Bob is hanging in there with John.

My response to Robert Murray-Smith 2

and the tone of his "Cold Fusion is Real" video

Bob Greenyer Jun 18

Following my blog on my response to Robert Murray-Smith (RMS) on his Hutchison Effect commentary, Ken Pratt sent me a link where RMS makes a statement on the field of “Cold Fusion”. His video is linked below, as is my response to him, you will see I again offerred to live debate him on the field. Given that we see him make these two videos in a short period of time, one on Hutchison Effect and another on Cold Fusion, are we to assume that he considers these effects linked? Moreover, tell me who you think he thinks has the goods in the video below. When he is clearly so poorly educated in the field, what motivates him to single certain things out over other things? What is really going on here? Is it really all for a few 10,000s of views?

Hi Robert, to be fair, on this one, you have called out some questionable players in the field of LENR, however, you appear to be woefully understudied in the overall discipline and though I really like you and your presentation skills, this makes you look bad and opportunist. Again, I extend an invitation for a live debate about the field with you.

I recommend you read

1. "EV - A Tale of Discovery" 1986, Kenneth Radford Shoulders. FREE

2. "Steps to the Discovery of Electro-Nuclear Collapse", 2000, Dr. Takaaki Matsumoto. FREE

3. "Controlled Nucleosynthesis", 2007, Stanislav Adamenko et. al.

4. "Space. Earth. Human." 2009 in Russian (2019 second edition in English), Dr. Alexander Parkhomov

For the fastest way to kill yourself with intense "strange radiation" and normal radiation, research and replicate the simple cavitation experiment conducted by LeClair and his partner in late 2000s at US military labs. All elements in periodic table were synthesised in 1 hour from water, Aluminium in a PVC tube - including transuranic and many radio-nuclides. Other cavitation designs can kill you due to strange radiation flux in the same kind of time period according to the decade long study with rats and other life forms exposed to cavitators and exploding foils by Shishkin et. al. The same radiation type is being extensively studied by Moscow Nuclear Physics Institute - don't bother to look for this work on Wikipedia.

If you need links to the FREE books, reach out. I again re-iterate that I would like a live debate about the field with you.

Open in browser

My response to Robert Murray-Smith

and the tone of his "Hutchison Effect replication" video

Bob Greenyer Jun 17

Here is the video. Below is my comment on it and challenge to debate him on the subject.

His name is Hutchison, as you write in the description, not Hutchinson - I used to make the same mistake sometimes. Anyhow, I have met him and the first thing I asked was about the comically fake videos - he did not bat an eyelid, he just straight away [said], "sometimes a TV crew wanted to see something and pressed to come over in a few days, I said it would take weeks to get things working, but they wanted to come over in days, so, I put on a show"

That being said, I have had some samples from him analysed and in damaged areas, there are non-natural isotopes. I have respected you Robert for many years, but I don't want you to be on the wrong side of history on this.

I derived a fractal toroidal structure, in part, from studying his samples, that explained the x-rays of "plasmoid" strike marks in Bostick and Nardi's 1980 paper (they had been researching for the US DOE since 1948 for ways to make fusion). When I showed my findings to a group of senior Russian researchers on 31 April 2022, one, without comment, pointed me to a 1995 paper by Zhvirblis in "Chemistry of Life" referring to classified Soviet era energetics research - what they were researching was an exact technological equivalent in the form of a coil of coil of coil of coil - of the structure I had derived, from Hutchison sample. Then, I saw that the Zhvirblis paper referred to a 1993 paper in the Russian peer reviewed journal "Electricity" by Nevessky a senior physicist and mathematician at the Russian Academy of Science, he was tasked by Zhvirblis to see what, if anything, making a coil of the type he saw in 1988, would mean.

Turns out it would mean, from generalised Maxwell equations, that the Poynting vector would be closed in a loop - this would explain the observance in 1980s of an electromagnetic phantom that would persist for up to two days - something that has been seen since by Urutskoyev in 57Fe in early 2000s exploding Ti foil experiments and in the peer reviewed 2019 paper by Bogdanovich et. al. This also explained observations in other systems we had evaluated or in the field of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science.

On the 10th May 2022, a person following my investigations, sent me a paper from 2009 by a SLAC researcher called David Fryberger, in this 2009 paper, funded by the U

A DOE, he built on his previous DOE funded explanation of ball lightning from 1994, by realising that there must be possible, from generalised Maxwell equations, the ability to create "vacuum currents in the dirac sea" that are NOT dependant on ordinary matter. This supports the earlier work of the Soviet Energetics program, Zhvirblis/Nevessky and indeed, his papers explain many of the anomalous properties that Kenneth Radford Shoulders ascribed to, what he ultimately called, "Exotic Vacuum Objects" - which Ken said Ball Lightning are. Ken, who is the father of micro-electronics and inventor of the Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer, spent 33 years investigating Hutchison Effect.

In the 2009 paper, Fryberger states that the if the right level of clustering, energy and frequency is achieved in the clusters that are functionally equivalent to Ball Lightning, then the dyality angle of them is such that it disrupts ordinary matter nucleons reference with the local dirac sea, leading to the decay of nucleons. This is Coherent Matter Reactions.

We have imaged the toroids of toroids. We have produced in a range of systems the crenelated Fe + O microspheres also found in natural Ball Lightning impact. We have also videoed the process of Ball Lightning reaching coherence and consuming W, Ti, Ni and Cu. It does the consumption on the inner boundary layer and we have shared 8k SEM images of the interaction cut zone between Ball Lightning and a copper pipe, a 10 yen coin, a Steel Hutchison sample from 1986 and another steel Hutchison sample from 2007. They all shoe a regular 'scalloping' in the affected area and material disappearance.

Moreover, on our Ball Lightning cut Cu pipe, we see an orthogonal circular mesh of disrupted material in this fresh cut. It appears as if a mesh of toroidal structures have made the material disappear, this is consistent with John Hutchison, Ken Shoulders, Dr. Takaaki Matsumoto, David Hudson, Tadahiko Mizuno, Stanislav Adamenko, SAFIRE project and our own research. Fryberger offers one explanation, the Dyality process decays matter into light and leptons. We have observed both light and lepton emission in our research, strong light at below the blackbody temperature required to generate it and it is clear that John observed light emission from things that were not hot also.

I would like to offer a public zoom debate with you on John Hutchison's work and the immense international, multi-decade research that was, in part, spawned from it now that we are getting to a good understanding, both from a physical experimental and mathematical/electro-dynamic and physics principles point of view, how he made the samples we physically have possession of.

Like

John and his strings.

The containers - likely taken by the scrap guys at this point

sad

Dolphin Sea Containers,- President C L Hutchinson rip

Eminent domain us to oblivion.

Only meeting was with guys with gun telling yelling at us what we can and cant do with our lives-businesses

no mercy on us

oddly 250.000 people died a few days later, systemic 3/.2011 tsunami.

Quote from sam12

John and his strings.

External Content youtu.be

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

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.

This story remains strange but.. interesting.. I think we can't remove his integrity only by a single reverse hand.. this is the same as for Cold fusion.

H experiments should need independent trials as for all ..

Quote from Seatrout

Les conteneurs - probablement pris par les ferrailleurs à ce stade

triste

Dolphin Sea Containers,- Président CL Hutchinson rip

Eminent domaine nous fait oublier.

La seule rencontre était avec des gars avec une arme à feu qui nous disaient ce que nous pouvons et ne pouvons pas faire avec nos vies-entreprises

pas de pitié pour nous

bizarrement 250.000 personnes sont mortes quelques jours plus tard, tsunami systémique 3/.2011.

Display More

Hutchison Effect Replicated at York University A brittle ferromagnetic rod 0.8"" x 8" wounded by one layer of a wire with thick isolation to an inductance of 6.5 mH was subject of 30 kV discharge and it got curved by some 5 mm at the end. The spark point, which is visible from the picture is at 1.7"" from the end and almost at the center of the obtained curvature. The rod has internal whole with ID 0.5. and from the curved side it also got an ellipticity of 1mm.

Hutchison Effect on ferrite rod

Hutchinson effect can be still real, despite John's obvious fakes (deleted source). Unfortunately for most people from both camps is more comfortable just to twaddle about it than to do real experiments.

Did you think he really managed to lift objects during some of his experiments and without special effects, hidden tricks?

How do you think he got involved in this line of research, what was his initial expectations, thoughts ?

Quote from Zephir_AWT

Hutchison Effect Replicated at York University A brittle ferromagnetic rod 0.8"" x 8" wounded by one layer of a wire with thick isolation to an inductance of 6.5 mH was subject of 30 kV discharge and it got curved by some 5 mm at the end. The spark point, which is visible from the picture is at 1.7"" from the end and almost at the center of the obtained curvature. The rod has internal whole with ID 0.5. and from the curved side it also got an ellipticity of 1mm.

Hutchison Effect on ferrite rod

Hutchinson effect can be still real, despite John's obvious fakes (deleted source). Unfortunately for most people from both camps is more comfortable just to twaddle about it than to do real experiments.

Quote from Cydonia

This story remains strange but.. interesting.. I think we can't remove his integrity only by a single reverse hand.. this is the same as for Cold fusion.

H experiments should need independent trials as for all ..

Supporting admitted fraudsters/felons like Hutchinson/Rossi gives a severe black eye to LENR. You don't get a free pass after committing fraud.

LENR will just have to keep fighting.

Thank you for the information, i was unaware that Hutchinson was Rossi's American cousin, thanks again

Now fraudsters and inquisitors remain always a strong couple

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Supporting admitted fraudsters/felons like Hutchinson/Rossi gives a severe black eye to LENR. You don't get a free pass after committing fraud.

When a scientific researcher is accused of fraud it means all their previous research needs to be questioned, otherwise we cannot trust it.

Others will likely not trust or fund that researcher in any future research.

But, obviously, that does not invalidate the rest of the field. There are numerous cases of fraud reported in chemistry, physics, medicine etc and that does not invalidate the entire field.

When an fake inventor defrauds people out of millions of dollars that is called "investment". Generally there is not much that the "suckers" can do about it.

LENR has problems because it is trying to be a scientific endeavour but struggling because it is shunned by the mainstream.

It is also trying to be an area of investment with a severe need for funds but a potential for huge payoffs. As such it is a fertile area for fraudsters to operate within.

Fraudsters are bad news for attracting funding for LENR but in no way invalidate the genuine science produced by the genuine researchers in the field.

LENR Forum would serve the field better if it was more alive to sorting out the genuine researchers from the charlatans.

Unfortunately that is difficult to do when everything is so secretive and murky and everyone has their own favourites.

Additionally there is the risk of being sued for libel.

It is a pity there is not some kind of scale based on a number of green and red flags so that some kind of credibility score could be assigned to make thinks a bit more rational;

What are the scientific credentials of the researcher?

How long have they been in the field?

Do they have any evidence and has this been independently verified?

Who are they affiliated or teamed with?

Are they asking for money?

What are they promising?

Is their evidence a YouTube video with a flashy light?

I am sure some can think of further additions.

Obviously there is no way this forum could put itself in a position where it would be offering investment advice. That is not what I am suggesting and that is ultimately down to the investor.

But maybe there is a need to protect the field from giving exposure to charlatans.

On the other hand the forum does a very good job of encouraging amateur or semi-professional researchers who may be based in a garage or home lab.

I guess that their score would not be as high on scientific credentials but would not be low as long as they did not start to ask for millions of dollars.

Alternatively the score could ignore the financial element and just focus on the scientific credentials.

I predict nobody will be satisfied .

Well the MP way remains the usual one for any question

Quote from ZenoOfElea

When a scientific researcher is accused of fraud it means all their previous research needs to be questioned, otherwise we cannot trust it.

Others will likely not trust or fund that researcher in any future research.

But, obviously, that does not invalidate the rest of the field. There are numerous cases of fraud reported in chemistry, physics, medicine etc and that does not invalidate the entire field.

When an fake inventor defrauds people out of millions of dollars that is called "investment". Generally there is not much that the "suckers" can do about it.

LENR has problems because it is trying to be a scientific endeavour but struggling because it is shunned by the mainstream.

It is also trying to be an area of investment with a severe need for funds but a potential for huge payoffs. As such it is a fertile area for fraudsters to operate within.

Fraudsters are bad news for attracting funding for LENR but in no way invalidate the genuine science produced by the genuine researchers in the field.

LENR Forum would serve the field better if it was more alive to sorting out the genuine researchers from the charlatans.

Unfortunately that is difficult to do when everything is so secretive and murky and everyone has their own favourites.

Additionally there is the risk of being sued for libel.

It is a pity there is not some kind of scale based on a number of green and red flags so that some kind of credibility score could be assigned to make thinks a bit more rational;

What are the scientific credentials of the researcher?

How long have they been in the field?

Do they have any evidence and has this been independently verified?

Who are they affiliated or teamed with?

Are they asking for money?

What are they promising?

Is their evidence a YouTube video with a flashy light?

I am sure some can think of further additions.

Obviously there is no way this forum could put itself in a position where it would be offering investment advice. That is not what I am suggesting and that is ultimately down to the investor.

But maybe there is a need to protect the field from giving exposure to charlatans.

On the other hand the forum does a very good job of encouraging amateur or semi-professional researchers who may be based in a garage or home lab.

I guess that their score would not be as high on scientific credentials but would not be low as long as they did not start to ask for millions of dollars.

Alternatively the score could ignore the financial element and just focus on the scientific credentials.

I predict nobody will be satisfied .

Display More

Thinking a bit more ... probably best to ignore my suggestions above.

We have great mods who do a difficult job and this puts them is an even more difficult position.

Probably the best that can be done is to ensure that when frauds appear that they are highlighted so that everyone is aware.

Hi Cydonia, sorry what is "MP way"?

aaah sorry that means private message in french About the Forum we see the front face then more interesting things happens at back side

Quote from ZenoOfElea

Hi Cydonia, sorry what is "MP way"?

Quote from ZenoOfElea

Thinking a bit more ... probably best to ignore my suggestions above.

We have great mods who do a difficult job and this puts them is an even more difficult position.

Probably the best that can be done is to ensure that when frauds appear that they are highlighted so that everyone is aware.

We put them here Caveat Emptor (investors beware) - Page 23 - News - LENR Forum (lenr-forum.com) when they become very obvious. But for legal reasons they have to stink to high heaven before making it into that thread.

At one time we considered putting Rossi discussions there, but we decided his fans would make a fuss so backed off. He is his own special category. That may be the case for Hutchison also.

Thanks Shane - I have previously seen that thread.

It is a good idea because it balances between bringing "research" to light but also re-enforces that there is a risk that people have to think about.

Even MFMP, who actually go and visit promising research claims, have trouble picking out the fraudsters and the deluded from the real deal.

To be fair I have seen Alan Smith tackle "contributors" who it turned out were trolls.

Difficult to be both a forum that is as broad-church and welcoming as possible but at the same time trying to provide a serious focus on LENR.

Keep up the good work

Quote from ZenoOfElea

Difficult to be both a forum that is as broad-church and welcoming as possible but at the same time trying to provide a serious focus on LENR.

I think this sums up the challenges running LF quite well. We have tried various approaches, and seem to have settled into doing things exactly how you described it. Jack of all trades, and master of none is how I think of it. That seems to be working well.

Thanks for the kudos.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

Supporting admitted fraudsters/felons like Hutchinson/Rossi gives a severe black eye to LENR.

I have never heard of Hutchinson. Perhaps other people involved with cold fusion have, but they they have not talked about him. More to the point, his claims have nothing to do with cold fusion, so people looking for information on cold fusion will not find him.

I concur that supporting Rossi was a black eye.