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.
I thought MFMP spent a long time trying to validate Celani wires but never got good results (a few artifacts).
Actually there are many things to replicate but nearly nobody is trying to do so. For example Celani wires.
Maybe @Alan Smith could develop a kit based on your findings and offer it in their store. Of course I know there is a lot work to be done before. But this could give this scene a huge boost when available.
It is true, but it does not mean anything about validity. For example there are at least 5 groups that successfully replicated Parkhomov and still there are people that dont believe even for Parkhomov success.
Even with next successfull replication people will not believe, because they are trying to find just answers why it can't work and why everything is wrong.
@me356: Don't care about them. There are also a lot of people who don't believe in the success of the apollo missions 
But it would have a huge benefit if there would be a more or less "simple" development kit which gives 99'% successful excess heat (1% for the case there were manufacturing errors).
Then this will also slowly enter into credible research institutes.
If god will help, I have enough knowledge, money and possibilities to manufacture and distribute reactors (with control device) around the world. After achieving COP of 3 this will be my priority.
Very nice! But I guess we have a good community which will help you. At least @Alan Smith and @Sam - Looking For Heat would be interested in doing it 
me356:
QuoteIf god will help, I have enough knowledge, money and possibilities to manufacture and distribute reactors (with control device) around the world. After achieving COP of 3 this will be my priority.
An then I suppose that your are going to invite to an independent third party. Remember me, I am a Swede. We Swedes have a good reputation for producing favorable independent third party reports.
An then I suppose that your are going to invite to an independent third party.
He already offered @Thomas Clarke to measure it
The sooner you start replicating Holmlid´s work at 100°C not 1400°C the sooner you will be out of this Rossi fire:-).
But I agree there is certainly more action, gossip and drama around Rossi which makes a great kind of a reality TV program for us.
The sooner you start replicating Holmlid´s work at 100°C not 1400°C the sooner you will be out of this Rossi fire:-).
But I agree there is certainly more action, gossip and drama around Rossi which makes a great kind of a reality TV program for us.
I strongly agree with your first point Dr. Olaffson. But I disagree with the last.
Our task here is too important to waste our time with the clownery of a wannabe inventor.
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+.
As a physicist, even though in a completely different field, I will only be convinced once you or MFMP
will have conducted an isotope analysis of your fuel ash and find a signifcant isotope shift as compared to natural composition.
I am willing to donate for this analysis and I hereby ask all who read this to donate.
I have valued your great work from the beginning.
I am sure you are honest in every respect. I am just not sure, that your calorimetry is not biased
by an understable, human wishful thinking. Which I have shared many times in the past. A COP of 2 is dangerously low so that such a bias has a large probability.
Majorana, all, there maybe significant correlation with Rossi's findings and Holmlid and partners so both deserve to find their paths to recognition in my view. Rossi's findings may very well be based on generation of UDH (Ultra Dense Hydrogen) of which Rossi was not aware of until Holmlid got more attention within the LENR community.
QuoteIt is true, but it does not mean anything about validity. For example there are at least 5 groups that successfully replicated Parkhomov and still there are people that dont believe even for Parkhomov success.
I have not yet seen anyone doing what I suggest you do. Parkhomov claims to have done this once - but he has since then been unable to replicate his own simple experiment. His subsequent efforts have been less convincing, using less bomb-proof methods. It is likely that the one initial experiment had some error, otherwise he would replicate it and be on course for a Nobel.
There have been many other replications. The ones with careful calorimetry show no excess above possible errors.
The Song replications claiming high excess heat are totally unconvincing.
It is a pattern, when careful replications always give no excess, and less careful ones show excess.
If you have COP=1.5 you can break this pattern. But only by doing careful well-documented calorimetry.
@Thomas Clarke
The reason that the most careful experiments show no results has been known for centuries: A watched pot never boils.
Rossi is the exception that proves the rule. 
Forgetting about the E-Cat, Gary Wright has some nice words to say:
http://freeenergyscams.com/edm…e-e-cat-cold-fusion-lenr/
"Peter Gluck has been posting most of our recent articles, let’s see what he does with this one.
We would love to see a combined rebuttal addressing each of our points in detail, with separate sections by Andrea Rossi, Edmund Storms, and Peter Gluck.
Published on April 16, 2016"
What about another golden calf ? Innovation is a social process. This thread shows how complex it is....
Only by innovative leaps have enabled our present degree of civilisation and 'biggest ever' number of mouths to feed. Vaccination, Immunisation, Railways, Water Treatment, Sewage Treatment, Electricity and Radio, Flight, Antibiotics - it is a long list -with a few potentially deadly blunders along the way. Like Atomic weapons and 'weaponised' Anthrax.
With a bit of luck LNER will be the power behind the next big leap - we really need one now.
me356:
Thanks for you input, very interesting, have you done isotope analysis?
/* Forget about the E-Cat. It never worked. Replicators and the Forum should focus on Holmlid and Olaffsons work */
I think, this thread is just targeted disinformation with apparent purpose to delay the implementation of LENR.
Holmlid/Ollaffson's experiments are both economically unfeasible, both impossible to implement at the DIY basis.
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…
The reason replicators disappear after the "critics" and "skeptics" rip into their work is quite obvious. After fixing all the mistakes and measurement errors, the excess heat they thought they saw completely vanishes.
