FacebookTwitterDiggStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditTechnoratiLinkedin

Do we all have to wait for atomic analysis or is there another way?

Written by Robert Greenyer on .

There is a lot of just debate and absolute problems with thermometry - even DGT ran into problems and deep 'questions' with its implementation of mass flow calorimetry, other researchers are having real problems making MFC configurations that work well at sustained temperatures if 1350ºC. Denis Vasilenko should be commended for his cost effective approach and we hope to have more clarity soon on how it was achieved.

One way around the power assessment challenge, is to have elemental / isotopic analysis done of the fuel and ash from experiments that show promise. The MFMP is, in part, taking this route and currently has samples with independent testers which contain, amongst other randomly indexed vials, samples of the ash from the *GlowStick* GS3 run. We are expecting some results back by second week in August 2015 - so nail biting time. Multiple vials were randomly indexed and prepared into sets that were then masked so contents could not be viewed by the shipping intermediary. The intermediary chose which sample set to send to the independent testers. After the testers report their results, the source of the samples will reveal the key to the encrypted passworded compressed file that you can download here:

Sample Index File

Testing using ICP-MS or SIMs is great, but is there a faster way to test for evidence of a recent nuclear reaction? One that replicators can use immediately. Following a visit to Piantelli in January and the rejection of Rossi's patent by the USPTO, MFMP volunteer Bob Greenyer did a thought experiment assuming Piantelli theory. Now of course, this is only one theory, but it does appear to account for the changes in Lugano and Parkhomov ash.

Reactions assuming Piantelli

In this thought experiment, we can see that most of the intermediaries are extremely short lived isotopes, that is, after just a short time, say 30 mins, there will be no measurable emissions above background when tested with say an affordable geiger counter, and many of the replicators do not have the funds to afford a spectrometer. Even then the energies of particles may not penetrate the apparatus. So what to do?

Well - how about making/buying a cloud chamber? The idea then being to as soon as you want to shut down your experiment/it fails, you get a big fan and actively cool it as FAST as you can, cut open and put a sample in the cloud chamber and look for traces - any traces - 1 would do! Then take a photo and share! Ideally, you want to have it in the cloud chamber in 5 mins. The decay of 61Cu to 61Ni - provides the longest potential half life - if indeed it occurs.

Here is a $30 + Shipping kit to buy - Cloud Chamber Kit

but really since you need to source the alcohol and dry ice anyway, you can make your own.

Get a petri dish

Some black felt

Leather gloves (for handling dry ice)

Small LED torch

Uranium Glass


If someone already has a check source, then it would be great to see what you can come up with.

Here is a how to video

Add comment

Security code


0 #11 learming 2020-08-21 19:12
Great article, totally what I needed.
0 #10 BestMarguerite 2018-10-20 08:14
I see you don't monetize your site, don't waste your traffic,
you can earn additional cash every month. You can use the best
adsense alternative for any type of website (they
approve all websites), for more details simply search in gooogle: boorfe's tips monetize your website
0 #9 axil 2015-12-20 17:31
1 of 2

Throughout history, philosophers, teachers and religious leaders have used stories and parables to help us understand intangible, often complex, concepts. One of my favorites is the Indian parable of the elephant and the blind men.
It runs roughly like this: six blind men were asked by the king to describe an elephant after being allowed to touch just one part of the animal.

The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says it is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says it is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a rug; the one who feels the elephant’s side insists is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says it is like a spear.

This lack of perspective in LENR data gathering is at the root of the problems at understanding LENR. There have been at least a dozen ways to look at LENR experimental results and more are being invented every day. Each experimenter has his own way at looking at the LENR elephant but no one has seen LENR in its totality.

Ed Storms who is arguably the best scientist among us looks only at the subset of experiments in LENR that support his experimental perspective on LENR. He ignores the other experimental results because these results are produced by processes that he is uncomfortable at performing.
0 #8 axil 2015-12-20 17:29
2 of 2

Piantelli looks at what he sees in the cloud chamber and molds his theories around those experimental perspectives.

Holmlid tells us to look for muons and mesons so he can drag us toward his ideas about Rydberg matter.

The Lugano testers looked at transmutation in a way few if any of the other experiments can match to derive how they view LENR. Even Rossi looks at those results as inspiration for the development of the E-Cat X.

John Fisher uses CR-39 particle detectors to come up with his polyneutron theory.

The list of these LENR blind men increases by the dozens and yet there is a question that they all have: why is LENR caused by so many things. No one has stepped back and looked at the entire LENR animal to get the true perspective at what LENR is.

The more ways that we can use to look at the LENR elephant, the better view that we will get at understanding what LENR is. The detection of excess heat is not enough, far from it. The stature and the value that an experimentalist brings to the LENR effort is proportional to the number of ways he can look at what LENR is doing. Just as is true in software development, the program that is under test will only be as good as the power of the debug tools brought to bear against the complexity of its operation.
0 #7 Robert Greenyer 2015-12-20 11:32
Thanks Axil
0 #6 axil 2015-12-20 01:52
Someone should try photo enlargement paper as a way to see particles coming out of LENR ash.


Unibrom 160 BP 8x10'' (25 sheets) Single Weight Smooth Glossy Enlarging Photo Paper Grade 3

It is black and white. It is also very inexpensive of a lot of paper.
0 #5 Robert Greenyer 2015-07-20 14:38
@Bob Higgins

Good tips on both counts.

I added that you can get uranium glass from E-bay very cheaply and one piece, such as a meritless plate, could make very many safe check sources for replicators to test their set-ups with. All you would have to do is apply a little Greek party spirit.
0 #4 Bob Higgins 2015-07-20 14:29
The CCs have the advantage of showing particle emissions in a measurable way. With a magnet you can determine the charge and by track length you can determine energy. Photon radiations will not show in a CC. Autoradiography is useful for imaging the source of photon emissions, but is not very useful for indicating or measuring particle emissions. The two technologies are somewhat complimentary.
0 #3 Robert Greenyer 2015-07-20 14:00

The gopros can do 240fps and most modern smartphones 120fps.

Regarding contamination fears, the petri dishes and felt are so cheap they can be for 1 time use.

The trick is too cool down fast enough and get an ash sample out if your are using a CC or photographic film. The CC produces video though and from that - the velocity, energy and type of particle can be determined.

I have added a how-to video above.
0 #2 Alan Smith 2015-07-20 13:25
You can buy Koday X-Ray emulsion on Ebay. I think it might prove to be more practical than a cloud chamber - I have already been down this track and in the end ditched a CC as impractical for dealing with hot objects - and the time-frame for cooling is very short.
0 #1 GlowFish 2015-07-20 12:52
Building your own gas chamber might introduce a lot of variables into the experiment. Questions might arise as to whether anything that could have been seen was actually from the sample or just contamination in the chamber. You might also need very high speed camera equipment running flat out to pick up the brief traces.

Purely a thought off the top of my head. Isn't photographic film sensitive to X-Rays/Gamma rays/Particles? Perhaps a piece of film could be wrapped around the sample and left for the duration of the experiment and removed at the end?

Here is your generous contributions so far towards our $500,000 target, thanks everyone! : $45,020   Please Donate
See the current state of our booked costs here