Forget about the E-Cat. It never worked. Replicators and the Forum should focus on Holmlid and Olaffsons work.

Majorana said "My suggestion is therefore to ban the E-Cat topic "

While banning Ecats and Rossi might work to concentrate on other topics of worth.. officially banning things usually has the opposite effect ..it concentrates attention on them. Banning needs to done unofficially as groupthink as has happened with LENR in official scientific circles for the past two decades or so

Majorana: I dont agree. I am convinced that E-Cat worked from the beginning. We are able to replicate it and not just this, but also a different LENR based devices. Now with COP 2+.

Quote

Majorana: I dont agree. I am convinced that E-Cat worked from the beginning. We are able to replicate it and not just this, but also a different LENR based devices. Now with COP 2+.

Hi me356,

That will be exciting news indeed for MFMP. All you need is to write up the replication really carefully and throw the instrumentation and setup open for LOS type review to see if it needs tightening and you have achieved MFMP's original goal and earned yourself a place in history!

I look forward to the detailed and rigorous write-up with interest. I know it is a pain but you can see from Rossi's tests and the MFMP work that without a lot of care spurious results are easy to get.

Well, I dont intend to earn any place in history. It is the last thing I really want.
I am trying to do replications for more than year and fruits are clearly growing. Success is what I want to achieve.
Research costs me thousands of dollars, but for sure it is worth.

My intention is to create reactors for daily usage, not just for words, fancy reports or to convince anybody.
Soon I would be glad that anybody will arrive and measure whatever is possible, especially from safety point of view.

LENR is known from at least 1920. It is better to wait or start own research and to not believe in what mainstream media are saying.

Beeing new in this forum, I just ask for a link, to the arguing that "in Lugano" was no excess heat?

Quote from emtee

Beeing new in this forum, I just ask for a link, to the arguing that "in Lugano" was no excess heat?

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ClarkeTcommentont.pdf

Yes, I am in contact with MFMP. But I am taking little bit different way.
Interestingly there are many materials available for doing replication, but replications are not happening nearly at all after few failed attempts. I can't see any reason why reports describing excess heat are considered as not credible. Publishing similar documents is placing the authors to a complicated situation when they will often not gain anything, but rather loose.
We can't wonder why there are no more reports from these authors.
I strongly believe that all that achieved excess heat are working hard to make some sort of working device.

Actually we are quite lucky that Rossi and the others revealed so much about their reactors. Replicators must only glue everything together. But if one has any doubts, he will end quite soon.

Quote

I can't see any reason why reports describing excess heat are considered as not credible. Publishing similar documents is placing the authors to a complicated situation when they will often not gain anything, but rather loose.

The criticism people will get when they publish reports my seem like a loss, but in reality it is helpful because it allows them to tighten things up and alters them to things they had not considered. That is the way science works, and harsh criticism is exactly what is most helpful.

..... It is because the technology is working well that there's a conflict. Otherwise it would be very simple....

This is true, but criticism will rather help only the people that are critics. For author it is only additional pain. Author has no reason and time to fix this as he know what he saw. Such things are taking a lot of additional effort that will halt the research or take focus away. Their effort is not to convince you, but get something working. For this there are universities where people like to speak and prove something. It can take them many years.

When you see reactor meltdown and its consequences with your own eyes you will believe.

I hope that in terms of weeks. More time mean a better COP. My goal is at least COP of 3 that should be convincing enough and quite usefull for a real usage.
There are many many things to try that could improve it dramatically, but it takes a lot of time to develop a new design that can utilize the improvement. And of course most of these are wrong.
I am learning new things with each experiment so I have no recipe yet.

What replicators really need is vacuum pump and some additional hydrogen source. This will solve many problems.

I believe that MFMP will achieve higher COP very soon too, it is just matter of time.

The Clean Energy Research Foundation Inc. has been researching a
patent pending chemonuclear fusion reactor based on H. Ikegami's work on
liquid lithium fusion and the thermodynamic effects of using liquid
phase lithium on fusion reaction rates.

The patent details several
embodiments of a practical fusion reactor based on molecular ion fusion
reactions with liquid lithium.

We have a world class nuclear
fusion facility in the American Midwest ready to do our research project
on a contract R&D basis. The experiment will cost $12,000. They
have prepared a detailed statement of work and budget. Partners who fund
our project will be given a percentage of the royalties on this
valuable invention.

If you are interested in investing contact us at [email protected]

@me356
As a "replicator" (Does this term have any meaning any more? We are investigators and researchers.) that has never stopped and has also spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours on LENR investigation, I would appreciate any pointers you can give me.

I have a Hydrogen source and vacuum pump that I currently use to remove Oxides and load Hydrogen in the Nickel prior to testing.

Quote from me356

This is true, but criticism will rather help only the people that are critics. For author it is only additional pain. Author has no reason and time to fix this as he know what he saw. Such things are taking a lot of additional effort that will halt the research or take focus away. Their effort is not to convince you, but get something working. For this there are universities where people like to speak and prove something. It can take them many years.

When you see reactor meltdown and its consequences with your own eyes you will believe.

If it could be done without jeopardizing safety in any extent, when any replicator pushes his reactor TOO far in a quest for a top of the line COP, if the replicator could somehow capture the meltdown using a camera, that LENR anomaly would go along way in advancing the prospects for LENR...unless it is judged to be too scary for general viewing. Then a limited distribution of the video might somehow be arranged.

I will try to share everything that is possible. I am very busy with my work and with the research.
To achieve excess heat even with lower temperatures it is important to keep pressure as low as possible (less than 1 milibar of hydrogen) with no impurities, Clean nickel and chamber as much as possible with hydrogen and vacuum pump even at high temperatures before triggering the reaction. Boiling point of lithium must be achieved to start Cat. Remember that boiling point is function of the pressure.
LiAlH4 is not necessary (only pure Li is fine), but it will rather make reaction more stable (not that agressive) because of Al.

Remember that the reaction can go out of control in just 1 second, temperature can increase by hundreds °C suddenly.

Yes, as I said many times earlier - there is no doubt about LENR. It is clearly working.
Actually there are many things to replicate but nearly nobody is trying to do so. For example Celani wires.