Implications of Signal, Seeing into the Cat with X-Rays (MFMP Video on Latest Findings)

Thanks to Sanjeev for posting this video just released by the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project in which Bob Greenyer discusses the most recent Glowstick experiment in which he believes clear signals were found which confirm the validity of Andrea Rossi’s E-Cat.

From the video description on Youtube:

Here is a “bad hand waving” video from MFMP Volunteer Bob Greenyer where he discusses the understanding of the E-Cat that developed between 16-22nd February as a direct result of seeing two shapes of EM radiation emitted from the *GlowStick* 5.2 Experiment.

Attenuation Calculator: http://goo.gl/ciBtsR
Lead Weight to Volume Calculator: http://goo.gl/EH6asj
Volume Calculator: http://goo.gl/LvIHCw

Rossi talking about the structure and operation of the E-Cat in 2012
https://youtu.be/9fef8sHD34M

To see this in context, look at our 2013 “Gamma” blog where we investigated other researchers evidence of gammas following witnessing Gammas in Francesco Celani wires.

http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/

  • Obvious

    Rossi gives E-Cat gamma energy range here: (starts at reveal)

    https://youtu.be/tjOoGtTFpNk?t=1265

  • Bob Greenyer

    ‘Signal’ – Part 1…

    A video related to the ‘Signal’ which will warrant discussion.

    This video discusses one of the key aspects of what Prof. Francesco Piantelli shared with us that helped us to conclude we may have seen a critical event occurring in the *GlowStick* 5.2 experiment.

    It is also what may tie the two leading emerging ‘New Fire’ technologies together

    https://youtu.be/k9ALuWrmXBo

  • Bob Greenyer

    What main stream scientists have done to researchers in this field is the greatest crime ever perpetrated on man and the biosphere. I said this in no uncertain terms to a former scientist from MIT and another scientist from UCL that are attacking strongly our work without prior analysis – I am starting to understand what Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons went through and it is horrible – but I am strong.

    We scientists that explore with passion for the delight of discovery should stick together like Aesop said, “Together we stand, divided we fall”. We need to be friends, the field has enough enemies.

    I am sure recognition will come to pass for you so don’t loose heart..

    It does not “harm my heart” to say what I said in the recording yesterday, before you wrote what you wrote. I did it as a statement for the record such that people could seek out your work and come to their own conclusions on its merit, precedence or coincidence.

    I am a citizen scientist like you who has also sacrificed a lot to go on this journey. Why don’t you create a go-fund-me page telling your story, like I have and I will add it to the bottom of the video descriptions.

  • Bob Matulis

    Bob, Thanks for the excellent presentation. As an engineer I “get” your excitement and also the thought processes you shared that led you to deeper understanding of the lead encased Rossi system. (Use of molten lead is a very elegant design)

    My 14 year old son started googling for the lead thickness/ gamma shielding calculator but was unable to find it. A link would be greatly appreciated.

    Keep up the good work. So exciting!

  • Bob Greenyer

    *Suitable* transition metal – Nickel is good – I like Chromium better – but nickel is ubiquitous.

    An Alkali metal / metal complex

    Hydrogen and/or Deuterium. But easier Hydrogen.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Right! And the open source and free exchange of LENR ideas are critical for our world.

  • Gerard McEk

    You should have a layered structure, like Rossi has. Say that tungsten sheet is being used as ‘thermalizer’ in between layers of fuel and you have more layers, than the efficiency would be near 100% of the thermalized gammas.

  • Gerard McEk

    The red line in the graph (trace 7) is the burst, the blue line shows gamma’s in the low spectrum (till 100 keV) afterwards during cycling the temperature. The latter should be thermalized acc. Bob.

  • Svein

    What do we know about Ecat-X?
    Could this be the patent for it?
    https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/docservicepdf_pct/id00000032278621/PDOC/WO2016018851.pdf
    Look at page 7 and 8. 100kV stimulation?

    • Mike Henderson

      Content of the pertinent portion of the linked application is typed for easier accessibility:

      Title of Invention:
      Rossi Effect and apparatus to produce heat with high efficiency

      Objectives:
      This invention solves the problem to produce energy with the highest possible efficiency. The problem is solved by making powder of nickel react with (hand written>>) hydrides (LiAlH4) at high temperature, obtaining the Rossi effect, which consists in the fact that the heat produced is superior to the heat consumed in the reaction. This invention is different from the former patents of the same inventor because the nature of the catalyzer is disclosed. The improvement is that gas is used also to obtain the Rossi Effect, not bein (sic) anymore necessary the electric power as with the electric resistances of the former patents of the same inventor. The process, which coincides with the theory of the inventor, is the following: In a reactor are put nickel powders, (hand written>>) hydrides at a pressure of 3-6 bars and a temperature of 400-600 Celsius, and at one side of the reactor is put an anode, at the opposite a cathode, so that electrons are accelerated up to 100 keV. At these conditions neutrons are freed from the reactants and further recaptured by the atoms emitting photons with energies between 50 and 100 keV, which are thermalized. This way more thermal energy is produced than the energy supplied to the system. This is the Rossi effect. The reactions happen in the microcaves of the nickel powder which aslso (sic) shields the gamma rays during their thermalization” this makes intrinsecally (sic) safe the reactor, which does not emit radiations.

      How Invention Works:
      The invention can be useful to produce heat, electric power, steam, hot air and also fuel engines like for example Sterling Engines.

      Please list and describe the main components or steps of you invention:
      The parts of the reactor are: 1- a reactor, closed, in which nickel powder, (hand written>>) hydrides are put 2- a heat source, as for example a gas burner or an electric resistance, to heat the reactor 3- a heat exchanger to convert the heat into the desired energy form 4- a generator of direct current connected with a cathode and an anode to accelerate the electrons

      (remaining text is handwritten >>)
      CLAIMS
      WHAT IS CLAIMED IS THE USE OF HYDRIDES TOGETHER WITH HYDROGEN AND NICKEL TO OBTAIN EXOTHERMIC REACTIONS, TOGETHER WITH HYDROGEN AND DEUTERIUM.

      IN PARTICULAR THE PREFERRED HYDRIDE IS LiAlH4

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Maybe it’s a version of the Gas-Cat. It’s dated March 2 2014 (Rossi’s handwritten date), while Rossi started to talk about E-cat X only in summer 2015. It’s a so-called provisional patent application which means that it be completed within one year or else it ceases.
      I don’t understand the physics part, particularly I’m wondering the references to 100 keV electrons and neutrons. If it means 100 kV DC input voltage, it’s strange why the conductive nickel powder wouldn’t short-circuit it. I’m also sceptical about neutrons being involved because neutrons have (fortunately) not been detected around E-cats despite being monitored.

      On the other hand, someone pointed out roughly one year ago (I think it was Robin van Spaandonk (mixent) at Vortex) that maybe Li7 acts as neutron donor for nickel. The idea was that such process is exothermic up to Ni62, but endothermic thereafter (Ni63 and Ni64), thus being potentially capable of explaining why in Lugano the reactor seemed to be turning natural nickel into Ni62. Of course, how and why neutrons would leave lithium and jump into nickel was not explained, and also in Lugano the published amount of lithium would have been insufficient for turning the entire mass of nickel into Ni62 (but this problem is intrinsic to the Lugano report and must be explained away e.g. by sampling bias). The idea differs from most other cold fusion theoretical ideas in that it involves no hydrogen.

      • Mike Henderson

        Timeline of events:

        14-Jan 2011: Rossi conducts public demonstration, Celani observes brief gamma emission
        Feb-Mar 2013: Lugano test conducted
        2-Mar 2014: Disclosure
        1-Aug 2014: US Patent filing
        10-Oct 2014: Elforsk report on Lugano test released
        Dec 2014: Parkhomov replication

        Perhaps Rossi knew the secret ingredient was about to become public knowledge from drafts of the Lugano report, so he filed.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Yes but then the electric field exists in the insulator while the nickel is equipotential region, so I’m wondering what’s the role of the electric field for the process – if it occurs in nickel.

          • DrD

            100keV doesn’t mean 100kV (although k and V have the same meaning, e means electron.

            keV is a measure of a particles kinetic energy.

  • LuFong

    I saw the video and I can see why Bob and the rest of MFMP are excited about these results. Very interesting tie-in to Rossi’s early E-Cat and if true it shows how much progress Rossi has made since. Great work and looking forward to a replication.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Steady on! We need to replicate first!

  • artefact

    In the “handwaving” video MFMP says it can also be sheelded by one mm of tungsten. Rossi could have hidden that in the reactor or he could have used some kind of tungsten wire tightly wound in the reactor for example.

    • Bob Greenyer

      You’re there

  • Bob Greenyer

    Symphony of the New Fire – Setting the stage

    Pre-Learning: Please look over this video as it will assist in your understanding of what is possible and proposed. Note that it was taken on 22nd November 2013 and therefore has historical artifacts that may result in some viewers wincing.

    https://youtu.be/t0W_mV1w4dw

    • artefact

      Freedom in designing and precicse execution.
      3D printing may not be good for mass production but else it is very good.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I am going to design one that can be made in a garage.

  • Bob Greenyer

    These things will be meaningless when the excess is sizeable and long lived.

    We know we can now run the *GlowStick* design for a few weeks having tried to break the GS5.2 – so things are looking up – we just need to get another one started.

  • Svein

    Not all experimenters can afford instrumet for detecting soft X-ray, but there are some low cost alternativ.

    Silicon PN solar cells

    It was demonstrated in the 1960s that silicon PN solar cells are suitable for detection of all forms of ionizing radiation including extreme UV, soft X-rays, and hard X-rays. This form of detection operates via photoionization, a process where ionizing radiation strikes an atom and releases a free electron.[2] This type of broadband ionizing radiation sensor requires a solar cell, an ammeter,
    and a visible light filter on top of the solar cell that allows the
    ionizing radiation to hit the solar cell while blocking unwanted
    wavelengths.
    By using several solar cells with different shielding, we can detect different energy levels at a very low cost.

    • Mats002

      Hi Svein, who sell them today? A link maybe? And can you tell more about the filters, would my cheap sun eclipse glasses do it?

      • Svein

        I have not made any X-ray detectors, I am only giving suggesting how it can be done. But I have 80 solar cells that was ment to be a 100 watt solar panel, but I will take two or three of the cells and test. Maybe 20, 50 and 100KeV might be good cutoff filters. What will be good to use as filter I do not know.

        • Mats002

          If you asked me two years ago I would be certain to be an experimenter or part of such a team in my geography, but as things have played out so far, my experiment team is named MFMP 😉

          But the hope to one day light the new fire on my grounds still lives. In order to do that I need all the equipment and recipes as cheap and abundant as possible.

          I think your idea is a good one, it leads in the right direction, what do you think about this solution: http://www.frankshospitalworkshop.com/electronics/diy-keiths_x-ray_detector.html

          In this solution they use a standard PV we all can get cheap but the obstacle is the flouresent screen – any idea how to fix?

          • Svein

            They mention using gafatape in front of the PV cell as filter. That migh work, then you need to put a small resistor, maybe 10 or 100 ohm over the PV cell and measure the voltage. I was planing to use an arduino for that. Maybe sample 1000 times and get average voltage per sec. But if you have acces to a lab with x-ray equipment, it would be nice to get the detectors calibrated.

  • RLittle

    I celebrate the new experimental revelation of Greenyer and MFMP. But in all honesty it should be clarified that Piantelli did work with nanosize Ni and H during the early 1990s but with bulk amounts and it has been published elsewhere that his motive during the 1990s was because Ni was cheaper than Pd. As a result of this 1990s work this anomalous effect remained elusive for 10 more years. The fact is that during the early 2000s RBL introduced new ideas with the emphasis on the magnetics, nano-size, novel spin, phonon alterations of electrons and protons orbitals, many particle effects that jump-started this anomalous nuclear effect in the new century. The manuscript (Magnetocatalytic Adiabatic Spin Torque Orbital Transformations for Novel Chemical and Catalytic Reaction Dynamics: The Little Effect) {http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0608071 } totally includes this multitude of new phenomena. The article is long but it captures all of this the chemistry and physics from chemical reducing the Ni to hydrogenating to novel magnetic effect in thermally fluctuating environments to the reverse (inverse) beta (beta minus) and beta (beta plus). In this manuscript I did or used the same chemistry and physics with Cu-Ag-H and Fe-C as was used here with Ni-Li-Al-H, even the melting of the Li and Ni for nanoparticles of Li and Ni
    under fluctuating thermal and temperature conditions was give by RBL in 2000-02 in the Fe-C-H systems in strong magnetic field and the inverse beta proposed (beta minus) as the Fe nanopartices with saturation of C produced C nanostructures of graphene, nanotubes and nano-iron for novel chemistry and RBL noted novel anomalous nuclear as inverse beta (beta minus) . I do admit that I experimented with very limited equipment and time in 2002 and I did so in secrecy. The 2016 experimental work of MFMP and Greenyer is much more thorough and convincing. The subsequent engineering of Mr. Rossi (2009-2016) seems very excellent but still some shadows. The later work of Parkomov with pressure effects in 2015 was not new as RBL noted both pressure and thermal effects in 2005. I have good respect for Piantelli he has good ideas, but his anharmonic oscillation was in 1994 but it does not work as well in multi-magnetic domain systems and low pressures and temperatures. It was later with RBL in 2000 that RBL introduced phonons and fluctuating oscillations and thermal conditions at high temperatures and pressures (Piantelli operated during the 1990s at much lower temperatures and macroscopic Ni of multi magnetic domain so this is why it was difficult for him in the 1990s); but RBL introdocude single domains magnetics of nanoparticles for better reproducible accelerated effects in the early 2000s. This paper gives a very thorough account of such new effects as introduced by RBL; in fairness it should not be unethically overlooked! Such later contributions of RBL in early 2000s is very essential for this later work post 2010 of Piantelli, Rossi, Parkhomov and MFMP. In this manuscript (Magnetocatalytic Adiabatic Spin Torque Orbital Transformations for Novel Chemical and Catalytic Reaction Dynamics: The Little Effect) I quote myself from page 16-17: “The resulting high concentrations of protium in the Cu-Ag matrix under the strong magnetic field, huge current density and thermal-pressure stresses result in some of the protium undergoing reverse beta processes with lattice electrons during the localized-delocalized transitions, which are driven by the thermal fluctuations of the Cu-Ag matrix and the consequent spin induced orbital s-d rehybridization on the basis of the Little Effect, causing the e-,p+ to become localized in s orbitals with the consequent metal nuclei inducing intersystem crossing of the e-,p+ spins and the consequent Coulombically compression of the e- into the p+ for reverse beta processes, neutron capture processes by the metal nuclei, e- capture processes by metal nuclei and/or p+ capture processes by the metal nuclei.” I therein note beta and reverse beta can occur, the thermal oscillations disrupt the beta process and the internal gamma oscillations and the reverse beta of neutrons to proton occurs with release of gamma rays as the internal gamma oscillations are disrupted. I celebrate Greenyer and MFMP, but in all honesty the credit should be more fairly distributed. Also congratulations to Rossi and his patent.. Forgive my disturbing your web space. This will likely be deleted. “Men lie but Nature is true!” “Excellence must acknowledge excellence, else it is not! RBL”

    • Roberto Siquieros

      What’s to forgive? Why deleted? Sounds like you have a lot of valid opinions and have every right to share them.

      • RLittle

        You have to keep in mind there are many fools in this world and many people are not open to truth, honesty and decency. History is filled with many people who have been hung for innocently telling truth.

    • Karl Venter

      Dear Mr Little

      You obviously have an incredible grasp of what is going on here

      Is it possible to explain a little simpler for us idiots here.Your opinion what rossi is doing with the Ecat x as well – what sort of power do you expect him to get out electrically of the cigarette box for example?

      • RLittle

        Hi Karl,
        Thanks for intelligent conversation. I have no idea what Mr. Rossi is doing with his industry. I only read scientific papers and consider data that may be related to science of my doing. I do hope that Rossi is successful and true. I only hope to profit the science I have done! I believe every man should be given his true profit for his work all else is criminal.

        • Axil Axil

          Where do the 12 billion k-meson come from when Holmlid’s catalyst is activated by a single laser shot.

    • Mats002

      Hi RLittle, thanks for your insights, what does RBL mean?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Thank you for your contribution and for your interesting paper. Regarding MFMP, I am sure that they fully recognize the merits of other researchers, including Piantelli. They have even been in direct contact with him, as you can see here: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/434-project-fedora

      • Bob Greenyer

        I think it will become extremely clear how much we recognise him.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Dear Reginald,

      It is fact that well after our visit to Piantelli, and well into our []=Project Dog Bone=[] experiments, you made us aware of your body of work. There are many interesting ideas which I am yet to find time to absorb and there maybe some truth in what you say. In the fullness of time, should it be the case, your priority or co-development will be recognised where the theory fits the empirical data. Many may want for that to be true because you non completed patents would act as prior art that would nullify subsequent ones where mode of operation was proved to be matching your concepts preferentially.

      For the record, It would be great if you could clearly identify which aspects of your work are directly equivalent to those claimed by others.

      From our point of view, we have been bombarded with all kinds of theories over the past several years – many that kinda sound the same with different words – but with their own slant and some that simply do not add up.

      We are an organisation set up to test the claims of others of excess heat – and as such are primarily an experimentalist organisation. Theory comes from observation and that feeds into testable hypothesis as is the scientific method.

      Many of us were simply not equipped with the right education to understand esoteric and intangible concepts at the sub-atomic scale, especially when presented in the form of the printed word and therefore we looked at the best available experimental approaches.

      Principally we worked with experimentalist scientists that were willing to share their expertise, First Celani, then Piantelli, then Parkhomov. Every step of the way we have given total credit to their contributions. Without them, nothing would have happened.

      The Recipe that seemingly worked for us was almost entirely composed of aspects learned from these three scientists in combination with public information from Rossi and a HUGE amount of blood sweat and tears and inspiration from the MFMP team.

      The open letter sent out preceding this ongoing information release specifically details which aspects from which researchers led to the Signal. That letter is published on this site in several places.

      Now – The Signal has unlocked a door into where the truth was likely being told and has led to an increasingly clear understanding of the process. It will be very obvious at the end of the ongoing release where the provenance is for this understanding, at least as far as we are concerned.

      The full provenance of the information that we received for the person(s) that educated us is unknown and I expect will be argued over for millenia.

      Credit, where credit due.

      • RLittle

        Dear Mr. Greenyer,

        You have to some extent previously acknowledge my work.

        But there is much more.

        I deeply appreciate your experimental effort and MFMP. My excitement at your result is a reflection as many years I thought on anomalous nuclear phenomena and even openly prior to 1995 to the laughter of many. But my mind is open to possibilities of

        I am so open that even at the very start of my career as a pure thinker I ignored colleagues who warned me against so-called cold fusion in 2000 and relied solely on my abstract thorough critical thinking. I came with a theory in 2001 and published documented it in 2005 as it took time to get an avenue to publish my idea as most people thought it ridiculous. But I think and I am! So please forgive me if I see your data and get excited in them reflecting my thought in isolation and alienation over 15 years ago, especially when most scientists regardless of my 100s of successes totally refuse to credit me.

        My theory from 2000 involved a contrariness of an effect of someone I truly admire and hold in the highest esteem of humanity and science admiration: Kasha Rule (1950). In general, in quantum mechanical systems the photophysics is such that for nonadiabatic exciting upper level states leads to more rapid relaxation via rotation of coordinates with release of phonons to the ground state for possible emission rather than luminescence from upper level states (Kasha Rule). In 2000 realized that in very strong fields (in particular magnetic fields) this Rule may not apply as in 2000 (50 years later) I proposed that in strong magnetic fields the rotation of coordinates may be restricted adiabatically such that upper level states may emit and furthermore the phonons may excite magnons and organize spins and orbitals via many bodies; so in dense heat the strong magnetism may organize the heat to magnetism even exciting electronic orbitals of upper level states with the background strong magnetic field restricting relaxation from such virtual states by an antisymmetry and even altering orbital dynamics for general phenomena that I called ‘the Little Effect’!

        I have applied this to many systems for novel physicochemical dynamics! I realized I could also under some conditions apply it to anomalous nuclear phenomena such that protons and hydrides may be excited inward in an analog to electron excited outward from the nucleus for what I called hydride within electronic orbitals, subshells and
        shells with embedding into the core of metal atoms (somehow later this appeared in one of Piantelli’s patents). By the thermal energy and fluctuating heat, I proposed to induce such embedding of protons and hydrides into core of electronic orbitals but a key ingredient is the magnetism and single domain magnetism or that imposed by external magnetic field for thermal fluctuation and magnetism exciting quantum continuum states (RBL) (which are identical to anharmonic oscillations and breathers). But these single domain and quantum magnetism by RBL are key ingredients for such intense anharmonicity and such magnetism and single domain magnetism were missing prior to 2000. I explicitly describe such in the 2005 paper I mentioned in very many details.

        Your experimental work is monumental. I do believe more credit for theory should be extended. But even as a young man I have been overlooked and abused for over 30 years. But even in the resulting poverty I get excited by your great experiment as it appears to speak validity to ideas of one who has been scorned for years.

        I hope you take no offense. Often people may give you ideas without fairly crediting others and tell you these are their ideas even if literature documents otherwise. I have seen many cases of other people exhibiting great corruption in matters of priority.

        Please Congratulations and take no offense, it is exciting when ideas in documents I published over 10 years ago seem consistent with your data. But it is irritating when someone in 2014 mentioned the same as a possible experiment for you to test.

        But I am happy that in my critical thinking I know it is well!

        • Bob Greenyer

          Dear Reginald, I can draw peoples attention to your body of work, but the fact remains that no part of it was directly used in our research to date (I cannot speak for the provenance of the information we read and will not be held accountable for the acts of others).

          As we get closer to the truth, there will be only 1 truth because nature doesn’t make things up. It is quite conceivable with only 1 truth that many experimentalists and theorists will discover that same truth – I cannot be an arbiter of deciding who said what or when. You published the documents, I have made people aware of them, I will continue to do so.

          You are in the public record here, on the QH site etc.

          • RLittle

            Dear Mr. Greenyer,

            All that you (Sir) say in your last message is true except your statement: “but the fact remains that no part of it was directly used in our research to date”.

            It is true that you (Sir) are known and popular among people here in this field so that you (Sir) can tell publicly them of some of my papers. Based on my experience, such being known and popularity is unfortunately more important than science and truth.

            It is also true when you (Sir) state in a prior comment : ” A man may lie, nature can not, Piantelli taught me that.”

            Because you (Sir) are known and popular, most people will not take my word here over yours (Sir) as the socialization and being known is critical among most people. But truth is more important to me! Sir…

            I never meant for you (Sir) to be accountable for acts of others. I merely stated that what others may tell you (Sir) may not be the whole truth. I never expect you to be accountable for such actions of others. I meant that you (Sir) should be careful in trusting what others may say as their contribution (“A man may lie, nature can not ” ). I say this in truthfulness and friendship to you (Sir)!

            I know this will anger many people but truth is more important to me than socialization. So I am unpopular as most people hate me because I remind them of the truth as much as I know. BUT

            To say that your experiment (Sir) had no part of direct relation to my prior work is totally false and not true.

            In your experiment (Sir), you reference Piantelli, Parkomov and Rossi their methods and advice. Many of what you (Sir) state (in *GlowStick* V5.2 ) is ‘directly’ the same as experiments I did in 2002. Quoting you (Sir) or MFMP according to your publication (*GlowStick* V5.2 ) last month : “Pre-Baking the Ni powder at 200ºC for 1 hour, cooled, then baked for another hour.

            Heating under vacuum to 115ºC while under vacuum for several hours, to de-gas the contents.

            Heating with H2 to reduce oxides and potentially ‘load’ some H2 into the cracks and crannies created by the pre-baking.”

            With all due respect to you (Sir, Sir, Sir) and MFMP and the other people of friendships, such method of yours (SIR) is directly related to an old procedure of mine that I used in 2002 ( http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0705/0705.1909.pdf). As in 2002, I ” A mixture of iron {powder and nanoparticles} and carbon black was placed inside a sealed quartz vessel and installed within the bore of a DC magnet. The vessel was purged with flowing Ar and heated to 920 oC. Hydrogen was then flowed over the Fe and carbon black and the Ar flow was terminated. After 10 minutes of reduction of the catalyst by flowing hydrogen, the DC magnet was slowly ramped up to 17 Tesla. CH4 was also introduced with the H2 flow over the Fe and carbon black. The system was maintained at 920 oC and 17 T in the flowing H2 and CH4 for 2.5 hours. Afterward the Ar flow was restarted and the CH4 and H2 flows were terminated. The magnetic field was ramped to 0 tesla.”

            I quote this directly from this paper ( http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0705/0705.1909.pdf) involving data I collected in 2002. I use this published literature as I deal only with facts as much as humanly possible. (Sir, Sir, Sir) The facts of the literature are as they stand. Many men will hate facts. Based on the factual literature this prior work of my is not indirectly related to your experiment, but my prior work is directly related (to your method in 2016, SIR) as I employed magnetic powder (micron and nano sizes) and magnetic nanoparticles of target nuclei and I employed external magnetic fields of over 15 Tesla. This use of nano and micron powder of magnetic metal {which was iron but in patent I extend such metal to Co and Ni} and nano target (carbon) is directly related to the powder you employ (in 2016, Sir) and the nano-lithium target that you (SIR) employ (along with Rossi). I introduced in 2002 the significance of nanoparticles (magnetic) as although Piantelli used Ni and H (with no target elements light nuclei like Li and C) during the 1990s, his Ni was macroscopic with millimeter dimensions (with larger size in 1993, Piantelli lossed important fruitful effects for causing the anomalous nuclear reactions). But after my work in 2002, Piantelli later in 2010 proposed powder and micron particles, (THE RELATIONSHIP IS DIRECT!) During the 1990s Piantelli makes no mention of prebaking Ni (I did in 2002 with Fe) and reducing the Ni with H ( I reduced the Fe, extend to Ni in patent in 2005) prior to the activation to relevant chemical and nuclear dynamics, SIR. (THE RELATIONSHIP IS DIRECT!)

            I directly noted in 2002 thermal cycles imposed on such reaction media directly imposed by me under the chemistry of the ferrometal (Fe, Co and/or Ni) and C with thermal gradient and temperature oscillations during the chemistry as I already discovered and explained in related mechanism of graphene, carbon nanotube and diamond syntheses. Moreover changing magnetic field I directly impose in static heat or thermal environment manifest similar effects as static magnetic field and oscillating the temperature. But in truth Piantelli oscillated the temperature and thermal energy in 1993 but his samples were macroscopic size with millions of magnetic domains all interfering with fruitful effects. But in 2002 Reginald (Sir) {as some act not to know RBL} introduced and experimented {WITH DIRECT CONSEQUENCES even now in 2016 and beyond} with nanoparticles and single domains for the fruitful effects of thermal oscillations and magnetic field or varying magnetic field and thermal fields for driving rehybridization by the Little Effect (Sir) (which I discovered in 2000). Piantelli in 1993 was clueless of such Little Effect! (Sir, Sir, Sir) (although Piantelli did use such effect in 2010 in a patent much later after my (2002) prior ground breaking work) (Piantelli also used in 2010 my prior hydride rehybridization into orbitals of the metal along with electrons by my effect (Little).

            With all due respect to you SIR, in painstaking details {which most people in their evil attempt to insult and harm me about} I previously note the chemical effects of imparting thermal oscillations in this manuscript (http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0705/0705.1909.pdf ), whereby the strongest chemical bonds of C-C and C=C bond breakage and bond forming (note SIR Aluminum (Al) is involved in this for your work, SIR) (Al also has very strong chemical bonds for such, SIR) (SIR the relation is direct not indirect) (but I previously used C-C bond dynamics) dump and absorb huge thermal energy for wildly oscillating temperatures, Sir. Such temperature fluctuations as I noted in 2002 drive the hydrogen and hydride into orbitals and the core of the metal atoms. I mention in 2005 the role of thermal fluctuations but such by chemical origins are much stronger than your oscillations of your furnace but the Al in your sample (according to my “”direct”” prior disclosure) helps your thermal oscillations, Sir. Piantelli in 1993 (or say 1990, or say 1980, no in all seriousness) mentioned thermal oscillations and oscillating temperature but on macrosize Ni with multiple (millions) domains (in superexchange) could not supply what RBL fortold in 2000 the single domain and the internal magnetics (which were overlooked or not understood in 1993 of this work) for efficiently driving the continuum dynamics (anharmonicity).
            Sir with due respect to you my prior work DIRECTLY precedes what you are experimenting. As you (Sir) use Li in addition to Ni and H (Piantelli did not do this during the 1990s). But I did DIRECTLY discover such effect in 2002 as I proposed in addition to hydride being captured into orbitals of the ferrometal (pycnomedia) other light nuclides being captures, He, Li, Be, B, C (I called them target elements) (which were later documented in patent). (knowingly or unknowingly Piantelli used my prior idea of hydride being captured within metal orbitals and the electronic cores in his 2010 patent) I know this is a fact that you may not want to hear Sir. But such capture of these light nuclides as I previously proposed in 2002 is DIRECTLY related to use of LiAlH4 of Rossi and Parkomov later in 2009. My work DIRECTLY precedes this work of Rossi and Parkhomov and those you replicate Sir, Sir Sir…. I first disclosed such capture of these light nuclides in 2005 (discovered in 2002) by the ferrometal orbital and their rehybridization by ‘the Little Effect’ into the electronic core of the metal atom leads to novel exchange of nuclear processes between these light nuclides which I called target elements and the ferrometal (pycnomedia). This is directly the same as what Rossi is doing in his technology and what you replicate, Sir.
            Sir I mean this in all honesty as it is TRUTH. But RBL directly invoked and discovered presented such in 2002 and as I was deleted between 2002 to 2005, I eventually found someone that would not delete the truth I speak (spoke in 2005, no 2002) (LOL, Sir). But “A man may lie, nature can not” Piantelli. So this work in truthfulness, Sir and your fame and popularity, IS directly related to work I previously did over 14 years ago. Peace and continued success as I speak no more on what is truth!

            You know even in 2005, I presented this gamma exchange and gamma emission and how conditions prevent such gamma exchange for neutron formation and allow such gamma for neutron transforming to release electron and the proton is in massiveness within the reaction media.

            Because you are popular Sir and know many people, those people will likely hate me more as I tell you and them the truth. But so be it, for truth I live and truth I die. Unfortunately. men hate me. But God is real. I know you hate the truth when it is in reference or from someone like as me. But GOD is real. I know that you people will never acknowledge me as I should be. But GOD is real.

            “A man may lie, nature can not…” (Piantelli) I quote as I am honest, Sir.

            • Bob Greenyer

              Dear Reginald,

              I am an Artist with a deep passion for science, the environment and social justice. Many months after working with Parkhomov and spending a long period of time with Piantelli and conducting many experiments and studying for 1000s of hours – you informed me of your papers.

              Frankly I have no embarrassment in saying I did not understand them – so I am a lesser man, so what, I did this for the next generation and the biosphere and in that I know my conscience is clear. I did however send your papers almost immediately to Piantelli and asked him for comment. I had sent previous emails to Piantelli without response over a period of months and I did not receive any mails back from multiple mails to him until just before Christmas 2015. This is Normal.

              We did not use any learning from your papers – maybe if I had sat down with you for a few hundred hours, like we did with Piantelli, we would have done, but we did not. If they are similar then so be it. I did not see in you work any specifics relating to experiments specifically using treated Ni and LiAlH4 and Li and a list of temperatures and pressure. We needed actionable and tangible procedures not theories – Piantelli gave us both. The details and learning came from Piantelli principally, then Parkhomov, then Celani, then Rossi and you need to come to terms with that. These are the facts – it is not personal it just is – I cannot make stuff up to appease you and I will not.

              As I have said – I will, when given the opportunity, raise the fact that you had some similar concepts in your work – and you should have done – because nature works in the one way it works. But as for these experiments, the fact is and always will be, the guidance came from the people mentioned above and our own inspiration.

              If you need to pick a fight over this, you need to pick it with someone else.

              At least your were in the same ball park – please be happy with that – there are other researchers that were completely off piste or have wasted their lives it would seem chasing never never solutions.

              • RLittle

                Mr. Greenyer,
                I do not pick fights. I just noticed the discrepancy and attempted to clarify. Sorry you feel such way. Please forgive me if I clarify another of your comments again…

                • Bob Greenyer

                  Why did you not produce working reactors like Piantelli/Focardi and Rossi then and save everyone the trouble?

                  If I discover how to boil an egg for myself – should I promote everyone that did so previously??

                  Fact is – Piantelli is the man – his work is auto-consistent, coherent and moreover, it works. He is the man that taught us – but we did not know it at the time, it was just another in a long list of people making claims and writing theories.Additionally, we could not have achieved what we did without crowd analysis, research and donations. This finding, which in time will be recognised as robust, is the fruit of the people and it was a gift of the universe channelled through Piantelli who discovered it first in 1989.

                • RLittle

                  Mr. Greenyer,
                  The fact is that I DID!!! I did produce accelerated reactions in 2000s much beyond what Piantelli did in 1990s. No I did not construct a company but I did accelerate the anomalous nuclear reaction in research. It was not my mission to build a company only to do science to accelerate and reproduce it. I even gave what little data I could scrap with no support from any human! Compare my tiny resources with the huge resources of these men and I stand out in a huge way! I had no human; I have GOD! Piantelli’s work did not reproduce and accelerate during the 1990s; this is why so many people walked away from cold fusion during the 1990s. If Piantelli had succeeded in the 1990s then there would not have been such a drop in world interest in cold fusion after 1989 as you list this data for his acceleration of cold fusion!
                  The system I constructed with pennies and borrowed equipment in 2002 worked, it worked so well that with few experiments I got results. (If I had labs like Piantelli Focardi and Rossi in 2000 can you imagine the data I could have generated? With borrowed equipment for tiny amount of times and great ideas I produced billion fold, and what I was telling people they just as you are currently shook their head and refuse to acknowledge; thousands of freshmen students complaining for need of over teaching, I still produced!) Still no one would believe or acknowledge me just like even today in Feb 29, 2016 you want give me proper credit. If you acting this way in 2016 toward me concerning LENR, imagine what people did to me in 2000 when I told them I could accelerate it. Better yet imagine how scientists laughed at me in 1995 at scientific conferences when I told them I could accelerate cold fusion. Take your current cynicism and mockery of me in Feb 2016 and multiply it by a million and you approach the response I got in 2000 when I told people I need a lab to accelerate Fleischmann and Ponns. Now take that and multiply it by a billion as I am a man of color and you might be able to imagine what I dealt with experimenting and reproducing and getting LENR to work in 2002. Through all those odds, I still succeeded and even today someone like you only give me credit for being in the ball park! But I know you do not want to give me credit for much.
                  Piantelli did work on Ni/H during 1990s but he was missing important clues for acceleration and reproduction. I gave some important clues in 2000 and with pennies and no support (people tossing me to the curb) no one believed me but I still by GOD’s grace I still produced and later some saw my ideas worked and many people hijacked my idea. But I jump-started and gave crucial elements for what Piantelli returned in late 2008 or 2009. And Rossi and Focardi built on in 2009 as they were able to leverage more resources than I could. It was because my idea and system reproduced and worked that there was renewed interest in anomalous nuclear reactions in 2008. Some people were able to obtain more money and resources than I could. And then you came along sometimes later to explore and clarify on it all.

                • Bob Greenyer

                  Dear Reginald, We have already invited you to contribute to the progress and advancement of the MFMP almost immediately after you contacted us – there was very little engagement, then we heard nothing and a HUGE amount of unpaid blood sweat and tears have transpired since – the site is there 24/7 for your to add new thinking.

                  Rather than focussing on histrionics and post reality credit claiming after the fact, perhaps this is the time you can shine – you can look at the current state of play, study our data and add your insights right on our main site – suggest reasoned things that would add value to our work and, if it proves valuable, your contribution would be there in the public record and time stamped.

                  The past is the past.

                  We did not use any learning from you in our replication of Celani or Rossi – no matter how many long Essays you write, it will not change the facts.

                  Write to Piantelli/Nichenergy if you think they did a number on you, we did not.

                • Bob Greenyer

                  Before I say PRECISELY WHY you have to treat the Nickel in the way described in the recipe – can you tell me.

                  Without it – you will see nothing – no excess heat, I am giving you the opportunity to tell people from your experience first.

                • RLittle

                  Sorry Bob,
                  I typically do not respond at length in this way. I made the mistake of believing I could trust you for rational response.
                  Why should I write another essay to your feigned opportunity? You think Piantelli has come up with all the answers, so go ask him. Based on your behavior he should have more confidence in you than I. There is no basis that you will respond differently to a new essay than what I have experienced over the last few days…

                • Ed

                  Calm sir, Bob is simply pointing out that his experimental procedure was based off the work of piantelli. He acknowledged you have released papers prior that may explain all the observed effects and that those papers may well contain truth but that such is currently out of his technical knowledge to comment on.

                  Should your theories turn out to be proven correct via further experimental evidence then I have no doubt that Bob and others will support you in claiming the first coherent theoretical framework released in the public realm.

                  At present though it is the time of the experimentalists to provide enough data to conclusively isolate a theory (yours or others) as the correct description of reality. That the MFMP experiments support your theories (if this is true) without having had any input into the design of this specific set of experiments does not imply any lack of respect for your work and Bob did not imply so.

                  So please, enjoy the validation and if you can provide theoretical predictions that provide easily testable hypotheses in support of your theories then send them to Bob and I have no doubt they would be glad for the guidance. But don’t try to claim that you guided them to this point, as you provably did not regardless of the validity of your theories.

                • Bob Greenyer

                  Dear Reginald,

                  Yesterday I specifically referred to you in a recording which I am editing.

                  It still does not change the fact that we did not use your body of work in our replications.

                  What if we ultimately prove to have fooled ourselves, would you be so keen to stake claim to some of the embarrassment?

                  Piantelli showed us books from his library spanning at least a century, work from which he built his understanding and I specifically refer in one video how he read everything. No man is the universe of knowlege – everyone learns from others.

                  When I tell you Precisely why you have to treat the Nickel in the way described in the recipe, and why you will NEVER see excess heat if you don’t, please don’t try and find a phrase in your previous writing that can be, possibly, a prior claim to already having said it.

        • Bob Matulis

          Reginald, much of what you shared is beyond my education and experience. But it sounds like you are getting validation and vindication and I am happy for you. I have had similar experiences but on a far less grand scale. I have found having the truth revealed to be very rewarding even when I don’t get the credit.

          Your theories may be of great value in refining the use of this phenomena.

          • RLittle

            Thanks for your intelligent response… RBL

  • Bob Greenyer

    To clarify.

    There is likely to be betas – but I need to explain that later.

    The big pulse at switch-on – ‘looks’ like it is Bremsstrahlung – it is something similar which I will explain later – it is broadband even above 1MeV

    the latter emissions during excess heat are <100KeV – just like Rossi has always maintained – but it is not the main source of the heat.

    The 2011 reactor was not the one in the video

    You need to have captions on to see notes when viewing the video.

  • bkrharold

    So the heat energy comes from the absorption of Xrays by the lead shielding. Rossi now says that he can get 300-500 watts of electricity from the ecat-x. so this must be somehow generated directly from the Xrays. The conversion efficiency must be rather low.

  • Shiv

    Why not quickly develop a prototype to show a device that generates energy with no input from outside?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Easy… we need to replicate ourselves first!

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thanks – there is LOTs more to come – I can’t wait to share it.

    All unlocked by Stephens donation of the Scintillator and the capture of the to key emission spectra shapes.

    • roseland67

      Bob,
      Have you established a total “energy budget” for the entire experiment?
      Or perhaps a preliminary energy balance of energy out vs. energy in?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Now we think we have seen Nature point us in the right direction – we will need to replicate.

        “The Cookbook is in the Signal” phrase will become increasingly clear in the coming days as I can share my understanding and this in turn will point to ways to both design reactors and look at upping the COP.

        We spent 2 years and the most money on any single project building an MFC – with the right understanding – we can build a device to put into it in time – but by then, it may not be necessary.

  • Bob Greenyer

    It is to do with half lives of potential reaction products. Reaction products I predicted would not occur – and I think they didn’t so my prediction is it will be positive and they will say it, or it will be positive and they’ll make out it wasn’t.

    Whatever, the cat has been turned inside out.

  • Mats002

    It would be a negative result in terms of near-time commersialization. A new iteration of safety measures needed.

  • Mike Henderson

    Wasn’t Parkhomov’s reactor submerged in water? How much protection was provided by the water in Parkhomov’s calorimeter? Would a tank of water or perhaps the trash can calorimeter be a sensible container for future test runs?

    • LukeDC

      Water is good at attenuating radiation. Ever held your hand over an exposed hot plate and then put a pot of water on and held your hand in the same location?

  • Steve H

    Thanks Bob
    Hard work and tenacity.
    Deep respect.

    • Bob Greenyer

      A pleasure – its for the children… no, seriously, it has always been for the children.

  • jimbo92107

    A liquid-cooled reactor whose coolant is melted lead, which also serves as a radiation shield and thermal radiation back reflector to keep the reaction going. Damned clever, but a lead jacket will make it hard to squeeze into a mobile phone…

    • Axil Axil

      After the october 2011 demo, the reactor design changed and the lead shield was removed. Now how can such a lead based theory of heat production hold water?

      • Ophelia Rump

        I think that MFMP either has a variant on the reaction or uncontrolled variables.
        It is not yet the same reaction whether through process or tuning.

        • Axil Axil

          The variable that matters is the temperature. I believe that Rossi goes through the fuel pre-process step outside of the reactor to avoid gamma ray generation during low temperature operations.

          • Mats002

            Me too.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I agree with you whole heartedly Axil about the fuel pre-prep and I will explain with clarity empirical evidence to support my statement in “The Symphony of The New Fire” document – section “Keeping the instruments in tune”

            You cannot change nature though on this and I will present strong evidence to back up my claim that Rossi used Tungsten in Lugano.

            • Axil Axil

              There is a deposition of rare earths welded onto Rossi’s fuel particle as seen in Lugano fuel analysis. Cook references this deposit in his theory paper. I believe that the sintering operation in the fuel prep stage is using a tungsten electrode where rare earths are depsoited on the fuel using rare earth doped tungsten electrodes through arc discharge and those transmutation rare earth products help in the production of metalize hydrogen.

              REE dopes tungsten electrods are a Commercial Off The Shelf replacement for the thorium to make the rods more conductive and less dangerous. They are healthier to use. They produce no radiation from thorium.

              Some transmutation might occur doing the arc production during Rossi fuel reprocessing.

              Now, I am very sure that Rossi is using REE doped rods in his fuel pre-processing.

              I went through all the elements shown on the Lagano fuel particle and many of therm were seldomly used REEs. They must have been either trace elements and/or produced by transmutation.

              I saw REE used to dope laser crystals and optical fibers. You don’t see those elements used very much in industry.

              • Bob Greenyer

                Interesting hypothesis – would be good if you could work through that so that we can capture it fully as a potential prep route.

              • Ecco

                Oxides of rare earth elements are used as promoters in catalysts as well. A known example is Cerium oxide, often used in automotive catalytic converters.

                One could incorporate these elements in the fuel using common catalyst preparation procedures.

      • jimbo92107

        No idea, maybe Rossi figured out how to eliminate the little burst of gamma at ignition.

  • Stephen Taylor

    IR=THz

    • Svein

      Terahertz radiation occupies a middle ground between microwaves and infrared light waves known as the terahertz gap, where technology for its generation and manipulation is in its infancy. It represents the region in the electromagnetic spectrum where the frequency of electromagnetic radiation becomes too high to be measured digitally via electronic counters, so must be measured by proxy using the properties of wavelength and energy. Similarly, the generation and modulation
      of coherent electromagnetic signals in this frequency range ceases to
      be possible by the conventional electronic devices used to generate
      radio waves and microwaves, requiring the development of new devices and
      techniques.

      • Stephen Taylor

        Just sayin’, infrared runs from 0.3 THz to 430 THz so infrared is terahertz radiation.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Stephen is right – making devices to produce specific frequencies in THz is in its infancy and why NASA was apparently all caught up in the technicalities.

          A stella body at 10 Kelvin will emit THz radiation

          Lead at 800ºC will emit bucket loads.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Most of the blackbody emission of 800 C body is at few micron wavelength while 1 THz corresponds to 300 microns. At any fixed wavelength, a hot body emits more than a cold body, but the fraction of power is very small if the wavelength is far from the peak emission.

            In case LENR can be ignited with THz, we don’t know how much of it is needed. But a purpose-built non-thermal THz source would be way more efficient to the task than just a hot body.

            • Bob Greenyer

              May be more efficient – but is it necessary or even desirable since we are unleashing energy from a reduction in nuclear binding energy for the main part of the heat.

              Ok – it would make it more controllable – but in the ECat – the Lead played a number of roles – one of which is a thermal well and regulator.

              • Svein

                If the IR from 800 C hot body wavlength is what we want then I agree, the lead will reflect that just fine, but if we need 1THz waves or close to it, we will not get much of it from the hot lead. Then maybe a THz generator might be better to use.

                • Bob Greenyer

                  We may only need a little and if a little is enough to make it possible to build devices with nothing more than ones hands that works, then this is a killer technology and is just as it should be.

        • Svein

          In physics, terahertz radiation – also known as submillimeter radiation, terahertz waves, tremendously high frequency,[1] T-rays, T-waves, T-light, T-lux or THz – consists of electromagnetic waves within the ITU-designated band of frequencies from 0.3 to 3 terahertz (THz; 1 THz = 1012 Hz). Wavelengths of radiation in the terahertz band correspondingly range from 1 mm to 0.1 mm (or 100 μm).
          Because terahertz radiation begins at a wavelength of one millimeter
          and proceeds into shorter wavelengths, it is sometimes known as the submillimeter band, and its radiation as submillimeter waves, especially in astronomy.
          So IR and terahertz wave overlap from 0.3 till 3 terahertz

          • Stephen Taylor

            OK, so your question was “Will 1% of the energy from the gamma radiation returning as THz waves be enough to stimulate the reaction?” Also you wondered if it might be less than 1% because “the gamma that will penetrate into the lead will not manage to be reflected out of the lead but be converted to IR radiation”.
            The hypothesis is that the gamma is captured in the lead and heats the lead. This heat energy then radiates as IR/THz/heat to sustain reactor temperature and reduce or eliminate the need for external stimulus. As such, nearly 100% of the gamma energy can be used for reactor and process heat via IR/THz/ heat recycling instead of allowing it to radiate to the environment.
            The bigger question might be how much gamma energy is available from the reaction after start up. Is this the key to self sustaining operation or is it something else?

          • bachcole

            Svein, are you really that good looking. I am not my avatar in the conventional sense of “I am”.

  • Roberto Siquieros

    Excellent presentation thanks Bob. The hand waving didn’tseem so bad 😉

  • Axil Axil

    I believe that the energy production mechanism in LENR is based on nuclear reactions that occur in a state of bose condensation. This is indicated by a comparison of the way gamma is produced in the Rossi type reaction as compared to the electric arc driven Defkalion type of reaction.

    In the Rossi reaction, a burst of gamma happens in a fraction of a second at startup just before the bose condensate is established in the reactor. Once condensation takes hold, radiation is not seen since super-absorption of gamma radiation takes hold to thermalize the gamma radiation.

    In the Defkalion system, a steady state generation of gamma radiation that ranges from 200 counts per second to 600 counts per second is seen. The reason for this condition for radiation production is because the DC arc that drives the DGT reaction destroys the Bose condensate through the production of a large magnetic field. DGT was noted for the production of very large magnetic fields. A bose condensate just as in superconductivity that state cannot exist for long in a highly magnetically active environment.

    I predict that if a Rossi type reactor that is producing overunity heat is subjected to a large magnetic field, the overunity heat production will cease and then will be replaced by a continuous production of gamma radiation as the magnetic field destroys the state of bose condensation inside the reactor.

    I am happy that we now have the chance to test these theories in a open source format.

    • Ecco

      Some observations by Holmlid could be consistent with this. He’s observed that what he calls ultra-dense hydrogen, due to its extreme density, is very good at absorbing DD fusion products such as neutrons (source and see excerpt here: xttp://i.imgur.com/EWZVvTY.png ) . If this novel form of hydrogen, which spontaneously forms a layer on the entire reactor surface when created (as it’s a superfluid at room temperature), is depleted or thinned out, those products could arise outside the surface (which is also what allows him to detect them in the first place, by disrupting it with a laser). This also implies that they should be “thermalized” if they don’t, since that energy has to go somewhere.

      Holmlid also observed a depletion of ultra dense deuterium under a magnetic field larger 0.05T.

      • Axil Axil

        I believe that the LENR reaction happens in two steps. First, Surface Plasmon Polaritons form. This marks the formation of the LENR reaction. This is the weak version of the reaction where the COP is limited to 1.2.

        The preferred state of SPPs is Bose condensation. After they form, they will naturally form a Bose condensate. In this superconductive state, radiation is thermalized.

        The LENR+ reaction is marked by the creation of Hydrogen Rydberg Matter (HRM). This special crystal structure will amplify the SPPs that accumulate on the surface of the HRM. It is the SPP cover that makes HRM superconductive. The nuclear reactions that are catalyzed by HRM are thermalized and stored in the SPP condensate in a dark mode on the surface of the HRM. The more energy that is stored on the HRM, the more LENR+ active that HRM becomes and the more indestructible that that crystal gets.

        Any dark mode energy accumulation on the surface of the HRM will eventually leak into the vacuum as hawking radiation. This leakage is the method of thermalization that converts gamma to thermal EMF.

        If a magnetic field is applied to the HRM, the Bose condensation on the surface of the HRM will be destroyed and all the energy content stored there will be released in a burst. But the SPP will immediately reform if the magnetic field that destroyed the superconductive nature of the HRM is removed. While the magnetic field is in place, the nuclear energy will be released as gamma radiation and not thermalized by the vacuum.

    • Anon2012_2014

      “I believe that the energy production mechanism in LENR is based on”

      I believe in measurements of heat, electricity, or E&M (including light). I want to see excess that is >> chemical or anything else added from a known source. Everything happening behind the scenes to make the excess energy might as well be Gremlins and Maxwell’s Demons for me — an interesting side show of hypotheses. I leave that for modern Ph.Ds in physics to sort out.

      First, show me the excess heat, light or electricity. Show me the Car-Fax.

      (“Show me the Car-Fax” is a consumer advertising slogan for a product that certifies an automobile pre-purchase. It’s a cute slogan.)

  • JeffC

    Great Video; really appreciate MFMP sharing all their work.
    So… bottom line seems to be terahertz radiation directed at hydrogen loaded nickel;
    NASA was thinking of doing that….
    This sounds exactly like what Brillouin Energy is doing with their Q pulse. I believe they even have a patent on an integrated circuit to perform precisely this task.
    So, in the Rossi Effect approach you need heat and time to get the generator (molten lead) active; the boys in California seem to have a digital equivalent of this that can be turned on and off immediately and have a believable COP over 4 that’s been presented to the U.S Congress. These are very interesting times !!

  • webscience

    It is a wonderful result, congratulations!!
    How much funding is still needed for the ash analysis?

    • Mats002

      Ah – you are here! Welcome webscience! I think it is the first time at ECW, right?

      • bachcole

        Do we need to keep any eye on him/her?

        • Mats002

          He was active during the GS5.2 live experiments and showed both knowledge and helpfullness. A new kid on the block.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Web science meaningfully contributed during a key part of the *GlowStick* 5.2 Run

    • Bob Greenyer

      Web science

      We have 2 standing offers yet to cash in for free analysis – so no problem with that – but I think we need to have a longer run of excess – in part that is why we tried to break test GS5.2 – then we would know how far we could take it.

      We do need to get alan an Optris PI160 so we can see the whole reactor side and be able to average over both sides and get a much more credible data set.

      Thanks for being their and helping to create that first cross-over power / temp chart.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Yeh – I know – you mean I’m fiction… 😉

    • sam

      Like Rossi I think you and
      your group have done a lot
      of work and are for real.
      Are you going to try to make
      your own LENR device and
      market it.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Well – the technology is pretty much tied up by a few actors patents.

        Having said that – I hope that when everyone understands – scores of people will start innovating.

  • Mats002

    I saw the whole video, nothing new for us who followed the experiment and the aftermath but one thing that stuck out was the conclusion that the ‘negative’ outcome of F9 that remains is if they find any long-lived radioactive material in the ash after the one year 1 MW run. And I realize that because the ash analysis of the Lugano 30 day run had a number of different elements up in the periodic table there is a risk that the longer you run the fuel the heavier elements you get and if going too high in the periodic table, might go into radioactive elements. Thanks to MFMP I can not see any other reason to a ‘negative’ outcome, can you?

    • Bob Greenyer

      You got it Mats002.

      I felt comfortable saying this very openly for two reasons even though I have suspected it of most of the year run.

      1. They refuelled the 1MW reactor (apparently)
      2. Rossi moved passionately onto the E-Cat X and started talking about domestic units again

      • Bob Tivnan

        Has anyone asked Rossi if there has been any analysis of the ash from the 1 MW reactor, if in fact it was refueled in the middle of the run? I would think this information would be available to the independent investigators who will write the report. It would surprise me if the byproducts of this reaction are as benign as we have been led to believe. All the more reason we need further independent replications, so we can learn what’s in that ash and if the byproducts can be controlled. Perhaps the key to maintaining a clean and safe reaction is to not let it run too long.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I believe that is why he said that the domestic reactors would only run for 6 months before. A safety measure.

    • jimbo92107

      Sounds like you’re saying that the reaction keeps adding protons and neutrons to whatever elements are in the reaction zone, gradually transmuting them into heavier and heavier atoms. At some point, the output atoms become unfriendly. Best to turn it off and reload the reactor before that happens.

      • Anon2012_2014

        “Gradually transmuting them into heavier and heavier atoms. At some point, the output atoms become unfriendly.”

        Like when they become plutonium 239 and can be used for a weapon?

        LENR if it is a type of fusion breeder reactor will be, unfortunately, less commercially useful as a neutron capturing breeder has weapons proliferation implications.

        LENR is interesting because it is expected to be clean. If it is just a cheaper Fukushima Di-ichi, it is never going to be in your basement or your automobile.

        • jimbo92107

          I didn’t mean LENR would ever be practical for making weapons, just that the reactors may need to be recharged before the ash contains something either toxic or radioactive. Even if it does, it wouldn’t be in sufficient quantities to make weapons. LENR consumes only grams of material.

  • artefact

    I think he said it was a bike accident 🙂

    • Dods

      “Middle aged Mutant BMX bikers” a film staring Bob Greenyer.
      Who wouldn’t want to catch that. 🙂

  • Gerard McEk

    I hope you are right with your assumption that lead will reflect the thermalized gamma’s and will cause SSM, Bob. Brian Ahern clearly doubts your claims, because the gamma radiation is orders of magnitudes lower than what is needed to explain the kilowatts of produced heat, but I am not sure Brian has understood the THz feed-back loop you predict.
    Any idea when MFMP is ready to prove your ideas, Bob?
    Question is why no gamma’s were found during the Lugano test. Maybe you have a theory about that too, Bob?

    • Bob Greenyer

      It is only part of the “radiation” going into the Lead – the bulk is IR from “Other non nuclear” as said in the full “formulae” I post in the video.

      Brian, a former MIT lead researcher, has been very vocal in recent months suggesting in effect that Rossi is a fraud, it stands to reason that he should belittle anything that lends credence to Rossi’s claims. He has been personally goading me to tell him personally, but I said I would release my thought process publicly when I had time to edit this video that I had recorded on Monday 22nd.

      I hinted and walked people through 1 of 2 reasons why I think there was no gammas seen in Lugano. In case my nod and a wink was not clear, and I have mentioned it here at ECW before – I speculate (with other supporting reasons) that they had at least a 1mm sheath of Tungsten, probably inside the heater coil. I will do a video on that.

      • Allan Kiik

        Powdered metals are not good heat conductors and when reaction starts to generate heat at high level, reactor melts (with “pop”, as we have already seen), unless you have some way to remove the excess heat efficently.
        Can this be one reason to have tungsten sheath inside?

        • Bob Greenyer

          I will explain reasons why the heat is removed assuming the evidence we found and the nature of the materials

      • http://lenrftw.net LENR G

        Like a good gumshoe in a detective novel you’re at the point in the story where you’ve connected enough of the dots and a clear suspect has emerged. You believe you’re about to catch the killer and your excitement is palpable.

        However your trusty sidekicks remind you that you must remain viciously objective and avoid confirmation bias. All the best novels have unexpected twists at the end.

        Your video was rather persuasive, but I caution that it includes a lot of assumptions.

        What if you could estimate alpha particle attenuation in the lead and the heat it would generate… come up with a number of nuclear events implied and then correlate that back to the observed trace 7 spectrum?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Hi, LENR G

          I have already detailed how many Alpha particles can be released if we assume Piantelli theory.

          Over the next period I will divulge the many aspects that lead to my new confidence in the reality of the New Fire and that everything you need to know is in the Signal observed in *GlowStick* 5.2

      • Pekka Janhunen

        But according to MFMP’s own calculator, 1 MeV gammas would have come through 1 mm of tungsten with negligible 12% attenuation. The speculated tungsten shield would have taken away the low and medium energy part, but it would not have affected the high energy tail at 1 MeV and upwards.

        Now would be a good instant to obey Rossi’s advice and to exercise epoche, that is, temporarily forget all theories, opinions etc. and only deduce from those measured data that one thinks are reliable.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I will explain this with reasoned argument based on experimental evidence

      • Mats002

        Are we seeing the mouse effect, but still to see is the Cat?

        • Pekka Janhunen

          I asked this also in earlier thread, so good question;-)

        • Bob Greenyer

          All in good time.

      • Dr. Mike

        Bob,
        Thanks for your video! I hope you can replicate the results in a second experiment and publish a good report. I think you have the data (especially after a replication) to justify trying to get a publication in a top tier scientific journal.
        As for the Lugano reactor I don’t believe it had an internal tungsten shielding. Figure 1 in the report showed the reactor weighed 452 grams. Assuming the dimensions of the reactor were measured somewhat accurately, one can easily calculate that the reactor had to have had a large internal reactor chamber and a fairly thin-walled alumina tube as its core (the 20cm length). This calculation can assume a minimum density for the alumina and 20-40 gr for the Inconel wire. A 1cm OD tungsten tube that is 1mm thick and 20 cm in length would weigh about 110 gr. The reactor just doesn’t weigh enough to have this internal hidden weight.
        Dr. Mike

        • Bob Greenyer

          I actually agree with you on the weight – especially since we build very close analogues.

          However, what if the Coils were inconel dipped/doped Tungsten that “communicated with the core” – ok so there are maybe little gaps in there.

          I personally think that pre-prep of fuel, thicker alumina and KEEPING THE POWER ON PERMANENTLY is the key to “no emissions” in Lugano.

          More testing will show what is and is not required.

          • Dr. Mike

            Bob,
            I’m sure you will eventually be able to explain the “no emissions” in the Lugano experiment. Keep up the good work!
            Dr. Mike

            • Bob Greenyer

              Oh, I have a good idea.

    • Warthog

      I think there is a misconception on Brian’s part. Apparently he believes that ALL energy from the E-Cat is coming out as X-rays. This is almost certainly not the case. Most of the energy is simple heat from the lattice absorbing the kinetic energy of the He4 formed.

  • bachcole

    Can someone summarize what Bob said in that 57 minute video that was very difficult for me to hear? (:->)

    • Dods

      If you watch it on youtube you can switch on auto generated subtitles.
      Just watched it myself and thought it was an excellent presentation.

      Just checked and the subtitle feature is available here to.

      • Warthog

        Youtubes “autogenerated closed caption” feature produces garbage. The only CC that actually works on Youtube is that which is specifically done to match the spoken verbiage. I wish it “did” work, as my hearing is very bad, even with hearing aids.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Sorry for that, perhaps a community member with goof hearing can create the CC – I enabled CC creation by the crowd so that people that spoke a different language could contribute translations.

          • Warthog

            No need to apologize….not your problem, but YouTube’s. Fortunately, another tech approach works for me..my new hearing aids can connect to Bluetooth, and can feed the spoken audio output directly into the aid from computer (or smartphone, which is what it was originally developed for).

            • Bob Greenyer

              Awesome – well hopefully that will help you as I roll out the rest of this extended release.

          • bachcole

            Oh, darn! You changed “goof” to “good”. I was going to say that I have goof hearing. Whenever a scientist says that something is impossible, my goofy hearing hears “it is an open question”.

    • jimbo92107

      You might try connecting your PC to your TV, then crank up the volume on that.