Interview with Me356: Working Towards LENR Commercialization

The following interview was carried out by me with Me356 via email on Sept 11, 2017.

What are you focusing on in your work with LENR these days?
I am trying to simplify manufacturing process in the way that the most work can be done by machining, at least semi-automatically. This will minimize possible deviations from required model to achieve same results across the units. Initially everything was done by hand, especially welding, where the most errors can be made.
What is the scale of your operations with LENR — how many people working with you on it?
If we count also workers in external companies it could reach at least one hundred people that are directly involved with the reactors.
What kind of performance are you getting from your reactors in terms of power output and COP?
I would rather not answer, because without a proof it would look like a tales. But I can say that we have achieved SSM some time ago and thus COP is equal to infinity in certain periods.
We are traying to improve the technology all the time as there is much higher potential left. It looks like we will be able to double the COP after latest findings. Question is how safe it will be.
What insights can you share with replicators in terms of getting reliable LENR reactions?
We have found that once you put a transition metal in the hydrogen, sooner or later there would be some nuclear reaction. Unfortunately these are not detectable without carefull fuel analysis.
So the main task is to increase area where the reactions can occur. You do not have to buy expensive equipment as it can be all done with what you probably have at home. To encourage replicators I can say, that very likely you have already made some sort of nuclear reactions even if no excess heat was seen. Maybe you will be surprised. Excess heat is the last thing you will produce. The main issue is that you will need expensive analysis to show the results.
Piantelli, Focardi, and now Mizuno have all documented that proper pre-treatment to ensure a clean fuel surface is essential in addition to various methodologies to force hydrogen absorption and release to create an “excited” exothermic state. Could you share a fuel treatment routine that could be used by other researchers to start obtaining excess heat in their replications?
Their methods are good. To get excess heat you only have to proceed exactly according the instructions. Some can be also combined and improved. If you have a good microscope you can see immediately that what you are doing is correct or not. Without checking it is only guesswork. The major factor that is usually not mentioned is time. You will need more time than anticipated for the preparation. I recommend to start with as simple reactor as possible. You can get excess heat with e.g. nickel and protium alone. Adding other compounds mean adding next sources of errors.

Could you describe how monoatomic hydrogen interacts with the fuel of a reactor to enhance the excess heat effect?
It may not provide any excess heat. But its production will very likely lead to a nuclear reactions that can be utilized, converted to a heat. I wish to not provide any theory, since there are too many out there.

How are your reactors in terms of safety?
I am convinced that they are safe. At least with conventional measuring devices there is no detectable radiation.
Will you be selling heaters, and if so what will their size and cost be?
Yes. There will be various units for a different purposes but the universal one has dimenension 80x80x500 mm. Cost will be around 400 USD per unit where family house will need 2 – 4 of these units.
What do you think about Rossi’s E-Cat QX based on what has been reported so far?
I think that it is good evolution step. It brings simplicity and higher performance based on better understanding of LENR process. I was playing with nearly identical design 2 years ago and I was very satisfied. In the last days we have tested very similar devices (with a modifications based on QX) again with very good results.
What happened when the MFMP visited that caused the null result?
The reactor was far from ready. It was actually success that it was at least in condition that it was. But it was only one we were able to test in this way. We both knew about major problems days before it was tested. So we were both prepared for any results. It was not prepared for any conclusive testing. I was strongly appealing to not get into a similar situation months ago before the test, but unfortunately it happened. I don’t want to cause any harm and I consider it closed, lesson learned.
Do you plan to invite MFMP to test your reactors in the future?
Any group can arrive to test, but only once it is ready. To prevent any possible failure and weak points a proper communication and strict terms must be held.
How soon do you think it will be before you are able to host a group to test your work, under the strict conditions you mention?
This time will come as soon as the reactor will be ready for sale. Now I can see no reason to make it sooner. Actually it can help us to make it at the right time. The best for us is to make measurements by third parties under NDA which is/will occur repeatedly for the certification process.
How soon do you think it will be before you have a product ready for sale to the public?

It is dependent on the certification company. If it will take longer than anticipated we are ready to find other legal way. For testing purposes we can produce as much units as needed.

Have you patented your process, if so, when do you think it will be published?

No, after long thinking my conviction is that this technology should not be patented and is only money/time wasting. Patent can protect intellectual property only to a small degree. It is just enough to change design little bit and you are not encumbered by a patent. There is always room for it. What if the reactor is made by metamorphosing materials that can change shapes? Moreover there are countries where patents are irelevant. These countries need this technology urgently.
For public discussion:
In the attachment I have shared some photos. Here you can see direct evidence of reactions that are occurring even outside the reactor. Even on the carbon adhesive tape of the sample holder for SEM.
The sample was taken from device that we are using for fuel preparation. This device can produce active fuel from any transition metal.



 

 

  • roseland67

    His writing style actually sounds like Rossi.
    Is ME356 Italian?

    • Monty

      I speculate he’s czech. When MFMP were testing his reactor earlier this year they went to the Czech Republic as far as I remember.

      • John Littlemist

        I think he is Polish. Thank you Frank for the interview!

        • Bob Greenyer

          I think he is human. I think…

  • Steve Usary

    When and where was this interview done?

    • Frank Acland

      Sorry, I should have said! The interview was carried out by me with Me356 via email on Sept 11, 2017. I have added that info to the post above. Thanks!

      • artefact

        Thanks Frank! Good interview.

  • Stephen

    Thanks Frank and Me356 for this update. Also for the shared insights and those pictures. Fascinating those fractal like thread structures… amazing how they apear to radiate from some materials in some way and go over the surfaces of different materials. Also the particular pattern in the top picture with the perpendicular thread. I wonder what they are and how they arise what they are made of and what it means.

  • Gerard McEk

    Interesting interview. If ME356 indeed has what he claims, then I am sure that he will get some troubles with Andrea Rossi, impeding Rossi’s patents and maybe also Piantelli’s patents.
    House heating requires about 20 kW, so his units must be around 5 kW. It would be interesting to hear what refuelling costs.

  • Eirik

    “If we count also workers in external companies it could reach at least one hundred people that are directly involved with the reactors.”
    Sounds a bit like a fairy tale, but hope I am wrong. Would be good to know where he gets his money from!

    • cashmemorz

      ME 356 is an independent business person. I get the idea he is into manufacturing. His income from that was stated much earlier as being enough to fund his LENR side experiments. Now it is starting to get into commercialization so that earlier money from his first business was an investment going good.

  • TheTruthIsOutThere

    I remember the early days of the LENR saga I had visit Defkalion’s offices in Athens and had a chit chat with Hadjicrhistos.
    I was flying to the moon by what I’ve been told. I had sporadic communication with him, till everything it collapsed. Baam, that was it. And then was Rossi and so many other claimants.
    Recently we all felt along with sympathy to tell a hard word or two on Bob G for the India fiasco.

    You know what dear fellows, now I’ve been thinking of it, Bob is in hero, he is impulsive but his scientific down the road approach unveils the truth. He is not Sterling and he does not buy the stories, he brings along his suitcase with instruments.

    And that’s the point, “he said she said they said” but hey in front of couple of instruments and some guys wanting the trouth and only the trouth, things blow like bubble gums.
    So I Don’t buy it anymore, enough for commercialization and stuff without any proper validation, that’s kids stories and that just harm the whole story.
    No proof ? it’s just fairy tales..

    • me356

      You are perfectly right. Although I believe in what some groups have they all failed due to funding. We are in position when we never asked for any donation, monetary help and very likely will not do so in the future. We are not dependent on any third party.
      I do not want to convince anybody and actually I can frankly say, I do not wish to convince you. We do not plan to have a demos to attract investors. We have actually denied cooperation with multiple investors.

      Proof? This will be delivered along with the products. Sooner it has no meaning, it could be actually harmful.

      I think that the interview is rather for those that believe in the technology. If you do not believe it is not problem either. One will be able to convince himself later.
      On the contrary, you can have as many proofs as you want. Without a device you can get it is completely useless.

      • Rip Kirbyian

        Put up or shut up!

      • Wishful Thinking Energy

        me356, thank you for the interview and the SEM pictures. Do you believe that the tracks on the carbon adhesive tape are due to nuclear reactions? Does the number of tracks increase with time? Is there a decay rate noticeable in the track creation? Do you have any idea what process is creating the tracks?

        • me356

          Hello Brian!
          It is nice to see your comment.

          I have had no time to study this phenomenon but it is occuring always with the samples that contain certain type of particles and were very active in terms of LENR. Usually some transmutations occured there. Particularly this fuel was slightly radioactive after treatment.

          Yes, the tracks increase with time and development can be seen also in the SEM for some period of time. These are occuring also in the reactor itself.
          More interestingly, there are observable long nano wires across the fuel that are connecting the particles. But some are connected also with the adhesive tape.

          I can share much more very interesting phenomenons including UDH. Unfortunately I can’t upload it here for some reason.

          • artefact

            I think you have to upload them on a different server and link them then in your post. Or you ask Frank to include them in the topic directly.

          • Frank Acland

            Hi ME,

            If the attachment option does not work, if you email them to me, I can post them.

          • Frank Acland

            I have added the new images into the post above — the bottom 3.

          • artefact

            In picture 3 there are also 2 wires on the top left. Are they of the same kind like in the new pictures?

          • LION

            Hi me356,
            the tracks are most interesting, I hope the link below may be of some interest, Keep up the good work.

            http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/44/jresv44n4p443_A1b.pdf

          • Stephen

            Hi Me356, Thankyou for sharing those amazing pictures those nano wires are really curious. And thanks for the interview with Frank.

            Would you be able to tell us something about the materials in the particles in the first pictures? I understand though if you can’t give the details yet.

            Is the dark smooth stick like particle carbon? Like the tape?

            Are the shiny particles the metal hydrides?

            Is it known if the patterned tracks are made of the same material as the shiny particles or something else?

            I’m really intrigued how this data is developing.

            Thanks

          • me356

            Hi Stephen,

            the background is carbon adhesive tape that is commonly used for SEM.
            In the Full BSD electron topology one can see elemental composition of the sample. Higher atomic number, the brighter the color is.
            Yes, the shiny particles are metal hydrides.

            The tracks are made of a various elements. The starting element is usually of lower atomic number, while at the end it is higher.

            You are welcome.

          • Stephen

            Wow, how amazing is that! Thanks Me356 for the explanation. These pictures are bringing so much into focus…

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Most interesting is your concentration on determining if a reaction is taking place as opposed to
            heat.

            1)
            Do you feel with more time and re-production of “some” nuclear effect, it will be “somewhat” easy to turn such reactions into heat?

            2)
            You also mentioned the achievement of SSM – is this in regards to seeing LENR/nuclear results, or that of heat being produced during this SSM effect?

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Andreas Moraitis

            „Particularly this fuel was slightly radioactive after treatment.“

            That sounds interesting. Could you share more? Type of the radiation, energies, duration of the effect?

      • sumdum

        “Proof? This will be delivered along with the products. Sooner it has no meaning, it could be actually harmful.”

        Sorry, but this is pure nonsense. There is nothing but foolish greed and paranoia here.

        If you have a working reactor, I can make 5 phone calls to personal friends who are professors at US universities for you to give proof to, and then within 2 weeks you will have your face on every newspaper and magazine in the world as the greatest hero of the Century who saved humanity by inventing cold fusion. You will have every major energy company in the world – Tesla, GE, Exxon, BP, Shell, etc, etc. – crawling over each other to license your technology.

        It’s Rossi and BLP all over again. We can expect years of tinkering, “coincidental” failed demos and tests, even patent filings, but no working reactors.

        Believe me, I hope I am wrong. But the logic is identical and the behavior is the same Rossi and BLP, so it is 100% rational to expect the outcome to be the same as well.

        • HS61AF91

          funding differs, that make a difference.

      • interstellar hobo

        Thank you for continuing to post here, me356. I hope your work is ultimately successfully. I am sure you can understand why those of us who have watched from the viewing stands all these years are skeptical just due to the number of disappointments. I agree with you, that until devices are on the market and customers are satisfied with their use this field will continue to be speculative and ultimately frustrating.

  • kenko1

    Sounds like Rossi 2.0. to me.

    • Bob Greenyer

      me356 is genuinely self funded, cannot really compare.

      • kenko1

        Rossis’ demo’s worked, but still few believe him. me356 never produced a joule of heat in his demo. I would stay dark until both have something tangible.

        • Bob Greenyer

          you make a good point.

    • Rene

      When I read this from me356: “The best for us is to make measurements by third parties under NDA “, my thoughts were Rossi 2.0. Now me356 is self funded, and he has said he’s not interested in patenting (which is admirable), he is nonetheless damaging independent testing and verification processes. So, like Rossi, his stuff can only be tested independently at market delivery time. Hence, he’s earned the Rossi 2.0 label.

      • Bob Greenyer

        The MFMP cannot test under NDA. Besides, other than the performance and EM/radiation statistics, I am not sure what we could know from a LIVE test to share.

      • Brent Buckner

        Per Bob Greenyer, me356 has *helped*, not damaged, independent testing and verification processes: MFMP gained from working with me356 and is better at what it does for having had the experience. That me356 now chooses a different approach does not obviate the fact that he has made things better for anyone else seeking independent testing and verification.

        • Rene

          I agree with what you wrote, Brent, with the exception that your comment needs the head words “Up until now,…” me356 has closed the door to independent and open testing. He is going the secretive commercialization route, just like Rossi. And as Bob has written below, MFMP cannot work in that closed environment.

          So, now, we have two supposed LENR industrialists, both claiming great strides, both being secretive, both having to date no truly independent positive results, and both having malleable time to market dates. This sucks.

          • Adam Lepczak

            fully agreed. how can you claim excess heat without measuring your power in/power out numbers properly?

  • Unfortunately there is a logical disconnect with the assertion of all these past and current reactors with wonderful COPs and amazing effects… and there being none ready to test by MFMP.

    It’s plausible that the timing was just awful for MFMP’s initial visit… in between model designs and manufacturing and overly optimistic assessment of new tech just coming on line. Plausible but not likely. More likely in my mind is he was and is keeping MFMP at arms-length for some reason… either as part of an elaborate scam or less nefariously, just to keep his options open and the competition guessing (because now he’s talking more like a Rossi-competitor than just a guy who wants to get the tech out there for everyone).

    Glad he’s still in the game though. me356 could put us all out of our misery with one well-performed public test by MFMP at just about any time. I hope he decides to do this for us. We’ve all been very patient and supportive and deserve some definitive answers.

  • That is one possibility but it is not what is being said publicly by either side.

  • Warthog

    “Not being done for the benefit of humanity. It is all about money.”

    You did notice that he chose not to patent it.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Patenting takes time and resources away from getting something to market.

      Almost impossible to make a patent in this field since so much is already out there in the public domain and key patents like Shoulders and Canon are already expired – some of the recent patents are just variations to get round this prior art.

      Lastly, a good patent will tell others how to do it, that is a key part of their purpose.

      • cashmemorz

        So is patenting just an expensive formality that might or might not protect ones invention? Those with already deep pockets can defend their patent, while the raw startups who depend on the patent to just get started in making money have a hard time in using patent protection via suing infringers. If I had an idea to patent this would discourage me from filing with the patent office. Similar to what ME 356 is doing. He apparently has just enough money to develop his device, but not enough to pay for a patent when there is the possibility of having to spend money he does not have on lawyers.

      • Warthog

        All true.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    You have to show me what technology you talking about that you use and was developed without significant investments of money? I am not aware of such.

    As Bob Greenyer from the MFMP has said more then once, there is tons of public information is available to start on this quest. In fact Bob stated multiple times, if you research history of LENR, and looking into papers going back OVER 100 years on hydrogen absorbing into metals, the LENR story is free for the taking.

    Nothing stopping large deep pocket companies from investing into this technology. Why should some poor bloke give up the opportunities presented in life?

    And as this shows, nothing stopping someone with “little” pockets from sailing on this LENR boat.
    To me, the me356 story is inspiring. Like pioneers in computers or aviation we are
    witness to a new industry brewing in basements around the world.

    This person is spending every extra drop of his time, efforts, and every bit of his money on
    this quest. So one toils to build a farm, but is to give away the results?

    Anyone else is free to do the same (don’t see any other readers doing this, do we?). These efforts
    are good for LENR and good for everyone else.

    I see this as another good “force” in regards to LENR. The bevy of entrepreneurs working in their
    garages to come up with a computer for sale is what spawned the personal
    computer industry.

    History shows this time and time again – these people are hero’s – I not aware of a better approach – especially when established industry continues to ignore LENR.

    The technology of LENR is ripe for the taking – only those who dream and are bold enough jump in
    will reap the rewards of this fantastic new industry we are watching the birth
    of.

    Without the dream of changing the world and the opportunity of LENR, I don’t think anyone would
    be reading this post!

    So continue your work – you might be the first to market!

    I can’t see how any progress by Me356 is not a benefit to the overall LENR community. Any
    break-though, any demo, any product will be a great shot in the arm for LENR.

    Hoist your sails, hoist your dreams – sail on!

    You could well be the LENR story we all waiting for.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Bob Greenyer

      Hear Hear!

    • cashmemorz

      There are many sides to the cheap energy story. If LENR is relatively easy to develop and has been known for at least since Fleishman and Pons in 1989, why have those big firms who certainly have the resources and might have benefited form the research, not showing any sign that they have it. Because, if they do have it, it is under tight NDA between the firm and their developers. They could have it and are using it for increased profit. Why would they announce they are using LENR when secrecy is to their benefit? When others start using LENR via procurement from Leonardo Corp., those late comers also would not benefit from announcing this. Why ME 356 and similar are announcing they have it, I don’t know. Perhaps some like to show off or other undisclosed reason. It could just as well be a red herring to get those like us in the cheering section keep our minds of who really might have LENR. Again to cover their use of LENR for increased profit.

      • Stephen

        Hi Cashmemorz, I think if any firm or organization had this already and was using it in any significant way it would be very hard to keep that hidden even with NDA’s. And on the other hand if they were studying it in a small way and proved it worked it would seem unlikely they would not make use of it.

        I think it’s hard for us in the community to imagine how it can be ignored so strongly. But honestly I think the Meme against cold fusion and some other discoveries is so strong it makes a kind of blindness. It’s like when you can’t hear something you don’t want to hear even if someone shouts it to you several times. It’s very strange but strong and real. And amazing given that there is so much research in related fields such as use of metal hydrides for hydrogen storage or thermal pumps or plasma lamps etc.

        But I really see this it amongst people I have come across its more than a unwillingness to look it’s more like a big barrier and mental block that blinds people from even considering to look.

        It’s another topic but I once saw someone very smart mention an interest in ball lightning and saw a previously apparently interested group of people shut down in their attention in an instance.

        It’s shocking to see but to many people mentioning these ideas is like telling them the earth has two moons. They refuse to even look.

        But isn’t that the way of revolutionary new ideas and technologies through out history.

        Always there are a few who catch it though and chase the dream until the point it becomes accepted. Thank goodness.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          See my above post. Hard to imagine that Sony could not see the rise of mp3 players – but they simply lost their business to Apple. And same goes for the LONG huge list of computer makers – they ALL ignored the rise of the personal computer industry – hard to imagine these things – but that’s what occurred. I mean how could the existing computer industry ignore and miss the personal computer industry?
          Albert k

          • Stephen

            Yup I think that maybe there is a bit of a human tendency where even very smart people tend to look at things from what they already think they know and find it hard to even consider looking at things from another direction. Almost like a kind of brand loyalty. It’s not necessarily about vested interests although that can play s part with some particular people. The current status becomes very ingrained in the masses and is hard to break. But when it does everyone follows to the next new thing.

            I think there are always a few people in those established organizations who see the new thing but they find it hard to speak up or change what the majority think is a working brand.

            I’m pretty sure there are people who are genuinely interested in new science understanding and the possibilities of LENR in such places as CERN too possibly even at the top. Some would even recognize how it can possibly even support their investigations, machines and work but they are also working within this kind of “current status inertia”.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            But the CERN folks are not in the energy business – they just doing research based on funding that’s available. None is being given for LENR.

            However I don’t think you limiting the context to CERN. So ITER reactor most certainly is research on energy (and no one including you is meaning “just” CERN). However for ITER folks to research LENR would not require 15 billion for that massive reactor – would it? Once again LENR means they all go home and LENR would kill their funding in energy research.
            The best example is Sony and the music business. They saw mp3 music as a threat to their business model. They really could not see how to adopt mp3 music players without destroying their existing music business. Apple saw opportunity here, Sony saw nothing but
            hurt to their existing business model.

            Same goes for those larger computer makers. How is branch a branch office from Sperry Univac in say Houston Texas with 8 VERY well paid employees going to make money by adopting
            the personal computer business model? I mean, those 8 people got to drive nice cars, work downtown in great offices, had paid memberships at the local top health club, and had really hot looking trophy wives.

            That branch office would typical lease out say 15 or 30 computer systems to local business. Each system would bring in about $5000 per month. There was no way such a little cherry office with 15 or 30 customers was EVER going to make that kind of money by selling personal computers. (And they were really quite right, just like
            Sony was quite right).
            The key concept then would be a CHANGE in how they do
            business – and that is hard to do when existing ways of making good money is threatened.

            Sony could not see how to make money by adopting mp3 music players that would allow everyone to copy their music.

            And France – that runs on 80% nuclear is a top notch nuclear country. France had a LENR program, I believe up to 2001?? They were making GREAT progress. But then someone said why are we
            funding research that will put all of using working in the nuclear industry out of work?? So they pulled the plug on LENR.

            France was no more interested in funding LENR then was Sperry-Univac funding the PC industry that would destroy their existing way of making money. Would you give up a suite and tie job downtown with a hot Trophy wife for some new computer industry that can’t make you that kind of money???

            Regardless the problem is those in the business of producing energy by nuclear reactions don’t see any way to make money if they adopt LENR – much the same as the larger computer makers could not see a way to make money by adopting the PC.

            IBM did finally jump into the PC market, but that was ONLY when Apple reached 1 billion in sales.

            The same will occur for those ALREADY in the energy business – until some LENR product hits about 100 million in sales, they not see or even consider LENR – and again like Sony
            or computer makers – they not see a way to make money with LENR compared to what they do now to make that money.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Stephen

            Hi Albert much of what you say is true I think.

            I hope though that there are a few people even in ITER who are curious about LENR. If I was a physicist and able to work there at that level in that project I would be.

            I also hope the technologies they have developed in the pursuit of their research brings some benefits. If LENR turns out to be related to plasmas in some way may be even some lessons learnt in the large macroscopic high energy domain can help in the smaller macroscopic and microscopic low energy domain where LENR occurs. May be LENR on the other hand can help them make better and more affordable machines to explore their goals.

            For sure I think there will be some who restist as you rightly say. But I suspect there are some or even just a few who are generally primarily interested in the real science what ever form it takes, if and when LENR becomes recognized they would be far better off if they ready and prepared for it.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Hey, dump the supercollider, and dump the ITER – take that money and go all out on LENR and new battery technology.

            We just need someone to get a working LENR device out in the wild – the snowball will start, we just need that first kitty hawk flight moment for LENR.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Alain Samoun

          Follow the money: ITER the international research for hot fusion has costed,so far, 14 billion of dollars. Hard for people involved with ITER to recognize that some people like me356 do better in his lab/garage with simple hardware and so little money.

          • Stephen

            Thank goodness for those people who work in garages like me356 and otbers. History has always shown they are the real ground breakers and the instruments of change.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Why did all the major computer manufactures avoid, ignore and not look at the emerging personal computer industry? Univac, Honeywell, Digital, Sperry-Rand – the list is huge. They ALL ignored this industry. There is ZERO reason why Univac or Digital could not have become the next Dell computer. Heck, Compaq became so large they PURCHSED Digital computers!
        All of these major computer vendors are LONG gone, but any of them could have jumped in and scooped up the emerging new computer industry (why did not one of them become the next Dell???).
        The big problem was their existing business model. They would lease a smaller computer to a business for about $5000 per month. Now you talking about selling a WHOLE computer for what amounts to their current business model of 1 month leasing (their business model could not work – they would have to radical change). I saw tons of those mini-computer business fail and go out of business as companies started to drop their expensive monthly leased computers. I mean, 10 customers at $5000 per month generated some real serious cash flow.
        We saw the same occur with Sony. They had purchased MGM, and created a HUGE music business. They saw the rise of mp3 songs and file sharing as a threat (so they fought against mp3 adoption). So Apple came along and allowed and made mp3 players – they SCOOPED up the WHOLE music business from Sony! And that includes making music players! Imagine that – stealing the portable music business from the Japanese! (let alone a power house like Sony).
        So those big computer firms, or big music firms simply could not see the future – were stuck in their EXISTING business models. Like the computer or music business – they will change – but change likely too late when LENR hits the scene.
        The only exception to above was IBM – and they waited until Apple hit 1 billion in sales and THEN realized they had to move into that industry.
        Regards,
        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

        • Alain Samoun

          IBM did make the PC no?

          • Omega Z

            Yes, They spent $40 million in advertising the IBM PS/2 and had a whopping gross sales of $25 million.

          • Alain Samoun

            The PC via Microsoft still with us and billions systems have been sold ;=)

          • Thomas Kaminski

            But Android and cell phones volume exceeds all of the other systems/devices. Most cell phones are ARM based….

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Yes – more software runs on these platforms now – it called change!

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Not quite sure what you mean by did IBM make the Personal Computer?

            IBM most certainly did NOT make nor invent the personal computer industry (and in no context did I suggest or imply as such).

            The context of my point is the above poster was asking why big companies are not jumping into
            LENR right now?

            My answer and point was rather simple:

            THE SAME GOES FOR long term established computer makers – why did they not jump into the new personal computer industry that was clearly taking shape?

            So NOTE that I said WAS taking shape – long before IBM jumped in!!!!

            As I stated, there no reason why DEC, or Sperry or Control Data should not have become the next Dell computers. While that HUGE long list of established computer makes I noted
            today are ALL GONE by the wayside – they are historic relics of the past!

            Yet Dell computers today is 3rd world wide in sales. Last year they have revenues of 60
            billion. That is not so bad, is it? That puts Dell behind IBM at 80 billion,
            and then Microsoft at 85 billion So Dell is “miles” ahead of all those established
            computer makers that did NOT jump into the PC market (and now don’t even
            exist!!!).

            So all these long term and WELL established computer makers simple sat around and watched the personal computer industry rise up and eat their lunch, their bacon, and their
            jobs! They lost their jobs, the ability to send their children to college etc.

            I explained in above that “some” reasons existed as to why such companies were hesitant to
            jump into the PC industry.

            And the Nuclear industry is VERY VERY much in the same position as these established computer companies – they REALLY can’t adopt LENR, or at least THINK they can’t without destroying their current and existing business models (and they are party correct in this
            regards). However, I DO THINK that France or some other MAJOR nuclear country SHOULD
            jump on LENR – if they don’t, then then they will go by the way side JUST LIKE
            all those computer makers.
            In fact France had a rather decent LENR project until about 1992 – but then said why are we funding something that will put us all out of work?

            So the established nuclear industry is ignoring LENR. However THEY ARE FAST waking up to thorium reactors. And a “fire storm” of activity is occurring in regards to thorium and the
            nuclear industry.

            Now, back the computer industry example.

            One major exception and forward thinking company was IBM – they realized the threat of this PC industry.

            So, while the PC industry was booming NONE of the major computer vendors that “owned” the computing industry for 20+ years was jumping into the PC market.

            However, once Apple reached 1 billion in sales (the fastest company in US history to reach that sales number in the shortest time), then IBM (Unlike Sperry, Digital, Control Data,
            NCR, Unisys, Apollo, Sun – a HUGE list) they decided to jump in full speed with
            REAL investment dollars. The resulting IBM PC was a spectacular occurrence in
            the PC industry.

            The IBM PC was a nuclear bomb event in the personal computer industry.

            A large well-funded and long-time major established player in the computer industry HAD NOW decided that this “silly” little computer market was something more than some hobby kit
            you going to purchase at Radio Shack.

            IBM was an industry leader, and they KNEW business needs BETTER than ANY company on the planet (for years they were one of the MOST valuable companies fortune 500 worldwide). IBM had been in and out of USA courts with changes of being a monopoly for years
            and years.

            The IBM PC blew the market up like an atomic bomb. This spanned the rise of 100% “compatible” clone makers. Between IBM and their compatibles, they grabbed 70% of the market in ONLY 6 years!

            In another 5-6 years they outright destroyed Atari, Commodore, Texas Instruments, and Radio Shack. The blood bath in the wake of the IBM onslaught was littered with apocalyptic destruction. No one was left standing except for Apple.

            In other words IBM walked into a market and stole it, defined it, and quite much owned it. Only 2
            years after launch in 1983 IBM could NOT keep up with demand!!!

            Once clones of the IBM design appeared, then really the IBM standard took even MORE market share.

            What some real head slapping numbers?

            Right now – today 36 years after that IBM pc? Fully 90% of the worlds market share of the desktop computer is based on the IBM architecture and design standard that we have NOW
            IN 2017!

            If that’s not an endorsement as to wat IBM achieved here, then can’t help you!

            Now eventually IBM saw the PC market becoming a razor thin commodity market, and they smartly exited the marketplace (they sold that hardware division to Lenovo).

            In a strange way, IBM VERY much returned to their success roots – that is leasing out systems to Banks, airlines, and selling point of sale systems to lucrative slices of the
            market. They sell and lease “systems” – and don’t care much about hardware or
            the OS – but only “valuable” monthly lease of systems for given market segments.
            So while IBM is a “shadow” of their former glory days, they still pulling in 80
            billion per year and that’s not chump change. Microsoft revenue is only 5
            billion more per year!!

            In summary:

            It is unlikely that any major vendor will jump into LENR just like none of the computer vendors
            jumped into the PC market except for IBM.

            Some of the nuclear industry vendors SHOULD consider jumping into the LENR market – France is a perfect example – if the government regulates LENR, as they do with nuclear then the government could RETAIN control of a LENR based nuclear industry.

            And around the world? Well I think “instant” a LENR product hits about 100 million per year in sales – then some established players will start to consider the market.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Alain Samoun

            Hey Albert: There seems to me a little contradiction when you say at the beginning that “IBM did NOT make nor invent the personal computer industry” In my opinion,they did make the personal computer industry together with Apple,that you recognize it later in your comment .
            Now regarding the “invent the PC” That was thanks to the microchips developed by Intel who got the money from the US government via military contracts.
            If you think about it,almost all the developments of modern science are funded by the governments, this because to do the applications of these developments, in order to improve the life of citizens,it cost a lot of money, that inventors and private companies don’t have or do not want to take the risk to develop. That the main problem today especially with the financiarisation of the economy.
            Read this article from yesterday on the Guardian site:
            https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/11/tech-innovation-silicon-valley-juicero

          • Omega Z

            CMOS technologies(1970’s) enabled the creation of the PC market. Primarily engineers who left Motorola to create the 1st cheap processor meant for the masses and not just industry. The 6502 8/16 chip at $25 verses $300 plus for any thing else. Motorola regained market share in the mid/late 80’s followed by Intel in the late 80’s early 90’s with their Intel inside marketing.

            IBM showed up very late to the game. They were of the opinion that the PC was a fad. What use on earth could individuals have for a home computer?

          • Albert D. Kallal

            Sure IBM formalized the personal computer industry – brought it to the next level.

            Well, to fair, the personal computer boom MUCH rode on the MOS 6502. Commodore PET, Vic, Commodore 64, and Atari computers were based on this very LOW cost and NON Intel CPU. And of course Apple – again based on this low cost non Intel CPU.

            Be it the light bulb, the steam engine, telegraph, electricity and Westinghouse with AC electricity
            that beat out Edison?

            Most of these leaps forward were in “spite” of government, not due to government. I find that article a crock in regards to innovating not occurring anymore in the USA. The lack of innovating
            in the USA these days is due to an education and university system that gone complete
            nuts and off the rails. And a tax rate worse than most of Europe – including higher
            taxes then Sweden in regards to business. With tax rates higher then most of Europe, then we not see much of any innovation occurring in the USA until such time tax rates go BELOW what typical rates are in Europe for business – right now the USA is higher. Europe missed the first computer boom – mostly due to higher taxes and regulation. Now that we have Europe like taxes and in fact higher rates for business, then we not do any better then Europe until this issue is fixed.

            Now no question that many a technologies does come from large public projects or public money.

            This is common called the “first mover” cost. So for say smaller nuclear reactors
            on ships, such high up-front costs were borne by the government. Same goes for
            space exploration. These costs were not practical overcome with private money.

            Same goes for molten salt reactors. That first “push” over the hump was borne by the government. So no question that often “first mover” technologies does require public money.
            And no question we do see results that would not occur with just private money.

            I mean, want to go to the moon anyone? So sure, “duh!”

            However to take “some” examples showing first mover costs borne by government and then attempt to say that this is the norm, or is why innovation is rare these days is beyond stupid.
            I would say that NEAR everything the government touches it destroys and turns
            into a train wreck. What exactly has the government touched these days and not
            made worse or a big mess of?

            So while military and space certainly carried some of these “first mover” costs, the idea of innovation and birth of the personal computer industry was due government? No, not really. Those first mover costs were already borne – any country in the world could have purchase low cost 6502 processors and build a computer. The “parts” to create the personal computer boom existed – it was just who going to put those parts in the right package first was all that was left to do. (that’s why the opportunity was SO HUGE – those first mover costs had ALREADY occurred!).
            And the same goes for LENR – it is a beyond silly and crazy opportunity!
            So the first personal computer boom and wave was not Intel based. It was Commodore, Apple, Atari based on the NON Intel processor of the 6502 that really started the personal
            computer boom.

            So some billions of dollars of computers based on non-Intel chips certainly occurred before IBM
            jumped into that computer industry and sailed the Intel and Microsoft boats.

            Again, I’ll admit that some of these base technologies costs were borne by governments, but I
            would also such much was due to Bell Labs, and much from Texas Instruments too. At the end of the day, the real story here was the first mover costs of chips etc had ALREADY occurred, you just had to take off the self chips and put them together in the right way like some cook book and you could make billions.

            So sure, industry like Aviation, computers, space exploration etc. most certainly benefited from “first mover” costs being borne by the government. And of course some of these technologies
            then benefited private industry.

            If you have competent government (which we don’t have right now), then you see MORE “first mover” investments by governments that benefit society.

            Blowing 15 billion in the ITER is an insane waste of money. And the CERN collider is even WORSE of a waste of time (we not see ANY benefits from these two white elephant projects).
            Complete 100% black hole waste of money. 100% waste for zero benefit.

            Spending above on LENR, and new battery technologies would be my first two bets – and the results would change the world.

            Governments are spending MORE money now than they EVER had, yet we see worse and worse results from any money they spend on research stuff – it all fluff and political
            correct garbage today.

            There are rare exceptions today of government funding being directed in ANY sensible way to actually help people.

            I mean, what government is funding LENR right now? – Kind of easy to rest my case on this
            issue alone! (in fact this DOES just rest my case!!!).

            However, China, India and amaze enough Norway all have thorium reactor projects – that’s is
            MOST certainly a great example of good use of public funds, but any suggesting
            from that article that more government involvement in anything is a good thing
            is beyond laughable.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Alain Samoun

            Well it could be a long answer to yours, but probably not too interesting to the rest of us at this blog. I should only point out to you that the thorium reactor still has a lot of problems to be solved,the least is the clean-up of the radioactivity of the salt. And don’t forget that the core of this reactor is an uranium fission reactor so…

          • Alain Samoun

            Well it could be a long answer to yours, but probably not too interesting to the rest of us at this blog. I should only point out to you that the thorium reactor still has a lot of problems to be solved,the least is the clean-up of the radioactivity of the salt. And don’t forget that the core of this reactor is an uranium fission reactor so…

          • Albert D. Kallal

            The major difference is that with Thorium you using something FAR more plentiful then uranium – and uranium is NOT really the fuel – only a part of the cycle. MOST important in place of using a small few % of the fuel, you can use over 90+ %. The salt is re-used, and if it is radioactive then that is GOOD since you WANT that since it means it has valuable energy. The salt is only a carrier in this case – it is re-used over and over so it not any kind of waste issue.

            The result is 100’s of times of less waste, something that can’t be used for making bombs, and MOST important it is NOT under high pressure. So you pull the plug and the system passive shuts down and stops – even without ANY mechanical or electrical back up. Thorium is really the way forward for our energy needs if LENR does not hurry up! Norway been running a reactor for two years now – a test for their next larger one.
            Regards,
            Albert

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Albert,

            The rumor that I heard was that the IBM large system IT managers would take the IBM salesmen into a room where an early computer was running a spreadsheet program and ask “Why can’t you do this?”. I think that though IBM did not invent the Desktop PC, they legitimized it and made it possible for an IT professional to specify something other than an IBM Mainframe. By picking Intel and Microsoft, they instantly created potential billionaires. If only IBM had realized that making “big iron” was not going to be as important as “software licenses”.

          • AdrianAshfield

            Albert, the Amiga computer was around before the IBM PC and in my opinion was a better personal computer. For one thing it had full color while the IBM machine was black & white. Their response at the time: “You don’t need color for a serious machine, color is just for games(!)”
            I used the Amiga 1000, 2500 and 4000 until Commodore gave up developing it. My first computer was an Exidy Sorcerer in 1978. Commodore could have been a major player later but for poor management and funding. The Amiga was more common for business than the IBM PC in Germany in the early days.
            No question marketing + an ignorant media can work wonders.

          • Albert D. Kallal

            The Amiga multi-tasking system was one of the first to market. A great system – but without multiple hardware vendors, it was doomed.

            As for hype and marketing? I think Microsoft is one of the worst marketing companies around. What commercial or ad campaign can you think of was great? What commercial for Word or Excel have you seen that makes you want the product? Same goes for windows?

            On the other hand, Apple – now that’s a different story! (Likely why Microsoft is now half the size of Apple).
            The so called “win-tel” Juggernaut won out due to sheer market forces and “many” manufactures adopting the Intel-Win platform.
            However, I can’t ever recall anyone attributing good marketing to Microsoft? – When is the last time you seen a great Microsoft ad and which one you thinking of? I think they are among the worst in this regards.

            People buy billions of Microsoft products because they are rather good and rather affordable. I mean Linux desktops that are rather nice are free. However when you buy a Dell, you paying what, about $40 for windows. $40 dollars over say 5 years is like $10 a year – not even coffee money. So the hassle or effort to learn and adopt something free in place of $10 in a given year really not worth anyone’s time to change. (so they don’t).

            So $10, or learning a whole new system? Cleary consumers don’t think changing
            is worth their time.

            People also buy billions of dollars of Coke Cola – again, it actually one of the best cola’s, and it cheap and affordable – so it sells well.

            I think where Microsoft really shines is in their server products (server 2016 for example). They are amazing high quality products. (and yes, I have software running on Linux systems too – about 6 countries at last count).

            In fact one great feature of windows 10 (anything above home edition) is they include Hyper-V for free (that is the same industrial strength hyper-visor or so called bare metal virtualizing system you see on their server products.
            I use Hyper-V on my laptop running windows 10 Professional all the time. So Hyper-V allows me to run multiple OS – so I will spool up a copy of server 2016 as a separate instance on my laptop, and then test software connecting to that server on the “host” OS windows 10 laptop.

            However I can’t think of any real great marketing by Microsoft of recent, or even going back to the DOS days. So in 30 years, they might have had “maybe” one great launch campaign, and that is it? Hardly a case for great, or good or even acceptable marketing – I think they are at the bottom in terms of selling and hawing their products.

            I always maintained that Microsoft does well in spite of their poor marketing. And I not aware of any market they own or are doing better then competitors with the exception of the windows desktop.

            Regards,
            Albert D. Kallal
            Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Jarea

      One thing is the true that you tell us that we need money to do research and another point is what he says: that the outcome of this research should not be secret!. I don’t think that the money invested in research should be privatized and be secret. Knowledge and ideas should be spread. The effort for research should be shared by everybody that is interested. That works and you only have to look to open source communities.
      You cannot change the fact that this secrecy is made just to protect their piece of the cake in a very selfish behavior. You can still earn a lot of money if you are decided to produce energy and devices. There is no such excuse of keeping this secrecy to be able to finance the research. What a bullshit.

  • me356

    2 years ago I have shared very primitive reactor with MFMP including all necessary details. Nobody replicated it to date. I think that nobody even tried. Instead the most were skeptical.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Hi me356, this must be the Ni200 fine coil core reactor, if so, I worked with you to very carefully document that and yes – no one has tried to replicate it to date to the best of my knowledge. Here is the documentation on that.

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

      The data in the test that I ran with me356 LIVE appeared to show excess heat. I enjoyed running this with you.

    • Wishful Thinking Energy

      Me, if you are speaking of the Ni200 coil reactor, I did try and replicate that back in June of 2016. I was never able to observe excess heat with my replication.

      Perhaps the brand of Ni200 wire matters or there is a specific heating protocol I didn’t match. I also use bottled Hydrogen which may have more impurities than the Hydrogen generator you use. If you have time to provide additional specifics to the test protocol or recommendations for success I would be happy to dig my reactor out of storage and try again.
      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0193124d38938d10f146d38590110a848f94303264e18811f11799d9b096a54d.jpg

      • me356

        Good job. You can find much more details on the LENR Forum. LiAlH4 was used for long time there. Nickel and/or any material supplier is crucial for LENR.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Ahhh – Brian, of course you tried that – I am ashamed to have not pointed that out!

  • malkom700

    This is not the case at all. The responsibility for development is on governments, they obviously know something or simply idiots.

  • Bob Greenyer

    The AURA testing was a complete success from the point of view of testing the methodology that was being prepared at great expense and with huge numbers of man hours to test the reactor of Suhas. Our calibrated steam heat exchanger calculated the power to within a few percent, meaning that if Suhas had had the courage to have his reactor tested, the results would have been conclusive. All parties spent around 2 man months preparing and conducting the AURA tests for the good of all – I fully respect the huge volunteer effort and appreciate the employers that let Ryan and Brian perform their roles so effectively. Also, as I have said many times, it took guts and courage for me356 to allow the test to happen, he has my admiration.

    Both parties learned a huge amount from the AURA tests, here are just some that benefited me356

    1. We identified that the water supply, contrary to me356s understanding, was being supplied by a pump/storage system and this made the calorimetry problematic and difficult to be conclusive. me356 and his assistants spent a day re-routing this to ensure constant and steady water flow for any further experiments, including his own.

    2. Whilst me356 was aware of earthing issues at his test location, this was only resolved during our testing cycle and the work he did to resolve this will have benefited him in subsequent testing, further allowing more accurate understanding and believable results.

    Some things that benefited the community

    1. We shared a complete system and parts and methodology that would be useful for any researcher in the future who wanted reliable data from either a straight water heating or steam production verification

    2. People started to understand the complexity of bringing things to market. Essentially contract manufacturers had let me356 down and our tests showed that to be the case promptly and with certainty.

    3. Brian Albiston further developed his Labjack, plot.ly, dashboard.io solution and made the work freely available for others to benefit from. Thankyou Brian.

    4. Only because of the test showing a null result did me356 share previous test ash samples with us, only because of this did ‘CAB Story’ become possible, probably the most important thing that the MFMP has published to date.

    It is unclear why Suhas took the decision he did, first he said it was because of comments on this forum that offended him (SATURDAY), then he said it was specifically because his son convinced him that the MFMP were not there to help him (MONDAY). The only possible thing that Suhas could have lost by testing his device, was the illusion that it worked (and that knowledge would have benefited him also). If it worked, there was no conceivable way one could reasonably consider that the test would not have benefited him. MFMP sought nothing in return, we only offered real and pre-organised support to help him take it forward, which he of course he could negotiate to acceptability or reject.

    Suhas made the final decision and I hope that he proves that it was the correct one for the sake of himself, his loved ones and humanity.

    As regards our relationship with me356, we will continue to publish interesting data from his ash samples that shed more light on how LENR works.

    • me356

      Hi Bob,

      it is very sad regarding Suhas decision, but I think you have still other options for testing.
      Regarding your comment I would like to update some points:

      1. Water supply issue was present only because it was temporarily feeded through pump without my knowledge (water was used for other purposes during previous days). But it was sorted in minute. Normally this is not used. But as you know there was no time for checking something like this. In any way it does not affected any of my prior tests.

      2. Grounding issues are still not resolved and very likely can’t be resolved. But by adding additional grounding points the overall grounding was improved. Yet the original problem (why we actually did it) still remained unchanged. In any way occurance of the problem helped to find a solution that will work in any grid. But this required additional months of work.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Many options, I am trying to arrange with the University for the NOVA tests – hopefully next week.

        I think that my understanding, which I will roll out in the coming weeks will help all, previously observed effects that you, Suhas and others have unknowingly replicated all ad credence. A specific test I wanted to do in India was done and the result, if not explainable in alternate ways has profound implications, explaining recent claims and those as far back as the 1920s. The days ahead are going to involve a lot of work, but I think people will find it productive.

        I have nearly finished the report on your W+H analysis.

  • Bob Greenyer

    What nationality are you Samec – and where do you live? Or need/should I ask?

    me356 has repeatedly said he wishes to remain anonymous, even still, he does not mask his discuss ID like you do. Please respect his request not to be doxxed.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      I do not see how Samec’s question could be considered as “doxxing” – there are millions of Polish and Czech citizens. Besides, I don’t think that he “masks his discuss ID”. Users who post as guests simply do not have a profile that could be displayed.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Well, if me356 wants to say, he is posting here, he can say.

        If he doesn’t say, then you know he does not want that aspect to be recorded on one of the most important forums in this field – that is to say, he does not want an attribute of his personal identity to be doxxed.

      • Bob Greenyer
        • Andreas Moraitis

          So some persons must be ‘shills’ because they prefer not to reveal their nationality, while others deserve respect for the same reason?

          BTW, there is no such button for guest posters.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Andreas, you are putting words into my mouth – I said “may reveal” and “If they are” the word “must” is yours and is disingenuous.

            I maintain that anyone posting or revealing any aspect of some-ones identity, to make it more easy to find to interested persons, is the definition of doxxing.

            Perhaps Samec should first ask me356 “Do you mind being doxxed?”

            If he says “Yes that would be lovely thanks” Then perhaps he could act with some moral integrity.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I did it with him. We had more than enough planned research. The results were in line with Piantelli and Celani and so it was not really any net gain to spend resources on it.

    There were some people that did buy the vape wire but I don’t know how far they got.

  • Frank Acland

    I don’t think that it is necessarily easier for him. I would expect it is a similar process, although he is in Europe, and Rossi is in the USA, so there may be some differences. Me356 says that if it takes too long he may try to do something different.

  • cashmemorz

    Similar to Bazhutov in Russia, who is using baking soda and water with just the addition of electric current through the water soda mixture to get more power out to boil three time the water that can be boiled to evaporation with just that mixture and no electric current through the mixture. Definitely a household type of experiment.

    • Frank Acland

      Sounds simple I don’t remember his setup being that simple: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtGKaAzvgoM

      • cashmemorz

        Of course it s not that simple. Bazhutov is a true scientist with all that such a position entails. He had everything required, not just the water, soda and electricity. That is why I would caution anyone who would try something like that in their kitchen. Also why I point out that is irresponsible to say that any LENR experiments can be done with “just” household items. Especially when Bazhutove found evidence of transmutaion in using those “household” items.Transmuttion can mean radiation which requires several kinds of precaution, some of which can be difficult to do effectively. That kind of attitude on the part of ME356 calls to mind the ilk of Bob Park.

        • me356

          That is true. Actually I am one of those that are strongly appealing for safety precautions. You can read many of my comments on LENR Forum about this issue.
          I feel it is not required to repeat all what was said again and again.

  • magicsnd1

    For the record, at the time of the me356 Ni wire test, we were deep into the Glowstick project. I had just finished the GS4.1 run and was preparing for GS4.2. I did in fact get a spool of the fine Ni wire used by me356, but after discussion we decided to continue using the materials of 4.1
    for consistency. I found the results of me356’s demo encouraging, in
    that he appeared to have successfully adopted the Glowstick physical
    structure using Swagelok fittings on Alumina tubing, and had shown a
    small excess heat with the same basic fuel ingredients I was using.

    For GS4.2 I did add some Ni foil (rather than wire), following the thought
    that bulk Ni as used by me356 might behave differently than the fine
    powder. One other difference should be noted though: the Glowstick used
    external heat rather than directly heating the Ni wire and this could be
    an important factor. Unfortunately, details of the heating waveform
    used by me356 were never disclosed AFAIK, making true replication
    impossible.

    As you should recall, the next series of Glowstick tests (GS5) produced evidence of possible excess heat of
    similar magnitude to the me356 Ni wire reactor. However, I considered
    the data in both experiments to be too close to the error margins to be
    convincing. The evidence of brehmstrallung radiation was more
    significant, and proved to us the value of comprehensive instrumentation
    in these experiments. This was made possible by the generous support of
    several people at this forum, and on behalf or MFMP, I thank you for your help and trust.

    I still have the spool of Ni wire, and could easily replicate the test
    using Glowstick components, if the missing details such as heating power
    waveform and pressure profile could be made available.

    AlanG

    • Alain Samoun

      Alan:
      Using a vap wire winded around an iron core, the all put in the center of the coil of a simple induction machine (See the movie made by Bob at Asti), I get a temperature high enough to fuse the nickel wire to the iron core. Now my question is: The spool of Ni wire that you used has been treated with dry hydrogen? or had some other treatment before you used it? If yes,can you spare some so I can test it with my system?

  • Omega Z

    The world is fast conforming to a basic standard. Even trade secrets and secret formulas are becoming highly protected intellectual property. Even the few countries who haven’t officially signed on to these standard recognize and abide by them.

  • Bob Greenyer

    He is quite a bit larger than the vacuum chamber and definitely organic.

  • Omega Z

    Nun can clean up faster after a disaster then Government.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mREn5ZYdAxw

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Check up wikipedia article on subsidiarity.

    • georgehants

      Why is this silly woman not being attacked and abused, we all know that greed and selfishness is good, why is she helping others, crazy and could lead to others following such bad behavior.

      • Omega Z

        “Nun can clean up faster after a disaster then Government.”

        My purpose of posting this was the play of words. None vs Nun thus giving a 180` flip on the meaning of the statement.

        You choose to take a different path. OK, What are we seeing here .
        Sister Margaret Ann, the “principal of Archbishop Coleman Carroll High School” in Miami, is removing trees that block the street access to her school. She’s making way for the school to reopen.

        What we see here George is someone taking care of their own needs rather then waiting on the Government to do it for them. Passersby actually questioned why she was clearing trees when the Government has people to do it for you. It’s disappointing when so many people expect others to do everything for them.

        All I can say is good for here. I respect people who try and fend for themselves. Chainsaws are dangerous even for those familiar with there use and very much more so if the chain is dull. I hope someone offers to sharpen it for here.

        • TomR

          Wearing loose clothing while using a chain saw is not a good practice.

        • georgehants

          Omega, am I reading you wrong or are you saying, helping yourself is ok but helping others is not?

          • Omega Z

            Obviously George, helping others should be a crime punishable by a minimum 5 years in lockup. Gee-sh…

        • Bob Greenyer

          There is a comedy play called “Nun Sense”

    • Warthog

      Of course they can. This is why the concept of the old “Civil Defense” system is better than the current approach with FEMA. This is also why the “Cajun Navy” has been so effective. I saw a very extensive article exploring this, and it makes the point that FEMA personnel only get a few days a year practicing small boat operations, where the typical Louisiana swamp rat (note…not an insult…I grew up as a Louisiana swamp rat myself before college) types spend hundreds of hours a year driving boats

  • Axil Axil

    Regarding my interpretation of the pictures:

    The carbon adhesive tape of the sample holder for SEM is the black surface seen in the micrographs. The fuel is the microparticles of metal that the tape is supporting. There is an unseen LENR reaction agent that is too small to see in the micrographs. I beleive that this agent is metallic hydrogen since only hydrogen is present with the transition metal. But these agents might be metallic hydrogen nanoparticles. The crystalline like fractal patterns seen on the tape surface and on the metal microparticles are the LENR reaction trails produced by the metallic hydrogen as it converts matter into energy.

    Very little heat is produced by the LENR reaction because the tape is not destroyed by the reaction. The energy from the reaction is stored in the structure of the metallic hydrogen as it moves along the surface of the tape and the metal.

    The LENR reaction is minimal at this quiescent stage but it can continue for weeks at this low level. During this stage, the metallic hydrogen is self sustaining. When the fuel is activated by a high potential EMF field the LENR reaction produced by the metallic hydrogen increases exponentially. At his stage, the heat output is generated through an enhanced LENR reaction. A positive feedback mode is established as heat production increases the heat output. This is self sustain mode.

    The metallic hydrogen when not activated produces a low intensity magnetic field that catalyzes the conversion of matter into energy. When the metallic hydrogen is activated, its magnetic potential increases greatly and the energy produced is substantial.

    When the activation signal is removed, the metallic hydrogen returns to low level activity and has a long shelf life. High intensity LENR heat production can begin when the activation signal is reapplied.

    According to Rossi, the activation signal is a electrostatic field between 50 and 100 kilovolts.

    me356 has seen the metallic hydrogen nanowire in electron micrographs but will not show them to us in order to protect his IP.

    • me356

      Thank you for constructive and interesting data.

      There you can see next interesting phenomenon: https://ibb.co/bCniw5

      • LION

        Hi me356,
        what a beautiful image. Looks just like fresh blades of grass poking through fresh soil, and then remembers the scale. Keep up the good work, the more the merrier. October should be a lot of fun. Little steps can become Mighty ones. Wishing you every success in your Endeavour.

        • artefact

          October: is it boiling in the underground?

          • LION

            Hi artefact,
            well bubbling, at least, ha,ha.

          • artefact

            May I ask you what the screw is made of that you used to seal your reactor?

          • LION

            Hi artefact,
            I bought the threaded bolt in a DIY store, so I would guess it is a pretty standard Steel Bolt. In this particular case I believe the bolt was 7.5 cm long.

            It is great what you can do with standard equipment with a little creativity. Varying the length of the bolt is a simple and effective method of varying the pressure in any given series of experiments while keeping all others the same. It provides a reference point.
            One of the reasons that I love the LFH set up is that anyone with a bit of nouse is presented with a thoroughly Tested robust and well understood Experimental system, that can easily be adapted by a little creativity on the part of the experimenter in a huge variety of ways.

            Personally I am having great fun and learning a great deal. I wish many more would do the same as clearly there are some very bright and gifted people in this community.

          • artefact

            I guess it would also have a lot of fun and I play with the thought since years. I still have (too) much respect for the powders and hydrogen and members of the familie might get distracted by noise from exploding tubes 🙂
            How do you handle the chemicals? What is your hydrogen source? Do you run your experiments somewhere in the building or outside?

          • LION

            Hi artefact,
            my October test is coming, which I am looking forward to very much.
            BOB of MFMP will have much to reveal when he is ready, the timing is entirely in his hands, he is under no pressure whatever from me about my tube SEMs / EDX.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_sFaMkVEa4

            My October test will proceed whatever.
            To answer your questions, much will be revealed before Christmas.
            I am still committed to the Cavendish as a goal-to reach as soon as possible. When I am ready I will personally write to Professor Brian Josephson.

          • artefact

            LION, I ment all just in terms of safety. Like do you use a fumehood? Is one pair of vinyl gloves enough or do you have to use two layers?
            But I look foreward to October 🙂

      • Frank Acland

        He ME — thanks very much for these images! Can you describe what we are looking at here?

      • Albert D. Kallal

        Ever try or consider foamed metal? eg:

        Foamed nickel:

        https://www.americanelements.com/nickel-foam-7440-02-0

        edit: and here:
        https://www.nanoshel.com/product/nickel-foam/

        So it really like kind of a metal sponge.

        Regards,

        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Bruce__H

      “The carbon adhesive tape of the sample holder for SEM is the black surface seen in the micrographs.”

      Why do you think this? I wouldn’t think that adhesive tape would look anything like this uniform at the scale of this micrograph. Nor do I see why it would appear black in an SEM image.

  • Axil Axil

    http://restframe.com/downloads/tachyon_monopoles.pdf

    Keith Fredericks has shown how the tracks form as seen in the me356 micrographs. The tracks are produced by a tumbling monopole particle as explained in the reference. see figure 13 of the reference and others going forward.

  • georgehants

    IBM Corp. has claimed a major new breakthrough in its quantum computing efforts.
    The company said it has created a new approach to simulating
    molecules using a quantum computer that could have a transformative
    effect on materials science and chemistry and enhance our understanding
    of complex chemical reactions. IBM said the breakthrough could lead to
    new practical applications such as the development of personalized
    drugs, the creation of new materials, and the discovery of more
    efficient, sustainable energy sources.
    https://siliconangle.com/blog/2017/09/14/ibm-can-now-simulate-chemical-molecules-quantum-computers/

    • Bob Greenyer

      All of this is known, and if they don’t release the information soon, they’ll be also-rans in history. It seams they are only dripping out stuff when they are forced to.

  • artefact

    Dear me356,
    you talk about semi-/automatic manufacturing of the devices. A step that has to be done before that is to be able to produce the fuel in big quantities with consistant caristeristics. Are you already able to do that?
    Do you test each batch in a device or do you do something different?

    • me356

      Hello,

      previously we have had only one, more complicated fuel processing device. Some time ago I have found much easier way which can also purify hydrogen to be almost 100% clean. This one is also more reliable and more powerful. It can be scaled to any dimension.
      Yes, fuel has very consistent characteristics now. The process is completely automatic and does not require any maintenance. Yes, each unit is always tested individually.

      • me356, have you been using the equipment that MFMP left behind? If so, what kind of COP are you getting with your latest reactor design? What temperature does it operate at?

        • Bob Greenyer

          We took that equipment to India the first time and it is now with Suhas.

          A clone will be secured if and when me356 is willing to have a test conducted.

      • oldrolledgold

        I wish you every success and speed.I’d like to see this thing ‘in the world’ after all these years.Exciting.

  • I don’t think there’s anything wrong either about doing a closed door run (or start of a run) to make sure things are working as expected before going LIVE on the Internet.

    The purpose is not to embarrass people. It’s to capture convincing evidence of an elusive and, if real, hugely important phenomenon.

    • Warthog

      Good data there. Sort of incontrovertible for deuterium. Not so much for hydrogen.

      • Knowledge of the process is what is needed. Then it may be “easily” adaptable to hydrogen.

    • Gerard McEk

      This seems the direction Holmlid is going. Instead of a green laser NASA is using gamma photons. Maybe they should have a talk?

  • Ophelia Rump

    Please make a tiny little desk top LENR toy for adults. A few thousand of those on desks around the world would change everything.

    • Rene

      Yes, a 5-10 cellphone, tablet charger.

    • Skip

      As much as I would like Rene’s charger, Ophelia’s (intriguing but non useful) “Toy” would open worlds of imagination.

  • Stephen

    Without razor thin nano spikes it must have been very painful for that poor louce. 😉

    Seriously I wonder what the difference is between this two pictures. Are they different wave lengths or different imaging techniques? They seem to be the same particles I think.

  • Jake Bates

    I do not see how Samec’s question could be considered as “doxxing” – there are millions of Polish and Czech citizens. Besides, I don’t think that he “masks his discuss ID”. Users who post as guests simply do not have a profile that could be displayed.

    • John Littlemist

      Is it echoing here in ECW? Great minds Jake Bates and Andrea Moraitis think alike! 😉

      • artefact

        Those are bots repeating allready made posts. The Christian Freeman is another one.

        • John Littlemist

          Yes indeed, there’s something strange, in the ECW’s Disqus, who you gonna call? 😉

  • Christian Freeman

    Axil, wow, thanks for these insights and interpretations. And the link to Fredericks’ material, amazing.

  • Axil Axil

    See at 8:20 of Keith Fredericks “Possibility of Tachyon” presentation at ICCF-18 how the track structure is formed by a rotating tachyon particle waveform.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRKblAn8lLI

    In condensed matter, it is usual to find complicated many particle systems that form a structure that behaves like another particle type. A coherent superconducting nanowire can behave just like a quasiparticle which obeys all the mathematical laws associated with that newly derived quasiparticle.

    I beleive that the nanowire, whatever it is that is, coming out of the metal lattice in the grass micrograph behaves like a monopole tachyon.

    At 3:20 if the video, coherent particle motion is deminstated. This means that the quasiparticle is superconducting and coherent.

    Where does the energy come from that produces the tracks?

    The energy can be received either from the outside of the particle or it could be created by the particle itself as a result of its interaction with the substrate,

    If transmutation is found in the tracks, then the energy that produces the tracks is coming from the particles interaction with the substrate and that means a LENR reaction is occurring as the tracks are being produced. The particle is storing the energy as it moves along the substrate and as the particle(s) progresses along the track, it gets more capable at transmutation (heavier elements are produced at the end of the track and lighter ones at the beginning of the track) since its energy store is increasing.

    In this video

    https://steemit.com/mfmp/@homosymbion/kenneth-r-shoulders-2010-interview-with-john-hutchinson-key-point-transcript

    Ken Shoulders states as follows regarding the EVO

    @31m33s – Where do you find them?
    “They can be just about anywhere, it is handy for me because I can analyse them in a vacuum – they can exist in a solid, literally in some of John’s [John Hutchinson] work, in the middle of the middle I’ve seen a paper that showed things like that and many other cold fusion guys. I’ve created them and kept them overnight and when I come in next morning they blow to smithereens – but I think they did some wrong things to make them do those things.”

    “They are extremely ubiquitous things, you can shuffle across this road and you will have created them those marks – little marks on that door knob are the witness marks – they are just everywhere, you get out of your car, rub across your seat and snap… you just made one.

    IMO, these quasiparticles are EVO’s.

  • artefact

    On JONP:

    “Andrea Rossi September 17, 2017 at 7:27 AM
    JPR:
    Preparing for a fundamental closed doors test in the next week, after which Sigma 5 will have been completed.
    Warm Regards, A.R.

    Steven N. Karels September 17, 2017 at 1:36 AM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,
    1. Can you project, and release, your estimate as to when you anticipate 5 sigma completion?
    2. Is 5 sigma completion a condition necessary before your new commercial Quark-X based industrial plants are delivered?
    3. Do you envision your 1 MW Industrial sites will be manned at the industrial site 24 hours per day by your personnel?

    Andrea Rossi September 17, 2017 at 7:29 AM
    Steven N. Karels:
    1- soon
    2- not necessarily
    3- several hours per week will be enough, with remote control 24/7
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.”

  • Axil Axil

    Why is the tachyon a critical keystone in particle theory?

    It is useful to compare and contrast string theories with conventional particle theories. Our goal should be to compare the predictions that have been formulated by string theory against the particles that are observed in the real world.

    What is the difference between a string theory and a conventional particle theory? Both kinds of theories describe particles and their interactions, but in the latter case the particles are the fundamental entities, whereas in the former case they are made of something more fundamental (the string).

    When constructing a conventional particle theory, the theorist is more or less free to decide what types of particles to include and what properties to endow them with, such as what their masses are, whether they are bosons or fermions, and how they interact with each other.

    These particle descriptions form the basis for theories that include quantum electrodynamics and the Standard Model.

    These particle descriptions are examples of realistic theories, meaning that they describe the real world. But there are countless other theories one can construct that are equally mathematically consistent (and also satisfy basic physical requirements like quantum mechanics and special relativity).

    Like particle theories, string theories describe the world in terms of particles and their interactions; unlike in particle theories, however, these are derived concepts. It is the function of the string theorist to derive complex particle behavior from a minimal subset of basic properties of the fundamental string.

    Calculation in string theory reveals that the masses of the different particles sometimes have crazy attributes. More precisely, we calculate the square of the mass of each particle and normally, the mass-squared is a positive number (if the particle is massive, like an electron) or zero (if the particle is massless, like a photon or a graviton). In some cases, however, the mass-squared turns out to be negative! Such a particle is called a “tachyon”.

    If the tachyon turn out to be real, that is, exists in reality, then this implies something profound about the validity of the string theory method of particle definition. This elevates the description of particles from strictly an observational practice to a mathematical definition of particles from first cause assumptions. This reductionist approach to discover what really is happens is foundational to the scientific edifice. Such a pursuit to derive basic causation is important to adhere to as a basic requirement of science.

  • Axil Axil

    Upside-down potential

    Consider a pendulum with its weight sitting at rest at the bottom of its arc. Let’s call that position x0. If a force is applied to the weight of the pendulum, it will swing and its position located at any time on its arc will correspond to real number values.

    Now consider an initial condition where at time t=0, the pendulum is pointing straight up with its weigh located at the top of its arc. Clearly, this is unstable, but at least in classical physics one can imagine that the pendulum can be so carefully balanced it will remain pointing straight up indefinitely so long as it is not perturbed.

    In an open system that is described by a non- Hermitian P/T complex number system something unexpected happens when there is a P/T state change occurs to perturb the pendulum from its straight up position.

    The weight of the pendulum does not fall to the bottom of its arc.
    Complex analysis shows that the pendulum repeatedly slides right back up to the top of the arc, and actually spends most of its time there. It is extremely unlikely to find the classical pendulum far from the origin; it is most probable to find the classical particle near x=0.

    At the quantum level, a particle in this upside-down potential is in a bound state strongly localized at the origin. The explanation for this surprising behavior is that we have extended real space to complex space. Complex numbers differ from real numbers in that the complex numbers are not ordered. If a and b are real numbers, we can say that a>b or b>a.

    However, even though the real numbers are embedded in the complex numbers, we cannot say that one complex number is greater than another complex number, so it makes no sense to say that the “bottom” of the potential is at x=0! One must think in new ways when working in the complex domain.

    We learn from this model that quantum theories need not obey the conventional mathematical condition of Hermiticity so long as they obey the physical geometric condition of space-time-reflection symmetry (PT symmetry).

    PT symmetry challenges a standard convention in physics—the widely held belief that a quantum Hamiltonian must be Hermitian. And, because PT symmetry is a weaker condition than Hermiticity, there are infinitely many Hamiltonians that are PT symmetric but non-Hermitian; we can now study new kinds of quantum theories that would have been rejected in the past as being unphysical. Moreover, PT-symmetric systems exhibit a feature that Hermitian systems cannot; the energy levels become complex when there is a change on P/T symmetry.

    The transition from real to complex energies is a key feature of PT-symmetric systems and it is called the PT phase transition. At this transition the system goes from a state of physical equilibrium (called a state of unbroken PT symmetry) to nonequilibrium (broken PT symmetry).

    The imitation of the LENR reaction is marked by a broken PT symmetry. This is one reason why the LENR active particle is an analog tachyon just like the Higgs boson.

  • Axil Axil

    A hypothetical particle with complex rest mass would always travel faster than the speed of light. Such particles are called tachyons. There is a strong chance that LENR is based on analog tachyons via metallic hydrogen nanoparticles.

    https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/fcda8a730164b4bdf3c4f4f1869f2397ec511c50

    E = M(C^2)/(1 – (V^2/C^2 )^1/2

    If the rest mass m is Complex this implies that the denominator is Complex because the total energy is observable and thus must be real. Therefore, the quantity under the square root must be negative, which can only happen if v is greater than c. As noted by Gregory Benford et al., special relativity implies that tachyons, if they existed, could be used to communicate backwards in time (see tachyonic antitelephone). Because time travel is considered to be unphysical, tachyons are believed by physicists either not to exist, or else to be incapable of interacting with normal matter.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone

    In quantum field theory, complex mass would induce tachyon condensation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon_condensation

    We know that tachyon condensation exists as demonstrated in Leif Holmlid’s experiments where metallic hydrogen produces mesons. If Holmlid is producing mesons, it may be possible using LENR to produce a time machine.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Hi Axil,

      See the results from todays SEM session.

  • Bob Greenyer

    LION tracks… Tachyons in 3D for the first time?

    Could the most striking evidence of ‘strange radiation’ have been discovered, lurking in the pristine reactor crust dunes of the LION reactor?

    https://steemit.com/science/@mfmp/lion-tracks-does-this-confirm-the-kieth-fredericks-tachyon-structure

    Composite, 3D and RAW images in links from steemit article.

    https://youtu.be/V_3_gDl1ZRM

    • LION

      Hi BOB,
      thanks for all your wonderful hard work and inspiration, I feel a bit like a kid at his first birthday party.
      Everyone will have noted that I sent you a sealed, totally uncompromised Tube, fuel and all, so much more to come.

      I will send more funds before Thursday.

      However I wish to publicly acknowledge that this only covers University costs, it in no way addresses your own enormous investment of time, energy, sacrifice ,and total commitment, and the endless effort in building relationships with many groups and of course the University. Who must by now know that something rather wonderful and Historic is unfolding right on their own doorstep– Dr.George Egely, Alexander Parkhomov, Suhas Ralkar, Me356, etc. May many more take courage in hand and submit fuel etc for testing. You BOB and MFMP clearly are doing a great job.

      Thanks for responding to this:

      http://e-catworld.com/2017/07/20/ecco-testing-first-mfmp-update-from-india/

      and being curious about my work:

      Bob Greenyer LION • 2 months ago

      This is very interesting LION, if you can get a sample to me before I do next EDX (Probably at the end of this week) I think it would be good to know what is there.

      I have a very interesting disintegration data-point to share today. Something I am witnessing in real-time.

      Some form of ‘strange radiation’ which could be charge clusters of a range of sizes or something that is released as they appear, is going on.

      I suspect that your sample will be changing its form with time.

      You have your Just reward. God bless you BOB, THANKS.

      • georgehants

        Lion, god bless you for such a feeling reply, you bring back a little faith in human nature that so many seek to destroy.
        Best.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Hi LION, thanks again for your courage, respect to you for DOING!

        I am looking forward to spending more time with the reactor and sharing the information.

  • Alain Samoun

    I thank Axil for showing us information that, without him, would remain unknown for most of us.

  • Axil Axil

    Bruce:

    Do you beleive that LENR is cold fusion? Almost everyone who is interested in LENR still does. If you don’t so beleive, please explain why you beleive so.

    Does time symmetry breaking have anything to do with the LENR reaction? What produces this symmetry breaking if anything?

    Why doesn’t LENR produce radioactive ash? Why doesn’t LENR produce gamma rays?

    What is the common mechanism between the metallic hydrogen LENR mechanism and the dusty plasma mechanism in LENR?

    What causes the change in color in the ECCO reactor flash that Bob just posted about? Please explain the applicable mechanism.

    Did you know anything about Binder’s ideas before I posted about these ideas?

    What is important…following conventions or understanding what LENR is all about?

    • Bruce__H

      These questions are more the type of thing I am supposing that you would come up with on your own … generalized questions that anyone with interest but no particular informed insight could come up with. That is fair enough. Join the club! But you have been pretending to answers, and right now it appears that those answers are not legitimate. Do any of the talented people whose work you have used without attribution think that their words can legitimately be applied to explain LENR phenomena? Why should I believe anything other than that you are randomly dragging up physical theories and then putting the word LENR at the end?

      • Axil Axil

        I have answered the questions that I have posed to you in posts here and on other sites. If you are interested, you can find the answers to these and many other interesting things LENR by looking and learming.

      • Axil Axil

        I have run across some science directly directly related to LENR that is exceeding hard to understand. The science is referenced in this post

        http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9509#comments

        LENR involve breaking time symmetry. Look at appendix 4 and explain what Komargodski is getting at. I have my opinion but I will give you a shot at it first so I can steal your ideas in furtherance of my own anonymous glory..

        Please put the ideas in your own works and make it simple enough so that anybody can understand it.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thanks Shinichi, Fredericks has already contacted, and there is a possibility we might test the Mizuno reactor.

    Now though, I have just published a new track finding exercise – in a post above.

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Axil Axil

      It may be that the impact marks are produced by subatomic particles generated by LENR reactions occurring in the first level of plastic (plastic jar) that is holding the LENR fuel. Such particles might include the kind of particles that Holmlid sees in his experiments. These include neutral atomic fragments, kaons, pions, muons, and other mesons. These particles if any are not neutrons because they would have shown up in the neutron detectors.

      The impact marks show signs of plastic deformation as the plastic responds to a meteor like impact from a particle: a sort of impact crater if you please.

      I can’t tell if the central part of the crater is penetrated clean through or if the particle bounces off the plastic and just generates a dent in the plastic.

      • Bob Greenyer

        What I want to do, hopefully next week, is look to see what features, if any, are on the unexposed control piece taken from the same bottle as the witness PET base. Then we can start considering what is as a result of any possible radiation exposures and what are artefacts of the bottle production process. For now, we can safely say that the very fine parallel linear lines seen are due to the bottle production process.

  • Bruce__H

    At least I am now satisfied we are now hearing your own authentic voice.

    I do, however, detect a contradiction between what you are now saying and what you have been doing. If you think so little of working physicists and so much of your own ideas, why have you been publishing posts consisting mostly of these other people’s words and ideas?

    • Axil Axil

      There is a ocean of ideas out there in science. We have an advantage in evaluating these ideas because we have a wealth of experiments in LENR to inform are opinions. Many of those ideas now popular in professional science are wrong. The failure at CERN to detect anything recently is an example.

      But we know from our LENR experience, that grand unification is possible and we know how to do it. This is why LENR produces no radioactive isotopes.

      We know that LENR is true and with that knowledge, we can judge what ideas in professional science are consistent with that truth.

      Knowing what is true in science enables us to make predictions about what to look for in LENR.

      For example, if we find that LENR can generate the tachyon, then all the tachyon characteristics may be potentially used in future LENR engineering such as negative mass, negative energy, warp drive, instant faster than light communications, time travel, and other things.

      Here is a post written to a fellow colleague of Holmlid.

      ——————————————-

      @Klavs Hansen

      I have no desire to offend. On the contrary, your background and experience is uniquely suited and is an excellent match to understand and to pass judgment on the true nature and causation of LENR. Your colleague and fellow member of the faculty of the University of Gothenburg in the Department of Chemistry, Leif Holmlid, has performed experiments that lend insight into the true nature of LENR as a consequence of the behavior and characteristics of metallic hydrogen.
      Leif Holmlid is producing results that are hard to believe. Yet I am placing a large dollop of trust in his experimental findings. You are uniquely positions to judge Holmlid either as a nutjob or a responsible and eminent researcher. If Holmlid’s research hold merit then the power generated by LENR that is based on fusion is wrong.

      The view of LENR that Holmlid’s research portends is predicated on the control and manipulation of the quarks inside of matter. If these quarks can be manipulated and managed, control of matter at any arbitrary distance might one day be possible and form the basis of some of my fondest dreams.

      Atomic weapons could be disabled at a distance when the fissile elements are transmuted into non fissile ones by a muon beam. The atmosphere of Venus could be modified to remove the Co2 so that Venus could be made habitable.

      The core of Mars could be reactivated with nuclear fire to restore the magnetic shield that once protected its atmosphere in the first step at terraforming Mars into someplace that can be colonized by mankind. Then Co2 could be created to start a heated atmosphere to heat Mars to livable temperatures.

      In moving the vision of mankind’s future father out from the solar system into deep space, there is near light speed spacecraft engines that become possible to build that are driven by near light speed subatomic particles.

      The energy source that the work of Holmlid is exploring might prove to make interstellar travel practicable. Holmlid first assumed that the energy produced by the reaction he was studying was some sort of hot fusion reaction activated by laser ignition. But when Holmlid studied the type of sub atomic particles that were being generated, he recognized that fusion could not possibly generate the huge amount of power that the reaction was producing. Atomic fragments are reaching ¾ light speed from the LENR reaction zone. For example, Holmlid detected Kaon triplet generation. He postulates that two protons are being destabilized into decay to produce three kaons and 390 MeV of binding energy. This very same proton decay reaction was one of the target reaction searched for by the Super-Kamiokande proton decay detector to prove that protons must decay in support of grand unification supersymmetric theory.

      The proton is assumed to be absolutely stable in the Standard Model. However, the Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) predict that protons can decay into lighter energetic charged particles such as electrons, muons, pions or others which can be observed. Kamiokande helps to rule out some of the theories. Super-Kamiokande is currently the largest detector for observation of proton decay.

      As a person who would like to see science fiction made real, the proton decay action could increase the energy yield by 100,000 over what was postulated in the Bussard ramjet interstellar system.

      The Bussard ramjet is a theoretical method of interstellar spacecraft propulsion proposed in 1960 by the physicist Robert W. Bussard. Bussard proposed a ramjet variant of a fusion rocket capable of reasonable interstellar travel, using enormous electromagnetic fields (ranging from kilometers to many thousands of kilometers in diameter) as a ram scoop to collect and compress hydrogen from the interstellar medium.

      When proton decay is used as a power source for the Ramjet, once the hydrogen is collected, it would be isotopically purified and the deuterium would be stored in a separate container. The purified hydrogen then enters storage to even out the collection of interstellar gas. This storage strategy will enable the ramjet to maneuver freely in space without concern for variations in the density of residual hydrogen throughout space. From storage the hydrogen gas is metered into a Holmlid reaction chamber were the hydrogen is ignited into high energy plasma via the catalyzed LENR reaction.

      Since the continued propulsion of a proton powered ramjet spaceship is dependent on interstellar hydrogen, the nature of interstellar hydrogen is the main issue of concern when designing such a spaceship. Two aspects of particular interest are the overall density and the isotopic composition of the interstellar hydrogen. The overall density controls the rate at which proton reactions can take place relative to the craft’s speed and the size of the scoop’s area. The isotopic composition determines which reaction pathway is best to use

      The interstellar density of hydrogen is 0.86 atoms/cm3. At a minimum, the energy gain relationship determined by Holmlid was found to be 390 MeV per each diproton reaction (two hydrogen atoms). For deuterium fusion, only 10 MeV can be generated per reaction. In the proton reaction, the remainder of the proton mass and associated electrons is used as reaction mass. From this info, the scoop volume might be calculated as of function of spacecraft speed. The faster you go the more hydrogen that you can harvest.

      There is a minimum takeoff speed required before the sustainable energy relationship is met and the scoop volume may be reduced as the Ramjet accelerates.

      There is more mass/energy content in deuterium which is about 1 atom out of 5000 captured.

      When fusion produces power for the Ramjet, only deuterium can be used. When proton decay provides power to the Ramjet, all hydrogen isotopes can be used and much of the energy content of the protons can be converted into energy.

      Holmlid uses a potassium doped Shell 105 ethylene catalyst with graphene as a quantum mechanical template on an iridium substrate to produce ultra-dense hydrogen via a quantum mechanical effect call Rydberg blockade. Once formed, metallic hydrogen can be excited into nuclear disassociation through the application of an EMF stimulus.

      I like the proton decay reaction as a basis to support a light speed capable interstellar motor as only one of the many applications of this technology. I have already shown experimental proof of transmutation of carbon into a multitude of transition metals. As discovered by Holmlid, LENR produces sub atomic particles, mostly muons and hydrogen nuclear fragments moving at ¾ light speeds. And even better, LENR produces its own energy from muon based catalyzed fusion as a side reaction. This fusion energy would be used to sustain the electromagnetic hydrogen collection fields.

      Yes, I stand before you humbled by your eminence and revealed as a dreamer or a fool, it is up to you to judge.

      For those with an open mind, taking the work of Holmlid seriously might be the first step in reaching the stars. Can you give me any hope that these dreams of a new epoch in science are at hand?

      See as follows to render judgment:

      http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref007

      Mesons from Laser-Induced Processes in Ultra-Dense Hydrogen H(0)

      • Axil Axil

        The Responce:

        Klavs Hansen

        September 9, 2017

        Axil,
        I got your angle. You are not a nutcase. You are really just a sociology student masquerading as a nutcase as part of an exam project. The response of scientists to your completely off-the-wall statements will be the raw material for your thesis.

        Please put it on the web, once its done. It will be interesting to read.

        • Axil Axil

          More…

          September 9, 2017
          @Klavs Hansen

          Professor Huw Price has an opinion on the response presented by professional science to the ideas held by their divergent progeny (aka nutcases).

          Huw Price is Bertrand Russell Professor of Philosophy and a fellow of Trinity College at the University of Cambridge. He is also academic director of the Centre for the Study of Existential Risk and the Leverhulme Centre for the Future of Intelligence. His most recent book is Expressivism, Pragmatism and Representationalism (2013).

          https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-scientists-dismiss-the-possibility-of-cold-fusion

          In summary regarding the fear of reputational damage in the field of science:

          “I would like to say how truly sorry I am that society has attacked you for the last three decades. The treatment of Fleischmann and Pons, and the treatment of many of you, by mainstream institutions and the media will go down in history as one more example of scientific infanticide, where entrenched interests kill off their divergent progeny. This seems to be a dark component of human nature, and I note the irony of it – we are in Padova, Galileo’s home.

          It would be easy to overstate the analogy between mainstream institutions and the Inquisition, but it isn’t entirely empty. If we refuse to acknowledge the possibility that existing scientific institutions are not working as well as they might, we do something to reinforce it. If the reputation trap makes it impossible to question the role of the reputation trap, then the Cardinals are winning.”

          • Axil Axil

            The response…

            Axil, you’ve been made. No reason to keep up the charade. It is Saturday night where you live. Go get a couple of beers with the buddies.

  • Bruce__H

    “There is one original idea that I have come up with that nobody agrees with, that is, LENR is not cold fusion.”

    Without knowing more about what you say …. sounds like Steven Krivit’s ideas.

  • suhas R

    I too believe in your this Mantra
    “I do what is needed to get the job done, since I am anonymous, reputation is relevant”
    I think that contributes more to science
    Learn and let others know what you learned
    So you do not destroy knowledge and others
    Your contribution is IMP and helps brainstorming just like Bob G and few others in community
    Please continue with it

  • Andreas Moraitis

    +10. Copying and pasting text from others without marking it as a citation and providing the source is an absolute no-go. Many people who post in the internet do not seem to know that. Scientists who did this and got caught would immediately lose their jobs, or even their academic degrees, for good reasons.

    • Axil Axil

      They will also lose their academic degrees if they think LENR is real.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        No. But for plagiarism in an academic thesis, they would.

        • Axil Axil

          The goal is to explain LENR in an understandable manner in common language. Sometimes these esoteric subjects like string theory or quantum field theory is hard to explain. Sometimes the way to an explanation is available in a fashion that is hard to replicate. Sometimes we repurpose these verbal gems to save time, Sometimes we use a picture that illustrates a concept. Do we need to redraw the picture so that it is original?

          Would putting in a reference list make the explanation more understandable? Most times the reference is ignored anyway. When was the last time that you read a reference?

          If the words are good and just sitting there right in front of you, you might read them.

          You beat me down. OK. i was a bad person, I did not use a reference on some posts. All I can say is mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

          I know, I know, I don’t deserve mercy, but if I use references form henceforth religiously maybe someday I can redeem myself.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Axil, I am not trying to
            “beat you down”, but I remember that we had already a conversation on this issue
            some years ago. You do not need to provide a reference list in a simple
            comment. Just use quotation marks and add the name of the cited author and the
            source, or post a link. It does not take that much time. Otherwise you would deceive
            readers and violate the intellectual property of people who have worked hard on
            their publications.

          • Bruce__H

            “When was the last time that you read a reference”

            Answering for myself? …. All the time! The references are extremely valuable.

  • Axil Axil

    Bruce…

    See the thread

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5201-the-process-by-which-the-proton-decays-in-lenr/?pageNo=1

    How the proton decays. Ask questions as you go.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Videos of various Egely dusty fusion plasma resonators

    To celebrate the recent release from hospital (following a stroke) of Dr. Egely’s senior expert in blowing fused quartz resonators. Here is a selection of close up dusty fusion videos that made use of his skilled work. Thankyou to Dr. Egely for making these available.

    Testing of not 1 but 2 NOVA reactors is planned for the beginning of October now, when we hope to have a full range of acoustic resonators to test.

    https://youtu.be/Gofw5pOeGjc

  • Da Phys

    @axilaxil:disqus
    You repeatedly claim that LENR is not cold fusion and cites Holmlid’s work as reference. Note that both UDH and UDD still involves the fusion of two H, respectively two D, nuclei before the product of the fusion decays in mesons.
    And please stop with the meme that “the world class physicists are all arrogant clowns”. Yes the physics community is far from perfect however your approach to go straight to your own conclusions without guiding them step by step is bound to fail. Write a book.