Why are you so eager to demonstrate, that any LENR device doesn't work? This is what intrigues me.
I don't think that is what Jed is doing. I think Jed is passionate about LENR and wants to see me356 follow up using MFMP's equipment and test protocols. I see no harm in this, and only upside, whether me356's reactor works or not. The more information available to the world in general, the better.
Display MoreHello, long time no seen!
Decided to look at a random video recording:
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
At time 0:16 Bob says: "So, some strong fields in here".
And what does the display say? About 35 microteslas.
Well that is pretty much a normal value for the earth magnetic field.
Yes, the idea that these tiny magnetic fields should have any significant affect on anything, let alone reactions close to a nucleus where energies (and electric and magnetic fields) are so much higher, is weird.
There are theoretical ways round the 6 OOM or so difference between nuclear and electronic energy scales. But it is an important fact that must be addressed, so getting the scale of fields wrong is a bad idea.
QuoteMost of the samples are wire, though there is some powder. We do not have a description of what each sample started out as, however, they are marked with things like "Ni" and "W H+" so there are good clues there. In reality, the data should give support to the notion that "Ni" might be referring to nickel and "W" to tungsten.
OK, at least some progress and info. It's also evident, that the reactor operates at very high temperatures, which would also explain its radioactivity (at high temperatures the neutrons were observed even during ECat runaways). H+ would indicate the bombardment with hydrogen ions, so that the reactor may work sorta like hydrogen filled light bulb with directly heated tungsten cathode in form of spiral. At the case of Ni+Li+H the traces of corrosion of Ni with molten lithium are apparent, the samples were apparently washed with HOH i.e. water.
me356's reactor did not work when MFMP visited him in Czechoslovakia, but does now according to Acland's interview with him. Parkomov's reactor also did not work when MFMP visited Moscow, but started working after they left. At least both allowed testing, while Suhas did not,because his feelings were hurt...poor baby. 
Crazy field this LENR+!
Now me356 is on to commercialization. Wow. And by the sounds of it, MFMP will not be allowed to test again until it is ready for market....if then. Tell you what 356; if you really had something that worked, and wanted to commercialize, MFMP is your best friend. They work for free, are respected, have a wide audience, and if they sign off on your technology the investors will come a running.
Had you said instead that you were eager for their return, so that you could redeem yourself and your reactor, and use their endorsement to help you on your way to market...then I might perhaps think there was a chance that you may be onto something. As it is; all I can say is that I have been down this road before, and not going there again.
Someone wake me up if he ever proves something.
Shane D. thanks for the notice to the interview. I'm visiting ECW only once a week at the moment.
Just for completeness here the interview by Frank Acland:
me356 had his shot. There has been no reason to believe he has anything that works, and the MFMP test verified that. I'm not sure there's anyone left with a reasonable probability of having working LENR technology.
Hokkaido has strong eagles
me356's reactor did not work when MFMP visited him in Czechoslovakia, but does now according to Acland's interview with him.
I hate to pick nits here but it is Czechia now. Slovakia lost the love for the czech part, they got seperated and now live their own lifes both
Maybe of interest: In the ECW comment section me356 just wrote that 2 years ago he shared informations of his first excess heat generating reactor with MFMP.
Bob Greenyer replied to that with a link where a full description and possible signs of excess heat are documented:
http://www.quantumheat.org/ind…elani-rossi-mash-up-me356
me356 and Bob Greenyer claim that no one else has ever tried to exactly replicate this approach.
Looks like everything me356 did since then "only" was studying, optimization and exploition of the effects seen in this experiment? 
Has MFMP tried to replicate it? if not, why should have others?
EDIT: to clarify, I just find odd that me356 is lamenting that nobody has attempted this while BG acknowledges the same. MFMP is the group with "direct access" to the inventor. It would have been in me356's best interest to work with them so that they independently replicated the experiment, if it successfully worked.
Has MFMP tried to replicate it? if not, why should have others?
For the record, at the time of the me356 Ni wire test, we were deep into the Glowstick project. I had just finished the GS4.1 run and was preparing for GS4.2. I did in fact get a spool of the fine Ni wire used by me356, but after discussion we decided to continue using the materials of 4.1 for consistency. I found the results of me356's demo encouraging, in that he appeared to have successfully adopted the Glowstick physical structure using Swagelok fittings on Alumina tubing, and had shown a small excess heat with the same basic fuel ingredients I was using.
For GS4.2 I did add some Ni foil (rather than wire), following the thought that bulk Ni as used by me356 might behave differently than the fine powder. One other difference should be noted though: the Glowstick used external heat rather than directly heating the Ni wire and this could be an important factor. Unfortunately, details of the heating waveform used by me356 were never disclosed AFAIK, making true replication impossible.
As you should recall, the next series of Glowstick tests (GS5) produced evidence of possible excess heat of similar magnitude to the me356 Ni wire reactor. However, I considered the data in both experiments to be too close to the error margins to be convincing. The evidence of brehmstrallung radiation was more significant, and proved to us the value of comprehensive instrumentation in these experiments. This was made possible by the generous support of several people at this forum, and on behalf or MFMP, I thank you for your help and trust.
I still have the spool of Ni wire, and could easily replicate the test using Glowstick components, if the missing details such as heating power waveform and pressure profile could be made available.
AlanG
I did try to replicate the me356 Ni200 coil reactor back in June of 2016. I was never able to observe excess heat with my replication. Like magicsound said, the heating power waveform and pressure profile were not available so I tried several variations with no success. Also, I used bottled Hydrogen so I could control the pressure profile instead of the LiAlH4 me356 used. So not an exact replication, but very close.
A word of caution to anyone trying to replicate this type of reactor. If the reactor external temperature is used to estimate excess heat (as I believe was done for the MFMP/me356 test) the measurement leads to the incorrect assumption of excess. The high thermal conductivity of Hydrogen (~7X air) leads to much better coupling of the hot Ni200 wire to the alumina tube than air, so the external temperature of the alumina reactor tube will be higher when filled with hydrogen vs air. Thus, calibration cannot be done with the tube filled with air and then compared with the tube filled with Hydrogen. This would be true with any reactor that uses internal heating. I placed the reactor tube inside a conduction calorimeter for my testing and never saw any signs of excess heat.
I did try to replicate the me356 Ni200 coil reactor back in June of 2016. I was never able to observe excess heat with my replication. Like magicsound said, the heating power waveform and pressure profile were not available so I tried several variations with no success. Also, I used bottled Hydrogen so I could control the pressure profile instead of the LiAlH4 me356 used. So not an exact replication, but very close.
A word of caution to anyone trying to replicate this type of reactor. If the reactor external temperature is used to estimate excess heat (as I believe was done for the MFMP/me356 test) the measurement leads to the incorrect assumption of excess. The high thermal conductivity of Hydrogen (~7X air) leads to much better coupling of the hot Ni200 wire to the alumina tube than air, so the external temperature of the alumina reactor tube will be higher when filled with hydrogen vs air. Thus, calibration cannot be done with the tube filled with air and then compared with the tube filled with Hydrogen. This would be true with any reactor that uses internal heating. I placed the reactor tube inside a conduction calorimeter for my testing and never saw any signs of excess heat.
A CRITICAL factor to get LENR to work is the stimulus signal. In this short movie that me356 made, he shows what happens when the stimulant is applied.
This video from Me356 shows the application of the stimulus at 15 second point. The video seems to vibrate when the stimulus is applied, I speculate that the the use of the EMF based stimulus is the key to Me356's replication success and why your replication did not work. Rossi says that this stimulus is the application of a high voltage based electrostatic field.
As far as I've been made aware of in private communication from different persons (unrelated to each other), the LiAlH4 compound alone is responsible for the excess heat observed in certain experiments as long as a proper protocol is followed, which reportedly involves cyclically going through its decomposition steps in a certain sequence; unfortunately I don't have the equipment to test it as I did for the carbon arc experiment (which almost anybody could literally "try in their kitchen", although verifying it would be a different story).
If such triggering procedure truly exists, it should be possible to "self-calibrate" the experiment by first running it without following it through the temperature ranges of interest, and then in the same experiment following the protocol to trigger the excess heat. With this test, thermal conduction differences between air and hydrogen shouldn't pose an issue.
The way the protocol has been described to me (apparently just a matter of specific chemical-thermal cycles) implies that the way the experiment is setup shouldn't matter too much and a typical Glowstick-type device with an external heater should be fine too as some results might have suggested.
I'm pretty sure that other people who are in position of testing this in a suitable environment have been already told in private about the same findings, and likely with more details. Nobody seems to be reporting them properly, though (it should be able to work with LiAlH4 only - although I suspect the presence of transition metals is advantageous -, it shouldn't take "days" to run and it shouldn't require extreme temperatures).
Your mileage may vary.
However, I wasn't really referring to these details in my previous post here.
What I meant was simply that there has been plenty of time for me356 to collaborate with others (e.g. MFMP) to replicate an experiment that he thinks truly showed excess heat, if he felt that it's been unfairly overlooked.
You know him, know how to contact him, have already visited him in his premises; it doesn't have to be an insurmountable problem to just ask him for the missing details if they're needed.
See pictures in post about me356 interview.
Regarding my interpretation of the pictures:
The carbon adhesive tape of the sample holder for SEM is the black surface seen in the micrographs. The fuel is the microparticles of metal that the tape is supporting. There is an unseen LENR reaction agent that is too small to see in the micrographs. I beleive that this agent is metallic hydrogen since only hydrogen is present with the transition metal. But these agents might be metallic hydrogen nanoparticles. The crystalline like fractal patterns seen on the tape surface and on the metal microparticles are the LENR reaction trails produced by the metallic hydrogen as it converts matter into energy.
Very little heat is produced by the LENR reaction because the tape is not destroyed by the reaction. The energy from the reaction is stored in the structure of the metallic hydrogen as it moves along the surface of the tape and the metal.
The LENR reaction is minimal at this quiescent stage but it can continue for weeks at this low level. During this stage, the metallic hydrogen is self sustaining. When the fuel is activated by a high potential EMF field the LENR reaction produced by the metallic hydrogen increases exponentially. At his stage, the heat output is generated through an enhanced LENR reaction. A positive feedback mode is established as heat production increases the heat output. This is self sustain mode.
The metallic hydrogen when not activated produces a low intensity magnetic field that catalyzes the conversion of matter into energy. When the metallic hydrogen is activated, its magnetic potential increases greatly and the energy produced is substantial.
When the activation signal is removed, the metallic hydrogen returns to low level activity and has a long shelf life. High intensity LENR heat production can begin when the activation signal is reapplied.
According to Rossi, the activation signal is a electrostatic field between 50 and 100 kilovolts.
In the two grass like micrographs sprouting out of the metal substrate, IMHO, me356 shows the metallic hydrogen nanowire in electron micrographs emerging out of the crack in the transition metal substrate. The metal substrate is raised and busted up by the pressure involved in the production of metallic hydrogen.
Metallic hydrogen is produced by high pressure processes such as formation in nano-pits and cracks as per high palladium loading or cavitation bubble formation as metallic water. but once formed, the metallic hydrogen/water(as in ECCO) is self sustaining and act like free ranging particles.
I beleive that this low level metallic water reaction is what eventually distroys the plastic bottle holding ECCO fuel through a slow low intensity erosion process. The metal substrate becomes the storage mechanism that transports the metallic hydrogen into the LENR reactor for activation by the EMF signal.
http://restframe.com/downloads/tachyon_monopoles.pdf
In the above reference, Keith Fredericks has shown how the tracks form on the carbon adhesive tape of the sample holder for SEM as seen in the me356 micrographs. The tracks are produced by a tumbling monopole particle as explained in the reference. see figure 13 of the reference and others going forward.
The metallic hydrogen acts like a analog tachyon monopole particle since the wave function of the metallic hydrogen is vortex like.
It is my belief that there are certain micro particles that can produce hugely strong magnetic effects at the nanoscale. This magnetic flux lines produce the instantons inside protons that elicit the effect on quarks as detected in the referenced article. One of these micro-particle types is metallic hydrogen which is almost always produced inside large planets and stars. In order for instantons to form inside the proton, the magnetic flux lines that catalyze this effect must come from a very powerful magnetic source and be unbalanced or anisotropic (vortex like).
Metallic hydrogen is a good candidate as the source of such strong anisotropic magnetic field lines because of its vortex like wave function and it inherent tendency for coherence.
From
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…cle/pii/S0375960110004949
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract
An attempt is made to explain the recently reported occurrence of 14 MeV neutron induced nuclear reactions in deuterium metal hydrides as the manifestation of a slightly radioactive ultra-dense form of deuterium, with a density of 130,000 g/cm3 observed by a Swedish research group through the collapse of deuterium Rydberg matter. In accordance with this observation it is proposed that a large number of deuterons form a “linear-atom” supermolecule. By the Madelung transformation of the Schrödinger equation, the linear deuterium supermolecule can be described by a quantized line vortex. A vortex lattice made up of many such supermolecules is possible only with deuterium, because deuterons are bosons, and the same is true for the electrons, which by the electron–phonon interaction in a vortex lattice form Cooper pairs. It is conjectured that the latent heat released by the collapse into the ultra-dense state has been misinterpreted as cold fusion. Hot fusion though, is here possible through the fast ignition of a thermonuclear detonation wave from a hot spot made with a 1 kJ 10 petawatt laser in a thin slice of the ultra-dense deuterium.
————————————-
Holmlid has found experimentally that he sees the same results with protium as he sees with deuterium so protium based metallic hydrogen can be superconductive, coherent, and entangled also. This Bose condensate nature of the metalize hydride microparticle is essential to the super-radiance required to step up the power of the magnetic field projected by the micro-particle.
As per me356, extreme purity of the hydrogen isotope is required for the formation of the LENR active nature of the fuel. This is reflective of the Bose condinsation nature of the metallic hydrogen. Only identical atoms will join the Bose condinsate.
It has been observed experimentally that these micro-particles exist is swarms and act in a coordinated way to project a combined coherent magnetic effect as an amplified sum of the entire aggregation of particles..
The fixation on fusion in the mind of many including Holmlid works against understanding the true source of energy generation in condensed matter systems. That true source is the magnetically induced decay of the nucleon.
Axil. "nucleon decay"
Free Neutron decay to proton gives 0.78 MEV
halflife = 10 min
Proton is stable?
Does. LENR rely on freeing the inner.neutron?
Display MoreAxil. "nucleon decay"
Free Neutron decay to proton gives 0.78 MEV
halflife = 10 min
Proton is stable?
Does. LENR rely on freeing the inner.neutron?
Unbalanced magnetic field lines produce the LENR reaction. It has been known for many years that the SMCO5 rare earth magnet produces the LENR reaction.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samarium%E2%80%93cobalt_magnet
SmCo is an anisotropic magnetic material. Anisotropic means that the magnetic field lines are concentrated in a preferred direction.
for details see
Calculation of magnetic anisotropy energy in SmCo5
http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0303368.pdf
The shape of the magnetic field seems to be the critical determinate to LENR activity. The straightness and the uni-polar character of the magnetic field lines seem to be determinate for LENR activity.
There are other types of micro and nano particles with the same magnetic anisotropic properties and once the atomic and photon spins and/or surface charge is magnetically energized, become LENR active. They share the hexagonal or trigonal crystal structure and through that structure project magnetism in a straight beam.
Other references where SmCo magnets play a part.
Dana Rotegard, Mark Hugo (Irish Holdings, Ltd., S. St.
Paul), "Excess Heat from Deuterated Rare Earth Magnet
SmCo5 Used in Low Budget Home Experiment," presented
in poster session at ICCF-5, Monaco, 9-13 April 1995.
http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/EPRIproceedingc.pdf
NEW PULSE GAS LOADING
COLD FUSION TECHNOLOGY
K. B. Chukanov
In the Craven's golden ball demo, See
The Dennis Cravens Golden Ball reaction
a SmCo5 powdered rare earth magnet produces enough magnetic field lines to produce the LENR reaction. In the Golden balls, that magnetic field strength is very low at about 1 watt. I just don't know how to characterize the LENR reaction in terms of fundamental force interaction: strong, weak, or combined.
The Standard model (SM) has predictions that have not been realized but are critical to the validity of the model and the big bang theory. Since matter in the universe exists, conservation of Byron number(B) and lepton number(L) must not have applies at some point in the evolution of the universe. If B and L were always conserved, then matter and antimatter would have canceled themselves out into energy thereby destroying all matter in the universe. But in the latest epoch of the universe, these two conservation laws seem to apply absolutely. The conclusion is that something is wrong with the SM and the universe in general.
There are two main interpretations for this disparity: either the universe began with a small preference for matter (total baryonic number of the universe different from zero), or the universe was originally perfectly symmetric, but somehow a set of phenomena contributed to a small imbalance in favour of matter over time. The second point of view is preferred, although there is no clear experimental evidence indicating either of them to be the correct one.
GUT Baryogenesis under Sakharov conditions
In 1967, Andrei Sakharov proposed a set of three necessary conditions that a baryon-generating interaction must satisfy to produce matter and antimatter at different rates. These conditions were inspired by the recent discoveries of the cosmic background radiation and CP-violation in the neutral kaon system. The three necessary "Sakharov conditions" are:
• Baryon number B violation.
• C-symmetry and CP-symmetry violation.
• Interactions out of thermal equilibrium.
Baryon number violation is obviously a necessary condition to produce an excess of baryons over anti-baryons. But C-symmetry violation is also needed so that the interactions which produce more baryons than anti-baryons will not be counterbalanced by interactions which produce more anti-baryons than baryons. CP-symmetry violation is similarly required because otherwise equal numbers of left-handed baryons and right-handed anti-baryons would be produced, as well as equal numbers of left-handed anti-baryons and right-handed baryons. Finally, the interactions must be out of thermal equilibrium, since otherwise CPT symmetry would assure compensation between processes increasing and decreasing the baryon number.
There is a condition where CPT symmetry can be violated so that B and L conservation is also violated. These are called the electroweak sphaleron anomaly at high energies and temperatures.
A sphaleron is similar to the midpoint of the instanton, so it is non-perturbative. An instanton is a tangling of force lines that resolve into a creation of a pseudoparticle. This means that under normal conditions sphalerons are unobservably rare. However, they would have been more common when unusual conditions appear in the forces that existed during matter formation in the early universe.
Such instantons have appeared in the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect where a magnetic field creates two fractionally charged pseudoparticles that bind to the electron.
To simply things, there are conditions where a magnetic field can get tangled up inside a proton or neutrons so that it decays into kaons.
The only way for Kaons to form is through proton decay and NOT fusion.
p→K+ν ( A proton decays into a kaon and a neutrino)
This article lists a number of the possible products of proton decay
physics.bu.edu/NEPPSR/TALKS-2009/Kearns_GUTs_ProtonDecay.pdf
Most of these decay produces are found in Holmlids results.
By the way, the particular meson that Rossi theory paper says produces his reaction results are found to be a decay product of the proton.
I produced a post to explain how this happens here.
