Posts by user1815

Axil,

Many thanks. After a Google search of the text it appears that these are the papers from where those excerpts originate:

1. http://iopscience.iop.org/arti….1088/0953-8984/16/39/034 (2004)
2. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef050172n (2005)

Axil,

Every time I keep coming back here your reply keeps growing and growing and at this point I do not even know from where to start. But I have one question: can you find some references for the usage of graphite by Holmlid in his iron-potassium oxide catalysts? I remember reading something along those lines in the past but I have not managed to find the exact source yet.

Axil,

I would suggest that is probably wise to keep very open the possibility that the work to be demonstrated at Aarhus is not of Holmlid et al ...

Quote from Eric Walker

[...] About replication: it may be that no replication is "needed" in some sense, but it will obviously be needed by any observers who wish to follow up on the result of the experiment if the outcome is a positive one. If this for some reason will not be possible, then we would have instead a magic show, and I think the experiment would be overall counterproductive. Since this will surely be pretty obvious to Bob Greenyer, I'm assuming there will be nothing preventing follow-up replications.

The only reason for replication to not be needed (although I would strongly reccomend that the experiment is replicated) that I can think of would be that the results are general to all working LENR experiments. Since it is about the claims of a certain respected party known to have published many papers and that the test would be about recent published work I suspect it may have to do with those of muon emission of Holmlid, published in 2015 with Sveinn Olafsson. They wrote that this emission could be inherent in LENR systems, or in other words that any working LENR device would show it if properly looked for. Since this effect can normally only be artificially reproduced in a high energy proton accelerator, if it can be demonstrated with a tabletop experiment at low or no input energy then it means that LENR exist without any doubt, and there would be no way to fake it, I believe.

Obviously I could be wrong or biased in my suggestion.

Quote from Abd ul-Rahman Lomax

[...] On the positive side, this would almost certainly be palpable heat. The more heat from a certain weight of sealed container, the faster it passes the possibilities of chemistry.

If "it will also work at room temperature" I am not too sure that it will be about heat.

Quote from Jack Cole

Sounds like either Miley or Holmlid.

I also thought of Holmlid, but then this would seem strange:

"the challenge is the apparatus has components that I suspect the originator would consider proprietary"

And the following would raise some questions. I do not recall reading anything from Greenyer-MFMP that could be related to this statement:

"[he is an] individual I have met a number of times over several years"

However I believe that Holmlid does not own the equipment and the apparati he built, rather his University does. So in this sense the components could be considered "proprietary" as stated in the first point.

Would Storms do this?

"He even immediately offered to come and lecture about the underlying experiment to Aarhus."

I think that contradicts with:

"The balls [of DJ Cravens] could be H2 D2 exchange - it is not that."
"[has] published work is already known to many. [The test] is the most recent work (also published)"
"[is a] party with many serious publications of high quality to stand behind and has been researching in this field nearly as long as Me356 has been alive"

I recall that the balls were not his most recent work at that time.

Since the discussion is buried in the comments in that E-Catworld thread here are the relevant comments for somewhat easier context reviewing:

Quote

Bob Greenyer
I have devised an absolutely fool proof experiment that will prove inside 2 weeks the reality of LENR indisputably and live and will not need a replication, post verification or any complicated debates to convince doubters. Moreover it will have implications across many scientific disciplines.
It first needs the cooperation of the key party, which I am in communication with - and of course, their claims need to be real.

georgehants
Bob this sounds very much like a demonstration of the first electric light bulbs, any resemblance.
http://energy.gov/articles/history-light-bulb

Bob Greenyer
No - it is much bigger than a single problem solution - as I say, it will have wide implications across many scientific fields.

georgehants
Thanks Bob, but I meant as you seem to be describing in your answer below, a demonstration that like a light bulb, it is self-evident in that one can see clearly and un-arguably that it either works or it does not.
Good luck, as that would be the Evidence that Cold Fusion needs to escape it's cage and roar into life.
Allowing for the keepers with their whips and rifles doing everything they can to put it back in the cage for their own gain.

Bob Greenyer
I get your point - and yes, it will be like a light bulb in that you can't deny that it works.

Steve Savage
Love what you are doing Bob, however this sounds a lot like some Stoern demos? They never seemed to go well.

Bob Greenyer
This is NOTHING like Stoern - really, not even close. During the experiment - people could come and check it if they cant accept the evidence of their own eyes and what they formerly believed to be "laws of physics" - it will be conclusive even without needing to see it, that is the real beauty.

It will also work at room temperature.

If the claimant is being economical with the truth then his lack of willingness to participate would speak volumes, but he is a respected individual I have met a number of times over several years and responded inside 12 hours to my initial request and after saying that it was an interesting proposition, he only talked about obvious practicalities and previous commitments. He even immediately offered to come and lecture about the underlying experiment to Aarhus.

The nature of the data cannot be a matter of opinion - the physics community will be apoplectic trying to explain it away - and they will not be able to - it will be SO MUCH FUN to watch them squirm. Moreover, the ash will confirm the live experiment for any that would dismiss it as smoke and mirrors (which would be stupid to give the nature of the data).

DrD
Very interesting, can't wait.
Sounds like it might be a "closed system"?

Bob Greenyer
Ideally it will be hermetically sealed and operate at room temperature.

DrD
Hi Bob,
Actually I was meaning "closed loop" as in output driving the input with no other input. That makes a very convincing proof if it can be achieved over a long enough time and easily shown there's no secret enegry source but not so easy in practice.
Just guessing

Bob Greenyer
let's just say it is cooperative.

Bob Greenyer
Actually, this is better than even a closed loop. In a closed loop - the criticism would be of the live feed, that the power monitoring is some how faked.

This experiment will have data that every physicist would consider impossible and therefore not possible to fake, and since it would be streamed beginning to end from a closed system - it could only be considered as real. If they still considered it fake, or smoke and mirrors they can be invited to apply their own monitoring to the untouched system - lastly, if they do not even believe their eyes, the ash which can be sampled in batches - will prove the live experiments data.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

David Brossa
hmm... almost sounds like DJ Cravens LENR spheres a bit. Think that had no input power and runs at room temperature more or less.
https://www.lenr-forum.com/old-forum-static/t-2403.html
https://plus.google.com/photos/100517292944598113317/albums/5896172801049146737/5896172796425182786?pid=5896172796425182786&oid=100517292944598113317

Bob Greenyer
The balls could be H2 D2 exchange - it is not that.

No - this is MUCH more convincing and visual - and convincing to the people that need to be convinced like physicists before this field will really hit main stream.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gerard McEk
Bob, you speak in riddles. How can you be sure it will 'prove indisputably the reality of LENR'? Have you done the test already secretly for yourself on the toilet?

Bob Greenyer (to Gerard McEk)
Hahah - the tests, according to the claimant and the published work is already known to many. It is the most recent work (also published) that if presented in the right way will be absolute categorical proof of LENR - it could not be seen any other way - even when looking at the live stream.

It is so elegant - I need to package all my thinking that supports the experiment but I am right now trying to prepare for ICCF-20 whilst at the same time helping Aarhus Uni break ground and also making a presentation about a very important publication we are going to test the claims of in the coming months.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bob
I applaud the confident attitude and intention! However... many (including many legitimate researchers and reviewers) will still require replication and verification. Replication is not a bad thing! The real break through is if your experiment is fool proof, then it can be replicated! This is what has been missing from LENR/CF and is the base cause of all the debate.

P&F were experts. They did have successful experiments and data. However, even they themselves could not replicate at will. If they had been able too, then we would be driving CF powered cars by now!

So again, I really am anxious for the next month and as always am very supportive of the MFMP's team and work. But I would encourage that plans for replication be not be too far removed or dismissed!

Bob Greenyer (to Bob)
Well the challenge is the apparatus has components that I suspect the originator would consider proprietary - but it does not matter, seriously, the data will speak for itself and could not in any other way be fabricated. It would do its job in 2 weeks but could run (according to the claimant) for 3, 6 ,9 months and doubters could bring their own equipment in to verify what the data says - and the data will say, LENR is real and it is a matter that affects a broad range of scientific disciplines.

Don't worry about our plans - they are iterative, focussed and progressive - as ever, dealing each challenge and question that arises.

But seriously, the experiment I will describe - if the claimant is representing his previous work accurately - will be a slam dunk - you will see.

The experiment would be a replication of the originators claims and so in itself be a replication. The data will not be a subject of opinion simply because of what the data tells you and their will be evidence in the ash if the claimants claims and previously published work is accurate.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ged
Dun dun duuuuun. I look forward to this and the key party. Hopefully they will play nice!

Bob Greenyer (to Ged)
It is a truely beautiful thing - I hope they play nice to - it will be the coolest experiment ever.

Jamie Sibley
Are you able to disclose who's work you will be replicating. I'm sure that information does not need to remain secret. If you are confident that the previous works of this researcher are the easiest to display proof of could fusion, disclosing the name would allow others to start planning their own replications of that persons work.

Bob Greenyer
I will when ready in the next two weeks. It will not remain secret, but I need to get everything together so that I don't have to answer a million and one individual questions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Timar
Is 'the key party' Me356?

Bob Greenyer
No - it is a party with many serious publications of high quality to stand behind and has been researching in this field nearly as long as Me356 has been alive

Timar
Piantelli.

Bob Greenyer
Nope and that is the last reply of this kind.

Display More

It appears that MFMP is planning some sort of stunt that will "will prove inside 2 weeks the reality of LENR indisputably and live". I have collected information from that thread. Can you guess whose claims will be tested?

The discussion was held in the comments on E-Cat World on 2016-09-19. Go there for context:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…nt-page-1/#comment-288798

What we know...

About the experiment:
"will not need a replication, post verification or any complicated debates to convince doubters"
"will also work at room temperature"
"the ash will confirm the live experiment"
"will be hermetically sealed and operate at room temperature"
"[will be] better than even a closed loop [experiment]"
"MUCH more convincing and visual [than a closed loop experiment]"
"the challenge is the apparatus has components that I suspect the originator would consider proprietary"
"The experiment would be a replication of the originators claims and so in itself be a replication"
"[there] will be evidence in the ash"
"The balls [of DJ Cravens] could be H2 D2 exchange - it is not that."

About the scientist:
"is a respected individual I have met a number of times over several years and responded inside 12 hours to my initial request and after saying that it was an interesting proposition"
"[has] published work is already known to many. [The test] is the most recent work (also published)"
"He even immediately offered to come and lecture about the underlying experiment to Aarhus."
"[is a] party with many serious publications of high quality to stand behind and has been researching in this field nearly as long as Me356 has been alive"
"[is not me356]"
"[is not Piantelli]"

I suspect that somebody is hijacking Google Translate with subtly erroneous translation suggestions.

"LENR или не LENR?" should be "LENR or not LENR?"

And who knows how many other subtle errors are there that may totally change the meaning of sentences.

David Fojt,

With some imagination a high temperature version (>> 1000°C) using the same principles cited in the Dufour report may be more similar to a hybrid between an incandescent light bulb and a sodium vapor lamp. I think I have already read a similar suggestion somewhere else (Cobraf?).

Quote from David Fojt

Perhaps, he is like "old fashion school" then so secret !!
Rossi also comes from petrochemical industry not Piantelli, is it important ?

I am not sure if that is so important, but Rossi must have had some familiarity with catalysts because of his involvement with Petroldragon and in later years biodiesel production.

You also have to consider that "E-Cat" was intended to be an abbrieviated form of "Energy catalyzer", nothing to do with cats. In Italian "catalyst" is "catalizzatore". "Catalyzer" is a Rossi-ism that was also present in his first international patent application (it is mentioned that the powder contains "catalyzers" => catalysts). This may be relevant or not.

Quote

In any case Dufour as Holmlid said that they "discoveries" aren't LENR.

I believe that Holmlid said that, but with Olafsson he also acknowledged that his findings could be inherent in cold fusion and LENR experiments (1) or explain certain aspects of LENR (2). Olafsson is also going to attend ICCF20 (3) so it is clear that he sees at least some correlations with LENR.

But in the end I agree that that the reaction may not actually be "cold fusion" aka LENR.

(1) http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…cle/pii/S0360319915016018
(2) http://tempid.altervista.org/SRI.pdf
(3) http://iccf20.net/contents/Program.html (3-Oct 15:40)

It is not unlikely that many compounds and elements can form under extreme conditions a metastable, crystalline state of matter that has metallic characteristics. Even in the case of Holmlid, what he calls Rydberg matter (which has exactly these characteristics) can be composed not only of hydrogen atoms, but also alkali atoms and small molecules.

However from what I have read so far from his works only hydrogen has been observed to further condense into a denser form ("ultra-dense") that can engage in spontaneous nuclear reactions and apparently also nuclear decay. Also, only this form was observed to be superconductive and superfluid. Axil, can you guess why? Do you think that Holmlid is wrong?

I found this transcript in the LENR-Forum archives, from what Storms says from minute 13:24 In an interview posted on Youtube. It should relate well with the previous two posts:

Quote

Hydrogen has a very limited possible electronic interaction, meaning there's only one electron involved with each nucleus. So, the number of energy states is very very limited and Hydrogen is one of the more well-known electron states. If I were going to form a particular structure that had the capability that I proposed the Hydroton has, I almost have to accept the same electron state that would be creating metallic Hydrogen. So there's a natural relationship between the two. On the one hand, people have proposed that metallic Hydrogen can initiate a nuclear reaction; I'm saying that I can create something that has the characteristics to do precisely that within cracks and so therefore, that it has the characteristics of metallic Hydrogen.

How is this in-topic with this thread? Well, Holmlid too reports that he creates something that has the characteristics of metallic hydrogen (which Axil appears to call metalized hydrides), so...

Quote from AlainCo

LENR seems to have links with Superconduction
One founder of HERA, Paolo Tripodi , have discovered Type II superconductions in PdDx x>0.9.
In DTRA/Spawar/Boss report link between SC and LENR is claimed.

Yes, dense clusters of hydrogen are expected and sometimes measured to be superconducting. Quite likely, this property stems from this new type of bonding hypothesized that should be more similar in nature to metallic hydrogen than simply compressed gaseous hydrogen.

In Pd-type materials (the ones suitable at least, since the loading ratio is not the only factor) this form of hydrogen should be formed in nanometric pores and lattice defects where hydrogen molecules can anomalously accumulate and their bonds squeezed to extreme levels. You may remember that in addition to Tripodi, George Miley also believes something similar.

So, here is the connection with the report above by Dufour about picochemical hydrogen. One of the authors is Jenny D. Vinko, who is also a founder of HERA with Tripodi, and also authored several papers with him (see here: http://www.heraphysics.it/pubblicazioni.htm) . So it is likely that they all must accept or at least considered the possibility that superconducting clusters of hydrogen are formed in the process.

You may also be interested to know that the ultradense hydrogen of Holmlid should also be a room temperature superconductor. You probably also recall that the last paper published by him in 2016 was authored with Bernhard Kotzias of the Airbus group (see http://scitation.aip.org/conte…dva/6/4/10.1063/1.4947276), which may also be loosely linked with the participation of Jean-François Geneste in this conference about superconductivity.

Quote from David Fojt

Jacques Dufour is retired from Shell as scientific director.
So he tries to explain LENR by his background ( the main trap !) then believes that LENR is just chemistry at picometer size..

Why "just"? Molecular bonds do not usually have single digit picometer distances, do they?

Also note that the recently discussed ultra-dense hydrogen of Leif Holmlid can be essentially defined as a new dense chemical species of hydrogen with a picometer sized bond distance (2.3 pm). Are they looking at the same thing?

What is interesting here is the explanation cited above. It is not actually nothing new, but it makes it clear that the reaction (= this new kind of molecular bonding that they hypothesize) can happen when hydrogen adsorbed (ad means on the surface) on transition metal surfaces is in an electron rich environment like for example that obtained with gaseous alkali metals. But this could potentially also happen with other methods and with other materials that inherently have a large surface area.

Do you remember what Piantelli does in his patents? He strongly suggests to do things for example like using an alkali "electron-donor material" in proximity (but not in contact with) to the hydrogen adsorbed on the transition metal surface or to ionize the hydrogen with various methods that lead to the formation of positive (ions) and negative charges (electrons). Can you catch the similarities?

Quote from gameover

Have you checked this short report?
http://www.iscmns.org/work11/17%20Dufour.pdf

Maybe this excerpt will get some more people interested:

Quote

[...] For the reaction to occur, electrons must be present in the reacting medium, where hydrogen is adsorbed on the metal (transition metals, like iron, adsorb hydrogen). Electrons are available when the vapor of an alkaline metal like sodium or lithium is present in the reacting medium and if the temperature is sufficiently high.

Quote from AlainCo

a conference on superconduction theories

Can you guess why this would be relevant in LENR?

Quote

J. Dufour : Synthesis of an Iron Pico-Hydride(Fe-pH). A permanent electric dipole of atomic size with high enthalpy of formation

Have you checked this short report?
http://www.iscmns.org/work11/17%20Dufour.pdf

Quote from redacted

sounds like this video

Yes this is of course totally possible.

But in this case this was not between GM counter of different manufacturers, rather between an older and a new model of the same detector that are supposed to have the same detection range. The older model which had a different material in the detection window seemed to work better. It was one of the detectors from GQ Electronics:

https://www.gqelectronicsllc.c…comersus_dynamicIndex.asp

If the experimenter believes he is seeing excess heat and radiations (with other detectors) it should not harm to try anyway.

Quote from Eric Walker

I was thinking of this question in terms of a mouse trap or a dam. Suppose Holmlid and Olafsson are seeing muons, released somehow through the action of laser light comprised of ~ 1 eV photons, mechanism unknown. Each one of those muons has a rest mass of ~ 105 MeV, and I recall reading offhand at one point, here or somewhere else, of a presumed velocity in the neighborhood of 20 MeV. Either (1) the muons must be created at the time of the laser impulse by the unknown mechanism by the energy input into the system, which is channeled into muon pair production, or pion production, or (2) the energy needed to create or release the muons will have been there already, primed and ready to go, and the laser light was somehow the small amount of weight that was needed to set off the mousetrap by providing the activation energy.

Their explanation is that the Nd:YAG laser is only one of a possible range of impulses that can initiate the process, implying that it is not strictly required and that it is not believed to be its source of energy. This muon production seems to start with the ejection of small fragments of what they believe is an "ultra-dense" hydrogen material (that they call H(0)) initially formed by flowing hydrogen through their Fe2O3:K porous catalyst. These fragments apparently decay with the emission of fast neutral particles that further decay into other particles, with the end product of the chain supposedly being muons. The ToF measurements seem to suggest that it may be a meson decay chain, at least to Holmlid.

When this ultra-dense hydrogen material is composed of deuterium, facile D-D fusion using the same impulses (laser here) is also reported, with an emission of radiations not consistent with the process (so, similar to what happens in many LENR experiments). H&O do not believe that fusion is directly caused by the temperature of the plasma formed by the laser impulses.

Quote

[...] That leaves the second option, that the muons were created or released by the crossing of some activation barrier, and the energy in the laser light was simply there to give the system the little nudge needed to set off the mousetrap. The implication would be that what normally requires an expenditure of 400+ MeV is in fact there waiting behind a dam which a 1 eV perturbation is able to break open, and the main remaining question is what power densities can be attained.

This is what Holmlid and Olafsson are implying, from what I understand.

Quote

If high power densities prove attainable, we have the possibility of a bomb or of a source of propulsion.

Holmlid wanted to use it as a replacement material for inertial confinement fusion not requiring further compression. Other uses may of course be possibile.
It seems that now they are also highlighting the potential for generating a significant muon flux, and that this may also be an effect inherently occurring in LENR / cold fusion processes that others may be inadvertently experiencing.

Quote

These are considerations that are on my mind in the context of LENR, where the energies involved are on their face closer to 15 MeV. I don’t think the LENR researchers will be very good at concentrating the energy they’re feeding into their apparatuses, and that leads me instead to look for potential energy in the general ballpark that is already primed and is held back by a relatively low activation barrier, whether that activation barrier is low already or is somehow lowered. The reason I find LENR more plausible than muon production is that we see that the potential energy is indeed already available in the processes of alpha and beta decay and spontaneous fission. We do not that I am aware of see a similar spontaneous process involving significant muon creation.

There are also the effects and implications of the formation of this ultra-dense hydrogen material, which is the basis for the reported muon emission.
However, since the theory is debatable and not exactly straightforward to understand, and that most of the studies have been with time of flight experiments that are hard to follow, I wanted to first estabilish that there is more than just an elaborate artifact by first focusing on the latest measurements with a scintillator - photomultiplier tube.