• Member since Aug 11th 2016
  • Last Activity:


    I wonder if certain groups might already be preparing a "SHUTDOWN M. Nakamura" website just in case Nissan is about to publish overwhelmingly positive results. I don't put it past the cynics to try and bite off more than they can chew by falsely accusing Nissan of producing a flawed report. They may even try to say, "Nissan's report is so bad it is not even wrong." But once we can set off a string of replications so they start happening like dominoes, they will eventually have to concede the reality of the effect.

    The devil may be in the details.

    The big question is in what state Hydrogen is combined with Nickel:

    1. Atomic state Hydrogen
    2. Rydberg state Hydrogen
    3. Ultra dense state Hydrogen

    These different states may not have been known or thought of while doing experiments and publishing data.

    Well, we know one thing -- ordinary molecular hydrogen doesn't get absorbed into the nickel.

    My guess is that when atomic hydrogen penetrates the surface of the nickel and migrates through the lattice it can enter tiny nano-scale pockets, join with other hydrogen atoms, and be transformed into Rydberg state or ultra dense state hydrogen.

    Reading that abstract seems that they obtained positive results.

    It would be illogical to report negative result and then plan an automotive application.

    Not being expert in this technique I have searched the net to understand more about DSC and found that:…tial_scanning_calorimetry

    Seems an extremely good measuring system well tested over the years in a vast number of applications.

    So I think that their results are quite reliable.

    I hope that you are correct. The lack of them mentioning the discovery of excess heat in their abstract concerns me. The fact they are mentioning automotive applications does possibly indicate they detected some level of excess heat, but the abstract sure seems less than enthusiastic. My fear would be that they performed only a limited number of tests, barely tested out various fuel processing techniques, didn't incorporate a method of piggybacking an RF signal on the resistor to help dissociation/ionize the internal hydrogen, and will present a low COP the cynics might claim -- totally ridiculously -- a chemical effect rather than nuclear. With a modest amount of money and labor (especially for a wealthy company like Nissan) several simple methods could be used to optimize the fuel, enhance hydrogen absorption, and produce a much more powerful reaction.

    Maybe I'm just being overly concerned, but I want to see the TRUE potential of the Rossi Effect replicated for all to see. Like Songsheng demonstrated before apparently vanishing and going dark, the Rossi Effect is capable of self sustained operation. I would be thrilled if Nissan put very little specific information in the abstract because they want to surprise us with amazing results.

    The 17th Meeting of Japan CF-Research Society


    March 19-20, 2017

    Japan CF-Research Society

    National Institute of Technology, Tokyo College

    Expectations on the new heat-generation-reaction between metal and hydrogen

    M. Nakamura*, M. Uchimura, H. Takahashi, S. Sumitomo

    Nissan Motor Co., Ltd.

    *[email protected]

    The development of technologies friendly to the global environment is a major theme in the

    automotive industry today. Especially, to reduce CO2 emission and to achieve cleaner exhaust

    emissions, Electrical Vehicle, EV, has received a lot of attention in recent years. The sales numbers

    of 100%-EV was around 6 times higher for the past 5 years. 100%-EV means that it does not have

    any other power source except motors. Nissan launched it, named LEAF, in 2010 and the total

    number of sales exceeded 250,000. But some customers complains the mileage per 1 charge, around

    200km. In particular, the mileage in winter season could decrease by half due to using of heater, this

    should be solved.

    In 2010, A. Rossi reported E-cat, Energy Catalyzer. This equipment can generate heat energy

    from Ni and H2 reaction and the energy is larger than input one. This experiment was replicated by

    A Parkhomov but the reaction mechanism has NOT been clarified [1-2]. If we can use this heat

    energy as a heater application into EV, the problem of short mileage caused by using heater will be

    solved, the EV with this equipment will be a candidate for customers who have a sense of

    dissatisfaction that they should charge very often.

    In this report we will report 2 things. The first one is the experimental results regarding to

    reproducing Parkhomov’s experiment with some disclosing experimental conditions using

    Differential Scanning Calorimetry (STA-PT1600, Linseis Inc.). This DSC can measure generated

    heat within a tolerance of 2%. The second one is our expectation on this reaction for automotive


    [1] A.G. Parkhomov; International Journal of Unconventional Science issue 7(3), pp. 68-72, 2015

    [2] A.G. Parkhomov; International Journal of Unconventional Science issue 8(3), pp. 34-38, 2015

    It looks like there may be the results of another NiH test incoming soon (in this case Ni and LiAlH4 probably). From the abstract, I don't get an indication if they are going to publish positive or negative results.

    If they publish positive results, we must all instantly jump on the universally accepted bandwagon that the experimenters were incompetent brainwashed "believers" who have ignored the one hundred different ways they could have published a false result.

    If they publish negative results, we must all instantly celebrate by claiming another refutation of the idea that NiH could ever possibly work.

    And, of course, if it is negative but they only performed a few tests without significant research into fuel processing (not testing different ways of pre-treating the fuel such as baking, annealing, vacuum degassing, flushing with hydrogen, etc) we are to instantly ignore that fact. If NiH is possible, it should work every single time a researcher throws together the dirtiest most oxidized nickel and LiAlH4.……2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml

    In November 1998, the Piantelli-Focardi group published "Large Excess Heat
    Production in Ni-H Systems,"[14] again in Il Nuovo Cimento. The paper
    directly responds to the most significant criticism of the 1996 CERN paper.
    In the Piantelli-Focardi authors' introduction to their new paper, they
    state that they modified the cell they reported in 1994 [3] with "an
    improvement which allows the measurement and the monitoring of the external
    surface temperature."

    "With this new set-up," the Piantelli-Focardi group writes, "the external
    temperature increase, together with the internal one, have been utilized to
    characterize the excited state of the Ni sample. The existence of an
    exothermic effect, whose heat yield is well above that of any known
    chemical reaction, has been unambiguously confirmed by evaluating the
    thermal flux coming from the cells."

    Compared to the way it does in Pd, you are absolutely correct. I don't have the references to instantly post, but hydrogen does indeed absorb into Ni. However, it is a very slow process and the rate limiting step (all of this is not being made up fictitiously but is in the non-LENR scientific literature) is the dissociation of H2 to H1 on the nickel surface. Additionally, H1 that has been dissociated from H2 on the nickel surface has very little kinetic energy which also hinders penetration through the surface. A source of H1 in the atmosphere of the reactor can produce atomic hydrogen atoms and ions that can ping the surface of the nickel and penetrate the surface very easily even at low temperatures.

    I've been accused of making false comments about the early nickel hydrogen work of Focardi, Piantelli, and several other scientists. In particular, the whole concept of how abnormally large quantities or fast rates of hydrogen absorption into nickel can produce an "excited" state of fuel is said to be bunk that I've made up out of thin air.

    Here is a thread where the early excess heat, particle emissions, and other results of NiH is being debated between, ironically, someone I dare not mention his name, Jed Rothwell, and a number of other users. The researcher arguing in support of Focardi and Piantelli's work…

    One contributor in the discussion above even provided the following link which details how Focardi and Piantelli modified their experiment to refute the claims of another party that tried to claim their own test dismissed the NiH technology. Please note you have to scroll down a good ways on this page.…2008/NET29-8dd54geg.shtml

    A large number of links to papers can be found at those two links. More can be found in Jed Rothwell's online library.

    If someone is willing to do the research, they will see that I'm not making up fictitious imaginary concepts when I talk about thermal shocks, pressure shocks, excitation of fuel, nickel pre-processing, (annealing, vacuum degassing, heating in hydrogen, acid etching, etc), and levels of hydrogen absorption BEYOND WHAT MAINSTREAM PHYSICS EXPECTS that seems to result -- according to the authors of these papers -- a wide range of anomalous effects.

    If they are right or wrong (take my opinion of their results seeming solid and real with a grain of salt if you wish since I'm not an engineer/scientist) or somewhere in between, I didn't make up these concepts or "invent" them to spread disinformation. These were the basic concepts that Me356 described using (sometimes with slightly different terminology) to produce fuel that could "breathe" -- absorb or desorb high quantities of hydrogen -- and produce excess heat.

    If you take Piantelli and Focardi's results and extend them to a system that doesn't use bulk nickel wire or rods -- so more than perhaps only .1% of the mass of the nickel samples could participate in the reaction -- the so called Rossi Effect seems like an obvious result.

    So call Piantelli and Focardi and the other scientists who worked with them hoaxers or fakers or deluded individuals. But, for the record, I didn't make up stuff up out of thin air. You have access to the source papers that are available on various internet websites AND the descriptions from Me356 ON THIS VERY FORUM.

    But if you want to continue describing me as someone making up stuff out of thin air, feel free to do so. You're absolutely free to insult me in anyway you so desire: that's crystal clear to me now. With this post anyone who is honest and sincere can do a little research and see that all these concepts originated a long time ago, even if they are described using slightly different terminology today.

    I don't think he is hoaxing anything. Bob Greenyer has met him in person. Furthermore, he posted multiple pictures of at least a few of his reactors. If you follow his post history from the start to finish, you'll see a natural progression from trying to learn about these systems, producing mediocre results, learning more and utilizing that knowledge, getting better results, getting fantastic results, and then semi-freaking out due to realizing that he'd unlocked an amazing technology that had massive implications because it was both fundamentally simple (even if sometimes tricky), extremely powerful, and if pushed to the extreme potentially dangerous.

    We need to transfer from a world in which having letters at the end of your name means more than producing actual engineerable, repeatable results. In our day and age, except for the hands on usage of expensive lab equipment, individuals can study any science related topic from the comfort of their home: purchasing digital copies of text books, watching videos of lectures, digging for additional information via thousands of sources, and communicating with experts in the field anywhere on the globe. I'd give more credibility to a well studied, focused, and level headed garage tinkerer showing practical results than a know-it-all, holier than thou PhD any day of the week. It was only a couple decades ago that most PhD's boldly proclaimed that there was no water ice on Mars -- that 99.9% of it was simply carbon dioxide. Now we know there is an ABUNDANCE of water ice all over the planet and below the surface! In a similar manner, I remember arguing with teachers and watching PhDs claim that there were probably few exo-planets and if any existed they would all be gas giants and totally inhospitable to life. Guess what? Now, only a couple decades later, we've found THOUSANDS of exoplanets. In the TRAPPIST system we've found SEVEN orbiting ONE STAR, and they are all approximately Earth sized! Oh, and by the way, it looks like there is an Earth sized planet around PROXIMA CENTAURI as well. That's right -- the closest star to Earth other than our sun has at least one planet and the data indicated that there might be two!

    Naysaying and cynical PhDs are having their predictions fail repeatedly. Soon, they'll have to admit the truth about LENR and then the EM Drive. Then, before long, I'm pretty sure they'll have to admit the truth about complex extraterrestrial life. There could be all sorts of life forms swimming in the underground oceans of Europa and other moons in our solar system. And then, after that, they might just have to admit the truth about some of the very strange craft flying in our skies....

    LiAlH4 and LiH can be used to produce atomic hydrogen. However, the problem is that shortly after the H1 has been released during decomposition, the H1 reverts back to H2. This will happen even more rapidly at high pressures. So as soon as the LiH or LiAlH4 finishes decomposing, there will be virtually no H1 inside the reactor because virtually all of it will have formed H2 (molecular hydrogen). However, at least with LiH, cycling is possible in that by increasing and dropping the temperature you can repeatedly make LiH decompose and reform. This is yet another thing Me356 taught us. However, such a system suffers from the flaw of not having a constant source of atomic hydrogen. For the record, I think simple mixtures of LiAlH4 and nickel can produce copious excess heat (for example Songsheng's tests that allowed for hours of self sustained behavior) but the cycling process of forming and decomposing LiH is tricky at best and not always fully repeatable. This is why I think a frequency is piggy backed onto the main signal feeding the resistors. If the frequency is high enough and the pulses of voltage/current are powerful enough, molecular hydrogen might ionize into atomic hydrogen to bombard the nickel fuel.

    According to Dewey on this forum, there were major issues with the setup of the plant and other matters since the start of the year long test. He has went through these issues on more than one occasion. I can't help but wish IH -- seemingly knowing at least Rossi expected that he would be paid at the end of the test -- would have told him from the start (or at least in the first few months) something similar to, "This setup with the changes you have made is unacceptable and we want to specify we will not pay you for any results stemming from this system."

    If they had clarified that early on, it may have saved everyone a lot of time and effort. Regardless if the changes were TRULY unacceptable or not, if they were unacceptable to IH because they would make the results (to them at least) untrusthworthy, something should have been said.

    I'm not implying one way or the other if their apparent lack of such communication with Andrea Rossi should impact the case at all. I'm ONLY saying if they would have communicated such a message to Rossi and announced publicly their involvement in the case was over, it would have saved all of US on the OUTSIDE a lot of needless stress and speculation. And, just maybe, some other arrangement could have been negotiated.

    You need to read the account and quotes in the book "Secrets of the E-Cat." Focardi reveals that he was heavily involved in Rossi's early research. Remember, Rossi first brought him in to verify that the excess heat was real. They ended up testing many different systems together. If you look at the quotes in that book, you see how he explains the systems he tested could self sustain for hours and did indeed work. Now, at some point in his life as his health started to fail, I am guessing he didn't do as much hands on work. However, his confidence in what he witnessed was absolute.

    BTW The fast thyratrons did use both nickel electrodes, both hydrogen. Because hydrogen gets adsorbed with electrodes gradually, they were equipped with their own hydrogen reservoir from titanium hydride.

    For me it's just strange, that their radioactivity did remain unnoticed. The glass of thyratrons got blackened in similar way, like these used X-ray lamps (natural or artificial radiation reduces silicone from glass).

    Thyratronsmall.jpg kqmG12zm.jpg  D3BR15Wm.jpg

    Fascinating! I was actually reading articles about thyratrons the other night. Could you tell us more about how they grew radioactive?

    Also, if they used nickel, how well did that nickel perform as a thermionic emitter of electrons? I know nickel melts at a temperature that is far lower than Tungsten, so was the electron output comparable for pure nickel?

    First of all, I'm not talking about Men in Black necessarily. I'm talking about corporate interests.

    Secondly, no one in the MFMP including magicsound have witnessed a single highly significant result for the entire time they have been testing. Maybe a few stray blips here and there or a tiny touch of excess heat, but nothing close to what would attract attention.

    Thirdly, I don't think LENR is nearly as complicated as most people think. This is basically the message he tried to impart to us. Once he was able to get his fuel processing optimized his results vastly improved. I think once someone has the know how LENR is something that can be researched in a small garage lab. Now, I agree that eventually we want big and well staffed labs involved. We want LENR generators that can power spaceships that can take us across the solar system. But starting off while you are trying to figure out what to do with your "hot potato" working in your garage is perfectly acceptable.

    If you have not read through ALL of his posts on LENR Forums, I highly advise you to do so. Several times I skipped around only reading several from one time period or another. But when you read them from beginning to end you see a logical progression of how his understanding increased. It is how science is supposed to work, IMO.

    This makes no sense. If the old experiment is wrong, there is nothing to replicate. The effect has never been seen, and it probably does not exist.

    Skilled people at I.H. spent a year looking for it, and found nothing, so I doubt there is anything to be found. If it does not exist, it isn't important. Right?

    I suppose you might say "testing to see if the Rossi effect exists is important." But apart from Rossi's notoriety, I do not see why this particular claim is especially important. If I won the lottery, I would pay people to check 10 or 20 different claims. This one does not deserve a high priority. As I said, it was already checked by I.H. Assuming it does exist, what makes it more important than other claims? Lots of cold fusion effects might exist, and have been reported from time to time. Cold fusion with Ti and Au have been replicated. So I guess that makes them more promising than Rossi's unconfirmed nanoparticle Ni claim.

    It makes perfect sense. Even *if* (I'm not saying one way or the other) there was something wrong with the Lugano test, it doesn't negate the reality of the overall Rossi Effect. As Darden said in that email that was published on the docket, there are multiple fuel mixtures. There are also many different designs of reactors that have been tested over the years. Cures explained on Cobraf how they utilized different ratios of ingredients and different methods of electromagnetic stimulation. There are many reasons why a single reactor could have a hypothetical "issue" of some kind without the overall technology being non-existent. So instead of trudging up debate over an old test, I think it is much more productive for new totally independent tests to be conducted: with no fuel element received from Rossi or IH.

    Also, if you think there is no effect whatsoever, then I guess you are also saying that Piantelli and Focardi (along with the other researchers that worked with them) were also deluded into thinking they were seeing a real effect with NiH when in reality there was nothing at all to see. Going back and reading the papers about their early NiH work, it sure seems (at least to a laymen and non-engineer) that simply increasing the surface area of their fuel so more than a miniscule portion could have a chance of becoming active could have boosted their output dramatically. To be honest, the general theme of what Andrea Rossi has done looks like an evolution of their work. In my mind, if he has NOTHING, then that would logically mean they had NOTHING too. I do not accept this idea.

    Personally, I think NEW tests by a party outside of the current conflict between Andrea and IH would tell us much more about this effect than re-hashing Lugano forever.

    The discussion of anomalous hydrogen absorption and the relationship between hydrogen absorption (including the rate of absorption/desorption) is discussed in the various papers detailing the work of Focardi and Piantelli on the early NiH systems. They are available on the internet for anyone who wants to search. To try and answer one of your questions, starting at a gas pressure of H2 at below 1 bar, a drop of a couple hundred bars (this varied from test to test) produced the "excited state" in which excess heat started being produced and continued being produced, sometimes for weeks or months.

    Please quote me where I said I had "long experience" working on LENR systems. Please, do so. I'm asking again, please show me these quotes. Nope, you can't! The truth is that I've repeatedly referenced Focardi/Piantelli's work, Me356's work, and other work that has been done. Not my own. Never once have I claimed to ever work on an LENR system myself. But the papers about these systems (the work by Focardi/Piantelli will fascinate you) and Me356's explanations make sense if you carefully take the time to read through his posts.

    I think lots of different proposals are worth taking seriously. The problem is that we don't have enough individuals or teams working on the most basic setups that have been documented for twenty years now. Interestingly, review Focardi/Piantelli's work is how Me356 went from producing (if his claims are accurate) meager results to fantastic results.