MFMP Proposes Live Experiment to Prove Biological Transmutation

Bob Greenyer of the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project has produced a new video titled “Life Changing” in which he discusses the work of Ukranian scientist Vladimir Vysotskii, who has found that biological transmutations are able to take place with the help of bacteria. Vysotskii reports that certain bacteria, when exposed to an unstable element — Cesium 137 (which is well known to decay over 30.17 years) — were able to speed up the normal decay rate by 30 times, and decay in 310 days and create Barium 137, a stable element. Bob says that it appears that the bacteria are able to “push” a proton into the element and speed up the change.

Bob is proposing conducting a live experiment to show this phenomenon occuring. The experiment is outlined in the video below.

Today Bob wrote this in a commment:

A potential experiment to establish both LENR, biological transmutations and much more…

http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/535-life-changing

https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/posts/1285763291454367

Vladimir Vysotskii has agreed a sum for us to replicate with assistance from his team over a few months. We will look to socially fundraise this, probably from KickStarter

Bob says that this experiment will be “indisputable” evidence of a naturally occurring LENR process — which physics says cannot happen — and if people doubt what they are seeing on a computer screen, they will be able to visit the location of the experiment and examine it out with their own instruments. I expect we’ll be hearing more about this very interesting proposal.

  • Guy Thomas

    If biological transmutations of primary elements are possible this is going to be huge! Even if there aren’t immediate energy applications, the potential applications for material science will be massive.

    • TVulgaris

      Simply coming up with a straightforward and affordable means of forcing greatly accelerated

      isotopic decay of rad waste represents billions (probably hundreds of billions) in direct and indirect savings in lowered risk, lives saved, reduced medical costs, environmental and ecological damage, etc.

  • Guy Thomas

    If biological transmutations of primary elements are possible this is going to be huge! Even if there aren’t immediate energy applications, the potential applications for material science will be massive.

    • TVulgaris

      Simply coming up with a straightforward and affordable means of forcing greatly accelerated

      isotopic decay of rad waste represents billions (probably hundreds of billions) in direct and indirect savings in lowered risk, lives saved, reduced medical costs, environmental and ecological damage, etc.

  • Very good, but once the thing is set up I would suggest eliminating involvement of Vysotskii and his team. Otherwise they will be subjected to withering claims of fraud. Spare them the agony.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Agreed

  • Very good, but once the thing is set up I would suggest eliminating involvement of Vysotskii and his team. Otherwise they will be subjected to withering claims of fraud. Spare them the agony.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Agreed

  • wpj

    Sorry to say, I don’t believe a word of this; it is just going to be like the arsenic thriving bacteria all over again (retracted).

    Having said that, it would be very useful in Fukushima where this is the major radioactive pollutant on top of people’s houses.

    • Bob Greenyer

      There are lots of reasons to be sceptical, however, this is science and not belief. It is known that around Chernobyl, the Cs137 decay is happening faster than physicists would say is conceivable and we know that there is bacteria thriving inside the sarcophagus.

      This is testable, both real-time and in ash analysis.

      It is our responsibility as a community to ensure that all gotchas are addressed in the design of the experiment.

      What ever will be.

      • wpj

        I have to confess that I was one of the first people to see the X-ray structure determination of artemisinin and declared that it couldn’t possibly be correct because it could never have survived the described processing and isolation.

        I was wrong about that, so maybe with this as well.

        • Bob Greenyer

          The only thing possibly more unbelievable than this apparently independently verified technology is the number of people who will vehemently reject the notion of this being real – purely on economical grounds.

          This has the potential to end the debate on LENR, but open new avenues into medicine – some which, as I have found out today, have exact matching claims in the past. I was relying on the emerging research supporting a real effect observed by respectable parties that have NO CLUE how it might work.

          Honestly, we all were a little disbelieving when Piantelli showed us his treatment centre at the beginning of last year. I never expected to chance upon a path to reason and an experiment that could precisely test the claims made for his and other research. Some of this EM treatment research already proposes things that appear to have worked – we supposedly will have something that may be like an acid test to hone in on the best embodiment. The mechanism by which it works may eventually turn out to be different – but honestly, I don’t care, if it works, that would be the important thing.

          • georgehants

            Bob, as a positive you need to be aware of the psychological therapy your comments give in this very sad World.
            People working open-mindedly for the good of Humanity.
            Win or lose, it will never erase that caring positive attitude of Joy that comes from knowing you guys are doing your best.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks George, there will always be those that want miracles for nothing and get upset when their own aspirations of what they will receive for going to the effort of wanting it are not matched by the reality of what is possible.

            Some misinterpret the sharing economy as “I’ll get what I want if only I go to the effort of offering my consumption” what the sharing economy is really about is about give and take, it is about maximising the potential of what we all have with the minimum environmental and happiness damage in order to achieve the optimum net benefit.

            Many are afraid of giving their time and expertise for fear of being themselves criticised in the way they choose to criticise others that do not do what they want in the way they want it.

            If one never does, one cannot be criticised, if one never looks in the box, one will never know its secrets.

            We need more people doing and more people looking. Then we’ll get their faster.

          • NT

            “if one never looks in the box, one will never know its secrets.”
            Love it – good luck Bob and thanks for looking in the box…

          • wpj

            As I mentioned, if it really does work, then this would be great for Fukushima as Cs137 is spread all over the place (we had enquiries a couple of years ago about Cs chelators which would be of use for this- We make materials used in nuclear reprocessing [among other things]).

          • Bob Greenyer

            VV told me he was already in Japan for this reason.

  • wpj

    Sorry to say, I don’t believe a word of this; it is just going to be like the arsenic thriving bacteria all over again (retracted).

    Having said that, it would be very useful in Fukushima where this is the major radioactive pollutant on top of people’s houses.

    • Bob Greenyer

      There are lots of reasons to be sceptical, however, this is science and not belief. It is known that around Chernobyl, the Cs137 decay is happening faster than physicists would say is conceivable and we know that there is bacteria thriving inside the sarcophagus.

      This is testable, both real-time and in ash analysis.

      It is our responsibility as a community to ensure that all gotchas are addressed in the design of the experiment.

      What ever will be will be.

      • wpj

        I have to confess that I was one of the first people to see the X-ray structure determination of artemisinin and declared that it couldn’t possibly be correct because it could never have survived the described processing and isolation.

        I was wrong about that, so maybe with this as well.

        • Bob Greenyer

          The only thing possibly more unbelievable than this apparently independently verified technology is the number of people who will vehemently reject the notion of this being real – purely on economical grounds. I predict cries of “this cannot be true, because I would loose my salary!”.

          This has the potential to end the debate on LENR, but open new avenues into medicine – some which, as I have found out today, have exact matching claims in the past. I was relying on the emerging research supporting a real effect observed by respectable parties that have NO CLUE how it might work.

          Honestly, we all were a little disbelieving when Piantelli showed us his treatment centre at the beginning of last year. I never expected to chance upon a path to reason and an experiment that could precisely test the claims made for his and other research. Some of this EM treatment research already proposes things that appear to have worked – we supposedly will have something that may be like an acid test to hone in on the best embodiment. The mechanism by which it works may eventually turn out to be different – but honestly, I don’t care, if it works, that would be the important thing.

          • georgehants

            Bob, as a positive you need to be aware of the psychological therapy your comments give in this very sad World.
            People working open-mindedly for the good of Humanity.
            Win or lose, it will never erase that caring positive attitude of Joy that comes from knowing you guys are doing your best.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks George, there will always be those that want miracles for nothing and get upset when their own aspirations of what they will receive for going to the effort of wanting it are not matched by the reality of what is possible.

            Some misinterpret the sharing economy as “I’ll get what I want if only I go to the effort of offering my consumption” what the sharing economy is really about is about give and take, it is about maximising the potential of what we all have with the minimum environmental and happiness damage in order to achieve the optimum net benefit.

            Many are afraid of giving their time and expertise for fear of being themselves criticised in the way they choose to criticise others that do not do what they want in the way they want it.

            If one never does, one cannot be criticised, if one never looks in the box, one will never know its secrets.

            We need more people doing and more people looking. Then we’ll get their faster.

          • NT

            “if one never looks in the box, one will never know its secrets.”
            Love it – good luck Bob and thanks for looking in the box…

          • wpj

            As I mentioned, if it really does work, then this would be great for Fukushima as Cs137 is spread all over the place (we had enquiries a couple of years ago about Cs chelators which would be of use for this- We make materials used in nuclear reprocessing [among other things]).

          • Bob Greenyer

            VV told me he was already in Japan for this reason.

  • Warthog

    What does this have to do with either Fleischmann or Pons.?? Sorry…bad idea, and outside MFMP’s stated charter.

    • Bob Greenyer

      The field has a problem with credibility, for better or worse, the MFMP was set up to test the claims of those in the field. VV has a theory of how the Coulomb barrier is lowered from astronomical levels to manageable levels that is applicable to the Bio transmutations as much as it is to the more material science systems (Coherent Correlated States). We have recently discovered that our X-Ray radiation monitoring equipment other that NaI used in GS 5.3 would not have seen anything without extremely long integration times because of distance – this is a real problem for researchers of high temperature systems.

      The beauty of this experiment is that it starts with a 0.662 MeV photon, that would traverse biofilm and significant distance, and you are looking to see a reduction in the count rate that would be undeniable proof of LENR albeit biological based. You have the certain knowledge that you will see a signal from the experiment at under 40ºC and physicists the world over would ordinarily say 1. that it was impossible to change the decay rate and 2. where is the energy signature of the change. Combine this with the emergence in the ash of Ba 138 and this would have the effect of shifting opinion on the whole field – a much needed action which I can honestly say needs to happen before any further consideration of other claims could be taken seriously.

      One of our biggest challenges as a project is to have field participants share their technology in a way that can be properly scrutinised, only Francesco Celani has done that to date and now VV is prepared to do the same.

      • Warthog

        Sorry, but biochemical transmutation is an even harder sell than LENR. Getting involved with it will LOSE credibility within the scientific community rather than enhance it.

        If your NaI (or other detector sensor) is getting hot…..cool it. Water cooliing is extremely effective.

        In grad school back in the mid-1970’s (hey, I’m old, I admit it) I worked with carbon furnace atomic absorption, in which the carbon flowcell at 2500C (5000W power) was in a water-jacketed enclosure. Power cables were 0000 stranded copper, and had to be silver soldered (lead solder would melt due to ohmic heating at the cable-cable connect junction) to the LARGE brass lug, yet the areas where the windows were located were just warm to the touch. Cooling water came in on a 1/4″ ID Vyton tube at each end from a “T” splitter.

        • Bob Greenyer

          The Amptech X123 CdTe detector head needs to be at -40ºC, not really an option.

          The otehr x-ray detector is a beryllium window NaI again, no really an option – especially as on loan.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          I agree, it’s a harder sell than inorganic LENR. If LENR would occur in organisms, why haven’t they evolved to make good use of it. Why don’t we see LENR-powered animals. Instead we see organisms keeping warm and searching nutrients in the hard way. There would have been a lot of time for evolution to work if already bacteria (about the oldest known organisms) can do it.

          This argument doesn’t prove that biological LENR is impossible, but in my opinion it makes it a harder sell than normal LENR. But of course at the end all depends on the quality of the proof rather than on indirect arguments like this.

  • Warthog

    What does this have to do with either Fleischmann or Pons.?? Sorry…bad idea, and outside MFMP’s stated charter.

    • Bob Greenyer

      The field has a problem with credibility, for better or worse, the MFMP was set up to test the claims of those in the field. VV has a theory of how the Coulomb barrier is lowered from astronomical levels to manageable levels that is applicable to the Bio transmutations as much as it is to the more material science systems (Coherent Correlated States). We have recently discovered that our X-Ray radiation monitoring equipment other that NaI used in GS 5.3 would not have seen anything without extremely long integration times because of distance – this is a real problem for researchers of high temperature systems.

      The beauty of this experiment is that it starts with a 0.662 MeV photon, that would traverse biofilm and significant distance, and you are looking to see a reduction in the count rate that would be undeniable proof of LENR albeit biological based. You have the certain knowledge that you will see a signal from the experiment at under 40ºC and physicists the world over would ordinarily say 1. that it was impossible to change the decay rate and 2. where is the energy signature of the change. Combine this with the emergence in the ash of Ba 138 and this would have the effect of shifting opinion on the whole field – a much needed action which I can honestly say needs to happen before any further consideration of other claims could be taken seriously.

      One of our biggest challenges as a project is to have field participants share their technology in a way that can be properly scrutinised, only Francesco Celani has done that to date and now VV is prepared to do the same.

      • Warthog

        Sorry, but biochemical transmutation is an even harder sell than LENR. Getting involved with it will LOSE credibility within the scientific community rather than enhance it.

        If your NaI (or other detector sensor) is getting hot…..cool it. Water cooliing is extremely effective.

        In grad school back in the mid-1970’s (hey, I’m old, I admit it) I worked with carbon furnace atomic absorption, in which the carbon flowcell at 2500C (5000W power) was in a water-jacketed enclosure. Power cables were 0000 stranded copper, and had to be silver soldered (lead solder would melt due to ohmic heating at the cable-cable connect junction) to the LARGE brass lug, yet the areas where the windows were located were just warm to the touch. Cooling water came in on a 1/4″ ID Vyton tube at each end from a “T” splitter.

        • Bob Greenyer

          The Amptech X123 CdTe detector head needs to be at -40ºC, not really an option.

          The otehr x-ray detector is a beryllium window NaI again, no really an option – especially as on loan.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          I agree, it’s a harder sell than inorganic LENR. If LENR would occur in organisms, why haven’t they evolved to make good use of it. Why don’t we see LENR-powered animals. Instead we see organisms keeping warm and searching nutrients in the hard way. There would have been a lot of time for evolution to work if already bacteria (about the oldest known organisms) can do it.

          This argument doesn’t prove that biological LENR is impossible, but in my opinion it makes it a harder sell than normal LENR. But of course at the end all depends on the quality of the proof rather than on indirect arguments like this.

  • theBuckWheat

    Anything that leads us to understand the physics of LENR is a good thing

  • theBuckWheat

    Anything that leads us to understand the physics of LENR is a good thing

  • georgehants

    As the Evidence that conscious thought changes our reality becomes more definite, it adds another dimension to the importance of positive Websites like ECW and MFMP.
    The implications are of course staggering, if the need to control our thoughts to potentially change the World become proven as have been put forward by the great minds of the Quantum from the beginning.
    http://vcq.quantum.at/news/news/detail/559.html
    ——-
    Your entire life is an ILLUSION: New test backs up theory that the world doesn’t exist until we look at it
    Quantum mechanics states reality doesn’t exist until it’s measured
    This means a particle’s past behaviour changes based on what we see
    Experiment using an atom and laser beams has proven this to be true
    How the atom behaved depended on how it was measured at end of test
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3107996/Our-entire-lives-ILLUSION-New-test-backs-theory-reality-doesn-t-exist-look-it.html

  • georgehants

    As the Evidence that conscious thought changes our reality becomes more definite, it adds another dimension to the importance of positive Websites like ECW and MFMP.
    The implications are of course staggering, if the need to control our thoughts to potentially change the World become proven as has been put forward by some of the great minds of the Quantum from the beginning.
    http://vcq.quantum.at/news/news/detail/559.html
    ——-
    Your entire life is an ILLUSION: New test backs up theory that the world doesn’t exist until we look at it
    Quantum mechanics states reality doesn’t exist until it’s measured
    This means a particle’s past behaviour changes based on what we see
    Experiment using an atom and laser beams has proven this to be true
    How the atom behaved depended on how it was measured at end of test
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3107996/Our-entire-lives-ILLUSION-New-test-backs-theory-reality-doesn-t-exist-look-it.html
    ——-
    “The first person to suggest that quantum theory implies that reality is created by human consciousness was not some crank on the fringes of physics but the eminent mathematician John von Neumann.”
    “His logic leads to a particular conclusion: that the world is not objectively real but depends on the mind of the observer.”
    — Physicist Nick Herbert

  • f sedei

    This is exciting news. I always believed LENR is a naturally occurring process. When (not if) it is proven to be so, the science world will be set back on it’s heels with huge discovery possibilities. Go get ’em, Bob!

    • Bob Greenyer

      Someone has commented on our facebook today that there was an Italian (who else!! 😉 ) who developed a system in the last century, for effectively treating cancer with electromagnetic waves – interestingly, the predictions I made in this video I recorded on the 26th September based on the implications are precisely cited as observables in this now lost technology.

      “A second series of tests is for cancer cell cultures. Several varieties are processed. The findings suggest a simple slowdown in growth; the treatment is not able to kill the cells directly. However, there is an increase in apoptosis (it is a kind of voluntary suicide of the cell).”

      The page translates reasonably well in google

      http://www.priore-cancer.com/txtpriore_fr.htm

      The point is, if VV tech works, then experiments of the kind I propose may be able to deduce the EM characteristics needed to non-invasively treat bacteria infection an cancer. Last year at ICCF19 this was interesting, but now that VV has had his tech independently verified, has a patent pending and is willing to conduct experiments with full scrutiny – for better or worse we should consider conducting the experiments.

      • Ciaranjay

        LENR is clearly not easy to replicate using physics.
        Biology adds another level of complexity, and cancer, is a complex and intractable problem.
        Good luck Bob, but please keep it as focused and straight forward as possible.
        Bad enough battling the physicists without the biologists and doctors joining in.

        • Bob Greenyer

          The good thing is, we have the expert to guide us, one who has successfully been able to get other groups already to show the same effect. This is encouraging.

          Actually, I think something that can run for weeks without complex high temperatures or monitoring / feedback systems and starts with a guaranteed signal and shows transmutation every time (apparently) looks way more simple that what we will continue to do in our other research.

  • f sedei

    This is exciting news. I always believed LENR is a naturally occurring process. When (not if) it is proven to be so, the science world will be set back on it’s heels with huge discovery possibilities. Go get ’em, Bob!

    • Bob Greenyer

      Someone has commented on our facebook today that there was an Italian (who else!! 😉 ) who developed a system in the last century, for effectively treating cancer with electromagnetic waves – interestingly, the predictions I made in this video I recorded on the 26th September based on the implications of VV paper and the US Army report, are precisely cited as observables in this now lost technology.

      “A second series of tests is for cancer cell cultures. Several varieties are processed. The findings suggest a simple slowdown in growth; the treatment is not able to kill the cells directly. However, there is an increase in apoptosis (it is a kind of voluntary suicide of the cell).”

      This would explain the real world experience of Piantelli’s treatment clinic.

      The page translates reasonably well in google

      http://www.priore-cancer.com/txtpriore_fr.htm

      The point is, if VV tech works, then experiments of the kind I propose may be able to deduce the EM characteristics needed to non-invasively treat bacteria infection and cancer. Last year at ICCF19 this was interesting, but now that VV has had his tech independently verified, has a patent pending and is willing to conduct experiments with full scrutiny – for better or worse we should consider conducting the experiments.

      • Ciaranjay

        LENR is clearly not easy to replicate using physics.
        Biology adds another level of complexity, and cancer, is a complex and intractable problem.
        Good luck Bob, but please keep it as focused and straight forward as possible.
        Bad enough battling the physicists without the biologists and doctors joining in.

        • Bob Greenyer

          The good thing is, we have the expert to guide us, one who has successfully been able to get other groups already to show the same effect. This is encouraging.

          Actually, I think something that can run for weeks without complex high temperatures or monitoring / feedback systems and starts with a guaranteed signal and shows transmutation every time (apparently) looks way more simple that what we will continue to do in our other research.

  • Private Citizen

    We’re we promised an experiment showing indisputable proof of LENR within 2 weeks about 2 weeks ago?

    “Bob Greenyer:

    I have devised an absolutely fool proof experiment that will prove
    inside 2 weeks the reality of LENR indisputably and live and will not
    need a replication, post verification or any complicated debates to
    convince doubters. Moreover it will have implications across many
    scientific disciplines.

    It first needs the cooperation of the key party, which I am in communication with – and of course, their claims need to be real.”

    • Bob Greenyer

      This is that – we now have cooperation of VV and his russian research partners. The reality or not will come out of the testing process. We need to ensure the right venue (very complicated given both nuclear and biological material) and correct funding, VV and his partners are proposing a minimum 2 months experiment, first doing Cs133 – Ba134 as a safe and easier to organise practice run and then the main experiment.

      When I wrote the above phrase, I had no idea that 3 days ago he would release independent research using his method that demonstrated an average of 27% and up to 70% emission reduction in 2 weeks of the characteristic gamma. This is much better than I could have wished for, I was originally relying on the 2015 report that said that the 30.17 year decay rate became 310 days over 9 days (inside 2 weeks) – the new results are much more compelling if replicated.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I have found out in life that the best way to discover if something works is to try to see if it does. I have only ever proven that I didn’t do something when I started with a premise that it wasn’t possible and didn’t try.

      • Gerard McEk

        That was again a nice and interesting presentation, Bob. The nano cyclotron is in my view quite speculative and it is premature to publish this openly before testing this mechanism. It is also questionable if these nano cyclotrons (if these exist) are also active in the mitochondria of cancer cells.
        Nevertheless, I look very much forward for this open science test and also hope the magnets work. Good luck!

        PS: AR did not want to give an opinion about Vladimir’s work (‘I am not a biologist’), a pity.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Hi Gerard,

          Well – the speculation is not mine – but it did lead me to consider that EM may affect fast dividing cells / bacteria, which led to the discovery of lots of research in the field supporting the claims that it is effective. etc. etc.

          If it works, and the Cs137 decay rate can be prevented from accelerating or reset – then I care not much about what is happening underneath.

      • Private Citizen

        So you weren’t pre-announcing performing the foolproof, indisputable test within 2 weeks, merely pre-announcing that you would pre-announce a possible, unfunded test within 2 weeks?

        Understood.

        • Ciaranjay

          I understood it to mean that the experiment, when it is run (at some yet to be announced time in the near future) will show within two weeks (of the start of the experiment) the reality of LENR.
          Isn’t the English language wonderful 😉

          • Bob Greenyer

            You read it the right way Ciaranjay.

        • Bob Greenyer

          haha – well, since you put it like that I guess I shouldn’t have bothered.

          Perhaps I’ll go and work in a supermarket (not that there is anything wrong in that) and hope someone else will try these things.

          Errrr…. no, I’d be bored out of my mind.

          It is very apparent that whatever one says it will be analysed and interpreted in millions of ways, as one person I cannot be omnipresent throwing fire retardant everywhere. I was made aware that on LENR-FORUM and CMNS groups there were a lot of wild speculations, I deliberately choose not to engage in those places as I am also trying to support a family.

          I believe that if VV claims are true, the experiment not only meets the proposed deliverables – it has the potential to go much further in many ways, not least of which is to conclusively vindicate Bio transmutation research since 1799.

  • Private Citizen

    Weren’t we promised an experiment showing indisputable proof of LENR within 2 weeks about 2 weeks ago?

    “Bob Greenyer:

    I have devised an absolutely fool proof experiment that will prove
    inside 2 weeks the reality of LENR indisputably and live and will not
    need a replication, post verification or any complicated debates to
    convince doubters. Moreover it will have implications across many
    scientific disciplines.

    It first needs the cooperation of the key party, which I am in communication with – and of course, their claims need to be real.”

    • Bob Greenyer

      This is that – we now have cooperation of VV and his russian research partners. The reality or not will come out of the testing process. We need to ensure the right venue (very complicated given both nuclear and biological material) and correct funding, VV and his partners are proposing a minimum 2 months experiment, first doing Cs133 – Ba134 as a safe and easier to organise practice run and then the main experiment.

      When I wrote the above phrase, I had no idea that 3 days ago he would release independent research using his method that demonstrated an average of 27% and up to 70% emission reduction in 2 weeks of the characteristic gamma. This is much better than I could have wished for, I was originally relying on the 2015 report that said that the 30.17 year decay rate became 310 days over 9 days (inside 2 weeks) – the new results are much more compelling if replicated.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I have found out in life that the best way to discover if something works is to try to see if it does. I have only ever proven that I didn’t do something when I started with a premise that it wasn’t possible and didn’t try.

      • Gerard McEk

        That was again a nice and interesting presentation, Bob. The nano cyclotron is in my view quite speculative and it is premature to publish this openly before testing this mechanism. It is also questionable if these nano cyclotrons (if these exist) are also active in the mitochondria of cancer cells.
        Nevertheless, I look very much forward for this open science test and also hope the magnets work. Good luck!

        PS: AR did not want to give an opinion about Vladimir’s work (‘I am not a biologist’), a pity.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Hi Gerard,

          Well – the speculation is not mine – but it did lead me to consider that EM may affect fast dividing cells / bacteria, which led to the discovery of lots of research in the field supporting the claims that it is effective. etc. etc.

          If it works, and the Cs137 decay rate can be prevented from accelerating or reset – then I care not much about what is happening underneath.

      • Private Citizen

        So you weren’t pre-announcing performing the foolproof, indisputable test within 2 weeks, merely pre-announcing that you would pre-announce a possible, unfunded test within 2 weeks?

        Understood.

        • Ciaranjay

          I understood it to mean that the experiment, when it is run (at some yet to be announced time in the near future) will show within two weeks (of the start of the experiment) the reality of LENR.
          Isn’t the English language wonderful 😉

          • Bob Greenyer

            You read it the right way Ciaranjay.

        • Bob Greenyer

          haha – well, since you put it like that I guess I shouldn’t have bothered.

          Perhaps I’ll go and work in a supermarket (not that there is anything wrong in that) and hope someone else will try these things.

          Errrr…. no, I’d be bored out of my mind.

          It is very apparent that whatever one says it will be analysed and interpreted in millions of ways, as one person I cannot be omnipresent throwing fire retardant everywhere. I was made aware that on LENR-FORUM and CMNS groups there were a lot of wild speculations, I deliberately choose not to engage in those places as I am also trying to support a family.

          I believe that if VV claims are true, the experiment not only meets the proposed deliverables – it has the potential to go much further in many ways, not least of which is to conclusively vindicate Bio transmutation research since 1799.

  • Definitely worth trying.

    I covered research on biological transmutation briefly in chapter 2 of my book, as another example of something considered impossible, although solid evidence showed it did happen. As you say Bob, this is what science is about—starting with observations.

    Yet, there are a few things I don’t understand:

    1. As usual in LENR – why isn’t there any high energy radiation?

    2. Even if the high energy radiation is magically avoided, having an energy gain from each reaction in the order of MeV, where does that energy go?

    3. If this happens in all cells, wouldn’t the effect certain EM fields and electric fields have on cancer cels and bacteria, be valid for all living cells? Basically reducing or stopping energy production in the mitochondria in all living materia?

    • Warthog

      The magic part of this is that there is already a detectable high energy emission (gamma), and this looks at the REDUCTION of that radiation over time (basically a biologically induced change in half-life…considered very much impossible)

      .

      • Bob Greenyer

        You got the key element here – we are not hoping to see signal, we already have one – we are just trying to find a way to dim it, which means you can keep trying until you see it dim – much easier to iterate with.

        Likewise, once you know how to create the dimming process, you can see if EM of some kind can stop it in its rate of dimming – and I would start with the EM reported to be effective in previously conducted research on both cancer and bacteria – the opportunities for tuning are far higher.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Bob, be sure to use small enough bottles, or better still bottles of different sizes. Small enough bottles so that the expected gamma comes through without attenuation.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hi Pekka,

            Yes – some trial and error will be needed to define the actual integration time and vessel structure – plus the shielding and distance between cells. Your help in defining these things will be important.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Where does all the energy go is a good question. I’m also wondering why life doesn’t seem to utilise such evolutionary innovation more visibly, neither for nutrients nor for energy. If deprived of calcium, hens tend to eat each others feathers instead of making it by transmutation, and Antarctic animals grow a layer of fat instead of warming themselves by LENR.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Maybe the ancestral polar bears who failed to limit their LENR went extinct from runaway events long ago. You can get too much of a good thing.

        Why don’t large animal organisms use photosynthesis to produce food?

        I would look at Kudzu for utilization of anomalous energy. How does it outgrow so many other plants?

        • Pekka Janhunen

          It holds to all high latitude mammals and birds: seals, penguins, etc.

          Why don’t large animal organisms use photosynthesis? Would be hard to get nutrients. Plants have a fine network of roots with collaborate with fungi for the purpose. That binds them to one location. Animals get nutrients by eating plants so they can be mobile.

          • Ophelia Rump

            So why not use minerals from consuming anything, that would be a massive advantage?

            What you said does not explain anything. The fact is that nature found photosynthesis a dead end for larger organisms. The limits are more likely to do with volume v surface than anything else. Geometric v Algebraic growth.

          • Bob Greenyer

            A more relevant question may be that if plants get their energy from Chloroplasts, why do they also have Mitochondria – ok, so there are some cited reasons, but is that the full story?

          • Axil Axil

            The mechanism that hides and thermalizes the energy from nuclear reactions and amplifies LENR power in microbes is Bose condinsation that the bugs maintain.

        • LION

          Bob I enjoyed your video very much, broad minds delve deep secrets, so I recommend this book to you- The Secret Life of Plants by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, available from Amazon.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks!

      • Bob Greenyer

        Well here is a fun one, perhaps uncontrolled mitochondria transmutation (when the hypothesis is it is only rarely employed) is the explanation behind SHC (Spontaneous Human Combustion) – I mean, to incinerate a whole body including turning bones to ash in 6 minutes is quite a feat. In India, I was invited to a few open fire cremations of neighbours relatives and believe me, it takes a lot of quality wood and time and you still end up with the hip and shoulders in the ash.

        • Phillip

          This ship is severely off course now, good luck everybody.

          • LION

            Actually the ship is sailing TRUE, always respect the DATA, free from fear it tells its own story, leading to new and deeper understanding, THIS IS TRUE SCIENCE, free of Prejudice.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks LION, you get the project it seams.

            Our biggest experiment is actually this

            “Is science able to be objective in the face of data that apparently challenges prior understanding”

            My experience over the last months is that mainstream science would rather ensure that experiments that would test their understanding are not conducted. Unfortunately for the, we like 1000s of other individuals and small companies out there are making tools and procedures to put discovery back in the hands of those that are prepared to look into the unknown. The gate keepers may still have the keys to the garden of discovery, but humans are breaching the fence and they are loosing control.

          • Bob Greenyer

            No – another ship is having its rigging being constructed, all other ships are sailing a steady course.

            We cannot expect the inner LENR community to replicate competing research and we must take opportunities to test claims when the claimants are prepared to work with us.

            There is an assumption that we will find a positive – but we are just here to find the truth, whatever that may be. This experiment will bring new blood and concepts to the project. Just because a supermarket can distribute more products than an Indian mom and pop shop – does not mean the products are inferior in the supermarket, more often than not, they are better and fresher – I liven in India and so know this – it may be more work to find the three products you are interested in but at least it will serve the needs of more desires.

        • Stephen

          I wonder if these little guys make use of some of this process:

          http://www.sciencealert.com/new-study-finally-reveals-how-water-bears-have-become-so-damn-indestructible

          It seems they have linked their resistance to radiation to particular Genes and proteins. Im not clear how that mechanism is supposed to work but I suppose the are suggesting that they may enhance their chemical resistance to damage once It occurs somehow rather than prevent the damage itself? If on the other hand they are in fact are able to limit the radiation damage itself as well I wonder if they also make use of this effect.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hi Stephen, As ever you provide great and related commentary and analysis.

            This experiment will require a huge amount of planning and probably even more effort to manage negativity. The most important hurdle has been crossed – and that is to get the cooperation of the original claimants. I am much more encouraged by claimants that are willing to be openly tested than those that demand and NDA and ask your to trust them on their results.

            We need a good apparatus design and a robust protocol with which to proceed and the funds in the bank to see it through properly.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Hi Mats,

      1. One step at a time. I’d like to see the effect first, if demonstrated as real, we can start to use our time explain it!

      2. See one.

      3. The whole point of my hypothesis is that life only goes to extremes when it needs to multiply, ordinarily and for much of most organisms life, they are trying to avoid dividing. Both bacteria working to colonise and cancer cells are dividing fast, so they are candidates for selective attack. Perhaps Piantelli’s (and as I have discovered today from a crowd contributor, Priore too in last century) apparatus works by causing the cancer cells ability to down-convert/absorb gamma to fail, so it is like SUPER targetted destruction.

  • Definitely worth trying.

    I covered research on biological transmutation briefly in chapter 2 of my book, as another example of something considered impossible, although solid evidence showed it did happen. As you say Bob, this is what science is about—starting with observations.

    Yet, there are a few things I don’t understand:

    1. As usual in LENR – why isn’t there any high energy radiation?

    2. Even if the high energy radiation is magically avoided, having an energy gain from each reaction in the order of MeV, where does that energy go?

    3. If this happens in all cells, wouldn’t the effect certain EM fields and electric fields have on cancer cels and bacteria, be valid for all living cells? Basically reducing or stopping energy production in the mitochondria in all living materia?

    • Warthog

      The magic part of this is that there is already a detectable high energy emission (gamma), and this looks at the REDUCTION of that radiation over time (basically a biologically induced change in half-life…considered very much impossible)

      .

      • Bob Greenyer

        You got the key element here – we are not hoping to see signal, we already have one – we are just trying to find a way to dim it, which means you can keep trying until you see it dim – much easier to iterate with.

        Likewise, once you know how to create the dimming process, you can see if EM of some kind can stop it in its rate of dimming – and I would start with the EM reported to be effective in previously conducted research on both cancer and bacteria – the opportunities for tuning are far higher.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Bob, be sure to use small enough bottles, or better still bottles of different sizes. Small enough bottles so that the expected gamma comes through without attenuation.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hi Pekka,

            Yes – some trial and error will be needed to define the actual integration time and vessel structure – plus the shielding and distance between cells. Your help in defining these things will be important.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Where does all the energy go is a good question. I’m also wondering why life doesn’t seem to utilise such evolutionary innovation more visibly, neither for nutrients nor for energy. If deprived of calcium, hens tend to eat each others feathers instead of making it by transmutation, and Antarctic animals grow a layer of fat instead of warming themselves by LENR.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Maybe the ancestral polar bears who failed to limit their LENR went extinct from runaway events long ago. You can get too much of a good thing.

        Why don’t large animal organisms use photosynthesis to produce food?

        I would look at Kudzu for utilization of anomalous energy. How does it outgrow so many other plants?

        • Pekka Janhunen

          It holds to all high latitude mammals and birds: seals, penguins, etc.

          Why don’t large animal organisms use photosynthesis? Would be hard to get nutrients. Plants have a fine network of roots with collaborate with fungi for the purpose. That binds them to one location. Animals get nutrients by eating plants so they can be mobile.

          • Ophelia Rump

            So why not use minerals from consuming anything, that would be a massive advantage?

            What you said does not explain anything. The fact is that nature found photosynthesis a dead end for larger organisms. The limits are more likely to do with volume v surface than anything else. Geometric v Algebraic growth.

            Diminishing returns: If photosynthesis drives LENR in plants, then that does not translate to a solution which scales for animals.

          • Bob Greenyer

            A more relevant question may be that if plants get their energy from Chloroplasts, why do they also have Mitochondria – ok, so there are some cited reasons, but is that the full story?

          • Bruce__H

            Chloroplasts and mitochondria have completely different roles in plants. Chloroplasts help fix carbon in a high-energy form as carbohydrates which are then stored in the plant. Mitochondria use the stored energy to power metabolic pathways.

      • invient

        Maybe the radiation is being contained by our DNA or mtDNA…. We know that junk DNA is used as a way to protect active DNA from radiation…

        We also know as we age, that mtDNA errors rise to the point that replicating mitochondria shrinks, to the point that age related diseases (cancer, dementia) start causing problems. It could be all our age related disease are a disregulation of the lenr process within cells.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Hi Invient, would you be able to find references for the comments you have made here?

        • Stephen

          I was wondering this morning if aging effects could be related to this in some way. Telomerase decay seems incomplete part of the story to me otherwise how is it we can reproduce and produce long lived off spring with complete telomerase. These aspects on MtDNA errors and shrinking are interesting and new. I would also be intersted to read any links on this.

          It maybe off topic but I wonder if the long lived species such as green land sharks or Icelandic clams can give us insight on the process:

          https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/11/400-year-old-greenland-shark-is-the-oldest-vertebrate-animal

          Interestingly in the case of the Greenland shark they I think they used C14 dating as part of their evaluation so I was wondering if the age could be squewed by the effect discovered and investigated by Vladimir Vysotskii but then I read they used a C14 spike from Chernobil event to calibrate the age based on structures in the eye and the size of the Sharks so maybe it’s more complex. I haven’t yet full digested the details and if all the measurements are consistent.

          Anyway it’s very interesting to understand why these sharks live so long… Are their mitochondria protected some how from damage? Could that be due to their habitat or internal resistance I wonder

          I found it interesting too that story came back to Chernobyl some how.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Well here is a fun one, perhaps uncontrolled mitochondria transmutation (when the hypothesis is it is only rarely employed) is the explanation behind SHC (Spontaneous Human Combustion) – I mean, to incinerate a whole body including turning bones to ash in 6 minutes is quite a feat. In India, I was invited to a few open fire cremations of neighbours relatives and believe me, it takes a lot of quality wood and time and you still end up with the hip and shoulders in the ash.

        • Phillip

          This ship is severely off course now, good luck everybody.

          • LION

            Actually the ship is sailing TRUE, always respect the DATA, free from fear it tells its own story, leading to new and deeper understanding, THIS IS TRUE SCIENCE, free of Prejudice.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks LION, you get the project it seams.

            Our biggest experiment is actually this

            “Is science able to be objective in the face of data that apparently challenges prior understanding”

            My experience over the last months is that mainstream science would rather ensure that experiments that would test their understanding are not conducted. Unfortunately for the, we like 1000s of other individuals and small companies out there are making tools and procedures to put discovery back in the hands of those that are prepared to look into the unknown. The gate keepers may still have the keys to the garden of discovery, but humans are breaching the fence and they are loosing control.

          • Bob Greenyer

            No – another ship is having its rigging being constructed, all other ships are sailing a steady course.

            We cannot expect the inner LENR community to replicate competing research and we must take opportunities to test claims when the claimants are prepared to work with us.

            There is an assumption that we will find a positive – but we are just here to find the truth, whatever that may be. This experiment will bring new blood and concepts to the project. Just because a supermarket can distribute more products than an Indian mom and pop shop – does not mean the products are inferior in the supermarket, more often than not, they are better and fresher – I liven in India and so know this – it may be more work to find the three products you are interested in but at least it will serve the needs of more desires.

        • Stephen

          I wonder if these little guys make use of some of this process:

          http://www.sciencealert.com/new-study-finally-reveals-how-water-bears-have-become-so-damn-indestructible

          It seems they have linked their resistance to radiation to particular Genes and proteins. Im not clear how that mechanism is supposed to work but I suppose the are suggesting that they may enhance their chemical resistance to damage once It occurs somehow rather than prevent the damage itself? If on the other hand they are in fact are able to limit the radiation damage itself as well I wonder if they also make use of this effect.

          Good luck with your test I’m looking forward to it.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hi Stephen, As ever you provide great and related commentary and analysis.

            This experiment will require a huge amount of planning and probably even more effort to manage negativity. The most important hurdle has been crossed – and that is to get the cooperation of the original claimants. I am much more encouraged by claimants that are willing to be openly tested than those that demand and NDA and ask your to trust them on their results.

            We need a good apparatus design and a robust protocol with which to proceed and the funds in the bank to see it through properly.

        • Cuthbert Allgood

          SHC is not an unexplained phenomena. It’s well documented that it’s ignition of human fat due to a fire (the so-called “wick effect”) and it certainly doesn’t happen in “six minutes”. You’ll note there are no documented cases of SHC happening in front of someone, and certainly not on video, even in our modern world of cameras everywhere.

          I’m all for looking into potentially interesting experiments, but come on. There’s enough “woo woo” around here without bringing in SHC. Let’s stick to finding out if LENR is real or not.

          • Bob Greenyer

            There is the case of the Indian baby – happened repeatedly in front of the doctors.

            The QED (Quad Erat Demonstrandum) program by the BBC that I saw when it was first broadcast and put forward and tested the fabric/wick theory.

            It showed that little damage would occur to the surroundings, it did not account for the bones being turned to ash and the timing was far longer than some reported cases.

            Of course this is woo woo, but I was Identifying with the mood expressed by some here at even the notion of doing this replication attempt. I do not occupy myself with thoughts of this kind, testing the claims made by LENR researchers is my focus.

          • Stefenski

            SHC not unexplained ! That’s just patently false.
            Sure, if you look up the skeptics dictionary , you’ll find an explanation for everything.
            Or rather an ‘interpretation’ ( mostly according to the materialists belief system )

            Edgar Cayce has a recorded case of witnessing SHC – himself ;which was reversed. There are others I have read about.

            but, he’ll be in your category of ‘woo’, also.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Hi Mats,

      1. One step at a time. I’d like to see the effect first, if demonstrated as real, we can start to use our time explain it!

      2. See one.

      3. The whole point of my hypothesis is that life only goes to extremes when it needs to multiply, ordinarily and for much of most organisms life, they are trying to avoid dividing. Both bacteria working to colonise and cancer cells are dividing fast, so they are candidates for selective attack. Perhaps Piantelli’s (and as I have discovered today from a crowd contributor, Priore too in last century) apparatus works by causing the cancer cells ability to down-convert/absorb gamma to fail, so it is like SUPER targetted destruction.

  • Mylan

    I must say that I’m disappointed that this is the big breakthrough that Bob had been writing about.

    First, I really doubt that this works. Certainly worth trying though! But even if it does work, more replications will be necessary for me to believe it. While I’m no expert in this specific field, I experienced that so many things can cause errors in experiments, things you would not think of, and even if results seem perfectly clear, you might be fooling yourself.

    Second, even if it works, how can we know that this has anything to do with LENR? Certainly possible, but no proof at all. I don’t think that this would significantly improve the public opinion on Rossi’s research.

    • Bob Greenyer

      You are entitled to you view.

      The questions I have been asked many times are

      1. Where is the repeatable heat
      2. Where is the repeatable radiation and in line with accepted physics
      3. Where are the repeatable transmutations

      The problem with all of these is that it is very difficult to even run and instrument an experiment, I know I have been doing them. Then when you do, we have demonstrated non-conclusive excess heat, variable and unpredictable emissions and no believable transmutations.

      In contrast, if Vysotskii is correct.

      1. Not measure heat, but there is a change in biomass which is stored energy
      2. The experiment starts with effectively constant gamma and the average count rate decay over 14 days was 27%, something that should have taken over 15 years and in one case 70% – more than 60 years worth
      3. He sees transmutation every time in the case of 55Mn to 57Fe this cannot be attributed to contamination and can be simply measured by putting the cell before and after into an NMR

      Moreover, if the rate can be reduced or stopped by application of some form of EM, this may tell us much about life.

      As regards LENR – it depends on your definition – for me, LENR stands for “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” – transmuting elements at 30-38ºC must qualify. Some would argue that exploding wires, plasma arc, sonofusion qualify, but many say these are variants of hot fusion.

      The MFMP was set up to “Jump the Hurdle” the intellectual barrier I have very much seen in recent months that holds people back from even permitting an experiment the chance of demonstrating the effect – this experiment has a very good chance of settling the debate – and if it conclusively fails after a number of attempts, at least no one is living a lie.

    • Robert Dorr

      It would be very easy to prove one way or the other by just observing a real time gamma spectrograph of the Cesium 137 decay. If it does work you would observe a dramatic decrease in the amplitude of the 662 kev gamma peak in the spectrum over the course of a couple of months. Since this is gamma radiation there would be nothing in the construction of the experiment that could cause a reduction in gamma radiation other than the actual amount of Cs-137 being reduced. If there is no change in the amplitude of the 662 peak then this would prove the experiment does not alter the speed of decay, or reduction in the amount of Cs-137.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Robert – you have grasped it perfectly.

        Vysotskii only looks for the 662 and rate of decay during the experiment and for the presence of Ba 138 at the end.

        Of course, if it does not work, so what? we are no worse off than now and we have one less thing to think about as a possibility.

        Having seen the opinion of people in the main stream science community, this has a far greater chance of breaking down barriers – plus, if verified, it brings in all the sciences at once.

        • Warthog

          “Having seen the opinion of people in the main stream science community,
          this has a far greater chance of breaking down barriers – plus, if
          verified, it brings in all the sciences at once.”

          Sorry, but I think you are completely and totally wrong….no matter what the experimental results turn out to be, the mainstream scientific community will dismiss it as total crackpottery, even more so than LENR. But it is your time to waste.

          • Bob Greenyer

            But you are assuming we will see a positive, we may disprove this and then who is the crackpot – we are an organisation set up to test the claims of others to the best of our ability.

            If the results are supportive of the claimant, then we’ll be on the record as showing that and the determination of who is or who is not a crackpot will be established in time.

            What I know is there is real radiation in Fukashima and this needs a solution better than the passage of time since there is nothing to say there will not be another disaster in another location in the future – just look at how many nuclear plants there are in the US or in the heart of western Europe (France) – should we wait until after something happens here before testing these claims that point to a real practical solution.

          • Hello Bob and Warthog,

            As Bob is basically saying, the great thing about this proposed experiment is that it is so simple and cheap conduct that mainstream scientists would look lazy and biassed if they dismissed it without even trying it themselves. Even the “lynch mob” of mostly nuclear physicists who persecuted F&P at least went through the motions of trying to replicate their experiment, even if, as we know today, they failed to wait long enough to pre-load the deuterium to 80%.

            There is a steadily building case for condensed matter being a very different beast than the case of the high vacuum game of billiards with just two or three, islated, electron-stripped particles that most nuclear physicists (including me, back in the day) are used to experimenting with. In condensed matter, living or not, there are as many electrons as protons, so shielding of the coulomb potential, coupled with quantum tunneling is very much on the table.

            The special nature of condensed matter has just been recognized by way of the just-awarded Nobel Prizes in Physics. It is not much of a leap to associate the room temperature superconductivity that this work cites to a link to overcoming the coulomb barrier given particular conditions. In this context – which is broadly about the way quantum theory is now understood to extend far beyond the spectral lines or the “nuclear billiards” of my day – I think it is also valid to note the work of Jim Al-Khalili on the links between quantum physics and biology, for example in this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwgQVZju1ZM – and there is also a least one TED talk as well (google them).

            Bob, I think you are a gem! Which is why I made my recent donation to MFMP. Your scholarly enthusiasm is surely very infectious. And I really like the way you are taking the trouble to read way back into history and so uncovering all the forgotten or nearly forgotten work, some of it going back over a century. In so honoring all those nearly forgotten people, may you also be honored.

          • TOUSSAINT francois

            Well said ! I totally agree !

          • Stephen

            I was wondering this morning if aging effects could be related to this in some way. Telomerase decay seems incomplete part of the story to me otherwise how is it we can reproduce and produce long lived off spring with complete telomerase. These aspects on MtDNA errors and shrinking are interesting and new. I would also be intersted to read any links on this.

            It maybe off topic but I wonder if the long lived species such as green land sharks or Icelandic clams can give us insight on the process:

            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/aug/11/400-year-old-greenland-shark-is-the-oldest-vertebrate-animal

            Interestingly in the case of the Greenland shark they I think they used C14 dating as part of their evaluation so I was wondering if the age could be squewed by the effect discovered and investigated by Vladimir Vysotskii but then I read they used a C14 spike from Chernobil event to calibrate the age based on structures in the eye and the size of the Sharks so maybe it’s more complex. I haven’t yet full digested the details and if all the measurements are consistent.

            Anyway it’s very interesting to understand why these sharks live so long… Are their mitochondria protected some how from damage? Could that be due to their habitat or internal resistance I wonder

            I found it interesting too that story came back to Chernobyl some how.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks Philip for understanding the value and intent of both testing VV’s claims and the potential for it to solve other intractable problems.

            Thanks also for helping out.

          • Warthog

            I understand exactly how simple and cheap it is (I took a minor in nuclear chemistry on my way to my PhD in analytical). Knowing that, why haven’t there been other replication attempted???

            Answer, because it is just too far away from the mainstream to EVER be accepted, no matter what results MFMP gets.

          • georgehants

            Warthog, that must be the most daft reason any scientist could ever find for not doing Research and investigation.
            ——-
            “Answer, because it is just too far away from the mainstream to EVER be accepted, no matter what results MFMP gets.”
            ——–
            I am sure that it was a little joke reply to make us all laugh.

          • Warthog

            No joke at all, unfortunately. Due to my nuclear chemistry background, I understand exactly how simple this experiment really is. Pretty much any lab equipped to handle even small levels of radioisotopes and with an Na(Tl)I gamma spectrometer. could do it Yet it hasn’t been done.

            I’ve been hearing background rumbles about “biological transmutation” almost as long as LENR has been around, mostly from Russian sources, and even today they are still heard as total crackpottery.

            I fail to see how anything done by MFMP will be viewed differently, no matter how many videos are posted and how “open” the experimentation is.

            There are unfortunate sociological processes that go on within “mainstream science”, and anything more than some numbers sigma around the “mainstream average”, will simply be ignored.

            This topic is one of them.

          • georgehants

            Warthog, many thanks for explanation, just like Cold Fusion etc. sure you agree not a healthy way of thinking for science.
            An attitude or opinion can never change if Cold Fusion or biological Transmutation is genuine, only Research and investigation of the kind MFMP are working on.

            Best

          • Warthog

            “…….sure you agree not a healthy way of thinking for science…

            Oh, I absolutely agree. There are very few “real scientists” who have the proper degree and type of belief and unbelief to handle off-the-wall stuff, and they are often viewed as “slightly dotty” by the mainstream (who are mostly sheep, following the “boss ram” for their particular specialty).

            But, unfortunately, “it is what it is”. I’m sure many sociology dissertations will some day be written about it.

            And based on my understanding of where the “sigma level of complete unbelief” lies (from fifty years as a practicing scientist), LENR is “just” on the safe side, and biological transmutation is not.

          • Frank Acland

            I agree with you about the sociological processes that have such a powerful hold in mainstream science, Warthog, but I don’t think that means people shouldn’t try going where others are are afraid to go because of fear of ‘crackpot’ accusations. That’s something that often comes with being on the cutting edge.

            I like Bob’s idea for this experiment, and would like to see it carried out in a Live Open Science manner. The main obstacle that I see here is going to be one of funding, especially since the proposed experiment could take a long time to carry out. Unfortunately the normal channels of financial support in Science probably won’t be open.

          • Warthog

            Yes, there certainly is a lot of radiation at Fukushima, but Toyota and Mitsubishi are already working on LENR transmutation to fix that problem.

            What the world needs a LOT more than that is an energy source to replace what caused the problem in the first place.

            And yes, I’m quite aware of how many nuclear plants there are in the US. One of them is about twenty miles from where I grew up. I think it was one of the last (or maybe THE last) reactor to go online before the KGB-funded anti-nuke movement killed civilian fission power.

  • Mylan

    I must say that I’m disappointed that this is the big breakthrough that Bob had been writing about.

    First, I really doubt that this works. Certainly worth trying though! But even if it does work, more replications will be necessary for me to believe it. While I’m no expert in this specific field, I experienced that so many things can cause errors in experiments, things you would not think of, and even if results seem perfectly clear, you might be fooling yourself.

    Second, even if it works, how can we know that this has anything to do with LENR? Certainly possible, but no proof at all. I don’t think that this would significantly improve the public opinion on Rossi’s research.

    • Bob Greenyer

      You are entitled to you view.

      The questions I have been asked many times are

      1. Where is the repeatable heat
      2. Where is the repeatable radiation and in line with accepted physics
      3. Where are the repeatable transmutations

      The problem with all of these is that it is very difficult to even run and instrument an experiment, I know I have been doing them. Then when you do, we have demonstrated non-conclusive excess heat, variable and unpredictable emissions and no believable transmutations.

      In contrast, if Vysotskii is correct.

      1. Not measure heat, but there is a change in biomass which is stored energy
      2. The experiment starts with effectively constant gamma and the average count rate decay over 14 days was 27%, something that should have taken over 15 years and in one case 70% – around 60 years worth
      3. He sees transmutation every time in the case of 55Mn to 57Fe this cannot be attributed to contamination and can be simply measured by putting the cell before and after into an NMR

      Moreover, if the rate can be reduced or stopped by application of some form of EM, this may tell us much about life.

      As regards LENR – it depends on your definition – for me, LENR stands for “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions” – transmuting elements at 30-38ºC must qualify. Some would argue that exploding wires, plasma arc, sonofusion qualify, but many say these are variants of hot fusion.

      The MFMP was set up to “Jump the Hurdle” the intellectual barrier I have very much seen in recent months that holds people back from even permitting an experiment the chance of demonstrating the effect – this experiment has a very good chance of settling the debate – and if it conclusively fails after a number of attempts, at least no one is living a lie.

      • Hhiram

        I’m sympathetic to Mylan’s opinion that LENR suffers from being spread too thin, but in this particular case I have to agree with MFMP. The biology-assisted transmutation experiment is so simple to set up and replicate, and its implications would be so significant, that there really seems to be no harm and only benefits that can come from it.

        But as for other MFMP-sponsored efforts, I am in general agreement that it is frustrating to see things to scattershot and disorganized. Where is me356? Where is Engineer48? Where is Parkamov? Nevermind Rossi of course… There is no news – and no evidence – from any of these so-called “successful” experimenters…

        • Bob Greenyer

          Parkhomov continues – he was pilloried by the community for trying to interpret his embarrassing data drop outs and so conducts his research as h sees fit.

          Me356 was hounded mercilessly and this along with the observation of large numbers of neutrons led him to step back and conduct his experiments in peace.

          E48 has no connection to MFMP other than rightly being critical of our work and trying to add value.

          If we want an experiment to happen in 2nd Quarter of next year – we cannot announce it then in the LOS method – we have to allow people in at all stages – this may appear unfocussed but the reality is all organisations that are successful need to have plans in various stages of development. The Neutron detector is near completion (we’d like to calibrate them and this is no easy feat), the 62Ni is near ready as is the 18O – the attempt for high excess is well advanced as is the first proper independent replications of GS5.3. Plus we have been working hard to analyse and report our past experiments as will be evident in the up and coming CMNS paper. We have been focussed.

          Putting a proposal for LENR Live experiments out there is not to say we are going to do them, they are just things to consider.

          I hope to report on Max’s work presented here at ICCF – he has gone into the annuls of difficult fusion related science over the past century and has conducted two very important replications of past authors work but with modern techniques – such as the 1922 exploding wires experiments with extraordinary results and new detail.

      • INVENTOR INVENTED

        ITS ENCOURAGING NOT DISAPPOINTING! Its proof that low energy nuclear reactions are real. The government should budget much more funds to research the phenomenon and find out how to make it a practical source of energy!

        • Bob Greenyer

          Well – I personally would reserve judgement until we have replicated – but if we do, the evidence would be compelling.

          • INVENTOR INVENTED

            I didnt realize you were talking about Vysotskii
            I thought you were talking about your experiments at MFMP showing gamma radiation. I dont know Vysotskii or his experiments.

    • Robert Dorr

      It would be very easy to prove one way or the other by just observing a real time gamma spectrograph of the Cesium 137 decay. If it does work you would observe a dramatic decrease in the amplitude of the 662 kev gamma peak in the spectrum over the course of a couple of months. Since this is gamma radiation there would be nothing in the construction of the experiment that could cause a reduction in gamma radiation other than the actual amount of Cs-137 being reduced. If there is no change in the amplitude of the 662 peak then this would prove the experiment does not alter the speed of decay, or reduction in the amount of Cs-137.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Robert – you have grasped it perfectly.

        Vysotskii only looks for the 662 and rate of decay during the experiment and for the presence of Ba 138 at the end.

        Of course, if it does not work, so what? we are no worse off than now and we have one less thing to think about as a possibility.

        Having seen the opinion of people in the main stream science community, this has a far greater chance of breaking down barriers – plus, if verified, it brings in all the sciences at once.

        • Warthog

          “Having seen the opinion of people in the main stream science community,
          this has a far greater chance of breaking down barriers – plus, if
          verified, it brings in all the sciences at once.”

          Sorry, but I think you are completely and totally wrong….no matter what the experimental results turn out to be, the mainstream scientific community will dismiss it as total crackpottery, even more so than LENR. But it is your time to waste.

          • Bob Greenyer

            But you are assuming we will see a positive, we may disprove this and then who is the crackpot – we are an organisation set up to test the claims of others to the best of our ability.

            If the results are supportive of the claimant, then we’ll be on the record as showing that and the determination of who is or who is not a crackpot will be established in time.

            What I know is there is real radiation in Fukashima and this needs a solution better than the passage of time since there is nothing to say there will not be another disaster in another location in the future – just look at how many nuclear plants there are in the US or in the heart of western Europe (France) – should we wait until after something happens here before testing these claims that point to a real practical solution.

          • Hello Bob and Warthog,

            As Bob is basically saying, the great thing about this proposed experiment is that it is so simple and cheap conduct that mainstream scientists would look lazy and biassed if they dismissed it without even trying it themselves. Even the “lynch mob” of mostly nuclear physicists who persecuted F&P at least went through the motions of trying to replicate their experiment, even if, as we know today, they failed to wait long enough to pre-load the deuterium to 80%.

            There is a steadily building case for condensed matter being a very different beast than the case of the high vacuum game of billiards with just two or three, islated, electron-stripped particles that most nuclear physicists (including me, back in the day) are used to experimenting with. In condensed matter, living or not, there are as many electrons as protons, so shielding of the coulomb potential, coupled with quantum tunneling is very much on the table.

            The special nature of condensed matter has just been recognized by way of the just-awarded Nobel Prizes in Physics. It is not much of a leap to associate the room temperature superconductivity that this work cites to a link to overcoming the coulomb barrier given particular conditions. In this context – which is broadly about the way quantum theory is now understood to extend far beyond the spectral lines or the “nuclear billiards” of my day – I think it is also valid to note the work of Jim Al-Khalili on the links between quantum physics and biology, for example in this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwgQVZju1ZM – and there is also a least one TED talk as well (google them).

            Bob, I think you are a gem! Which is why I made my recent donation to MFMP. Your scholarly enthusiasm is surely very infectious. And I really like the way you are taking the trouble to read way back into history and so uncovering all the forgotten or nearly forgotten work, some of it going back over a century. In so honoring all those nearly forgotten people, may you also be honored.

          • TOUSSAINT francois

            Well said ! I totally agree !

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks Philip for understanding the value and intent of both testing VV’s claims and the potential for it to solve other intractable problems.

            Thanks also for helping out.

          • Warthog

            I understand exactly how simple and cheap it is (I took a minor in nuclear chemistry on my way to my PhD in analytical). Knowing that, why haven’t there been other replication attempted???

            Answer, because it is just too far away from the mainstream to EVER be accepted, no matter what results MFMP gets.

          • georgehants

            Warthog, that must be the most daft reason any scientist could ever find for not doing Research and investigation.
            ——-
            “Answer, because it is just too far away from the mainstream to EVER be accepted, no matter what results MFMP gets.”
            ——–
            I am sure that it was a little joke reply to make us all laugh but assuming it to be correct, what is your view of “the mainstream”

          • Warthog

            No joke at all, unfortunately. Due to my nuclear chemistry background, I understand exactly how simple this experiment really is. Pretty much any lab equipped to handle even small levels of radioisotopes and with an Na(Tl)I gamma spectrometer. could do it Yet it hasn’t been done.

            I’ve been hearing background rumbles about “biological transmutation” almost as long as LENR has been around, mostly from Russian sources, and even today they are still heard as total crackpottery.

            I fail to see how anything done by MFMP will be viewed differently, no matter how many videos are posted and how “open” the experimentation is.

            There are unfortunate sociological processes that go on within “mainstream science”, and anything more than some numbers sigma around the “mainstream average”, will simply be ignored.

            This topic is one of them.

          • georgehants

            Warthog, many thanks for explanation, just like Cold Fusion etc. sure you agree not a healthy way of thinking for science.
            An attitude or opinion can never change if Cold Fusion or biological Transmutation is genuine, only Research and investigation of the kind MFMP are working on.

            Best

          • Warthog

            “…….sure you agree not a healthy way of thinking for science…

            Oh, I absolutely agree. There are very few “real scientists” who have the proper degree and type of belief and unbelief to handle off-the-wall stuff, and they are often viewed as “slightly dotty” by the mainstream (who are mostly sheep, following the “boss ram” for their particular specialty).

            But, unfortunately, “it is what it is”. I’m sure many sociology dissertations will some day be written about it.

            And based on my understanding of where the “sigma level of complete unbelief” lies (from fifty years as a practicing scientist), LENR is “just” on the safe side, and biological transmutation is not.

          • Frank Acland

            I agree with you about the sociological processes that have such a powerful hold in mainstream science, Warthog, but I don’t think that means people shouldn’t try going where others are are afraid to go because of fear of ‘crackpot’ accusations. That’s something that often comes with being on the cutting edge.

            I like Bob’s idea for this experiment, and would like to see it carried out in a Live Open Science manner. The main obstacle that I see here is going to be one of funding, especially since the proposed experiment could take a long time to carry out. Unfortunately the normal channels of financial support in Science probably won’t be open.

          • INVENTOR INVENTED

            Bull! This will come into the mainstream where it belongs. The conspiracy to suppress this force of nature will be overcome sooner or later.

          • Warthog

            I hope you’re right and I’m wrong. But observations made over fifty years say otherwise.

          • Warthog

            Yes, there certainly is a lot of radiation at Fukushima, but Toyota and Mitsubishi are already working on LENR transmutation to fix that problem.

            What the world needs a LOT more than that is an energy source to replace what caused the problem in the first place.

            And yes, I’m quite aware of how many nuclear plants there are in the US. One of them is about twenty miles from where I grew up. I think it was one of the last (or maybe THE last) reactor to go online before the KGB-funded anti-nuke movement killed civilian fission power.

  • interstellar hobo

    I respect what MFMP tries to do, but honestly they are all over the place. You can only spread butter so thin on a slice of bread. These grand announcements keep being less than their fanfare would suggest. Why not just go back to replicating Celani and prove LENR Is real?

    • Bob Greenyer

      We have spoken extensively with Celani about this very matter over the last week.

      Principally it came down to Mathieu loosing his lab and Celani very significantly moving on in his technology. The new wires take around a week to prepare and it is not a priority for him. We have tentatively agreed to go and document the whole process first of a wire being produced for the record as he is reporting much higher excess now. Then we can consider planning experiments.

      The other thing is that the project is growing and different people want to do their own experiments under our banner and under LOS as you will see. Having said that, our core focus is continuation of our step by step *GlowStick* experiments, with 62ni (Alan Goldwater), Excess Heat (Bob Higgins), Al2 18O3 (Valat/Albiston/Hunt) and replication (David Dagget) in progress.

      Necessarily, under Live Open Science, when you are planning an experiment, people must have an opportunity to criticise from the earliest point in the plan to ensure the best test and potential outcome. Things take time to understand and to be analysed – the crowd participants providing qualified criticism is one of the main components of our approach – right here on these pages are really practical considerations for us and this is just one window on the fruits of experience we are being endowed with.

  • lrao

    Bob,

    I think having the 2 samples in the lazy susan is a great idea.

    But, how do you ensure to observers that
    – First, that the scintillator is measuring correctly (having a single scintillator is also a great idea and solves most of that problem… if you had 2 then, there would be a question about different instruments, calibration, etc. But still you need to ensure folks that the one used is correctly calibrated, etc.)
    – Second, that the the data acquisition is not actually changing the values that it is reading from the scintillator. For example, it could be reading the values and then modifying them to make the experiment look as if it is providing good results. The same is true about the site that is displaying the results.

    My suggestion would be to have the data acquisiton and display code be either certified by a 3rd party, or make it open source and signed with a certificate and follow a root of trust mechanism to ensure that it has not been tampered with.

    When you think about it, the real trust is being put into believing that the measurements and graphs are accurate.

    • Bob Greenyer

      This is a very real question. It is part of the reason that we would want the experiment conducted at a location that would ensure that side of the data acquisition is outside our control.

      We actually could have two sensors, one controlled by us and another controlled by the lab where the experiment is hosted – in this way, if the trend is not reflected by one or other party during the run at any point, we will have a built in verification and no ‘vested interest’ questions should arise.

  • lrao

    Bob,

    I think having the 2 samples in the lazy susan is a great idea.

    But, how do you ensure to observers that
    – First, that the scintillator is measuring correctly (having a single scintillator is also a great idea and solves most of that problem… if you had 2 then, there would be a question about different instruments, calibration, etc. But still you need to ensure folks that the one used is correctly calibrated, etc.)
    – Second, that the the data acquisition is not actually changing the values that it is reading from the scintillator. For example, it could be reading the values and then modifying them to make the experiment look as if it is providing good results. The same is true about the site that is displaying the results.

    My suggestion would be to have the data acquisiton and display code be either certified by a 3rd party, or make it open source and signed with a certificate and follow a root of trust mechanism to ensure that it has not been tampered with.

    When you think about it, the real trust is being put into believing that the measurements and graphs are accurate.

    • Bob Greenyer

      This is a very real question. It is part of the reason that we would want the experiment conducted at a location that would ensure that side of the data acquisition is outside our control.

      We actually could have two sensors, one controlled by us and another controlled by the lab where the experiment is hosted – in this way, if the trend is not reflected by one or other party during the run at any point, we will have a built in verification and no ‘vested interest’ questions should arise.

  • LION

    Bob I enjoyed your video very much, broad minds delve deep secrets, so I recommend this book to you- The Secret Life of Plants by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird, available from Amazon.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks!

  • Ciaranjay

    Just a quick thought regarding EM and biology.
    There has long been suspicions that power lines, or mobile phones can have damaging effects on living organisms. However, despite repeated scientific investigations, no link has been found (as far as I can remember).

    • Bob Greenyer

      There has been backwards and forwards data on this.

      In part, if the biological process can be moderated by EM and these bacteria, when successful can attenuate Cs137 – we effectively have a way to acid test environmental radiation sources, that is to screen them for bio-activity for the first time – and this is the point of the experiment extension.

      First though, we need to conduct the basic replication.

  • Ciaranjay

    Just a quick thought regarding EM and biology.
    There has long been suspicions that power lines, or mobile phones can have damaging effects on living organisms. However, despite repeated scientific investigations, no link has been found (as far as I can recall).

    • Bob Greenyer

      There has been backwards and forwards data on this.

      In part, if the biological process can be moderated by EM and these bacteria, when successful can attenuate Cs137 – we effectively have a way to acid test environmental radiation sources, that is to screen them for bio-activity for the first time – and this is the point of the experiment extension.

      First though, we need to conduct the basic replication.

      • roseland67

        Yes, yes, 1000 x yes.
        Use the same BOM, build instructions, test protocol & measurement procedures and get the same results

  • Edouard Broussalian

    Hi to all. One should read the wonderful work of late Louis Kervran, a French scientist who discovered the phenomenon. Hope some of you can read the language.
    Best
    Ed

  • Good luck Bob. When does this experiment start? Sorry if I missed that being said somewhere.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks

      Well, the key was to get VV agreement here in Sendai and then thrash out the process, hopes, fears and challenges in the open community as we are doing now. You can imagine some of the push back we are getting inside the community if what you see on these pages from non-vested interested people is a benchmark.

      Getting agreement was much harder than envisioned, since it required more than VV approval – then there is the not so insignificant matter of transport of Nuclear and biological agents – actually the latter is easier – the former still needs resolution. Then we need to settle the venue – which needs to be competent and respected – we have one where some members of the organisation are extremely reticent to allowing the experiment to happen and they have problems with obtaining Cs137. We have another potential location and this has less problems with Cs137.

      I suggested re-running at Chernobyl – but VV thinks that from a credibility point of view the next experiments need to happen outside Russia and the former soviet union – and I agree.

      In any case, we need to raise very significant funds to ship and host and run a believable experiment for a number of months with months of preparation. There is a figure being discussed from the VV group to ensure effective delivery based on their previous experience and we need to consider what it would realistically cost from our end to deliver what people might expect us to ensure happens.

      • MorganMck

        So you never answered the question – even with an estimate. The process you describe sounds like it has a lot of large challenges and that we should not expect experiments any time soon if they ever happen at all. As some here have suggested, perhaps there are better uses of your time, energy and funds than fighting this uphill battle at this time. As a wise boss of mine used to say (in reference to the Song of the South folk tale): “think hard before you slug the tar baby.”

        • Bob Greenyer

          We will do a lot of hard thinking before execution – like we normally do.

          The point about opening up the process is that those that may know better or can contribute intellectually to ensure the best experiment possible have ample time to think thinks through. It is pointless and counter productive to do LOS and only announce an experiment on the eve of its commencement.

      • Thanks. I personally want to say I don’t know why anyone is complaining about your approach to things and your plans for this experiment in particular. It all seems reasonable to me. I wish you good hunting on this on all the other stuff you guys are cooking up.

  • Facepalm

    MFMP said that they had found radiation about half a year ago but they never repeated the experiment, and now this! The have lost all credibility.

    • Bob Greenyer

      We did repeat the experiment – that was 5.3, in April, whilst we did not see the gamma, we did see neutrons for the first time and that was the first time that we had detection for neutrons. These came between 305 and 315 ºC core which Denis Cravens noted subsequently is when the wave function of Deuterium matches the Ni lattice. This experiment was done in April.

      At this conference, Brillouin seperately showed that their best results were around 300ºC in their latest generation reactor that used Protium – this is interesting. When I asked if they had used deuterium, they said yes, when I asked what the result was, they said it was a little better.

      We stepped back from experimenting to develop a Neutron detection system and to prepare to run 62Ni and Al2 18O3 experiments. In the interim time, Brian Albiston had a high temperature, pressure related, Geiger counts variation triggered when re-pressurising a cell.

      In addition, we had holidays, Mathieu lost his lab and we wrote a paper which is due to be published in next CMNS.

      There are people out there that do not want us to do this VV experiment, even within the LENR inner circle – for obvious competitive reasons. Given that this is only the second time a claimant has agreed to work directly with us and subject themselves to open scrutiny – we would be fools to not take it.

      Moreover, precisely the reason you cite as causing a loss of “credibility” is the reason why this experiment is so attractive – that is that it has always been hard to impossible to observe radiation and even “excess heat” on subsequent experiments by any researcher except in experiments that are more closely related to “hot” fusion. In the case of biological transmutation of Cs137 – there is always the key gamma line and we will be looking for its attenuation. Furthermore, if the process is real, it operates comfortably in achievable temperatures and there is room for manoeuvre with a biological system where there may simply not be in a purely inorganic set-up.

      This is no way is going to stop our planned *GlowStick* experiments.

      Lastly, we have been working to ensure that David Dagget of Phonon Energy is able to do the best replication of *GlowStick* 5.2 by any party – all other replication attempts have been wildly divergent from our own experiment apparatus – and given that 5.3 was very close and we did not see gamma – trying something very different physically has little hope. We wish him well in the coming weeks.

      How is your research going, have you anything to offer in constructive criticism for any of the work we have done or are planning?

      • Facepalm

        Thanks for clearing things up for me, I wrote in anger. I wish David Dagget god luck, and I do appreciate your efforts to replicate, but I have no hope that you will be able to prove “biological transmutations” Sorry.

        • Bruce__H

          But it is win-win isn’t it? If Mr. Greenyer is able to replicate biological transmutation then that is something and if he isn’t able to replicate the results under these very public conditions then that is something too!

          I think the whole open science experience is going to be very educational for everyone. The only thing I worry about is if someone backs out midway through things

          • Bob Greenyer

            It is a real fear Bruce, however, we have potentially 3 venues for the experiment now – the most difficult part is getting the Cs137 and doing the handling.

        • Bob Greenyer

          We are testing claims, proof will only come by reality – you have no need to apologise.

      • Gerard McEk

        Hi Bob,
        About these new tests with the glow stick, are they going to use any of the Doppelgänger ingredients to prove that theory? Which ingredients are they going to use?

        • Bob Greenyer

          We have arranged tentatively another party to conduct at test on learning from that who is equipped to conduct it with the toxic chemicals.

      • roseland67

        Nice Bob

  • Stephen

    Hi Bob, I don’t know if this is a silly question of not but… although I think the main experiment should be visible I wonder if it would be possible to have a parallel or subsequent experiment run in a dark environment and see if any spectral emissions are emitted over time? If so if the spectra are good resolution it might be very interesting see what it tells us.

    • Bob Greenyer

      This is under consideration, another fresh faced and new researcher here has developed a spectral system and is keen to have it deployed on a bioreactor.

  • Stephen

    Hi Bob, I don’t know if this is a silly question of not but… although I think the main experiment should be visible I wonder if it would be possible to have a parallel or subsequent experiment run in a dark environment and see if any spectral emissions are emitted over time? Perhaps with long integration times if necessary. If so if the spectra are good resolution it might be very interesting see what it tells us.

    • Bob Greenyer

      This is under consideration, another fresh faced and new researcher here has developed a spectral system and is keen to have it deployed on a bioreactor.

      • LENR4you

        Dear Bob, look at the link there you can find a Bioreactor for High-throughput bioprocess development in the milliliter scale. Designed for the scale-down of biotechnological production processes into the milliliter-scale, developed for efficient process development and high throughput screenings in the biotechnological, chemical and pharmaceutical research, simple handling with very high time and cost savings due to the parallelization and miniaturization. http://www.2mag.de/en/products/bioreactor-e.html

        • Bob Greenyer

          Nice contribution LENR4You, thankyou

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Perhaps the transmutations are taking place in microtubules. Synthesize some microtubules and give it a try? (at 7:00 min.).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQngptkPYE8

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      Like carbon nanotubes.
      http://disq.us/p/kxg1pr

      • Stephen

        Thanks Alan that’s a very interesting thread

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Perhaps the transmutations are taking place in microtubules. Synthesize some microtubules and give it a try? (at 7:00 min.).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQngptkPYE8

    • Alan DeAngelis

      PS
      Like carbon nanotubes.
      http://disq.us/p/kxg1pr

      • Stephen

        Thanks Alan that’s a very interesting thread

  • Bob Greenyer

    We did repeat the experiment – that was 5.3, in April, whilst we did not see the gamma, we did see neutrons for the first time and that was the first time that we had detection for neutrons. These came between 305 and 315 ºC core which Denis Cravens noted subsequently is when the wave function of Deuterium matches the Ni lattice. This experiment was done in April.

    At this conference, Brillouin seperately showed that their best results were around 300ºC in their latest generation reactor that used Protium – this is interesting. When I asked if they had used deuterium, they said yes, when I asked what the result was, they said it was a little better.

    We stepped back from experimenting to develop a Neutron detection system and to prepare to run 62Ni and Al2 18O3 experiments. In the interim time, Brian Albiston had a high temperature, pressure related, Geiger counts variation triggered when re-pressurising a cell.

    In addition, we had holidays, Mathieu lost his lab and we wrote a paper which is due to be published in next CMNS.

    There are people out there that do not want us to do this VV experiment, even within the LENR inner circle – for obvious competitive reasons. Given that this is only the second time a claimant has agreed to work directly with us and subject themselves to open scrutiny – we would be fools to not take it.

    Moreover, precisely the reason you cite as causing a loss of “credibility” is the reason why this experiment is so attractive – that is that it has always been hard to impossible to observe radiation and even “excess heat” on subsequent experiments. In the case of the Cs137 – there is always the key gamma line and we will be looking for its attenuation. Furthermore, if the process is real, there is room for manoeuvre with a biological system where there may simply not be in a purely inorganic set-up.

    This is no way is to stop our planned *GlowStick* experiments.

    Lastly, we have been working to ensure that David Dagget of Phonon Energy is able to do the best replication of *GlowStick* 5.2 by any party – all other replication attempts have been wildly divergent from our own experiment apparatus – and given that 5.3 was very close and we did not see gamma – trying something very different physically has little hope. We wish him well in the coming weeks.

    How is your research going, have you anything to offer in constructive criticism for any of the work we have done or are planning?

    • Gerard McEk

      Hi Bob,
      About these new tests with the glow stick, are they going to use any of the Doppelgänger ingredients to prove that theory? Which ingredients are they going to use?

      • Bob Greenyer

        We have arranged tentatively another party to conduct at test on learning from that who is equipped to conduct it with the toxic chemicals.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thanks

    Well, the key was to get VV agreement here in Sendai and then thrash out the process, hopes, fears and challenges in the open community as we are doing now. You can imagine some of the push back we are getting inside the community if what you see on these pages from non-vested interested people is a benchmark.

    Getting agreement was much harder than envisioned, since it required more than VV approval – then there is the not so insignificant matter of transport of Nuclear and biological agents – actually the latter is easier – the former still needs resolution. Then we need to settle the venue – which needs to be competent and respected – we have one where some members of the organisation are extremely reticent to allowing the experiment to happen and they have problems with obtaining Cs137. We have another potential location and this has less problems with Cs137.

    I suggested re-running at Chernobyl – but VV thinks that from a credibility point of view the next experiments need to happen outside Russia and the former soviet union – and I agree.

    In any case, we need to raise very significant funds to ship and host and run a believable experiment for a number of months with months of preparation. There is a figure being discussed from the VV group to ensure effective delivery based on their previous experience and we need to consider what it would realistically cost from our end to deliver what people might expect us to ensure happens.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We have spoken extensively with Celani about this very matter over the last week.

    Principally it came down to Mathieu loosing his lab and Celani very significantly moving on in his technology. The new wires take around a week to prepare and it is not a priority for him. We have tentatively agreed to go and document the whole process first of a wire being produced for the record as he is reporting much higher excess now. Then we can consider planning experiments.

    The other thing is that the project is growing and different people want to do their own experiments under our banner and under LOS as you will see. Having said that, our core focus is continuation of our step by step *GlowStick* experiments, with 62ni (Alan Goldwater), Excess Heat (Bob Higgins), Al2 18O3 (Valat/Albiston/Hunt) and replication (David Dagget) in progress.

    Necessarily, under Live Open Science, when you are planning an experiment, people must have an opportunity to criticise from the earliest point in the plan to ensure the best test and potential outcome. Things take time to understand and to be analysed – the crowd participants providing qualified criticism is one of the main components of our approach – right here on these pages are really practical considerations for us and this is just one window on the fruits of experience we are being endowed with.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Parkhomov continues – he was pilloried by the community for trying to interpret his embarrassing data drop outs and so conducts his research as h sees fit.

    Me356 was hounded mercilessly and this along with the observation of large numbers of neutrons led him to step back and conduct his experiments in peace.

    E48 has no connection to MFMP other than rightly being critical of our work and trying to add value.

    If we want an experiment to happen in 2nd Quarter of next year – we cannot announce it then in the LOS method – we have to allow people in at all stages – this may appear unfocussed but the reality is all organisations that are successful need to have plans in various stages of development. The Neutron detector is near completion (we’d like to calibrate them and this is no easy feat), the 62Ni is near ready as is the 18O – the attempt for high excess is well advanced as is the first proper independent replications of GS5.3. Plus we have been working hard to analyse and report our past experiments as will be evident in the up and coming CMNS paper. We have been focussed.

    Putting a proposal for LENR Live experiments out there is not to say we are going to do them, they are just things to consider.

    I hope to report on Max’s work presented here at ICCF – he has gone into the annuls of difficult fusion related science over the past century and has conducted two very important replications of past authors work but with modern techniques – such as the 1922 exploding wires experiments with extraordinary results and new detail.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Hi Invient, would you be able to find references for the comments you have made here?

  • Bob Greenyer

    There is the case of the Indian baby – happened repeatedly in front of the doctors.

    The QED (Quad Erat Demonstrandum) program by the BBC that I saw when it was first broadcast and put forward and tested the fabric/wick theory.

    It showed that little damage would occur to the surroundings, it did not account for the bones being turned to ash and the timing was far longer than some reported cases.

    Of course this is woo woo, but I was Identifying with the mood expressed by some here at even the notion of doing this replication attempt. I do not occupy myself with thoughts of this kind, testing the claims made by LENR researchers is my focus.

  • sam
  • sam
  • Axil Axil

    The mechanism that hides and thermalizes the energy from nuclear reactions and amplifies LENR power in microbes is Bose condinsation that the bugs maintain.

  • Axil Axil

    Hexagonal crystal structures (graphite, quartz, mica,…) has an effect on the strength of the weak force. This pattern might be the key to how microorganisms effect radioactive decay rates.

    In an initial example, if mica is placed near a unstable isotope, the rate of decay of that isotope changes.

    Reference:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ViQL7Y0Kx28J:pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/246vysotskii.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    A sheet of mica near a radioactive source changes the gamma decay probability

    A year before announcing the microbial effect on 137Cs, Vysotskii and his colleagues (from Moscow State University) made another announcement. That was at the 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF10, August 2003). Their paper, entitled “The theory and experimental investigation of controlled spontaneous conversion nuclear decay of radioactive isotopes,” can be downloaded from the library at . Let me summarize the experimental part of that interesting paper.

    A radioactive source — 57Co — (T=257 days decaying into 57Fe by K-capture) — was placed in front of a detector. Gamma rays of energies of 136.4 keV, 122 keV and 14.4 keV, emitted from the 57Fe nuclei (T=1 nsec) were recorded. There is nothing new about this; the energy diagram of the decay process is shown below.

    I can easily imagine three gamma ray peaks in a multichannel analyzer. What is new and interesting is the effect thin mica sheets on relative intensities of the peaks. The authors discovered that the ratios of peak intensities can be changed by introducing a 50-microns-thin mica sheet into the region between the source and the detector. Labeling the areas below the peaks as N14, N122 and N136 they characterized the effect of mica by the ratio R, defines as N14.4/(N122+N136). By changing the distance X, between the source and the mica sheet, they discovered that, R depends on X, as illustrated below.

    http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/246figure2.jpg

    Unfortunately, no bars of errors were assigned to individual data points and nothing was stated about reproducibility of results. For example, is R always equal to 0.82 when X=250 microns? And is R always equal to 0.88 when X=420 microns? I will assume that observations were reproducible and that the error bars were “too small to be shown.” To give the authors all benefits of my doubt, I will also assume that control experiments were performed to show that equivalent screens made from other materials had negligible effect on the values of R at different X.

    Taking these assumptions for granted I tentatively accept the main claim of the paper: “In these experiments we discovered an inhibition of the conversion channel for nuclear decay by 7–10%, and a change (increase) of the total lifetime for the radioactive 57Fe* isotope by 6–9%, at the optimal size X of the slot, in relation to spontaneous decay in free space without the thin mica crystal.”

    P.S.
    This mica screening effect on 57Fe is not as strong as the bacterial effect on 137Cs. But each of these effects, if confirmed by other researchers, will show that the prevailing point of view has only a limited validity. Emission of gamma rays is a nuclear effect and ability of influencing it by screening the source with a thin sheet of mica (a mono-crystal) is not consistent with the prevailing point of view. How can a crystal, situated hundreds of microns from the atomic nuclei of the source influence what happens in the nuclei? To answer this question one should be able to understand the theoretical part of the paper. Unfortunately, i do not understand it, due to my very limited background in theoretical physics. But I would very much like to know what theoretical physicists think about the paper. By skimming the first part of the paper I notice that the explanation is based, among other things, on the concept of “zero-energy.” The authors claim that experimental results confirm their theory.

    ObservationsFrom 1935 Kervran [28] collected facts and performed experiments, which showed that transmutations of chemicalelements do indeed occur in living organisms. It started when he investigated fatal accidents from carbon monoxidepoisoning when none was detectable in the air. Next he analysed why Sahara oilfield workers excreted a daily average of 320 mg more calcium than they ingested without decalcification occurring.Kervran pointed out that the ground in Brittany contained no calcium; however, every day a hen would lay a perfectly normal egg, with a perfectly normal shell containing calcium. The hens eagerly pecked mica from the soil, and mica contains potassium. It appears that the hens may transmute some of the potassium into calcium.

    Also See

    http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/JCMNS-Biberian.pdf

    [quote]5.11. Correntin Louis Kervran (1901–1983)

    Kervran is certainly the most well-known scientist having worked in the field of biological transmutations. He had a
    broad knowledge of plants, geology and nuclear science. His findings have been published in French in ten books [26],
    some of them have been translated into English [27]. He was also nominated for the Nobel Prize.
    Observations

    From 1935 Kervran [28] collected facts and performed experiments, which showed that transmutations of chemical
    elements do indeed occur in living organisms. It started when he investigated fatal accidents from carbon monoxide
    poisoning when none was detectable in the air. Next he analysed why Sahara oilfield workers excreted a daily average
    of 320 mg more calcium than they ingested without decalcification occurring.

    Kervran pointed out that the ground in Brittany contained no calcium; however, every day a hen would lay a perfectly
    normal egg, with a perfectly normal shell containing calcium. The hens eagerly pecked mica from the soil, and mica
    contains potassium. It appears that the hens may transmute some of the potassium into calcium.[/quote]

    Next, Rossi uses mica between his heater and fuel. That mica forms a magnetic filter that lets pass the correct magnetic moiré LENR simulation pattern which excites the weak force in the nucleus to decay the nucleons.

    Metallic hydrides also are formed on the hexagonal atomic layout and also generate nucleon decay via the weak force.

  • Axil Axil

    Hexagonal crystal structures (graphite, quartz, mica,…) has an effect on the strength of the weak force. This crystal pattern might be the key to how microorganisms effect radioactive decay rates.

    In an initial example, if mica is placed near a unstable isotope, the rate of decay of that isotope changes.

    Reference:

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ViQL7Y0Kx28J:pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/246vysotskii.html+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

    A sheet of mica near a radioactive source changes the gamma decay probability

    A year before announcing the microbial effect on 137Cs, Vysotskii and his colleagues (from Moscow State University) made another announcement. That was at the 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF10, August 2003). Their paper, entitled “The theory and experimental investigation of controlled spontaneous conversion nuclear decay of radioactive isotopes,” can be downloaded from the library at . Let me summarize the experimental part of that interesting paper.

    A radioactive source — 57Co — (T=257 days decaying into 57Fe by K-capture) — was placed in front of a detector. Gamma rays of energies of 136.4 keV, 122 keV and 14.4 keV, emitted from the 57Fe nuclei (T=1 nsec) were recorded. There is nothing new about this; the energy diagram of the decay process is shown below.

    I can easily imagine three gamma ray peaks in a multichannel analyzer. What is new and interesting is the effect thin mica sheets on relative intensities of the peaks. The authors discovered that the ratios of peak intensities can be changed by introducing a 50-microns-thin mica sheet into the region between the source and the detector. Labeling the areas below the peaks as N14, N122 and N136 they characterized the effect of mica by the ratio R, defines as N14.4/(N122+N136). By changing the distance X, between the source and the mica sheet, they discovered that, R depends on X, as illustrated below.

    Unfortunately, no bars of errors were assigned to individual data points and nothing was stated about reproducibility of results. For example, is R always equal to 0.82 when X=250 microns? And is R always equal to 0.88 when X=420 microns? I will assume that observations were reproducible and that the error bars were “too small to be shown.” To give the authors all benefits of my doubt, I will also assume that control experiments were performed to show that equivalent screens made from other materials had negligible effect on the values of R at different X.

    Taking these assumptions for granted I tentatively accept the main claim of the paper: “In these experiments we discovered an inhibition of the conversion channel for nuclear decay by 7–10%, and a change (increase) of the total lifetime for the radioactive 57Fe* isotope by 6–9%, at the optimal size X of the slot, in relation to spontaneous decay in free space without the thin mica crystal.”

    P.S.
    This mica screening effect on 57Fe is not as strong as the bacterial effect on 137Cs. But each of these effects, if confirmed by other researchers, will show that the prevailing point of view has only a limited validity. Emission of gamma rays is a nuclear effect and ability of influencing it by screening the source with a thin sheet of mica (a mono-crystal) is not consistent with the prevailing point of view. How can a crystal, situated hundreds of microns from the atomic nuclei of the source influence what happens in the nuclei? To answer this question one should be able to understand the theoretical part of the paper. Unfortunately, i do not understand it, due to my very limited background in theoretical physics. But I would very much like to know what theoretical physicists think about the paper. By skimming the first part of the paper I notice that the explanation is based, among other things, on the concept of “zero-energy.” The authors claim that experimental results confirm their theory.

    ObservationsFrom 1935 Kervran [28] collected facts and performed experiments, which showed that transmutations of chemicalelements do indeed occur in living organisms. It started when he investigated fatal accidents from carbon monoxidepoisoning when none was detectable in the air. Next he analysed why Sahara oilfield workers excreted a daily average of 320 mg more calcium than they ingested without decalcification occurring.Kervran pointed out that the ground in Brittany contained no calcium; however, every day a hen would lay a perfectly normal egg, with a perfectly normal shell containing calcium. The hens eagerly pecked mica from the soil, and mica contains potassium. It appears that the hens may transmute some of the potassium into calcium.

    Also See

    http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/JCMNS-Biberian.pdf

    “5.11. Correntin Louis Kervran (1901–1983)

    Kervran is certainly the most well-known scientist having worked in the field of biological transmutations. He had a
    broad knowledge of plants, geology and nuclear science. His findings have been published in French in ten books [26],
    some of them have been translated into English [27]. He was also nominated for the Nobel Prize.
    Observations

    From 1935 Kervran [28] collected facts and performed experiments, which showed that transmutations of chemical
    elements do indeed occur in living organisms. It started when he investigated fatal accidents from carbon monoxide
    poisoning when none was detectable in the air. Next he analysed why Sahara oilfield workers excreted a daily average
    of 320 mg more calcium than they ingested without decalcification occurring.

    Kervran pointed out that the ground in Brittany contained no calcium; however, every day a hen would lay a perfectly
    normal egg, with a perfectly normal shell containing calcium. The hens eagerly pecked mica from the soil, and mica
    contains potassium. It appears that the hens may transmute some of the potassium into calcium.”

    Next, Rossi uses mica between his heater and fuel. That mica forms a magnetic filter that lets pass the correct magnetic moiré LENR simulation pattern which excites the weak force in the nucleus to decay the nucleons.

    Metallic hydrides also are formed on the hexagonal atomic layout and also generate nucleon decay via the weak force.

  • georgehants

    It is unbelievable to still have people on page advising MFMP not to dare to perform genuine open-minded science.
    Follow the religious Dogma of the “expert” opinions of the holy priests like sheep and never actually experiment or investigate to find the Truth they say.
    Thank god for that small band of True scientists, that have not had most of their brains lobotomized by an establishment education and system designed to turn out frightened clones, with the scientific abilities of a peanut.
    ——–
    “Being different will always threaten the institution of
    understanding of a closed mind. However, evolution is built on
    difference, changing and the concept of thinking outside the box. Live
    to be your own unique brand, without apology.”
    Shannon L. Alder
    ——–
    “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
    Benjamin Franklin

    • – Fully agree and this business of not daring to contradict an authority figure or saying that “If an experiment were so easy to perform, it would have been performed long ago” has proved to be very costly to human progress.

      At around 350 BC, Aristotle claimed that (air resistance aside) heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects, in proportion to their respective weights. That went unchallenged for over 1900 years when, in 1589 AD, Galileo dropped a large and a small cannon ball from the Leaning Tower of Pisa with the result we all know about today. Not a difficult experiment to perform, especially since an even simpler version of could have been performed by Plato offering to simultaneously drop a heavy stone clear of Aristotle foot but also a lighter one vertically above it, with the idea that Aristotle could start moving his foot clear the moment the heavier stone had landed. For the lack of that – the dawn of the true scientific method – the world missed out on what would have been the hilarious spectacle of Aristotle hobbling around on his bruised foot, muttering into his beard for a day or two afterwards and – oh yes – 1900 years of scientific progress!

  • georgehants

    It is unbelievable to still have people on page advising MFMP not to dare to perform genuine open-minded science.
    Follow the religious Dogma of the “expert” opinions of the holy priests like sheep and never actually experiment or investigate to find the Truth they say.
    Thank god for that small band of True scientists, that have not had most of their brains lobotomized by an establishment education and system designed to turn out frightened clones, with the scientific progress abilities of a peanut.
    ——–
    “Being different will always threaten the institution of
    understanding of a closed mind. However, evolution is built on
    difference, changing and the concept of thinking outside the box. Live
    to be your own unique brand, without apology.”
    Shannon L. Alder
    ——–
    “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
    Benjamin Franklin

    • – Fully agree and this business of not daring to contradict an authority figure or saying that “If an experiment were so easy to perform, it would have been performed long ago” has proved to be very costly to human progress.

      At around 350 BC, Aristotle claimed that (air resistance aside) heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects, in proportion to their respective weights. That went unchallenged for over 1900 years when, in 1589 AD, Galileo dropped a large and a small cannon ball from the Leaning Tower of Pisa with the result we all know about today. Not a difficult experiment to perform, especially since an even simpler version of could have been performed by Plato offering to simultaneously drop a heavy stone clear of Aristotle foot but also a lighter one vertically above it, with the idea that Aristotle could start moving his foot clear the moment the heavier stone had landed. For the lack of that – the dawn of the true scientific method – the world missed out on what would have been the hilarious spectacle of Aristotle hobbling around on his bruised foot, muttering into his beard for a day or two afterwards and – oh yes – 1900 years of scientific progress!

  • artefact
  • hunfgerh

    Transmutation from 137 Cs to 137Ba.

    Bob says that it appears that the bacteria are able to “push” a proton into the element and speed up the change.
    I say that happens on the way
    P+ + e- –> n e-capture
    137Cs + n –> 138Cs –> 137Ba + ß- n-capture/ß-decay

    In the case of Bob you need a collider.
    In my case you need a hydridic-superconductiv System (biological nature) and a small potential as in biological-systems always occur.

    If you need more information for understanding see:
    https://sites.google.com/site/h2sucofu/

    • Bob Greenyer

      You misunderstand the claimed observed reaction.

      The normal 30.17 year decay is 137Cs –> 137Ba (Stable)

      The observed ‘biological’ reaction is 137Cs –> 138Ba (Stable)

      The 1978 US Army report (linked in video description/pdf) hypothesises is that that Mg Adenosine Triphosphate stacks up to form a molecular proton accellerator

      • hunfgerh

        Correction
        137Cs + n –> 138Cs –> 138Ba + ß-
        t/2=30,17a (137Cs)
        t/2= 33,41 min (138Cs)
        t/2= stable (138Ba)

        Thanks for your attention.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Er….

          but mitochondria/bacteria don’t have a ready supply of n, but they do have a ready supply of H+ (protons), I am not sure therefore why you think this is the path since all that is needed to explain this is 137Cs + proton –> 138Ba

          • hunfgerh

            “but mitochondria/bacteria don’t have a ready supply of n, but they do have a ready supply of H+ (protons).”
            But (H+) plus an electron gives a H (Hydrogenatom). Acts a high current density to this Hydrogenatom you get a slow neutron by e-capture. For the high current density you need a nanoscale superconductor and a small potentialdifference (energy-source for the e-capture).
            Otherwise give please an answer to the energy-source and the way for the proton-capture.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I care not much for the underlying process, more that it happens, there is no radiation and the possibility that it can be used as a switch to see what EM can be therapeutic.

            The basis for my commentary comes from the 1978 US Army report – this is what they said. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/575087c55cfb2d2688fc82ab51236fd09e01edac1e90e176f21ee90e7ec6520c.png

  • chemist

    A search on Web of Science for publications by author “Vysotskii V” and topic “transmutation” showed two published papers and six Abstracts from meetings. The two papers, from 2013 and 2015, were cited five times and once, respectively. These six ciations were all self-citations by dr. Vysotskii himself.

    • georgehants

      Interesting, I could not find the number of papers and attached citations for the billions of wasted money spent on hot fusion with no positive results of any kind.
      It would appear that such numbers have no connection with if they are published on a successful discovery or a failure.
      I did find many reports of fraudulent and retracted papers in chemistry.

  • chemist

    A search on Web of Science for publications by author “Vysotskii V” and topic “transmutation” showed two published papers and six Abstracts from meetings. The two papers, from 2013 and 2015, were cited five times and once, respectively. These six ciations were all self-citations by dr. Vysotskii himself.

    • georgehants

      Interesting, I could not find the total number of papers and attached citations for the billions of wasted money spent on hot fusion with no positive results of any kind.
      It would appear that such numbers have no connection with if they are published on a successful discovery or a failure.
      I did find many reports of fraudulent and retracted papers in chemistry.

  • Rossi Fan

    > Vladimir Vysotskii has agreed a sum

    Would he take an Orbo? I paid $1000 Euro for it. It’s still generating power like gangbusters.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Should have bought a $14 dollar solar, wind-up radio, torch and device re-charger like I advised at the time 😉

  • Rossi Fan

    > Vladimir Vysotskii has agreed a sum

    Would he take an Orbo? I paid $1000 Euro for it. It’s still generating power like gangbusters.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Should have bought a $14 solar, wind-up radio, torch and device re-charger like I advised at the time 😉

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thanks

  • SD

    @bobgreenyer:disqus

    A comment from Jed: “I cannot judge, but people who understand spectroscopy tell me that Vystotskii’s mass spectrometer is not adequate to the task, and it cannot produce the results he claims. It does not resolve isotope differences well enough.”

    I hope you will get in touch with specialists in spectroscopy so as to get a bulletproof experiment, rather than only rely on VV’s team’s protocol.

    Nice work, Im rooting for the MFMP!

    • Warthog

      “It does not resolve isotope differences well enough.”

      The MS doesn’t NEED to “resolve isotope differences”. Cs forms a monovalent ion (Cs+)….Ba forms a divalent ion (Ba++). Those two species behave totally differently in mass spectrograms, due to the gigantic charge difference on the atoms. Cs137 and Ba137 are indeed VERY close in mass, but mass isn’t the only separating mechanism at work.

      Jed needs to stick to being a librarian.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Moreover, Cs readily dissolves in water, Barium does not so much

        • Warthog

          Well, if you are going to feed a sample to an ICP-MS, you will need to get it all into solution.

          • Bob Greenyer

            yes… I meant in the growing medium during the experiment

    • Bob Greenyer

      There is very strong support across a wide spectrum of the community to see this conducted properly for better or words. Even the people Jed cites, who I have spoken too, still want to do the Cs137 experiment given half the chance – the “does not resolve isotope differences well enough” is the right conservative language given the potential significance of this test. In the Cs137 experiment, the gamma rate would be all that is needed.

      • Warthog

        “does not resolve isotope differences well enough” is the right
        conservative language given the potential significance of this test. In
        the Cs137..

        No, it is an indication that those making the comment do NOT properly understand the technology they are discussing, but are once again doing the typical pathological skeptic generation of a hurricane of FUD.

        Isotopic separation simply DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL to this case.

  • SD

    @bobgreenyer:disqus

    A comment from Jed: “I cannot judge, but people who understand spectroscopy tell me that Vystotskii’s mass spectrometer is not adequate to the task, and it cannot produce the results he claims. It does not resolve isotope differences well enough.”

    I hope you will get in touch with specialists in spectroscopy so as to get a bulletproof experiment, rather than only rely on VV’s team’s protocol.

    Nice work, Im rooting for the MFMP!

    • Warthog

      “It does not resolve isotope differences well enough.”

      The MS doesn’t NEED to “resolve isotope differences”. Cs forms a monovalent ion (Cs+)….Ba forms a divalent ion (Ba++). Those two species behave totally differently in mass spectrograms, due to the gigantic charge difference on the atoms. Cs137 and Ba137 are indeed VERY close in mass, but mass isn’t the only separating mechanism at work. The actual mechanism is MASS TO CHARGE RATIO..
      This is true of both magnetic sector and TOF (time of flight) mass spectrometers.

      Jed needs to stick to being a librarian.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Moreover, Cs readily dissolves in water, Barium does not so much

        • Warthog

          Well, if you are going to feed a sample to an ICP-MS, you will need to get it all into solution.

          • Bob Greenyer

            yes… I meant in the growing medium during the experiment

    • Bob Greenyer

      There is very strong support across a wide spectrum of the community to see this conducted properly for better or worse. Even the people Jed cites, who I have spoken too, still want to do the Cs137 experiment given half the chance – the “does not resolve isotope differences well enough” is the right conservative language given the potential significance of this test. In the Cs137 experiment, the gamma rate would be all that is needed and we need not concern ourselves with isotopic debates.

      • Warthog

        “does not resolve isotope differences well enough” is the right
        conservative language given the potential significance of this test. In
        the Cs137..

        No, it is an indication that those making the comment do NOT properly understand the technology they are discussing, but are once again doing the typical pathological skeptic generation of a hurricane of FUD.

        Isotopic separation simply DOES NOT APPLY AT ALL to this case.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Nice contribution LENR4You, thankyou

  • Bob Greenyer

    We are testing claims, proof will only come by reality – you have no need to apologise.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Slightly OT. Concerning crackpottery and what is considered as such, there is a Finnish scientist (professor of acoustics) who studied sounds produced by auroras. There were old folklore about it and some old research, but at some point someone had said that sound cannot propagate down from auroral altitude (100 km or so) and therefore the subject was generally considered crackpottery. Also this acoustics professor didn’t get any funding, he did experimental studies of it on his own account. He worked on it some 15 years until finally finding out that the sounds were real and produced at the so-called meteorological inversion layer some 70m above ground. He thinks charged particles somehow accumulate in that layer and produce small electric discharges which one may hear as hiss and crackle sounds. Now the solution is accepted and the topic is no longer considered crackpottery.

    Some points:
    1) Originally it wasn’t considered crackpottery, but the crackpottery period started when some influential scientist reasoned that sound couldn’t propagate down from 100km, and even if it did, there would be a significant time delay which was at odds with the reports. No explanation->crackpottery.
    2) The tide turned when he showed by 3-D acoustic where the source region was (70m altitude). He didn’t show much more; the theory is still rather sketchy: we don’t know exactly why and how the charges accumulate in the inversion layer. But this didn’t prohibit mainstream science from accepting the result.

    The story has some parallels to the Lenr story, although of course the societal significance is many orders of magnitude less.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Slightly OT. Concerning crackpottery and what is considered as such, there is a Finnish scientist (professor of acoustics) who studied sounds produced by auroras. There were old folklore about it and some old research, but at some point someone had said that sound cannot propagate down from auroral altitude (100 km or so) and therefore the subject was generally considered crackpottery. Also this acoustics professor didn’t get any funding, he did experimental studies of it on his own account. He worked on it some 15 years until finally finding out that the sounds were real and produced at the so-called meteorological inversion layer some 70m above ground. He thinks charged particles somehow accumulate in that layer and produce small electric discharges which one may hear as hiss and crackle sounds. Now the solution is accepted and the topic is no longer considered crackpottery.

    Some points:
    1) Originally it wasn’t considered crackpottery, but the crackpottery period started when some influential scientist reasoned that sound couldn’t propagate down from 100km, and even if it did, there would be a significant time delay which was at odds with the reports. No explanation->crackpottery.
    2) The tide turned when he showed by 3-D acoustic where the source region was (70m altitude). He didn’t show much more; the theory is still rather sketchy: we don’t know exactly why and how the charges accumulate in the inversion layer. But this didn’t prohibit mainstream science from accepting the result.

    The story has some parallels to the Lenr story, although of course the societal significance is many orders of magnitude less.

  • Bruce__H

    Given this latest venture of the MFMP into the biological realm, I wonder if the Paul Allen Frontiers Group would be willing to fund the research. You should take a look.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Hi Bruce, can you make an approach on behalf of the project?

      • Bob Greenyer

        It is a real fear Bruce, however, we have potentially 3 venues for the experiment now – the most difficult part is getting the Cs137 and doing the handling.

  • Bruce__H

    Given this latest venture of the MFMP into the biological realm, I wonder if the Paul Allen Frontiers Group would be willing to fund the research. You should take a look.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Hi Bruce, can you make an approach on behalf of the project?

      • Bruce__H

        I’ll check it out.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Thanks

          • Bruce__H

            I’ve been trying to find out who I might know in this organization (the Paul Allen Frontiers group) but it turns out I am not familiar with any of the players. Moreover, the people I’ve asked say it has an unusual structure for a funding body and does not invite submissions of any kind. The awards they make seem to be most like the MacArthur genius awards with a mysterious process behind it. So I don’t see a way in here. Sorry.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks for looking.

  • Warthog

    I hope you’re right and I’m wrong. But observations made over fifty years say otherwise.

  • sam

    Comment from Lenr forum

    Bob
    User Avatar
    Student
    ???
    Yesterday, 3:26pm
    So I guess this was the announcement of the “bullet proof” test for LENR?

    However, if I understand correctly, this is not really a planned test yet, but a video request from Bob Greenyer to
    Vladimir Vysotskii to allow the test?

    I do not know what to think about this. It has some conclusions that require a stretch of the imagination, but interesting none the less.
    I think it probably premature to be talking about “particle accelerators” inside mitochondria, but hey, I am not an expert!

    The proposed test does seem to have a simplicity that is very desirable. The big question is can Vysotskii duplicate the transmutation at
    will and will he allow the test to be performed?

    I also scratch my head a little about the core process! It seems to fly in the face of almost all current LENR theories

    1) NAE required? Bacterial are not metallic, so no NAE would seem likely.
    2) High temperature to initiate? No. This would incinerate the organism.
    3) EMF or magnetic component? One would not think so in a living organism. Video stated the
    opposite, that EMF / Magnetic fields could actually suppress the reaction.
    4) Production of excess heat? Perhaps, but not high temperature or volume.
    5) Hydrogen required? I saw nothing in the presentation about hydrogen.

    Evidently there is some proprietary “mechanical” device that Vysotskii uses and is required.
    However, some of the given evidence of bacteria found in the soil at Chernobyl would not have
    had this. It will be interesting to see what this device consists of that allows bacteria to
    conduct such reactions.

    So it would appear at first glance, if this is “LENR”, it must be a completely different process than the F&P electrolysis
    PD system or the Hydrogen / Nickel systems?

    Interesting indeed. Will we see anything come of this?

    • Axil Axil

      The mechanism that hides and thermalizes the energy from nuclear reactions and amplifies LENR power in microbes is Bose condinsation that the bugs maintain.

    • Axil Axil

      https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36824/ApplicationCoherentCorrelatedPresentation.pdf?sequence=2

      Application of Coherent Correlated States in LENR

      Vladimir I.Vysotskii believes in Coherent Correlated States as a fundamental driver of the LENR reaction.

    • Bob Greenyer

      1) VV believes it is in one of two places, the point of cell division or in the pores – he was not aware of the 1978 report until I showed it to him this week that proposes that the effect is due to MgATP.
      2) No – bio temperatures like 38 degrees
      3) There are strong electric fields set up in mitochondria/cell membrane pores
      4) Possibly – not significant
      5) Yes protium (H) is required and comes from ions in water

  • sam

    Comment from Lenr forum

    Bob
    User Avatar
    Student
    ???
    Yesterday, 3:26pm
    So I guess this was the announcement of the “bullet proof” test for LENR?

    However, if I understand correctly, this is not really a planned test yet, but a video request from Bob Greenyer to
    Vladimir Vysotskii to allow the test?

    I do not know what to think about this. It has some conclusions that require a stretch of the imagination, but interesting none the less.
    I think it probably premature to be talking about “particle accelerators” inside mitochondria, but hey, I am not an expert!

    The proposed test does seem to have a simplicity that is very desirable. The big question is can Vysotskii duplicate the transmutation at
    will and will he allow the test to be performed?

    I also scratch my head a little about the core process! It seems to fly in the face of almost all current LENR theories

    1) NAE required? Bacterial are not metallic, so no NAE would seem likely.
    2) High temperature to initiate? No. This would incinerate the organism.
    3) EMF or magnetic component? One would not think so in a living organism. Video stated the
    opposite, that EMF / Magnetic fields could actually suppress the reaction.
    4) Production of excess heat? Perhaps, but not high temperature or volume.
    5) Hydrogen required? I saw nothing in the presentation about hydrogen.

    Evidently there is some proprietary “mechanical” device that Vysotskii uses and is required.
    However, some of the given evidence of bacteria found in the soil at Chernobyl would not have
    had this. It will be interesting to see what this device consists of that allows bacteria to
    conduct such reactions.

    So it would appear at first glance, if this is “LENR”, it must be a completely different process than the F&P electrolysis
    PD system or the Hydrogen / Nickel systems?

    Interesting indeed. Will we see anything come of this?

    • Axil Axil

      The mechanism that hides and thermalizes the energy from nuclear reactions and amplifies LENR power in microbes is Bose condinsation that the bugs maintain.

    • Axil Axil

      https://mospace.umsystem.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10355/36824/ApplicationCoherentCorrelatedPresentation.pdf?sequence=2

      Application of Coherent Correlated States in LENR

      Vladimir I.Vysotskii believes in Coherent Correlated States as a fundamental driver of the LENR reaction.

    • Bob Greenyer

      1) VV believes it is in one of two places, the point of cell division or in the pores – he was not aware of the 1978 report until I showed it to him this week that proposes that the effect is due to MgATP.
      2) No – bio temperatures like 38 degrees
      3) There are strong electric fields set up in mitochondria/cell membrane pores
      4) Possibly – not significant
      5) Yes protium (H) is required and comes from ions in water

  • Axil Axil

    There have been many world changing experiments performed clearly showing radioactive isotope stabilization published and available for public amazement. These dimensions have all been ignored. If the past is preview, MFMP will produce a world changing experiment that will again be roundly ignored by all and sundry. Such is life.

    Nuclear power was accepted as real after two cities were vaporized with it. For LENR, only the prospect of making lots of money with it will it be taken seriously. Open source methods do not support this method of LENR acceptance.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Whilst there is no guarantees that VVs tech will even work. Having the data Live and the nature of it starting from full on Cs137 gamma and hopefully decaying will be very compelling.

      Also, being recorded, it will be more visceral and easier to connect with time and again.

      We shall see what will be, but we must try.

      • Warthog

        “……..but we must try”

        Why? I frankly don’t understand your attachment to this approach. Positive result or negative result, it WILL be ignored. And it will damage MFMP’s reputation in the process, if not kill it outright. Axil is right. There is no upside to this.

        • Bob Greenyer

          You are entitled to your view.

          The purpose of the MFMP is to conduct unprejudiced research to test the claims of people in the LENR field. Funds for this would be raised specifically and the crowd will decide if testing these claims has merit.

          With so many nuclear reactors around the world and more being built in China, India and now another one in UK – the waste pile (regardless of accidents) will mount and a large proportion of the nastiest component is Cs137. If we NEVER see practical LENR, having a solution to one of the most difficult problems of ‘old nuclear’ will help us to more confidently ensure our energy supply.

          People can debate the value and the potential for damage to reputation, but with 2 major nuclear accidents in 30 years, should we wait until one of the 99 in US or one of the 58 in France has a ‘miss-hap’ before looking seriously at this research?

          https://www.statista.com/statistics/267158/number-of-nuclear-reactors-in-operation-by-country/

          Moreover, if this were to prove a valid claim, then a LOT of people will have to re-evaluate what is possible and a there will be a bonfire of theories inside the LENR community – even if no one else cares. This is a good thing.

          Here are just three of the potential ‘upside’ reasons why it is good to accept the collaboration offer from VV’s group regardless of any fears of being ‘ignored’.

          • Warthog

            Sorry, but this is (attempting) to solve the wrong societal problem.

            As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, how many people actually died??? Compare that to the lives to be saved if LENR energy becomes available. The ratio is millions to one.

            Getting rid of radwaste is not a science problem, it is a political one. Step one in any solution (including yours) involves chemical reprocessing of spent fuel elements, which the anti-nuke movement absolutely will not allow.

            Once you get past that, there are any number of permanent ways to “get rid of it”. Even I came up with one.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Chernobyl was in a sparsely populated area, I have met people (and employed one) who have had family members die and they say that the real figure in Ukraine alone when accounting for increased cancer rates is more than 100,000. In the most comprehensive fact based study (conducted before Fukushima) based on available health data, radiological surveys and scientific reports — some 5,000 in all concludes

            “985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004.”

            https://goo.gl/hDWG1I

            In this report from earlier this year https://goo.gl/4vJlGn they say

            “Lichens and mushrooms so thoroughly absorbed this radioactivity, in
            particular radioactive cesium, that reindeer over 1,000 miles away in
            Norway — where the meat is eaten — remain unfit for human consumption.”

            Fukushima, well – they were absurdly lucky – the winds were strong and blowing east, if the had been blowing SW, then the largest populated area on earth would have become uninhabitable – far more than 30 million people would have had to be evacuated and permanently re-housed, the Japanese government even had a contingency plan draw up for this during the early stages after the disaster. Fukushima has now contaminated the entire pacific with 100s tons od radioactive water washing into the ocean every day and no one even knows where the cores are and there is no way to get them if they did!

            So, I’ll spell it out for you.

            Institutions (actually gatekeeper individuals) refuse to conduct or allow low energy nuclear reaction research of any kind until they have seen proof that it can occur

            If this Bio work can show that LENR happens, then it will happen every time in the same biological system under broadly similar conditions (actually quite a bit more flexible than chemical systems) and this may be sufficient to open the door to wider research.

            I know this from first hand experience – it is much more serious and coordinated than you think – it’s like watching someone making themselves violently sick because they have mistakenly thought they ate something they psychologically have an aversion/allergy to.

            We are still pursuing *GlowStick* and Celani cell research as priority – these are unpredictable however and the data does not convince those who could upscale the research.

            Reducing gamma counts an average of 27% over 14 days repeatedly across multiple runs with or without other observable radiation would be compelling. All of the gatekeepers I have spoken to say this is impossible, therefore, demonstrating it would force them to change their opinion or risk being seen as a little unhinged.

            If it repeatedly does not work, then we are no worse off since most people would not see them as connected – but they are mostly because it would show that transmutation is possible.

            This is something that is in progress. I think you have made your opinion very clear and it has been noted. Continuing to present arguments against pursuing this research ‘just because’ would come across as defending a vested interest since there would be no other purpose to the action.

          • Warthog

            I present arguments because they make sense to me. Your proposal makes none.

            It won’t solve the existing problem of escaped radiation. It won’t put a single existing fission reactor out of operation, and it takes away from research on the ONE thing that would help….a non-fission form of nuclear power.

            Toyota and Mitsubishi have already proven that “transmutation is possible”.

            If mainstream science won’t accept their results, which use exactly the tools of mainstream science (replicated results, peer review published) why do you think they will accept yours, which addresses an area WAY, WAY WAY out from mainstream scientific thought??

            And what POSSIBLE “vested interest” could I be defending?

          • Bob Greenyer

            You are still not getting it.

            Capable research institutions will not allow LENR research because it is ‘impossible’

            If this VV work is true, this would show it is possible to transmute elements via nature and so they could not continue to deny the possibility. And if it works once it is likely to work many times as there are degrees of freedom that do not exist in inorganic experiments.

            I have seen this first hand. I have been told that a successful outcome in this experiment would lead to wider LENR research being undertaken. I see conducting this experiment as a possible enabler.

            Is that clear?

            Toyota and Mitsubishi have shown it to be possible, but not at all practical to date. This experiment would verify a REALLY practical and scaleable solution to the ridiculous quantities of bagged contaminated waste sat around in fields just 35 miles from where I am sat (now well over 10 million)

            2015
            http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20151210/p2a/00m/0na/020000c

            http://nextshark.com/japan-fukushima-nuclear-plant-photos/

            You may not be concerned about this, but there are many that are – it was very palpable how important it was to find a solution to the Japanese, believe me, if Mitsubishi had a practical process, it would be being used now.

            Already today, I have re-iterated aspects of resetting the function of catalysts that may be critical to successful LENR on this and the MFMPs hope site, and other than debating the merits of the “Life Changing” experiment with you, I have been preparing the media for a short video on triggering waveform shapes that I am just about to record.

            Lastly, I don’t know what your motives are – but you do seem to be very keen to not see this research take place – if you revealed who you were rather than hiding behind a pseudonym, I may better be able to answer your last question.

          • Warthog

            I “get it” better than you do. The answer to the problem is to GENERATE ENERGY from LENR reactions, not do biochemical research.

            The people who need to be working on this are the Japanese, as the SOLE area that this might be beneficial in is in bioremediation of already released radioactivity. Why are they not replicating it???

            Radwaste in spent fuel can already be disposed of permanently by several means, easily available today, using pretty much off-the-shelf technology. The thing preventing this is political, not scientific.

            I know the nuclear cycle from start to finish. In grad school, one of the profs in nuclear science I had was a designer of the NERVA nuclear rocket engine (the topic I had under him was shielding design).

            As to the rest, I’m seventy years old, and retired. I was lucky enough to have a career (and life) that allowed me to work in many technical areas at a reasonably high level of expertise. And my wife is also a PhD chemist, with a different experience base, but which, of course, I also learned about from her.

            And I’m opposed to this particular experiment because it is a digression and diversion of brainpower away from the real problem…..repeatable generation of POWER from LENR reactions.

            I want humanity to have an energy-rich future, and solar cells ain’t gonna do it, unless the efforts of Musk and/or Bezos get us space-based ones. So that leaves either fission or fusion.

            Hot fusion has already shown itself to be an expensive (but successful) fraud (people call Rossi a scam artist, but he is small potatoes by comparison to the HF scam artists).

            So, it’s either fission or LENR. The problems of fission ARE solvable, but currently cannot be because of politics.

          • Bob Greenyer

            But what if we can’t do the experiments you and I would like to do because we can’t get the right people on board.

            There is never just one means to an end, wanting things alone does not make it happen. The MFMP is focussed on exploring the claims of researchers in the inorganic LENR research field and to that end we have

            1. purchased some 62Ni to test claims and observations made by Focardi, Piantelli, Violante, Rossi. (Alan Goldwater)
            2. Purchased some 18O in the form Al2 18O3 to test the claims principally of Piantelli and potentially Stoyan Sarg. (Several)
            3. Have designed a *GlowStick* evolution to test the “through the fuel” electrical stimulation implied by the catalytic realities of Christian Amatore and the potential for needing high field or current. (Alan Goldwater)
            4. Have a Tesla based HV discharge system to deploy (Stoyan Sarg)
            5. Have designed a thermally insulated set-up based on apparent excess heat levels from GS 5.2 and 5.3 that, if real, would allow for far higher COP or even self sustain. (Bob Higgins)
            6. Have developed Neutron detector to confirm low temp neutron production, possibly in relation to use of deuterium
            7. have purchased a high purity H2 generator to create nascent H2 and D2.

          • Warthog

            “The MFMP is focussed on exploring the claims of researchers in the inorganic LENR research field…..”

            I should at this point say “I rest my case”, as biological transmutation certainly does NOT fit in the above charter.

            The folks that should be replicating VV’s work are the Japanese. There are probably hundreds of labs in Japan who are capable of carrying out the necessary experimentation, and they have by far the biggest need.

            If you want to do the BEST thing, get your Russian buddy together with any or all Japanese collaborators or potential collaborators you know or can get in touch with. One would think that they would jump at the chance.

          • TVulgaris

            Since MFMP is engaged in research, ANYTHING they choose to research and people will contribute to makes perfect sense. At last to me, and virtually everyone who’s posted publicly to support (if not funded) them.
            Do you think for a moment the multi-billion dollar nuclear industry will just stop even a single reactor because a better (even if only considering long-term indirect, rather than direct costs) COMPETING technology is developed? NOT A COMMERCIAL PRODUCT, a competing technology. MFMP is not going to develop any products (probably), they’re trying to develop the tech and at least some semblance of testable theory.
            And maybe if you agitated others to simply make their (MFMP’s) stream viral to the same degree you’re obviously trying to steer their efforts away from an EXTREMELY promising

            biotech development (and THAT’S completely different from Toyota and Mitsubishi), YOU, YOURSELF might contribute to changing some opinion somewhere that might make a difference.

          • this report about 1Mn deat is pure BS.
            even applying LLNT you don’t get that.

            there is a million death simply caused over all USSR because of healt system and economic collapse.

            applying LLNT you get 4000 death, and using real data you get few dozen of firemen exposed to heavy radiation, huge psychological impact of displacement leading to violence and depression (few thousands), and a handful of kids victim of thyroid cancer surgery that failed.

            there are massive urban myth like on cold fusion spread by good PR agencies.

            few articles

            I assume your estimation is the one cited there
            http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/04/applying-union-of-concerned-scientist.html

            disinformation
            http://www.monbiot.com/2011/11/22/how-the-greens-were-misled/
            http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

            on evacuation tragedy
            http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/08/fear-of-radiation-has-killed-761-and.html

            on LLNT debunking
            http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/05/prolonged-low-dose-radiation-study-at.html
            http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/jacobson-fukushima-analysis-applied-to.html

  • Axil Axil

    There have been many world changing experiments performed clearly showing radioactive isotope stabilization published and available for public amazement. These dimensions have all been ignored. If the past is preview, MFMP will produce a world changing experiment that will again be roundly ignored by all and sundry. Such is life.

    Nuclear power was accepted as real after two cities were vaporized with it. For LENR, only the prospect of making lots of money with it will it be taken seriously. Open source methods do not support this method of LENR acceptance.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Whilst there is no guarantees that VVs tech will even work. Having the data Live and the nature of it starting from full on Cs137 gamma and hopefully decaying will be very compelling.

      Also, being recorded, it will be more visceral and easier to connect with time and again.

      We shall see what will be, but we must try.

      • Warthog

        “……..but we must try”

        Why? I frankly don’t understand your attachment to this approach. Positive result or negative result, it WILL be ignored. And it will damage MFMP’s reputation in the process, if not kill it outright. Axil is right. There is no upside to this.

        • Bob Greenyer

          You are entitled to your view.

          The purpose of the MFMP is to conduct unprejudiced research to test the claims of people in the LENR field. Funds for this would be raised specifically and the crowd will decide if testing these claims has merit.

          With so many nuclear reactors around the world and more being built in China, India and now another one in UK – the waste pile (regardless of accidents) will mount and a large proportion of the nastiest component is Cs137. If we NEVER see practical LENR, having a solution to one of the most difficult problems of ‘old nuclear’ will help us to more confidently ensure our energy supply.

          People can debate the value and the potential for damage to reputation, but with 2 major nuclear accidents in 30 years, should we wait until one of the 99 in US or one of the 58 in France has a ‘miss-hap’ before looking seriously at this research? We have effectively had 1 major nuclear accident every 30 years since the first reactor was turned on.

          https://www.statista.com/statistics/267158/number-of-nuclear-reactors-in-operation-by-country/

          Moreover, if this were to prove a valid claim, then a LOT of people will have to re-evaluate what is possible and a there will be a bonfire of theories inside the LENR community – even if no one else cares. This is a good thing.

          Here are just three of the potential ‘upside’ reasons why it is good to accept the collaboration offer from VV’s group regardless of any fears of being ‘ignored’.

          I went to visit the Great East Japan earthquake memorial in Sendai yesterday – terrible as it was, the last one of a similar scale was 2000 years ago… We need to be less of a danger to ourselves than nature is, to be a viable species and whilst we have been very good at changing the macro environment and even the micro environment, we need to be more fearless in exploring the nano environment.

          Bacteria have around 3-4 billion years of experience under their belt and a single petri dish can perform millions of experiments in a very short period of time – we should not suffer the arrogance of assuming we can compete with nature in these matters.

          If Vladimir says that in Ukraine they have established that in soil areas around Chernobyl that do not seep or evaporate, the Cs137 gamma count drops far faster than any physicist would say possible, then I am inclined to give the only country with significant experience in this matter the benefit of the doubt.

          Vladimir is visiting the Fukushima Daiichi area today

          • Warthog

            Sorry, but this is (attempting) to solve the wrong societal problem.

            As bad as Chernobyl and Fukushima were, how many people actually died??? Compare that to the lives to be saved if LENR energy becomes available. The ratio is millions to one.

            Getting rid of radwaste is not a science problem, it is a political one. Step one in any solution (including yours) involves chemical reprocessing of spent fuel elements, which the anti-nuke movement absolutely will not allow.

            Once you get past that, there are any number of permanent ways to “get rid of it”. Even I came up with one.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Chernobyl was in a sparsely populated area, I have met people (and employed one) who have had family members die and they say that the real figure in Ukraine alone when accounting for increased cancer rates is more than 100,000. In the most comprehensive fact based study (conducted before Fukushima) based on available health data, radiological surveys and scientific reports — some 5,000 in all concludes

            “985,000 people died, mainly of cancer, as a result of the Chernobyl accident. That is between when the accident occurred in 1986 and 2004.”

            https://goo.gl/hDWG1I

            In this report from earlier this year https://goo.gl/4vJlGn they say

            “Lichens and mushrooms so thoroughly absorbed this radioactivity, in
            particular radioactive cesium, that reindeer over 1,000 miles away in
            Norway — where the meat is eaten — remain unfit for human consumption.”

            Fukushima, well – they were absurdly lucky – the winds were strong and blowing east, if the had been blowing SW, then the largest populated area on earth would have become uninhabitable – far more than 30 million people would have had to be evacuated and permanently re-housed, the Japanese government even had a contingency plan draw up for this during the early stages after the disaster. Fukushima has now contaminated the entire pacific with 100s tons od radioactive water washing into the ocean every day and no one even knows where the cores are and there is no way to get them if they did!

            So, I’ll spell it out for you.

            Institutions (actually gatekeeper individuals) refuse to conduct or allow low energy nuclear reaction research of any kind until they have seen proof that it can occur

            If this Bio work can show that LENR happens, then it will happen every time in the same biological system under broadly similar conditions (actually quite a bit more flexible than chemical systems) and this may be sufficient to open the door to wider research.

            I know this from first hand experience – it is much more serious and coordinated than you think – it’s like watching someone making themselves violently sick because they have mistakenly thought they ate something they psychologically have an aversion/allergy to.

            We are still pursuing *GlowStick* and Celani cell research as priority – these are unpredictable however and the data does not convince those who could upscale the research.

            Reducing gamma counts an average of 27% over 14 days repeatedly across multiple runs with or without other observable radiation would be compelling. All of the gatekeepers I have spoken to say this is impossible, therefore, demonstrating it would force them to change their opinion or risk being seen as a little unhinged.

            If it repeatedly does not work, then we are no worse off since most people would not see them as connected – but they are mostly because it would show that transmutation is possible.

            This is something that is in progress. I think you have made your opinion very clear and it has been noted. Continuing to present arguments against pursuing this research ‘just because’ would come across as defending a vested interest since there would be no other purpose to the action.

          • Warthog

            I present arguments because they make sense to me. Your proposal makes none.

            It won’t solve the existing problem of escaped radiation. It won’t put a single existing fission reactor out of operation, and it takes away from research on the ONE thing that would help….a non-fission form of nuclear power.

            Toyota and Mitsubishi have already proven that “transmutation is possible”.

            If mainstream science won’t accept their results, which use exactly the tools of mainstream science (replicated results, peer review published) why do you think they will accept yours, which addresses an area WAY, WAY WAY out from mainstream scientific thought??

            And what POSSIBLE “vested interest” could I be defending?

          • Bob Greenyer

            You are still not getting it.

            Capable research institutions will not allow LENR research because it is ‘impossible’

            If this VV work is true, this would show it is possible to transmute elements via nature and so they could not continue to deny the possibility. And if it works once it is likely to work many times as there are degrees of freedom that do not exist in inorganic experiments.

            I have seen this first hand. I have been told that a successful outcome in this experiment would lead to wider LENR research being undertaken. I see conducting this experiment as a possible enabler.

            Is that clear?

            Toyota and Mitsubishi have shown it to be possible, but not at all practical to date. This experiment would verify a REALLY practical and scaleable solution to the ridiculous quantities of bagged contaminated waste sat around in fields just 35 miles from where I am sat (now well over 10 million)

            2015
            http://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20151210/p2a/00m/0na/020000c

            http://nextshark.com/japan-fukushima-nuclear-plant-photos/

            You may not be concerned about this, but there are many that are – it was very palpable how important it was to find a solution to the Japanese, believe me, if Mitsubishi had a practical process, it would be being used now.

            Already today, I have re-iterated aspects of resetting the function of catalysts that may be critical to successful LENR on this and the MFMPs hope site, and other than debating the merits of the “Life Changing” experiment with you, I have been preparing the media for a short video on triggering waveform shapes that I am just about to record.

            Lastly, I don’t know what your motives are – but you do seem to be very keen to not see this research take place – if you revealed who you were rather than hiding behind a pseudonym, I may better be able to answer your last question.

          • Warthog

            I “get it” better than you do. The answer to the problem is to GENERATE ENERGY from LENR reactions, not do biochemical research.

            The people who need to be working on this are the Japanese, as the SOLE area that this might be beneficial in is in bioremediation of already released radioactivity. Why are they not replicating it???

            Radwaste in spent fuel can already be disposed of permanently by several means, easily available today, using pretty much off-the-shelf technology. The thing preventing this is political, not scientific.

            I know the nuclear cycle from start to finish. In grad school, one of the profs in nuclear science I had was a designer of the NERVA nuclear rocket engine (the topic I had under him was shielding design).

            As to the rest, I’m seventy years old, and retired. I was lucky enough to have a career (and life) that allowed me to work in many technical areas at a reasonably high level of expertise. And my wife is also a PhD chemist, with a different experience base, but which, of course, I also learned about from her.

            And I’m opposed to this particular experiment because it is a digression and diversion of brainpower away from the real problem…..repeatable generation of POWER from LENR reactions.

            I want humanity to have an energy-rich future, and solar cells ain’t gonna do it, unless the efforts of Musk and/or Bezos get us space-based ones. So that leaves either fission or fusion.

            Hot fusion has already shown itself to be an expensive (but successful) fraud (people call Rossi a scam artist, but he is small potatoes by comparison to the HF scam artists).

            So, it’s either fission or LENR. The problems of fission ARE solvable, but currently cannot be because of politics.

          • Bob Greenyer

            But what if we can’t do the experiments you and I would like to do because we can’t get the right people on board.

            There is never just one means to an end, wanting things alone does not make it happen. The MFMP is focussed on exploring the claims of researchers in the inorganic LENR research field and to that end we have

            1. purchased some 62Ni to test claims and observations made by Focardi, Piantelli, Violante, Rossi. (Alan Goldwater)
            2. Purchased some 18O in the form Al2 18O3 to test the claims principally of Piantelli and potentially Stoyan Sarg. (Several)
            3. Have designed a *GlowStick* evolution to test the “through the fuel” electrical stimulation implied by the catalytic realities of Christian Amatore and the potential for needing high field or current. (Alan Goldwater)
            4. Have a Tesla based HV discharge system to deploy (Stoyan Sarg)
            5. Have designed a thermally insulated set-up based on apparent excess heat levels from GS 5.2 and 5.3 that, if real, would allow for far higher COP or even self sustain. (Bob Higgins)
            6. Have developed Neutron detector to confirm low temp neutron production, possibly in relation to use of deuterium
            7. have purchased a high purity H2 generator to create nascent H2 and D2.

          • Warthog

            “The MFMP is focussed on exploring the claims of researchers in the inorganic LENR research field…..”

            I should at this point say “I rest my case”, as biological transmutation certainly does NOT fit in the above charter.

            The folks that should be replicating VV’s work are the Japanese. There are probably hundreds of labs in Japan who are capable of carrying out the necessary experimentation, and they have by far the biggest need.

            If you want to do the BEST thing, get your Russian buddy together with any or all Japanese collaborators or potential collaborators you know or can get in touch with. One would think that they would jump at the chance.

          • TVulgaris

            Since MFMP is engaged in research, ANYTHING they choose to research and people will contribute to makes perfect sense. At last to me, and virtually everyone who’s posted publicly to support (if not funded) them.
            Do you think for a moment the multi-billion dollar nuclear industry will just stop even a single reactor because a better (even if only considering long-term indirect, rather than direct costs) COMPETING technology is developed? NOT A COMMERCIAL PRODUCT, a competing technology. MFMP is not going to develop any products (probably), they’re trying to develop the tech and at least some semblance of testable theory.
            And maybe if you agitated others to simply make their (MFMP’s) stream viral to the same degree you’re obviously trying to steer their efforts away from an EXTREMELY promising

            biotech development (and THAT’S completely different from Toyota and Mitsubishi), YOU, YOURSELF might contribute to changing some opinion somewhere that might make a difference.

          • this report about 1Mn deat is pure BS.
            even applying LLNT you don’t get that.

            there is a million death simply caused over all USSR because of healt system and economic collapse.

            applying LLNT you get 4000 death, and using real data you get few dozen of firemen exposed to heavy radiation, huge psychological impact of displacement leading to violence and depression (few thousands), and a handful of kids victim of thyroid cancer surgery that failed.

            there are massive urban myth like on cold fusion spread by good PR agencies.

            few articles

            I assume your estimation is the one cited there
            http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2011/04/applying-union-of-concerned-scientist.html

            disinformation
            http://www.monbiot.com/2011/11/22/how-the-greens-were-misled/
            http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world

            on evacuation tragedy
            http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/08/fear-of-radiation-has-killed-761-and.html

            on LLNT debunking
            http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/05/prolonged-low-dose-radiation-study-at.html
            http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/jacobson-fukushima-analysis-applied-to.html

          • grumpy

            The best way to get rid of nuclear waste is to put it in a molten salt fission reactor and Burn It Down. This will work for cesium 147 I think.

            The reason we want to develop LENR is because we want energy. Do not be distracted. It’s not that hard to make and measure heat. It’s time you learned calorimetry.

            No one will care if you detoxify cesium 147. Worse, all the anti-nuclear zealots will associate you with their stigmatized field of fission. All you are doing by getting mixed up in the fission game is making more enemies.

            The LENR field is in some ways in better shape than fission. LENR is stigmatized and ignored, mostly. But that’s better than having herds of pseudo scientists led by Helen caldicott shouting obscenities at you!

  • Ing. Albert Ellul

    I don’t know what to say about this, but if it’s a scam be sure that this is not the only scientific scam thrown at us. Hot fusion is the second biggest scientific scam ever. I used to believe in it for decades, with the media and the scientific world telling me that “nuclear (hot) fusion is the energy of the future”, but they forgot to complete the mantra, “and will always be”.

    The biggest scam is the conspiracy by MIT, Caltech, the media and the political cabal to kill Fleischman’s and Pons’ cold fusion discovery, labelling it as junk science, which isn’t.

    They even murdered an MIT scientist, Eugene Mallove, who had believed in CF and was writing about its veracity.

  • georgehants

    A comment my wife has placed on Rossi’s JONP, will he answer, we will see.
    ———-
    jackie
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    October 7, 2016 at 8:18 AM
    Dear Mr. Rossi as the only person in the World claiming to have a functioning Cold Fusion device for the past five and a half years, would you be kind enough to give your response to the millions of men, women and children that have died and suffered in that time through need of a cheap energy source to produce clean water etc. etc.
    Is your delay in releasing details for others to follow to put right these evils of the World, purely on your part a desire for riches etc. or do you have another reason.
    With thanks
    Jackie

    • georgehants

      Just five minuets later and the Comment has dissapeared, I think that tells us a great deal about A Rossi Esq.

      • TheTruthIsOutThere

        We had enough from his bold claims.
        Your wife’s comment was spot on.
        My congrats.

    • sam

      A.R. is an entrepreneur. And thank God for that.

      Someone who exercises initiative by organizing a venture to take benefit of an opportunity and, as the decision maker, decides what, how, and how much of a good or service will be produced.

      An entrepreneur supplies risk capital as a risk taker, and monitors and controls the business activities. The entrepreneur is usually a sole proprietor, a partner, or the one who owns the majority of shares in an incorporated venture.

      According to economist Joseph Alois Schumpeter (1883-1950), entrepreneurs are not necessarily motivated by profit but regard it as a standard for measuring achievement or success.

      • georgehants

        Sam, you cannot have it both ways, if Rossi was proud of the capitalist belief that greed is good, he would have answered the question proudly with for example, yes I hide Cold Fusion so that I can become filthy rich and that is more important than millions suffering.
        His refusal to answer implies possible, guilt, embarrassment, conscience, etc. etc.
        If Greed is good why would he not shout out to the World, I hide Cold Fusion because I am greedy

        • sam

          George
          A.R has said he does not know if he can make
          his technology work properly.
          But he works hard trying.
          Say he did release it and Scientists messed it
          up like they did with F and P were would we be
          then.

          • georgehants

            sam, you are moving off topic and going in circles, Rossi has clearly stated that he can produce over-unity energy with Cold Fusion, that being so maybe he has problems with whatever, is it better he hides his knowledge hoping his small group can eventually solve them and he gains all the cash, or releases what he knows so that thousands of scientists Worldwide, especialy MFMP can bring the technology to those that most need it sooner.

          • sam

            George
            I still think if he opens it up the technology to the world
            would be a gamble.
            Developing it in a small group is safer way to go.
            I could care less what he does with the money.
            I do think if A.R becomes
            filthy rich he would make a
            good philanthropist.

            Regards
            Sam

          • georgehants

            sam, good chat.
            Best wishes.

          • sam

            Thanks George
            I just want to add that A.R.
            indirectly works with Scientists.
            As they develop better materials,electronics,computers,etc that will help make his technology work.

  • georgehants

    A comment my wife has placed on Rossi’s JONP, will he answer, we will see.
    ———-
    jackie
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    October 7, 2016 at 8:18 AM
    Dear Mr. Rossi as the only person in the World claiming to have a functioning Cold Fusion device for the past five and a half years, would you be kind enough to give your response to the millions of men, women and children that have died and suffered in that time through need of a cheap energy source to produce clean water etc. etc.
    Is your delay in releasing details for others to follow to put right these evils of the World, purely on your part a desire for riches etc. or do you have another reason.
    With thanks
    Jackie

    • georgehants

      Just five minutes later and the Comment has dissapeared, I think that tells us a great deal about A Rossi Esq.

      • TheTruthIsOutThere

        We had enough from his bold claims.
        Your wife’s comment was spot on.
        My congrats.

    • sam

      A.R. is an entrepreneur. And thank God for that.

      Someone who exercises initiative by organizing a venture to take benefit of an opportunity and, as the decision maker, decides what, how, and how much of a good or service will be produced.

      An entrepreneur supplies risk capital as a risk taker, and monitors and controls the business activities. The entrepreneur is usually a sole proprietor, a partner, or the one who owns the majority of shares in an incorporated venture.

      According to economist Joseph Alois Schumpeter (1883-1950), entrepreneurs are not necessarily motivated by profit but regard it as a standard for measuring achievement or success.

      • georgehants

        Sam, you cannot have it both ways, if Rossi was proud of the capitalist belief that greed is good, he would have answered the question proudly with for example, yes I hide Cold Fusion so that I can become filthy rich and that is more important than millions suffering.
        His refusal to answer implies possible, guilt, embarrassment, conscience, etc. etc.
        If Greed is good why would he not shout out to the World, I hide Cold Fusion because I am greedy

        • sam

          George
          A.R has said he does not know if he can make
          his technology work properly.
          But he works hard trying.
          Say he did release it and Scientists messed it
          up like they did with F and P were would we be
          then.

          • georgehants

            sam, you are moving off topic and going in circles, Rossi has clearly stated that he can produce over-unity energy with Cold Fusion, that being so maybe he has problems with whatever, is it better he hides his knowledge hoping his small group can eventually solve them and he gains all the cash, or releases what he knows so that thousands of scientists Worldwide, especialy MFMP can bring the technology to those that most need it sooner.

          • sam

            George
            I still think if he opens it up the technology to the world
            would be a gamble.
            Developing it in a small group is safer way to go.
            I could care less what he does with the money.
            I do think if A.R becomes
            filthy rich he would make a
            good philanthropist.

            Regards
            Sam

          • georgehants

            sam, good chat.
            Best wishes.

          • sam

            Thanks George
            I just want to add that A.R.
            indirectly works with Scientists.
            As they develop better materials,electronics,computers,etc that will help make his technology work.

    • MorganMck

      I assume you are making generous contributions to MFMP.

    • Bear1145

      Why does she not also write the world powers to accomplish the same. Rossi is still in the development stage or most likely the fine tuning stage perfecting its reliability. By bringing in others are you or your wife so naïve to believe that the first e-cats would be produced to feed the hungry and pump water from wells. The first e -cats would be produced to satisfy the wants of those who assisted in its fine tuning. There is also the problem of protecting the e-cat itself. In the areas of the starving children, most of these areas are in war ravaged areas or controlled by dictators or war lords, do you think they would allow such aid, since they are the cause of much of the suffering. The world powers could already supply the supplies you suggest but blood and not yours or hers would be the cost. A young USMC private wrote WE ARE JUST KIDS DOING THE DIRTY WORK FOR THE FALURES OF OLD MEN.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Well – I personally would reserve judgement until we have replicated – but if we do, the evidence would be compelling.

    • INVENTOR INVENTED

      I didnt realize you were talking about Vysotskii
      I thought you were talking about your experiments at MFMP showing gamma radiation. I dont know Vysotskii or his experiments.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We will do a lot of hard thinking before execution – like we normally do.

  • Jouni Tuomela

    Regarding bacteria, do we all know the mechanism they produce vitamins?

    http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31972-Beneficial-gut-bacteria-that-produce-vitamins-B2-B9-B12-and-K2

  • Jouni Tuomela

    Regarding bacteria, do we all know the mechanism they produce vitamins?

    http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31972-Beneficial-gut-bacteria-that-produce-vitamins-B2-B9-B12-and-K2

    • grumpy

      In most cases vitamin synthesis is understood. But it doesn’t require any nuclear transmutation, so the fact that enzymes can do it is unremarkable. It is the synthesis of new elements that is unexpected from life’s enzymes.
      There is a lot of great work and studying extremophiles, bacteria that live underground in hot situations, often on chemical Pathways such as sulfur, that don’t depend on sunlight. It’s not inconceivable that radiation has been seized upon by life as a source of energy. If so we could expect to find life on planets that don’t have water oceans.
      Note that our understanding of the universe and the age of the Earth depend on assumptions about the ratios of Isotopes not changing except in supernovas and stars. If it turns out that bacteria can change isotope ratios then we might have to revise our estimate of the age of the Earth.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thanks

  • Bob Greenyer

    Mitochondria are critical in cancer cells, even being responsible for apoptosis (cell suicide)

    http://www.nature.com/nrc/posters/mitochondria/index.html

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/apoptosis.htm

    One of the reports on electromagnetic therapy suggests that short treatments at therapeutic tuned frequencies/energies may be triggering apoptosis, why is not known.

    • Husky

      Bob – sorry for asking here since it is not the right place but I don’t know how to reach you otherwise. I donated 100$ via PayPal at quantumheat but my account was never approved and now it even seems to be deleted 🙁

      • Bob Greenyer

        Sorted – and THANKS!

  • Bob Greenyer

    Mitochondria are critical in cancer cells, even being responsible for apoptosis (cell suicide)

    http://www.nature.com/nrc/posters/mitochondria/index.html

    http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/apoptosis.htm

    One of the reports on electromagnetic therapy suggests that short treatments at therapeutic tuned frequencies/energies may be triggering apoptosis, why is not known.

    • Husky

      Bob – sorry for asking here since it is not the right place but I don’t know how to reach you otherwise. I donated 100$ via PayPal at quantumheat but my account was never approved and now it even seems to be deleted 🙁

      • Bob Greenyer

        Sorted – and THANKS!

  • Many years ago, decades, ack time does fly, a very fine study was published by the US Geological Service. A researcher there had been studying placer gold. He collected samples from many locations and first did a morphological study with SEM. He discovered that placer gold is indeed made up of agglomerations of a gold coated bacterial carcass. The species of bacteria was identified. These rod shaped bacteria somehow decorated their surface with nano-gold particles. The researcher further did a thorough analysis of the waters from which said placer gold was found and could not find any dissolved gold in that water, aka no source of gold available to the bacteria. The obvious conclusion is that those bacteria convert some other handy atoms into gold. The pathway is an obvious one, to those knowledgeable of cold fusion. Gold by the way is a very desirable substance to decorate your surface with if you are a bacteria struggling to stay alive in a bath of competing bacteria as gold particles are a terrific anti-bacterial. Clearly evolution found that the handy services available to it of transmutation, aka cold fusion, could be selected for and utilized to great benefit. That we humans like to decorate ourselves with macro-gold bits is just an aside to the story of gold decoration on this blue planet. http://www.atom-ecology.russgeorge.net

  • Many years ago, decades, ack time does fly, a very fine study was published by the US Geological Service. A researcher there had been studying placer gold. He collected samples from many locations and first did a morphological study with SEM. He discovered that placer gold is indeed made up of agglomerations of a gold coated bacterial carcass. The species of bacteria was identified. These rod shaped bacteria somehow decorated their surface with nano-gold particles. The researcher further did a thorough analysis of the waters from which said placer gold was found and could not find any dissolved gold in that water, aka no source of gold available to the bacteria. The obvious conclusion is that those bacteria convert some other handy atoms into gold. The pathway is an obvious one, to those knowledgeable of cold fusion. Gold by the way is a very desirable substance to decorate your surface with if you are a bacteria struggling to stay alive in a bath of competing bacteria as gold particles are a terrific anti-bacterial. Clearly evolution found that the handy services available to it of transmutation, aka cold fusion, could be selected for and utilized to great benefit. That we humans like to decorate ourselves with macro-gold bits is just an aside to the story of gold decoration on this blue planet. http://www.atom-ecology.russgeorge.net

    • rusolf

      Do you have the title of the USGS study or the name of the authors?
      I am asking because I know a USGS report about gold particles and bacteria and the authors were clearly talking about soluble gold.

  • Damoaj

    This research has huge implications.
    For decades we have relied on carbon dating to accurately predict the age of things based on radioactive decay being constant.
    If The radioactive decay of cesium can be sped up by 30 times, what’s to say it can’t be quicker, or slower, or go through cycles of both? What about the decay rates of other elements?
    We may discover Dinosaurs lived only 50-100 thousand years ago.
    Perhaps the world is only 1 million years old?

    It opens up a lots of questions with regards to our origins.

  • Jimbobarang

    So I remember seeing this presented at ICF in Missouri and chatted with Vladimir about it afterwards. Have discussed it with a colleague we wondered what if the algae cytoplasm, with higher concentrations of the isotopes they put in, acts as an (inefficient) neutron moderator? That would encourage fission, and thus explain the faster decay.

    “metal hydrides are efficient moderators” : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0029549370901597

    That would also explain why it works in the barium-lanthanum solution but not in the cobalt solution. One of the two, barium or lanthanum, acts preferentially as a moderator and the other acts preferentially as an absorber, while the cobalt would fulfil only one of those roles.

  • Jimbobarang

    So I remember seeing this presented at ICF in Missouri and chatted with Vladimir about it afterwards. Have discussed it with a colleague we wondered what if the algae cytoplasm, with higher concentrations of the isotopes they put in, acts as an (inefficient) neutron moderator? That would encourage fission, and thus explain the faster decay.

    “metal hydrides are efficient moderators” : http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0029549370901597

    That would also explain why it works in the barium-lanthanum solution but not in the cobalt solution. One of the two, barium or lanthanum, acts preferentially as a moderator and the other acts preferentially as an absorber, while the cobalt would fulfil only one of those roles.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thanks for looking.

  • sam
  • sam