New Fire’s 100+ Year Gestation Part 1 (New MFMP Video)

Bob Greenyer of the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project has released a new video called “New Fire’s 100+ Year Gestation Part 1) in which Bob discusses the results of research he has done, and conversations he has had, and looks into historical references in the scientific literature that he feels could significance to the LENR field.

One interesting focus here is that Bob highlights an article published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London in 1867 by Thomas Graham titled “On the Occlusion of Hydrogen Gas by Metals” where Graham discusses the behavior of hydrogen absorbtion/adsorption/loading into metals. It’s a fascinating discussion because it is looking at subjects that are discussed at length by LENR researchers today, and this article is over 100 years old.

Video is here:

  • RLittle

    Chapman it is not polite to accuse someone of threatening suicide and race has nothing to do with it. Just because a person refers to kill in different context is not a basis for accusing them of potential suicide and such is not polite. Reginald is not attacking anyone, I am simply stating facts by what is written in documents.

    • Chapman

      Mr. Little,

      Your exchange with Mr. Greenyer was highly emotional and somewhat unhinged. I sympathize with your desire for recognition that you feel is rightly due, and I did not criticize you for your statements. What I DID say was that to all of us reading the exchange from an outside perspective, it was clear that Mr. Greenyer was dealing with you with a great deal of tact – a fact that you were not in a position to appreciate.

      Mr. Greenyer could have engaged with you and given you back the exact same level of hostility and disrespect that you were throwing at him, but he was gentleman enough to recognize your mental state and SYMPATHIZE with you. He held his ground on the facts, but he showed you every kindness possible while doing so.

      This discussion was from a month ago. A person who was in a temporary state of distress would have had ample time to reflect upon the circumstances, and would have resolved themselves to the reality of the courtesy they were shown – and be thankful.

      The fact that you are STILL bent about the exchange demonstrates that you still have not realized the subtle undertones of the exchange, or what Mr. Greenyer was really saying.

      I will say this again, because it is worth repeating. Mr. Greenyer has demonstrated his character over the course of years of interacting with the science fans here. He has proven himself to be a genuine English Gentleman. Mr. Greenyer deliberately, and carefully, responded to your accusations and rudeness with a politeness and decency that you did not respond to, or return. You should reflect upon his responses and rethink your position. You may re-approach Mr. Greenyer in a different way and find that you have an ally in your pursuit for recognition, rather than the adversary you feel compelled to attack.

      There are two valuable lessons to be learned here…

      1. In the end, if you do not want people to jump to the conclusion that you are an unhinged nutcase, then you should take care not to REPRESENT to them that you are, in fact, an unhinged nutcase.


      2. When you DO act like a nutcase, and the guy you are beating up on chooses to show you compassion and deal with you calmly, rather than just jump in and give you back, in equal measure, what you were giving him – you should quit complaining and thank God that there are still a few old-school “Gentleman” around, and that you were just LUCKY enough to have been engaged with one when you had your little tantrum.

  • RLittle

    Hi Andy, I have had various people read this package and no where have I ever mentioned killing myself. It is disgusting that Greenyer makes such false allegation simply because I used the word kill. In the context I was never the subject with the word kill so it is totally wrong to conclude suicide. I expressed that others are killing me. I never expressed that I am or have a will to kill myself! If Greenyer had any integrity then he would apologize and correct this error. This is sick of him. Reginald B. Little

  • RLittle

    Hi Andy, I have had various people read this package and no where have I ever mentioned killing myself. It is disgusting that Greenyer makes such false allegation simply because I used the word kill. In the context I was never the subject with the word kill so it is totally wrong to conclude suicide. I expressed that others are killing me. I never expressed that I am or have a will to kill myself! If Greenyer had any integrity then he would apologize and correct this error. This is totally sick of him. Reginald B. Little

  • RLittle

    Thanks Andy. I will probably not get the credit that I deserve but I thank you for your excellence. I could careless of lesser as I know the truth. Around the world there are a few pure of mind and heart. Most people lack. Thanks for letting your light shine! Thanks for inspiring me in the midst of mediocrity of many. RBL

  • RLittle

    Thanks Andy. Your comment is well taken. I should note that many people around the world have fallen on hard times and are and will fall on hard times, but it is ridiculous to thereby accuse them of suicide! I have had hard times but NEVER has suicide crossed my mind or my tongue. Throughout history many people have fallen on hard times and even depression. Unless you know the individual personally then it is irrational and reflects poor judgement and character to accuse them of suicide. Greenyer does such and this reflects his character. But thank Andy for your compliment. I am at fault for expecting excellence when it may not be. Sincerely, Reginald B. Little

  • Eyedoc

    Yeah we’re sweethearts from way back, WiseAss ! HEEHEE (translation bubbles were referred to ) Funny guy that Chapman 😉 ……….though now that you’ve broached the idea of a nickname , maybe Bob’s ‘secret special code name’ can be ‘Bubbles’ from now on

  • Eyedoc

    Is there a link to the Canon patent ? (I apparently missed it somewhere;)

  • Rene

    Back home to Santa Cruz. @Bob I just watched your 100y part-1 video. The Canon patent builds on early works. It basically adds its novel part in the method of voltage stepping to induce some LENR activity. Is MFMP looking to try that line of experiment?
    As for your conjecture about this approach and Rossi’s quark, it seems not totally in alignment. Rossi said the fuel he uses is similar to existing e-cats: Li, Ni, et-al. and his patent appl. does not show a discharge method. Or are you suggesting this is how he loads up his system?
    P.S. When is part-2?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Hi Rene,

      I am still finalising the accounts, I then have to prepare video presentation for a meeting in Palo Alto – This is part of a push to find ways to massively increase our capability.

      Then I have a break with my family – so sometime after that – but I have the material prepared for it – just need to make it into a coherent presentation.

      You will very clearly see where I am going with the connection to the so called QuarkX – but people will not expect it.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I hope so too.

    Following that comment – I offered to host a GoFundMe on our videos if he made one… that did not happen.

    I am doing this work to help people – I am doing what I can with the skills I have.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thanks Chapman, you are quite the wordsmith!

    I expect the attacks will get worse before they get better, I am ready for it. My father taught me to call a spade a spade – I say what I see, ok, I may need glasses – but I say what I see.

  • Eyedoc

    Thanks Bob, can’t wait for Part 2

    • Bob Greenyer

      Yeh – I’d like to get it out the door, bogged down with MFMP accounts and addressing comments on the first video. I have have to organise the material, produce presentation, record and edit.

      After accounts I have to makes a presentation/video for a meeting in the Bay Area California – so I am not sure when I can get it out – but, for sure, it will be well before the 150th year anniversary of Thomas Graham’s seminal hydrogen occlusion work in extremely small metal structures!

      • Eyedoc

        Bay Area meet for LENR ?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Not quite, this is a meeting intended to help us expand our operations.

          • Eyedoc

            Some significant SV backers are found ??

            • Bob Greenyer

              Hopefully more interesting than that.

              Looking at access to lab and equipment.

              • Mats002

                Hi Bob! SRI and McKubre?

                • Bob Greenyer


                  It is aimed to be both sides of the pond and one location will be near you (but not where you expect) I hope you will be able to join us for an experiment!

                • Mats002

                  I am in, at least remote, possibly on site – you make me very curious now 😉

  • Chapman

    I just did not want you to feel all alone. Keep the faith, friend. Rossi will prevail, and go down in history.

    I do not think Mr. Greenyer is trying to knock Rossi, either. He is just pointing out that Rossi is a great engineer who has stepped up to harness a dragon that many have reported seeing for years and years. He did not “discover” the dragon, but he was the first to successfully tame the beast. That alone wins him his place in history, our hearts, and our prayers.

  • clovis ray

    oops, sorry, should have been, occam’s razor.
    a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the simpler one is usually …

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thanks Chapman, I predict that a lot of people are going to get upset. I can’t be blamed for pointing out indisputable things that I have no connection with – but sometimes one has to break down illusions to see reality – the curtain needs to be pulled back, this is not a wizards parlour trick, this is nature.

    • Axil Axil

      Regarding ” a Buck Rogers Laser-Blaster, and will not accept just a new kind of match.”

      I feel that there currently is false theory in place regarding superconductivity and coherence that LENR is required to overturn as foundational. Coherence is behind why LENR does not produce gamma radiation.

      Superconductivity is possible at any temperature even as high as 6000C.

      It will be hard to get LENR accepted but even harder to rewrite a major fraction of quantum mechanics.

      It will be foolish to suppose that 19th century science can explain LENR when 21th century science is not yet up to the job.

      • Bob Greenyer

        At no point did I say or imply that 19th century science explained LENR, I did give evidence that the foundation, and many of the important attributes claimed by researchers as critical today, were laid down then.

  • RLittle

    Bob, I heard what you said in the video and I have looked at Canon’s patent. Still what I said in the prior post is accurate. I stand in accuracy and justice. What you express in your video is totally inaccurate and not based on how discoveries are determine in science. I know you will never be just by me. But I must be honest to myself! Take care as I have nothing further to say to you.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I have often found I did something first and found out that I did not. Trying to believe it was me that did it first does not change the facts. For you to argue that in 2000 you were the first person to use nano powders in a LENR context with the words and purpose of the Canon patent precedent to your claim by over 10 years and published over 7 years is disingenuous – you have nothing further to say because you will not admit the truth to yourself. I am stating facts, not claiming anything for myself, you are trying to claim first invention of something for your own reasons when you were not first.

      I state again – they said CVD production and Suttering preperation of the hydrogen storage member which can be be of a powdery form in whole or part – Specifically not mentioning a size domain for good patent reasons.

      If you said ‘nano’ well done, but there is NO inventive step or novelty in calling out a particular size domain – it would be clear to anyone that read the Canon patent – that nano structures were obvious.

      I challenge you to try and produce a hydrogen storage member using chemical vapour deposition and sputtering and NOT end up with nano structures.

      • rlittle

        I am going to respond at length and then I move on to better things. Mr. Greenyer as I have suggested to you before. It is honorable to speak with accuracy and facts when you make presentations as this is the main thrust of true pure science and in the refinement distinguishes science from other human endeavors. You have a history of speaking inaccurately and this does not help LENR or whatever you want to call it.
        First for example you tell these people that I I am beating up on you. This is total nonsense. Totally inaccurate and misleading for you to say such. I am not beating up on you I encourage you to speak accurately. If you publish wrong information then anyone is able to present correct more accurate account without you alleging they are beating up on you. As I accurately have stated in your communication this is common that you mislead and state inaccuracies.
        Now as far as Canon’s patent, I have read it as well as most other topics on the subject. I encourage you to follow your own advice and you go back and re-read. Also you should study and ask your colleagues about the scientific method and how science progresses based on experiments, hypotheses and computations. I also encourage you to re-read my first comment in this post as I clearly note to you that true discovery is reflected in the discoverer being prepared for what is discovered. So just because some one uses a method that may form nanoparticles does not mean they discovered nanoparticles. Canon may have used CVD so logically that does not mean he discovered nanoparticles for use enhancing unconventional nuclear reactions. Canon also used electric discharge and there is magnetic field in such. It is inaccurate to say that he thereby discovered magnetic effects on LENR. In publications and patents as commonly directed by US Patent Office, the inventor is limited in the body and claims of the patent. The material therein does not have unlimited scope. The inventor has to clearly denote the scope. Canon in 1989 did not do this for magnetic effects and nano-size effects for these unconventional nuclear processes. You later come along and expand Canon’s scope in an inaccurate and misleading way. This is unmerited and not according to sound science doctrine. If your inaccurate logic and communications were sound then Kroto, Smalley and Curl should be given credit for discovering grapheme in 1989 as they used the same techniques that later researchers have discovered formed grapheme. Therefore Me, Geim and others should not be credited for such grapheme revelation in 2002 and 2004. But the logic and sound and appropriateness is that 1989 was not the time for grapheme and Kroto, Smalley and Curl were not prepared for such discovery (simply because they used electric arc); their reasoning and thinking were not reflective of grapheme it was more accurate reflective of fullerenes. Hence These great researchers are credited with discovering fullerene in accuracy. It would be inappropriate and inaccurate to credit Kroto, Smalley and Curl for discovering grapheme as later researchers like Geim and myself were better prepared to reason (Little 2002) and actually observe grapheme (Little 2002 and Geim and others 2004).
        I can appreciate that you may not like me. That is fine. But do not let your emotions cloud your reason and accuracy. As an advocate of LENR, your reputations as sound accurate communicator is utmost.
        I know what I have done in my career. I could careless what you or the rest of this world feel about me!
        With Kind Sincerity,
        Reginald B. Little

        • Bob Greenyer

          I am completely dispassionate about you – I am presenting published information for which I have no connection or interest.

          You on the other hand have threatened suicide if I did not recognise you as first.

          I have no authority to do that, especially given the pre-existence of an awarded patent in the field that leaves no room for an opinion I may or may not have.

          Until I see some pre-existing patent, for me, Canon got their first on powders (of any scale) and there is little time between 23rd March 1989 and the 4th August 1989 for others to have substantially usurped them. It is clear in my mind that they took on board what P&F said went to the literature (Thomas Graham) and added their own flair, they should get full credit for doing so. I am prepared to be wrong – but your work in 2000 is simply not a contender and you need to come to terms with that.

          • RLittle

            To all the readers of ECat World and other venues. The following statement by Mr Greenyer is a total LIE : “You on the other hand have threatened suicide if I did not recognise you as first.”

            I cannot not believe Greenyer would even stoop so low as to make such a lie. I have never threaten suicide.

            In all the other statements that I have made concerning Greenyer’s inaccurate communications and videos this is most blatant and inaccurate fabrication that he has made. Nothing in this world (except my sons) is more precious to me than my life. I never have and never will threaten suicide. Such a lie from Greenyer is a reflection on his character and lack thereof!

            And by the way the fact that in 1989 Canon did not mention a specific size is all the reason he was not prepared by patent laws and practice to get credit for nano-effects on unconventional nuclear phenomena. I do not know if any of you have written or been examined or issued patents but patent examiners and offices require specific limitations on claims in embodiment of patents as claims cannot be unlimited and the patent must demonstrate by possible practice the limited range of the scope of the claims. Canon (although his patent is important) did not restrict the size range for his ‘fine particles’ and certainly did not reduce to practice in nano-size range for accelerating unconventional nuclear reactions in 1989.

            My patent later did such defining nano- range and reduction to practice and this is the basis of my claim. I am not going to kill myself if the whole world ignores this fact. Only a liar would fabricate such.

            In truth if Canon had restricted the body of his patent to nano and explained why nanosize metal and how intrinsic magnetic field accelerate the process for reduction to practice then I would acknowledge that he deserves full credit. In this patent this is not done. I HAVE SUCH INTEGRITY, contrary to some on this discussion. But Canon’s ‘fine particles’ can have many meanings. And just because CVD with hydrogen can produce nano-particles as was published and discovered by some other researchers (not Canon) years after Canon, this is no basis for alleging Canon discovered nanoparticles accelerate unconventional nuclear reactions. It is illogical to come to such conclusion! Likewise the fact that Canon used plasma (and for years many prior researchers [other than Canon and before him] used magnetism to confine plasma) (and for many years it has been known that electric arcs have magnetic fields) and such plasma intrinsically has magnetism (but so do electrons moving about nuclei) is common of magnetism to Canon’s apparatus does not give unlimited scope of his patent to later claim that he encompassed magnetics for accelerating unconventional nuclear reactions. To conclude such is outside the bound of patent practice. In fact Canon in his 1989 patent emphasized explicitly electric fields and high electric fields, which is quite different as I later reduced to practice than strong magnetic field! On the other hand in my patent I explicitly within a defined scope as required by patent process, laws and practice define size range, explained size range , reduced to practice for such size range in nanosize, and later other researchers reading my patent (based on the scope and my reducing to practice) implemented my procedure and observed such acceleration and reproducible of this unconventional nuclear phenomena. If Canon had done this in 1989, then other would have reduced his to practice! But Canon did not reduce to practice in 1989. But in 2000, I did reduce to practice and look at the history 2000-2010 there was a renewed interest and data reflected acceleration of this interesting phenomena. Likewise for magnetism, as in my later patent I provide a defined scope , and defined and gave details of the magnetics and why the magnetics would more accelerate (rather than electric field) and reduced to practice such magnetic acceleration so later researchers could practice such art. This is the basis for my noting that I first invented such.

            Many many people will read this and be annoyed and hateful. So be it.

            But if the whole world denies what I know is truth then so be it. I go on knowing the truth and enjoying and living and joy.

            But I would never harm one hair on my being because of your ignorance. Most of you will never like or accept what is as far as I am concerned. I do not care and based on my experience I have to speak for myself as in many cases over 20 years no one will express truth on my behalf.

            • Bob Greenyer

              You do not need theory in a patent, you just need to show a novel working embodiment and its utility.

              Prior to me making the video where I named your contribution which you belittled when I drew your attention to it – you had said in a post something to the effect that you might as well take your life, I was horrified. I discussed this communication of yours in depth with my business partner and my partner and it kept me awake for a night. You might have been speaking metaphorically – but it was not taken as such by myself – I have to er on the side of caution and since your posts do come across as a little ranty, I felt you might be serious. I am glad to hear you are not of that persuasion.

              Your posts are on the surface pleasant, but there is a snide and and attacking undertone which is grating. The thing is I’m connecting dots and suggesting hypothesis – and you step in and say “I did it all first, give me credit” when, you simply, didn’t. I do not claim credit for Thomas Graham first suggesting that H- was key in hydrogen occlusion and related phenomena nearly 150 years ago in materials that he produced that are now called nano-structured. I did not claim credit for the Canon patent authors building what we would now call nano materials and using them for LENR reactor construction.

              You have clear intellect and I would urge you to build on the knowledge that is coalescing rather than just trying to claim credit regardless of the timeline. At least Piantelli had the honesty to explicitly say that much of the fundamental research was done across the 20th century and some of it more than 100 years old – he spent a lot of time giving credit and pulling books of his library shelves to show us where the nuggets of information came from to make the whole.

              I fully suspect you will pitch in on future elements of my literature research, I hope you can keep it to qualified criticism rather than personal attacks and demands for credit grabbing.

          • RLittle

            I never said you said Canon patent invented nanoparticles. I gave credit to Brus if you go back and read. I dispute your claim that Canon used nanoparticles or showed that nanoparticles accelerated unconventional nuclear reactions. The fact is that in 1989 Canon did not reduce such to practice no matter how much you would like that to be. The fact is that Canon’s patent 1989 did not reduce to practice and looking at the data throughout the 1990s no one reduced to practice not even your hero Piantelli. I have no need to twist your words as they are inaccurate. Such twisting is not apart of my character I am much better than that. I leave that to you!

            The fact that nanoparticles did not appear until the 90s does not exclude Canon from denoting specific size in order to reduce to practice. During the 80s submicron size particles were known and published in scientific literature by many scientists despite their not being called nano. For example Loius BRus and Arniin HEnglein pioneered such during 80s. The fact that Canon did not cash in on such is prime example that Canon was not prepared for such discovery in 1989. It does not help that you are so eager to prepare him later in spite of the facts!

            Also as a pioneer of nanoscience, I should teach you Greenyer that just because macroparticles and micron fine particles absorb hydrogen very well according to the actual reduction to practice as factually written by Canon in 1989, IT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT SUBMICROSCOPIC (“NANOPARTICLES”) DO NOT NECESSARILY ABSORB HYDROGEN BETTER! In fact nanoparticles are very very unique in their properties relative to micron particles and macroparticles.

            When I practice science by noting that Canon did not reduce to practice for nano I am referring to his note of the hydrogen adsorption of particles. Such attribute are commonly referred to micron particles and finely divided macroparticles. Based on Canons reasoning in this way he was noting macro to micro particles. Nano particles do not have this property of adsorbing hydrogen like larger particles as they manifest macromolecular character. In some materials nano may absorb more hydrogen but in others then nano may absorb less. Canon in 1989 did not reduce this to practice!

            I am sorry that you so want this but I have to appeal to science and reason and wise practice as but patent process and laws.

            I know you emotional for Canon. But in 1989 the reduction to practice was not so by Canon.

            Also I would appreciate if you would not lie on me by saying horrible false things like I threatened to commit suicide. That is a blatant lie! I ask you to exhibit some professionalism and ethics!

            • RLittle

              By the way whereas in 1989 Canon did not reduce to practice hydrogen and CVD to form nanoparticles. I Reginald Little did this at LSU as I first synthesized and realized the importance of synthesizing submicron Copper particles. At the time I did not use submicron metal particles for unconventional nuclear reactions. But I did synthesized them in 1990-1992 at LSU! At the time my thesis advisor did not see any use of my work and thought my work as rubbish as he focused on continuous Cu films for micron size integrated circuit and was disappointed that I was passion for these discontinous submicron size Cu islands. I spent alot of time forming nanoparticles of Cu on Si by CVD in 1990. My advisor saw no value in such. But nanoparticles accelerated later. I published such Cu nano and submicron Cu particles in my thesis from LSU!

            • Bob Greenyer

              Most readers will look at the Canon patent and see that there is no novelty by using the moniker ‘nano’ prior to the existence of the term from what they said (Claim 3 & 4 & 7 & 8) combined with non-exclusive definition of their suggested particle creation and modification processes. They even use the word ‘etc.’ to allow for any future way of creating advantageous particles. They note specifically that increasing the surface area is desirable – obviously every thing has limits.

              Now, Francesco Celani created a joule heating technique patent application to surface modify Constantan – this is not covered by the Canon patent, but if the Canon patent was still in force, and Celani used his wires as the Hydrogen storage member in a variation of their embodiment – he would have to licence from Canon to use their approach.

              Here is my copy of the patent – complete with my notes and their respective date stamps.


              You on the other hand are not looking at it for what it says – you are trying to find a way that puts you in first place. What you are effectively saying is that if someone comes up with a new term for a material property or form used in a patent – then the patent does not represent prior art simply because they did not use the modern term regardless of the clear implications of the claims in the patent.

              Maybe you were the first to create/suggest a working embodiment and attach the newly emerging word ‘nano’ to it – but you were not the first to create a working LENR reactor embodiment that had nano structures in it, Canon was. Perhaps, sometime between 1989 and 2000 the Canon patents authors referred to their technology as having ‘nano’ aspects to it in some publication or event somewhere, then where would you be?

          • Concerned user

            Oh boy. I don’t usually write on blogs and such but for your information do you realize that your suggestion that mr. Little threatened suicide in the past despite him denying writing anything of this sort may be interpreted as a death threat under a different context or when taken out of context?

            Please be mindful of your wording.

            • Bob Greenyer

              Absurd. When I am not so busy, I will dig out his comment that we worried about so much and that I refer to (if it has been edited I will need to use some form of internet Archive to retrieve it).

              Please check your facts before weighing in.

  • Bob Greenyer


    Padua cell fuel components tested with TOF-SIMS now alongside ash re-test

    The independent researcher that previously did an initial test of the Padua Cell ash, has since been supplied with samples of the two Parkhomov fuel elements (Parkhomov’s exact LiAlH4 and Russian produced Nickel powder).

    The testing party took on as much of the advice as possible given in the live document on our main but they were unable to sit the powder on Silicon substrate as the ion beam just moved the sample.

    However, since each sample was on the same type of substrate any carbon based interference should net net out.

    The raw data files are in the link.

    No one at the MFMP has analysed this data yet – so any crowd graphing / analysis would be appreciated.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I had a quick go at one part of the data and produced this GIF animation

      • Ged

        Fascinating, and more different than I had thought. Nice gif, Bob.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Too different – I think we need to now do ICPMS

      • Frank Acland

        Thanks, Bob — I’ve opened up a new thread for discussion of this topic.

  • Mats002

    Nice tribute to Rossi. He might be climbing the mountain of fraud, but the effort and achievement is paramount in both cases.
    Your tribute stands either way 😉

    • Engineer48

      Hi Mats002,

      There was no fraud.

      That will soon be clear to even Rossi’s most virulent critics.

    • Axil Axil

      A climber last year made it to just 200 feet below the summit and he could not go any further, and all his effort went for naught; it does not count. The climber must get to the top. All the dreams, sacrifice, costs, and pain do not count if you do not get to the top…such is the rules of life.

      Rossi knows that if he does not get into production, it does not count.

  • RLittle

    Far too much credit is given to Graham in 1860s for discovery of nano-metals. Graham did introduce important phenomena but he was far short of experimental or even theoretical discovery of nano-particles of palladium and other metals. Past scientists have unknowingly and without direct observations worked in areas of later novel developments in science. But being prepared for the discovery is most important aspect of discovery. Back dating (for personal emotional reasons) and considering Graham’s method of preparing his samples in 1860s and comparing Graham’s preparation to 100 year later research and reasoning that the prior hundred year work of Graham by his method should have formed nanoparticles of palladium (over 100 years ago when Graham at the time did not directly reason or observe such is inappropriate) and therefore Graham discovered palladium nano-particles is not the basis for giving Graham credit for discovery of nanoparticles of metals and it does not represent the scientific method and how science progresses.

    For example, during the time of Graham’s work in mid 1860s, the microscope was being discovered by Leeuwenhoek during the mid- 1800s and the ionic bond was being discovered. Moreover, actually the dissociation of ionic materials was discovered by Arrhenius in 1884 about 20 years after Graham’s 1860s work. So Graham had no way to know of nanoparticles or hydride by techniques as scientists like Hooke during his day in mid 1800s were just learning how to observe microscopic objects over 100 times larger than nanoparticles. Perhaps use of Faraday 1840s electric current to form ions may have been used by Grahams but at the time in 1860s it was not know hydrogen to behave as anion as this would come later with work of later scientists like arrhenius, Bronsted Lowery and Thomson’s discovery of electron more than 40 years after Grahams 1860s work. Actually during the mid 1800s scientists were shocked at the observation of micron size objects and this was part of the great work of Hooke during the 1800s. So it is ridiculous to articulate that someone like Graham discovered nano-objects over 100 times smaller than micron objects that Hooke was observing at the Forefront of science during mid 1800s. The discovery of nano-objects had to wait the proper time with the proper instruments and understanding for fulfilling the scientific method and this came during the 20th Century with electron microscopy capable to resolving nano-size features.

    The reality and truth is that Piantelli missed nano-size and hydride during his 90s palladium hydrogen work and now you and he would like to back date the importance to someone other than the proper people during the new century 2000. In the process, you state some very incorrect things. If you give Graham (1860s) credit for nanopalladium then you go agains the scientific community giving credit to Luis Brus for developing nanoparticles of metals and semiconductors during the 1980s. Moreover you take credit away from Svannte Arrhenius and his discovery of ionization in 1884 as based on your reasoning Graham did such discovery of ionization in 1860s, 20 years prior to Arrhenius in 1884. So based on your incorrect reasoning to cover up what Piantelli missed (importance of nano and hydride) in 1990s and what was later discovered by me in 2000 (importance of nano and hydride) , you are taking proper credit due to Arrhenius for discovery of ionization. and also proper credit from many other later scientists. Which is absurd and ridiculous! The honorable thing to do is give Piantelli credit for his macroscopic nickel and hydrogen work and give me later credit for introducing nano-metals and hydride. When you try to cover up and lie it makes a mockery out of what is beautiful!

    • Bob Greenyer

      You misheard me. You miss quote me and you do yourself a dis-justice by not reading the Canon patent and paying attention to its contents and dates of priority/publication/awarding etc.

      I say that he effectively created nano particles “without calling them as such” it is irrelevant if he could see or define their size, my point is that that is whet they were.

      He used colloidal separation, precipitation and electric and electro-less plating (deposition) to create what in effect were nano particles and nano particle clusters (in the case of the Palladium flakes that were collected and the came away from an Platinum substrate). That we have more techniques of producing and defining material structures does not take away from the fact that the techniques he used to make his test samples are still used today to make nano-particles.

      One example is Alan Smith of “Looking for Heat” who has been producing Nickel nano particles from colloidal preparation.

      Moreover, the occlusion rates observed by Thomas Graham in his prepared materials are at the upper end of what is possible with techniques for single metal preparation even today. Even if you argue that he didn’t know he was making nano materials as I did, he still achieved the level of occlusion that nano materials permits.

      I make two connections between Thomas Graham and Piantelli in the video, I do not state in either of those claims that Piantelli used nano materials. The first connection I make is that Thomas Graham said it is necessary to make sure that the occluding material is completely clear from any contamination “before the first occluding action” – Piantelli says this is one of the most important criteria. The second connection I make is that Thomas Graham posits, giving a clear example of platinum sponge (which is itself a nano material known now to have particles less than 10nm) auto igniting properties, that H- (the “Negative or chlorilous end of Hydrogen molecule”) is critical to the process and binds to and then gets fixed into the metal – this speculation, in 1867, is very similar to the foundation of Piantelli’s theory.

      I would urge you to look again at the video, download the associated presentation here:

      Follow think to the Canon patent that has a 1989 priority and read it fully. It is VERY clear that they claim a repeatable working embodiment that uses nano powders. The evidence is this

      1. They say that the hydrogen storage member can be prepared for example by Chemical Vapour Deposition (CVD) – this is well known to create nano particles and indeed is the way Carbonyl Nickel is made.

      2. They say that the Hydrogen storage member must first be cleaned by sputter cleaning. This is a well known way of making nano-scale surface modification.

      3. If the above two statements in the Canon patent are not sufficient to prove precedence , Claim number 4 can leave NO DOUBT that they are talking about nano powders … “The apparatus according to any preceding claim, wherein either the entirety or the surface of the hydrogen storage member (24) is formed of a hydrogen storage material having a powdery form.” … it is simply not important to specify a specific size domain as it is restrictive.

      The canon patent has a Priority: 04.08.1989, was filed: 03.08.1990 and was published 03.11.1993 – it was awarded 12.02.1997

      The production and use of nano particles and hydrogen isotope occlusion was discovered and put into a claimed working embodiment in 1989 by the Canon patent authors, and was published in 1993 (even mentioning “Cold Fusion” 3 times in its text”) and reported on in 1994 in New Scientist – one of the worlds most widely read scientific news publications and by “New Energy Times” newsletter – a pre-eminent publication in the field of LENR at the time.

      Even on the most conservative measure of the publication date, you re-discovered this 7 years later, however, you were at least 10 years behind the Canon Patent authors research.

      I think you need to now stop beating up on me without basis and making fatuous miss-statements about what credence I gave to Piantelli in this video.

      The point of doing a scientific literature review is that you can avoid repeating work that has already been published, it is good practice for scientists to do this – at least Russ George admits to have been aware of the Canon patent and tested its concepts with apparent success.

      I knew this first part of my presentation on my findings will put noses out of joint – but not as much as the coming part(s).

  • Chapman

    We all appreciate Mr. Greenyer. Clovis never insulted or derided him.

    Clovis is pointing out that open science is a wonderful environment for collective investigation and public knowledge – but innovation is driven by the investment of time, energy, and sometimes physical health, and that investment deserves – no, it DEMANDS, fair reward.

    And: “Omar’s Razor” is a famous philosophy that says “Bake the damned cake according to the recipe the FIRST time, before you decide to explore variations – that way you have something to compare your results to!!!” Clovis’ citation of this fundamental philosophy shows the depth of his intellect and/or education. Most muggles miss that one entirely, to their detriment later in life. That is PHD level shit right there… DEEP THINKING!!! 🙂

  • Chapman

    Rossi McDuck!

  • Bob Greenyer

    Without the work done before, Rossi would not have tried.

    It is true that Rossi reinvigorated the field, no doubt about that – however, he needs to capitalise on his early seizing of untapped low-hanging fruit. There has been a snow ball effect and many have joined the research in the field even when considering just those we know… so he may be a nucleus of the new snowball – but is he the bulk of the mass now?

    For his sake and for justice for his endeavours – I hope he can deliver.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I signed up for 2 Rossi home E-Cats almost as soon as the pre-Order became available,

    I was VERY disappointed to have to pay 5000 euros to re-line my very long chimney and install a new boiler last autumn.

    I would very much prefer to have an E-Cat providing energy in my home and then I can move on to other pursuits I enjoy.

    Sadly, I like everybody else is waiting. When I have finished this series of videos, you can judge for yourself who deserves credit for what.

    What I know is we have spent a big chunk of our lives and a lot of donors good will securing results little more satisfying than Celani wires produced on our third time by following the useable information Rossi has made available. It is not for want of trying.

    What it seams however, is that in this Canon patent – there is a very clearly defined approach that has no patent protection that they really did devise that could yield us our best results yet if me356s experience along a similar path turns out to be verified.

    The wafer Flat design was detailed in his patent which became available in the latter part of last year. From a scientific point of view it might not show us more… I personally only realised the structure of the overall design following my analysis of GS 5.2 in mid to late February and we as a team have been engaged since then.

    • Rene

      I too signed up for 3 domestic e-cats the moment the preorders opened up. I ordered 3 because back then COP6 was the max and 3 of them made it possible to have one always running. Well, so went the thinking at the time.
      In my case, I stretched the lifetime of my then 10 year old batteries to 16 years. Am now getting Aquion batteries and a few more PV panels. Done.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Well my solar system sorted me for the whole time I was in India (best part of a decade) and ran my E-scooters for transport too.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Right now I am considering leasing roof space on the building next door and putting some solar panels there.

  • Omega Z

    You’re only a 180` off course from Focardi’s own words.

  • Bob Greenyer

    To clarify, Thomas Graham FRS never did any LENR research – he did recognise and establish that to occlude the most amount of Hydrogen in a metal, you need

    – fine nano structures/clusters (though he did not call them that)
    – perfectly clean surface free from all contaminants
    – Raised temperature in gas
    – better in electrolytic
    – Pd stored the most Hydrogem
    – temperature of release way above occlusion temperature and different for different metals
    – H- critical to the process


    I only discovered the Canon patent mid 2015, I only discovered Thomas Graham later because I was armed with a comment from Piantelli.

    There are many keys along the way that helps unlocks doors, without the keys the whole thing does not work.

    Piantelli talks about a large number of parameters that are required to be in a tight bound or condition met – at least 13 – do the math 13! is a very large number of ways to get this wrong.

    GS5.2 was the first time we tried to embed Piantelli’s advice (that which we had) into an experiment and we saw ‘Signal’. 5.3 was a replication and we saw evidence of neutrons (of course it was the first time we were looking). In both cases we saw evidence of small excess heat – ok, not that claimed by other players that have no commercial product available and have done no live demonstrations that are indisputable – but our apparent excess is in line with many researchers findings.

    What does seam to be difficult is high levels of excess and very convincing and repeatable emissions / excess. me356 claim to have achieved this (though I have not seen it) and he was the first person to really take on board the Canon patent.

    I think you maybe confusing Dardik’s proprietary “superwave” with something Prof. Focardi did.

    I don’t think we lost LENR, I think, if it is realisable in a practical form, we are collectively very much closer to establishing it.

    • georgehants

      Posted by AlainCo LENR Forum
      German patent application of LENR reactor with nanoparticle and discharge
      Twitter ‘TheNewFire’, visibly a German speaker, just cited this German patent application :

      • Bob Greenyer

        The patent claims here look like a re-hash of Canon patent with more modern understanding of how to increase the likelihood of H- formation on the cathode.

        The voltages, arrangement, structure, necessary elements (including the need for the transition metals specifically defined) are not really inventive steps. Neither is the use of Hydrogen as a means of thermal transfer.

        I firmly believe if replicators take the Canon patent as a start point – then they’ll be a lot of patents looking like this moving forward, most of which will not or should not be granted.

        • georgehants

          Bob, very much hope that includes any patents for Mr. Rossi or IH etc.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I think the lid is coming off this box.

            I have done a google translate assisted translation of the Patent application here


            Download it and then the translations are in the PDF speech bubbles. It is wonderful as this partially pre-empts what I am going to say in my next video – hehe, but it does not explain why – and they freely admit – they don’t know why.

            This patent is work that had to have started with the Canon patent as its foundation.

            • georgehants

              Is it possible Rossi knows that everything he is doing is based on prior art, making it impossible for him to apply for a standard patent giving all details for replication.
              Would help to explain his completely (seemingly) irrational behaviour in his sad chase for money, money, money.

              • Bob Greenyer

                There is such a thing as co-discovery.

                Sometimes you have to first accept the possibility and then do the work to realise a functional embodiment.

                The main problem in the field is incredible lack of funding and dedication of quality researchers and facilities due to its history. Rossi has exactly the right kind of marathon mentality necessary to see this through if at all possible.

                I don’t think the author(s) of this German patent know how it works, they even say as much in the patent, they are just trying to do something sufficiently different to the Canon patent (it is conspicuously not listed in the references) by using DBD IMHO. At least they had the courage to try.

                Rossi has not said why the EcatX works – of course we don’t know what its structure is – but based on my guess of its structure which I have already laid down, I will present how I think it works – and I think it relies on similar principles to how this German reactor works – and it relies on research spanning most of the last 100 years.

                • georgehants

                  All interesting, the end answer must explain why he is choosing the secret path when a man with a valid Cold Fusion patent could stand on any street corner and sell licenses for billions overnight with a few pence added on every product.

                • Bob Greenyer

                  As I said yesterday – It could be that he does not know how, but just that it does work and so he is focussing on the patent applications first.

                • georgehants

                  I am confused, surely one does not have to explain the workings of the unknown universe in a patent application, only describe fully and reliably how to replicate the discovery by a person skilled in the art.

                • Bob Greenyer

                  It is very much better to not explain how it works.

                  My point is that a patent application published that has a working embodiment in that the inventor does not fully understand leads themselves to be exposed to those that could easily decipher its mysteries and then, possibly, go on to produce better embodiments that circumnavigate the published patent applications claims.

                  This is the risk.

                • georgehants

                  Understood, which then leaves him open to hopefully somebody else in the World applying for that patent which would publicise the method and taking their chances, or even better nobody gaining any patents.
                  Viva MFMP etc.

                • Bob Greenyer

                  Exactly – Rossi is in a race against time, I personally think that this German patent may limit his options on E-CatX if I am right, though some of the reactor structure and what the E-CatX can do (as claimed) will give him novelty.

            • Eyedoc

              Nice translation bubbles…Thanks

      • Bob Greenyer

        This is essentially the type of reactor that I wanted me356 to build – heater on the outside with dielectric in between electrode on the inside.

        It is also very similar structure to that which I predicted teh E-CatX is as I have said here before and as I will add clarity to in coming video.

  • Andre Blum

    OT: Bill Gates Q&A on his new clean energy fund.

  • TomR

    Thank you Chapman for putting into words what a lot of us are thinking. Bob Greenyer, you are a rock star to us. I also like Axil Axil, I just wish he wasn’t so positive about all he says.

  • Mats002

    I do not know any who did. I am sorry to hear that. Something is very wrong.