[feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/10/05/mfmp-proposes-live-experiment-to-prove-biological-transmutation/']Bob Greenyer of the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project has produced a new video title “Life Changing” in which he discusses the work of Ukranian scientist Vladimir Vysotskii, who has found that biological transmutations are able to take place with the help of bacteria. Vysotskii reports that certain bacteria, when exposed to an unstable element — […][/feedquote]
MFMP Proposes Live Experiment to Prove Biological Transmutation
-
So I guess this was the announcement of the "bullet proof" test for LENR?
However, if I understand correctly, this is not really a planned test yet, but a video request from Bob Greenyer to
Vladimir Vysotskii to allow the test?I do not know what to think about this. It has some conclusions that require a stretch of the imagination, but interesting none the less.
I think it probably premature to be talking about "particle accelerators" inside mitochondria, but hey, I am not an expert!The proposed test does seem to have a simplicity that is very desirable. The big question is can Vysotskii duplicate the transmutation at
will and will he allow the test to be performed?I also scratch my head a little about the core process! It seems to fly in the face of almost all current LENR theories
1) NAE required? Bacterial are not metallic, so no NAE would seem likely.
2) High temperature to initiate? No. This would incinerate the organism.
3) EMF or magnetic component? One would not think so in a living organism. Video stated the
opposite, that EMF / Magnetic fields could actually suppress the reaction.
4) Production of excess heat? Perhaps, but not high temperature or volume.
5) Hydrogen required? I saw nothing in the presentation about hydrogen.Evidently there is some proprietary "mechanical" device that Vysotskii uses and is required.
However, some of the given evidence of bacteria found in the soil at Chernobyl would not have
had this. It will be interesting to see what this device consists of that allows bacteria to
conduct such reactions.So it would appear at first glance, if this is "LENR", it must be a completely different process than the F&P electrolysis
PD system or the Hydrogen / Nickel systems?Interesting indeed. Will we see anything come of this?
-
From Bob G:
QuoteWe now have cooperation of VV and his russian research partners. The reality or not will come out of the testing process. We need to ensure the right venue (very complicated given both nuclear and biological material) and correct funding, VV and his partners are proposing a minimum 2 months experiment, first doing Cs133 - Ba134 as a safe and easier to organise practice run and then the main experiment.
I think they might be needing to do some fundraising too.
-
Hexagonal crystal structures (graphite, quartz, mica,...) has an effect on the strength of the weak force. This pattern might be the key to how microorganisms effect radioactive decay rates.
In an initial example, if mica is placed near a unstable isotope, the rate of decay of that isotope changes.
Reference:
A sheet of mica near a radioactive source changes the gamma decay probability
A year before announcing the microbial effect on 137Cs, Vysotskii and his colleagues (from Moscow State University) made another announcement. That was at the 10th International Conference on Cold Fusion (ICCF10, August 2003). Their paper, entitled “The theory and experimental investigation of controlled spontaneous conversion nuclear decay of radioactive isotopes,” can be downloaded from the library at <www.lenr-canr.org>. Let me summarize the experimental part of that interesting paper.
A radioactive source -- 57Co -- (T=257 days decaying into 57Fe by K-capture) -- was placed in front of a detector. Gamma rays of energies of 136.4 keV, 122 keV and 14.4 keV, emitted from the 57Fe nuclei (T=1 nsec) were recorded. There is nothing new about this; the energy diagram of the decay process is shown below.
I can easily imagine three gamma ray peaks in a multichannel analyzer. What is new and interesting is the effect thin mica sheets on relative intensities of the peaks. The authors discovered that the ratios of peak intensities can be changed by introducing a 50-microns-thin mica sheet into the region between the source and the detector. Labeling the areas below the peaks as N14, N122 and N136 they characterized the effect of mica by the ratio R, defines as N14.4/(N122+N136). By changing the distance X, between the source and the mica sheet, they discovered that, R depends on X, as illustrated below.
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/246figure2.jpg
Unfortunately, no bars of errors were assigned to individual data points and nothing was stated about reproducibility of results. For example, is R always equal to 0.82 when X=250 microns? And is R always equal to 0.88 when X=420 microns? I will assume that observations were reproducible and that the error bars were “too small to be shown.” To give the authors all benefits of my doubt, I will also assume that control experiments were performed to show that equivalent screens made from other materials had negligible effect on the values of R at different X.
Taking these assumptions for granted I tentatively accept the main claim of the paper: “In these experiments we discovered an inhibition of the conversion channel for nuclear decay by 7–10%, and a change (increase) of the total lifetime for the radioactive 57Fe* isotope by 6–9%, at the optimal size X of the slot, in relation to spontaneous decay in free space without the thin mica crystal.”
P.S.
This mica screening effect on 57Fe is not as strong as the bacterial effect on 137Cs. But each of these effects, if confirmed by other researchers, will show that the prevailing point of view has only a limited validity. Emission of gamma rays is a nuclear effect and ability of influencing it by screening the source with a thin sheet of mica (a mono-crystal) is not consistent with the prevailing point of view. How can a crystal, situated hundreds of microns from the atomic nuclei of the source influence what happens in the nuclei? To answer this question one should be able to understand the theoretical part of the paper. Unfortunately, i do not understand it, due to my very limited background in theoretical physics. But I would very much like to know what theoretical physicists think about the paper. By skimming the first part of the paper I notice that the explanation is based, among other things, on the concept of “zero-energy.” The authors claim that experimental results confirm their theory.Reference:
http://www.ludkow.info/cf/406b...
ObservationsFrom 1935 Kervran [28] collected facts and performed experiments, which showed that transmutations of chemicalelements do indeed occur in living organisms. It started when he investigated fatal accidents from carbon monoxidepoisoning when none was detectable in the air. Next he analysed why Sahara oilfield workers excreted a daily averageof 320 mg more calcium than they ingested without decalcification occurring.Kervran pointed out that the ground in Brittany contained no calcium; however, every day a hen would lay a perfectlynormal egg, with a perfectly normal shell containing calcium. The hens eagerly pecked mica from the soil, and micacontains potassium. It appears that the hens may transmute some of the potassium into calcium.
Also See
http://www.e-catworld.com/wp-c…015/09/JCMNS-Biberian.pdf
QuoteDisplay More5.11. Correntin Louis Kervran (1901–1983)
Kervran is certainly the most well-known scientist having worked in the field of biological transmutations. He had a
broad knowledge of plants, geology and nuclear science. His findings have been published in French in ten books [26],
some of them have been translated into English [27]. He was also nominated for the Nobel Prize.
ObservationsFrom 1935 Kervran [28] collected facts and performed experiments, which showed that transmutations of chemical
elements do indeed occur in living organisms. It started when he investigated fatal accidents from carbon monoxide
poisoning when none was detectable in the air. Next he analysed why Sahara oilfield workers excreted a daily average
of 320 mg more calcium than they ingested without decalcification occurring.Kervran pointed out that the ground in Brittany contained no calcium; however, every day a hen would lay a perfectly
normal egg, with a perfectly normal shell containing calcium. The hens eagerly pecked mica from the soil, and mica
contains potassium. It appears that the hens may transmute some of the potassium into calcium.Next, Rossi uses mica between his heater and fuel. That mica forms a magnetic filter that lets pass the correct magnetic moiré LENR simulation pattern which excites the weak force in the nucleus to decay the nucleons.
Metallic hydrides also are formed on the hexagonal atomic layout and also generate nucleon decay via the weak force.
-
I do not know what to think about this. It has some conclusions that require a stretch of the imagination, but interesting none the less.
I think it probably premature to be talking about "particle accelerators" inside mitochondria, but hey, I am not an expert!The proposed test does seem to have a simplicity that is very desirable. The big question is can Vysotskii duplicate the transmutation at will and will he allow the test to be performed?
Crystal balls require no "reasons," so .... Yes and Yes.However, I also know that Vystotskii has been claiming these things for many years, there are many experiments, and he has always been communicative. We will see.
QuoteI also scratch my head a little about the core process! It seems to fly in the face of almost all current LENR theories
Anyone seriously interested in LENR needs to start with this: LENR is a mystery. Any assumptions about it could be very wrong. I see no intrinsic conflict, only in some assumptions.Quote1) NAE required? Bacterial are not metallic, so no NAE would seem likely.
NAE is clearly required. What is NAE? That there is one form of NAE does not negate that there might be others. Storms' NAE is cracks in metal hydrides, but look more closely, he may require neither the metal nor the hydride. A biological mechanism might create analogous structures, not metal hydrides, but catalytic spaces. Proteins can do amazing stuff.Quote2) High temperature to initiate? No. This would incinerate the organism.
High temperature to initiate is not a normal feature of LENR.Quote3) EMF or magnetic component? One would not think so in a living organism. Video stated the
opposite, that EMF / Magnetic fields could actually suppress the reaction.
Again, what we "know" or "think" isn't necessarily so. Under dual laser stimulation, a magnetic field seemed to be necessary, but that is unconfirmed, and, as well, may only relate to the stimulation method. I have not watched the Greenyer video, my knowledge of Vysotskii comes from reading Vysotskii.Quote4) Production of excess heat? Perhaps, but not high temperature or volume.
Heat is likely, for fundamental reasons. The levels of heat might be low, however. High temperature is likely to fail with biological transmutation for obvious reasons. But some bacteria can go pretty high. As well, some of Vysotskii's older work was with deinococcus radiodurans, which has extraordinary radiation resistance, having multiple copies of the genome (four, I think).Quote5) Hydrogen required? I saw nothing in the presentation about hydrogen.
This is in aqueous medium, and some experiments have used deuterium, as I recall. See http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/B…Pjcondensedc.pdf#page=154 and the evidence there for Mn55 +d2 = Fe57.QuoteMn55 +d2 = Fe57
Continuing with Bob's post:QuoteEvidently there is some proprietary "mechanical" device that Vysotskii uses and is required.
I have never seen any mention of this. Rereading the presentation from Vysotskii, I see no sign of it. If confirmed, this is biological transmutation under relatively simple conditions.QuoteHowever, some of the given evidence of bacteria found in the soil at Chernobyl would not have had this. It will be interesting to see what this device consists of that allows bacteria to conduct such reactions.
There is no "device," apparently. There is no claim that all bacteria can do this. This must, at least initially, be taken as a very specific claim. Vysotskii has used pure cultures, and he has used certain mixtures.There are many papers by Vysotskii on this, he has been publishing on LENR at least since 1990, and on biological transmutation since 1996. The only thing particularly new here is the somewhat broader confirmation, from his "team" rather than just from him.
Definitely this is worth investigating; however the idea that a confirmation would bowl over all the skeptics is probably naive, unless this was done with multiple research groups of substantial reputation. That is not to discount the value of an MFMP confirmation, but the breathless announcement with high expectations gives me the willies. This is not how to do science!
I will emphasize this: this is not new work, particularly. Nor has it been ignored. Vysotskii published in the ACS LENR Sourcebook series, in Current Science last year, and his work was covered in Storms' fundamental The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction (2007), pp 141-142. This is not some recent breakthrough. In 2009, I considered setting up an experiment with deinococcus radiodurans, by identifying Mossbauer spectroscopy resources. It should be quite possible. I never got to the point of asking Vysotskii for cultures. This would have a possible advantage over the more recent "decontamination" work in that no radioactive materials are required.
-
I cannot judge, but people who understand spectroscopy tell me that Vystotskii's mass spectrometer is not adequate to the task, and it cannot produce the results he claims. It does not resolve isotope differences well enough.
-
Quote from Bob: “
I do not know what to think about this. It has some conclusions that require a stretch of the imagination, but interesting none the less.
I think it probably premature to be talking about "particle accelerators" inside mitochondria,…Good information and thanks for the input.
I was getting the understanding that here was some proprietary "mechanism", although it may not be mechanical necessarily, from a Bob Greenyer's
post about the announcement before the revelation was made on the scientist.Bob Greenyer Bob • 16 days ago
"Well the challenge is the apparatus has components that I suspect the originator would consider proprietary "http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…-tohoku-university-japan/
(towards the very bottom of the thread)I took apparatus as being a mechanical device of some kind. I guess an apparatus could simulate a natural condition at Chernobyl, but since he stated it
was proprietary, it must not be a simple box of dirt!
It is very interesting how a subject, paper, piece of research work can be in existence for a long period of time and be relatively buried. Then another personality can grab on and trumpet the announcement as something quite extraordinary! And it may be! But as you mentioned, if it has been around for a long time, then it is somewhat unlikely to be revolutionary now. I am not trying to be a pessimist on this, just some what of a realist. Several LENR type technologies have been communicated as being "just around the corner". Yet none have really came about. Still, LED were around for a long time before breaking through in the mainstream...perhaps this will follow suit.
I wonder what the difference is now from 5 or 10 years ago with this technology? Has anything changed of late with it?
-
I cannot judge, but people who understand spectroscopy tell me that Vystotskii's mass spectrometer is not adequate to the task, and it cannot produce the results he claims. It does not resolve isotope differences well enough.
The original work that impressed me used Mossbauer spectroscopy to detect Fe-57, which -- using gamma source that decays to Fe-57 -- is highly specific. Now, there are a million ways to get this stuff wrong. My suggestion is that anyone interested become extremely familiar with the papers and then about arguments like what Jed just presented. This is work. It is not what most people on fora like this are interested in. Hopefully, MFMP will do this; my guess is that, however, they saw this work and for the first time realized the possible significance and went a bit bananas over it.Yes, absolutely, it is worth this investigation. Talking with Vysotskii, great idea! Raising public money to send to Vysotskii? Maybe. If all the homework is done and ready, and it's worth the investment. Vysotskii is a scientist, not an entrepreneur. But, still, nail it all down! MFMP is developing credibility. Don't blow it!
(Issues like what Jed raised can be raised on the CMNS list. Anyone who becomes seriously involved with a project can be subscribed, and anyone else could ask a list member to ask. I've done it when a need arose. Scientists will provide very specific answers, often, and verifiable information.)
(I'm suspicious of Jed's claim. -- not of his intentions, Jed is straight-arrow -- but this is rumor and stuff gets shifted in rumor, and there can be ways to use instruments beyond normal resolution.)
-
I wonder what the difference is now from 5 or 10 years ago with this technology? Has anything changed of late with it?
Not that I know of, but I have not thoroughly studied the recent claim and compared it. This is one of many LENR claims that have been made, work continues with the original researcher, often, and nobody confirms or disconfirms. This is diagnostic of the state of the field, with limited research resources. That is shifting. More people are getting interested and more money is becoming available. It does *not* mean that something is necessarily wrong with Vysotskii's work. Let me put it this way: Vysotskii has written many papers, some published under peer review. No responses. Again, that does not prove it is good work or bad work. But if it was bad work, wouldn't someone be kind enough to write a critique? After all, Vysotskii wrote a critique of Widom-Larsen theory, and Krivit ripped into him for it (totally unfairly, Krivit seized on what was actually unimportant in the paper.)Vysotskii is a credible physicist. Start with that. As well, understand that it's easy to make mistakes in this field. Even huge ones. With LENR, nothing will be taken on pure authority.
(or, more to the point, doing so is very dangerous.)
-
One more point. A mitochondrial particle accelerator was mentioned. Did that come from Greenyer? If so, shame on him. Many years ago, someone wrote a paper on biological transmutation saying that a certain structure or molecule looked like a cyclotron, and speculated about it actually being a particle accelerator. Crap like this is part of what keeps a fringe field fringe.
-
(I'm suspicious of Jed's claim. -- not of his intentions,
I can't vouch for that. That's what a couple of people were saying during the coffee break after Vysotskii's presentation. Anyway, that would be the first thing to hash out before embarking on a replication. -
Bio-transmutations rightfully arouse skepticism. Seems like the least likely place LENR would occur.
However, if high ballistic currents in nano-filaments do actually generate anomalous nuclear effects, some experiments might be worth trying.Some possibly relevant phenomena are cited in the thread -
Quantum criticality in bio-processes
- particularly ----"Newly Discovered Organic Nanowires Leave Manmade Technologies in their Dust"
rdmag.com/news/2016/03/newly-d…e-technologies-their-dust"Thermally activated charge transport in microbial protein nanowires"
nature.com/articles/srep23517A recent item perhaps also of interest ---
"Researchers Bring Theorized Mechanism of Conduction to Life"
http://www.rdmag.com/news/2016…mechanism-conduction-life -
One more point. A mitochondrial particle accelerator was mentioned. Did that come from Greenyer? If so, shame on him. Many years ago, someone wrote a paper on biological transmutation saying that a certain structure or molecule looked like a cyclotron,…
Yes, this was in Mr. Greenyer's video. He referenced some past paper/work, perhaps the one you are familiar with.
He was very "positive" about how one can assemble a picture of biological transmutation from past works. How various aspects were related, including magnetism and how it could stop/slow down biological LENR. If I understood him correctly, he felt that fast growing cells used a form of LENR for energy. That magnetism could be used to stop it / slow it down. Thus a probable cure for cancer. He mentioned that Piantelli had a magnetic medical device which had greatly benefited some ill people. They saw it during their visit to his lab.To recap his video, he described 1) the test 2) it's possible basis 3) how that basis could lead to medical cures / treatment.
It is kind of a catch 22. I respect his open mind set, his willingness to look into possibilities and not be blinded by dogma. On the other hand, he has possibly "crowed " a little too loud and often lately. He also seems to post somewhat regularly and positive at ECW about Rossi related issues. I could very well be wrong, but I think he believes Rossi has "the goods". I am at a bit of a loss understanding that.
Note that I support MFMP and their approach. I am not dissing Mr. Greenyer, he is trying to push breakthroughs into a field that is very skeptical. He might consider taking a more conservative tone. Image does carry weight with many people.
-
Bio-transmutations rightfully arouse skepticism. Seems like the least likely place LENR would occur.
However, if high ballistic currents in nano-filaments do actually generate anomalous nuclear effects, some experiments might be worth trying.
LENR almost certainly does not involve high currents. The more plausible theories involve unexpected low-excitation-energy fusion reactions. Takahashi's TSC theory involves BEC formation at the very low end of possible energies! Storms' hydrotons are not highly excited at all. It is largely hot fusion thinking that leads to an idea of some mysterious way that very high energies exist in the experiments. There is more than one way to skin a Coulomb barrier. "High Energy" is, more or less, busting down the door.What I've said is that if LENR can take place at low temperatures in metal hydrides, and it appears it can, it would not be terribly surprising if life figured out a way to make it happen. Whether or not this is possible depends on how LENR works, and we really don't know. But there is no sign of the high energies people think of. That, in fact, was one of the early and strong objections to LENR: no sign of the high energies thought necessary for fusion.
-
LENR almost certainly does not involve high currents. The more plausible theories involve unexpected low-excitation-energy fusion reactions. Takahashi's TSC theory involves BEC formation at the very low end of possible energies! Storms' hydrotons are not highly excited at all. It is largely hot fusion thinking that leads to an idea of some mysterious way that very high energies exist in the experiments. There is more than one way to skin a Coulomb barrier. "High Energy" is, more or less, busting down the door.What I've said is that if LENR can take place at low temperatures in metal hydrides, and it appears it can, it would not be terribly surprising if life figured out a way to make it happen. Whether or not this is possible depends on how LENR works, and we really don't know. But there is no sign of the high energies people think of. That, in fact, was one of the early and strong objections to LENR: no sign of the high energies thought necessary for fusion.
LENR involves accelerated nuclear decay through weak force amplification.
-
Another interesting experiment involving biological transmutation would be to feed chicken a diet high in potassium and free of calcium, and see if they still produce eggs. (Search "Kervan)
And whatever the result, you can still have a barbecue at the end.
-
Chickens are just a whole other layer of complexity
-
The reasons I am profoundly skeptical of Kervan's chickens and eggs are 1. that mica can be a calcium compound (margarite) and 2. I can find no mention of characterisation of the chooks' water supply. Groundwaters commonly contain calcium salts. Therefore there are at least 2 possible sources of calcium that were not accounted for or eliminated in that work
-
Plenty of calcium stored in the hens bones as well.
-
The calcium-free milk and cheeses of Brittany are of world renown.
