me356: Photos of AURA control unit

  • Kia Ora (thanks, bravo) Axil.


    There's a lot to chew on there.


    So what do you think is happening with Mizuno , do you think he has a special.discharge into the deuterium/nickel

    to get a special magnetic shape?

  • The key to LENR fuel preparation is to get a transition metal to confine hydogen with enough force to produce metallic hydrogen. Mizuno, and Francesco Celani, are doing fuel preparation online. Pd/D loading, Rossi, me356 and ECCO (uses metalized water) produce their fuel off line in a separate fuel preparation process in which hydrogen is highly compressed by the chemical bonds of the transition metal and stored in the metal lattice until the metallic hydrogen is released during an online operation at a latter time. The grass like emergence of metallic hydogen as seen in me356 micrographs show how the metallic hydrogen liberates itself from the pits in the metal lattice.


    I beleive that Mizuno and Francesco Celani do not use the high voltage EMF activation field. This is why they both see only limited COP under 2.

  • Something for thinking... :)


    t1 - traces on the adhesive carbon tape

    t2 - trace that extends out of the adhesive tape to the aluminium sample holder

    t3 - trace on the aluminium

    t4 - closeup of the trace with a particle formation

    t5 - metal particle shot by a nano wire (from adhesive tape)

    t6 - same as t5

    t7 - same as t6

    t8 - picture taken few days later for comparison (see picture from previous page), visible half-life of a fractal particles and formation of a new while sample is untouched.

    t9 - closeup of t8

    t10 - new particle formation after few days out of reactor

  • me356

    Do you have any idea what the paths, fractals and nanowires actually are?

    The fractals look like something crystallizing from a solution. Was the sample wet and the crystallization from drying?

    The nanowires are very smooth, do they have exceptional strength?

    Very interesting pix.

  • JDM,


    In me356's interview last month with Frank Acland on ECW, he also attached some simliar SEM pics. In the comment's section, 356 answered a few questions about them:


    "I have had no time to study this phenomenon but it is occuring always with the samples that contain certain type of particles and were very active in terms of LENR. Usually some transmutations occured there. Particularly this fuel was slightly radioactive after treatment."


    "Yes, the tracks increase with time and development can be seen also in the SEM for some period of time. These are occuring also in the reactor itself.

    More interestingly, there are observable long nano wires across the fuel that are connecting the particles. But some are connected also with the adhesive tape - actually you can see two shorter on the last picture. The adhesive tape is normally looking homogeneously not with a splashes. I can share much more very interesting phenomenons including UDH."


    "the background is carbon adhesive tape that is commonly used for SEM.

    In the Full BSD electron topology one can see elemental composition of the sample. Higher atomic number, the brighter the color is.

    Yes, the shiny particles are metal hydrides. The tracks are made of a various elements. The starting element is usually of lower atomic number, while at the end it is higher"

  • Yes, maybe MFMP could get to attend a test.


    "ECW: Do you plan to invite MFMP to test your reactors in the future?


    me356: Any group can arrive to test, but only once it is ready. To prevent any possible failure and weak points a proper communication and strict terms must be held."


    Hmm...sounds familiar.

  • On some of the pictures above, there are lightly stained regions on some of those pictures:


    T1: a straight channel with the edges lighter than the center.


    T2: the straight channel changes shade on the edges from light to dark.


    On T2,when the stain crosses over from the carbon to the metal. the stain changes shading to darker, a sort of photo negative effect, that is, a lighter element in contrast to the metal it is overtopping. This indicates that the stain is a flow rather than a transmutation product that occurs on the substrate that the stain overlays. But the edge of the carbon tape shows no indication of flow. It is as if carbon has been moved to the aluminum metal as in a liquid but the carbon edge shows that no flow is occurring. The "flow" stops just before the end of the carbon tape with a very small stain free zone before the edge, then the stain starts up again in the aluminum just at the bottom of the carbon tape. Very strange indeed.


    T8: A more complex pattern of shading.


    T9: a very complex pattern of mottling has developed.


    T10: Another complex mottling pattern but differing from T9.


    The SEM analysis is based on this:


    "the background is carbon adhesive tape that is commonly used for SEM.

    In the Full BSD electron topology one can see elemental composition of the sample. Higher atomic number, the brighter the color is.


    The darkest shading is carbon or a carbon isotope that is slightly heavier than C12.


    The whiter or brighter shading is from a transmutation product that is another element that is a bit heavier than carbon.


    The slightly brighter shading on the pure carbon background may be a carbon isotope shift to C12 to C13

    or higher. Nitrogen compounds formation may be the next step in shade lightening.


    On the mottling where dark regions reappear might be due to the evaporation of a heavier gas transmutation product from the surface of the carbon.


    MFMP has access to a SEM that can analyze these elemental transmutations as seen in their videos.

  • "ECW: Do you plan to invite MFMP to test your reactors in the future?


    me356: Any group can arrive to test, but only once it is ready. To prevent any possible failure and weak points a proper communication and strict terms must be held."


    Hmm...sounds familiar.

    First post, been following the whole shtick since the near beginning. I spoke with MFMP a while back and they confirmed that they are open to testing me356's device whenever he gives the go ahead. So, it seems that either me356 isn't quite ready or needs more time at refining the control ability of his device.


    Can someone closer to me356 ask when he would be willing to conduct another test under better conditions? I can't emphasize enough how important this technology is and me356 seems to be the linchpin at launching his progress and work on the field to the world. I look forward to heating my home in the winter with his device as soon as it hits the market.


    Best regards and thanks to all that are rooting for me356 and his efforts.

  • thanks to all that are rooting for me356 and his efforts.


    Sure, I am rooting for 356, but then again I do not want to be taken for another ride. If you read his comments, MFMP is not invited back until his reactor is ready for commercial market. That is unacceptable to me, and very suspicious. Obviously 356 wants to be taken seriously, but I will not take him seriously unless he allows MFMP back in for another test. And it has to be soon.


    By his words, 356 says his rector is working fabulously again -as it was before the failed MFMP visit, so he has a chance to redeem himself. The only way to do that is to call MFMP right now, and arrange another test.


    Welcome BTW.

  • Thank you for the comments.


    Regarding previous test with MFMP I have explained the situation quite precisely on the forum. But it is uneasy for everybody to find it.

    I have agreed to make the test as occured situation allowed just two options:

    a) do the test in very experimental and unverified conditions.

    b) waste all the money for the trips that MFMP already spent (everything booked).

    MFMP were well aware about serious problems that were not possible to fix in given time right before they flew from the USA and that there was basically 50:50 chance it will work and in any way the result will be not on par with achieved performance.

    There was no other sufficient option. In conditions given by me I would not agree with the test as my vision of how it should look like was very different.


    The time that I revealed to MFMP as good for testing (when I am really ready) months before the last test happened still did not come.


    In very simplified words - the last test happened because it was good timing for MFMP, sadly very bad for me, but I had nothing to loose.


    Although MFMP was very well prepared, I was not prepared. Yes, it would be possible to use other reactors but with extremely good chance to reveal proprietary stuff.


    Let's suppose the test was positive or will be in the future. What will actually change? For us, we will get higher confidence from customers.

    But for you? You will get higher confidence in LENR. But that is all.

    Our aim is to bring LENR for people but unfortunately independent testing even with extremely positive results will not change anything about it. Would you like to see a nice plots or rather make some heat in your house? I wish for both.


    For us testing unfinished reactor or product is not good idea just because it may not perform as good as it really will. Doing tests repeatedly in unprepared condition is in my opinion wasting of time. Since the final testing will tell the absolute values that can be achieved for production models, in reality and for everybody.


    If you study LENR you will know already very well that it is so real as stars in the sky. All companies that have capabilities to develop their devices are already doing this.

  • Shane D. doing the test as soon as possible will make a sense just in case we will need money from investors. This is not the case. Otherwise there were many tests or Rossi-like demos already.


    I hope that those that are investigating LENR field could add something valuable. Talking about disbelief is pointless. In that case please do not join in the discussion.

  • Eric Walker Negative or poor result is also beneficial.

    If competition thinks we have nothing, it could be reason for them to slow down, respectively to not be in hurry.

    If you are working in business with strong competition you know how the things are going.

    This is clearly advantage for us.


    Yes, I can reveal that it took two months for me to return testing room to the previous condition - so quite big delay.


    But with both positive or negative result it is beneficial for us in some sense.