MFMP Claims Strong Evidence for LENR in Slides and Video

UPDATE: The main takeaway from the MFMP is the last slide of the presentation posted below.”


Nickel + Titanium + Hydrogen + Electrons leads to excess heat transmutations potential emissions of gamma and neutrons

Seemingly resilient to reactor design

May be verifiable with bubble detectors and gamma spectrometry”

There is a live video taking place right now in which the Martin Flieschmann Memorial Project is making what they consider to be an important revelation regarding LENR. I am trying to follow it at the moment, but it is regarding the production of neutrons. I think there will be more information following.

Here is the slideshow that was shown in the video presentation:

CAB Story

Video presentation is below:

  • Bob Greenyer

    CAB Story – Testable Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

    Presentation starts at 13m48s

    Download link for presentation pdf

  • Andreas Moraitis

    I would add Santilli to the list. Note that he used tungsten electrodes (no nickel). See, for example:



    Santilli himself has conceded that the observed “entities” might not be classical neutrons, but “a new bound state of protons and electrons at short distances” (2, p. 6). This reminds of various postulated forms of ‘dense’ hydrogen (among others, Mills’ “hydrinos”).

    • Bob Greenyer


      Shoulders’ 1980 : Cooper pair + p (two electrons and a proton)
      Little’s : ‘e- p e-‘ (two electrons and a proton)
      Piantelli’s : H- (two electrons and a proton, described as composite particle)
      Peery’s : Negaton (two electrons and a proton, described as a new particle)

      Shoulders is the flexible one, since he can have charge clusters conforming to that above and 100,000,000,000+ electrons that can entrain large numbers of positive ions, even very massive ones. He is the only one to have the structures visible and also recorded in film by National Institute of Science and Technology.

      The principle with all of these is charge screening, overcoming the coulomb barrier.

      Piantelli additionally adds detail as to why transition metals participate most. In the end, it doesn’t matter what the name is, the effect is the same and there is well over 100 years of hard labour, applied intellect and genius by multiple parties ending up at the same conclusions.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Charge screening is one option (enabling fusion), another one is neutron capture (in case that there are ‘genuine’ neutrons). If it were possible to couple a ‘virtual’ neutron to a nucleus without destroying it, things would get even more interesting.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Whatever seems to be going on, owing to the statements of Piantelli in 2015 and all those seeming miss-steps, we are at a body of evidence that suggests Piantelli’s prediction was correct.

          On the upside, this will allow proper research that will yield what does and does not work, and then elements can be switched to safer combinations.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Piantelli’s hydride anion hypothesis is smart since it combines the advantages of charge screening and Coulomb attraction. The problem is the stability of the anion. Cooper pair + proton might be an interesting alternative. At least, with regard to Cooper pairs the term “charge cluster” would make sense (about other cases I am not sure).

          • Bob Greenyer

            Harold Puthoff explained using Casimir calculations how larger charge clusters can sel-organise into the scales observed experimentally at SRI, EarthTech Texas, in China and at NIST.

          • Bob Greenyer
          • Andreas Moraitis

            This is one of several possible attempts to explain certain phenomena. I do not have problems with the experimental results or explanation attempts, but with the definitions and interpretations that you have given elsewhere. Why should a cluster of electrons have only a single charge? How does it make sense to call hydrogen anions “charge clusters”? And, even stranger, heavy leptons? Either you misinterpreted Shoulders in this regard, or his theory (which I admittedly do not know) is extremely out of the ordinary.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Charge clusters can be electrons only – please see the words of shoulders here:


            Charge clusters are still charge clusters if they entrain positive ions. In the case of Piantelli, smallest cluster (defined by shoulders) of 2 electrons combined with a proton. Larger clusters can include a mass of say plutonium ions (shoulders suggests dumping nuclear waste into space using this property) the electron part of the cluster masks charge, mass and inertia – and the package has a charge of -1, same as the electron cluster without the entrained ions. As such, with small electric fields, you can accelerate the ‘mass’ insider the cluster to good fractions of the speed of light.

            So you have large ions able to be punched into a nucleus, and in some respects, just suck up nucleons and re-distribute them – this is how Shoulders explains the VERY repeatable work / transmutations observed by Adamenko.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            „and the package has a charge of -1, same as the electron cluster without the entrained ions.”

            So conservation of charge is invalid in Shoulders’ theory? Why should clusters that are exclusively composed of electrons have only a single charge? (BTW Cooper pairs have – as to be expected – a charge of 2e).

            Even more strange is Shoulders’ interpretation of muons and tauons (both elementary particles, as far as is currently known). To me, it looks as if he wants to apply his concept to as many phenomena as possible – a mistake that is commonly made by young researchers, but often destroys the credibility of a new theory, even if it might contain one or another useful thought.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Shoulders was no fool and he lived a good, long, free-thinking life.

          • Bob Greenyer

            If you have not done so already, please listen to my call with Norris Peery. Note that Moray B. King says that a charge cluster must form in a liquid or a plasma and Norris never new of this.


  • Teemu Soilamo

    Remember this?

    Prepare thoroughly (Ni + LiAlH4 + Li)
    1h Thermal > x/β- emissions > Pb > IR/THz > 5h (SSM)
    where ‘>’ means ‘leads to’

    The ‘boy’ has cried wolf a few too many times. I do not wish for MFMP to stop what they’re doing, but they lost a lot of credibility and my interest with this cryptic stuff that lead (get it, lead?) to nothing.

    Good luck, nonetheless.

    • Bob Greenyer

      And that was to do with GS 5.2 ‘Signal’ which was critical to understanding the work of Kenneth Shoulders and for us to get involved with Neutron detection… which lead to Thermal Neutrons, which supported Piantelli theory – especially since they occurred at a similar temperature to his and Focardi’s neutron producing experiment using a replication of the 5.2 protocol that was entirely based on the protocol for triggering as given to us during Project /Fedora

      The experiment you cite therefore is absolutely critical to the progressive understanding and the example equation is still pretty much valid. It is to do with ionisation and melting of the aluminium/lithium which allows production of the active structures, this leads to the emissions, this is thermalised in the lead which can back radiate to sustain the process. The nominal on and off was obviously based off Rossi’s claims – we only had his word for it.

      Of course it would be great to have infinite money, go into a bunker and come out in 150 years with everything done and perfectly correctly explained – but that is not Live Open Science. LOS accelerates the process because so many people contribute – our acceleration in understanding came from that point forward.

      There is no desire to stop working and getting to the bottom of this because you don’t feel like you want to pay attention, having said that – the weird thing is you are paying attention, only to be a downer.

      As I said in the presentation, it doesn’t matter what you think about our professionalism or about individual volunteers – what matters is that we are spelling out something that no-one knew before and we had no evidence was true, other than our own observations of gamma and neutrons until the ash tests on 29/06/2017 – and access to that ash and the funds to test it ONLY came about because of other revelations and failures, in part brought about by potentially reputation destroying presentations.

      We are telling people because the risks may be very real. We did see neutrons, when we reported that, others came forward – including me356 who saw very large flux in one experiment. Piantelli cried wolf to us first in Jan 2015, we now have a good lock on where the wolf is, and Piantelli, again, appears to be right.

  • RLittle

    Congratulations to MFMP… Congratulations to Piantelli… Also congratulations to me.. Thanks Mr Greenyer for giving me some reference. Critical ideas were given by RBL many years ago. I lacked experimental tools to thoroughly explore my theory/hypothesis. But in my manuscript “Magnetocatalytic Adiabatic Spin Torque Orbital Transformations for Novel Chemical and Catalytic Reaction Dynamics: The Little Effect” {}
    But I did give the theory on page 15 that hypothesizes about the hydride cluster embedded inside transition metal like Cu/Ag and identify Ni impurity later in data. “The mechanism based on magnetic orchestration of pycnonuclear reactions involves the following steps: 1.) under the prevailing conditions hydrogen uptake by the metal lattice and the high current density allow the formation of some amount of a hydride species (H-); 2.) the thermal and pressure fluctuations and magnetization cause the electronic rehybridization of the background Cu-Ag lattice with consequent sporadic localization and delocalization of these electrons and protons of hydride species (H-) within the Cu-Ag lattice; 3.) these protons and electrons of this hydride species exist delocalized in the 4d-like orbitals of the Cu-Ag lattice; 4.) localization of protons and electrons produces this hydride species in the metal lattice by the rehybridization of
    3d, 4d, 4s, and 5s orbitals of the metal lattice; 5.) such localization by lattice rehybridization and confinement of H-within sd hybrid orbitals contribute to greater s character of the interacting electrons and protons in the form of (ea-p+eb-) or (hydride species) within the sd hybrid orbitals within the metal lattice; 6.) within the sd hybrid orbitals the (ea-p+e-)with its net negative charge is strongly attracted in the localization to the nucleus (M47+) of the metal atoms within the lattice; 7.) the (ea-p+eb-) is heavier and more classical in its interactions with the nucleus; 8.) as the (ea-p+eb-) approaches the nucleus the ea-is driven into tighter orbital correlation with the p+ in order to shield the proton from the nearby nucleus (M47+) in this confined s orbital state for the local metal nuclear compression of the ea-and p+; 9.) the spin and magnetic properties of the confined (ea-p+eb-) state are more paramagnetic, an external magnetic field can therefore orients the nuclear spin of the metal atoms with the spin and orbital moments of the (ea-p+eb-); 10.) as the (ea-p+eb) approaches the nucleus (M47+), the nuclear spin torques the eb- by nuclear spin-orbit interactions for its intersystem crossing, so eb-
    changes correlation with the (ea– p+), thereby driving the ea- into the p+ for even tighter orbits, this orbital compression is strengthened by the huge nearby electric field of the metal nucleus within the s orbital of the metal atom; 11.) the resulting aligned spins of the metal nucleus (M47+) and the eb- organize the steering of ea- into collapse onto the p+ for reverse beta to form neutrons, eb- may also collapse onto the metal nucleus; the p+ may collapse onto metal nucleus; the resulting neutron may also collapse on the nucleus for various rare transmutation processes. See Table 7. 12.) the proximity (less than 0.5 Angstroms) of the ea—- p+ to the eb- and the metal nucleus (M47+) within the s orbital allows huge local magnetic fields with in the s orbital for extremely strong spin torque of ea-into the p+ thereby preventing gamma exchange as in isolated hydrogen thereby allowing the ea—- p+ to form a neutron. It is within the s orbital with finite nonzero probability of the ea—- p+ and eb- having very close proximity to the metal nucleus that length scales of 10 -10 m such that the magnetic forces within the s orbital are on the order of 1/(10-5)2 times the magnetic forces between lattice electrons in the domain of say a ferrometal. The magnetic forces between lattice electrons in the domain of a ferrometal of Fe are on the order of 1000 tesla. So the magnetic forces between the e- and p+ and the metal nucleus for very close nuclear approach of the hydride species to the nucleus of a metal atoms is on the order of 10 **(10) X 1000 tesla or 10 **(13) tesla. Therefore within the s orbital of the metal lattice, the e- and p+ of the hydride species would locally experience tremendous magnetic fields on the order of the magnetic fields in magnetars. An external magnetic field organizes (as in this work) the (ea-p+eb-) and metal nuclei for more favorable weak interactions, leading to enhanced cross-sections for fusion events. In zero applied magnetic field, the proper spin and orbital orientations for such fusion processes are much more random and less likely. The important of such left-right symmetry during weak processes has been demonstrated by Yang and Lee [40]. Yang and Lee determined that within an external magnetic field, the nuclear spin oriented such that during the beta pr
    ocess the release of electron has specific momentum relative to the nucleus that released it. Here on the
    basis of the Little Effect, it is demonstrated that an external magnetic field can orient the e and nucleus for the reverse process of reverse beta for greater probability of such rare fusion events. The external magnetic field in this way organizes the spins for such symmetry for the reverse beta process and e- or p+ capture process by the metal nucleus for greater rates and reproducibility of the pycnonuclear reactions. Without the external magnetization, the cross-section and probability are much lower. Here these still slow nuclear processe
    s within the strong magnetic environment, high current densities, Lorentz compression and thermal
    fluctuations are observed due to the long period of these conditions, more than 2000 hours. Although, the rate
    s of pycnonuclear reactions are still very slow under the conditions within the strong magnet, even greater en
    ergy input via laser irradiation of the Cu-Ag matrix can promote much greater pycnonuclear fusion rates for future practical energy sources. Large magnetic field can build up huge potential energy due to Pauli antisymmetry with faster spin torque of electrons into protons for faster neutron formation (reverse beta processes) and neutron, electron and proton captures by Ag and Pd nuclei. The greater spin torque on orbital motion and the greater nuclear induced intersystem crossing also contribute more pycnonuclear phenomena in 4d relative to 3d transition metals in strong magnetic fields.” As Mr Greenyer said dynamics elecyrtic stimulation and this is magnetic field and in 2005 I stressed magnetic field. So along with the mechanism of charge cluster and the magnetic stimulation (dynamics electric stimulation) I also in 2005 in the same publication identified Ti, V50, and Ni as undergoing transmutations and identified huge excess heats in the Ag/Cu lattice. And then in 2005 I gave some data reflecting Ni, Ti and V on pages 17 and 18: “Furthermore the nuclides of Ti in the Cu-Ag coil also were observed to exhibit unusual changes in SIMS before and after use of the coils. See Figures 2 and 4. 48Ti and 47Ti appear in anomalous ratios. The mass intensity of
    47Ti is too high and the mass intensity of 48Ti is too low. The mass intensity of 50 Ti is too high in Figure 4. The mass intensity of51V is too high. The mass intensity of 50V is too low. These Ti and V isotopes do not appear in the coil (after it’s prolonged use) according to their natural relative abundances. These discrepancies in the natural abundances of Ti and V isotopes are not artifacts of clustering of lighter elements. The observed anomalous mass intensities of Ti and V are incompatible with clustering of lighter elements on the basis of the natural abundances of the lighter elements. In addition, the other elements in the vicinity of Ti and V do not exhibit anomalous relative mass intensities of their isotopes. The other elements of the first transition metal series show no unusual mass spectra in comparison to Ti, V, Fe, Cr, Mn and Ni. See Figures 2 and 4. On the basis of the relative abundance of the Ti and V, Ti’s and V’s incompatibility withpossible clustering of lighter nuclides on the basis of their relative abundances; the observed absence of clustering of lighter nuclides; the observation of neighboring isotopes of elements in the region of Ti and V according to their natural relative abundances; and the unique structural properties of Ti and V, these anomalous Ti and V mass intensities are attributed to transmutations occurring in the Cu-Ag coil during the prolong operation of the magnet. Ti has been shown to cause anomalous low temperature fusion tendencies of hydrogen isotopes. Titanium metal has been demonstrated to extend the lifetime of tritium absorbed within the Ti lattice. Titanium’s anomalous mass spectra are consistent with the Little Effect on the basis that the Ti and V atoms undergoing unique rapid d-s rehybridization relative to other transition metals based on titanium’s and vanadium’s unique electronic structures. These s-d orbital dynamics in Ti and V, subject the Ti and V nuclei to e-capture and neutron capture processes due to the e-and p+ localized within Ti’s and V’s s orbitals during the rapid localization-delocalization dynamics of lattice e-and p+associated with the rapid s-d rehybridization processes of Ti and V. The other elements of the first transition series (Sc, Mn, and Zn) lack these electronic structural factors for such high spin effects and orbital rehybridization for spin induced s-d rehybridization (Fe,Co, Ni) and/or rapid s-d orbital rehybridization (Ti and V) for enhancing the pycnonuclear reactions of reverse beta and e-or p
    + captures by the nuclides. Ti and V may be transmuting between each other. It is also possible that 107Ag is fissioning into 57Fe and 50Ti. The mass intensity 57Fe is too high. The mass intensity of 50Ti is too high.
    109 Ag is fragmenting into 58Ni and 51V. The mass intensity of 51V is too high. 58Ni exhibits an unusually
    high mass intensity relative to 60Ni.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Other than the risk of this Neutron, and if the gammas are thermalised in some way (many ways have been hypothesised) Ti is good as there are many paths that yield high excess and Alpha emissions also lead to some re-cycling.

      Thankyou for your contribution.

      • Warthog

        “…and if the gammas are thermalised in some way (many ways have been hypothesised..”

        The way Rossi “thermalizes” gammas has been public knowledge approximately since the appearance on the scene of the “hot Cat”. I find it an interesting coincidence that the abrupt appearance of a high thermal output E-cat is virtually simultaneous with the switch from lead to tungsten by Rossi.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Yes… tungsten.

    • RLittle

      I do realize the importance of these subsequent studies after me. I take nothing away from MFMP, Greenyer, or Piantelli. It is not enough to say tthat ‘many ways have been hypothesized’. This 2005 theory of RBL is very special and unique among the other many hypotheses. And I leave this fact just is as I will not get into any more arguments concerning people who will not accept me regardless of facts of history and documented literature! But it is extraordinary that in 2002 I put together experiments to test prior theory at the NHMFL and used this powerful magnet (with stainless steel casing and source of Ti and V) to study my hypothesis in a broad way and got some substantiation before I was booted out on the street. IT is extraordinary that in m discussion I present broadly in search of evidence and explanation of my theory and as quoted before I in 2005 explicitly stated : “Titanium’s anomalous mass spectra are consistent with the Little Effect
      on the basis that the Ti and V atoms undergoing unique rapid d-s
      rehybridization relative to other transition metals based on titanium’s
      and vanadium’s unique electronic structures. These s-d orbital dynamics
      in Ti and V, subject the Ti and V nuclei to e-capture and neutron
      capture processes due to the e-and p+ localized within Ti’s and V’s s
      orbitals during the rapid localization-delocalization dynamics of
      lattice e-and p+associated with the rapid s-d rehybridization processes
      of Ti and V. The other elements of the first transition series (Sc, Mn,
      and Zn) lack these electronic structural factors for such high spin
      effects and orbital rehybridization for spin induced s-d rehybridization
      (Fe,Co, Ni) and/or rapid s-d orbital rehybridization (Ti and V) for
      enhancing the pycnonuclear reactions of reverse beta and e-or p +
      captures by the nuclides. Ti and V may be transmuting between each
      other. It is also possible that 107Ag is fissioning into 57Fe and 50Ti.” As written in 2005, this quote of RBL explicitly discloses, Ni, Ti and V even 50V in total consistency to this video by Greenyer and Piantelli’s and others later more detailed experiments. In 2005, I even explained how the charge cluster gets inside the core of the ferrometals like Ni “(Fe, Co, Ni)” and how Ti and V impurities can get involved in the rehybridization with the Ni lattice and Ag/Cu (although may be less catalyzing there is so much more of it) so that e- and or p+ are captured: “e-or p + captures by the nuclides. Ti and V may be transmuting between each other.” That is extraordinary and beautiful. But in many ways I know that many people will be hateful and mean and ignore and minimize my contribution. But Greenyer I certainly hope your later data is correct! I know the great import and significance of this prior work of mine. Most will ignore and minimize me. But against all those odds I gave a beautiful idea and beautiful experiment (data in 2005) to support my idea and it is rather insulting for someone to say oh ‘many hypotheses have been given’. But GOD Bless anyway.

      • Stephen

        Hi RLittle. To all our shame I think, back in those early days there weren’t the teams around who took these amazing ideas and observations seriously. And even those individuals who did were quickly suppressed by the heavier masses.

        Those teams do exist now, thank goodness. Maybe it is the internet age that has brought serious and like minded people together at last.

        • RLittle

          H Sir, Thanks for your comment. You are totally right. You are conversing with one who was/is totally suppressed. This is one reason why I think I should be more recognized when recent experiments are consistent with work that I did long ago. But it is a touchy issue as recent workrs wants to take all credits.

          It is not a matter of wanting a pat on the back. It is more so earnings for survival. When some people work and work and the world gives the profit of their labor to someone else; it seems criminal. I have been thrown down so long. People just do not understand my need for profit from things deserved. But unfortunately sadly, it is a dog eat dog world. I hope for better. Stephen you are an inspiration a dim light in a sick corrupt world. Thanks Stephen for letting your light shine.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We have to roll out the rest of the data for me356s ash, the evidence there is strong that he has seen excess in a number of previous apparatus/systems.

    His fears maybe because of not knowing how neutrons and high energy gammas could form (of course, many would like to ignore the published work of Piantelli, Focardi et-al from the 90s discussing just this.

    I have been in contact to confirm the purity of his Titanium – when he is ready we can test and now we know our methodology produces the actual data, we should be confident if we see excess in the future.

  • Bob Greenyer
  • Gerard McEk

    Hi Bob,
    That was an interesting presentation. It would have been world shocking if MFMP would have been able to verify this themselves.
    Now it is based on two not very compelling parties (Suhas and ME) who were both not able to show their evidence reactor working and supplied you ‘only’ with ash. The titanium-vanadium evidence was interesting.
    To get the real evidence that LENR exists you need to do the work yourself. 1. I know you want to build the Suhas reactor yourself. When do you think you would be able to test it?
    2. Will also ME356 cooperate more strongly in the future?
    3. You seem to know how to get the LiNiH reactor in operation, but the results were quite poor (regarding excess heat) till now. Any chance that will improve in short terms?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Now you fully understand my frustration in India of not being able to put our neutron detection on ECCO.

      Both Suhas and me356 could have delivered. However, in a way, I am glad it did not happen as we learnt what both think works and in the case of Suhas, the main details are now on the record and we will be ready to work with him as soon as possible. We have a plan to move forward.

      We hope to test ECCO beginning of September – pending Suhas.

      me356 when he is ready.

      You do have to hold in mind that no one on earth new why Piantelli/Focardi et als most high energy yield experiment did what it did until yesterday. So, this two ‘not compelling’ parties did not know what to fake. Moreover, it does not matter, since the data in the round, points to a testable formula regardless of anyones opinion of anyone or their competency.

      After rest of ash roll out and more sample testing, NOVA, either end of August or end of September will be tested. Doing Live transmutation will prove LENR. once that is done, we have a plan to remote run Suhas’s fuel in the NOVA and see what we see – this would be a 5th reactor design running this kind of fuel, however, it gives us the fastest path to confirming Piantelli.

      The Wednesday 2nd August 2017 communication was in the same spirit of recognising an imminent proof, in the same way that the Wednesday 2nd August 1939 letter was, however that was in secret, this was enabled by the people and the announcement was made in the peoples interest.

      • georgehants

        Bob, your Wonderful open-science for all, literally brings tears to my eyes.
        Lets hope your work turns out to be as correct as Einstein’s letter but only to bring peace and caring and sharing.
        May all the gods smile on you guys.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I shall pass on your best wishes. As Dr. Egeley said as we debated if this was the right thing to do – “even a kitchen knife can kill” – unspeakable acts are being done – mostly resource wars that this technology would obviate.

          It is a very difficult journey, but it has not been possible to get this far without both the support and criticism of the crowd, both are important, now we know that the ‘failures’ were absolutely critical to get where we are. Thankyou to you all

        • Gerard McEk


      • Gerard McEk

        Thanks Bob, keep going strong for everyone in MFMP. Please provide us with the undeniable evidence that LENR exists!

        • Bob Greenyer

          That is our primary goal, we have three main shots this year, NOVA is next in line, however, the misses have been critical to show us, and everyone else now, how a hit can be achieved (assuming Focardi and Piantelli really did see what they say they saw) – but, as I said 3 people claim or imply high excess with Ni + H + Ti + Electricity in a dynamic system. BUT THE RISKS NEED TO BE KNOWN AND THE PRECAUTIONS TAKEN

          • Gerard McEk

            I have looked at Piantelli’s table. Did he tell you that in those cases there was considerable excess heat (once 900 MJ and once 600 MJ, he found vanadium in the ash? Or was it just in the 900 MJ case?

          • Bob Greenyer

            He said that they established the neutrons came from Vanadium in their steel and then went on to warn us about Titanium. He had to tell us as we were going to do a replication, he had to be responsible.

            We literally had to go public as we were already compelled to share the AURA and ECCO family ash data. People only needed to put Excess heat and see the V with no V in fuel together logically and then they might go ahead and try. So we had to had to be responsible.

          • Svein

            Ni + H + Ti + Electricity in a dynamic system.
            Can you be more specific about the electricity? Is it just for heating, or is there some special form that is needed?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Piantelli cell as in Il nuovo cimento with protocol essentially as GS5.2 and GS5.3. Piantelli’s latest patent lists Microwaves as the best way to trigger the effect and sustain it.

            me356 – don’t know, but he does use electricity for heating and stimulation

            Suhas, either his ultrasonic driven cavitation fuel processor in water or the ECCO reactor itself.

            In the ECCO reactor as defind on MFMP steemit but 1MHz +/- 50 kHz at 2000-2400V pulsed DC glow discharge with ultrasonic vibration of same frequency.

            What this suggests is you have to have electrons liberated, either thermionically, by Microwave or by discharge.

            Nickel is for dissociation and as the ‘springboard’ as explained many moons ago, this provides, according to Piantelli 0-6.7MeV Protons.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Note: having lithium in the mix, as Suhas does, should absorb the Neutrons breeding Tritium and then the protons flying around make Helium.

    It is the Tritium everyone gets upset about.

    In ITER, the neutrons are 14 MeV, requiring 0.5m – 1m of lithium, how thick does the lithium need to be for 255KeV?

  • artefact

    lookingforheat .com will have a new top seller powder 🙂

    • Bob Greenyer

      Should come with Neutron detectors! Or a lithium blanket.

      • artefact

        A batch of experiments with
        Ni + Ti + H
        Ni + Ti + V + H
        Ni + Ti + Li + H
        Ni + Ti + V + Li + H
        Ni + Ti + C + H
        Ni + Ti + V + C + H
        Ni + Ti + Li + C + H
        Ni + Ti + V + Li + C + H
        would be interesting…

        • Bob Greenyer

          There is a resonance for both 6Li and 7Li for the 255KeV neutron – see my paper link below.

      • Rene

        Halloween wax works too.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Yes – to moderate them.

          Moderator Blanket
          It seems useful to have a moderator blanket of
          graphite or beryllium oxide for the purpose of slowing
          down the fast neutrons before they undergo the
          Li6(n,t)He4 reaction. The reaction cross section follows
          a l/v law below the resonance at 255 kev, and
          the thermal neutron cross section is more than 103
          times as large as for the energy region where the
          neutrons would react in a pure lithium blanket.
          If a moderator blanket is lined with lithium both
          inside and outside, no thermal neutrons can escape.

          The mean free path for absorption of thermal neutrons
          is 0.3 cm in natural lithium and 0.023 cm in pure Li6.
          Depending on the albedo of the moderator blanket,
          the inner lining will receive more thermal neutrons
          than the outer one.

          • Rene

            This is heading nicely toward a couple of paths: how to create decent shielding and how to enhance the effect by thermalizing all of the pathways.

          • Bob Greenyer

            The neutrons should be safely used to create far larger excess heat.

          • Rene

            Yes, of course. A Li layer would be a great amplifier (discussed here in the past). What I was referring to is the garage experimenter who needs guidance on how to protect him/herself.

        • Warthog

          Melt the wax, pour in borax powder, stir thoroughly, and cool. Voila…..moderator and neutron absorber.

          • Rene

            Yes, though it is important to note that the capture efficiency of this kind of ‘shield’ is around 50%, so it only reduces risk.

          • Warthog

            I think that would depend on the thickness of the shielding layer.

          • Rene

            Definitely does depend on thickness. It’s just that it could be as much as a foot of the shielding. This document shows cross-section analysis of polyethylene as well as wax/boron amalgams. They also mention the need for lead shielding to deal with the gammas generated by the neutron scattering process. This is not the sort of thing for ad-hoc garage experiments. I begin to understand Piantelli’s concerns.


      • LION

        Hi BOB,
        I am now sure I will be able to drink my Piantelli bottle of wine before Christmas, THANKS BOB. FEDORA to you.

        • LION
          • LION

            I am confident of producing a SSM HOT TUBE by the end of OCTOBER, I hope many others in the community try too.


          • artefact

            Looking forward to know if you allready used Ti.

          • LION

            Hi artefact, the answer to your question is NO, I am using another method which is easily scalable. The next tube I have prepared is 3 times more powerful than the one shown here:


            MFMP have earned HUGE CREDIT for what they have done in the past and are still doing, and I would not be doing what I am but for the Hard Work put in by Alan and Sam and team at LFH and the service they provide, so Credit to all. I owe BOTH a BIG THANKS.
            I think of Andrea as a dear friend for whom I personally have HUGE Respect, so I am Willing October to be a Huge Success.
            I intend as stated to play my part, and urge others to do likewise.
            If the Tide comes IN, in October, then let the whole LENR community Set Sail on it.
            All the best.

          • LION
          • Bob Greenyer

            Do not underestimate the power of will, just ask the Dogon people.

          • Stephen

            Wow I missed that bit… it’s becoming quite an interesting year. Great stuff LION I wonder more and more what we are witnessing. I’m looking forward to your October test.

            Another great thing about 2017 is a really great network of experimenters is forming too.

          • LION

            Hi Stephen,
            Another great thing about 2017 is a really great network of experimenters is forming too.
            I couldn’t agree more. All the best,

        • Bob Greenyer

          You made it happen!

      • Warthog

        Or you could just go down to your local grocery or hardware store and buy a box of borax powder. Borated polyethylene also works, but the box of borax is a lot cheaper.

        • Bob Greenyer

          That’s what Bob Higgins does.

        • US_Citizen71

          The possibility of neutrons have kept me from moving forward with my desire to begin experimenting ever since the bubbles appeared in MFMP’s detector and I don’t want to have a large water tank. Out of curiousity are saying to use it as a powder, create a saturated solution in water or mix it with paraffin as stated below?

          • Rene

            Yes, do the mix. The wax thermalizes the neutrons and the boron captures them. NOTE: the efficiency is not that high, around 50%.

          • Warthog

            Basically it depends on your experimental rig. You need both a moderator (something with lots of protons….water, paraffin wax, polymers of C-H (polyethylenes, polypropylenes))and the borax. Collisions of neutrons with protons “thermalize” the neutron, which is then captured by the boron nucleus. But the borax works, either as a layer sandwiched between polymer plates, incorporated into the polymer (borated polyethylene, paraffin wax), or dissolved in water. It is a very flexible (in terms of design geometry.

          • Warthog


  • Warthog

    “- A hot tungsten filament can split molecular hydrogen into atomic hydrogen. This is a fairly crude method but can be practical.”

    To repeat once again… has been known for a long time that Rossi uses tungsten to shield his low energy gammas. Langmuir believed that he was producing over unity results in his experiments with tungsten and hydrogen, but was dissuaded from pursuing it further by Neils Bohr.

    NO replication attempt has included this known feature of the Rossi reactor(s).

  • R101

    Sweet! The MFMP team is going to have (verifiable) evidence of LENR before Rossi does 🙂
    Congrats and thanks for your continual hard work guys.

  • What does MFMP think is the mechanism to have protons energetic enough to enter a Vanadium nucleus?

    Are these reactors thought to be mini particle accelerators or Coulomb barrier charge shielders or some combination thereof?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Piantelli theory – 1 outcome is Protons up to 6.7MeV, discussed a lot over the years and experimental evidence in paper linked to from presentation.

      • Thanks. I guess you mean this one:

        I can’t get it to load. All I see is a blank screen.

        • artefact

          Works for me

          • OK I got it now. Had to restart my browser because…. TECHNOLOGY!

      • So I’ve reviewed the experimental results paper.

        Is there something you consider a “best link” for understanding Piantelli’s theory?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Hi awarded LENR international patent. Don’t have link right now, but easy to find.

      • TOUSSAINT francois

        Quote from Rossi’s journal

        Colin Watters
        August 2, 2017 at 9:15 PM
        Dear Mr Rossi,

        Lot of people will be interested in your comments on this presentation/warning regarding the effect of Titanium in a LENR cell…

        Play safe.

        Andrea Rossi
        August 3, 2017 at 7:27 AM
        Colin Watters:
        Sorry, I never comment these kind of issues, but I want to congratulate MFMP for their enthusiasm and serious engagement in their experiments.
        Warm Regards,

      • Chapman

        A curious and intriguing theory!

        Now why does it sound so familiar? It is almost as if that is what was being proposed a long, long time ago, by some REALLY smart and charismatic people…

        How ODD! 🙂

  • Stephen

    What you describe sounds some how like a halogen bulb with Hydrogen. Or possibly a plasma lamp or part of the E-Cat QX maybe?

    Regarding Nickel Hydride breathing. I think Adsorption/desorption occurs in a limited temperature/pressure range with a maximum critical temperature well below the plasma temperature. I’m also curious about this.

    Does adsorption/desorption still occur at higher temperatures but in some kind of dynamic equilibrium? Or does the Nickel Hydride need to be held at a lower temperature than the plasma to breath. Maybe in a location say 1cm from the plasma heat source so the radiative temperature at that location is lower?

    or would temperature cycling explain the correct process.

    Or are there special conditions where Nickel Hydride can breath Hydrogen at much higher temperatures than the typical critical temperature.

    • Warthog

      “What you describe in the second part of your post sounds some how like a halogen bulb with Hydrogen. ”

      Langmuir’s overall work task at GE Labs was to improve the use life of tungsten bulbs. Part of that work involved testing many different fill gases, including hydrogen. It was with hydrogen that he thought he was getting more energy out than was going into the bulb filament.

      He discussed this with Niels Bohr, and Bohr dissuaded him from pursuing that avenue further because “theory said it was impossible” (does that sound familiar to anyone here).

      Langmuir was probably THE premier experimentalist produced by the 20th Century, sufficiently so that he was nominated for the Nobel Prize in both Physics AND Chemistry.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Langmuir was really a man before his time.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Nickel can be in various forms

    In Piantelli/Focardi it was nanoclusters on Nickel alloy
    For suhas, round spheres in the 5um range – some smaller, many larger
    For me356 it was filamentary carbonyl nickel with low micron diametre and highly spikey nano structures (we listed this type many moons ago)

    With the Nickel + Hydrogen alone, there is little chance of HIGH COP as many have seen.

    me356 generating fresh H2 with generator.

    Suhas – either creating via re-entrant jet in cavitation, hydrogen plasma discharge in ionic water based solution or glow pulsed glow discharge all with additional ultra-sonic stimulations.

    Piantelli describes well his steps in his patents

  • nietsnie

    Impressive presentation: gaps in knowledge pointed to; intellectual risks freely exposed and discussed. Very clear summation. No opinions, no belief systems. Just the measurable evidence and what can be surmised from it – and why – clearly and logically presented.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Not talking about it and having a very public accident would be a Papp.

  • US_Citizen71

    All depends on how it is handled and spun. Every new building in the US is required to have one or more Alpha emitters installed before sale or habitation. I’m talking about smoke detectors and their Americium 241 buttons.

    • Bob Greenyer

      And you are legally allowed to put them in landfill

  • lifeswhatyoumakeit

    Well done to the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project! Never before in the field of science was so much owed by so many to so few!

    • Bob Greenyer

      This was only possible due to the donations and investigatory power of the crowd – more than anything this was made possible by the courage of Francesco Piantelli who invited us in 2015 to tell us previously undisclosed information that he had held for over 2 decades. Even then it was just words, warnings and graphs – the courage of me356 and Suhas Ralkar to let us test their ash and in the case of Suhas, the feedstock and fuel also. Very much a collective effort.


  • Nick Sunchild

    I think, the unfiltered, raw, pure, enthusiasms, speech and thoughts of the endless consciousness who has the name Bob Greenyer brings the best out of MFMP Members, because they have to deal with unfiltered, raw, pure, enthusiasms, speech and thoughts!

    I think Bruce__H is not a Team Player and has no clue how to create a environment where creativity and science come to conclusions that shape the future.

    Bruce__H has a Boring life too, nothing better to do then to make a unreflected thought to hot air, what have absolutely nothing to do with the topic.

    I make it clear for you, no one absolutely no one is interested in a primitive creation of division like you did it. We thank MFMP for all the efforts, openness and sharings of the work everyone of them did, do and will do. That includes the endless consciousness who has the name Bob Greenyer.


    Nick Sunchild

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks Nick. I have to be true, if I am wrong I want to know, but just because something is difficult to accept, doesn’t mean it is wrong. Truth will out… knowledge wants to be free and releasing the 50V challenge in the ‘ABC Story’ was quite cathartic for the MFMP members.

      Today 4/8/2017, is, according to the LENR calendar, when Alchemy was born (actually, I suspect that it started a long time before that). I’d write an article just for fun on how to do it… I can see people going nuts over that!

      However, I will not, as it is my daughter birthday… it will have to come later…

      But you can have a go at guessing, just take my Asti presentation (when I publish it) and Suhas’ foil process and see if you can see what is staring us in the face.

      • Steve D

        DIY instructions, lead into gold please Bob 😉

        • Bob Greenyer

          I will do it – I wanted to gift it as a story to my daughter on her birthday which is today, since that is why I got into LENR, to try to make the world at least the same, if not better for her and her generation and the generations to come.

          But first, I want to see if anyone can make the same mental leap – I will release my Asti presentation tomorrow (if I have gotten my broken finger sorted) – think on it with respect to Suhas foil preparation and the EDX findings from that.

          • oldrolledgold

            I didn’t really understand your reply to my gold question.Should I hold onto my gold bars or sell them off? In your opinion.I accept it is just an opinion and not investment advice and all must do their own due diligence.

          • Skip

            No, don’t hold on to them, send them to MFMP. Half will be used in the experiments and the other half will sponsor said experiments.
            And thanx

          • Bob Greenyer

            dammit skip – you think fast.

          • Skip

            That’s why you love me

          • Bob Greenyer

            No, I love you because you are a martian

          • Bob Greenyer

            Seriously though Skip, thanks for being there at some of the most important times.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I fully expect that when I share my insight, most people will ignore it. Even when people are making gold with the concepts, they wont believe it. Moreover, gold is hypothecated 100 times +. In a perverse way, I would expect the price of gold to go up HUGELY initially, it will make sense.

            This is not financial advice 😉

      • Nick Sunchild

        I think because you are so close with MFMP, the wind blows stronger in your face. I happily see and read the deep lesson we got from all of you.
        My open questions!
        Are capitation bubbles and charge cluster the same effect on a different scale?
        Do they occur only in a environment with a potential density difference?
        Is the density difference in fluid dynamics creating holes in space that wants to flipp back to a equilibrium?
        Is the same happening in plasma dynamics, and the quantum vacuum is the super fluid?

        Don’t answer think about it! Have in mind that CERN data shows fluid dynamics.

        Are all the triggers heat, fast change of pressure, microwaves, ultrasonic creating the density difference in the environment that allows the holes in space to exist? Can we freeze this holes in metal and release it with a trigger?

        Have a great day

  • Bob Greenyer

    Since when has science not been hypothesis, experiment, observe, interpret etc?

There is only one persons complete system we have ever tested and that was me356s. It was our most comprehensively instrumented, with rich live data. As always we responded quickly to implement suggestions from the crowd and that made it an accurate determination of null excess. Only because it was null did we get access to ash samples which led to the data that formed part of the ‘ABC Story’. There was no theory or speculation involved in that whole thing, there was just the tools that we had accumulated through our research up to that point. If I had not said what I never wanted to know in India, I would have never have met Suhas and the project would not have raised the funds used to do both the AURA test and the ash analysis.

    In the Case of Celani, it was our first seemingly positive test, launched on 12s past 12m past 12 on 12.12.12 (California time) that on the 14.12.12 led me to a presentation in Rome where, following my presentation, I was told off the record to add an Alkaline metal – I replied “what, you mean like Lithium” (Since P&F had used Li in their experiments), I tried to get the addition of Lithium or a compound in our experiments but we were focussed on Celani. We NEVER tested a Celani system only his wires, protocols were largely our own with input from all stakeholders. This long form work did help us to get to see Piantelli.

    Our test of Carpenteries Rock crushing, in hind sight was an abject failure, wrong rock size, wrong press strength and wrong neutron detectors.

    Since LENR-Invests investment into NiCHEnergy prevented our replication of his work directly, and since we knew the heritage of Rossi working with Focardi, we decided to, for the first time in GS5.2, use the triggering protocol given to us by Piantelli but with the Rossi fuel mix. We got ‘Signal’ (established by ecco ecco) as a result – were we wrong to take Piantelli’s advice? Where we wrong to use Rossi’s patent fuel? We then did the same Piantelli process for 5.3 and we saw neutrons. This is an integral part of the ABC story.

    Only because the bank was chasing Suhas did we get the ash to test and did so.

    I have proof read many Celani papers, I put Celani onto Holmlid, Last week I was proof reading a long paper by a different author who has a clear idea of what is going on based on over 100 years of other researchers work and I have no problem with doing that since I am theory agnostic. What I do not do, is close my mind to things because I can’t understand or don’t believe what I am seeing.

What me356 saw, and published openly, but could not explain, was his stainless steel reactor suddenly glowing outside heater zone without a change of temperature and only when he is ‘turning excess heat on’. The events Suhas told me during our first meeting, that got him interested in LENR because he could not explain them, including his Titanium glowing ‘red hot’ and iron ‘melting’ both in a water bath – well metals glowing and deforming without being hotter was observed by both Kenneth Shoulders and John Hutchinson, and since me356 claims that is when excess heat is produced and under those conditions, in Suhas’ foil processor, he is getting transmutations – what would you think Bruce – what is your explanation. 

Norris Peery saw massive transmutation in his reactors with excess heat way beyond Brillouin / Piantelli – and guess what, he has metal in an HV electric field glow discharge (static field) with microwaves – the same system as Hutchinson – static electric field and microwaves.

    If people refuse empirical evidence, or to look at video and images like those from me356 and Hutchinson and refuse to accept the transmutations coming out of a system in which Suhas says he (without knowing of Hutchinson or me356) saw the same thing, they cannot be helped – experiment trumps theory every time, if the theory does not fit – then it is wrong. Data trumps all. Rossi quite rightly has changed his theory as his knowledge expands.

    What did Rossi’s co-worker say… “I have seen things you wouldn’t believe” – what do you think he meant by that?

    I have a pretty good Idea – because others have been showing us for years

    • Bruce__H

      I am not complaining about your scholarship, or trying to diminish the role of creativity in science. I am complaining that the core mission of MFMP is drifting into cheer leading. I always thought that applying completely transparent public-science procedures to contentious issues is win-win. If you are able to back up a key discovery then great. If you find that there is nothing there then that is fine too … at least people get to see how real science is done.

      But being a public portal to unbiased testing requires a bit of distance from the actual results. This could become part of the standard operating procedure (I’d love to see MFMP double-blind testing) but it at least needs to be part of the public stance. The people at MFMP should be intentionally putting themselves above the fray.

      For you personally Bob, I think you need to choose which path to take. There is nothing wrong with being more intimately involved with the genesis of these discoveries, but then you need to separate yourself from the MFMP because otherwise you will just hurt them. You should choose. That is my feeling anyway.

      • Martin Lund

        I agree. Also, we don’t need any more theories on LENR mixed with crazy ramblings on 9.11 or other new age conspiracy theories or romantic notions of alchemy. Stick to the science or get out of MFMP.

        • georgehants

          Martin, always good to keep a closed-mind just as the religious priests of science dictate.
          Thinking for oneself away from the holy teachings is of course not allowed and creates great fear in the average scientist.
          I take it you “know” that genuine UFO’s are impossible and must never be mentioned without an inane laugh.
          Keep up the good work.

          • Martin Lund

            george, you talk nonsense. Thinking for oneself is exactly what I encourage but it should be critical thinking not silly thinking. There is no room for religion or UFO nutters in science because there is no credible evidence for any of it. Sure, there is room for thinking outside the box in LENR but don’t cross the line into crazy land.

          • georgehants

            Martin, I think you have well confirmed your thinking as described in my above reply.
            Thank you.

          • Martin Lund

            You just don’t get it. At no point have I said LENR is not possible. In fact I think there is enough evidence for the effect to be real. But guys like you love to pull in those romantic conspiracy theories and ramblings which has nothing to do with any of it. It’s a shame and waste of energy. Go ahead, be a nutter if you have to. We would love to hear about the next big conspiracy.

          • Bob Greenyer

            On both the existence of LENR and transmutations, and especially biological transmutations, I have literally had well paid scientists with jobs at CERN laugh in my face as they tell me not to bother since what I am researching is impossible because they know it to be impossible and why don’t I look in a textbook to find out how impossible it is.

            The bizarre thing is, standard accepted fission and even fusion is changing one element into another.

            On the other side, people have revealed ‘LAW’ defying technology to me this year because I have started to let go of my university indoctrination and instead, started to feel-think. This technology will feature in a documentary that will be released at some point (it has already been recorded over a year or so and produced). Technology that has proved itself functional without any conventional explanation. Even the inventors and the testers don’t know how it works, but I do and I will clearly explain. Guess what, it is the same thing that triggers LENR.

          • georgehants

            Morning Bob, look forward to that, please put on page when available.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Satire become you George.

          • Philip James

            Sadly Martin your rantings are just making you look silly. As George notes– don’t straight-jacket people. I’m a high end academic publishing in all the top journals anyone could want (blah blah blah insert self deprecation here)– but I also frequent sites like this, and UFO sites, and the paranormal. I’ve made my career looking for problems others thought were silly– helped the research community and made a mint off solving those problems.

            And in this instance– you are emblematic of the kind of person I’ve left in my dust.

          • georgehants

            Martin, why do you go against the holy
            dictates of science that have declared from the beginning that Cold
            Fusion is impossible and junk science yet you seem to be unable to except that
            other such incompetent denials are wrong.
            Seems a complete contradiction, an explanation would be useful.
            Your thinking is illogical and against basic common-sense, you or nobody know which esoteric subjects will become an excepted reality.
            If P&F had not been in your words “nutters” then we would have no Cold Fusion.

          • Carl Wilson

            “nobody know[s] which esoteric subjects will become an excepted reality” – – which or when

          • georgehants

            Carl, sorry missed I had already replied. deleted.
            To answer you, I don’t understand your question, sorry.

        • David_Kaiser_39

          Why you don’t respect other people point of views? It’s fine if you don’t respect it, but just keep it for yourself and don’t cry like a baby. I’m so happy that Bob is daring to share his thoughts with us. It is very rare to find such bold, strong and beautiful mind like his. To be raised as a son of a high degree Freemason you might not even grasp what this means. So please let his mind fly to places that you cannot reach and be glad that he at least tries to share with us.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Don’t read what I share, you have a choice.

          Which science are your talking about here – the ‘psuedoscience’ of LENR, or just some of the musings I put out on some participants observations in the field.

          • Martin Lund

            It’s been quite amusing to read the responses to my statements in this echo chamber, especially since everyone mistakenly seem to think that I’m against LENR. Read my comments carefully and you will find that I’m actually for LENR and I hope that one day we will have a good theoretical understanding and use of the effect.

            Bob, I respect your LENR/MFMP related work and I understand the need to think outside the box but ever since you started rambling about 9.11 LENR conspiracy theory and even brought it up at the LENR meeting with the engineers in India I have lost confidence in you and MFMP. It seems to be very much against the spirit of Martin Fleischmann who was all about reasoning and using the scientific method – a great experimentalist. I guess my point is, stick to the experiments to prove LENR but don’t starting looking for exotic answers in the highly questionable world of 9.11 conspiracy theories – it’s simply a bridge too far. The field of LENR is having enough of a difficult time already and adding conspiracy theories to the mix only makes it harder for people to take LENR and MFMP seriously.

            And to all the readers in here who believes in UFOs, chem trails, Illuminati lizard people, flat earth, etc.. please bring evidence for your beliefs or turn your attention elsewhere. Either way I think this LENR forum is not the place for such topics.

          • georgehants

            Martin, your comments are illogical and lack commonsense to the extreme, how can you be interested and respect the work on Cold Fusion when it began as complete Junk science, condemned by all of science just like the other examples you are so closed-minded to.
            Are you a mystic able to foresee which subjects will become respectable when all the detractors are proven wrong and jump on the bandwagon.
            There are plenty of Websites where nutters go around denying every thing beyond a steam engine, can only suggest you join the masses of fortune telling experts on a few of them

          • Martin Lund

            georgepants, your repeated attempts at slandering me and misrepresenting my words is fascinating. Your mind seems to be all over the place. None of what I have said is illogical to a healthy mind.

            I’m a professional engineer and I consider myself to have a healthy skeptical mind but are always open to new ideas and information as any good and curious engineer would be. Like many visitors of this site, LENR caught my attention when Rossi did his first public demonstration of his magical excess heat producing device in Bologna in 2011. Since then I have come to the conclusion that there is a fair possibility that the LENR effect is real because of reports and information coming from scientists and institutions that can be considered trustworthy.

            Cold Fusion, or to be more precise, the work of Fleischmann and Pons didn’t start out as junk science. In their science research they stumbled upon the excess heat LENR effect which was only later deemed as junk science because other scientists could not replicate the effect. But as Dr. Hagelstein has pointed out repeatedly, the replicators failed because none of them achieved a high enough loading ratio of hydrogen in their Pd systems to create the conditions required for the LENR effect to take effect. We know this today – unfortunately the damage is already done and the field of LENR is left stigmatized.

            To me, the strongest evidence that boosted my confidence level that there is a novel nuclear reaction taking place in LENR systems is the research paper by Frank Gordon, Mosier Boss etc. from the Naval Research Laboratory that presents evidence for tritium production in Pd/D systems.

            Also, the high precision calorimetry work coming from McKubre at SRI International which indicates excess heat production in various LENR type systems comes across as being trustworthy. Their most recent report confirming excess heat in Brillouins systems only adds to this.

            Scientists such as Sven Kulander, Hanno Essen, Roland Pettersson, Guiseppe Levi, and Forcardi with long honest careers and no apparent motives for lying makes me think there is likely something truthful to the LENR effect that they have claimed to have observed in Rossis E-cat device. However, proof is in the pudding and despite everything Rossi has said and done this far, we are still waiting for him to present indisputable evidence of LENR by him bringing his E-Cat (QX) product to market.

            No sir, I believe I have good sound reasoning for my beliefs and that the sources that I deem trustworthy are well considered. It is a fallacy to say that just because I think it is likely that LENR is true then I should also jump on the band wagon of UFO believers and 9.11 truthers etc.. I think the scientists involved and the growing body of high quality research papers in the field of LENR (presented at ICCF every year) is vastly superior to the data coming out of the UFO, 9.11, etc. conspiracy communities. You simply can’t compare and claim them to be equally valid nor true.

          • georgehants

            Martin, you try very hard but have not explained why you do not condemn those early Cold Fusion Researchers, if they had followed your closed-minded reasoning then no Research would have been done to open the subject.
            Are you able to follow this simple logic?
            Going by your childish change of my name reveal your True character, sad.
            Below a link by experts on UFO’s, I take it you will now become an avid UFO follower as you say you are with Cold Fusion, or because it does not agree with your closed-minded views you will dismiss it.
            Look forward to your trying to wriggle out of your problem
            Summary of French COMETA Report
            On Friday 16 of July 1999 was published in France an outstanding
            document, called “UFOs and Defence. What must we be prepared for
            ?” (“Les OVNI et la Défense. A quoi doit-on se préparer?”) This
            ninety pages report is the result of an in depth study of UFOs,
            covering many aspects of the subject, especially questions of
            The study was carried out during several years by an independant
            group of former “auditors” at the very serious Institute of
            Higher Studies for National Defence, or IHEDN (“Institut des
            hautes études de défense nationale”), and of qualified experts
            from various fields. Before its public release, it has been sent
            to French President of the Republic Jacques Chirac, and to Prime
            minister Lionel Jospin.

          • Frank Acland

            As you all know, I try to keep this site from straying too far from the topic of LENR and energy technology, but other topics do come up in the course of discussion. The readership here is varied, and we are going to have people with different perspectives and interests., so I hope we can be respectful of one another even though we might differ in our opinions and what we consider to be worthy of inquiry.

          • georgehants

            Agreed as always Frank, this person refuses to follow the most basic logic regarding Cold Fusion Research and it’s genesis.
            With out listening to people such as Bob Greenyer then we are committing the same sins as those abusers of P&F etc.
            Will just leave it now as no progress seems to be possible.

          • Chapman

            You here that sound? That is the “deafening silence” of ME not responding when once again a perfectly nice discussion gets high jacked by nonsense. It does not matter whether it’s politics, AGW, or UFOs.

            You have a guy trying to have a discussion focused on the science, and just look at the rude and insulting way he gets flamed. And when HE responds, he then gets dogpiled as if it is HE that went off the deep end!

            Warthog is right, and eventually all one can do is Block the BS, or just go with it and RESPOND with to it just for the entertainment value, but it sure seems strange that the ensuing argument is invariably blamed on those who are just responding to the initial nonsense. So is THAT ultimately what it has come to? Ignore the BS, or block it, but do not dare respond in kind and confront it?

            We just came here wanting to talk about LENR, and it was a wonderful thread analysing the secondary reaction chains that can take place based upon fuel doping, or reactor material composition. Pretty straight forward. You would think it could stay on track! But it appears that the nonsense is not just an accidental side effect of diverse personalities, but rather a deliberate and stubborn insistence on throwing a wrench into the works.

            Now, I admit it! I get worked up every time we get trolled down the path to:
            Trans-dimensional Teleportation
            Crop Circles

            But it is now to the point where folks have no choice but to have some portion of the forum content BLOCKED, and just read between the filtered segments and TRY to extract some engaging content. While doing so is technically feasible, and what we are forced to do on the OTHER sites, ECW had not devolved to the point of requiring such measures.

          • Why are you averse to discussing BECs? There are some interesting BEC based LENR theories, such as from KP Sinha.

          • Chapman

            That is the FUNNY part! That every now and then they really ARE the legitimate topic! But for about six months there no one could say ANYTHING without someone, who I have actually since come to respect, jumping in and going on and on about BEC’s. You could mention that your BEER was flat, and it would immediately be attributed to fluke BEC formations. As I said, it was just a fixation for a while that became annoying eventually, until it became FUNNY. I finally learned to ENJOY it, and looked forward to the next manifestation…

            And, of course, there is no question that his SCIENCE is awesome. His insights are deep. And his understanding of the deep mechanics are quite impressive, and very informative.

            But I maintain that BEC’s have nothing to do with the jug of milk in my fridge having gone prematurely sour…

          • Martin Lund

            chapman, you are correct. It seems the only way to cope with all the off-topic nonsense coming in my direction is to start blocking people.

            I’m quite surprised and disappointed how many of the LENR supporters in this forum also believe in all sorts of implausible conspiracy theories. It is clear to me that many in here lack a modest level of critical thinking and I’m simply not going to engage in any of that nonsense for their entertainment.

          • Warthog

            “I’m quite surprised and disappointed how many of the LENR supporters in
            this forum also believe in all sorts of implausible conspiracy theories.”

            Scientists are people too. The legit ones have been trained to compartmentalize their science “work” from their oddball interests, and do so.

          • Chapman

            Imagination is a wonderful thing. What would life be without it?

            But when one is engaged in an analysis of some technical issue, ANY technical issue, it must be put on a short leash. Analysis deals with sorting facts. Whether you are studying a scientific phenomena, a crime scene, a legal position, or a financial forecast, cold hard facts come first, and we invoke our imagination only to bridge voids where we lack hard data and need to sift through the POSSIBILITIES of what might be just beyond our sight. All well and good.

            But when a person does not have control of his imagination, it ceases being a useful tool and becomes the dominant psychological impulse. At that point the individual is no longer analysing ANYTHING, they are just daydreaming. And combining that lack of mental discipline with deeply ingrained political, religious, or social passions (or worse, some serious psychological aberrations) leaves one with no control over the wanderings of their minds.

            I would not mind all of that, and might enjoy having a beer with the guy. But the other side effect of the lack of self control and mental discipline is how fast they go from thoughtful, to irate, then rude, and then flat out offensive. They go Zero to Sixty faster than the speed of schizophrenia! Engaging with them is more dangerous than mixing nitroglycerine in the basement.

            There are guys here who hold entirely different political and social views than I do. I am not offended by their opinions, and those opinions do not in any way diminish my respect for their intellectual gifts. Heck, the more I respect your MIND, the more likely I am to be swayed by your opinion ON one of those other issues. But if a person displays a total lack of ability to think straight on a simply scientific issue, then what credibility should be given to their other thoughts and ideas? A healthy mind DISPLAYS healthy function under every condition. The opposite is also true.

            So, yeah… Thank GOD for the BLOCK function.

          • Warthog

            “But it is now to the point where folks have no choice but to have some
            portion of the forum content BLOCKED, and just read between the filtered
            segments and TRY to extract some engaging content.”

            I found that blocking the one specific user that I missed virtually nothing of technical interest.

          • Martin Lund

            I’m sorry. I’m not going to entertain you on any topic not related to LENR. You will have to go elsewhere to discuss UFOs.

          • Warthog

            Simply use the “block user” feature. Life is far more peaceful since I became aware of that. And I’ve only blocked one user.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I have asked you to look into Steven E. Jones – intimately involved in the LENR story – look at his wikipedia, use your head.

          • Martin, if you’re interested in knowing the engineering solution behind UFOs, the best book to get your hands on is Renato Vesco’s “Intercept UFO”. It details standard aeronautical experiments in boundary layer control back to the 1920’s and the German effort to capitalize on it, all the way to the point that it was the allies who won the war and 2 years later those experiments started to come into fruition.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Martin, do you think that muon catalysed fusion is mainstream, because if you do, then you have that guy, the same guy, destroying P&F and leading the 9.11 truther movement (with accepted physics as the alternative hypothesis) and discrediting Judy Wood.

            I presume, that because Steven E. Jones, the lead proponent of Muon Catalysed Fusion, is promoting this, you now consider Muon Catalysed Fusion nonsense by association?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Martin, you don’t understand what drives curious people. You also are missing the obvious. See the post I made at the top of this page and apply a modicum of critical thinking.

            For the record, on a perfectly clear day in Dec 10 1999, I was in NY, whilst waiting in the cafe in the 110th floor, for my slot on top, I read a plaque on the wall – it said “This building is designed to withstand the direct impact of an aircraft”, 20 minutes later, I stood on the observation deck of the south tower – It was the first time in my life I could see the curvature of the Earth.

            Thankyou for your opinion, in my book, facts matter – even if they are inconvenient.

          • Martin Lund

            I’m sorry Bob but we will have to agree to disagree. I consider myself a very curious engineer. Your NY story is nice but I wouldn’t consider the text of the plaque as evidence of a indestructible building and I don’t think you do either. Also, “an airplane” can represent any class of airplane, even small. It would have been more impressive if the text had said “any airplane” even by 1960/70s airplane size standards. Anyway, I don’t want to enter in 9.11 discussions here.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Someone who listened to Suhas Ralkar say he witnessed making ‘molten’ iron in a water bath and my connection with KS and Hutchinson in (RedPill) pointed me to statements made by Thomas Bearden that the desperate Russian scientists had demonstrated to representatives cold forming of metals.

            Ok, so I don’t know who he is but out of curiosity, I ordered his ‘Fer de Lance’ and ‘Oblivion’ books which I received yesterday.

            Well, all I can say is, if you enjoy living in your illusion, DO NOT BUY THESE BOOKS.

          • Hi. I tried to find the original statements by Bob about 911 & LENR so I can make up my own mind. But I can’t find them. Do you have source links please ?

          • Martin Lund
          • Thanks ! I’ll check that out.

          • Ah ! So there it is. I think he’s been reading this: Real or not it appears that ecat/cold fusion would not be the place to discuss this. Real or not it’s WAY too hot politically and automatically is conspiracy theory. Although Judy Wood (author of book linked above) seems (I say seems) to have good evidence of some kind of nuclear transformation the subject is just too emotive (not to mention fear filled). Best to concentrate on what’s simpler and more easily understood in LENR without inappropriate distractions.

      • Warthog

        Baloney. Every scientist I have ever known (and I myself) was full of enthusiasm about their own work and the work of others. But they also possess the ability to keep those enthusiasms separate from the actual execution of scientific work and interpretation of results. Heck, the chief scientist at IBM (I think it was Garvey) believed in “crystal energy”, but nobody argued about the validity of his scientific results.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Bruce, it is clear from what you write that you have missed much of our research and actually don’t grasp our manifesto, consistent from the beginning, agreed by all directors past and present. This was the firs thing put out as we formed and are our guiding principles.

        We have 3 aims
        1. Show to the world there is a new practical primary energy source we call the New Fire
        2. Once shown, help develop peoples understanding of what the New Fire is
        3. Help promote the development and uptake of the New Fire in all its various guises

        In our time, we have shown repeatedly evidence of excess in both Celani and Rossi systems. We have shown high energy photonic emissions in Celani and Rossi systems. We have shown neutron emissions in Piantelli procedure triggered Rossi formulae.

        I devised the most secure double blind analysis technique of our ashes ever done in the field. Alan labelled and 256bit encrypted index and published, Frank Ackland then re-indexed and sent to participating analysing parties. We were warned by a party state-side that these parties would not give us the real analysis, but we went ahead anyhow. One party accidentally sent data (as we were in email chain) saying that one sample had tested to contain Copper – there was and embarrassing set of emails were the testing party refused to put the copper finding in the released data. The other testing party found isotopic shift and then was asked to re-test and retracted. From that moment we decided to let non-LENR related organisations to test, with observation – that way we get the real data and can see it happen and the independent testing party has the data on their systems and we get a copy. In future, we would always want an observer that makes sure the testing party is not filtering the data.

        With the clear transmutation data from Suhas and Parkhomov and apparent transmutation from me356 (did not have fuel to test) we are and have been transitioning to our second and tertiary stated aims. Perhaps you were not aware that it was always clearly stated that this is what would happen.

        During the ‘ABC-Story’ presentation, we were sent an email from a non LENR viewer that finally had a reason for their anomaly in their Vanadium Oxide including experiment – that is to say, by going public, we had apparent confirmation by a non-affiliated, non-lenr party during the presentation. Additionally, an MFMP researcher, but not a board member, who is in a position to test (safety wise) is working out how he can test it.

        I learnt many years ago, it is a fools game to try and do everything yourself, right now, with Egeley, Suhas, Celani collaboration and with contact with Piantelli, Parkhomov, Peery – we have literally 10s millions of $ and 100s years of experience and application to learn from – we would be fools to not do so and it would be a dereliction of our commitment to follow through.

    • Bruce__H

      By the way, I was not one of the critics of MFMP’s work with me356. Just the opposite. I think more should be done. A 1-week period for meshing 2 complicated systems together is not enough. Equipment failures like me356 had are completely typical of bench research in my experience.

    • TOUSSAINT francois

      You have refreshing set of mind, ituitive and sincere, you and MFMP are trying to change the status quo of energy, carry on the very good job !

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks, and thanks for your contributions and research over the years, many times your research has added context and new considerations to the open work we do.

  • Rene

    Bob, MFMP et-al. Now that there seems to be a testable path toward demonstrating LENR, this is a good time to ask for donations to help staff ramp up the experiments.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Hi Rene, we want to deliver this now, bring it home. We are working on something novel and very participation oriented. In the mean time, we have NOVA to test and other ashes.

      • Max Nozin

        Nikel -hydrogen heater based on titanium hydride
        Bob, I believe you know the guy.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Yes, though you would be unlikely to get the neutrons with Titanium alone, Nickel is the springboard providing the proton (other transition metals, including Ti will do it, but to my understanding, not so frequently)

          I think there is a very good reason for this device to be in water and shielded.

          As Dr. Egeley said to me last week, we should not waste the neutrons (they can do storms reaction chains – that is to say light water to helium from neutron and proton additions) LOTS OF ENERGY

  • CWatters

    Unfortunately Rossi declined to comment on this issue when I asked him on his forum.

    • LesioQ

      If mentioned lack of comment is THIS meaninful, then maybe mystical fuel pre-processing (Lugano) is actually Ti+H=TiH, for further thermal release of Hydrogen.

      • Bob Greenyer

        You need the Nickel also. Lugano had a Tungsten sheath.

        • Warthog

          “Lugano had a Tungsten sheath.”

          Really? Somehow I missed that detail. Is there a sketch of how the tungsten was situated with respect to the rest of the reactor elements?? The key datum I am looking for is whether or not the tungsten had direct contact with the hydrogen.

          • Bob Greenyer

            AFAIK not in contact with fuel & 1mm

  • roseland67


    It simply does NOT matter what
    “The skeptics say”, it never has.
    The only thing that matters is still the only thing that ever mattered:
    Energy Out > Energy In.

    If Bob and his team can develop a system
    that consistently generates excess heat,
    and anyone using the same:
    Bill of Materials
    Build instructions
    Testing protocols/procedures
    Accurately measure/re-measure
    And get the same results

    Then screw the sceptics, they will melt away like spring snow.

    • Bob Greenyer

      We have presented strong evidence to the possibility of a fairly resilient formulae and the concomitant risk.

      Dr. Egeley, a real, bona fide, nuclear engineer, opened my eyes, the 255keV neutrons should not be wasted – they need to be embraced, they have the potential, just as is the plan for ITER to use them to breed tritium, with the apparent embedded proton accelerator and Storms chains, you can get HUGE energy by making harmless helium.

      This field is called
      “Low Energy NUCLEAR reactions”

      So, not sure why people are surprised by this.

      Though some times it appears to be
      “Low Energy Emotional Reactions”

      We need clear heads.

  • Gerard McEk

    Bob, if you look into Piantelli’s table of succesful experiments, then there is only one that generates neutrons. There are also others that generate a lot of heat like the one of 600MJ, but without neutrons. So obviously there are ways to generate considerable heat without Vanadium. How do you look to that in the light of your CAB story?
    PS. I lost the link to that document. Can you provide it again?

    • Bob Greenyer

      You need to consider the time that the experiments took to reach that total excess, Piantelli has run experiments that lasted years. Even then the 900MJ one is 50% more than the next best. The neutron producing experiment was shut down in a panic, and not because of melt down. ‘CAB Story’ cut that narrative to the bare minimum to lay out the facts to be considered. Look at the delta Pmax – 72W compared to 18W for the two you cite.

      • Gerard McEk

        Yes agreed, I will study this document further. Thanks for sending it again.

  • Bob Greenyer

    It matters little what slander is made now, the evidence is that this effect is real, and ‘CAB Story’ spells an embodiment out in simple terms – just effort by any party would answer the doubt.

  • RLittle

    I know that most will not properly credit me., but still my theory is beautiful and in 2005 there was not only my theory but my beautiful experiment with my results using state of the art analytic equipment. The power that be only wants to minimize me by stating oh he just gave a hypothesis. But in addition to my broad theory I also gave an experiment using top research equipment in the world at NHMFL! But this is not going to be stressed to you all and lies will continue to be told, one lie after another. But based on the comprehensiveness of my theory which later embraces both Piantelli 2007 and Rossi 2007 work I thought I would unify. A great theory should be able to unify lose ends of Rossi and Piantelli. Some people wonder why Ni is necessary and Ti and V yield different results yet Rossi seems not to use Ti and V but still get results. Well my prior theory which supports explain the later works of both Rossi and Piantelli can explain both under broad powerful umbrella! It was noted below that Ni is essential and works best for ‘spring board’ for accelerating protons for the transmuting of V {which I noted and observed in 2005 and published in 2005)! Why? Well RBL already explained this before 2005. My 2000 theory explains as the so called charge cluster (hydride) is formed magnetically as I proposed over 14 years ago and the hydride of my theory is explained to get embedded within the core of electronic shells of transition metals by magnetic process under mild heat. It is on this basis as presented by RBL before 2005 that Fe, Co, and Ni being ferromagnetic accelerated the process. It is also on this basis that I explained the cold fusion much better and gave the new foundation in the new century for accelerating and reproducing unconventional nuclear processes. In the prior century Piantelli, in 1990s shifted from Pd of Fleischmann and Pons to Ni because He said ‘Ni is cheaper ‘ (not the magnetism) (but Piantelli’s motivation was the cheaper nature of Ni and this was published and stated in the 1990s by him , this is what I read from him) But in 2000 RBL reasoned Ni in a scientific rather than economic way and RBL reason and developed a new theory based on magnetism and therefore involved Ni as well as Fe and Co. Many people will refuse to accept this from RBL but it just is. The facts are the facts. So based on the magnetism a new route for theory was give by RBL in the new century. In this new theory of RBL that ferrometals by their strong magnetism magnetically entrain the hydrides (charge clusters) by Little Effect o{f strong magnetism altering the orbitals of the charge clusters (hydrides) among orbitals of different angular momenta as well as inside the valence shells so the hydrides can have core shell penetrations!} { and this was given by RBL many years before Piantelli later included in his patent in 2007-08} . Powerful beautiful and likely later overlooked and/or stolen from RBL. So among the ferrometals listed by RBL in 2005 (Fe, Co and Ni), Ni is of weaker magnetization so by RBL’s theory, Ni is less able to deeply embedded the hydride charge clusters although Ni embedds the hydride but not as deeply as Fe and Co, so Ni more weakly holds the hydride embedded within its core shells, so tiny perturbations can cause the hydrides (as RBL noted in 2005) to fling off electrons as the hydrides are perturbed deeper toward the nucleus of Ni and the thermal perturbations can even cause the hydrides to disintegrate completely with electrons and protons pieces ballistically propelled from the Ni electronic core shells This is why by RBL theory from over 14 years ago, Ni is a better spring board for protons!!! Note this explains totally by RBL prior theory from before 2005, the later 2017 CAB researcher given in this video although RBL should have been mentioned for his theory and data from 2005 in this video. So now even more so the RBL theory from before 2005 is broad and powerful as it embraces Rossi’s later work also as Fe and Co having stronger magnetism and Fe and Co are less propelling of e- and p+ fragments of hydrides so the hydrides in Fe and Co can penetrate more deeply inside electronic core shells of Fe and Co and acquire more huge energies approaching nuclear energies as RBL previously presented in his great theory over 14 years ago (very powerful science of RBL) so that the deeply embedded hydrides (in pyconomedia of the ferrometal lattices) can couple to ‘target nuclei’ of smaller atomic numbers like He, Li, Be, C, N and catalyze alterations of these nuclei by exchanging p+, e-, n with these nuclei and by such processes the prior great theory and data of RBL from 2005 embraces also Rossi and his later work. You may note Rossi included Fe in some of his starting and this may be why. This is great work science of RBL. But many of you are full of hate and rather than appreciate me for great work and energy over many years. Many of you will just be hateful.

    • Karl Venter

      Hi RBL
      I am not a physicist but engineer
      All I want to do is make hot water
      I want to put a device in a tank and heat the water
      With your theory how would this be done and what would I need for my experiments

      • RLittle

        Hi Mr. Venter, Thanks for your positive, professional sincere response. The issue at hand is not simple. I do not have all the detailed answers. I am a scientists who has thought about the subject for a long time and reasoned ways since 1995 to accelerate cold fusion phenomena and make it more reproducible as in the 90s no one had any clue. As a graduate student I thought on the subject during the 90s and even asked my teachers about it and researchers at conferences; all of them laughed at me and rationed in their own way my incompetence. But I ignored them and continued to think on the subject. But there was one mentor who did not mock me in 2000 and expressed heart concern over my reputation for discussing this subject. One advantage I have had is being me most people just look at me and think negative regardless of what I say even in the convention; so over the years I have developed power in ignoring and focusing on reason beyond the convention. I gave therefore developed a broad umbrella since 2000 of clues for accelerating such unconventional nuclear phenomena since 2000 based on my new reasoning. In the process of trying to experiment on my ideas and publish theory and few experiments that I could do of course nearly everyone laughed and mocked and insulted me; but they would do this even if I followed their conventional reasoning anyway, so I have been use to it. It is a sad deficit of most humans. But the few pure I seek, where are you? “He who has ear to hear, let him hear!” But I did do some experiments in 2002 to study my idea using very sophisticated scientific equipment as I was momentarily allowed to use. I got supportive data for my theory. As I eventually was able to document my idea, older richer scientists developed similar and have not properly credited me. OK it is one thing to mock and scorn me in my new reasoning, but it is another to years later use what you mocked and not reference but pretty much steal my work. This is my frustration; but in the meantime I have been thrown out on the street struggling to survive, homeless and many time without food. And I keep up with science literature and very often see how other scientists steal my prior work and lack integrity to reference, profit me in any way. It is total corruption. And usually two or more underhanded get together and consort in their corruption and appear before others to legitimize their duplicity just because it involves more than one. But over history of humans, often the plurality of ignorance and lies against a truth does not diminish the few in truth. So you often here among the corruption, “a committee named ____ this or named ____ that” as if just because the committee had a number of individual there was justification. The reality is goodness is few and evil is many. So just because you board many of a committee means nothing relative to the truth! So here in these comments, I simple note the umbrella of my theory and even data that I collected 13 years ago are consistent with results mentioned in this video. Most get angry, but ditto the many as I note before. So I can consider your inquiry under the broad umbrella of my prior work, unfortunately ‘many’ have blocked me out of more and more experiments by scientific method to narrow in on exact answers as you ask. And these richer corrupt people who have resource to explore the ideas of other lack integrity to give credit for ideas of others that they use. As an engineer Karl you know that any system can be researcher over many years and experimented upon to improve and engineer its performance for the better. By sound science and wise engineering it is illogical that one reason of breadth and depth will give the perfect solution. The frame and foundation may be sat by the breadth and depth here of my theory for LENR but I was never allowed to fine tune it and other people who are richer stole what I have done and are fine tuning the ideas to yield better and better result. In justice credit should be give to the trend setter! But this is an example of the corruption and hate and injustice. And in the hate many will billboard ‘see he is not giving you and exact answer so it is proper to deem him a crack head’. No such foolishness is not so no more than Henry Ford should be called a crack head because he did not over a hundred years ago leap ahead and present a Ferrari rather than the model T. Or the Wright’s brothers should be removed from intellectual feats because from scratch they did not with one swoop build a 747 rather that their primordial skeletal plane. But this is how ignorance and evil persist. But you know how these people are. Very sad and sick…

  • Oystein Lande

    Anyone planning to play with neutrons?

    Here’s some cautionary advice:

    Shielding of Neutrons

    There are three main features of neutrons, which are crucial in the shielding of neutrons.

    * Neutrons have no net electric charge, therefore they cannot be affected or stopped by electric forces. Neutrons ionize matter only indirectly, which makes neutrons highly penetrating type of radiation.
    * Neutrons scatter with heavy nuclei very elastically. Heavy nuclei very hard slow down a neutron let alone absorb a fast neutron.
    * An absorption of neutron (one would say shielding) causes initiation of certain nuclear reaction (e.g. radiative capture or even fission), which is accompanied by a number of other types of radiation. In short, neutrons make matter radioactive, therefore with neutrons we have to shield also the other types of radiation.

    Principles of Neutron Shielding

    The best materials for shielding neutrons must be able to:

    * Slow down neutrons (the same principle as the neutron moderation). First point can be fulfilled only by material containing light atoms (e.g. hydrogen atoms), such as water, polyethylene, and concrete. The nucleus of a hydrogen nucleus contains only a proton. Since a proton and a neutron have almost identical masses, a neutron scattering on a hydrogen nucleus can give up a great amount of its energy (even entire kinetic energy of a neutron can be transferred to a proton after one collision). This is similar to a billiard. Since a cue ball and another billiard ball have identical masses, the cue ball hitting another ball can be made to stop and the other ball will start moving with the same velocity. On the other hand, if a ping pong ball is thrown against a bowling ball (neutron vs. heavy nucleus), the ping pong ball will bounce off with very little change in velocity, only a change in direction. Therefore lead is quite ineffective for blocking neutron radiation, as neutrons are uncharged and can simply pass through dense materials.
Absorb this slow neutron. Thermal neutrons can be easily absorbed by capture in materials with high neutron capture cross sections (thousands of barns) like boron, lithium or cadmium. Generally, only a thin layer of such absorbator is sufficient to shield thermal neutrons. Hydrogen (in the form of water), which can be used to slow down neutrons, have absorbtion cross-section 0.3 barns. This is not enough, but this insufficiency can be offset by sufficient thickness of water shield.
    * Shield the accompanying radiation. In the case of cadmium shield the absorption of neutrons is accompanied by strong emission of gamma rays. Therefore additional shield is necessary to attenuate the gamma rays. This phenomenon practically does not exist for lithium and is much less important for boron as a neutron absorption material. For this reason, materials containing boron are used often in neutron shields. In addition, boron (in the form of boric acid) is well soluble in water making this combination very efective neutron shield.

    Water as a neutron shield
    Water due to the high hydrogen content and the availability is efective and common neutron shielding. However, due to the low atomic number of hydrogen and oxygen, water is not acceptable shield against the gamma rays. On the other hand in some cases this disadvantage (low density) can be compensated by high thickness of the water shield.  In case of neutrons, water perfectly moderates neutrons, but with absorption of neutrons by hydrogen nucleus secondary gamma rays with the high energy are produced. These gamma rays highly penetrates matter and therefore it can increase requirements on the thickness of the water shield. Adding a boric acid can help with this problem (neutron absorbtion on boron nuclei without strong gamma emission), but results in another problems with corrosion of construction materials.

    Concrete as a neutron shield

    Most commonly used neutron shielding in many sectors of the nuclear science and engineering is shield of concrete. Concrete is also hydrogen-containing material, but unlike water concrete have higher density (suitable for secondary gamma shielding) and does not need any maintenance. Because concrete is a mixture of several different materials its composition is not constant. So when referring to concrete as a neutron shielding material, the material used in its composition should be told correctly. Generally concrete are divided to “ordinary “ concrete and “heavy” concrete. Heavy concrete uses heavy natural aggregates such as barites (barium sulfate) or magnetite or manufactured aggregates such as iron, steel balls, steel punch or other additives. As a result of these additives, heavy concrete have higher density than ordinary concrete (~2300 kg/m3). Very heavy concrete can achieve density up to 5,900 kg/m3 with iron additives or up to 8900 kg/m3 with lead additives. Heavy concrete provide very effective protection against neutrons.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thankyou for sharing this. As I said below, the neutrons should be used to provide massive excess yielding, but safe nuclear reactions.

      We do have to bear in mind that you get school kids making Farnsworth Fusors and their neutrons are 2.45 MeV, so much harder to shield / use. However, typically the flux is a lot lower than that seen by Piantelli/Focardi.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        How could one distinguish (at the detector level) between slow neutrons and ‚dense’ atomic hydrogen?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Well, Neutrons are not able to be ionised or deflected by fields. They trigger Neutron detectors.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Mills’ hypothetical hydrinos (to give one example) are not ionizable as well. And as normal hydrogen atoms they are neutral. But one might expect that they could leave traces in a bubble detector. About other types of detectors I am not sure. Santilli got signals in at least two different detectors and was, however, not completely sure if they had been caused by neutrons or something else.

          • Bob Greenyer

            6Li and 3He needs neutrons.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            However, I would be more happy with a „neochemical“ process, perhaps with (avoidable) nuclear side effects. But of course it is nature who decides.

          • Bob Greenyer

            There are what you might call ‘neochemical’ aspects to this that are driven by certain group elemental properties.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            That could certainly be said with regard to Piantelli’s theory (although I rather thought of Santilli or Mills). BTW it would be interesting to know if the ‘drop’ of an H- ion into an electron shell would already release significant amounts of energy, independent of subsequent nuclear events.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Not my best work – but what you may be looking for is in here.


  • Oystein Lande

    What also should be noted is Helium 4 and Tritium production

    From Wikipedia:

    Tritium is produced in nuclear reactors by neutron activation of lithium-6. This is possible with neutrons of any energy, and is an exothermic reaction yielding 4.8 MeV. In comparison, the fusion of deuterium with tritium releases about 17.6 MeV of energy. For applications in proposed fusion energy reactors, such as ITER, pebbles consisting of lithium bearing ceramics including Li2TiO3 and Li4SiO4, are being developed for tritium breeding within a helium cooled pebble bed (HCPB), also known as a breeder blanket.
    Li+ n→  He (2.05 MeV ) + T ( 2.75 MeV )
    High-energy neutrons can also produce tritium from lithium-7 in an endothermic (a net heat consuming reaction) reaction, consuming 2.466 MeV. This was discovered when the 1954 Castle Bravo nuclear test produced an unexpectedly high yield.[3]

    High-energy neutrons irradiating boron-10 will also occasionally produce tritium:[4]

    A more common result of boron-10 neutron capture is Li and a single alpha particle

    • Bob Greenyer

      In a Suhas reactor, tritium could be fed into the main gas volume and this take part in the last Storms reaction (addition of a proton) so you would get the energy of forming the Helium without the very fast neutron.

      Thank you for taking the time to research this.

  • Warthog

    Science has from its beginning been impartial. Or at least scientists who are actually taught something about how ethical science is supposed to be done are supposed to practice impartiality.

    Admittedly, politics of all sorts has often gotten in the way, but the ideal is still impartiality.

    And “public transparency” is exactly what science journals are supposed to provide. The only thing new is that the existence of the internet makes possible a higher order of “public transparency”. But even the staid old print journals are slowly evolving toward a similar broader base.

    My prognostication is that eventually “peer review” will become something like this forum, where the article “published” is like the lead article, and the “comments section” will be the “peer review”>

  • Warthog

    Actually, the idea of that format I first saw in an environmental print journal. It may have been “Environmental Science and Technology”, but it was WAY long ago…maybe the late 1970’s-early 1980’s. They had the formal publication, and then expert commentary, in print, pretty much exactly as you describe.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Complete transparency is at the core. All participants are requested to adhere to this. The T / V issue is the one dammed if we do and dammed if we don’t situation we have endured. In the end, it was the right choice to respect the wishes of the discovering party until that position became untenable. Only in this way can we be sure that me356 and Suhas Ralkar were not influenced by this prior knowledge.

    We have samples of the feedstock/fuel/ash from Suhas and have said we are willing to send to interested parties. Given our previous experience though, we would want observation of the testing to ensure data is not filtered in the future. The observer and the testing party need not know what sample is what.

  • Bob Greenyer

    there is no compromise.

    the MFMP is a free exchange of ideas also, without fear or prejudice. I have been in a University setting in the past year where they simply do not allow anything but ‘mainstream’ theory to be considered for fear of reputation damage.

    Right now, you are saying no party can have a non-mainstream idea in the MFMP otherwise it will cause reputation damage.

    All of LENR is non mainstream.

  • georgehants

    Just mention that Bob Greenyer has brought a lot of interest, even excitement back to ECW.
    I now look forward again each morning to reading his and others contributions instead of endless Rossi says etc.
    He also has a wide open-mind in contrast to the majority that find it hard to think beyond a steam engine.
    Thank you Bob.

    • Dods

      Got to agree I just watched the video and found it very interesting.

      Cheers Bob and the MFMP.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Dods, you have helped materially at key moments. Thankyou.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks George, really I am an aggregator, correlating the vast works of others who never had the opportunity of the internet to connect and research during their studies or to understand how to use it for the free exchange of ideas. I am playing my role in this story, but nothing would have been possible without the scientists who have given their lives and the crowd that has supported the work of the project by dipping into their own disposable income and challenging our findings.

      I would like to especially thank MFMP team members

      Alan Goldwater : for his *GlowStick* experiment series and so much more
      Ryan and Paul Hunt and Mathieu Valat : for helping establish the Live Open Science methodology
      Bob Higgins for the open neutron detectors
      Alan and Ryan and Brian Albiston for AURA
      Mathieu Valat for our first apparent excess 12.12.12 and the repeatable gamma in late 2013 (Both in Celani cells)
      Nicholas Chauvin for helping fund recent ash analysis
      Skip – you know what for

      I would like to especially thank

      Dot. Andrea Rossi, Prof. Francesco Celani, Prof. Francesco Piantelli, Dr. Stoyan Sargotchev, Dr. Alexander Parkhomov, Dr. Georgy Egely and Norris Peery – these are my seven living Elders.

      I would like to thank Nikola Tesla, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann

      A special thanks goes to Steven Jones, key researcher in ‘muon catalysed fusion’ – the destroyer of the career of Martin Fleischmann and Stanley pons and the person leading the ‘alternative narrative movement’ designed to distract from the theories of Dr. Judy Wood

      Thankyou Steven, couldn’t have gone all in without you.

      • georgehants

        Bob, no problem, what I admire is you do not discriminate between connected subjects, that of course everything is in this Quantum reality and are not intimidated by what is acceptable to believe and what is banned and vilified by many jokingly called scientists.

  • US_Citizen71

    Over the last couple of years, I have had an idea for a test setup rolling around in my head. I am sharing it with everyone as I am not sure when I will be able to build it and I thought it might inspire others. I believe that some type of energy measurement beyond temperature is needed. My thought was to use boil off of water like Parkhomov’s early tests as it is simple and easily repeatable. My design uses a 1-gallon paint can as the boiler. A tungsten pipe is put through the bottom and then sealed to the can, my original plan was to use steel gas pipe but with the talk of neutrons and gamma I think that tungsten makes the better option. A water pump controlled by a float switch keeps the water at an even level. Thermocouples are placed to measure the steam temperature on exit as well as the water temperature in the boiler, other thermocouples would be used to measure reactor temperature for control, the air temperature and the water supply tank. The reactor to be tested is centered in the pipe by plugs of fire brick or the castable equivalent. Small discs of tungsten on the ends of the plug are to help control radiations. The entire boiler body would be wrapped with lead sheeting to control gammas. The boiler would be housed in a steel 5-gallon can during testing with fiberglass insulation surrounding it. The 5-gallon can would be imbedded into a larger cylinder filled with paraffin and borax to moderate neutrons. A final layer of lead sheeting is placed on the outside of the large cylinder to control any gammas from neutron moderation. Due to the need of operating the setup on the 2nd floor of a building the bottom is as heavily shielded as the sides. Testing procedure would be to run the reactor and compare the boiled off liters of water to the total watt hours used. A working mixture/reactor should have a higher ratio of water to power than a control.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks for sharing. Over the past 9 months we have been working with an excellent programmer off and on to build a LOS experimental platform. I will work with the developer in around 20 days to introduce the platform and I recommend you set up a free account to share your design and proposed protocols – so people can clone your concept and run with it.

    • cashmemorz

      If radiation indeed is in a sufficiently high range to require shielding, then fusion, hot or cold, both were promising no radiation but now turns out that it cannot be gotten away from. The two tech, hot and cold fusions, appear to be merging on several parameters.

      • Warthog

        I think it will ultimately be found that there are specific conditions that are aneutronic and other specific conditions that produce neutrons and tritium. There have been hints of these two states since the very beginning of LENR. Right now, the challenge is to make either of the two sets obtainable on demand.

        • Chapman

          I think it is pretty clear that we are dealing with two separate things here. The primary LENR reaction is clearly aneutronic, as is demonstrated by the absolute absence of any neutron activity in the simplest experiments that have the lowest energy yield, which is just the primary reaction taking place. Once the experiment goes further, and secondary reactions are triggered which demonstrate orders of magnitude increase in energy product, we see various radiations become evident. These are clearly the results of the SECONDARY reactions. There is an almost INFINITE number of possible combinations to play with, and each will result in unique radiation emissions and fingerprints.

          A match is just a match, and does just what it does. You can not heat your home with one, but when used to trigger a secondary reaction they are quite useful. A match can light a fireplace, or a puddle of gasoline, or a stick of dynamite, but you can not begin to question the safety of the match!

          Many of the secondary chain reactions we can stimulate WITH the aneutronic LENR reaction will, on their own, produce LOTS of neutrons of varying energy levels. And some will emit high energy X-Rays or Gammas. I think this is one of the big drawbacks to the bifurcated pursuits we see going on. On one hand there is the “pure” pursuit trying to establish the exact physics behind the primary reaction. This is purely academic, and a pursuit for knowledge for knowledge sake. The other leg is the race for commercial viability, and producing the greatest energy output, without real insight or consideration of the underlying physics. The latter pursuit opens up all kinds of potential “oops” moments. It will certainly drive us to a faster eventual understanding OF the physics, but that understanding may come in the form of forensic investigations into the cause of some unpleasant happenings.

          I am all for BOTH pursuits! But because the majority of mainstream scientists and research centers have abandoned their responsibility to do the former part, we are left with fellows who are legitimately focused on the latter pursuits having to do what they can to advance the real physics as they go along. In the end, it is a clumsy and sloppy way of doing things, but it is what we are stuck with. I just hope no one gets hurt! All we need is for a significant accident to happen and for the field to be shifted from “fringe” to “dangerous and irresponsible”. I can just see the EPA and the Energy department declaring jurisdiction authority to control further research by amateurs…

      • US_Citizen71

        I think it is too early to make the distinction that the two are merging. Hot fusion research has continuously been about fusing hydrogen isotopes into helium. It has been no secret since at least the 1950’s that gamma and neutrons are going to be part of the result. LENR/Cold Fusion has been centered around fusion/fission reactions of lithium with protons, those elements were part of Pons’ & Fleischmann’s experiment. I do not know for a fact that shielding is a requirement but out of an abundance of caution I can’t see why anyone pursuing the research would not want to add shielding in case of unknown or unwanted reactions. Impurities can happen purposely or not and they could be a cause for unwanted radiations.

        • Bob Greenyer

          If you choose elements that don’t have bad outcomes – no issue.

          CAB Story presents a method that should show what stimulation is effective as in theory, you can see in real-time what works. Then, in theory, you choose elements that do not have the bad outcome and deploy a variant of the advantageous control regime you have established.

          • cashmemorz

            So in the end little or nor bad particle radiation to be expected or designed to not have that. LENR made to order and hot fusion is a la carte.

          • Bob Greenyer

            CAB Story might lead to good understanding, then you make safe.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Learn and design.

          • US_Citizen71

            For me the bubbles in MFMP’s bubble detectors was the number 4 mention of neutrons in relation to LENR research. I had read that Pinatelli had seen neutrons before from a blog post on one of the forums, Rossi had fessed up to neutron creation in is his early experiments he changed protocols after consulting Focardi and then there was the detector that went off during one of Rossi’s demonstrations. Seeing the bubbles form live during your experiment sealed it for me that neutron’s were a possibility. I understand that we are talking about relatively low energy neutrons and that the counts are not exceedingly high. I want to make it clear that my concern and pause in planning for experiments of my own are out of caution and respect for my neighbors and my own health. I do not have an out building to use, I live in a town house with neighbors living just on the other side of two of my walls. The best location I have for testing is on the opposite side of my 2nd floor bedroom. As I will be sleeping in the same room to any long running experiment and my neighbors doing much the same I believe that I have a responsibility to myself and my neighbors to not run without shielding even if there shouldn’t any dangerous emissions according to theory. I am still looking at how thick and what materials to make a shield out of. I want to repeat this simply out of an abundance of caution. I could purchase 60 lbs of bulk paraffin and 50 lbs of bulk borax for around $120. Rough calculations show that that would be enough to wrap my above setup in roughly 6 inches of a 60/40 mixture of borax to paraffin by weight. A local metal supply shop offers a lead plate 1/4″ thick and large enough to wrap the outside of the setup for roughly $250. The cost for my proposed shielding is not outrageous. I am still assessing whether it is thick enough for my comfort and conscience.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We are working internally on what would be required. Will report. Certainly you are going in the right direction.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thanks for sharing, this could be important information.

  • “May be verifiable with bubble detectors and gamma spectrometry”
    ***So what is the plan to test for gamma rays? MFMP has the equipment.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Yes – but not in the right place. We might need one in Eastern Europe.

      If NOVA performs well and repeatedly, we may run ECCO fuel in it and instrument for detection.

      • Where is the funding request for a gamma ray detector for Eastern Europe ? Presumably that is the only thing keeping MFMP from blowing wide open the LENR replication thing.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Let’s see if the NOVA reactor works as Dr. Egeley claims first. Good thing is, an experiment only needs to last a few minutes!

          • roseland67

            Then replicate it many times,
            Getting same results,
            Publish same, change the world.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Yes – sorry, today I had to go to get the finger I busted looked at in hospital – it’ll be fine, however, the trip, wait and trip back took me the day.

    Tomorrow I have a meeting.

    Will try Monday now.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Hehe – the presentation will be called Midas.

  • The IMP

    Hi awarded LENR international patent. Don’t have link right now, but easy to find.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Who is „Hi“?

      • artefact

        IH + autocorrection?

  • Charlie tapp

    I think everyone should stop getting excited and even quit talking about radiation like it is something fun to see, I mean if you see it it sees you. The brakes could get put on this one wheel wagon really fast. The most exciting thing about cold fusion was that there was no radiation so looking for it seems stupid to me, kind of backwards if you need to see bubbles in your detectors swing by Japan. And even if you see the bubbles you are probably f___ed anyways and won’t be doing a lot of research in a short time. And if you do see bubbles let me know that way I can keep buying gas and beer and not be dead. Can over at lenr forum has a really good point that it should not be hidden in a live open science atmosphere and once a few people die they will figure out how to control the problems. But if you were to tell me how to get excess heat but very good chance of radiation what do you think I am going to do, Walmart to get everything and start cooking. Literally. So keep your secrets if you need to, that’s a whole lot a dead jackasses in their own backyards. Mabee a little more education on shielding and safety( for me at least )would be a nice addition to the secret sauce before it gets hot

    • Omega Z

      Beer, Did someone say beer. You done got my interest. 🙂

    • Warthog

      You treat the idea of neutrons as though they are some sort of “death entity”. They aren’t. Neutron emission can be shielded for as can any other type of radiation. And I’d like Bob or someone to enlighten me as to why no one is using a boron trifluoride Geiger Mueller tube for at least basic neutron detection. True, they aren’t as super sensitive as the bubble detectors, but they are a damned sight better than nothing. But the long history of LENR experiments demonstrates that high neutron levels are NOT all that likely to happen. Exactly the opposite.

      The presence of ANY type of radiation emission “should” be a slam dunk for proof. As should isotope level changes in before/after fuel comparisons.

      • Chapman

        That is kind of the catch 22 situation we are in!

        The original experiments were super clean, and exhibited NO serious emissions other than heat, and THAT was used by the detractors as proof that nothing was going on! Then, a few contaminations trigger some unexpected but incredibly informative secondary emissions, and suddenly there is the threat that they might be an excuse to regulate the research.

        It’s just a few neutrons, right? What’s a little shielding between friends?

        It is not like they are playing with unlicensed particle accelerators, or operating dangerous and uncertified EM containment vaults for storing belligerent paranormal manifestations. I understand THAT’S when the EPA gets miffed and pulls the plug…. (see: Gozer, The Destructor)

        • Omega Z

          Rossi’s detractors in a nutshell-

          There is absolutely unequivocally no excess heat!!!

          However, if there were, it is to dangerous to be in the hands of humanity. Bury it and walk away.

    • Jas

      There may be radiation but there certainly will not be nuclear waste.
      No burying barrels of spent fuel in the ground for god knows how long.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Embodiments could be made to exclude the production of long lived waste. Even the 601 gamma could make the ash a useful product for say hand warmers.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Someone here who has fully examined the experiments (maybe Bob) — please give me the abbreviated summary by answering a few questions:

    1) My quick read of the slides says that between Piantelli, Sukas, and Me356 (and maybe MFMP) we have three experiments that verify isotopic shifts. Is this correct? Do we have excess heat from these experiments?

    2) Is Bob proposing that some simple neutron detection or gamma photon detection apparatus can verify a) excess neutrons from the primary LENR reaction(s); and 2) gamma photon release from the radioactive decay products of the LENR reaction? Is my read correct in that the neutron detection and/or gamma detection has not yet occurred?

    It seems that if it is (2), we likely have incontrovertible proof of LENR as no other known mechanism can cause these elements with simple low electric/e&m field RF stimulation to cause element transmutation, cause neutron emission, and leave radioactive decay products of the transmutation. Incontrovertible proof should change the science establishments view of LENR as new but established science.

    If any of the experiments have (1) (significant excess heat) we have an economically viable new technology in addition to new science.

    Can someone confirm my quick read?

    Regardless, Bob — good work. We know your economic sacrifice to be involved in MFMP/LENR is large. Thank you.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Piantelli / Focardi et al: Highest excess heat and total 900MJ before experiment deliberately shut down. Determined after months contamination of Steel in reactor with Vanadium, only Vanadium 50 (0.25% of natural Vanadium that was a fraction of the steel) can yield neutron with previously determined Protons ejectiles from Ni + H- interaction. Neutron rate determined to be 6000/s and verified with gold activation. Everything but the reason had been previously published. He told us as risk notice for our replication. Was more worried about anyone using Titanium where 5.41% is 49Ti.

      Neutrons could be used to create far more heat in a different embodiment.

      Piantelli is not interested in COP – this system when engineered might have all the room for closing the loop so becomes irrelevant.

      Piantelli has Ni (on Nickel Alloy) + Vanadium (contamination) and Hydrogen

      Thermal heating with loading and triggering similar to GS5.2 / 5.3 (our work was based on what he told us and yielded ‘Signal’ and thermal Neutrons (possibly from 18O (p,n) 18F)

      Suhas Ralkar, with Nickel, Titanium, Carbon in both 1. Cavitation (ambiguous Ti > V) and 2. glow discharge/ultrasonic reactors (clearer Ti > V). The second reactor type is claimed to produce COP 8.

      me356, who has claimed controllable excess heat, after no-xsh-show on AURA reactor test provided samples and pointed to a few that he was most interested in seeing data for. One was labelled N+H1Week. On analysis, turns out to be fine filamentary Nickel with Titanium lumps – Titanium appears to have Vanadium on it.

      Reaction chains have plenty of paths yielding high output energy from proton interactions.

      If we had been able to access Suhas Lab and recorded live on YouTube with moderation and turning on and off the reactor, Neutrons – it would have been a slamdunk. Given the fact we had to publish the data from both me356 and Suhas ash data and bothe claimed excess – then we had to present the full picture.

      Since 1994, it was never made public that this transmutation could occur. Neither me356 or Suhas could have known to fake it. We had no data suggesting it could until 29th June. We did not tell Suhas until we knew we were not going to be able to test ECCO on that trip, we had to tell him for his own safety considerations.

      We actually do not know if there is Neutrons released in ECCO, me356 has reported large and various lesser Neutron emissions depending on reactor, fuel and stimulation, without specifying what fuel was used. We have seen evidence of particle tracks coming from Suhas samples recorded on film – that study is on-going.

      • Anon2012_2014

        Thank you Bob. It looks good. I have to drop back for some analysis, but it is very very encouraging — you may have the proof. This would be really great news.

        • Bob Greenyer

          It might appear so in retrospect. We just feel more comfortable now having put out the basis for the risk assessments that should and must be done by any party that may potentially try this.

      • Chapman

        Hi Mr. Greenyer!

        So, was the discovery of the Vanadium issue and the resulting neutron danger brought to your attention back when you were doing those great video presentations? Specifically, did you find out just after the “heavy” video? I am wondering if that was the reason why you cut the series short.

        After explaining the Piantelli idea, and making the primary effect clear, it certainly made it obvious how a wide variety of secondary reactions could be integrated into the mix, and SOME of them not so nice! Is this the point when that potential was brought to your attention by way of the vanadium contamination observations and you started reconsidering how much to just put out there without some serious consideration?

        I am just trying to get a better grasp on the timeline, and where the revelation came relative to your other presentations.

        And, for the record, the “Heavy” video is still the single most insightful presentation I have seen on the LENR topic, even WITH all that you did NOT say. I would even go so far as to say that it was MORE informative because we had to concentrate and think everything through in order to follow you and see where you were going. If you had just thrown it out 1, 2, 3, folks might have just dismissed it. But the way you presented it made the viewer an ACTIVE participant in discovery. Anyone following what you said, and what it meant, and who then thought about it for a few minutes could immediately understand the full scope of the mechanism you were addressing. I really LOVED that video. Extremely well done, Sir!

        • Bob Greenyer

          As I said in ‘CAB Story’ Piantelli told us directly in Jan 2015 – since we needed to know for replication. However, we didn’t know the varacity of the data – it was just his word. However, Piantelli was very concerned about the risk, it was his research/findings and he was the person to reveal it – we had nothing to go on, but were not ready to kill ourselves – he was worried that it could be used for bad things and so we were left in an extremely difficult position – in part, I think Piantelli was concerned for us since we were ‘just doing it’, in another way, he was passing the dilemma onto us.

          The potential for radiation we had already seen in 2013 with the repeatable effect in Celani wires.

          When for the first time, in GS 5.2 we used Piantelli basic loading and triggering process as he told us (he now uses microwaves as in his latest patent) with Rossi type fuel, we saw “signal” this meant we had to up our game in radiation monitoring. Whatever was going on, for me, personally, this was a big step towards accepting LENR as real as a seasoned scientist had told us a specific processes for triggering the underlying effect and it caused the release of measurable radiation.

          In GS 5.3 we added neutron detection, in part because we had to accept that Piantelli may have given us a way to trigger the key underlying phenomena regardless of what theory one considers valid. We saw neutrons. It was already live, but we went to a lot of effort to make sure serious researchers were adding neutron detection to their tool-sets. There was only a few potential paths I could see and so we planned GS 5.4 and 5.5 – after my insight during 5.4 and subsequent interview with Norris Peery – which led to (RedPill) I decided that untill everything was clear, I could not, for safety reasons return to the US and conduct GS 5.5 – this also meant I had to turn down $50,000 of work which would have required me to travel to US.

          62Ni is the happiest element in the Universe, in my opinion it will do the proton ejecting piantelli reaction branch in preference to the the transition to 63Cu. 64Ni will go round in a loop and end up at 62Ni. Other isotopes of Ni will breed 62Ni – I did all these reaction chains for people. This is one theory, the other is larger charge cluster based nucleon re-organisation that would lead to a bulk transition. Either way, 62Ni then is the springboard. Other transition metals will do it, but not as well in my understanding.

          There is an important other aspect of Piantelli theory that I would take a good while to create a very clear presentation for which will take some time. I challenged a Swedish skeptic scientist to try and work out what it was some time ago on Mats Lewans blog. Really though Piantelli should spell that out before he passes on and I will appeal to him to do so. Others know it as a contingency. However, my own understanding has gone far further and I will work as hard as I can to get it all out there.

          In the end it matters little what is going on underneath, most people on earth will not care, they will only care if it is safe and what it can do to benefit them.

          We were put in an untenable situation, whilst we had no moral authority to spill the beans on why Piantelli / Focardis best experiment, thermally wise, produced neutrons, I did write to Piantelli a week before ‘CAB Story’ to ask him for guidance on how to proceed since we had to report on the analysis of me356 and Suhas fuel. We heard nothing back and since we had no NDA, but we now did have strong evidence of the effect, then we could not in good conscience release the ash data without releasing the knowledge of the full implications. I wanted to test for Neutrons with ECCO in India, not being able to do so, having done so much preparation, was an immense disappointment.

          The ‘CAB Story’ has the potential to lead to deep understanding and safe embodiments – and in the round, we felt that it was a good thing to publish with caveats and recognise the gaps in the overall picture.

          We know parties preparing to try something along the lines of what has been revealed.

          • Chapman

            It all makes sense.

            You did great. Everything you DID put out was great. Releasing what you did at the time kept us all going, and I thank you for giving me enough to at least see the viability, and a good puzzle to ponder!

            Without your efforts, I think a good portion of the public that IS following the story would have just given up and wandered away. Between you guys and Mats we have had just enough to help folks keep the faith.

            And for the record, not that my opinion it matters, but your decisions were very wise. I tip my hat to you! 🙂

    • Bob Greenyer

      After long term operation, the longest term signal would come from the 300+ day 601keV gamma that, that is if Charge Clusters had not caused rapid remediation or nucleon arrangement into stable isotopes.

  • US_Citizen71

    So you have completely ripped off my comment from 4 days ago. And your point?

  • Bob Greenyer

    Why the ECCO ‘Free Energy’ reactor may not produce Neutrons or gamma radiation

    • Rene

      Given the concerned comments form various people, it is good to point out that a presumably functioning LENR device would naturally consume many of the particles that emit from the primary reaction to amplify heat generation, and that shields would absorb the rest (down to background levels).
      The concern is really about experimenters playing with naked LENR systems in which particle capture/utilization and outer shielding is absent.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I think you sum it up well

  • Jas

    This Handheld Detector Spotted A Never-Before-Seen Physics Phenomenon

    • Rene
      • Chapman

        Sir, do you have any thoughts or comments regarding the neutral currents, and the idea of the neutrinos interacting with such a large number of nucleons?

        From your article referrals, and past posts, this seems up your ally, and I for one would appreciate a breakdown of the overall process and it’s significance. It appears curious, and it is always nice to see a hardcore theoretical prediction verified, but what is the extended “A-HA!” factor here? What does this lead to?

        Sorry to put you on the spot, but like I said, this seems to be a RENE topic! 🙂

      • Jas

        Futurism articles always contain links from the original source.
        They are hilighted in blue.

  • Bob Greenyer

    GS 5.2 and 5.3 used the complex loading and triggering method taught to us by Piantelli in Jan 2015 (but applied to Rossi Patent fuel). The work in GS 5.2 and 5.3 showed both photonic and Neutron emissions, indicating that the technique that Piantelli taught us was valid.

    Piantelli now states in his patent that his preferred method now is microwaves, this is consistant with Peery, Egeley, Lakatosh, Hutchinson.

    Charge Clusters is a phrase that Stoyan Sarg and Kenneth Shoulders use for similar concepts. The ‘composite particle’ H- of Piantelli, containing 1 proton and two electrons ( as does the active component in Peery and Little) is a cluster of charges.

    ECCO is very well documented and whilst it is complex, the evidence presented between the MFMP, me356 and Piantelli indicates that far simpler approaches will yield at least the transmutation discussed with us in 2015. In the case of me356 it appears to be off the shelf Nickel and Titanium.

    • Zeddicus23

      Your answer regarding the case of me356 is interesting but completely begs the question of how the Ni and Ti are prepared and/or stimulated, e.g. particle size, ratio, temperature, method of preparation/degassing, and stimulation method. Isn’t all of this critical as well?

      Regarding GS 5.2 and 5.3 have you reproduced this? Do you plan to reproduce this? Also, have you published in detail the “Piantelli” technique that you used? If so, could you please provide a reference?

      Regarding radiation (neutron or otherwise) while the warning is useful the observation of radiation emitting products in LENR experiments is not new. Here’s a link to a very nice recent report by David Nagel summarizing work on excess heat, helium, and tritium generation (which leads to beta radiation) in Pd-D and Ti-D experiments. Also briefly discussed is Miley’s and Iwamura’s work on transmutation. I’m not sure why, although he mentions Ni-H and other work, so little is focused on H while it focuses mainly on D. However, in all of the work which he cites reproducibility and predictability was completely lacking.

      • Bob Greenyer

        The me356 Nickel and Ti look like they are off the shelf powders. We have no explicit knowledge of his process of preparation, but we understood that he followed closely methods for removing oxides as discussed widely on the basis put forward by Piantelli and flash de-oxygination (raise to high temperature and bathe in H2). In addition, it is known that me356 uses a high purity hydrogen generator. as his source for H2.

        GS 5.3 was a replication of 5.2 as close as possible. We had no neutron detection on 5.2, both experiment produced some form of emissions, both unexpected. I personally do not intend to travel to US for some time. The loading process and triggering process is inherently embedded in the published data from the experiment. “ecco ecco” produced a series of very detailed charts. Everything can be found here:

        We never said finding neutrons was new – on the contrary, a lively debate was had in the community after GS5.3 surrounding previous and contemporary observations – where that experiment was different from all that had come before in the field of LENR, was that you could witness the visual detection of neutrons live on the internet.

        The unique situation with ‘CAB Story’ is that it demonstrates a completely NOT PUBLISHED predicted outcome has potentially been observed by 2 independent parties in 3 different apparatus (Ralkar’s ECCO and Cavitation processor, me356’s reactor) and that it should yield excess from a variety of high energy reaction paths.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Excess heat has never been accepted – especially when it is intermittent and of little intensity. That is one problem with historical PdD – the bigger problem is wet cells transmutation is regularly dismissed as contamination from the electrolyte, cell etc. I mention this in the presentation.

    The presentation is there posing the question if this could constitute proof or provide strong guidance as to what experiments could be based on to deliver proof.

    The SEMs of Suhas fuel components, fuel and ash – including process provide detail for replication – more interesting though is the seeming off-the-shelf appearance of me356s’ ash.

    We understand there are at least 3 parties preparing tests off the back of the publication of ‘CAB Story’, time will tell if ‘CAB Story’ showed the possibility of a functioning LENR embodiment.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      „Excess heat has never been accepted.”

      Maybe, but it is the relevant factor from a broader point of view. Society would not gain that much if you could just demonstrate some nuclear effects with little practical relevance (remember, for example, Cockroft/Walton or Farnsworth/Hirsch).

      • Bob Greenyer

        Our experiments *GlowStick* 5.2 and 5.3, highlighted in ‘CAB Story’ produced evidence of excess heat.

        The experiment by Piantelli and Focardi as highlighted in ‘CAB Story’ produced 900MJ and was by far the most energetic of their experiments AFAIK.

        Suhas claims ECCO has COP of 8, the ash analysed and presented in ‘CAB Story’ had been run for a few 10s of hours.

        me356 provided samples and highlighted two, that in his opinion, deserved special consideration, whilst me356 has not confirmed if these produced excess, he has claimed excess heat in past.

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Warthog

      Riddle me this. Why aren’t more folks using BF3 doped Geiger-Mueller tubes?? Admittedly, they aren’t as sensitive as the bubble detectors and probably cost a LOT more, but they have the very serious advantage of being “real time”.

      • US_Citizen71
        • Warthog

          I’m not sure if that works by the same principle as a Geiger tube. It does sound similar, but “insufficient information” there to be sure. This is claiming to be more sensitive than bubble detectors, and my understanding was that BF3 doped GM tubes were not. Still, this seems to get you real-time neutron detection for around $600 or so.

  • Warthog

    “It’s interesting that many successful PdD experiments “accidentally” had Li in the electrolye.”

    There were no PdD experiments in which the presence lithium was “accidental”. The lithium came from the use of it to make LiOD (lithium deutroxide) from D2O. LiOD provides the highest conductivity alkaline electrolyte available, a property highly desirable in electrochemistry. That it might also enhance possible nuclear reactions was, I’m sure, also in the minds of Pons and Fleischmann.

    • Zeddicus23

      That’s why I put “accidental” in quotes (because it was used as an electrolyte and not deliberately as part of the reaction). While it’s possible that some of the PdD experiments used other electrolytes, I imagine that most used Li.

      • Warthog

        There were such experiments, but at this remove from when I last studied the subject, that is about all I recall. Most electrochemists prefer to use alkaline electrolytes, as acidic electrolytes tend to more strongly attack cell components, and drastically limit the materials that can be used.