me356 Verified
  • Member since Mar 13th 2015
  • Last Activity:

Posts by me356

    @Zephir_AWT that is very interesting. Certainly during the transmutation similar compounds such as ammonium can be easily produced.

    Note, that the sample was handled in high purity Argon while the process of sample preparation does not involve washing out at all. Actually this is unwanted and unnecessary for SEM.

    Certainly ammonium does not include 1/3 of the elements from periodic table. But the pattern is very similar.

    Similar patterns are forming again, elsewhere even that old disappeared.


    as promised I am sharing at least some data from the sample from which I have posted SEM photos.

    At the moment I can share just EDX from the single area - from area of the photo T3/T4.

    This is good example of how reaction is happening relatively far out of fuel/ash particles and even in ordinary air for approximately 2 months.

    The analysis just confirms what was said earlier - protons are being released in that flux that nearly any element in vicinity can undergo a transmutation.

    Mainly transmutations that are starting from Carbon element can be seen. These transmutations can be so focused to a certain areas that we are obtaining all the elements from periodic table up to the transition metal and even with higher proton numbers. This all can happen in ordinary air, in room temperature, if the fuel was strongly activated.

    We can obtain elements with even lower proton number than starting elements.

    Fractal-like traces are ending very likely due to transmutation to a gas at the end. This is also reason why they are disappearing over time.

    At the particular ash there are spots rich for undetectable, very exotic elements. Since the EDX software was not able to detect these elements, although the peaks were very strong, we can only guess what it really is.

    The closest element appear to be Francium. As you know, Fr is second the least abundant element. All the closest elements were unstable too. Since this is remarkable discovery we will investigate it more.

    Regarding nano wires that are seen for example at T6/T7 photos - elemental composition is very similar, a lot of elements from across periodic table, especially C, O, Cl, P, K, Na, Ca, Mg, Al, Si.

    What does it mean? It is possible to synthesize possibly any element with LENR and in very short periods ranging from a few minutes.

    We have found that in a certain configuration of the SEM we can produce new elements that were not present, in real time. This mean that even after that long time, the fuel is very active on the sample holder.

    It is possible that even mentioned Francium was produced in this way, but it is not possible to check it. the most stable isotope has half-life of 22 minutes only.

    Very likely view on the LENR will change dramatically soon.

    JedRothwell I hope that one day, you will start to read and understand my posts.

    What you are writing here is absolutely nonsense made from your wrong assumptions and lack of an overview of the situation. Basically each third word you are saying is false. What I was allegedly saying is also very wrongly interpreted by you.

    If you will ever discuss about what I was saying, please cite me directly (this mean copy and paste what you were reading - not how you understand it). Because you have real problems with understanding. This is nothing to attack you, but to say you are really not getting it. Please find FACTs. Maybe you will be badly surprised.

    Jack Cole It is nice you are afraid. Unfortunately you are looking from wrong point of view. I have no reason to do what you are saying. Do you really believe there is nobody else that can make a proper measurements? How you can assume that nobody did such measurements? Do you consider certification company and affiliated groups as incompetent?

    Unfortunately it looks like a children party here.

    I wish you a good luck!

    Jack Cole This is exactly condition I want to stay in until device is ready for market. Sadly you have not read what was written earlier.

    As I have written many times. I have no reason nor I want to convince anybody. Only people with faith can overcome this.

    This shouldn't be a reason to have a meaningless discussion.

    Eric Walker This confirms the words I am saying. There will be always doubts until a person will use it and see the practical results.

    All the words about conviction are meaningless since it only depends on knowledge you have or what you can understand.

    Other issue is people are close minded, thay can't just work with faith to develop it later into a reality. This is reason it takes so long.

    It was not too far when people considered earth as a plane surface. If you would tell them earth is different, they will burn you. You can't be right. There were just few that used their brains and ignored what rest is saying. Very same thing is repeating for decades with all inventions. Interestingly the people can't recognize they are doing harm for themselves and some even think they are smarter...

    You are saying that evidence can be radiation. I can produce few kinds of strong radiation with no excess heat or measurable transmutation. You can produce X-rays pretty easily.

    It is also relatively easy to put a radioactive source shielded by moving absorber to fake that something is happening inside.

    There are many people with similar attitude like yours. They can't be convinced by a papers, since there will be always some kind of a "flaw".

    axil I have tried many kinds of technologies including dusty plasma. Radiation can escape also there. It depends on many different variables including fuel processing as you have said.

    It is possible to get probably all kinds of radiation from LENR. With LENR you can also obtain fast neutrons as with conventional fission reactor. Possibilities are very wide.

    The only difficulty is to open "valve".

    Thank you for the messages!

    I am also convinced that there is so many LENR materials available that it can't be denied. You are served with undeniable facts. But as you can see, even this is not enough for normal people. You need a real product to be convinced. Even after independent tests there will be doubts. But if you can buy and use it, there will be no doubt anymore.

    If time will allow, I can share also results from EDX of the SEM pictures. Transmutations are something you can't fake.

    MFMP did analysis of few fuel samples from Mr. Suhas, Parkhomov and also also few of us (yet there are still more of them to publish). There you can find structures made of elements that can't be impurities. Confirmed transmutations are probably of the highest value since it is immediately clear the process is nuclear.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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

    Whatever happened MFMP performed very good test. The point of the test was to check if there is an excess heat or other interesting artefacts. And we were prepared for both cases. Yet no report from the test was published as far as I know. If you are more clever, you should help with the next test.

    JedRothwell: Get the copies of my emails so you can see if it was or wasn't clear enough. Please do not speculate. Feel free to paste the email content here.

    Where did you get information I was claiming COP of 10?

    Why would you do the test knowing from the start it is likely to fail? It was not likely at all. I tried to do my best to make it working but very important thing was not possible to do in time. I have thought it will be possible to finish it better, but there were other issues that nobody can't really expect.

    If all members were already very close, why should I not allow them to test the reactor as there was chance it will work (and they want to do the test in any way)?

    Did you asked for copy of my emails?

    Well, there is a big difference between you and me, obviously :)

    It is very interesting how you can know more about the test than me.

    Can you tell me why anybody should apologize for true?

    JedRothwell: I dont know how to say it more clearly, but it is evident that you do not understand what I have written earlier.

    Each your post is constructed on your assumption which are sometime exactly opposite of the reality.

    Many statements that are allegedly my are completely nonsense and were never claimed by me.

    So maybe it must be stated even more clearly in points (you can ask for any point to Bob Greenyer for confirmation):

    1. Tested device was far from ready and MFMP was informed about it weeks ago.
    2. Tested device was the only device that was possible to test as this was the only one "prepared" for public testing. For Jed: No, preparation of other reactor will take much longer than one we were able to test.
    3. I was not the person who made a schedule of the test.
    4. I have never said that it is ready for testing.
    5. I have clearly stated (for a few times) prior to 14th may that once I will be prepared for testing, I will inform about it. This time not occured yet.
    6. The first time I was informed about the test was 14th may 2017 (verified with my mail box right now) from a forum member - at this day I have sent a message to Bob G. that it is not good to schedule without me. Also I have stated for a few times in the mail that day, that it is really not ready. At this time the tickets were already billed.
    7. I have stated that I can pay for everything, no donations are needed for the test.
    8. Prior the test I wanted to meet with Bob (this plan was known for longer time) so he can check everything personally first. But only once I will be ready. This was not realized as I was not ready.
    9. I was appealing to carefull cooperation before any test will begin to prevent hurry plans and condition when anything will be missing, not working, etc.
    10. I have never claimed any specific COP, especially not for the actual device.
    11. I was informing Bob about particular issues of the reactor and what is the progress.
    12. Before the test I have stated that the result can be whatever as there was no time to test the device.
    13. I have agreed to perform the test to not waste money and effort of MFMP as they were very close whatever I will say.
    14. I am glad for the test and especially for great proffesionality of all MFMP members. We have both learned usefull info.

    Each point is nothing else but true, so I am describing the facts. Again, you can verify it.

    Please tell me which point is not clear?

    JedRothwell: Maybe I should write it again - please read all my posts in this thread. Then you will get answers to your questions. If you don't believe, why you are asking then?

    I have informed Bob relatively precisely about what is wrong with the reactor and what must be done and that it was far from ready from my side.

    But over it, we have agread to do the test. What is wrong about it?

    If Bob will agree, he can give you all our communication from the last year (of course with censoring some confidential info that he know about). I have no problem with that.

    Unfortunately I can't loose more time. Sorry.

    First from all, I am not attacking absolutely anyone. I am stating how it was and it was clear at least weeks before that testing conditions will be not optimal, since it was not ready. If you want to make sure how it was, ask all involved people. I believe that there is no problem with that.

    There were and are serious issues that we are investigating and will be resolved in the following weeks.

    Thank you for the comments.

    Unfortunately it looks like the people that are writing here are absolutely ignoring what I have written (Especially JedRothwell). Please stop speculating about something that is not true for sure. I highly recommend to read all my posts in this thread.

    It is also good to note, that I have never claimed COP of 10 for this particular reactor. Basically everything you are talking about was already responded and is perfectly clear from the beginning.

    Thank you Alan for the support!

    axil: I am afraid, but in this case the problem is very simple as I have described before. The reactor was just completely untested including the heating element. The element was manufactured by external company and without prior testing it was unable to me to determine that it will work differently (incorrectly) than previous elements.

    So without a proper control anything like this will melt (in both cases with or without excess heat).

    The system should be stable and able to perform for very long time if all the components will be flawless.

    You can't be angry for a car just because it has broken tires. Thus also you can't conclude from this that other cars will be broken in the same way too.

    PeterMetz: a) b) When it is ready from my side.

    For months I am not doing any estimations because it always lead to a problems. So for some time I am always saying that when it will be ready, I will tell you.

    David Nygren: The equipment is the calorimetry. It is needed to interface it with my system so I can readout required values. I dont know how fast I will be able to use it since the focus will be on the sorting issues of the control box primarily (and then of the reactor) but it is very good and will be used in next MFMP tests for sure.

    Otherwise we have same power analyser and optris so this will be practically unchanged.

    No, I dont intend to connect it online nor I have the DAQ that was used for this.

    For this and few gifted things I have to express again big thanks to MFMP.

    Henry: If you are really very busy year will pass very quickly.

    How do you think your work will look like, if you know that for doing it you need few months but you have time only few weeks? Maybe if you will be in the same situation, you will know.

    Yes, it was quite ready, but it changed completely due to complications of longer runs. I do not feel need to convince people for all costs.

    I am fine with if you will think I have no real device and just spending money because of long days :)

    From tommorow I will be very likely unable to respond for long time. So I wish you will find what you are searching for.