition of electrolytic.” A better phrase might be aqueous electrolytic. Certainly things like solid oxide fuel cells are “electrolytic”, but definitely not aqueous.

    • Au contraire, most frequently there is NO gamma nor any other ionizing emissions. 4He in abundance is born cold. Many materials and many methods reliably produce the effect. It takes engineering development not physics research to scale up, therein lies the major issue as playing it safe as a physicist is the most courage all but very few cold fusioneers have been willing to dare.

    • Eyedoc

      Is there a link to the Canon patent ? (Sorry I apparently missed it somewhere;)

  • Axil Axil

    This is a flaw in the thinking that this presentation is based on. ECCO has shown that Rossi got his reaction to go with iron and copper. Latter Rossi used the group 10 elements. Piantelli states that most other transition metals will support the LENR reaction. This says that the magic properties of palladium is not required to drive the LENR reaction.

    The LENR reaction is driven by topology not chemistry.

    • Mats002

      Canon patent talks about ‘hydrogen storing member’ and make examples of more than Pd.

      • Axil Axil

        LENR is produced by electromagnetic interaction inside a dusty plasma containing particles of varying size distributions. H- has no role in the LENR reaction.

        • Mats002

          In this setup for LENR I think H- have a role, maybe only to make the nuclear active environment ready for the underlying magic.

        • Bob Greenyer

          The purpose of this video is not to claim a process it is to show provenance of the key concepts from the work of Thomas Graham up to 1867 through the discovery of deuterium and fusion itself, via P&F, Piantelli (Mats002 got the cold nickel bar thing), Cannon which leads to Rossi. It shows that provenance of nano powder and nano clusters in relation to hydrogen storage should be credited to Thomas Graham and in the context of LENR – undoubtedly to Canon

          • Axil Axil

            You have no proof that fusion is involved in LENR. I say LENR is produced by proton decay and I have proof that that is true, mesons and electron production.

            You are fearful of detecting muons because that would kill your beloved H- theory. Shame on you, use a cloud chamber.

          • Mats002
          • Alan DeAngelis

            Maybe just for fun we could get away from heterogeneous systems and try oxidative additions of deuterium gas to palladium(0) in homogeneous solutions of tetrakis(triphenylphosphine)palladium(0) in a high boiling organic solvent like xylene (as the working heat exchange fluid).
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrakis(triphenylphosphine)palladium(0)

          • Alan DeAngelis

            PS
            And also hydrogen gas and Ni(PPh3)4 in xylene.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            PPS
            The assumption is that a lattice is needed. Most likely it is needed but maybe it’s not. These will be the experiments I’ll try after I win the Power Ball lottery tonight.

          • Omega Z

            Perhaps we don’t need a Lattice.
            Maybe a Trellis will suffice. 🙂

          • Bob Greenyer

            Perhaps lettuce?

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Yeah, maybe biological transmutations involve protein complexes of transition metals. http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue34/bookreview_biotrans.html

          • Alan DeAngelis
          • Bob Greenyer

            I am encouraging the American school in Japan (Tokyo) to do bean germination studies. I would like to do them too.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            That’s great news.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Off-Topic.

            Padua cell fuel components tested with TOF-SIMS now alongside ash re-test

            The independent researcher that previously did an initial test of the Padua Cell ash, has since been supplied with samples of the two Parkhomov fuel elements (Parkhomov’s exact LiAlH4 and Russian produced Nickel powder).

            The testing party took on as much of the advice as possible given in the live document on our main but they were unable to sit the powder on Silicon substrate as the ion beam just moved the sample.

            However, since each sample was on the same type of substrate any carbon based interference should net net out.

            The raw data files are in the link.

            https://goo.gl/fjxrRI

            No one at the MFMP has analysed this data yet – so any crowd graphing / analysis would be appreciated.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I had a quick go at one part of the data and produced this GIF animation

            https://goo.gl/6GsYuw

          • Ged

            Fascinating, and more different than I had thought. Nice gif, Bob.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Too different – I think we need to now do ICPMS

          • Frank Acland

            Thanks, Bob — I’ve opened up a new thread for discussion of this topic.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Ah yes, Trellis Assisted Nuclear Reactions.
            http://www.chemtube3d.com/gallery/inorganicsjpgs/PtPPh34.jpg

          • Bob Greenyer

            As we established a while back, I first suggested the need for a cloud chamber many moons ago before others called for us to get one. It is actively on our shopping list – something I believe I have also said before. We are not afraid of detecting anything – we first detected gamma repeatably from Celani wires in 2013, then with more definition in GS 5.2 thanks to Stephen Cooke and then we sought to at least have Neutrons monitoring on board with bubble detectors in GS5.3 where we saw live detections.

            We have now built (Via a considerable and exper piece of work by Bob Higgins) an open source neutron detector.

            I think you need to hear this series of videos out before casting premature judgement.

          • Axil Axil

            I can afford premature judgement because I am only a layman, you can’t because you are an cutting edge experimentalist.

          • Bob Greenyer

            That is very flattering, I am just a citizen scientist and a volunteer however.

            We are trying hard to do better.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Industrial heterogeneous catalytic hydrogenation has been around for a long time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogenation

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes.

            Hidden in plain sight.

            However. This reference – like most modern ones – refers to ‘adsorption’ not ‘occlusion’

          • Alan DeAngelis

            Yeah, but the 1800s weren’t the Dark Ages.

          • Bob Greenyer

            for sure no!

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Quite a gold mine of info. More amazing is the “hint” that so much of the mystery and keys to unlocking LENR may well be in plain public view – just waiting for such
            information to be used!

            I really can’t wait for some of your next experiments. You may well be the one that hatches this LENR egg for all of us!

            Again, keep it up – truly remarkable the past events of history that have brought us to this point in time! With this info you shared, I think we taken a significant step forward for all the LENR community.
            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Axil Axil

    There is a flaw in the thinking that this presentation is based on. ECCO has shown that Rossi got his reaction to go with iron and copper. Latter Rossi used the group 10 elements. Piantelli states that most other transition metals will support the LENR reaction. This says that the magic properties of palladium is not required to drive the LENR reaction.

    The LENR reaction is driven by topology not chemistry.

    • Mats002

      Canon patent talks about ‘hydrogen storing member’ and make examples of more than Pd.

      The patent do not lay out any theory on underlying physics. It is a practical patent. Deep below QM rules anyway 😉

      And it mentions structure, I thought of NAE reading it.

      • Axil Axil

        LENR is produced by electromagnetic interaction inside a dusty plasma containing particles of varying size distributions. H- has no role in the LENR reaction.

        • Mats002

          In this setup for LENR I think H- have a role, maybe only to make the nuclear active environment ready for the underlying magic.

        • Bob Greenyer

          The purpose of this video is not to claim a process it is to show provenance of the key concepts from the work of Thomas Graham up to 1867 through the discovery of deuterium and fusion itself, via P&F, Piantelli (Mats002 got the cold nickel bar thing), Cannon which leads to Rossi. It shows that provenance of nano powder and nano clusters in relation to hydrogen storage should be credited to Thomas Graham and in the context of LENR – undoubtedly to Canon

          • Axil Axil

            You have no proof that fusion is involved in LENR. I say LENR is produced by proton decay and I have proof that that is true, mesons and electron production.

            You are fearful of detecting muons because that would kill your beloved H- theory. Shame on you, use a cloud chamber.

          • Mats002
          • Bob Greenyer

            As we established a while back, I first suggested the need for a cloud chamber many moons ago before others called for us to get one. It is actively on our shopping list – something I believe I have also said before. We are not afraid of detecting anything – we first detected gamma repeatably from Celani wires in 2013, then with more definition in GS 5.2 thanks to Stephen Cooke and then we sought to at least have Neutrons monitoring on board with bubble detectors in GS5.3 where we saw live detections.

            We have now built (Via a considerable and expert piece of work by Bob Higgins) an open source neutron detector.

            The MFMP has never been fearful of either detecting particles or reporting the data to suggest otherwise or cast aspersions is disingenuous.

            I think you need to hear this series of videos out before casting premature judgement.

          • Axil Axil

            I can afford premature judgement because I am only a layman, you can’t because you are a cutting edge experimentalist.

          • Bob Greenyer

            That is very flattering, I am just a citizen scientist and a volunteer however.

            We are trying hard to do better.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Quite a gold mine of info. More amazing is the “hint” that so much of the mystery and keys to unlocking LENR may well be in plain public view – just waiting for such
            information to be used!

            I really can’t wait for some of your next experiments. You may well be the one that hatches this LENR egg for all of us!

            Again, keep it up – truly remarkable the past events of history that have brought us to this point in time! With this info you shared, I think we taken a significant step forward for all the LENR community.
            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Axil Axil

    The purple glow that comes from the Quark reaction is due to electron excitation from the surface of the quark of air…nitrogen 80%(blue light) and oxygen 20%(red light). It has nothing to do with argon inside the reactor.

    Note:

    Andrea Rossi
    July 8, 2016 at 4:07 PM
    Ovidiou Herlea:
    Thank you for your suggestion. The blue halo has nothing to do with the illumination produced by the QuarkX. Besides: light, electricity will be produced at the same time, without particular privilege.
    F8.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.
    ===========

    This says to me that the blue/red light is EXTERNAL to the Quark. Light is produced by the Quark but not purple light, that blue/red light comes from OUTSIDE the quark reactor.

    • Bob Greenyer

      You may say that, but I happen to know for a fact that me356 has large quantities of Argon and that I knew he had a Hydrogen generator. That is why I went full tilt on running over the Canon patent with him last November.

      I agree in part that the glow is due to electron excitation. Judge my coherence when this messaging has run its course.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I hope you are right, because that might mean the coherent reactor embodiment I will put forward is stand alone.

  • Warthog

    No, the science is terrific. The video sucks. It is amateurishly done. I give Bob kudos for the science work he does, but he is NOT a videographer….not even close.

    And I think you will find most of my commentary here pertinent to the science under discussion.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I am a firm believer in minimum viable product. If people are unable to take away the message with the freely downloadable and distributable PDF of the presentation slides containing links to all relevant documents and websites in combination with the video, then I need to try harder, or, someone else is more than welcome to deliver something more professional.

      • Warthog

        See my reply to Russ George just above.

    • Scott Harrison

      I’d rather have Bob get the information out for us to chew on ASAP rather than spending big time and big money making them CBS news quality. Remember, he is a volunteer…..

      • Warthog

        See reply just before your comment.

    • We differ there Bob’s video presentation is delightful…. if you want action video go to the new StarTrek movie that has just been released

      • Warthog

        Actually, I would prefer less action. Keep the slides on the screen and add a voice-over. Bob ain’t bad-looking, but watching him wave his hands doesn’t contribute a lot to transferring the information. This can be done without any video equipment at all…not even a camera.

  • Thomas Baccei

    Axil: It is time now for the universe to provide a clear answer since these theories (and old empirical evidence) point to clear cut experiments which can differentiate between them. Arguing that your theory is correct and the Graham / Canon / Piantelli / Greenyer theory is wrong sounds all too much like the establishment physics community discounting the entire LENR field. You just simply sound so cocksure of yourself and I cannot remember the last experimental result you produced. If you think the Graham / Canon theory is wrong, design an experiment which contradicts it, not an “Angels on the Head of a Pin” debate. Thanks.

    • Axil Axil

      Holmlid has done that experiment and so will others get the same result as Holmlid if they only would check for the emission of mesons from their reactors. Why won’t they check for those mesons as Holmlid suggests, why won’t they use a cloud chamber???

      • Bob Greenyer

        I’m sure that if I try to bake a souffle to a well defined recipe, I may get, with luck, a souffle – but if it was a roast chicken dinner I wanted, I’d be disappointed.

        It would be nice to bake a souffle, desire alone does not make it happen though.

        On the plus side, we already have, a long time ago, purchased the requisite Styrene Catalyst pellets – we even used them in a glow stick fuel mix, but the thermal results were no more interesting than other tests.

        http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/513-glowstick-5

        • Axil Axil

          Holmlid places the Styrene Catalyst on an Iridium substrate, then he irradiates the mix with a laser for weeks before the catalyst becomes active.

          There seems to be an energy storage stage that must be met before the catalyst is activated.

          Getting the Holmlid experiment to work is hard and that is why there has not been any successful replications.

          • Bob Greenyer

            None of this is easy – though the Canon patent is clear as any description I have seen in the field and quite attainable.

            Sveinn is a follower of the MFMP and we have already shared a presentation platform with him, if I don’t get to meet him at ICCF20, then I will see what is possible moving forwards. Celani is in regular contact with Holmlid as I understand.

  • Thomas Baccei

    Axil: It is time now for the universe to provide a clear answer since these theories (and old empirical evidence) point to clear cut experiments which can differentiate between them. Arguing that your theory is correct and the Graham / Canon / Piantelli / Greenyer theory is wrong sounds all too much like the establishment physics community discounting the entire LENR field. You just simply sound so cocksure of yourself and I cannot remember the last experimental result you produced. If you think the Graham / Canon theory is wrong, design an experiment which contradicts it, not an “Angels on the Head of a Pin” debate. Thanks.

    • Axil Axil

      Holmlid has done that experiment and so will others get the same result as Holmlid if they only would check for the emission of mesons from their reactors. Why won’t they check for those mesons as Holmlid suggests, why won’t they use a cloud chamber???

      • Bob Greenyer

        I’m sure that if I try to bake a souffle to a well defined recipe, I may get, with luck, a souffle – but if it was a roast chicken dinner I wanted, I’d be disappointed.

        It would be nice to bake a souffle, desire alone does not make it happen though.

        On the plus side, we already have, a long time ago, purchased the requisite Styrene Catalyst pellets – we even used them in a glow stick fuel mix, but the thermal results were no more interesting than other tests.

        http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/513-glowstick-5

        • Axil Axil

          Holmlid places the Styrene Catalyst on an Iridium substrate, then he irradiates the mix with a laser for weeks before the catalyst becomes active.

          There seems to be an energy storage stage that must be met before the catalyst is activated.

          Getting the Holmlid experiment to work is hard and that is why there has not been any successful replications.

          • Bob Greenyer

            None of this is easy – though the Canon patent is clear as any description I have seen in the field and quite attainable.

            Sveinn is a follower of the MFMP and we have already shared a presentation platform with him, if I don’t get to meet him at ICCF20, then I will see what is possible moving forwards. Celani is in regular contact with Holmlid as I understand.

      • Steve Wallace

        I have asked Prof Holmlid about using a cloud chamber and his response was interesting. Apparently a cloud chamber does not work well with the particular mesons he is observing. I do not fully understand why, but maybe someone who is well experienced in this area might be able to to add their understanding. Maybe it has to do with the mesons being ionizing, or non-ionizing.

  • Hhiram

    Rossi did a demo and got $10 million. That’s something real, worth paying attention to and reporting on.

    Nobody else has anything except unreplicable claims. Until Parkamov or me356 of Mitsubishi or the Naval Laboratory or BLP or whoever else who is all talk and no walk publish a procedure that can ACTUALLY be replicated, it’s all just hand-waving. Even MFMP – you say you got neutrons. OK, show me the third-party replication. No successful replication? Well, then there’s nothing to see here, is there?

    I’m no blind skeptopath, I think Rossi probably has something. But without replication I honestly see nothing else worth reporting on coming from the LENR “citizen science” community. When you publish a procedure that can consistently replicate COP>1 or transmutation or low-temp neutron emissions, I’ll watch your videos. Until then, I only have time for headlines.

    • Bob Greenyer

      My partner survived polio without real problem, but she did nearly die, her father however was left partially lame all his life due to this horrible disease. Millions died or were paralysed due to the virus. Dr. Jonas Salk did not patent or become fabulously wealthy for developing the polio vaccine – was his work of no value because he did not receive a big pay check?

      Our GS experiment have shown evidence of COP consistently above 1 – we are very cautious in our reporting – note we have only ever got really excited when seeing emissions – not COP. We would get excited similarly if we saw statistically significant isotopic shifts.

      What is interesting, our Celani cells never reached the promise of Celani’s own NI-Week / ICCF-17 data – it took two years, but we found out why, and the adjustment was to Celani’s data to come in line with ours. Ours was a replication of the actual results he had achieved before then and during those events when adjusting for control system errors.

      It is interesting that Parkhomov’s most recently reported data with mass flow calorimetry is in line with our consistently above COP 1 but not earth shattering 1.1 – 1.2 results. His previous data was far more exciting, but with the more accurate method used, his data matches our calibrated active and control / Optris PI160 data. Again we find that bold claims by a third party iterate to our findings.

      Moreover, the levels of excess are similar between Celani wire and our “Rossi formulae” experiments. Have we been consistently lucky? have other researchers been consistently unlucky.

      It is simply not accurate to suggest that our findings have not been replicated – the most striking example was in late 2013, when we had repeatedly self-replicated the detection of gamma from our leaking Celani wire cells when re-charging with fresh H2 – Jean-Paul Biberian replicated the observation in his own lab, following the same temperatures and profiles / procedure within 24 hours.

      We replicated our GS5.2 experiment as best we could and there was one inconclusive burst – however, for the first time in GS 5.3 we had neutron bubble detectors and we observed thermal neutron production within a low temperature range. This means two out of two experiments following a published protocol produced evidence of nuclear reactions. Brian Albiston following the same protocol saw increases in gamma counts also. me356 reported (without sharing data) that he two had observed Neutrons from his bubble detectors from Rossi fuel reactions (amongst others), and he had no lead in play (by that I mean no lead brick cave surrounding a NaI scintillator.

      No one has seen me356s recent data, but his claims came after an examination of the Canon patent that I alerted him to on Nov. 11th 2015.

      You choose to look the other way, that is your right – do not be surprised if you miss things that might allow you to shift your positioning had you paid attention.

      We would all love the solution, handed to us on a plate – in an easily digestible form that we can learn with trivial effort. I believe that with such a complex thing as the New Fire, a stepwise progression of learning and application of the scientific method is all we can do when there isn’t someone offering us the future simply because we demand it.

      Yes Rossi received a pay day – we all sincerely hope that he has the goods – but hope is not testable fact either.

      • In 2013 you had replicable evidence of nuclear origin, and yet here it is the middle of 2016 and we’re really not any further along.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I beg to differ, we have a much better understanding of critical parameters and direction derived from our own research. We additionally have seen the shape of the photons released in GS5.2 and neutrons in GS5.3. Now there are other parties willing to talk about these kinds of observations and we hope more will come forward with what they know.

          We are either retired, or young people trying to raise families in difficult employment conditions. We have to find the time.

          Yes we’d like to have been able to dedicate x millions and full time to this, but it was not possible. I spent since Dec 14 2012 trying to get any researcher in the team to put lithium compounds/alkaline metals into our experiments it was not until early 2015 that it actually happened.

          Desiring something to happen is far removed from it actually happening.

          me356 went dark because of the haranguing and stern demands to tell all – I do not blame him, it was horrible to watch. The reality is even when you have results, it takes time to review and understand them – how long did we have to wait for the paid Lugano team to write the Lugano report – a report that had a deep flaw that we proved live (if anyone was not willing to look at and believe the Optris PI160 manual published on-line).

          • All that effort looking into other stuff was just a diversion from the gamma ray finding from 3 years ago, which was rapidly replicated within 48 hours by Hans Biberian, right? The website hasn’t been updated since 2013. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/de/follow/follow-2/347-gamma

          • Bob Greenyer

            No one is more frustrated about that than me. Mathieu did try

            http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/de/home/mfmp-blog/516-new-generation-celani-wire-experiment

            but it came just at the time that the company where he worked (and who gave him the lab space) shut down. It was a company that made plant for the Oil and Gas industry. It turns out that his role at the company ate very large amounts of his time and he struggled to find windows to run the experiments, coupled with a few mistakes like the HUGNet putting power into the wire when it was in vaccum resulting in vaccum deposition of Copper on the Borosilicate tubes.

            The MFMP is a volunteer structure – we are working very hard to give it a stronger foundation that maintains its robust independence – that this is even becoming possible is that we have done real work over the years and have real direction.

          • we have done real work over the years
            ***3 years ago it took 48 hours to ‘replicate’ the gammas (the smoking gun of LENR), but MFMP folks have been looking at other stuff in the meantime. It appears obvious that your resources would have been better spent looking at gammas.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I agree. If you were party to my conversations over the years, you would know I agree. I have only been in a position to assist experiments myself since early 2015 and by then the crowd and institutions wanted us to test the bold claims made in the Oct 10 2014 Lugano report. We were ready to test LiAlH4 2 days after that report – but the volunteer motivation only came after Parkhomov reported that December.

            I get it, you think that everything should have been solved a long time ago, my feeling is, as you will see, that it has been.

            Volunteers do what they can and want to. The point of encouraging me356 to explore the Canon patent from Nov 2015 is that I felt that the MFMP team members were not in a position to or were otherwise engaged in the GS series of experiements. Additionally I knew that me356 had a H2 generator and Argon and all the tools and wherewithal to take it forward without stretching the resources of the MFMP. Now the key thing is that I only became aware of the Canon patent in mid 2015 and it shows a method to repeatably create gammas. me356 is well set up to detect neutrons now, but he was not initially, and as we found out when evaluating the GS5.2 data – the GM tube he had (ours) would not have shown the x-rays we saw in 5.2 – only after this and more recently did he get a NaI scintillator and he is still getting to grips with it.

            No one told me about the Canon patent, I found it by looking and looking. The point of getting this video out is that it brings people up to where me356 was in November. I wanted to do it sooner, but events GS 5.2 / 5.3 and life got in the way.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            We are CLEARLY MUCH further along in this quest for the Holy Grail.

            Even from the time of P&F “most” of the reasons for failed replications are now known (most failures due to lack of time to allow loading of the H into the palladium).

            I fact, just this year, much learning and progress has been made. I willing to say that what you shared in this video will become a “classic” point in LENR history!

            I feel a new sense of excitement here! Can nearly smell the bread cooking in the oven. Now just let that bread finish rising and baking in the oven – all that will be left is to open the door and feast on that bread.

            And for those here asking for a cook book solution? Well, the Canon patient is there – they claim by following their cook book then one will find repeatable results. That claim alone is nothing short of astounding.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Bob Greenyer

          Rutherford was one of the worlds leading scientists, he predicted the neutron in 1921 but it was not until 1932 that it was proven by James Chadwick – what I am saying is that even full time, well funded and resourced scientists don’t necessarily make the discoveries their understanding predicts and it can take a long time.

          • No one knew how to find the Neutron until 1932. MFMP knew how to generate gammas and then went off to work on Lugano/Parkhamov/GS/Canon/WhateverIsNext.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We’ll keep on working, and you’ll keep on, well – whatever it is you are doing.

          • I’m doing what I can with the resources available to me. So go ahead and keep on working and let us know when there’s a butterfly in your net.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Will do.

        • Andrew

          Currently in our scientific process and method there is no reward structure (other than self gratifying) for repeating someone else’s work. Independent replication requires selfless sacrifices on the replicators side and unfortunately in business there is no one willing to spend time, money and resources to further someone else. There is no tangible return. MFMP has all their method and data available to anyone that cares to try, it’s not their fault no one else cares.

          • Andrew

            This is why we have soooooo many “studies” nowadays and sooo few replications.

          • The whole point of MFMP is to replicate LENR unquestionably.

    • Warthog

      You need to familiarize yourself with the reports from both Mitsubishi and Toyota on deliberately inducing transmutations by the simple means of causing a deuterium flux to pass through a metal matrix. There is no other explanation than nuclear reactions. Mitsubishi originated the tech, and Toyota replicated it…both VERY reputable sources. Is it nuclear…..resounding YES.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Gosh, your right dammit Chapman, I noticed one above my kettle just now and… come to think of it… in the hi-fi speaker shop the other day I saw a definite grouping … they are everywhere! Run I tell you, run for you lives!

  • Bob Greenyer

    As I explained below, there is a personal and commercial driver to that… Now, with a quality clear patent such as this Canon one in the public domain, there is every incentive to build on it since, if it works as described, there is no restriction to use it as a foundation for improvement.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Industrial heterogeneous catalytic hydrogenation has been around for a long time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogenation

    • Bob Greenyer

      Yes.

      Hidden in plain sight.

      However. This reference – like most modern ones – refers to ‘adsorption’ not ‘occlusion’

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Yeah, but the 1800s weren’t the Dark Ages.

        • Bob Greenyer

          for sure no!

      • Bruce__H

        At the time of Pons and Fleischmann I had a friend, a physical chemist, doing research at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) in Chalk River. It was the time when everyone was attempting to achieve cold fusion (the 6-12 months or so after the P&F news conference) and there was great excitement in the air. My friend was part of an ad hoc group that was loading metals with hydrogen looking for heat generation … I think palladium. He described it as a very fast process and sounds like the occlusion you describe. The members of the group were already experts at this because their main research was on corrosion and embrittlement in CANDU reactors. On their very first loading experiment the group saw unexplained heat but were never able to replicate it again and gave up after several months.

        It may, therefore, be useful to see if AECL has ever published a technical note. I’ve lost touch with this friend but if you think it is useful I could try and find him and see if anything structured came out of it.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Please do and thanks for offering – it is so important that if there is knowledge or insight – it is not lost – we hate finding out we are re-discovering past facts – that is the point of doing it openly, so those that know better can chip in and tell us the what, how, why and when before we waste time and resources.

          It turns out that the Johnson Matthey Pd electrodes had impurities in them at the time that made them load better, but later they did not – ENEA has published an article on this. We still hope to find a way to analyse a sample of the original P&F material and keep everyone involved happy.

          Many of the attempted replications tried to create ultra pure Pd and that just fails.

  • georgehants

    Could anybody put clearly the present position regarding Cold Fusion.
    What is openly confirmed so that any other person can follow to produce a measurable Cold Fusion effect repeatably and reliably?
    What maximum COP has been established for that same repetition?

    • Bob Greenyer

      The Canon patent claims repeatable photons in the gamma range, which would normally infer nuclear origin.

      The authors claim it can yield practical heat.

      There is no claim of COP.

      • Job001

        An interesting avenue(bunny trail) to investigate is GTAW with humidified argon/hydrogen shield gas and tungsten/silver(liquid) electrodes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_tungsten_arc_welding
        This has most of the BLPSunCell/CIHT/LENRX/ elements/features.
        Good Luck!

        • Bob Greenyer

          Yes

    • Private Citizen

      Videos speak louder than replications.

      This time we really, really have the formula. Its a fantastic formula, unbelievable formula, believe me. Just wait’l Part Two.

  • georgehants

    Could anybody put clearly the present position regarding Cold Fusion.
    What is openly confirmed so that any other person can follow to produce a measurable Cold Fusion effect repeatably and reliably?
    What maximum COP has been established for that same repetition?

    • Bob Greenyer

      The Canon patent claims repeatable photons in the gamma range, which would normally infer nuclear origin.

      The authors claim it can yield practical heat.

      There is no claim of COP.

      • Job001

        An interesting avenue(bunny trail) to investigate is GTAW with humidified argon/hydrogen shield gas and tungsten/silver(liquid) electrodes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_tungsten_arc_welding
        This has most of the BLPSunCell/CIHT/LENRX/ elements/features.
        Good Luck!

        • Bob Greenyer

          Yes

    • Private Citizen

      Videos speak louder than replications.

      This time we really, really have the formula. Its a fantastic formula, unbelievable formula, believe me. Just wait’l Part Two.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Our GS experiment have shown evidence of COP consistently above 1 – we are very cautious in our reporting. What is interesting, our Celani cells never reached the promise of Celani’s own NI-Week / ICCF-17 data – it took two years, but we found out why, and the adjustment was to Celani’s data to come in line with ours. Ours was a replication of the actual results he had achieved before then and during those events when adjusting for control system errors.

    It is interesting that Parkhomov’s most recently reported data with mass flow calorimetry is in line with our consistently above COP 1 but not earth shattering 1.1 – 1.2 results. His previous data was far more exciting, but with the more accurate method used, his data matches our calibrated active and control / Optris PI160 data. Again we find that bold claims by a third party iterate to our findings.

    Moreover, the levels of excess are similar between Celani wire and our “Rossi formulae” experiments. Have we been consistently lucky? have other researchers been consistently unlucky.

    It is simply not accurate to suggest that our findings have not been replicated – the most striking example was in late 2013, when we had repeatedly self-replicated the detection of gamma from our leaking Celani wire cells when re-charging with fresh H2 – Jean-Paul Biberian replicated the observation in his own lab, following the same temperatures and profiles / procedure within 24 hours.

    We replicated our GS5.2 experiment as best we could and there was one inconclusive burst – however, for the first time in GS 5.3 we had neutron bubble detectors and we observed thermal neutron production within a low temperature range. This means two out of two experiments following a published protocol produced evidence of nuclear reactions. Brian Albiston following the same protocol saw increases in gamma counts also. me356 reported (without sharing data) that he two had observed Neutrons from his bubble detectors from Rossi fuel reactions (amongst others), and he had no lead in play.

    No one has seen me356s recent data, but his claims came after an examination of the Canon patent that I alerted him to on Nov. 11th 2015.

    You choose to look the other way, that is your right – do not be surprised if you miss things that might allow you to shift your positioning.

    • Kevmo

      In 2013 you had replicable evidence of nuclear origin, and yet here it is the middle of 2016 and we’re really not any further along.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I beg to differ, we have a much better understanding of critical perameters and

        • Kevmo

          All that effort looking into other stuff was just a diversion from the gamma ray finding from 3 years ago, which was rapidly replicated within 48 hours by Hans Biberian, right? The website hasn’t been updated since 2013. http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/de/follow/follow-2/347-gamma

          • Bob Greenyer

            No one is more frustrated about that than me. Mathieu did try

            http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/de/home/mfmp-blog/516-new-generation-celani-wire-experiment

            but it came just at the time that the company where he worked (and who gave him the lab space) shut down. It was a company that made plant for the Oil and Gas industry. It turns out that his role at the company ate very large amounts of his time and he struggled to find windows to run the experiments, coupled with a few mistakes like the HUGNet putting power into the wire when it was in vaccum resulting in vaccum deposition of Copper on the Borosilicate tubes.

            The MFMP is a volunteer structure – we are working very hard to give it a stronger foundation that maintains its robust independence – that this is even becoming possible is that we have done real work over the years and have real direction.

          • Kevmo

            we have done real work over the years
            ***3 years ago it took 48 hours to ‘replicate’ the gammas (the smoking gun of LENR), but MFMP folks have been looking at other stuff in the meantime. It appears obvious that your resources would have been better spent looking at gammas.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I agree. If you were party to my conversations over the years, you would know I agree. I have only been in a position to assist experiments myself since early 2015 and by then the crowd and institutions wanted us to test the bold claims made in the Oct 10 2014 Lugano report. We were ready to test LiAlH4 2 days after that report – but the volunteer motivation only came after Parkhomov reported that December.

            I get it, you think that everything should have been solved a long time ago, my feeling is, as you will see, that it has been.

            Volunteers do what they can and want to. The point of encouraging me356 to explore the Canon patent from Nov 2015 is that I felt that the MFMP team members were not in a position to or were otherwise engaged in the GS series of experiements. Additionally I knew that me356 had a H2 generator and Argon and all the tools and wherewithal to take it forward without stretching the resources of the MFMP. Now the key thing is that I only became aware of the Canon patent in mid 2015 and it shows a method to repeatably create gammas. me356 is well set up to detect neutrons now, but he was not initially, and as we found out when evaluating the GS5.2 data – the GM tube he had (ours) would not have shown the x-rays we saw in 5.2 – only after this and more recently did he get a NaI scintillator and he is still getting to grips with it.

            No one told me about the Canon patent, I found it by looking and looking. The point of getting this video out is that it brings people up to where me356 was in November. I wanted to do it sooner, but events GS 5.2 / 5.3 and life got in the way.

          • Warthog

            You need to familiarize yourself with the reports from both Mitsubishi and Toyota on deliberately inducing transmutations by the simple means of causing a deuterium flux to pass through a metal matrix. There is no other explanation than nuclear reactions. Mitsubishi originated the tech, and Toyota replicated it…both VERY reputable sources. Is it nuclear…..resounding YES.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I was the first registered trainer of Lightwave3D in the UK and designed core functionality of 3D Coat’s re-topology engine in its early years. I can do animation.

            I like your idea though and I have done paper cut-out animation before.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          We are CLEARLY MUCH further along in this quest for the Holy Grail.

          Even from the time of P&F “most” of the reasons for failed replications are now known (most failures due to lack of time to allow loading of the H into the palladium).

          I fact, just this year, much learning and progress has been made. I willing to say that what you shared in this video will become a “classic” point in LENR history!

          I feel a new sense of excitement here! Can nearly smell the bread cooking in the oven. Now just let that bread finish rising and baking in the oven – all that
          will be left is to open the door and feast on that bread.

          And for those here asking for a cook book solution? Well, the Canon patient is there – they claim by following their cook book then one will find repeatable results. That claim alone is nothing short of astounding.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Bob Greenyer

        Rutherford was one of the worlds leading scientists, he predicted the neutron in 1921 but it was not until 1932 that it was proven by James Chadwick – what I am saying is that even full time, well funded and resourced scientists don’t necessarily make the discoveries their understanding predicts and it can take a long time.

        • Zeddicus23

          Bob,
          Your video and discussion of the Canon patent is very interesting. Do you have any idea why Ar is important? Also, I believe that a number of commenters including Axil Axil have mentioned in the past that Papp’s devices also involve noble gases. This seems like an interesting coincidence.

          • etburg

            I have been wondering the same thing. High energy electrical discharges in a noble gas atmosphere. BLP is similar. I make no claim to any expertise but elements of all three sound more alike.

          • Bob Greenyer

            This is part of the next video (if I leave it in)

            1. Argon is the 3rd most common gas in breathable air – that makes it cheap and it is widely available as it is used in welding.
            2. It is easily ionised, so that if it is a major constituent of the gas in the Canon type reaction chamber – it can pass current allowing the production of a range of Hydrogen forms, excited, radicals, rydberg etc.
            3. As it is a noble gas, it will not interact/bond with Hydrogen, being the majority gas in the Canon apparatus, it acts to prevent atomic hydrogen radicals and rydberg state hydrogen from recombination. This allows the various excited states to be accelerated to the ‘hydrogen storage member’ intact when the negative charge is applied (-500V) – and so they can effectively be occluded.

          • Mats002

            Sorry for repeating this for the 3:rd time but I think it goes well in line with Bob:s findings. It is a paper not from ‘the believers’ of CF/LENR circles but from ‘official science’ as is the Canon patent:

            http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/icfa/fall97/paper2/paper2.pdf

            The conclusion of this 19 years old Stanford report is that this phenomena is one of

            a) the lower threshold of the well known pinch effect

            b) a dense H not yet verified (Mills hydrino or likewize)

            c) Rydberg matter (also a dense H thing)

            They do not mention Mills hydrino or Rydberg matter, but call for:

            “The paper also suggest that the observed X-rays could originate, at least partially, from a new process, where energetic free electrons enter ions, and are captured on the DDL levels [ref 8-12], radiating the Bremsstrahlung spectrum involving many photons”

            DDL = Deep Dirac levels which correspond to electron orbits close to the nucleus.

          • Axil Axil

            This paper is similar to this one

            Low-energy nuclear reactions and the leptonic monopole
            Georges Lochak*, Leonid Urutskoev**

            http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf

            The arc produced by exploding titanium foil can cause uranium to fission at a distance from the arc and separated from the arc by glass.

            There is an EMF process involved.

          • Bob Greenyer

            This is interesting – but note that the Canon patents authors are not saying the gamma appears when the HV spark / glow discharge occurs, they are saying it occurs during application of a negative voltage on the hydrogen storage member which is relatively low voltage and that this occurs for a long period.

            Also, the principal pressure used in the Cannon patent is just above 1 bar (they use a bubbler) this is not low pressure as talked of in this paper – however, Canon say that the affect can be achieved at higher and lower pressures also.

          • Mats002

            I am aware of that, see my answer to Axil about apples and oranges above.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Fair do.

          • Zeddicus23

            Bob,
            Thanks. Number 1 makes sense. I had been thinking along the lines of 3. The current part (2) is interesting and an important point I think.

          • Axil Axil

            I didn’t think that ME356 was using an spark driven reaction. ME356 system looked just like what Rossi was doing and not like what the DGT system did. The DGT system wasn’t so good.

            Are we mixing apples and oranges here?

          • Mats002

            Good question, I look forward to Bob’s answer. My understanding is that the Rossi/MFMP GS/Parkhomov type of setup have fine powder of Ni and IF the heat procedure induce local discharges between clusters of metal then apples = oranges in the meaning that the NAE is the discharge.

            Many small distributed condensed discharges (apples) compared to a one large discharge (orange).

          • Bob Greenyer

            Based on the Canon patent and before I told me356 about it, I asked me356 if he could build a reactor with a central electrode in it (that could be pulled down to a strong negative voltage) in addition to being an “inside out” design, since the inside electrode could act as a heater.

            Out of that was born the “Celani/Rossi mash up” reactor – me356 added his usual flair and inspiration to make the central electrode a very large amount of coiled Nickel wire. His inspiration was to use cheap e-cigarette ‘vape’ wire and use epoxy in a way that meant one did not have to polish the alumina in order to get a gas tight seal with the swagelok. This reduced the reactor construction time to minutes – which is good since he does not have a lot of time.

            I then went to visit him again and run one of these with a little LiAlH4 in it. He had claimed and published live, data that supposedly showed COP of 1.4, higher than anything we had seen in any of our experiments. It appeared to do that however it was a short run so for me inconclusive. At that time he had no neutron or suitable gamma/photon detection.

            http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/510-celani-rossi-mash-up-me356

            Unfortunately the reactor did not have an external heater so the pull down effect I wanted to try was not possible, of course, it had no discharge in it also. It was during those few days I was with him that I told him about the Canon patent (looking at the blog post – I can see that it was in fact 11 Oct 2015, I am a month late in my video and need to correct it). He was advancing at a great pace and would really move on the information – I intended to very rapidly produce a presentation to explain my position on it widely but life and experiments got in the way.

            Later I told him to ditch the LiAlH4 since the Al may be getting in the way of high excess heat and I had surmised that Rossi’s patent description (separating the role of LiAlH4) and his past statements in the 2012 Ruby Carat video interview meant it was only there to provide H2. I also told him that he should ensure the moles of H2 was low (low pressure) relative to the amount of free Li before Li melting point so that Stoichiometric LiH was not formed and he would have some LiH in a sea of Li. This would in my understanding allow a lower temperature operation.

            me356 had got a H2 generator from China so he could make his own D2 and H2 and I knew he had a lot of Argon around. This meant he could do away with LiAlH4 fo purposes of understanding the reaction and was well placed to do Canon like reactors.

            I understand that me356 has build reactors with spark and glow discharge in fused Quartz and other materials. He has reported controllability of the effect and emissions (Photons/Neutrons) from this generation of reactors alongside higher excess heat than the MFMP have achieved to date. I have not seen data or his latest reactors in person, I hope he will share both soon.

        • Kevmo

          No one knew how to find the Neutron until 1932. MFMP knew how to generate gammas and then went off to work on Lugano/Parkhamov/GS/Canon/WhateverIsNext.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We’ll keep on working, and you’ll keep on, well – whatever it is you are doing.

          • Kevmo

            I’m doing what I can with the resources available to me. So go ahead and keep on working and let us know when there’s a butterfly in your net.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Will do.

          • RLittle

            Thanks Andy. Your comment is well taken. I should note that many people around the world have fallen on hard times and are and will fall on hard times, but it is ridiculous to thereby accuse them of suicide! I have had hard times but NEVER has suicide crossed my mind or my tongue. Throughout history many people have fallen on hard times and even depression. Unless you know the individual personally then it is irrational and reflects poor judgement and character to accuse them of suicide. Greenyer does such and this reflects his character. But thank Andy for your compliment. I am at fault for expecting excellence when it may not be. Sincerely, Reginald B. Little

      • Andrew

        Currently in our scientific process and method there is no reward structure (other than self gratifying) for repeating someone else’s work. Independent replication requires selfless sacrifices on the replicators side and unfortunately in business there is no one willing to spend time, money and resources to further someone else. There is no tangible return. MFMP has all their method and data available to anyone that cares to try, it’s not their fault no one else cares.

        • Andrew

          This is why we have soooooo many “studies” nowadays and sooo few replications.

        • Kevmo

          The whole point of MFMP is to replicate LENR unquestionably.

  • Zeddicus23

    Bob,
    Your video and discussion of the Canon patent is very interesting. Do you have any idea why Ar is important? Also, I believe that a number of commenters including Axil Axil have mentioned in the past that Papp’s devices also involve noble gases. This seems like an interesting coincidence.

    • etburg

      I have been wondering the same thing. High energy electrical discharges in a noble gas atmosphere. BLP is similar. I make no claim to any expertise but elements of all three sound more alike.

    • Bob Greenyer

      This is part of the next video (if I leave it in)

      1. Argon is the 3rd most common gas in breathable air – that makes it cheap and it is widely available as it is used in welding.
      2. It is easily ionised, so that if it is a major constituent of the gas in the Canon type reaction chamber – it can pass current allowing the production of a range of Hydrogen forms, excited, radicals, rydberg etc.
      3. As it is a noble gas, it will not interact/bond with Hydrogen, being the majority gas in the Canon apparatus, it acts to prevent atomic hydrogen radicals and rydberg state hydrogen from recombination. This allows the various excited states to be accelerated to the ‘hydrogen storage member’ intact when the negative charge is applied (-500V) – and so they can effectively be occluded.

      • Mats002

        Sorry for repeating this for the 3:rd time but I think it goes well in line with Bob:s findings. It is a paper not from ‘the believers’ of CF/LENR circles but from ‘official science’ as is the Canon patent:

        http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/icfa/fall97/paper2/paper2.pdf

        The conclusion of this 19 years old Stanford report is that this phenomena is one of

        a) the lower threshold of the well known pinch effect

        b) a dense H not yet verified (Mills hydrino or likewize)

        c) Rydberg matter (also a dense H thing)

        They do not mention Mills hydrino or Rydberg matter, but call for:

        “The paper also suggest that the observed X-rays could originate, at least partially, from a new process, where energetic free electrons enter ions, and are captured on the DDL levels [ref 8-12], radiating the Bremsstrahlung spectrum involving many photons”

        DDL = Deep Dirac levels which correspond to electron orbits close to the nucleus.

        • Axil Axil

          Your referenced paper is similar to this one

          Low-energy nuclear reactions and the leptonic monopole
          Georges Lochak*, Leonid Urutskoev**

          http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LochakGlowenergyn.pdf

          The arc produced by exploding titanium foil can cause uranium to fission at a distance from the arc and separated from the arc by glass.

          There is an EMF process involved.

        • Bob Greenyer

          This is interesting – but note that the Canon patents authors are not saying the gamma appears when the HV spark / glow discharge occurs, they are saying it occurs during application of a negative voltage on the hydrogen storage member which is relatively low voltage and that this occurs for a long period.

          Also, the principal pressure used in the Cannon patent is just above 1 bar (they use a bubbler) this is not low pressure as talked of in this paper – however, Canon say that the affect can be achieved at higher and lower pressures also.

          • Mats002

            I am aware of that, see my answer to Axil about apples and oranges above.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Fair do.

      • Zeddicus23

        Bob,
        Thanks. Number 1 makes sense. I had been thinking along the lines of 3. The current part (2) is interesting and an important point I think.

      • Axil Axil

        I didn’t think that ME356 was using a spark driven reaction from the pictures of it that I have seen. ME356 system looked just like what Rossi was doing and not like what the DGT system did. The DGT system wasn’t so good.

        Are we mixing apples and oranges here?

        • Mats002

          Good question, I look forward to Bob’s answer. My understanding is that the Rossi/MFMP GS/Parkhomov type of setup have fine powder of NiH (a sintered porous structure) and IF the heat/pressure procedure induce local discharges between clusters of metal then apples = oranges in the meaning that the NAE is the discharge.

          IF so, we have many small distributed condensed discharges (apples) compared to a one large discharge (orange). The gap for the electron avalange is much smaller in a fine powder or nano structure, hence lower potential (V) needed.

          Edit: orange-type reactors wear out the emitter and loose discharge potential where as apple-type reactors (all associations to trademarks is coincidental) renew the possible emitters continously as they are ‘consumed’. Good for endurance.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Based on the Canon patent and before I told me356 about it, I asked me356 if he could build a reactor with a central electrode in it (that could be pulled down to a strong negative voltage) in addition to being an “inside out” design, since the inside electrode could act as a heater.

          Out of that was born the “Celani/Rossi mash up” reactor – me356 added his usual flair and inspiration to make the central electrode a very large amount of coiled Nickel wire. His inspiration was to use cheap e-cigarette ‘vape’ wire and use epoxy in a way that meant one did not have to polish the alumina in order to get a gas tight seal with the swagelok. This reduced the reactor construction time to minutes – which is good since he does not have a lot of time.

          I then went to visit him again and run one of these with a little LiAlH4 in it. He had claimed and published live, data that supposedly showed COP of 1.4, higher than anything we had seen in any of our experiments. It appeared to do that however it was a short run so for me inconclusive. At that time he had no neutron or suitable gamma/photon detection.

          http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/510-celani-rossi-mash-up-me356

          Unfortunately the reactor did not have an external heater so the pull down effect I wanted to try was not possible, of course, it had no discharge in it also. It was during those few days I was with him that I told him about the Canon patent (looking at the blog post – I can see that it was in fact 11 Oct 2015, I am a month late in my video and need to correct it). He was advancing at a great pace and would really move on the information – I intended to very rapidly produce a presentation to explain my position on it widely but life and experiments got in the way.

          Later I told him to ditch the LiAlH4 since the Al may be getting in the way of high excess heat and I had surmised that Rossi’s patent description (separating the role of LiAlH4) and his past statements in the 2012 Ruby Carat video interview (saying the H2 was provided by pellets that could re-adsorb the H2) meant it was only there to provide H2. I also told him that he should ensure the moles of H2 was low (low pressure) relative to the amount of free Li before Li melting point so that Stoichiometric LiH was not formed and he would have some LiH in a sea of Li. This would, in my understanding, allow a lower temperature operation.

          me356 had got a H2 generator from China so he could make his own D2 and H2 and I knew he had a lot of Argon around. This meant he could do away with LiAlH4 fo purposes of understanding the reaction and was well placed to do Canon like reactors.

          I understand that me356 has build reactors with spark and glow discharge in fused Quartz and other materials. He has reported controllability of the effect and emissions (Photons/Neutrons) from this generation of reactors alongside higher excess heat than the MFMP have achieved to date. I have not seen data or his latest reactors in person, I hope he will share both soon.

  • INVENTOR INVENTED

    What is the canon patent, Whats its number?

  • INVENTOR INVENTED

    What is the canon patent, Whats its number?

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Maybe just for fun we could get away from heterogeneous systems and try oxidative additions of deuterium gas to palladium(0) in homogeneous solutions of tetrakis(triphenylphosphine)palladium(0) in a high boiling organic solvent like xylene (as the working heat exchange fluid).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrakis(triphenylphosphine)palladium(0)

  • clovis ray

    Bob,BOb,bob,
    YOU FORGOT TO MENTION, That Andrea Rossi has already spanked this baby, and it belongs to him alone, and it’s name is E-CAT, and what it does is the Rossi effect, got that, nothing has been proven by any body, if so we would be living in a whole different world than we do, NO all these guys you mentioned, did not follow through as Dr, Rossi has, his hard work is coming to it’s fruition, and will be first on the public market, when someone else can say as much i will listen,
    It’s my belief that, the working prototype, is neither C/F, OR LENR, Dr. Rossi has used lenr just as a place holder, as with the X in E-CATX. and at one time long ago he said he thought at that time that it was closer to cold fusion, but as we can read it has grown quite a bit , and now is doing grown up work, when he is ready to write his white paper on his discovery and invention, and then we will know what it will be called,

    • Bob Greenyer

      We all stand on the shoulders of the fruits of civilisation that went before, no man is an island and no man can claim immaculate conception in the field of the New Fire.

      Rossi is on the record as having studied hard, full credit to him for is action as well as achedemia. I like you will be very happy to read his definitive explanation if he produces one, but he has been through quite a few explanations, which is itself admirable – most LENR researchers get stuck to one concept (normally their own) and rarely budge. Yes we could all wait, but we don’t have to, nor should we – it is fully his choice to divulge what and when – and the same right goes for anyone. If he divulges second, then he will be considered as an also ran because he could never claim he knew first – regardless of if he had a working embodiment that even used the same principles. This is the risk of industrial secret holders (or industrial “I don’t know how it works but it works” holders).

  • Bob Greenyer

    Oh, I get something similar with everything I put out there, I am doing it for those that care.

    ICCF19 was interesting – it was so polarised, but one thing seamed apparent, open source was not to be easily tolerated. The disparaging looks were the best, it felt great to be an outcast amongst outcasts.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Please do and thanks for offering – it is so important that if there is knowledge or insight – it is not lost – we hate finding out we are re-discovering past facts – that is the point of doing it openly, so those that know better can chip in and tell us the what, how, why and when before we waste time and resources.

    It turns out that the Johnson Matthey Pd electrodes had impurities in them at the time that made them load better, but later they did not – ENEA has published an article on this. We still hope to find a way to analyse a sample of the original P&F material and keep everyone involved happy.

    Many of the attempted replications tried to create ultra pure Pd and that just fails.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We all stand on the shoulders of the fruits of civilisation that went before, no man is an island and no man can claim immaculate conception in the field of the New Fire.

    Rossi is on the record as having studied hard, full credit to him for is action as well as achedemia. I like you will be very happy to read his definitive explanation if he produces one, but he has been through quite a few explanations, which is itself admirable – most LENR researchers get stuck to one concept (normally their own) and rarely budge. Yes we could all wait, but we don’t have to, nor should we – it is fully his choice to divulge what and when – and the same right goes for anyone. If he divulges second, then he will be considered as an also ran because he could never claim he knew first – regardless of if he had a working embodiment that even used the same principles. This is the risk of industrial secret holders (or industrial “I don’t know how it works but it works” holders).

  • TVulgaris

    A very nicely done video, Mr. Greenyer. As one who spent thousands of hours in library research to discover the underpinnings of my own “new” idea had been fully explored several years prior in labs a continent away in widely disparate projects, at the dawn of time before easy internet searches, I certainly learned what SMH means the hard way- if I’d realized I was replicating, I’d have saved several hundred lab hours, too.

    • Bob Greenyer

      At least Piantelli was honest enough to let us know that most of what was being talked about as ‘discoveries’ was already done long ago – I can understand his frustration now.

  • TVulgaris

    A very nicely done video, Mr. Greenyer. As one who spent thousands of hours in library research to discover the underpinnings of my own “new” idea had been fully explored several years prior in labs a continent away in widely disparate projects, at the dawn of time before easy internet searches, I certainly learned what SMH means the hard way- if I’d realized I was replicating, I’d have saved several hundred lab hours, too.

    • Bob Greenyer

      At least Piantelli was honest enough to let us know that most of what was being talked about as ‘discoveries’ was already done long ago – I can understand his frustration now.

  • Lars Lindberg

    Did Fleishman and Pons mentioned the importance of purity?

    • Bob Greenyer

      They are chemists – so I expect so.

      I think the point is – they ordered Pd, from Johnson Mattey and I guess they expected to get what they ordered. Even they had problems achieving the same level of effect when using newly supplied material and this is thought to be because the new material was more pure and/or had different structure.

  • Lars Lindberg

    Did Fleishman and Pons mentioned the importance of purity?

    • Bob Greenyer

      They are chemists – so I expect so.

      I think the point is – they ordered Pd, from Johnson Mattey and I guess they expected to get what they ordered. Even they had problems achieving the same level of effect when using newly supplied material and this is thought to be because the new material was more pure and/or had different structure.

  • Mats002

    I do not know any who did. I am sorry to hear that. Something is very wrong.

  • Andy Kumar

    Bob,
    If this is hundred years old stuff. Why are you having difficulty replicating it. Archimedes knew (integral) calculus. It was “lost” in plain sight before it was rediscovered 2000 years later.
    I think we lost LENR again with the passing of Prof Focardi. Focardi’s waveform was the critical component. My guess is that Focardi did not fully trust Rossi because of his paranoid secretive nature, so he did not fully disclose the “frequencies” he was feeding to Rossi’s early reactors. It is a shame that Rossi missed this opportunity to cooperate fully with this great LENR pioneer.

    • Bob Greenyer

      To clarify, Thomas Graham FRS never did any LENR research – he did recognise and establish that to occlude the most amount of Hydrogen in a metal, you need

      – fine nano structures/clusters (though he did not call them that)
      – perfectly clean surface free from all contaminants
      – Raised temperature in gas
      – better in electrolytic
      – Pd stored the most Hydrogem
      – temperature of release way above occlusion temperature and different for different metals
      – H- critical to the process

      etc.etc.

      I only discovered the Canon patent mid 2015, I only discovered Thomas Graham later because I was armed with a comment from Piantelli.

      There are many keys along the way that helps unlocks doors, without the keys the whole thing does not work.

      Piantelli talks about a large number of parameters that are required to be in a tight bound or condition met – at least 13 – do the math 13! is a very large number of ways to get this wrong.

      GS5.2 was the first time we tried to embed Piantelli’s advice (that which we had) into an experiment and we saw ‘Signal’. 5.3 was a replication and we saw evidence of neutrons (of course it was the first time we were looking). In both cases we saw evidence of small excess heat – ok, not that claimed by other players that have no commercial product available and have done no live demonstrations that are indisputable – but our apparent excess is in line with many researchers findings.

      What does seam to be difficult is high levels of excess and very convincing and repeatable emissions / excess. me356 claim to have achieved this (though I have not seen it) and he was the first person to really take on board the Canon patent.

      I think you maybe confusing Dardik’s proprietary “superwave” with something Prof. Focardi did.

      I don’t think we lost LENR, I think, if it is realisable in a practical form, we are collectively very much closer to establishing it.

      • georgehants

        Posted by AlainCo LENR Forum
        ———-
        German patent application of LENR reactor with nanoparticle and discharge
        Twitter ‘TheNewFire’, visibly a German speaker, just cited this German patent application :
        patents.google.com/patent/DE102014014209A1
        https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3522-German-patent-application-of-LENR-reactor-with-nanoparticle-and-discharge/?postID=29650#post29650

        • Bob Greenyer

          The patent claims here look like a re-hash of Canon patent with more modern understanding of how to increase the likelihood of H- formation on the cathode.

          The voltages, arrangement, structure, necessary elements (including the need for the transition metals specifically defined) are not really inventive steps. Neither is the use of Hydrogen as a means of thermal transfer.

          I firmly believe if replicators took the Canon patent as a start point – then they’ll be a lot of patents looking like this moving forward, most of which will not or should not be granted.

          • georgehants

            Bob, very much hope that includes any patents for Mr. Rossi or IH etc.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I think the lid is coming off this box.

            I have done a google translate assisted translation of the Patent application here

            https://goo.gl/T8NYrC

            Download it and then the translations are in the PDF speech bubbles. It is wonderful as this partially pre-empts what I am going to say in my next video – hehe, but it does not explain why – and they freely admit – they don’t know why.

            This patent is work that had to have started with the Canon patent as its foundation.

          • georgehants

            Is it possible Rossi knows that everything he is doing is based on prior art, making it impossible for him to apply for a standard patent giving all details for replication.
            Would help to explain his completely (seemingly) irrational behaviour in his sad chase for money, money, money.

          • Bob Greenyer

            There is such a thing as co-discovery.

            Sometimes you have to first accept the possibility and then do the work to realise a functional embodiment.

            The main problem in the field is incredible lack of funding and dedication of quality researchers and facilities due to its history. Rossi has exactly the right kind of marathon mentality necessary to see this through if at all possible.

            I don’t think the author(s) of this German patent know how it works, they even say as much in the patent, they are just trying to do something sufficiently different to the Canon patent (it is conspicuously not listed in the references) by using DBD IMHO. At least they had the courage to try.

            Rossi has not said why the EcatX works – of course we don’t know what its structure is – but based on my guess of its structure which I have already laid down, I will present how I think it works – and I think it relies on similar principles to how this German reactor works – and it relies on research spanning most of the last 100 years.

            I am quite excited now, because I’d like to see others get where I am before I finish putting my presentation together…hehe

          • georgehants

            All interesting, the end answer must explain why he is choosing the secret path when a man with a valid Cold Fusion patent could stand on any street corner and sell licenses for billions overnight with a few pence added on every product.

          • Bob Greenyer

            As I said yesterday – It could be that he does not know how, but just that it does work and so he is focussing on the patent applications first.

          • georgehants

            I am confused, surely one does not have to explain the workings of the unknown universe in a patent application, only describe fully and reliably how to replicate the discovery by a person skilled in the art.

          • Bob Greenyer

            It is very much better to not explain how it works.

            My point is that a patent application published that has a working embodiment in that the inventor does not fully understand leads themselves to be exposed to those that could easily decipher its mysteries and then, possibly, go on to produce better embodiments that circumnavigate the published patent applications claims.

            This is the risk.

          • georgehants

            Understood, which then leaves him open to hopefully somebody else in the World applying for that patent which would publicise the method and taking their chances, or even better nobody gaining any patents, which will lead to a free for all with the Chinese etc leaving the US, Norway etc left in the dust of a price war.
            Viva MFMP etc.
            Best

          • Bob Greenyer

            Exactly – Rossi is in a race against time, I personally think that this German patent may limit his options on E-CatX if I am right, though some of the reactor structure and what the E-CatX can do (as claimed) will give him novelty.

          • Chapman

            Not to intrude, but you do realize, I hope, that George has no idea what patents are, or how they are qualified? He also has a constitutional aversion to the concept of exclusive individual ownership of IP or anything else.

            He is trying to maneuver you into statements supporting his political agenda, while you are merely attempting to bring forth historical precedents for the sake of reinforcing the basic credibility of the entire field of research. I do not think anyone here has interpreted your presentations as declaring Rossi to be a usurper, or thief.

          • Chapman

            The paytent is for a physical design and application, not a physics principle. These revelations establish a research history, but have no bearing on Rossi’s paytent applications.

            I can paytent a design for a better mousetrap, but it does not mean I claim to have discovered the spring tension qualities of steel or originated the concept of mouse genocide…

            (And yes, in honor of our friend Mr. Greenyer, I have added “Paytent” to my spellcheck library!!! I speak English, right? So who better than the ENGLISH to school us on proper pronunciation? I also would accept Rossi correcting my Spaghetti recipe due to his Italian heritage!)

          • Eyedoc

            Nice translation bubbles…Thanks

          • Chapman

            Why do you call Mr. Greenyer “Bubbles”? Is that a nickname? A term of endearment?

          • Eyedoc

            Yeah we’re sweethearts from way back, WiseAss ! HEEHEE (translation bubbles were referred to ) Funny guy that Chapman 😉 ……….though now that you’ve broached the idea of a nickname , maybe Bob’s ‘secret special code name’ can be ‘Bubbles’ from now on

          • Chapman

            Geez! I didn’t think you were ever going to catch that one!!!

            It is so nice when one’s work is finally appreciated… 🙂

            And, yeah… I guess “Bubbles” it is. (until he objects!) !! HAAAA 🙂

            What the hell, it beats “Fruit Loops”, (ref:BBT)

        • Bob Greenyer

          This is essentially the type of reactor that I wanted me356 to build – heater on the outside with dielectric in between electrode on the inside.

          It is also very similar structure to that which I predicted teh E-CatX is as I have said here before and as I will add clarity to in coming video. It even suggest the use of noble gasses.

    • Omega Z

      You’re only a 180` off course from Focardi’s own words.

  • TomR

    Thank you Chapman for putting into words what a lot of us are thinking. Bob Greenyer, you are a rock star to us. I also like Axil Axil, I just wish he wasn’t so positive about all he says.

  • Andre Blum

    OT: Bill Gates Q&A on his new clean energy fund. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601242/qa-bill-gates/

    • Omega Z

      You’re only a 180` off course from Focardi’s own words.

  • Andre Blum

    OT: Bill Gates Q&A on his new clean energy fund. https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601242/qa-bill-gates/

  • Bob Greenyer

    To clarify, Thomas Graham FRS never did any LENR research – he did recognise and establish that to occlude the most amount of Hydrogen in a metal, you need

    – fine nano structures/clusters (though he did not call them that)
    – perfectly clean surface free from all contaminants
    – Raised temperature in gas
    – better in electrolytic
    – Pd stored the most Hydrogem
    – temperature of release way above occlusion temperature and different for different metals
    – H- critical to the process

    etc.etc.

    I only discovered the Canon patent mid 2015, I only discovered Thomas Graham later because I was armed with a comment from Piantelli.

    There are many keys along the way that helps unlocks doors, without the keys the whole thing does not work.

    Piantelli talks about a large number of parameters that are required to be in a tight bound or condition met – at least 13 – do the math 13! is a very large number of ways to get this wrong.

    GS5.2 was the first time we tried to embed Piantelli’s advice (that which we had) into an experiment and we saw ‘Signal’. 5.3 was a replication and we saw evidence of neutrons (of course it was the first time we were looking). In both cases we saw evidence of small excess heat – ok, not that claimed by other players that have no commercial product available and have done no live demonstrations that are indisputable – but our apparent excess is in line with many researchers findings.

    What does seam to be difficult is high levels of excess and very convincing and repeatable emissions / excess. me356 claim to have achieved this (though I have not seen it) and he was the first person to really take on board the Canon patent.

    I think you maybe confusing Dardik’s proprietary “superwave” with something Prof. Focardi did.

    I don’t think we lost LENR, I think, if it is realisable in a practical form, we are collectively very much closer to establishing it.

    • georgehants

      Posted by AlainCo LENR Forum
      ———-
      German patent application of LENR reactor with nanoparticle and discharge
      Twitter ‘TheNewFire’, visibly a German speaker, just cited this German patent application :
      patents.google.com/patent/DE102014014209A1
      https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/3522-German-patent-application-of-LENR-reactor-with-nanoparticle-and-discharge/?postID=29650#post29650

      • Bob Greenyer

        The patent claims here look like a re-hash of Canon patent with more modern understanding of how to increase the likelihood of H- formation on the cathode.

        The voltages, arrangement, structure, necessary elements (including the need for the transition metals specifically defined) are not really inventive steps. Neither is the use of Hydrogen as a means of thermal transfer.

        I firmly believe if replicators take the Canon patent as a start point – then they’ll be a lot of patents looking like this moving forward, most of which will not or should not be granted.

        • georgehants

          Bob, very much hope that includes any patents for Mr. Rossi or IH etc.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I think the lid is coming off this box.

            I have done a google translate assisted translation of the Patent application here

            https://goo.gl/T8NYrC

            Download it and then the translations are in the PDF speech bubbles. It is wonderful as this partially pre-empts what I am going to say in my next video – hehe, but it does not explain why – and they freely admit – they don’t know why.

            This patent is work that had to have started with the Canon patent as its foundation.

          • georgehants

            Is it possible Rossi knows that everything he is doing is based on prior art, making it impossible for him to apply for a standard patent giving all details for replication.
            Would help to explain his completely (seemingly) irrational behaviour in his sad chase for money, money, money.

          • Bob Greenyer

            There is such a thing as co-discovery.

            Sometimes you have to first accept the possibility and then do the work to realise a functional embodiment.

            The main problem in the field is incredible lack of funding and dedication of quality researchers and facilities due to its history. Rossi has exactly the right kind of marathon mentality necessary to see this through if at all possible.

            I don’t think the author(s) of this German patent know how it works, they even say as much in the patent, they are just trying to do something sufficiently different to the Canon patent (it is conspicuously not listed in the references) by using DBD IMHO. At least they had the courage to try.

            Rossi has not said why the EcatX works – of course we don’t know what its structure is – but based on my guess of its structure which I have already laid down, I will present how I think it works – and I think it relies on similar principles to how this German reactor works – and it relies on research spanning most of the last 100 years.

          • georgehants

            All interesting, the end answer must explain why he is choosing the secret path when a man with a valid Cold Fusion patent could stand on any street corner and sell licenses for billions overnight with a few pence added on every product.

          • Bob Greenyer

            As I said yesterday – It could be that he does not know how, but just that it does work and so he is focussing on the patent applications first.

          • georgehants

            I am confused, surely one does not have to explain the workings of the unknown universe in a patent application, only describe fully and reliably how to replicate the discovery by a person skilled in the art.

          • Bob Greenyer

            It is very much better to not explain how it works.

            My point is that a patent application published that has a working embodiment in that the inventor does not fully understand leads themselves to be exposed to those that could easily decipher its mysteries and then, possibly, go on to produce better embodiments that circumnavigate the published patent applications claims.

            This is the risk.

          • georgehants

            Understood, which then leaves him open to hopefully somebody else in the World applying for that patent which would publicise the method and taking their chances, or even better nobody gaining any patents.
            Viva MFMP etc.
            Best

          • Bob Greenyer

            Exactly – Rossi is in a race against time, I personally think that this German patent may limit his options on E-CatX if I am right, though some of the reactor structure and what the E-CatX can do (as claimed) will give him novelty.

          • Eyedoc

            Nice translation bubbles…Thanks

          • Rene

            Back home to Santa Cruz. @Bob I just watched your 100y part-1 video. The Canon patent builds on early works. It basically adds its novel part in the method of voltage stepping to induce some LENR activity. Is MFMP looking to try that line of experiment?
            As for your conjecture about this approach and Rossi’s quark, it seems not totally in alignment. Rossi said the fuel he uses is similar to existing e-cats: Li, Ni, et-al. and his patent appl. does not show a discharge method. Or are you suggesting this is how he loads up his system?
            P.S. When is part-2?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hi Rene,

            I am still finalising the accounts, I then have to prepare video presentation for a meeting in Palo Alto – This is part of a push to find ways to massively increase our capability.

            Then I have a break with my family – so sometime after that – but I have the material prepared for it – just need to make it into a coherent presentation.

            You will very clearly see where I am going with the connection to the so called QuarkX – but people will not expect it.

      • Bob Greenyer

        This is essentially the type of reactor that I wanted me356 to build – heater on the outside with dielectric in between electrode on the inside.

        It is also very similar structure to that which I predicted teh E-CatX is as I have said here before and as I will add clarity to in coming video.

  • clovis ray

    bob, what is your idea for what would happen if your ideas worked, what would you do next, repuclate it, put in on the market,? or just build a device for your on use, because when you use Dr, rossi design, you have to pay the piper, and so far MF/MP has used lots of his information, and techniques,
    What i don’t understand, is why you guys have not used his first design, the wafer flat reactor you need to start from the beginning if you want the thing to work, so for no one has tried to replicate it that i recall, why, you have tried just about all known configurations, try occams razor.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I signed up for 2 Rossi home E-Cats almost as soon as the pre-Order became available,

      I was VERY disappointed to have to pay 5000 euros to re-line my very long chimney and install a new boiler last autumn.

      I would very much prefer to have an E-Cat providing energy in my home and then I can move on to other pursuits I enjoy.

      Sadly, I like everybody else is waiting. When I have finished this series of videos, you can judge for yourself who deserves credit for what.

      What I know is we have spent a big chunk of our lives and a lot of donors good will securing results little more satisfying than Celani wires produced on our third time by following the useable information Rossi has made available. It is not for want of trying.

      What it seams however, is that in this Canon patent – there is a very clearly defined approach that has no patent protection that they really did devise that could yield us our best results yet if me356s experience along a similar path turns out to be verified.

      The wafer Flat design was detailed in his patent which became available in the latter part of last year. From a scientific point of view it might not show us more… I personally only realised the structure of the overall design following my analysis of GS 5.2 in mid to late February and we as a team have been engaged since then.

      • Rene

        I too signed up for 3 domestic e-cats the moment the preorders opened up. I ordered 3 because back then COP6 was the max and 3 of them made it possible to have one always running. Well, so went the thinking at the time.
        In my case, I stretched the lifetime of my then 10 year old batteries to 16 years. Am now getting Aquion batteries and a few more PV panels. Done.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Well my solar system sorted me for the whole time I was in India (best part of a decade) and ran my E-scooters for transport too.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Right now I am considering leasing roof space on the building next door and putting some solar panels there.

    • Andy Kumar

      Clovis,
      what is omar’s razor? Care to elaborate?
      .
      We should appreciate Bob for at least trying honest open science even though he does not have any significant physics or science background. He is a computer programmer? But he is willing to educate himself.

      Warm regards,
      Andy

      • Chapman

        We all appreciate Mr. Greenyer. Clovis never insulted or derided him.

        Clovis is pointing out that open science is a wonderful environment for collective investigation and public knowledge – but innovation is driven by the investment of time, energy, and sometimes physical health, and that investment deserves – no, it DEMANDS, fair reward.

        And: “Omar’s Razor” is a famous philosophy that says “Bake the damned cake according to the recipe the FIRST time, before you decide to explore variations – that way you have something to compare your results to!!!” Clovis’ citation of this fundamental philosophy shows the depth of his intellect and/or education. Most muggles miss that one entirely, to their detriment later in life. That is PHD level shit right there… DEEP THINKING!!! 🙂

      • clovis ray

        oops, sorry, should have been, occam’s razor.
        a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the simpler one is usually …

  • clovis ray

    Bob, being as only a few here is defending Dr. Rossi’s , integrity, i will post what he thinks about the subject,

    Andrea Rossi
    July 23, 2016 at 7:24 PM
    D.:
    It is true exactly the contrary.
    Not only did I not put obstacles in the way of the R&D of our competitors, but our hard work has generated a scientific environment that has opened the doors to them.
    Before the event of January 2011, we introduced our E-Cat prototype together with Prof Focardi of the University of Bologna, the LENR people was confined in a village of zombies and LENR were globally considered less than zero. No one was financing any serious R&D in the field.
    After my work LENR got a tremendous momentum that initiated serious R&D by concerns like Volvo, Elforsk, Mitsubishi, NASA, MIT etc etc etc. in all the world, obtaining the attention of the highest echelons of the DOE and the DOD in the United States of America, where before my work when somebody tried to introduce the concept of LENR the reaction has been similar to the reaction of Dracula in front of crucifix and garlic.
    Without hypocrisy and false modesty I claim that without our work, our tests, our plants, without my extremely difficult work, in which I am leaving years of my life and part of my health working and studying an average of 12 hours per day now and 16 to 18 hours per day ( nights included) during the 1 year test of the 1 MW E-Cat, without all this LENR would be still a village of zombies. With all respect, this is my sincere opinion.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Chapman

      Amen. And I hope he reaps all that he justly deserves. Others tinker, but are pursuing specific ideas they have stuck in their heads. Rossi has been doing the exhausting work of research, experiment, and then follow the results. His designs, and theories, have evolved because he is FOLLOWING the science, not trying to impose his will ON the science. He has no stake in a theory, but he has staked his time, energy, and health on bringing an anomalous reaction to the level of a marketable device.

      Just as Mr. Greenyer has pointed out, the basic science, and observations, have been in the public record for over a hundred years. Think what that means. Of ALL the scientists and engineers who must have read about, and maybe even investigated this field, NO ONE ever pursued it, tested it, experimented relentlessly and perfected it to a useable result! No one – until ROSSI!!!

      Don’t tell me Rossi is not unique! Why has this knowledge been out there, yet untapped and undeveloped, until Rossi? You can not deny the facts, and the logic! Regardless of the historical records, or how many others are currently working in the field, NOTHING came to market, and to the benefit of society, until ROSSI made it so. That is the truth of it. The basic reality. No matter how you spin it, or despise him for his success. He did what no one else could, or did, or bothered with.

      Yet we have jackasses who will sit and spew venom at Rossi for being a capitalist Pig because he is attempting to patent and market that product to his financial advantage. Well, I say GOD BLESS HIM! I hope he winds up wallowing in a pile of gold like Scrooge McDuck!

      • Chapman

        Rossi McDuck!

      • clovis ray

        Hi, Chapman.
        My sentiments ,exactly, it a shame how he is treated, scrutiny sure,
        It’s absurd,to treat, folks this way, when they,have a dream, with few ways to achieve it, many problems to overcome, some not directly involved with lead project, and there are usually other aspects, that need attention, through all this and more, we face, the critics unrelenting negative.
        Chapman, you write so well , i’m impressed, smile

        • Chapman

          I just did not want you to feel all alone. Keep the faith, friend. Rossi will prevail, and go down in history.

          I do not think Mr. Greenyer is trying to knock Rossi, either. He is just pointing out that Rossi is a great engineer who has stepped up to harness a dragon that many have reported seeing for years and years. He did not “discover” the dragon, but he was the first to successfully tame the beast. That alone wins him his place in history, our hearts, and our prayers.

          • clovis ray

            I think Bob,is a good and thoughtful person, that is excited about this device,and the science around it, as many here are, we live in exciting times , my friend.

          • Chapman

            Amen.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Without the work done before, Rossi would not have tried.

      It is true that Rossi reinvigorated the field, no doubt about that – however, he needs to capitalise on his early seizing of untapped low-hanging fruit. There has been a snow ball effect and many have joined the research in the field even when considering just those we know… so he may be a nucleus of the new snowball – but is he the bulk of the mass now?

      For his sake and for justice for his endeavours – I hope he can deliver.

      • Chapman

        Sir Edmund Hillary.

        Lots of folks proposed there may be an ascendable route to the top of Everest. No one ever succeeded. But one man became obsessed. One man plotted a course, arranged a team, secured the funding, and then put his plan into action. ONE MAN drove the first Piton. ONE MAN blazed the trail. ONE MAN conquered the mountain, by sheer force of will. He did not work alone, but he alone lead the work, and saw his labor rewarded with success.

        Now, lots of folks climb the monster. A couple years ago I believe an octogenarian lady made the climb. Bully for her! But the path to the summit is only understood now because it was established by that one man…

        Endless legions of climbers now look at it and say, “It could have been me”. But it WASN’T THEM. That is the story of their lives. Could have been, but wasn’t.

        Hillary did not “Discover” Everest, I am pretty sure others had noticed a big ass mountain sitting on the horizon for quite a while before Hillary came along. But who did it? No one. Until Hillary. That is his legacy. That is his Fame.

        God Bless the Dreamers, but he REWARDS the DO-ERS.

        Rossi saw his Everest, and while others were were saying, “Hey, There’s a big Mountain over yonder – Let’s have a look and get a picture!”, Rossi was gathering rope and shopping for longjohns. Rossi DID it. That makes all the difference.

        • Mats002

          Nice tribute to Rossi. He might be climbing the mountain of fraud, but the effort and achievement is paramount in both cases.
          Your tribute stands either way 😉

          • Engineer48

            Hi Mats002,

            There was no fraud.

            That will soon be clear to even Rossi’s most virulent critics.

          • Axil Axil

            A climber last year made it to just 200 feet below the summit and he could not go any further, and all his effort went for naught; it does not count. The climber must get to the top. All the dreams, sacrifice, costs, and pain do not count if you do not get to the top…such is the rules of life.

            Rossi knows that if he does not get into production, it does not count.

          • Chapman

            I wholeheartedly agree. 🙂

    • Chapman

      I respond to your “Call To Arms”.

      Was that ok? Too much? 🙂

      • clovis ray

        AOK, my friend, if doctor rossi weren’t around, we all be watching reality tv, i love the feeling of being free, to explore the unknown, although, that is getting harder to do these days,
        We all will be proud of Mr. Rossi one of these days, and we will be proud we stood, and held the line. with encouragement,support, and sometimes advice, when times were bleak. we came along way baby.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Without the work done before, Rossi would not have tried.

    It is true that Rossi reinvigorated the field, no doubt about that – however, he needs to capitalise on his early seizing of untapped low-hanging fruit. There has been a snow ball effect and many have joined the research in the field even when considering just those we know… so he may be a nucleus of the new snowball – but is he the bulk of the mass now?

    For his sake and for justice for his endeavours – I hope he can deliver.

  • Chapman

    Rossi McDuck!

  • Chapman

    We all appreciate Mr. Greenyer. Clovis never insulted or derided him.

    Clovis is pointing out that open science is a wonderful environment for collective investigation and public knowledge – but innovation is driven by the investment of time, energy, and sometimes physical health, and that investment deserves – no, it DEMANDS, fair reward.

    And: “Omar’s Razor” is a famous philosophy that says “Bake the damned cake according to the recipe the FIRST time, before you decide to explore variations – that way you have something to compare your results to!!!” Clovis’ citation of this fundamental philosophy shows the depth of his intellect and/or education. Most muggles miss that one entirely, to their detriment later in life. That is PHD level shit right there… DEEP THINKING!!! 🙂

  • RLittle

    Far too much credit is given to Graham in 1860s for discovery of nano-metals. Graham did introduce important phenomena but he was far short of experimental or even theoretical discovery of nano-particles of palladium and other metals. Past scientists have unknowingly and without direct observations worked in areas of later novel developments in science. But being prepared for the discovery is most important aspect of discovery. Back dating (for personal emotional reasons) and considering Graham’s method of preparing his samples in 1860s and comparing Graham’s preparation to 100 year later research and reasoning that the prior hundred year work of Graham by his method should have formed nanoparticles of palladium (over 100 years ago when Graham at the time did not directly reason or observe such is inappropriate) and therefore Graham discovered palladium nano-particles is not the basis for giving Graham credit for discovery of nanoparticles of metals and it does not represent the scientific method and how science progresses.

    For example, during the time of Graham’s work in mid 1860s, the microscope was being discovered by Leeuwenhoek during the mid- 1800s and the ionic bond was being discovered. Moreover, actually the dissociation of ionic materials was discovered by Arrhenius in 1884 about 20 years after Graham’s 1860s work. So Graham had no way to know of nanoparticles or hydride by techniques as scientists like Hooke during his day in mid 1800s were just learning how to observe microscopic objects over 100 times larger than nanoparticles. Perhaps use of Faraday 1840s electric current to form ions may have been used by Grahams but at the time in 1860s it was not know hydrogen to behave as anion as this would come later with work of later scientists like arrhenius, Bronsted Lowery and Thomson’s discovery of electron more than 40 years after Grahams 1860s work. Actually during the mid 1800s scientists were shocked at the observation of micron size objects and this was part of the great work of Hooke during the 1800s. So it is ridiculous to articulate that someone like Graham discovered nano-objects over 100 times smaller than micron objects that Hooke was observing at the Forefront of science during mid 1800s. The discovery of nano-objects had to wait the proper time with the proper instruments and understanding for fulfilling the scientific method and this came during the 20th Century with electron microscopy capable to resolving nano-size features.

    The reality and truth is that Piantelli missed nano-size and hydride during his 90s palladium hydrogen work and now you and he would like to back date the importance to someone other than the proper people during the new century 2000. In the process, you state some very incorrect things. If you give Graham (1860s) credit for nanopalladium then you go agains the scientific community giving credit to Luis Brus for developing nanoparticles of metals and semiconductors during the 1980s. Moreover you take credit away from Svannte Arrhenius and his discovery of ionization in 1884 as based on your reasoning Graham did such discovery of ionization in 1860s, 20 years prior to Arrhenius in 1884. So based on your incorrect reasoning to cover up what Piantelli missed (importance of nano and hydride) in 1990s and what was later discovered by me in 2000 (importance of nano and hydride) , you are taking proper credit due to Arrhenius for discovery of ionization. and also proper credit from many other later scientists. Which is absurd and ridiculous! The honorable thing to do is give Piantelli credit for his macroscopic nickel and hydrogen work and give me later credit for introducing nano-metals and hydride. When you try to cover up and lie it makes a mockery out of what is beautiful!

    • Bob Greenyer

      You misheard me. You miss quote me and you do yourself a dis-justice by not reading the Canon patent and paying attention to its contents and dates of priority/publication/awarding etc.

      I say that he effectively created nano particles “without calling them as such” it is irrelevant if he could see or define their size, my point is that that is whet they were.

      He used colloidal separation, precipitation and electric and electro-less plating (deposition) to create what in effect were nano particles and nano particle clusters (in the case of the Palladium flakes that were collected and the came away from an Platinum substrate). That we have more techniques of producing and defining material structures does not take away from the fact that the techniques he used to make his test samples are still used today to make nano-particles.

      One example is Alan Smith of “Looking for Heat” who has been producing Nickel nano particles from colloidal preparation.

      Moreover, the occlusion rates observed by Thomas Graham in his prepared materials are at the upper end of what is possible with techniques for single metal preparation even today. Even if you argue that he didn’t know he was making nano materials as I did, he still achieved the level of occlusion that nano materials permits.

      I make two connections between Thomas Graham and Piantelli in the video, I do not state in either of those claims that Piantelli used nano materials. The first connection I make is that Thomas Graham said it is necessary to make sure that the occluding material is completely clear from any contamination “before the first occluding action” – Piantelli says this is one of the most important criteria. The second connection I make is that Thomas Graham posits, giving a clear example of platinum sponge (which is itself a nano material known now to have particles less than 10nm) auto igniting properties, that H- (the “Negative or chlorilous end of Hydrogen molecule”) is critical to the process and binds to and then gets fixed into the metal – this speculation, in 1867, is very similar to the foundation of Piantelli’s theory.

      I would urge you to look again at the video, download the associated presentation here:

      https://goo.gl/X1xetw

      Follow think to the Canon patent that has a 1989 priority and read it fully. It is VERY clear that they claim a repeatable working embodiment that uses nano powders. The evidence is this

      1. They say that the hydrogen storage member can be prepared for example by Chemical Vapour Deposition (CVD) – this is well known to create nano particles and indeed is the way Carbonyl Nickel is made.

      2. They say that the Hydrogen storage member must first be cleaned by sputter cleaning. This is a well known way of making nano-scale surface modification.

      3. If the above two statements in the Canon patent are not sufficient to prove precedence , Claim number 4 can leave NO DOUBT that they are talking about nano powders … “The apparatus according to any preceding claim, wherein either the entirety or the surface of the hydrogen storage member (24) is formed of a hydrogen storage material having a powdery form.” … it is simply not important to specify a specific size domain as it is restrictive.

      The canon patent has a Priority: 04.08.1989, was filed: 03.08.1990 and was published 03.11.1993 – it was awarded 12.02.1997

      The production and use of nano particles and hydrogen isotope occlusion was discovered and put into a claimed working embodiment in 1989 by the Canon patent authors, and was published in 1993 (even mentioning “Cold Fusion” 3 times in its text”) and reported on in 1994 in New Scientist – one of the worlds most widely read scientific news publications and by “New Energy Times” newsletter – a pre-eminent publication in the field of LENR at the time.

      Even on the most conservative measure of the publication date, you re-discovered this 7 years later, however, you were at least 10 years behind the Canon Patent authors research.

      I think you need to now stop beating up on me without basis and making fatuous miss-statements about what credence I gave to Piantelli in this video.

      The point of doing a scientific literature review is that you can avoid repeating work that has already been published, it is good practice for scientists to do this – at least Russ George admits to have been aware of the Canon patent and tested its concepts with apparent success.

      I knew this first part of my presentation on my findings will put noses out of joint – but not as much as the coming part(s).

  • RLittle

    Far too much credit is given to Graham in 1860s for discovery of nano-metals. Graham did introduce important phenomena but he was far short of experimental or even theoretical discovery of nano-particles of palladium and other metals. Past scientists have unknowingly and without direct observations worked in areas of later novel developments in science. But being prepared for the discovery is most important aspect of discovery. Back dating (for personal emotional reasons) and considering Graham’s method of preparing his samples in 1860s and comparing Graham’s preparation to 100 year later research and reasoning that the prior hundred year work of Graham by his method should have formed nanoparticles of palladium (over 100 years ago when Graham at the time did not directly reason or observe such is inappropriate) and therefore Graham discovered palladium nano-particles is not the basis for giving Graham credit for discovery of nanoparticles of metals and it does not represent the scientific method and how science progresses.

    For example, during the time of Graham’s work in mid 1860s, the microscope was being improved by Zeiss and Abbe during the mid- 1800s and the ionic bond was being discovered. Moreover, actually the dissociation of ionic materials was discovered by Arrhenius in 1884 about 20 years after Graham’s 1860s work. So Graham had no way to know of nanoparticles or hydride by techniques as scientists like Zeiss and Abbe during his day in mid 1800s were just learning how to observe microscopic objects over 100 times larger than nanoparticles. Perhaps use of Faraday 1840s electric current to form ions may have been used by Grahams but at the time in 1860s it was not know hydrogen to behave as anion as this would come later with work of later scientists like Arrhenius, Bronsted Lowery and Thomson’s discovery of electron more than 40 years after Grahams 1860s work. Actually during the mid 1800s scientists were shocked at the observation of micron size objects and this was part of the great work of Zeiss and Abbe during the 1800s. So it is ridiculous to articulate that someone like Graham discovered nano-objects over 100 times smaller than micron objects that Zeiss and Abbe were observing at the Forefront of science during mid 1800s. The discovery of nano-objects had to wait the proper time with the proper instruments and understanding for fulfilling the scientific method and this came during the 20th Century with electron microscopy capable to resolving nano-size features.

    The reality and truth is that Piantelli missed nano-size and hydride during his 90s palladium hydrogen work and now you and he would like to back date the importance to someone other than the proper people during the new century 2000. In the process, you state some very incorrect things. If you give Graham (1860s) credit for nanopalladium then you go agains the scientific community giving credit to Luis Brus for developing nanoparticles of metals and semiconductors during the 1980s. Moreover you take credit away from Svannte Arrhenius and his discovery of ionization in 1884 as based on your reasoning Graham did such discovery of ionization in 1860s, 20 years prior to Arrhenius in 1884. So based on your incorrect reasoning to cover up what Piantelli missed (importance of nano and hydride) in 1990s and what was later discovered by me in 2000 (importance of nano and hydride) , you are taking proper credit due to Arrhenius for discovery of ionization. and also proper credit from many other later scientists. Which is absurd and ridiculous! The honorable thing to do is give Piantelli credit for his macroscopic nickel and hydrogen work and give me later credit for introducing nano-metals and hydride. When you try to cover up and lie it makes a mockery out of what is beautiful!

    • Bob Greenyer

      You misheard me. You miss quote me and you do yourself a dis-justice by not reading the Canon patent and paying attention to its contents and dates of priority/publication/awarding etc.

      I say that he effectively created nano particles “without calling them as such” it is irrelevant if he could see or define their size, my point is that that is whet they were.

      He used colloidal separation, precipitation and electric and electro-less plating (deposition) to create what in effect were nano particles and nano particle clusters (in the case of the Palladium flakes that were collected onto and then came away from a Platinum substrate). That we have more techniques of producing and defining material structures does not take away from the fact that the techniques he used to make his test samples are still used today to make nano-particles.

      One example is Alan Smith of “Looking for Heat” who has been producing Nickel nano particles from colloidal preparation.

      Moreover, the occlusion rates observed by Thomas Graham in his prepared materials are at the upper end of what is possible with techniques for single metal preparation even today. Even if you argue that he didn’t know he was making nano materials as I did, he still achieved the level of occlusion that nano materials permits.

      I make two connections between Thomas Graham and Piantelli in the video, I do not state in either of those claims that Piantelli used nano materials. The first connection I make is that Thomas Graham said it is necessary to ensure that the occluding material is completely clear from any contamination “before the first occluding action” – Piantelli says this is one of the most important criteria. The second connection I make is that Thomas Graham posits, giving a clear example of platinum sponges (which is itself a nano material known now to have particles less than 10nm) auto igniting properties, that the H- (the “Negative or chlorilous end of Hydrogen molecule” in his words) is critical to the process and binds to and then gets fixed into the metal – this speculation, in 1867, is very similar to the foundation of Piantelli’s theory.

      I would urge you to look again at the video, download the associated presentation here:

      https://goo.gl/X1xetw

      Follow the link to the Canon patent that has a 1989 priority and read it fully. It is VERY clear that they claim a repeatable working embodiment that uses nano powders. The evidence is this:

      1. They say that the hydrogen storage member can be prepared for example by Chemical Vapour Deposition (CVD) – this is well known to create nano particles and indeed is the way Carbonyl Nickel is made.

      2. They say that the Hydrogen storage member must first be cleaned by sputter cleaning. This is a well known way of making nano-scale surface modification.

      3. If the above two statements in the Canon patent are not sufficient to prove precedence , Claim number 4 can leave NO DOUBT that they are talking about nano powders … “The apparatus according to any preceding claim, wherein either the entirety or the surface of the hydrogen storage member (24) is formed of a hydrogen storage material having a powdery form.” … it is simply not important to specify a specific size domain as it is restrictive.

      The canon patent has a Priority: 04.08.1989, was filed: 03.08.1990 and was published 03.11.1993 – it was awarded 12.02.1997

      The production and use of nano particles and hydrogen isotope occlusion was discovered and put into a claimed working embodiment in 1989 by the Canon patent authors, and was published in 1993 (even mentioning “Cold Fusion” 3 times in its text) and reported on in 1994 in New Scientist – one of the worlds most widely read scientific news publications and by “New Energy Times” newsletter – a pre-eminent publication in the field of LENR at the time.

      Even on the most conservative measure of the publication date, you re-discovered this 7 years later, however, you were at least 10 years behind the Canon Patent authors research.

      I think you need to now stop beating up on me without basis and making fatuous miss-statements about what credence I gave to Piantelli in this video.

      The point of doing a scientific literature review is that you can avoid repeating work that has already been published, it is good practice for scientists to do this – at least Russ George admits to having been aware of the Canon patent and having tested its concepts with apparent success. It is interesting that the work has basically never been discussed as far as I was aware during the time of the MFMP – we were never alerted to it by any party at conferences or through our site.

      I knew this first part of my presentation on my findings would put noses out of joint – but not as much as the coming part(s).

      • Chapman

        Mr. Greenyer,

        As you said, you knew you were going to be laying out some facts that force a major reconsideration of a lot of basic ideas and assumptions people have had, simply because most people are living in the NOW, and are consumed with enthusiasm, excitement, and a little pride. (just a little…)

        You know such a shift never comes without backlash, resentment and denial. Unfortunately, you are from a programming background. Algorithmic Logic structures allow no cheats. Things happen at line 1090 only because variables were defined way back at line 70. Sequential Cause and Effect. You have a “debug” mentality. You have no emotional attachment to the code you are assessing, and when there is a glitch you seek out the error and correct it. You see “The Flow”. It is easy for you to accept new information, and to adapt to it. (and you avoid endless loops!!!)

        What you are presenting is shaking up a few people’s worldview. It is all wonderful news for LENR itself and the research field, but irritating to those hopelessly entrenched in a fantasy. They think differently, and can not accept, and adapt, as easily as others.

        But the truth of the history, evolution, and hidden secrets of “LENR” are still fascinating! I have said it numerous times – it is not sci-fi stuff, and it ain’t new. I get crap for it too. Everyone wants a Buck Rogers Laser-Blaster, and will not accept just a new kind of match.

        So, “Buck UP!”, keep forging ahead! You are making headway.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Thanks Chapman, I predict that a lot of people are going to get upset. I can’t be blamed for pointing out indisputable things that I have no connection with – but sometimes one has to break down illusions to see reality – the curtain needs to be pulled back, this is not a wizards parlour trick, this is nature.

          • Chapman

            My pleasure, Bubbles! 🙂

            (I’m sorry, is that a private monicker between you and eyedoc? Did I overstep?) 🙂 HA HA HA!!!!

          • Axil Axil

            Regarding ” a Buck Rogers Laser-Blaster, and will not accept just a new kind of match.”

            I feel that there currently is false theory in place regarding superconductivity and coherence that LENR is required to overturn as foundational. Coherence is behind why LENR does not produce gamma radiation.

            Superconductivity is possible at any temperature even as high as 6000C.

            It will be hard to get LENR accepted but even harder to rewrite a major fraction of quantum mechanics.

            It will be foolish to suppose that 19th century science can explain LENR when 21th century science is not yet up to the job.

          • Bob Greenyer

            At no point did I say or imply that 19th century science explained LENR, I did give evidence that the foundation, and many of the important attributes claimed by researchers as critical today, were laid down then.

          • Chapman

            “It will be foolish to suppose that 19th century science can explain LENR when 21th century science is not yet up to the job.”

            It is not current “Science” that is not up to the task, but rather current “Scientists”.

            Probably because our science community has become obsessed with a false premise regarding particle/wave duality, and are more concerned with the academic acclaim that comes from “Fantastic New Revelations” rather than good solid science. We went off the rails in the 1930’s and have been compounding the errors ever since. Maxwell understood the universe better than Feynman did.

            Nevertheless, LENR is not a spectacular new discovery, and requires no earthshaking rewrite of the standard model, or the forces governing basic particle behavior.

            YOU, specifically, become obsessed with every phenomena you read about in Wired magazine or Popular Science, and immediately come to spread the word that you have found the REAL magic behind LENR, be it Nucleon decay, BEC’s, Superconductivity, newly discovered 5th forces, Dipole alignments, Extra Dimensional Mass projections, Temporal Shifts, Micro-Wormholes… Good LORD man. Whats next?

            Axil, It is time to put away the comic books and crack open a physics textbook instead. It is not as colorful, I agree, but just as exciting, I promise.

  • Mats002

    Nice tribute to Rossi. He might be climbing the mountain of fraud, but the effort and achievement is paramount in both cases.
    Your tribute stands either way 😉

    • Engineer48

      Hi Mats002,

      There was no fraud.

      That will soon be clear to even Rossi’s most virulent critics.

    • Axil Axil

      A climber last year made it to just 200 feet below the summit and he could not go any further, and all his effort went for naught; it does not count. The climber must get to the top. All the dreams, sacrifice, costs, and pain do not count if you do not get to the top…such is the rules of life.

      Rossi knows that if he does not get into production, it does not count.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Padua cell fuel components tested with TOF-SIMS now alongside ash re-test

    The independent researcher that previously did an initial test of the Padua Cell ash, has since been supplied with samples of the two Parkhomov fuel elements (Parkhomov’s exact LiAlH4 and Russian produced Nickel powder).

    The testing party took on as much of the advice as possible given in the live document on our main but they were unable to sit the powder on Silicon substrate as the ion beam just moved the sample.

    However, since each sample was on the same type of substrate any carbon based interference should net net out.

    The raw data files are in the link.

    https://goo.gl/fjxrRI

    Any crowd graphing/analysis appreciated since not had a look yet.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I had a quick go at one part of the data and produced this GIF animation

      https://goo.gl/6GsYuw

      • Ged

        Fascinating, and more different than I had thought. Nice gif, Bob.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Too different – I think we need to now do ICPMS

      • Frank Acland

        Thanks, Bob — I’ve opened up a new thread for discussion of this topic.

  • RLittle

    Bob, I heard what you said in the video and I have looked at Canon’s patent. Still what I said in the prior post is accurate. I stand in accuracy and justice. What you express in your video is totally inaccurate and not based on how discoveries are determine in science. I know you will never be just by me. But I must be honest to myself! Take care as I have nothing further to say to you.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I have often found I did something first and found out that I did not. Trying to believe it was me that did it first does not change the facts. For you to argue that in 2000 you were the first person to use nano powders in a LENR context with the words and purpose of the Canon patent precedent to your claim by over 10 years and published over 7 years is disingenuous – you have nothing further to say because you will not admit the truth to yourself. I am stating facts, not claiming anything for myself, you are trying to claim first invention of something for your own reasons when you were not first.

      I state again – they said CVD production and Suttering preperation of the hydrogen storage member which can be be of a powdery form in whole or part – Specifically not mentioning a size domain for good patent reasons.

      If you said ‘nano’ well done, but there is NO inventive step or novelty in calling out a particular size domain – it would be clear to anyone that read the Canon patent – that nano structures were obvious.

      I challenge you to try and produce a hydrogen storage member using chemical vapour deposition and sputtering and NOT end up with nano structures.

      • rlittle

        I am going to respond at length and then I move on to better things. Mr. Greenyer as I have suggested to you before. It is honorable to speak with accuracy and facts when you make presentations as this is the main thrust of true pure science and in the refinement distinguishes science from other human endeavors. You have a history of speaking inaccurately and this does not help LENR or whatever you want to call it.
        First for example you tell these people that I I am beating up on you. This is total nonsense. Totally inaccurate and misleading for you to say such. I am not beating up on you I encourage you to speak accurately. If you publish wrong information then anyone is able to present correct more accurate account without you alleging they are beating up on you. As I accurately have stated in your communication this is common that you mislead and state inaccuracies.
        Now as far as Canon’s patent, I have read it as well as most other topics on the subject. I encourage you to follow your own advice and you go back and re-read. Also you should study and ask your colleagues about the scientific method and how science progresses based on experiments, hypotheses and computations. I also encourage you to re-read my first comment in this post as I clearly note to you that true discovery is reflected in the discoverer being prepared for what is discovered. So just because some one uses a method that may form nanoparticles does not mean they discovered nanoparticles. Canon may have used CVD so logically that does not mean he discovered nanoparticles for use enhancing unconventional nuclear reactions. Canon also used electric discharge and there is magnetic field in such. It is inaccurate to say that he thereby discovered magnetic effects on LENR. In publications and patents as commonly directed by US Patent Office, the inventor is limited in the body and claims of the patent. The material therein does not have unlimited scope. The inventor has to clearly denote the scope. Canon in 1989 did not do this for magnetic effects and nano-size effects for these unconventional nuclear processes. You later come along and expand Canon’s scope in an inaccurate and misleading way. This is unmerited and not according to sound science doctrine. If your inaccurate logic and communications were sound then Kroto, Smalley and Curl should be given credit for discovering grapheme in 1989 as they used the same techniques that later researchers have discovered formed grapheme. Therefore Me, Geim and others should not be credited for such grapheme revelation in 2002 and 2004. But the logic and sound and appropriateness is that 1989 was not the time for grapheme and Kroto, Smalley and Curl were not prepared for such discovery (simply because they used electric arc); their reasoning and thinking were not reflective of grapheme it was more accurate reflective of fullerenes. Hence These great researchers are credited with discovering fullerene in accuracy. It would be inappropriate and inaccurate to credit Kroto, Smalley and Curl for discovering grapheme as later researchers like Geim and myself were better prepared to reason (Little 2002) and actually observe grapheme (Little 2002 and Geim and others 2004).
        I can appreciate that you may not like me. That is fine. But do not let your emotions cloud your reason and accuracy. As an advocate of LENR, your reputations as sound accurate communicator is utmost.
        I know what I have done in my career. I could careless what you or the rest of this world feel about me!
        With Kind Sincerity,
        Reginald B. Little

        • Bob Greenyer

          I am completely dispassionate about you – I am presenting published information for which I have no connection or interest.

          You on the other hand have threatened suicide if I did not recognise you as first.

          I have no authority to do that, especially given the pre-existence of an awarded patent in the field that leaves no room for an opinion I may or may not have.

          Until I see some pre-existing patent, for me, Canon got their first on powders (of any scale) and there is little time between 23rd March 1989 and the 4th August 1989 for others to have substantially usurped them. It is clear in my mind that they took on board what P&F said went to the literature (Thomas Graham) and added their own flair, they should get full credit for doing so. I am prepared to be wrong – but your work in 2000 is simply not a contender and you need to come to terms with that.

          • RLittle

            To all the readers of ECat World and other venues. The following statement by Mr Greenyer is a total LIE : “You on the other hand have threatened suicide if I did not recognise you as first.”

            I cannot not believe Greenyer would even stoop so low as to make such a lie. I have never threaten suicide.

            In all the other statements that I have made concerning Greenyer’s inaccurate communications and videos this is most blatant and inaccurate fabrication that he has made. Nothing in this world (except my sons) is more precious to me than my life. I never have and never will threaten suicide. Such a lie from Greenyer is a reflection on his character and lack thereof!

            And by the way the fact that in 1989 Canon did not mention a specific size is all the reason he was not prepared by patent laws and practice to get credit for nano-effects on unconventional nuclear phenomena. I do not know if any of you have written or been examined or issued patents but patent examiners and offices require specific limitations on claims in embodiment of patents as claims cannot be unlimited and the patent must demonstrate by possible practice the limited range of the scope of the claims. Canon (although his patent is important) did not restrict the size range for his ‘fine particles’ and certainly did not reduce to practice in nano-size range for accelerating unconventional nuclear reactions in 1989.

            My patent later did such defining nano- range and reduction to practice and this is the basis of my claim. I am not going to kill myself if the whole world ignores this fact. Only a liar would fabricate such.

            In truth if Canon had restricted the body of his patent to nano and explained why nanosize metal and how intrinsic magnetic field accelerate the process for reduction to practice then I would acknowledge that he deserves full credit. In this patent this is not done. I HAVE SUCH INTEGRITY, contrary to some on this discussion. But Canon’s ‘fine particles’ can have many meanings. And just because CVD with hydrogen can produce nano-particles as was published and discovered by some other researchers (not Canon) years after Canon, this is no basis for alleging Canon discovered nanoparticles accelerate unconventional nuclear reactions. It is illogical to come to such conclusion! Likewise the fact that Canon used plasma (and for years many prior researchers [other than Canon and before him] used magnetism to confine plasma) (and for many years it has been known that electric arcs have magnetic fields) and such plasma intrinsically has magnetism (but so do electrons moving about nuclei) is common of magnetism to Canon’s apparatus does not give unlimited scope of his patent to later claim that he encompassed magnetics for accelerating unconventional nuclear reactions. To conclude such is outside the bound of patent practice. In fact Canon in his 1989 patent emphasized explicitly electric fields and high electric fields, which is quite different as I later reduced to practice than strong magnetic field! On the other hand in my patent I explicitly within a defined scope as required by patent process, laws and practice define size range, explained size range , reduced to practice for such size range in nanosize, and later other researchers reading my patent (based on the scope and my reducing to practice) implemented my procedure and observed such acceleration and reproducible of this unconventional nuclear phenomena. If Canon had done this in 1989, then other would have reduced his to practice! But Canon did not reduce to practice in 1989. But in 2000, I did reduce to practice and look at the history 2000-2010 there was a renewed interest and data reflected acceleration of this interesting phenomena. Likewise for magnetism, as in my later patent I provide a defined scope , and defined and gave details of the magnetics and why the magnetics would more accelerate (rather than electric field) and reduced to practice such magnetic acceleration so later researchers could practice such art. This is the basis for my noting that I first invented such.

            Many many people will read this and be annoyed and hateful. So be it.

            But if the whole world denies what I know is truth then so be it. I go on knowing the truth and enjoying and living and joy.

            But I would never harm one hair on my being because of your ignorance. Most of you will never like or accept what is as far as I am concerned. I do not care and based on my experience I have to speak for myself as in many cases over 20 years no one will express truth on my behalf.

          • Bob Greenyer

            You do not need theory in a patent, you just need to show a novel working embodiment and its utility.

            Prior to me making the video where I named your contribution which you belittled when I drew your attention to it – you had said in a post something to the effect that you might as well take your life, I was horrified. I discussed this communication of yours in depth with my business partner and my partner and it kept me awake for a night. You might have been speaking metaphorically – but it was not taken as such by myself – I have to er on the side of caution and since your posts do come across as a little ranty, I felt you might be serious. I am glad to hear you are not of that persuasion.

            Your posts are on the surface pleasant, but there is a snide and and attacking undertone which is grating. The thing is I’m connecting dots and suggesting hypothesis – and you step in and say “I did it all first, give me credit” when, you simply, didn’t. I do not claim credit for Thomas Graham first suggesting that H- was key in hydrogen occlusion and related phenomena nearly 150 years ago in materials that he produced that are now called nano-structured. I did not claim credit for the Canon patent authors building what we would now call nano materials and using them for LENR reactor construction.

            You have clear intellect and I would urge you to build on the knowledge that is coalescing rather than just trying to claim credit regardless of the timeline. At least Piantelli had the honesty to explicitly say that much of the fundamental research was done across the 20th century and some of it more than 100 years old – he spent a lot of time giving credit and pulling books of his library shelves to show us where the nuggets of information came from to make the whole.

            I fully suspect you will pitch in on future elements of my literature research, I hope you can keep it to qualified criticism rather than personal attacks and demands for credit grabbing.

          • RLittle

            I never said you said Canon patent invented nanoparticles. I gave credit to Brus if you go back and read. I dispute your claim that Canon used nanoparticles or showed that nanoparticles accelerated unconventional nuclear reactions. The fact is that in 1989 Canon did not reduce such to practice no matter how much you would like that to be. The fact is that Canon’s patent 1989 did not reduce to practice and looking at the data throughout the 1990s no one reduced to practice not even your hero Piantelli. I have no need to twist your words as they are inaccurate. Such twisting is not apart of my character I am much better than that. I leave that to you!

            The fact that nanoparticles did not appear until the 90s does not exclude Canon from denoting specific size in order to reduce to practice. During the 80s submicron size particles were known and published in scientific literature by many scientists despite their not being called nano. For example Loius BRus and Arniin HEnglein pioneered such during 80s. The fact that Canon did not cash in on such is prime example that Canon was not prepared for such discovery in 1989. It does not help that you are so eager to prepare him later in spite of the facts!

            Also as a pioneer of nanoscience, I should teach you Greenyer that just because macroparticles and micron fine particles absorb hydrogen very well according to the actual reduction to practice as factually written by Canon in 1989, IT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT SUBMICROSCOPIC (“NANOPARTICLES”) DO NOT NECESSARILY ABSORB HYDROGEN BETTER! In fact nanoparticles are very very unique in their properties relative to micron particles and macroparticles.

            When I practice science by noting that Canon did not reduce to practice for nano I am referring to his note of the hydrogen adsorption of particles. Such attribute are commonly referred to micron particles and finely divided macroparticles. Based on Canons reasoning in this way he was noting macro to micro particles. Nano particles do not have this property of adsorbing hydrogen like larger particles as they manifest macromolecular character. In some materials nano may absorb more hydrogen but in others then nano may absorb less. Canon in 1989 did not reduce this to practice!

            I am sorry that you so want this but I have to appeal to science and reason and wise practice as but patent process and laws.

            I know you emotional for Canon. But in 1989 the reduction to practice was not so by Canon.

            Also I would appreciate if you would not lie on me by saying horrible false things like I threatened to commit suicide. That is a blatant lie! I ask you to exhibit some professionalism and ethics!

          • RLittle

            By the way whereas in 1989 Canon did not reduce to practice hydrogen and CVD to form nanoparticles. I Reginald Little did this at LSU as I first synthesized and realized the importance of synthesizing submicron Copper particles. At the time I did not use submicron metal particles for unconventional nuclear reactions. But I did synthesized them in 1990-1992 at LSU! At the time my thesis advisor did not see any use of my work and thought my work as rubbish as he focused on continuous Cu films for micron size integrated circuit and was disappointed that I was passion for these discontinous submicron size Cu islands. I spent alot of time forming nanoparticles of Cu on Si by CVD in 1990. My advisor saw no value in such. But nanoparticles accelerated later. I published such Cu nano and submicron Cu particles in my thesis from LSU!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Most readers will look at the Canon patent and see that there is no novelty by using the moniker ‘nano’ prior to the existence of the term from what they said (Claim 3 & 4 & 7 & 8) combined with non-exclusive definition of their suggested particle creation and modification processes. They even use the word ‘etc.’ to allow for any future way of creating advantageous particles. They note specifically that increasing the surface area is desirable – obviously every thing has limits.

            Now, Francesco Celani created a joule heating technique patent application to surface modify Constantan – this is not covered by the Canon patent, but if the Canon patent was still in force, and Celani used his wires as the Hydrogen storage member in a variation of their embodiment – he would have to licence from Canon to use their approach.

            Here is my copy of the patent – complete with my notes and their respective date stamps.

            https://goo.gl/IkyFCP

            You on the other hand are not looking at it for what it says – you are trying to find a way that puts you in first place. What you are effectively saying is that if someone comes up with a new term for a material property or form used in a patent – then the patent does not represent prior art simply because they did not use the modern term regardless of the clear implications of the claims in the patent.

            Maybe you were the first to create/suggest a working embodiment and attach the newly emerging word ‘nano’ to it – but you were not the first to create a working LENR reactor embodiment that had nano structures in it, Canon was. Perhaps, sometime between 1989 and 2000 the Canon patents authors referred to their technology as having ‘nano’ aspects to it in some publication or event somewhere, then where would you be?

          • Concerned user

            Oh boy. I don’t usually write on blogs and such but for your information do you realize that your suggestion that mr. Little threatened suicide in the past despite him denying writing anything of this sort may be interpreted as a death threat under a different context or when taken out of context?

            Please be mindful of your wording.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Absurd. When I am not so busy, I will dig out his comment that we worried about so much and that I refer to (if it has been edited I will need to use some form of internet Archive to retrieve it).

            Please check your facts before weighing in.

  • RLittle

    Bob, I heard what you said in the video and I have looked at Canon’s patent. Still what I said in the prior post is accurate. I stand in accuracy and justice. What you express in your video is totally inaccurate and not based on how discoveries are determine in science. I know you will never be just by me. But I must be honest to myself! Take care as I have nothing further to say to you.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I have often found I did something first and found out that I did not. Trying to believe it was me that did it first does not change the facts. For you to argue that in 2000 you were the first person to use nano powders in a LENR context with the words and purpose of the Canon patent precedent to your claim by over 10 years and published over 7 years is disingenuous – you have nothing further to say because you will not admit the truth to yourself. I am stating facts, not claiming anything for myself, you are trying to claim first invention of something for your own reasons when you were not first.

      I state again – they said CVD production and Suttering preperation of the hydrogen storage member which can be be of a powdery form in whole or part – Specifically not mentioning a size domain for good patent reasons.

      If you said ‘nano’ well done, but there is NO inventive step or novelty in calling out a particular size domain – it would be clear to anyone that read the Canon patent – that nano structures were obvious.

      I challenge you to try and produce a hydrogen storage member using chemical vapour deposition and sputtering and NOT end up with nano structures.

      • rlittle

        I am going to respond at length and then I move on to better things. Mr. Greenyer as I have suggested to you before. It is honorable to speak with accuracy and facts when you make presentations as this is the main thrust of true pure science and in the refinement distinguishes science from other human endeavors. You have a history of speaking inaccurately and this does not help LENR or whatever you want to call it.
        First for example you tell these people that I I am beating up on you. This is total nonsense. Totally inaccurate and misleading for you to say such. I am not beating up on you I encourage you to speak accurately. If you publish wrong information then anyone is able to present correct more accurate account without you alleging they are beating up on you. As I accurately have stated in your communication this is common that you mislead and state inaccuracies.
        Now as far as Canon’s patent, I have read it as well as most other topics on the subject. I encourage you to follow your own advice and you go back and re-read. Also you should study and ask your colleagues about the scientific method and how science progresses based on experiments, hypotheses and computations. I also encourage you to re-read my first comment in this post as I clearly note to you that true discovery is reflected in the discoverer being prepared for what is discovered. So just because some one uses a method that may form nanoparticles does not mean they discovered nanoparticles. Canon may have used CVD so logically that does not mean he discovered nanoparticles for use enhancing unconventional nuclear reactions. Canon also used electric discharge and there is magnetic field in such. It is inaccurate to say that he thereby discovered magnetic effects on LENR. In publications and patents as commonly directed by US Patent Office, the inventor is limited in the body and claims of the patent. The material therein does not have unlimited scope. The inventor has to clearly denote the scope. Canon in 1989 did not do this for magnetic effects and nano-size effects for these unconventional nuclear processes. You later come along and expand Canon’s scope in an inaccurate and misleading way. This is unmerited and not according to sound science doctrine. If your inaccurate logic and communications were sound then Kroto, Smalley and Curl should be given credit for discovering grapheme in 1989 as they used the same techniques that later researchers have discovered formed grapheme. Therefore Me, Geim and others should not be credited for such grapheme revelation in 2002 and 2004. But the logic and sound and appropriateness is that 1989 was not the time for grapheme and Kroto, Smalley and Curl were not prepared for such discovery (simply because they used electric arc); their reasoning and thinking were not reflective of grapheme it was more accurate reflective of fullerenes. Hence These great researchers are credited with discovering fullerene in accuracy. It would be inappropriate and inaccurate to credit Kroto, Smalley and Curl for discovering grapheme as later researchers like Geim and myself were better prepared to reason (Little 2002) and actually observe grapheme (Little 2002 and Geim and others 2004).
        I can appreciate that you may not like me. That is fine. But do not let your emotions cloud your reason and accuracy. As an advocate of LENR, your reputations as sound accurate communicator is utmost.
        I know what I have done in my career. I could careless what you or the rest of this world feel about me!
        With Kind Sincerity,
        Reginald B. Little

        • Bob Greenyer

          I am completely dispassionate about you – I am presenting published information for which I have no connection or interest.

          You on the other hand have threatened suicide if I did not recognise you as first.

          I have no authority to do that, especially given the pre-existence of an awarded patent in the field that leaves no room for an opinion I may or may not have.

          I did not say the Canon patents authors discovered nano particles – I said they were first to use and define powders in the LENR patent and that they used techniques known for creating nano particles as necessary steps to make their embodiment function. Twisting my words is not becoming of you.

          The term nano particles did not appear until the 1990s – I don’t give two hoots if it is called bananas, thingamajigs or flobsies – the term did not exist in 1989 and only really came into fashion in late 1990s. Canon said powders because that is what they were called then!

          Until I see some pre-existing patent, for me, Canon got there first on powders (of any scale, but given the use of CVD and Sputterring, nano scale is for certain) and there is little time between 23rd March 1989 and the 4th August 1989 for others to have substantially usurped them. It is clear in my mind that they took on board what P&F said, went to the literature (Thomas Graham) and added their own flair, they should get full credit for doing so. I am prepared to be wrong – but your work in 2000 is simply not a contender and you need to come to terms with that.

          • RLittle

            To all the readers of ECat World and other venues. The following statement by Mr Greenyer is a total LIE : “You on the other hand have threatened suicide if I did not recognise you as first.”

            I cannot not believe Greenyer would even stoop so low as to make such a lie. I have never threaten suicide.

            In all the other statements that I have made concerning Greenyer’s inaccurate communications and videos this is most blatant and inaccurate fabrication that he has made. Nothing in this world (except my sons) is more precious to me than my life. I never have and never will threaten suicide. Such a lie from Greenyer is a reflection on his character and lack thereof!

            And by the way the fact that in 1989 Canon did not mention a specific size is all the reason he was not prepared by patent laws and practice to get credit for nano-effects on unconventional nuclear phenomena. I do not know if any of you have written or been examined or issued patents but patent examiners and offices require specific limitations on claims in embodiment of patents as claims cannot be unlimited and the patent must demonstrate by possible practice the limited range of the scope of the claims. Canon (although his patent is important) did not restrict the size range for his ‘fine particles’ and certainly did not reduce to practice in nano-size range for accelerating unconventional nuclear reactions in 1989.

            My patent later did such defining nano- range and reduction to practice and this is the basis of my claim. I am not going to kill myself if the whole world ignores this fact. Only a liar would fabricate such.

            In truth if Canon had restricted the body of his patent to nano and explained why nanosize metal and how intrinsic magnetic field accelerate the process for reduction to practice then I would acknowledge that he deserves full credit. In this patent this is not done. I HAVE SUCH INTEGRITY, contrary to some on this discussion. But Canon’s ‘fine particles’ can have many meanings. And just because CVD with hydrogen can produce nano-particles as was published and discovered by some other researchers (not Canon) years after Canon, this is no basis for alleging Canon discovered nanoparticles accelerate unconventional nuclear reactions. It is illogical to come to such conclusion! Likewise the fact that Canon used plasma (and for years many prior researchers [other than Canon and before him] used magnetism to confine plasma) (and for many years it has been known that electric arcs have magnetic fields) and such plasma intrinsically has magnetism (but so do electrons moving about nuclei) is common of magnetism to Canon’s apparatus does not give unlimited scope of his patent to later claim that he encompassed magnetics for accelerating unconventional nuclear reactions. To conclude such is outside the bound of patent practice. In fact Canon in his 1989 patent emphasized explicitly electric fields and high electric fields, which is quite different as I later reduced to practice than strong magnetic field! On the other hand in my patent I explicitly within a defined scope as required by patent process, laws and practice define size range, explained size range , reduced to practice for such size range in nanosize, and later other researchers reading my patent (based on the scope and my reducing to practice) implemented my procedure and observed such acceleration and reproducible of this unconventional nuclear phenomena. If Canon had done this in 1989, then other would have reduced his to practice! But Canon did not reduce to practice in 1989. But in 2000, I did reduce to practice and look at the history 2000-2010 there was a renewed interest and data reflected acceleration of this interesting phenomena. Likewise for magnetism, as in my later patent I provide a defined scope , and defined and gave details of the magnetics and why the magnetics would more accelerate (rather than electric field) and reduced to practice such magnetic acceleration so later researchers could practice such art. This is the basis for my noting that I first invented such.

            Many many people will read this and be annoyed and hateful. So be it.

            But if the whole world denies what I know is truth then so be it. I go on knowing the truth and enjoying and living and joy.

            But I would never harm one hair on my being because of your ignorance. Most of you will never like or accept what is as far as I am concerned. I do not care and based on my experience I have to speak for myself as in many cases over 20 years no one will express truth on my behalf.

          • Bob Greenyer

            You do not need theory in a patent, you just need to show a novel working embodiment and its utility.

            Prior to me making the video where I named your contribution which you belittled when I drew your attention to it – you had said in a post something to the effect that you might as well take your life, I was horrified. I discussed this communication of yours in depth with my business partner and my partner and it kept me awake for a night. You might have been speaking metaphorically – but it was not taken as such by myself – I have to er on the side of caution and since your posts do come across as a little ranty, I felt you might be serious. I am glad to hear you are not of that persuasion.

            Your posts are on the surface pleasant, but there is a snide and and attacking undertone which is grating. The thing is I’m connecting dots and suggesting hypothesis – and you step in and say “I did it all first, give me credit” when, you simply, didn’t. I do not claim credit for Thomas Graham first suggesting that H- was key in hydrogen occlusion and related phenomena nearly 150 years ago in materials that he produced that are now called nano-structured. I did not claim credit for the Canon patent authors building what we would now call nano materials and using them for LENR reactor construction.

            You have clear intellect and I would urge you to build on the knowledge that is coalescing rather than just trying to claim credit regardless of the timeline. At least Piantelli had the honesty to explicitly say that much of the fundamental research was done across the 20th century and some of it more than 100 years old – he spent a lot of time giving credit and pulling books off his library shelves to show us where the nuggets of information came from to make the whole.

            I fully suspect you will pitch in on future elements of my literature research, I hope you can keep it to qualified criticism rather than personal attacks and demands for credit grabbing.

          • RLittle

            I never said you said Canon patent invented nanoparticles. I gave credit to Brus if you go back and read. I dispute your claim that Canon used nanoparticles or showed that nanoparticles accelerated unconventional nuclear reactions. The fact is that in 1989 Canon did not reduce such to practice no matter how much you would like that to be. The fact is that Canon’s patent 1989 did not reduce to practice and looking at the data throughout the 1990s no one reduced to practice not even your hero Piantelli. I have no need to twist your words as they are inaccurate. Such twisting is not apart of my character I am much better than that. I leave that to you!

            The fact that nanoparticles did not appear until the 90s does not exclude Canon from denoting specific size in order to reduce to practice. During the 80s submicron size particles were known and published in scientific literature by many scientists despite their not being called nano. For example Loius BRus and Arniin HEnglein pioneered such during 80s. The fact that Canon did not cash in on such is prime example that Canon was not prepared for such discovery in 1989. It does not help that you are so eager to prepare him later in spite of the facts!

            Also as an expert and pioneer of nanoscience, I should teach you Greenyer that just because macroparticles and micron fine particles absorb hydrogen very well according to the actual reduction to practice as factually written by Canon in 1989, IT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT SUBMICROSCOPIC (“NANOPARTICLES”) DO NOT NECESSARILY ABSORB HYDROGEN BETTER! In fact nanoparticles are very very unique in their properties relative to micron particles and macroparticles.

            When I practice science by noting that Canon did not reduce to practice for nano I am referring to his note of the hydrogen adsorption of particles. Such attribute are commonly referred to micron particles and finely divided macroparticles. Based on Canons reasoning in this way he was noting macro to micro particles. Not all nano particles do not have this property of adsorbing hydrogen like larger particles as they manifest macromolecular character. In some materials nano may absorb more hydrogen but in others then nano may absorb less. Canon in 1989 did not reduce this to practice!

            I am sorry that you so want this but I have to appeal to science and reason and wise practice as but patent process and laws.

            I know you emotional for Canon. But in 1989 the reduction to practice was not so by Canon.

            Also I would appreciate if you would not lie on me by saying horrible false things like I threatened to commit suicide. That is a blatant lie! I ask you to exhibit some professionalism and ethics!

          • RLittle

            By the way whereas in 1989 Canon did not reduce to practice hydrogen and CVD to form nanoparticles. I Reginald Little did this at LSU as I first synthesized and realized the importance of synthesizing submicron Copper particles. At the time I did not use submicron metal particles for unconventional nuclear reactions. But I did synthesized them in 1990-1992 at LSU! At the time my thesis advisor did not see any use of my work and thought my work as rubbish as he focused on continuous Cu films for micron size integrated circuit and was disappointed that I was passion for these discontinous submicron size Cu islands. I spent alot of time forming nanoparticles of Cu on Si by CVD in 1990. My advisor saw no value in such. But nanoparticles accelerated later. I published such Cu nano and submicron Cu particles in my thesis from LSU!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Most readers will look at the Canon patent and see that there is no novelty by using the moniker ‘nano’ prior to the existence of the term from what they said (Claim 3 & 4 & 7 & 8) combined with non-exclusive definition of their suggested particle creation and modification processes. They even use the word ‘etc.’ to allow for any future way of creating advantageous particles. They note specifically that increasing the surface area is desirable – obviously every thing has limits.

            Now, Francesco Celani created a joule heating technique patent application to surface modify Constantan – this is not covered by the Canon patent, but if the Canon patent was still in force, and Celani used his wires as the Hydrogen storage member in a variation of their embodiment – he would have to licence from Canon to use their approach.

            Here is my copy of the patent – complete with my notes and their respective date stamps.

            https://goo.gl/IkyFCP

            You on the other hand are not looking at it for what it says – you are trying to find a way that puts you in first place. What you are effectively saying is that if someone comes up with a new term for a material property or form used in a patent – then the patent does not represent prior art simply because they did not use the modern term regardless of the clear implications of the claims in the patent.

            Maybe you were the first to create/suggest a working embodiment and attach the newly emerging word ‘nano’ to it – but you were not the first to create a working LENR reactor embodiment that had nano structures in it, Canon was. Perhaps, sometime between 1989 and 2000 the Canon patents authors referred to their technology as having ‘nano’ aspects to it in some publication or event somewhere, then where would you be?

          • Concerned user

            Oh boy. I don’t usually write on blogs and such but for your information do you realize that your suggestion that mr. Little threatened suicide in the past despite him denying writing anything of this sort may be interpreted as a death threat under a different context or when taken out of context?

            Please be mindful of your wording.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Absurd. Attached is the comment. It is from RLittle’s Discuss, you can search on phrases to verify

            Please check your facts before weighing in.

            https://goo.gl/2Gcro4

            I do not expect an apology from RLittle for calling me a liar.

          • Chapman

            Ah, yes… So now we are in the “Discredit and Harass” phase.

            Ignore the noise Mr. Greenyer. They are hitting you with the equivalent of “You said ‘You People’, so you are a Racist!”. Just nonsense attacks intended to silence an offending voice. Next they will ban you from TWITTER!!!

            The mind is a delicate and complicated thing. Fragile. Sensitive. Easily corrupted. Tuned by millennia of evolution for self-defense.

            Unfortunately, while evolution gave us the ability to “model” the world around us in our mind’s eye in order to avoid predators, dependance on that model leads to a potential state of disconnect, where the fragile mind relies more on the internal “Image” of reality than the manifest reality surrounding them.

            So just ignore the tantrums, the name calling, the warnings. It is just so much noise in the background, and we can still hear you just fine.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks Chapman, you are quite the wordsmith!

            I expect the attacks will get worse before they get better, I am ready for it. My father taught me to call a spade a spade – I say what I see, ok, I may need glasses – but I say what I see.

          • Chapman

            You think I am a wordsmith? I say Nay Nay…

            It is YOU that demonstrated a Master’s Touch in the polite, compassionate-yet-firm way you dealt with Mr.Little. It was painful watching how carefully you worked to avoid returning insults, and focused on calmly explaining the results of your research into LENR history.

            You handled it extremely well, and your discomfort, and deep concern, over the poor man’s anguish speaks volumes as to your character.

          • RLittle

            Chapman it is not polite to accuse someone of threatening suicide and race has nothing to do with it. Just because a person refers to kill in different context is not a basis for accusing them of potential suicide and such is not polite. Reginald is not attacking anyone, I am simply stating facts by what is written in documents.

          • Chapman

            Mr. Little,

            Your exchange with Mr. Greenyer was highly emotional and somewhat unhinged. I sympathize with your desire for recognition that you feel is rightly due, and I did not criticize you for your statements. What I DID say was that to all of us reading the exchange from an outside perspective, it was clear that Mr. Greenyer was dealing with you with a great deal of tact – a fact that you were not in a position to appreciate.

            Mr. Greenyer could have engaged with you and given you back the exact same level of hostility and disrespect that you were throwing at him, but he was gentleman enough to recognize your mental state and SYMPATHIZE with you. He held his ground on the facts, but he showed you every kindness possible while doing so.

            This discussion was from a month ago. A person who was in a temporary state of distress would have had ample time to reflect upon the circumstances, and would have resolved themselves to the reality of the courtesy they were shown – and be thankful.

            The fact that you are STILL bent about the exchange demonstrates that you still have not realized the subtle undertones of the exchange, or what Mr. Greenyer was really saying.

            I will say this again, because it is worth repeating. Mr. Greenyer has demonstrated his character over the course of years of interacting with the science fans here. He has proven himself to be a genuine English Gentleman. Mr. Greenyer deliberately, and carefully, responded to your accusations and rudeness with a politeness and decency that you did not respond to, or return. You should reflect upon his responses and rethink your position. You may re-approach Mr. Greenyer in a different way and find that you have an ally in your pursuit for recognition, rather than the adversary you feel compelled to attack.

            There are two valuable lessons to be learned here…

            1. In the end, if you do not want people to jump to the conclusion that you are an unhinged nutcase, then you should take care not to REPRESENT to them that you are, in fact, an unhinged nutcase.

            and

            2. When you DO act like a nutcase, and the guy you are beating up on chooses to show you compassion and deal with you calmly, rather than just jump in and give you back, in equal measure, what you were giving him – you should quit complaining and thank God that there are still a few old-school “Gentleman” around, and that you were just LUCKY enough to have been engaged with one when you had your little tantrum.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thanks Chapman, I predict that a lot of people are going to get upset. I can’t be blamed for pointing out indisputable things that I have no connection with – but sometimes one has to break down illusions to see reality – the curtain needs to be pulled back, this is not a wizards parlour trick, this is nature.

    • Axil Axil

      Regarding ” a Buck Rogers Laser-Blaster, and will not accept just a new kind of match.”

      I feel that there currently is false theory in place regarding superconductivity and coherence that LENR is required to overturn as foundational. Coherence is behind why LENR does not produce gamma radiation.

      Superconductivity is possible at any temperature even as high as 6000C.

      It will be hard to get LENR accepted but even harder to rewrite a major fraction of quantum mechanics.

      It will be foolish to suppose that 19th century science can explain LENR when 21th century science is not yet up to the job.

      • Bob Greenyer

        At no point did I say or imply that 19th century science explained LENR, I did give evidence that the foundation, and many of the important attributes claimed by researchers as critical today, were laid down then.

  • clovis ray

    oops, sorry, should have been, occam’s razor.
    a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the simpler one is usually …

  • Eyedoc

    Thanks Bob, can’t wait for Part 2

    • Bob Greenyer

      Yeh – I’d like to get it out the door, bogged down with MFMP accounts and addressing comments on the first video. I have have to organise the material, produce presentation, record and edit.

      After accounts I have to makes a presentation/video for a meeting in the Bay Area California – so I am not sure when I can get it out – but, for sure, it will be well before the 150th year anniversary of Thomas Graham’s seminal hydrogen occlusion work in extremely small metal structures!

      • Eyedoc

        Bay Area meet for LENR ?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Not quite, this is a meeting intended to help us expand our operations.

          • Eyedoc

            Some significant SV backers are found ??

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hopefully more interesting than that.

            Looking at access to lab and equipment.

          • Mats002

            Hi Bob! SRI and McKubre?

          • Bob Greenyer

            No.

            It is aimed to be both sides of the pond and one location will be near you (but not where you expect) I hope you will be able to join us for an experiment!

          • Mats002

            I am in, at least remote, possibly on site – you make me very curious now 😉

  • Eyedoc

    Thanks Bob, can’t wait for Part 2

    • Bob Greenyer

      Yeh – I’d like to get it out the door, bogged down with MFMP accounts and addressing comments on the first video. I have have to organise the material, produce presentation, record and edit.

      After accounts I have to makes a presentation/video for a meeting in the Bay Area California – so I am not sure when I can get it out – but, for sure, it will be well before the 150th year anniversary of Thomas Graham’s seminal hydrogen occlusion work in extremely small metal structures!

      • Eyedoc

        Bay Area meet for LENR ?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Not quite, this is a meeting intended to help us expand our operations.

          • Eyedoc

            Some significant SV backers are found ??

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hopefully more interesting than that.

            Looking at access to lab and equipment.

          • Mats002

            Hi Bob! SRI and McKubre?

          • Bob Greenyer

            No.

            It is aimed to be both sides of the pond and one location will be near you (but not where you expect) I hope you will be able to join us for an experiment!

          • Mats002

            I am in, at least remote, possibly on site – you make me very curious now 😉

  • Andy Kumar

    Reginald Little,
    You are a serious researcher. This blog is for hobbyists and amateur science enthusiasts (no disrespect meant). You should not take offense at amateur account of history.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Attached is the comment I was referring to. In case it is edited – I screen grabbed the key part and have copied the full post, that was made to me and made the text available in the original form here (I have emphasised areas that caused me concern in context of the main thrust of the post):

      https://goo.gl/2Gcro4

      The comment was aimed at me, RLittle painted himself as a completely ignored and cast out individual, living in a desperate situation and then added “The world is full of shit. I am tempted to wish it to hell coated in gasoline!” having said shame on me!

      Two paragraphs on, RLittle said “If any man labors and lifts a tiny piece of the curtain as Einstein described then why would you kill him? It is insane!” again, the screen grab is attached – the implication in the text is horrible – my partner and business partner we horrified too.

      Until it is edited, anyone can search for either of the above phrases in RLittle’s Discuss

      https://disqus.com/by/rblittle/

      Read the full post to understand the real context. If I was not to er on the side of caution in response to that post I would have been irresponsible – to me, that post looked like someone on the edge and moreover, the whole purpose of it was to demand recognition and particularly aimed at me – what would people say if he had self-immolated and I was the last person that ‘tipped him over’ after he had said that I was, part of the problem, his problem.

      He accused me of being ’emotionally’ involved with Canon ( a phrase he likes to apply in other long missives not only to me, see those on Mats Lewin’s blog ) and so I was arguing that I was just laying out facts and for a person that, in my opinion, was ready to at least joke about self immolation, which rarely leads to a long life, I though it was a bit rich to call me emotional.

      I stand by what I said, I do not expect an apology for being accused of being a liar.

      Difficult communication with RLittle had been expected, there will be more upset people as I move forward. Now that this defamation of my character has been dismissed, I’d like to get on with the job in hand.

      • Andy Kumar

        Thank you, Bob, for providing the background. It seems that he has fallen on hard times. Life can be unfair. Hope he will be ok.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I hope so too.

          Following that comment – I offered to host a GoFundMe on our videos if he made one… that did not happen.

          I am doing this work to help people – I am doing what I can with the skills I have.

        • RLittle

          Hi Andy, I have had various people read this package and no where have I ever mentioned killing myself. It is disgusting that Greenyer makes such false allegation simply because I used the word kill. In the context I was never the subject with the word kill so it is totally wrong to conclude suicide. I expressed that others are killing me. I never expressed that I am or have a will to kill myself! If Greenyer had any integrity then he would apologize and correct this error. This is sick of him. Reginald B. Little

    • RLittle

      Thanks Andy. Your comment is well taken. I should note that many people around the world have fallen on hard times and are and will fall on hard times, but it is ridiculous to thereby accuse them of suicide! I have had hard times but NEVER has suicide crossed my mind or my tongue. Throughout history many people have fallen on hard times and even depression. Unless you know the individual personally then it is irrational and reflects poor judgement and character to accuse them of suicide. Greenyer does such and this reflects his character. But thank Andy for your compliment. I am at fault for expecting excellence when it may not be. Sincerely, Reginald B. Little

    • RLittle

      Thanks Andy. I will probably not get the credit that I deserve but I thank you for your excellence. I could careless of lesser as I know the truth. Around the world there are a few pure of mind and heart. Most people lack. Thanks for letting your light shine! Thanks for inspiring me in the midst of mediocrity of many. RBL

    • RLittle

      Hi Andy, I have had various people read this package and no where have I ever mentioned killing myself. It is disgusting that Greenyer makes such false allegation simply because I used the word kill. In the context I was never the subject with the word kill so it is totally wrong to conclude suicide. I expressed that others are killing me. I never expressed that I am or have a will to kill myself! If Greenyer had any integrity then he would apologize and correct this error. This is totally sick of him. Reginald B. Little

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thanks Chapman, you are quite the wordsmith!

    I expect the attacks will get worse before they get better, I am ready for it. My father taught me to call a spade a spade – I say what I see, ok, I may need glasses – but I say what I see.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I hope so too.

    Following that comment – I offered to host a GoFundMe on our videos if he made one… that did not happen.

    I am doing this work to help people – I am doing what I can with the skills I have.

  • Rene

    Back home to Santa Cruz. @Bob I just watched your 100y part-1 video. The Canon patent builds on early works. It basically adds its novel part in the method of voltage stepping to induce some LENR activity. Is MFMP looking to try that line of experiment?
    As for your conjecture about this approach and Rossi’s quark, it seems not totally in alignment. Rossi said the fuel he uses is similar to existing e-cats: Li, Ni, et-al. and his patent appl. does not show a discharge method. Or are you suggesting this is how he loads up his system?
    P.S. When is part-2?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Hi Rene,

      I am still finalising the accounts, I then have to prepare video presentation for a meeting in Palo Alto – This is part of a push to find ways to massively increase our capability.

      Then I have a break with my family – so sometime after that – but I have the material prepared for it – just need to make it into a coherent presentation.

      You will very clearly see where I am going with the connection to the so called QuarkX – but people will not expect it.

  • Eyedoc

    Is there a link to the Canon patent ? (I apparently missed it somewhere;)

  • Eyedoc

    Is there a link to the Canon patent ? (I apparently missed it somewhere;)

  • Eyedoc

    Yeah we’re sweethearts from way back, WiseAss ! HEEHEE (translation bubbles were referred to ) Funny guy that Chapman 😉 ……….though now that you’ve broached the idea of a nickname , maybe Bob’s ‘secret special code name’ can be ‘Bubbles’ from now on

  • RLittle

    Thanks Andy. I will probably not get the credit that I deserve but I thank you for your excellence. I could careless of lesser as I know the truth. Around the world there are a few pure of mind and heart. Most people lack. Thanks for letting your light shine! Thanks for inspiring me in the midst of mediocrity of many. RBL

  • RLittle

    Hi Andy, I have had various people read this package and no where have I ever mentioned killing myself. It is disgusting that Greenyer makes such false allegation simply because I used the word kill. In the context I was never the subject with the word kill so it is totally wrong to conclude suicide. I expressed that others are killing me. I never expressed that I am or have a will to kill myself! If Greenyer had any integrity then he would apologize and correct this error. This is totally sick of him. Reginald B. Little

  • RLittle

    Hi Andy, I have had various people read this package and no where have I ever mentioned killing myself. It is disgusting that Greenyer makes such false allegation simply because I used the word kill. In the context I was never the subject with the word kill so it is totally wrong to conclude suicide. I expressed that others are killing me. I never expressed that I am or have a will to kill myself! If Greenyer had any integrity then he would apologize and correct this error. This is sick of him. Reginald B. Little

  • RLittle

    Chapman it is not polite to accuse someone of threatening suicide and race has nothing to do with it. Just because a person refers to kill in different context is not a basis for accusing them of potential suicide and such is not polite. Reginald is not attacking anyone, I am simply stating facts by what is written in documents.

    • Chapman

      Mr. Little,

      Your exchange with Mr. Greenyer was highly emotional and somewhat unhinged. I sympathize with your desire for recognition that you feel is rightly due, and I did not criticize you for your statements. What I DID say was that to all of us reading the exchange from an outside perspective, it was clear that Mr. Greenyer was dealing with you with a great deal of tact – a fact that you were not in a position to appreciate.

      Mr. Greenyer could have engaged with you and given you back the exact same level of hostility and disrespect that you were throwing at him, but he was gentleman enough to recognize your mental state and SYMPATHIZE with you. He held his ground on the facts, but he showed you every kindness possible while doing so.

      This discussion was from a month ago. A person who was in a temporary state of distress would have had ample time to reflect upon the circumstances, and would have resolved themselves to the reality of the courtesy they were shown – and be thankful.

      The fact that you are STILL bent about the exchange demonstrates that you still have not realized the subtle undertones of the exchange, or what Mr. Greenyer was really saying.

      I will say this again, because it is worth repeating. Mr. Greenyer has demonstrated his character over the course of years of interacting with the science fans here. He has proven himself to be a genuine English Gentleman. Mr. Greenyer deliberately, and carefully, responded to your accusations and rudeness with a politeness and decency that you did not respond to, or return. You should reflect upon his responses and rethink your position. You may re-approach Mr. Greenyer in a different way and find that you have an ally in your pursuit for recognition, rather than the adversary you feel compelled to attack.

      There are two valuable lessons to be learned here…

      1. In the end, if you do not want people to jump to the conclusion that you are an unhinged nutcase, then you should take care not to REPRESENT to them that you are, in fact, an unhinged nutcase.

      and

      2. When you DO act like a nutcase, and the guy you are beating up on chooses to show you compassion and deal with you calmly, rather than just jump in and give you back, in equal measure, what you were giving him – you should quit complaining and thank God that there are still a few old-school “Gentleman” around, and that you were just LUCKY enough to have been engaged with one when you had your little tantrum.