Reflections on Replications

There have been hundreds of posts on the MFMP live experiment thread now, and I thought I would start a new one for the purposes of reflection on the topic of replication in general.

The Rossi Effect seems to have generated in some an almost insatiable curiosity and drive to discover the secrets of LENR. The Lugano report has been a catalyst to encourage replicators, and Alexander Parkhomov’s work has been a further catalyst. The motivation to replicate is not hard to understand since we are dealing with what could turn out to be one of the most important discoveries in the history of science.

The variations in results in cold fusion replication attempts is what ended up sinking cold fusion in the eyes of the world media and mainstream science community in the days of Pons and Fleischmann. It was the negative results that got the most attention back then. I think it is possible that the inability to replicate the results of Alexander Parkhomov, could have a dampening effect on the enthusiasm of some, and also encourage skeptics and doubters who could in turn increase those dampening effects.

Given human nature, this is not unexpected, but I don’t see it as a major problem. We are talking about a largely unknown field of research here, where we are really on the frontiers of knowledge. Experiments with inconclusive results will cause some to cast doubt on the entire field of LENR, and on players in the field.

However, I don’t expect serious replicators who are convinced that the goal of showing convincing LENR reactions is possible will give up the quest.

Andrea Rossi has blazed his own trail in this field and seems to have mastered many of the problems that replicators are now experiencing. It’s as if he is ahead in a race to a top of a mountain looking down at the crowd of replicators who are also trying to reach the summit, but who are taking wrong paths, getting lost in the forest, falling over rocks — yet being persistent in their efforts to find their way and catch the leader.

Rossi’s work indicates that goal of achieving consistent success in creating workable LENR seems possible, and I think it is belief in that possibility that is motivating many involved in replication to keep working despite the problems and obstacles that come up. Personally, I think with so many people working in the field and willing to share their results openly — like the MFMP — that we’ll see success. The internet has made it possible for us to put our collective heads together and collaborate in problem-solving like never before in history.

For example, I have spoken with a replicator this week (previously unknown to me) who reports getting results similar to Parkhomov in his testing, and who told me he plans to share his experimental findings openly in a report which he hopes will put a spotlight on LENR and encourage others to replicate. From what I am told, it won’t be too long before we can see it, within the month, I hope.

I think it’s an exciting time, and a fascinating work to be involved in. I’m encouraged by the spirit of sharing knowledge and experimental results that is going on now, openly. We can learn something from every experiment, whatever the result, and I would encourage all on this journey of discovery to keep up the work.

  • Obvious

    There are pages and pages regarding this on this site.
    Whatever happened to the calorimeter catalyst test, anyways? The first attempt blew up, and I don’t recall the improved version ever having been finished.

  • Obvious

    That might only apply to the “warm cat” model, based on the time period.

  • Obvious

    Bob G, have the MFMP measured the specific gravity of the used fuel? It would come in handy for some calculations. I can understand if you do not have enough sinter to sacrifice just yet. I’m trying to work out the specific heat capacities of the empty vs loaded tube.

    Based on preliminary calculations, I would say that the location of the “outside of the inner tube” for the thermocouple, away from the heater coils, as used by Alan G is probably the best overall arrangement. This is very similar to what Dr. Parkhomov had in earlier experiments.

    Perhaps if both of the outer ceramic tubes were notched slightly with a dremel or wheel grinder to allow a small thermocouple hole and give more complete and consistent coverage of the inner tube (no substantial gap, since the two outer tubes can be butted up to each other) would be a minor but useful improvement. A small dab of alumina paste could fill/cover the small outer hole thus made, and help secure the outer tubes, but be easily taken apart again.

  • Edac
    • AlbertNN

      It is good that these critical comments survived moderation, even though my own did not.

  • artefact

    Hydrobetatron:

    “Thus, we can now show in advance that, according to the preliminary
    experiments dealt with in the attached report, the “fig. 2″ reactor as
    conceived in the related Patent Application, does indeed properly work
    about experimental scopes it was designed for.”
    (Ni-Fe 50/50 vs. NI 100%)

    http://www.hydrobetatron.org/index.html

  • Mats002

    Good question, this link here at ECW discus that, see comment section, searching Ni62 on top of page will show more discussions of this topic: http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/10/the-four-horsemen-of-andrea-rossis-e-cat-apocalypse-hank-mills/

  • Valeriy Tarasov

    One more idea for LENR development.
    From my point of view, since the main starting LEN reaction in AP device (and very likely in case of Rossi’s cats) is the fusion of Li7 with proton resulting in formation of Be8 and its fission to two alpha particles (two nuclei of Helium), even more effective could be to use not LiAlH, but LiBH. This is because, interaction of boron with proton (500 keV) results in generation of 3 alpha particles: 1p + 11B → 3 4He + 8.7 MeV. Thus, it will be interesting to try Ni + LiBH in the same setup as it was for Ni + LiAlH.

  • Mats002

    The theory that one of fuel or ash is fake is not completely ruled out, but you should also be aware there are serious scentific theories saying this effect is real, see Widom-Larsen and note that WL has nothing to do with Rossi.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We have already asked Dr. Parkhomov to send us a ready to go reactor, and he declined. This is understandable just by considering that it would contain a listed hazardous substance in LiAlH4. In addition the reactors have often failed catestrophically – could someone loose an eye? There is a risk assessment / benefit argument here, but one bad accident might sink this research.

    • farhad66

      Bob don’t give so much trust to Parkhomov especially after seeing his fake calorimetry graph .

      • Bob Greenyer

        Whilst Parkhomov’s pressure data was at a different maximum and shows indications of either leaking or significant ad/absorption at a faster rate into his differing Nickel, the qualitative shape of the pressure curve is the same.

        We cannot say about the rest. It will be very interesting what his long term fuel and ash SEM/EDX say – and we will have an SEM/EDX of the exact same Ni for verification.

    • Omega Z

      “but one bad accident might sink this research.”

      That is my concern when so many talk of replicating this by themselves so willy nilly. It could create a serious backlash of heavy regulations covering all the necessities & put a heavy damper on everything.

      Rossi has stated several times he has know issues with replication work, but that it should be restricted to those with the qualifications to do so safely.

      • Omega Z

        know=no. how did that happen. Ghosts in the machine.

  • farhad66

    wow
    .I find this article now that speculate about rossi using nickle 62 in
    e-cat one year before publication of lugano report now everything
    make sense .
    http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/05/rossi-nasa-and-low-energy-nuclear.html

    • Omega Z

      The Copper found in the ash is now considered a probable contamination from the copper plumbing in the Lt-E-cat device.

      “nickle 62”. If that’s what is needed in the fuel then forget cheap energy. It’s worth it’s weight in gold. Nickle 63 is even harder to come by as it decays quickly. Tho I understand that some Russians have devised a way to produce it and retain it for a period of time. If I recall, speculation was it uses an expensive centrifuge process…

      Take Note: The article is just speculation. Realities indicate that is all it is.

      • farhad66

        So you are saying just because Ni62 is expensive we must forget about it despite all evidence that point it might be essential element for reaction. beside this i don’t think
        price of 1gr NI62 that fuel a reactor for 6 month to be more than 100$ . and about speculation i must say it is very positive things to do in science .

        • Obvious

          Nickel 62 is very expensive. The reactor appears to make it, so the cost is not really a concern. A tiny bit extra may speed things along, according to Rossi.
          There are sources that have naturally increased abundances of Ni62.

          I have a quote for 20 grams of ~97% pure Ni62 at $357,000 US dollars, with the bulk discount. The company called back very excited when I initially enquired about purchasing either 1 kg or a 20L pail full.

          • Omega Z

            So if Rossi’s 6 month reactor fuel charge was 5 or 6 grams of Ni62 that would come to?

            Oh MY. I think I just Pi$$ my pants. 🙁

            • Omega Z

              P.S.

              All Rossi would need to do is run 1Mw of Hot-cats producing Ni62 & he could become rich.
              Obviously, If everyone is running these devices, the Ni62 price would collapse. He would need to keep this to himself.

    • Axil Axil

      I believe that magnetism causes LENR. But the effect that magnetism has on the nucleus is based on the strength of the magnetic field. At the lowest level of magnetic strength of about 500KeV, magnetism makes protons into neutrons. This is the level of magnetism produced by the Lagano experiment. This is where the Ni62 is coming from. Other types of LENR system produces more magnetism and their effects on the nucleus are more powerful; pions may be produced. At the high end of magnetic production, the nucleus falls apart and very heavy elements are produced from the energy that is released.

      In the Lagano system there could be many levels of magnetism produced all at the same time since the creation of the magnetic fields is a dymanic process centered at many places throughout the system. So the effects of of the magnetic fields produced could be wide ranging.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    No, the fuelling operation was observed by the testers. Page 7 of Lugano report: “After 23 hours’ operation, the dummy reactor was switched off and disconnected from the power cables, to allow for one of the caps to be opened and the powder to be inserted. The powder had been previously placed in a small envelope, weighed (about 1 g), and then transferred to a test tube so that Bianchini could perform radioactivity measurements on it, after placing it in a low background lead well. Lastly, the contents of the test tube were poured inside the reactor, in the presence of a member of the experimental team.”

  • Axil Axil

    CERN reported today that proton beams were successfully pushed around the LHC in both directions after a two-year shutdown following a major refit described as a Herculean task that doubled its power — and its reach into the unknown.

    But mark this well, the unknown will no longer be found there in the vast wastelands that lay at higher energies, but rather new truth about our world is better found inside in the humble confines of the dog bone

    • Bob Greenyer

      From Fede Frico on MFMP FB The Active nickel could be only the icosahedral metastable form.
      This check with the Piantelli patent when he heat near the melting point and quickly cooling to freeze the cluster …… at predetermined crystalline structure.

      Then again, since there will be Al and we have shown Ni in our Al in “Bang!” ash – is the aim to make raney Nickel?

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Raney_nickel_phase_diagram.png

      • Mats002

        That make sense on several levels:
        a) fits with Piantelli patent as you say
        b) would require a sweetspot of temp cycling to be produced
        c) RaneyNickel is a potent catalyst of getting H from organic materials
        d) Rossi spent many years with making oil from organic garbage which probably included raney catalysts

        I am not a chemist, just trying to put pieces of data together

        But what is the purpose of Li in this scenario?

        • Mats002

          Just adding some info I found about raneynickel. First in several scientific docs it is a cheaper substitute for Palladium (wow) and second this patent show that heat cycling Ni and Al is a key in the production of it, and third, in this patent they say ‘substantial heat is released when Ni reacts with Al, is this the XH Parkhomov get at startup? Can it explain his HAD too?

      • Axil Axil

        This issue confuses me because there is contradictory evidence available from different experiments that just don’t add up.

        To start off with, an eutectic mixtures have lower melting point compared to the melting point of individual spicies. When aluminum and nickel mix, the melting point of the ally goes down as defined by the phase diagram provided above.

        In the bang experiment, there seems to be a nickel/aluminum mixture produced. But this is contradicted in the Lagano ash results where a particle of nickel is found that is still pure even when the operating temperature of the Lagano reactor was very high.

        http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

        The Appendix 3 on page 44, three reprentitive particles were selected for analysis; one is almost pure nickel, particle 2 is mostly aluminum, and the third is mostly iron.

        Why was an euterctic mixture of these three elements not produced at the very high operating temperatures observed?? Why was the nickel (particle 1) protected from corruption?

        A speculation comes to mind, there was some additive in the Rossi fuel mix that kept the euterctic mixture of elements from occurring as happened in the BANG test.

        In the BANG experiment, the nickel nanostructures could have melted and the LENR reaction disabled whereas in the Lagano experiment, the nickel nanostrutures were somehow preserved and the LENR reaction was successful..

        If this is true, Rossi is a very tricky fellow.

  • GreenWin

    clovis, you are not wrong. But do not forget Rossi is the representative of a growing collection of compassionate men and women. He excels only because of their steadfast support.

  • psi2u2

    Nice summary.

  • Axil Axil

    The problem with getting LENR to work is lack of expertise in the proper skill sets and not secrets. IF I knew how to produce nanoparticles from first principles of chemistry, the problem could be solved in hours.

    Rossi got his expert knowledge the hard way through trial and error. We must become more educated in many things t make progress.

  • Axil Axil

    Rossi sold his IP to IH and he is just their employee now. His main job is to keep his mouth shut and follow orders. IH made the decision to allow the Lagano test. We do not know how IP makes decisions but we know that Rossi is not involved in that process.

  • georgehants

    kenko1, I take you just forgot to point out that they where not Democratic socialists but corrupt and ruthless dictatorships but that would not suit your view?

  • GreenWin

    Nice to see you sticking to your script Andy! Still, those annoying Indians who peer-review Current Science are causing trouble, now in Holland! http://www.qnews.nl/index.php/nieuws/28-wetenschap/681-wetenschappers-koude-kernfusie-bestaat-echt

  • Alain Samoun

    John: If you use a fossil source to make electricity to heat and control a reactor Parkomov type and use its output to heat your house,you will need a COP larger than 3:
    For example, let say that you use 300 Watts of fossil fuel heat to produce 100 Watts of electricity and that you use this electricity to produce 300 watts of heat (COP=3) with LENR, your gain compared to the original fossil fuel power is nil.

    • john M

      I understand and agree with your points. But, stick with me on a stretch of logic here, my solar panels are “not there yet” due to a variety of issues but they can save me money. Hench, my purchase and installation.

    • Alain Samoun

      Actually,it would be smart of you to buy your solar panels,when a Parkomov product is ready,you can use both to heat your house,LENR with a COP of 3,would give you 3 more time of heat than the solar panels alone. Problem most of people would use the electricity for something else than heating their house

  • Alain Samoun

    Depends on what you call “relatively easily”

  • f sedei

    I believe that Frank Acland just outlined the true genius of Andreas Rossi.

  • GreenWin

    ” I think it is possible that the inability to replicate the results of
    Alexander Parkhomov, could have a dampening effect on the enthusiasm of
    some, and also encourage skeptics and doubters who could in turn
    increase those dampening effects.”

    Perhaps a few baby replication steps would be wise?

    “Since 2012 when I first saw a NANOR at MIT, they have been improving on
    an increasing curve. The latest series are called M-NANORs. The M is for
    magnetism, which somehow increases the efficiency and the longevity of
    the NANOR with consistent gains of 80 to 100 COP (in some tests much
    higher by far).”
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/01/24/report-from-cold-fusion-101-at-mit-barry-simon/

    • georgehants

      Afternoon GreenWin, as I have stated below Mr Rossi could solve all these problems in a day, could you give one humanitarian or social reason that is not just for personal gain, why he should now not allow the basic knowledge of Cold Fusion to be released Now?

      • GreenWin

        We could and (probably) should ask this of the myriad government agencies also working on LENR. In fact, viewing the story on whole, it is just such a government agency that purchased/commissioned an E-Cat from Rossi. And a representative of the U.S. Department of Defense sits on Dr. Rossi’s Board of Advisers. Perhaps Dr. Melich (NRL) will provide further insight on classification of Rossi’s work?

        Apologies in advance George, I’ve got to rush off at the moment. Good afternoon. 🙂

        • georgehants

          GreenWin, yes I would agree, but these “myriad government agencies” as we all know are mostly self-serving wasters. Mr. Rossi has declared his desire to be altruistic, I am putting forward the view that he could show no better way to be so, than to forgo some of the profit of his knowledge and share it for humanity.

          • Alan DeAngelis

            But George, in the good old days it was easy for an individual to have their own laboratory but now dangerous chemicals like lithium aluminum hydride are heavy regulated. You have to maintain a list of MSDSs. There are OSHA rules. DOT rules and regulations for the disposal of chemical. If you don’t have all that in place no one will sell you the chemicals. So, you have to have a business or research organization to do these things and that requires money and that’s why Rossi needs to make a profit. Without a profit he won’t be able to conduct any meaningful research. It takes money and staff to maintain all the analytical instruments (to do things like mass spectroscopy) et cetera… For Rossi to do it any other way would only benefit the hyenas that could afford to do the research.

            • georgehants

              Alan, thanks for a answer with a point to it and not just established politics.
              Correct me if I am wrong but I think MFMP etc. are showing perfectly professional capabilities in their World of no finance and no profit beyond what they have to use to survive.
              I believe that in a World that has a new system of sharing etc. without profit for the few, many, many people would act like MFMP etc.
              How many people would be required to improve and maintain the Windows program do you think, as a % of the World population so that everybody can have it for free?
              People it seems are mainly reacting to the thought that everybody is “rich” in this World and not just them.

    • Alain Samoun

      NANOR: “When the wattage is increased the gains come down. At 2 watts they give out a COP of 6. Above 2 watts the gains become less and less efficient.”
      So Parkomov results still better and hopefully Rossi will show the real thing at 1MW soon.

      • SG

        But if you gang together bunches of NANORs, then the aggregate effect can still be large.

        On the other hand, the NANOR tech is still mostly proprietary, and therefore, replication would be difficult. The Rossi/Parkhamov possibility of replication is what is currently driving the broad world-wide interest.

        • GreenWin

          Indeed SG. Everyone wants the biggest pot of gold. Not a smaller pot that might enrich our understanding of how the physics work. I wonder, how is this different from industrial, capitalist greed? Is it a lesson of some kind?

  • Gerrit

    Rossi knew from the start that a patent would be hard to get. He relies on being far ahead for commercial success. Far ahead in terms of controllability and reliability.

  • timycelyn

    “Don’t know what to say….”

    I’d keep quiet then.

    The old maxim (Mark Twain?) “Better to keep quiet and be suspected a fool, than open one’s mouth and remove all doubt..” seems very appropriate.

  • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty

    @admin: Is the person who told you that he got similar results like Parkhomov trustworthy to you?

    Nice to hear from an successful independent attempt!

  • georgehants

    I shall repeat, Mr. Rossi could solve all these problems in a moment by supplying MFMP with the most basic instructions and samples of the ingredients of his very early work.
    Why must he feel that profit is more important than releasing Cold Fusion so that many can work toward creating Energy for those less fortunate, to have clean water etc.
    He will always be respected for his Wonderful work and I feel that History will look on him much more favorably if he shows his “stated” desire to help others Now.
    The World situation clearly demands the end of unneeded capitalism and profit, before the whole system collapses in chaos costing many more lives.
    This is the perfect example of the insanity of such a ridicules system in an age of massive production.
    I believe Mr. Rossi and IH are making a unwise mistake in keeping “the secrets” all to himself, very reminiscent of the capitalist drug company’s allowing millions to die, just for a unfair profit for the lucky few.
    ———
    Dirty water kills 5,000 children a day
    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=5000+children+a+day+die+from+drinking+unclean+water&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=D_kgVearN9fzaqOGgfAP

    • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty

      That’s business. The greed for money make them blind.
      Rossi could go in history and get it’s own global holyday for supporting mankind.

      But he decided to make money.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      It’s typical for victims of tyrants to die with the name of their oppressor on their lips. In his former career Rossi was a victim of mafia which is an extreme, distorted form of capitalist greed.

      From Rossi’s seat inside the container, probably everything is fine and moral as long as he can work in relative peace so that he can develop the cat at maximum speed. But involving more people in the team would probably solve some problems faster. Although, if one involves too many people, the progress is again slowed down. “The more crooks, the worse coup”, heh.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Autonomy is a good thing. Fewer distraction. Easier to integrate one’s thoughts when using only one brain.

    • Warthog

      ah, more George Rants. How about sticking to the topic, which is LENR, and not “how bad capitalism is”. I am still waiting for you to describe, even in sketch form, what your alternative would be and how it might work.

      You might also want to look up the statistics on “number of dead people” with the supposedly altruistic alternative……..socialism (including both “national”, and “international” socialism).

      Are those deaths OK because it is government killing people, and not “evil capitalist businesses”??

      Search term “democide”.

      https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM

      • georgehants

        Warthog, your reply is inaccurate and abusive, you are not a person worth answering.

        • Warthog

          These deaths are historical facts. Show me where I am inaccurate (or thinking distortedly). ALL political systems have “evil” effects, some more and some less than others. But as I see history, capitalism has fewer such effects than any alternative thus far tried. And given that you have totally refused to describe a workable alternative (or any alternative that involves other than hand-waving), how can I tell that you think “no deaths or OK”.

          • georgehants

            Warthog, you have the distorted and inaccurate view that “these deaths” are the fault of socialism and not corrupt dictators.
            If “all political systems” have “evil effects” time to devise a new one that does not.
            The workable alternative is for everybody to work at that new system that leads to equality and fairness for all.
            Not sit on ones hands complaining that nothing can be done.

            • Freethinker

              Consider duality

              http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Yin_yang.svg

              And know that there is no simple solution. It will always be a constant battle between the freedom of the individual and the best interest of the majority, or the ruling party.

              Rossi is an entrepreneur and he observe the universe with the capitalistic filters. Regardless of the claimed political pedigree of his advisor at the university.

              • Warthog

                Absolutely correct. And the Founding Fathers of the US understood this very well, and at least made a start at a system that took that into consideration. Most of them even understood that the compromises they were forced to make as regards slavery were flaws in what they developed. But the effort was the best that had been done up to that point in history.

                And unfortunately, it appears to have been the best effort EVER made, given mankind’s constant side trips into socialism, and inability to move beyond that.

                The simple fact remains that those societies who do NOT make that side trip, but instead move toward capitalism very rapidly move out of poverty and into increased wealth for everyone in those societies. Nations in the Far East, and some in Africa are in the process of proving this.

                • ecatworld

                  Ok — people have said their piece on this off-topic that keeps coming up. Enough for now.

                • Warthog

                  Let’s just say I am pessimistic about this resulting in a reduction in rants. I note GH has already said he thinks your comment above refers to “this thread/page” only.

                  Might I suggest as an alternative an “always open” sort of thread dedicated ONLY to economic dicussions/suggestions for the e-cat (or other LENR devices) of this sort.

            • David Taylor-Fuller

              @disqus_E9W4Y8MVrc:disqus and @Warthog

              your both dancing around the real issue which @georgehants has kinda alluded to. Its not the political system that is the problem. It is the practioners of the political system. It is this fact that makes capitalism a better “evil”. Mainly because capitalism does not attempt to reform humanity of its negative attributes but instead works with them. There is nothing stopping anyone in a capitalist system from being altruistic. All the charities that exist in the Western Capitalist world is a perfect example of that.

              • Warthog

                Good point.

              • Freethinker

                Yes, it is a good point. Regardless of what system one is favoring, it is prone to harbor evil. It is due to the individuals who corrupt whatever the political system is. And they do. All the time.

                I have a hard time seeing Rossi as evil individual for striving to bring e-cat to market his own way.

                • georgehants

                  Freethinker, sorry for butting in, the word “evil” is not in my comments anywhere except as a quote from elsewhere.
                  Agreed with your first point, re. people, of course, but then obviously a system must be found that makes corruption pointless.
                  How about democratic equality for all, with appropriately more for those that do more for society etc.

                • Omega Z

                  “obviously a system must be found that makes corruption pointless.”
                  That is from the presumption that everything is about money or material things. It is anything but.

              • georgehants

                David, I think you will find many millions in this World who can arrest that capitalism is not a good system, I put a link above, perhaps you could justify your comment for these people?
                ——–
                Dirty water kills 5,000 children a day
                https://www.google.co.uk/searc

              • Omega Z

                I agree. Take a negative & make a positive. If you fight nature, you will ultimately lose. Take peoples natural tendencies & make it work for you.

                I find George’s tendency to want to change the game in this manner.
                You’re playing a game where all the players are cheating & you throw the game out & find another. But you still have the same players. The same outcome…

            • Warthog

              LOL. The constant refrain of the socialist…….”it warn’t the socialism….THAT implementation was flawed, but “mine” will work”.

              The experiment has been run over and over with the same results (replicated)…..socialism seems to inevitably result in corrupt dictators, with the documented results.

              And the rest of your post is the same kind of handwaving wishful thinking that you have posted (probably) hundreds of times on this forum.

              “…..for everybody to work on THAT new system that leads to equality and fairness for all” is simply dodging the issue. Inequality is inevitable, since individuals are born with different abilities, and life has never been fair, since the first amoeba ate the second one.

              WHAT WILL WORK BETTER??? Thus far, regulated democratic capitalism has the best track record. Show me even a start at an alternative.

              I suggest we continue this elsewhere…..you can reach me at:

              [email protected]

    • kenko1

      I would gladly give Mr. Rossi a 17 year head start to build his life altering devices. But for some insane reason, the patent office won’t comply. It makes me wonder how many discoveries he has applied for patents and how many can/will remain trade secrets.
      Meanwhile, I sip my iced lemonade and sit in my air conditioned flat on patents that expired many many years ago.

      • georgehants

        kenko1, without capitalism there would be no patents and all would work together for the benefit of all.
        Cold Fusion would have started being Researched at least 25 years ago and by now could be supplying much of the World with clean Energy.

        • US_Citizen71

          “without capitalism there would be no patents and all would work together for the benefit of all.” – George you have to admit that is bit more than idealistic. History has shown that there is something in man’s nature that prevents the all for one and one for all socialists utopia from working in anything other than in small groups. Take the most recent and visible example of the Occupy Wall Street crowd. In the beginning the were quite organized and all of the members appeared to work together towards the benefit of the group. As their camp grew in size and numbers allowed some amount of anonymity things fell apart. Assaults and even rapes began to occur. Larger and larger contingents began to do the minimum needed to get their necessities, overall control fell apart.

          Those groups didn’t even reach the population level of a small city before they begin to enter chaos. To reach your goal entire countries if not the entire planet would need to be involved. If what you propose didn’t work for several hundred people, how is it going to suddenly work for several million or billion people?

          • georgehants

            US, many thanks for a great question but Admin has asked us to refrain on this page, maybe he will put up a topic on this question and I look forward to debating your point.
            Best

    • Mytakeis

      yes the sooner the better, for the fellow humans who now suffer under the current paradigm – and just maybe, the the secret ‘sauce’ Dr. Rossi uses, spurs others to go where they might otherwise not have, if “the secrets” were known. One can see Rossi moving to commercialization, while replicator experiments further all-encompassing understanding, I kind of like both taking place, at the same time.

    • Omega Z

      George
      You confuse increased productivity with increased production.
      Increased productivity is producing the same amount of product cheaper. Not more product. Increased production is a different animal.

      There once was a computer manufacturing facility that produced 100,000 computers a month with 3000 employees plus a large management team. That’s 1.6 computers per employee day excluding management overhead. Through automation, They were able to transition to 30 employees including management.

      The factory Output was still 100,000 computers a month. That’s 166.6 computers per employee day including management. This is huge. It allows a big price reduction in product while maintaining current profit levels.

      It is this that allows the common person to have computers rather then just being the domain of big business & governments, but it is not an increase of excess production.

      Obviously, The reduced product cost increases demand & for this, they will use some of their profits to greatly expand the factory or build new factories & hire additional employees to fit the demand. But there is no excess production. Excess production merely increase product costs.

      Note that in a competitive market, large corporations can trim their profit margin as low as 4 to 5% to maintain market share. Profit motive promotes efficiency & waste reduction that makes more available to everyone for less then can be achieved by any other means if you could afford it at all.
      ——————————————————-
      As to Big Pharma, It needs some oversight, but not all fees are exploitation. There are costs that need to be built into the price. Facilities needed to meet safety requirements can run into Billion$ & cost of litigation for those who don’t respond to treatment of experience adverse effects can run into Billion$. They also need to recover the Billion$ spent on drugs that never make it to market because they didn’t work.

      And Note, If they didn’t make a profit, this discussion would be moot. The drug simply would not exist. The research would never have been done.

      There are basically 2 types of research. Government 1/3rd$ & Private 2/3rd$. The Government research does basic research such as how do 2 elements interact with each other then move on to the next. They do not develop consumer products & you don’t want then to. You could never afford them.

      It is up to the Private sector to pick up on this research & try to make a consumer product. They are goal oriented & cost conscious. You know very well that Government sponsored research is under great scrutiny. Imagine spending a Billion$ to develop something only to find the government sponsored research was fudged & it simply wont work.

      Thus, they are now saddled with spending 10’s of millions just to verify the government research is what they say. These costs have to be past on in the product. It shouldn’t be this way…
      ——————————————————-
      “Dirty water kills 5,000 children a day”. Yes, I see this in public service announcements everyday on the Tube. They don’t need E-cats. They need water treatment systems which produce clean potable water far cheaper then an E-cat ever could. Beyond that, you need a water(plumbing) distribution system. And a Sewage collection treatment facility to prevent recontaminating the water supply.

      There are 13,000 desalination plants in the world. 300 in the U.S.. They need to rethink these systems & redesign them. Many are slowly killing the Ecosystem, but you will rarely if ever hear about this in the news.

  • Gerard McEk

    It is good, Frank that you ‘stir’ the spirit of the eperimenters. I hope we can soon also enjoy positive results by many others. I know some are preparing new exeriments. I have not heard of the results of Brain Ahern.

  • Sanjeev

    it won’t be too long before we can see it, within the month, I hope.
    Great ! Waiting for the good news.

  • Axil Axil

    Creating nanoparticles

    The assumption behind my thinking about the LENR reaction is based on the production of nanoparticles in the gas envelope of the reactor. This gas envelope is an unknown mixture of hydrides dissolved in a hydrogen gas.

    The mechanism that produces nanoparticles in the gas envelope is driven by the nucleation of these nanoparticles into a nanoscopic sized solid dust in the gas envelope when the gas exits the supercritical condition. In the Parkomov experiment, this particle formation process is driven by a change in some not as of yet defined combination of pressure and temperature. This nanoparticle formation technology is a mainstay in nano-engineering. The process used in industry usually uses Co2 or water as the supercritical fluid, but when transition metal nanoparticles are to be manufactured, hydrogen is sometimes used.

    Up till now, the arrival of this special combination of pressure and temperature in an experiment has been a matter of chance. So far, Parkhomov has been the only experimenter who has hit on the proper combination of pressure and temperature. This luck might just have been produced by a large number of experiments that he has done over the last few weeks.

    I must admit to my disappointment when the Goldwater experiment was terminated even when the pressure of the gas envelope was falling so nicely, even if the reason for that pressure drop is not yet known.

    It looks like his last successful experiment might have included a gas leak where the pressure in the envelope reached a maximum of 5 Bar then over some time went below 1 Bar. The Goldwater experiment featured tight pressure containment with gas pressures in the hundreds of Bar range.

    If this thesis about the temperature/pressure sweet spot is true, then amazingly, Rossi is so experienced at this game, he can reach the proper reaction conditions by loading just the right amount by weight of hydride into the reactor.

    I hope that a experiment might be attempted where the pressure is brought to some high level in the hundreds of bar range as has been achieved in the Goldwater experiment and at a temperature that Parkhomov has seen a successful reaction begin. Then the experimenter gradually lowers the pressure slowly over time until the reaction begins.

    This type of experiment might take an extended period of time, maybe days. Maybe a three shift work schedule covered by a number of people might be set up to man such and long term experiment.

    Such a long duration experiment is not easy to do., but unless some systematic search method is used to find the proper combination of conditions, then we may be forced to let luck drive the search through the performance of a large number of short haphazard hit or miss experiments.

    • Gerard McEk

      Axil, I am not aware of the ‘Golwater experiment’ where the pressure went to ‘hundreds of Bar range’. Where can I find these details?

      • Mr. Moho

        Pressure surely didn’t increase that much. See here:
        https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WbV82aENiSzJBZDQ/view

        • Gerard McEk

          Thet’s what I remembered. I wasn’t sure Axil was referring to another experiment.

      • Axil Axil

        Sorry, I became confused. I had just been reading a patent for the production of lithium titanium .

        https://www.google.com/patents/US20140105811

        In this patent, the pressure of lithium compounds must reach 22-35 MPa. or around 100 Bar to produce nanoparticles. IMHO, an experiments should start at a high pressure to made sure that the high end is covered, then work on down from that level.

    • Ted-X

      If the plasma or the “gas phase” is important, then it is perhaps nickel carbonyls which are involved. In that case, the presence of some carbon and some oxygen would be essential. There were some observation about adding acetone to the reaction mixture. The thermodynamic equilibrium (carbonyls, hydrides etc. ) can be calculated using the ASPEN program, perhaps ChemCAD as well. Oxygen and carbon could be the catalysts. Nickel carbonyls could be just surface-carbonyls (e.g. tricarbonyls) or a vapor-phase carbonyls. These effects (carbon and oxygen) are difficult to find out in the experiments. In the electronic resonance structures of nickel carbonyls, the electrons are passing (!) through the nuclei of nickel atoms.

  • Alain Samoun

    We are not there yet!
    If I agree with all the superlatives written about people who work on LENR these days,including Parkomov and others who got COP over 1,the problem is that the biggest value is just under 3. This with an heating electric source to make it happen. The electric source is made mainly by using fossil or nuclear energies that will need a COP over 3 in order to replace economically these energies with LENR. I am confident that will happen in the future but I hope it will be sooner that later with Rossi system

    • Teemu Soilamo

      “If I agree with all the superlatives written about people who work on LENR these days,including Parkomov and others who got COP over 1,the problem is that the biggest value is just under 3”

      No, the problem is that we still do not have conclusive evidence that the reaction actually works! An unquestionable COP of 3 would be huge! What is “unquestionable evidence”, then? It varies between people, of course. For me, there are some players that I trust more than the others, the MFMP, for one.

      If we can be assured of a COP of ~3, then I am pretty sure Rossi has what he claims. And that would make the knowledge of how to solve for the higher COP problem–well, KNOWN–not just evenly distributed. But then it would just be a matter of time.

    • MontagueWithnail

      The most efficient new coal plants (ultra-supercritical) are operating at a net efficiency of about 42%. That’s the ratio of net exported power (after parasitic loads) to “lower heat value” thermal input (i.e. after evaporative losses in the boiler). There is an important loss of heat through the stack, and there is parasitic consumption of the huge materials handling, mills and fans that are required to move and grind huge amounts of coal, supply it with sufficient air and then push the flue gases through the boiler and flue-gas clean-up equipment.

      The steam cycle, including the feed pumps and cooling-related parasitic load is running at a net efficiency in excess of 55%, and I think that a well designed “hot” LENR power station could achieve this or better (not including the reactor input power) with steam conditions of around 760degs C and 360 bar. That would mean anything COP > 2 would be producing net electric power, and I would estimate the break-even economic point with a large unabated (carbon emitting) coal plant would be COP somewhere between 3.5 and 4.

      If these very early experiments are already getting COP 3 without the benefit of optimisation – or even any proper understanding of the physical mechanisms underlying the reaction – there can be no doubt whatsoever that by the time we get to a commercial stage getting COP 4 will be no sweat whatsoever. The job now is to move the research into the main stream so we properly can start the huge job of turning LENR into a commercial technology. What the guys are doing is exactly the right approach.

      • Alain Samoun

        Agree with all you say, but at this point, it seems that increasing wattage in LENR, lower the COP (See NANOR). I’m still confident that Rossi will show the way and that will start the necessary research to improve the results.

  • Owen Geiger

    Naive? Maybe to those who haven’t taken the time to examine the facts.

  • Billy Jackson

    What a great topic. It is humbling to a simple man like myself when i see the courage of those who dare to persevere in the face of those who would declare their actions improbable, if not impossible. Our greatest minds are not limited by nationalities or petty party politics, but by the intuitive leaps of insight that are set free by our imagination when we explore the edges of what we think we know.

    From the labs of the well funded and minds of the renown, to the toils of the individuals in basements & garages across the world, who’s names will fall between the cracks of history. We stand on the cusp of perhaps the greatest discovery since the wheel.

    LENR in the eyes of many bring with it cheaper costs in fields of energy, production, transportation, agriculture, travel, manufacturing and much much more. All of these things are needed in one form or another. yet its greatest gift is the freedom we will gain once we are no longer fighting over limited resources bound to our small planet.

    Ill take the incremental advancements one by one as lab or individual reports in on their findings or replication. Ill be in line with the rest of you to get my LENR powered devices.. yet always will my eyes look to the heavens and dream. waiting with anticipation for the moment when we tip over into the mainstream forcing into the public view the undeniable fact that our species is no longer trapped or endanger of burning out our limited set of resources available to us in just a few miles of ground across this planet we call home.

  • Warthog

    It isn’t just about Rossi and Parkhomov……there are other researchers reporting results just as significant, if not more so. In particular, George Miley of Leneuco, who will be presenting a paper at ICCF reporting “10’s of kilowatts”. IMO, Miley’s work may be even more important for understanding the “nuclear active environment”, because his specific solid phase phenomenon does NOT need to be heated to high temperatures (or at all) for the reaction to start. The reaction in that systems starts SPONTANEOUSLY as soon as gaseous hydrogen is introduced.

  • artefact

    ” I have spoken with a replicator this week…”
    Good to hear. Time for me to go to bed and sleep well.