MFMP: Automated experiment with Ni-LiAlH

  • Any new updates or information to share on your testing?


    Very interesting stuff and I miss the reality of your venture versus the Rossi farce.


    Hopefully all is proceeding well?

    Thanks.

  • Bob , I have taken a short hiatus to complete a solar project. Even still, I am working with other researchers on their LENR projects. One of the other researchers asked for suggestion for next fuel to try and I suggested an additive that I have bought and plan to try: LiFePO4. The elements of this compound were found in Rossi's ash during the Swedish analyses. He tried it with Ni and LiAlH4. At high temperature it showed 26W of possible XH at about 1200°C. So, I may move this fuel additive up in my schedule. While he tested it at high temperature, it was believed to be a component of Rossi's low temperature eCat fuel, so experiments with cycling from 200°C to 450°C are also going to be tried.


    My experiments will resume in August, in the same manner as before.

  • Bob , I have taken a short hiatus to complete a solar project. Even still, I am working with other researchers on their LENR projects. One of the other researchers asked for suggestion for next fuel to try and I suggested an additive that I have bought and plan to try: LiFePO4. The elements of this compound were found in Rossi's ash during the Swedish analyses. He tried it with Ni and LiAlH4. At high temperature it showed 26W of possible XH at about 1200°C. So, I may move this fuel additive up in my schedule. While he tested it at high temperature, it was believed to be a component of Rossi's low temperature eCat fuel, so experiments with cycling from 200°C to 450°C are also going to be tried.


    My experiments will resume in August, in the same manner as before.

    Thank you for the update and again, thanks for your work and openness.


    I state the following, (realizing it is none of my business) with only the intention of understanding your thought process and perhaps "instinct".

    I personally would not consider anything Rossi has put out as worth the paper it is written on. He has been proven fraudulent and completely deceptive. None of his claims have been verified to any degree of confidence and all have had quite likely explanations other than LENR. Actual fraud and lies have been amply proven with him.


    With that in mind, why would one continue down the path of Rossi's leading? I would look towards true and honest scientists such as Cravens or Piantelli for clues and direction. While they may not be as open, what little they provide is surely a thousand times more likely truth than Rossi's continual deceptions. I am truly and not simply "anti-Rossi", but "pro-LENR". I want it to become a proven entity, but I sincerely do not think Rossi is the path to it. This is why many people think Rossi has been so damaging. By his flamboyant claims which turn out to be lies, lead to some pursuing his leading which most likely is a dead end.... his claims based upon nothing of substance.


    Please understand that I applaud your efforts and support them in general. But I personally would look towards Cravens, PIantelli or possibly some of the Japanese works for guidance. I would not pay any attention to Rossi as what he has proved, is that he is nothing but fraudulent.


    Just my opinion however and since I am not doing the work, I do not find fault as well.


    Thanks again! :thumbup:

  • With that in mind, why would one continue down the path of Rossi's leading?

    I have never met Rossi. From the proceedings we see, he certainly appears to be a scoundrel. Yet, on the other hand, his work with Focardi seems to this day to have been genuine. I trust Focardi to the extent that he could have known what Rossi was doing and for the measurements he made of Rossi's device. Focardi measured gamma and saw the excess heat. So there may have been something there in Rossi's eCat days when he was working with Focardi. The ash delivered to and analyzed by the Swedes are from this more probably true time period. Because of my faith in Focardi, I consider that there is a greater probability that there may be some value that can be extracted from the composition analysis of the ash of that period. It was Rossi's work with Focardi that got me re-interested in LENR.


    I follow the work of Cravens, Piantelli, and other LENR researchers. I consider that these people are the "real deal". So, what I plan is tempered with what they are doing as well.