“Multeity of Nuclides Arising in the Process of Cold Nuclear Transmutations” (New A.G. Parkhomov Paper

I received an email from Alexander Parkhomov where he let me know about a new article that has been published in the International Journal of Unconventional Science.

The title is “Multeity of Nuclides Arising in the Process of Cold Nuclear Transmutations”


It is shown that a huge variety of nuclides arising as a result of cold nuclear transmutations isthe result of energetically favorable rearrangements o fnucleons.

Link to the full article is here:


  • Bob Greenyer

    I agree.

    • Max Nozin

      Bob, mfmp invested a lot to perfect calorimetry. That is to seek excessive heat. Now it is time to perfect mass spectrometry to cover transmutations. There is a lot to be done to prove that stuff in is different from the stuff out. I realized that after your own Egley test past summer. Another good example is Karabanov, former patrner of Synteztech. During his recent big reveal in Kazan he showed 2 test protocols done by 2 independent labs showing actinides and transuranim elements. There are very logical reasons to doubt his claims buut it deos look like an honest error. The methods used are the cheapest ones and they are very error prone. That Yb reading mentioned is what thunderbolt people also mentioned as false positive.

      • Bob Greenyer

        WDS, XPS, Mass-Spec (of various types) and NMR are all coming into the frame.

        In addition, we have developed new ways to look for Strange Radiation and visual cues which will help future researchers to screen for potentially active experiments.

  • Bob Greenyer

    “They are electrically neutral, so they move fairly freely in the substance. They are able to leave the zone where they occur, and, permeating the substance, cause transmutations in their path. They can go outside the reactor and, getting on a photographic film or other detector, cause in it the appearance of surprising tracks, absolutely not similar to tracks from nuclear particles”

    Yes, Yes, Yes and Yes.

    • Axil Axil

      Roman Rodionov
      March 7th, 2015 at 7:47 AM
      Dear Andrea,

      Did you check for possible e-cat radiation using detection of photo emulsion tracks? As far as I know multiple LENR experiments in Russia had some “strange radiation” that does not detected by usual radiation detection devices such as Geiger counter, but which produced tracks in photo emulsion.

      Andrea Rossi
      March 7th, 2015 at 8:19 AM
      Roman Rodiovov:
      Yes, we made also that kind of check. All the radiation measurements we made gave OUTSIDE the E-Cat the same results published on the Lugano Report.
      For what concerns the measurements we made INSIDE the E-Cat, the data are confidential.
      Warm Regards,

      Looking back and with regards to what we know today, Rossi was sure to have seen strange radiation. How could he not have used this observation to formulate a valid theory of LENR as we have. Could all this groundless and confused theory that Rossi has pushed over the years even to this vary day serve to just confuse and impede his competition?

      • Bob Greenyer

        The strange radiation is what did it for me, it is not only a symptom of how it works it reveals the mechanism – and as Adamenko, Parkhomov and myself (+ others) would agree, it can allow transmutation at a distance.

        I sincerely suspect that, given this paper, the Russians know how it works. Things are going to move very fast now.

        What a wonderful time to be alive!

        • georgehants

          Morning Bob, yes Wonderful when the Truth is found and allowed to be seen, for me the real reward will be when all this technology is used as a priority to help those most in need, then it will be a Wonderful time to be alive, instead of the constant depression felt by many of us today.
          “O” day will still contain all the connections to ancient knowledge etc. I hope, as that side of things seems to have gone a little quiet lately?

          • Bob Greenyer

            You will not be disappointed.

    • Max Nozin


      I believe I is Prosvirnov who does great job maintaining this site. Vysotskiy posted this in replay to Shishkin presentation.
      What interest me is that I can see Vysotskiy own expalnation is evolving form ‘frozen magnetic field’ to recent paper where he used pure quantum mechanics terms. Poor guy. I feel his pain;)
      Visotsiky and Kornilova are my heroes. Operating on the fringes of conventional science they do consider cavitation, thermal waves and bacterial transmutations.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Will have to look at this presentation tomorrow. Too late here.

    • Max Nozin

      Dielectircs are palying important role. Looks like they serve as a wall to bounce and curl the burst of charge to form a vortex which would just dissipate otherwise

    • Gerard McEk

      Alexander Parkhomov found these ‘They’s’ using photographic means. How does he know they are uncharged? How does he know their size (<10nm)? and why does he think they would cause this transmutation 'in their path'. Has he listened to what you are saying, Bob?

      • спаситель русских

        do not believe Russian they often li

        • Gerard McEk

          So how do I you don’t lie, savior? 😉

      • Bob Greenyer

        I think he has looked at his own research and – if you look at his references, the work of colleagues and contemporaries also. Simple analysis of the material the Strange Radiation has travelled through would allow him to draw that conclusion – or, reading Adamenkos book. Hold in mind that Piantelli also said it was nuclear reorganisation.

        What Alexander and his colleagues have done is potentially a very helpful contribution. With access to the computer modelled reaction permutations that have transmutations that release nuclei in an energy favourable way, present and past data can be tested against it.

        He wrote to me on 2nd Feb and said “We found that changes occur not only in fuel, but also in the surrounding matter also. Moreover, there is “strange radiation” on the outside, which forms tracks not only in photographic films, but also in solids, for example, in glass.” He then sent images from his new years presentation that showed the same kinds of damage to glass as observed in LION 2 – but without the chemical contact. That was shared on FB


        • Gerard McEk

          Thanks Bob, but possibly he was inspired by your invesigatons and started to look for strange radiation as well. Nevertheless, nice to see this confirmation bij Alexander Parkhomov.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Many of the reports cited in his paper were for studies on ash from his teams reactors/experiments conducted last year – from this his team built his model which is separate actually from any specific mechanism. We have a set of samples from him to test, when we can, one that we shared at ASTI, showed large scale production of Gallium from Nickel, which makes sense.

            Without Piantelli specifically writing to me and saying his opinion was that it was ‘Nuclear Reorganisation’ and me reading to George Egely in our 3rd trip to India from Adamenko’s book the section about all of the atoms loosing their identities and becoming a “Electron – Nucleus – Macro – Cluster” and Shoulders saying effectively the same thing I would never have seriously considered this concept that allowed me to see the possibility of the ‘Implosion re-packing’ nature of all the data from different research.

            The fact that Alexander independently built a model to say effectively the same thing (because spreading nucleons to release binding energy is re-packing to more efficiently use space) is frankly quite bizarre – but it is often the case that in research field – suddenly many people converge.

            In different ways you now have

            – Piantelli
            – Adamenko
            – Shoulders
            – Myself
            – Parkhomov

            all effectively concluding the same thing.

      • Axil Axil

        Alexander Parkhomov’s method of producing the LENR reaction is singular in that he does not go through an off line process to produce the “Fuel” that contains the LENR active agent.

        This particle has mass and is heavy such that it will fall under the influence of gravity to the lowest level. We have see this particle leave me356 fuel and transmute the SEM carbon tape that hold samples.


        This particle is superconducting and is a super-fluid. It will flow though the small cavities to exist enclosures.

        In the fuel preparation process, hydogen is compressed inside the lattice of various substances until a unique nanoparticle is formed. This hydrogen based nanoparticle is electrically neutral, it does not carry a charge, but it is magnetic.

        It is likely that other compounds can form this type of nanoparticle. Lithium might combine with hydrogen to produce this type of crystal.

        • Gerard McEk

          Beautiful picture from Lenr-forum! No idea what I am seeing there, though. Why do you think this particle is superconducting and superfluid, Axil?

          • Axil Axil

            Holmlid has shown that it is experimentally.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Maybe this has something in common with the Hutchison Effect. Maybe bosonic elements are becoming a Bose gas and then reemerge as more stable bosons. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=5&v=rc9YiKGKPoc

    • Bob Greenyer

      This video was going to be the centrepiece of an in-production, but on hold presentation I have been building called ‘crushing matter’

      It is ‘implosion re-packing’ Alexander clearly gets it.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        I was just thinking that maybe for some reason a Bose gas can form at high temperatures in Parkhomov’s reactor.


        • Alan DeAngelis

          Now I’ve really gone nuts:

          Maybe hydride, (H-) combines with an electron hole (+) from the conduction band of the nickel to become a boson that we’ll call a rossion, (H-)(+). Rossions can aggregate into a Bose gas, [(H-)(+)] making a soup that other boson elements can merge with.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            When I find myself knee-deep in my own BS, I like to listen to this guy to help me get my head straight.


          • Max Nozin

            Crothers demonstrates perfectly that thousands of qualified and highly educated people indeed can be all wrong.

          • Bob Greenyer


          • Alan DeAngelis

            On second thought, he said there were no gamma rays, therefore no O.511 MeVs from electron-positron annihilation.

          • Bob Greenyer

            if it happens from the decay inside a nucleus, it is Gamma

          • Alan DeAngelis

            For example:

            2 H(-)(+) (a rossion) > 2[H(-)(+)](Bose gas) > H(2) deuteron + e+ (a positron)

            4 H(-)(+) (a rossion) > 4[H(-)(+)](Bose gas) > He(4) helium + 2 e+

            6 H(-)(+) (a rossion) > 3[H(-)(+)](Bose gas) > Li(6) + 3 e+

            62 H(-)(+) (a rossion) > 62[H(-)(+)](Bose gas) > Ni(62) + 34 e+

        • Bob Greenyer

          in all LENR…?

      • Hey, Bob, do you have any reaction to Judy Wood’s idea that some kind of directed energy weapons were used on 9/11? She gave a presentation about it, some years back, and she mentioned Hutchison’s research a few times in the presentation. It seems to tie in with some of that stuff about the iron being mangled. In case anyone is interested, here is the presentation:


        • Bob Greenyer

          Mark, Judy points out very many aspects of the event that are not explained by either the official or other two alternative allowed stories, the most prominent of which is promoted by the exact same person that was pivotal in destroying the careers and reputation of Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons.

          She took the US to court – all the way to the supreme court – on the way, she was told that her case would not be heard due to national security, I guess discovery might have been, problematic, read into that what you will.

          Whilst the majority of US citizens now believe the official story to be flawed – there is still a huge barrier to open discussion, mostly because people don’t want to consider what may be.

    • causal observer

      The “bar” has an obvious interior that is not mentioned in the narration.

      Also, it would have been very simple to tap the “bar” with a spoon to demonstrate that it might actually be metal.

      What evidence is there that this is not some stage prop plastic being distorted by a hair dryer?

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Good point. Bob should keep that in mind when he does the

        • Alan DeAngelis

          When I was young, a box filled with iron powder (for a Bechamp reduction) was delivered to the hallway just outside my lab. Even with my rubber sole shoes, I was losing traction while pushing it (iron is 7.874 g/cm3) into my lab. Bob will know if it’s plastic.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I have spoken at length with John about this sample which was sold for $750 a number of years ago. Given that everything else he sent us is as described, I expect that this is also what it is claimed to be.

          • causal observer

            Any explanation for the lighter colored material appearing inside the bar?

          • Bob Greenyer

            I can have on opinion – do you have one?

            I understand that this was done with the same apparatus that is in Germany and that created our aluminium sample 18 ‘Coral’. Given that ‘Coral’ shows twisting and bending – the gross physical distortions are similar. Other than that – our coral sample is showing all of the signs of the effect, and I imagine this is too – in close up it looks very similar in places to SAFIRE’s fat langmuir probe that fell apart when grabbed – that probe started as tungsten colour and ended up iridescent blue. You coul start by looking at what the SAFIREs anode samples analysed as.

            The active agents according to Shoulders don’t like impedance mismatches. A surface is a good example. Typical surface transmutations would be mostly driven by George Ohsawa chains – since Iron is about as effectively packed as you can get. I would expect compounds based on air such as.

            Sulphur (O+O)
            Silicon (N+N)
            Phosphorous (N+O)

            To look at other likely reactions, see my last presentation or Parkhomov’s.

          • causal observer

            My opinion? It looks like wax.

          • Bob Greenyer

            This was made in 2007 I believe, bordering on 30 years after he had made his discovery – John was quite bored with the effect by then…

            What I know is that the samples that we have are predominantly metal and in nearly 3 months, no-one has been able to provide an example of a way to reproduce the observables using conventional methods. The only things that replicate the effects and transmutations observed is LENR – SAFIRE being the most recent very public example.

            Hal Puthoff practically begged to work with Hutchison. Ken Shoulders, whilst recognising John Hutchison was never a scientist, still respected him and his work more than any other individual he discussed. Just on the basis of these two peoples view, John’s work has my interest and what I choose to spend my volunteer time on is my choice.

          • Alan DeAngelis
  • causal observer
    • greggoble

      Please contact TechLink… It seems this was automatically generated and the offer is no longer current.

      JWK/Global Energy Corporation holds certain rights to this patent and subsequent LENR energy generating technology entering the marketplace.

  • greggoble

    The NASA GRC/PineScie/Vantage Partners LENR group has independent access to some amazing equipment. (It’s right in their neighborhood… so to speak)

    You can lease independent lab time too…
    If your a trained user with deep pockets.

    Annette M. Marsolais, empoyee of Vantage Partners LLC. She is an engineer who specializes in microstructural and compositional characterization of materials as well as surface and near-surface chemical analysis. She previously worked at the Swagelok Center for Surface Analysis of Materials as an instructor and demonstrator. http://engineering.case.edu/conference/asaw/instructors_and_demonstrators

    As a fully trained user she is permitted independent access to the lab which has this equipment.

    Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)

    – FEI Quanta 3D Environmental Scanning Electron Microscope with Focused Ion Beam and XEDS
    – FEI Nova Nanolab 200 Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope with Focused Ion Beam, XEDS and EBSD
    – FEI Helios 650 Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope with Focused Ion Beam with XEDS

    Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM)

    – FEI Tecnai F30 300kV Transmission Electron Microscope

    X-Ray Diffraction

    – Bruker Discover D8 with VANTEC-500 solid state detector (2D)
    – Bruker Discover D8 (1D)

    Surface Analysis

    – PHI 680 Scanning Auger Microprobe
    – PHI Versaprobe 5000 X-ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy/ESCA
    – PHI TRIFT V nanoTOF Time of Flight Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometer (TOF-SIMS)

    Atomic Force and Scanning Probe Microscopy/Nanoindentation

    – Agilent G200 Nanoindenter
    – Veeco Dimension 3100 Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM)

    Optical Microscopy

    – Olympus FV1000 Laser Scanning Confocal Microscope
    – Keyence Olympus VHX 5000

    Specimen Preparation

    – Gatan Ilion+ Ion Polisher
    – Gatan PIPS
    – Fischione Nanomill

    SCSAM http://engineering.case.edu/centers/scsam/


    The Swagelok Center for Surface Analysis of Materials is one of Case Western Reserve University’s largest core facilities, providing a variety of instrumentation for the microstructural and compositional characterization of materials as well as surface and near-surface chemical analysis. The Center’s equipment is complemented by a staff of professionals who are available to assist and train academic, research, and commercial users.

    Fully trained users are permitted independent access to the lab, while users with particularly difficult samples or those who are unsure how to obtain the best possible data can utilize the services of a staff expert. Some of the routine services offered include guidance with sample preparation, technical assistance to obtain data, and data analysis. Each year more than 250 individual researchers from the academic, non-profit, and commercial sectors utilize the Center. From providing access to equipment that would otherwise not be available to startup companies to training industrial users how to efficiently extract useful information, the Center for Surface Analysis of Materials supports regional economic growth. – end quotes

    © 2018 Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106, 216.368.2000

  • Pekka Janhunen

    A couple of mistakes in the article, 1) aluminium does not yet much evaporate at 1500C since its boiling point is about 2400C, 2) the interatomic distance is about 0.2nm, not 10nm.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Depends on your perception of time or expectations of the rate at which truly transformational technology is both made to have utility, accepted and then adopted.

    Very shortly after Dec 2014, the MFMP had ‘Signal’ in GS 5.2 which was a key step to understanding the process – this spawned GS 5.3 where we observed neutrons and massive swings in H2 pressure. For us, that enabled a very fast change in perception as to what the process can do and enabled the community to be more honest about the past and present observations of neutrons.

  • Alan DeAngelis
  • Bob Greenyer

    3rd officially sanctioned narrative – mini-nukes (because conventional)

    If we can replicate Hutchison this year using his equipment that is in Germany and trigger it perhaps with a LION core, much of the is it / can it debate will be moot. HE may provide good insight in how to stimulate/maintain the effect with milliwatts of RF.

    I have seen enough to realise that ‘Hutchison Effect’LENR other peoples view may vary.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Nice – but I expect the veiled attacks to get a lot tougher before this is over.

    I’m seriously financially down on this activity – but I got into this to satisfy curiosity and try and do something to settle the debate rather than sit and point fingers and mock from the sidelines.

    What is your purpose – lay it out real clear, so that we can see what motivates your posts.

    • TVulgaris

      In a very clear sense, Bob, it doesn’t matter his motives, or your explanations. If I’m not mistaken, MFMP was initiated to supply UNASSAILABLE support for P & F, because there’s 30 years of (admittedly, widely scattered) good evidence of previously-unexplained, yet what would suggest remarkably similar or identical phenomena.
      There are astronomically more proponents and supporters of the Flat Earth than there were 50 years ago. They will ALWAYS fall back on specious claims, faulty math, and heavily-blinkered logic and analyses. Not one of them that claims an open mind can prove that they actually do when pressed, in any broad sense. And I haven’t yet run into a single one to use the n-dimensional math and physics that is the only way to justify entertaining such a hypothesis- you’d think this’d be all OVER the Internet…
      Questioning everything is certainly appropriate for intelligent beings, filtering the answers according to one’s direction of inquiry equally so- but then what remains must be evaluated for accuracy and reliability, and that last step is what the fanatic mentality avoids if it follows the first one or two. We can see it in inventors and experimenters who jump from hypothesis to theory (or even Law), bypassing the intermediate steps, and the foolish who embrace whatever claim they choose without question even from the first. Then there are the fanatic doubters, who can’t proceed and refuse to allow others to progress along a line of hypothesis, because it’s not “proven science”, and this is after several centuries of “proven science” being falsified.
      There should be no doubt left, unless ALL of the research is lies, that anomalous observations have occurred- if the disagreement is over theory, there is NO single theory, just better or worse hypotheses. Controversy over them is perfectly appropriate.
      John Williamson clearly hasn’t read into the Japanese and Russian research, assuming he’s more than glossed through a few strands of what’s gone on in the US in the past decade.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Many theories have become impossible since they do not allow the same observations/outcomes that are observed in gaseous, liquid and solid systems from 4 Kelvin to several 1000s Kelvin with a range of elements and hydrogen isotopes.

        Today was an affirming, but difficult day for me – I kind of wanted what looks like fact, to not be true – but it seams it is. It will be in ‘O Day’ – I wanted someone else to do what I did today – but I could not wait any longer – sometimes you just have to do things yourself.

        The Japanese talk of needing ovoid structures, just like those in Adamenko’s work in order to create ‘heavy electrons’ (whatever they are meant to be)… some of this looks so far apart – but many people have been just trying to explain the things they have observed. The challenge comes when they choose to ignore what others are observing due to ‘not invented here syndrome’ when really all data that is plausible should be considered and the nonsense will fall out.

        • sgm0369

          > Today was an affirming, but difficult day for me – I kind of wanted what looks like fact, to not be true – but it seams it is.

          Care to be a little bit more explicit?

          • Bob Greenyer

            It will be part of ‘O Day’ after I have done a number of control observations to confirm. It is VERY sensitive.

          • Frank Acland

            What do you mean by sensitive, Bob?

          • Bob Greenyer

            I mean it is something that might have a lot of repercussions, so I need to verify by doing control observations before shooting from the hip.

            One of the implications is that LENR is very safe.

  • georgehants

    Morning Bob, in the statue of the lion and the patterned ball, it seems that the lion is holding it under control, what does the lion represent do you think.

    • Bob Greenyer

      There are no lions in China. There are in India (I have seen some Indian lions in their natural habitat). It is my undertanding that the lions were taken based on Indian temple lions.

      Given that the Sanskrit texts describe Vimana 5000 years ago, and there are indications of an ancient nuclear war etc. then it is unsurprising that the knowledge would be codified in holy structures.

      IMPO, the specific pose of the guardian lions suggests keeping the knowledge under control.

  • psi2u2

    So you are still denying the validity of the concept of LENR? How uninformed.

  • causal observer

    Explanation of Mach effect:


    “Make it so.”

  • causal observer

    How about using Lockheed’s CFR and capturing interstellar hydrogen for fuel?

  • Bob Greenyer

    I was present at a conference in 2006 in Cork – there was a guy that worked at Saudi Aramco who was formerly at CERN – he said that the joke at CERN was that the soviets gave the Tokamak to the west to waste all their research dollars (and by extension their best minds).

    I see the same bare-faced lie touted about how ITER will replicate the process in the sun said over and over again – it is simply not true, we do not have the gravity – we can never replicate the suns process in a Tokamak – how do you cope with that with your strong desire to save, knowing 10s billions has been taken from your fellow citizens to fund what is, at its base level a lie?

    Having said that – I REALLY wish them well, perhaps they will achieve break-even this century – that would be great.

    What I do not do is spend my time going on their forums and saying that they are all talking nonsense, wasting their minds and flat out living a lie.

    I read 10 years of new scientist when it was a weekly fat magazine – over that period, I saw ‘discovery’ after ‘discovery’ be proven false given time – it did not stop my mind from appreciating those humans that tried to take us forward.

    You have made a broad accusation about my activity – please can you be specific – what things do you have in your mind that have caused you to state that your ‘impression of my activity’ triggers your ‘distaste for pseudoscience’. Please be as specific as you can so that it can be properly addressed – I hope you are not a FUD merchant, I do wish you can demonstrate that you can add value to the debate and provide references of how you conclude x,y,z is pseudoscience. In addition, please state your definition for ‘pseudoscience’ so that we are all on the same page.

  • Bob Greenyer

    1) Yes
    2) Problem is, we don’t have gravity of sun – so the basic premise of ‘hot fusion’ replicating the suns process is a lie. Moreover, say we have H-Bombs and we are trying to just control that, is also nonsense – because it ignores the possibility that an H-Bomb detonation is not self-organising. The reality is nature is self-organising EVEN when things look chaotic.
    3) Who are alien?

    • causal observer

      Bob, If I were you I would be cautious about the use of the term “lie”. There are many degrees of variation between description and reality. Inferring that your fellow explorers are liars may be emotionally satisfying however it may be sub-optimal in the propagation of better models.

      Re: aliens, I’m voting for n-dimensional reptilian shape-shifters

      • Bob Greenyer

        It’s a lie that the ITER works the same way as sun – cannot sugar coat it. Some people may believe that lie or not consider it, but it is a lie.

        However, it is a lie that obviously most people cannot see, as they keep getting funding – and that may lead to something that delivers.

        • causal observer

          Considering that everything is like everything because everything has the quality of being a thing and that no thing is like any other thing because if it were it would not be a separate thing, I would say that there is little objective basis for your claim, and that it is the result of some kind of personal attitude on your part, sweetened or otherwise, but likely sour.

          • Bob Greenyer

            No I don’t think they think that – of course not – but it is what is said – my point is that there is much more work and understanding behind what people/organisations say or what sound bites a publicity department might put out.

            As I said before, I never troll their forums AND I hope they are successful.

            Moreover, I have never trolled an individual working at ITER or CERN.

  • psi2u2

    I had an open mind until I began doing some research. Then I realized that the argument that LENR does not exist is pretty much a non-starter. It is poorly understood still because the exact physics is uncertain to say the least. But the simplest explanation for this, given the diversity of evidence supporting the existence of a phenomenon of some kind that is “nuclear” in the sense that it releases energies not explainable by known chemical reactions and also causes transmutations of various and somewhat predictable patterns, is that we are discovering not just a singular new type of reaction, but a whole new ecology of physics.

    So, no, if you are asking me to say this does not exist, I don’t have an open mind. My mind is wide open about the implications and wonder of the phenomenon, but it is real.

  • Engineer48
  • Alan DeAngelis

    Parkhomov’s observations are astonishing. Yet, we hear nothing about this in the MSM. I keep thinking about this quote of Thomas Jefferson’s that a posted on Cold fusion Now in 2013. http://coldfusionnow.org/new-energy-solution-from-nobel-laureate-ignored-at-nytimes/

    “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself
    becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of
    this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to
    confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. I really look
    with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading
    newspapers live & die in the belief that they have known something of what
    has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have
    read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world
    as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their
    fables. General facts may indeed be collected from them, such as that Europe is
    now at war, that Bonaparte has been a successful warrior, that he has subjected
    a great portion of Europe to his will, &c., &c.; but no details can be
    relied on. I will add that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better
    informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to
    truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads
    nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.”

    Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, Washington, June 11, 1807

  • Bob Greenyer

    John is moving at the moment. He says that he has TB of videos and is willing to help as he can in any way.

    There is historical video of ‘Ball Burn’ (sample 10) – of which we have two samples – but not of the transformation. We have 21 small samples and 3 or 4 large samples – we are hoping that some film emerges of one or more.

    With some samples. we intend in time to take slices and then do an element profile. The ‘Fracture’ aluminium sample with the same scale and form features (but with bonus crystals at the centre of outer projecting vorticies) as the LION 2 ‘Jewel’ (which only appears surface deep) will be a good candidate for this.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I know where the equipment is that was used to produce a number of the samples we have including ‘Coral’ and ‘Fracture’. It is in Germany, I have visited them and there is an intent to perform attempted replications. Dr. Egely and Dr. Sarg have both expressed interest in participating.

    Since the active agent creates the exact same signatures across LIONs, ECCO, NOVA, SAFIRE, SHOULDERS, ADAMENKO etc. I thing that further study of the samples we have is warranted.

    LION seams to create the active agents far more reliably than Hutchison’s set-up, so we may be able to forgo the good uranium ore and just surround a LION mini-core with some aluminium which is the most affected material in Hutchison, Parkhomov, Rossi – related IMPO, as I said at IIT Mumbai last year due to

    – High conductivity
    – Low melting point
    – Low mass

    Further more, based on the notion of ‘Implosion re-packing’, its single isotopic nature and that production of Iron is the most observed transmutation across the board (see my last presentation) it seems extremely energetically / space favourable to have 2 X 27Al > 54Fe

    This reaction was calculated as providing 24.8426 MeV by Alexander Parkhomov.

    • Bruce__H

      I look forward to a Hutchison replication.

      • Bob Greenyer

        You and a few million others.

        Even John Hutchison is really looking forward to it. Having Stoyan Sarg potentially on board, who is (apart from me356 and Suhas Ralkar and LION) one of the few people that have accidentally replicated his effect, though to a small degree – is valuable.

  • gerold.s

    Hello Frank, would it be possible to upload the .XLS mentioned in Alexanders paper to google drive and post a link. regards gerold

  • SG

    Name calling is easy. I think you are a pseudoskeptic. So there.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.