Offer of Assistance to LENR Researchers (Gerold S)

The following post has been submitted by ECW poster Gerold.s  If anyone would like to get in touch with Gerold outside of this site, please let me know ( and I will forward your contact information to him.

I recently made publicly a proposal to support individual, (serious) researchers with our competencies. Please to the following post:

The feedback was vague and unfortunatley unconcrete. However, I am not giving up 😉 and we are still open to support (serious) experimenters and researchers who have a need in mechanical manufacturing technologies.

I am already aware that different individuals of the community have different opinions and might not want to work together with others, because of some personal differences. But we want to stay open for all members, because I think we all have – hopefully – the same goal.

We are willing to work together with anybody in the field of LENR, who has a need for manufacturing technologies like CNC milling, lathing or TIG welding. Additionally we are currently looking into machining of glass ceramics like

BN (boron nitride) and others, which seem to play a vital role for LENR reactor components, because of the unique features of BN.

Since we are an educational institution our primary focus is rather an educational than financial, meaning that we

will cover the manufacturing costs and we only seek to share material and transportation costs for components to be manufactured and delivered. These terms are valid for anybody who is on an experimenting / prototype stage (non-profit stage). If confidentiality is an issue, we would be open to discuss the details.

I have contacted a few individuals, also Bob Greenyer from MFMP (this is already spread publicly) with whom we arranged on a collaboration agreement. So far I have received some feedback of interest, but no concrete requirement or project proposal to collaborate on.


Explaining Lugano (Bob Greener)

Bob Greenyer has published a new video titled “Explaining Lugano” in which he reviews the isotopic analyses that were found in the fuel/ash analysis of the 2014 Lugano test of the E-Cat. Bob reminds us that the main findings were that Al disappeared, all Ni isotopes migrated to 62 Ni, and the lithium ratios had inverted from natural ratios.

Bob has commented here on ECW: “Like the previous explanation of Parkhomov’s 4.2GJ, 5400h experiment published Wednesday morning, I present a simple explanation of the ash found after the LUGANO experiment, using most energetically favourable paths at

Bob’s slideshow is here:


The video can be seen here:

Proposed EU Copyright Law Could Drastically Change Internet Sharing and Publishing

I don’t normally get involved in broad societal issues on this site, but I have been reading about an issue that has caught my attention which I think could affect the sharing of information on sites like E-Cat World.

The European Union is in the process of revising copyright laws, and many people are alarmed about the impact that passage of the law as it is drafted at this point could have on the sharing of information online. The main focus of attention is Article 13 of the Copyright proposal of the European Commission which would seemingly drastically curtail fair use, which is the doctrine that certain copyrighted material can be used in limited ways without permission from copyright holders. I haven’t had time to dig deeply into all the legal ramifications, but what many observers are saying is that if the law is implemented it could drastically change the way the internet operates.

Here are some comments from Mozilla on the topic.

Despite several failed attempts in countries across Europe (e.g. in Spain and Germany), the Commission has proposed introducing a new pan-European copyright for press publications, sometimes referred to as “ancillary copyright” or a “neighbouring right”, which would create new copyright for snippets of online content. That would mean anyone sharing a link with text, like a news headline or a short blurb about the article, could be charged a license fee from the publisher responsible for the content.
Worst of all, these restrictions would last for 20 years! What’s the last piece of online content that you looked at that was 20 years old?!


This proposal throws the idea of balanced copyright out the window, as it would make all open platforms liable for the actions of their users, enforce a particular type of business model (e.g. licenses), and impose mandatory filters, all with no safeguards to preserve copyright exceptions, or the rights of users.

These measures would in practice require monitoring and filtering of everything that European citizens upload to content-sharing services from social media sites (like Twitter and Facebook), outlets for creative expression (like YouTube, DeviantArt, SoundCloud, and Tumblr), to informational sites (like Wikipedia and the Internet Archives), to open source software repositories (like GitHub). It would be the responsibility of these services to play judge, jury, and executioner for copyright enforcement — businesses large and small could be held liable for the content their users access and share.

There will be a meeting of MEPs on the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) of the European Parliament on June 20/21 where they will vote about their opinion on the law. Whatever they agree on will go forward to negotiations with the European Council.

According to EDRi, a Europeian association of civil and human rights organisations, the JURI committee does not yet have enough members against the proposed changes to block their passage, with some members being still undecided.

Here’s a video that has been recently published that discusses the issue.

There are a number of other sites covering this issue, urging EU citizens to let their Members of the European Parliament what they think about these proposed changes. However, as with many such complex governmental deliberations, most people are unaware of what is happening and what it could mean. While I haven’t looked into the issue in depth, from what I have read, if these changes go into effect, it could mean big changes for the internet, and how information is published online. I just wanted to do my part to let readers know that this is an issue and that there is a little time for people to let their opinions be know.

The Chiral Particle Radiation Hydrodynamics Effect (Axil Axil)

The following post has been submitted by Axil Axil

The flow of EMF radiation through plasma will separate particles based on their chirality. Since chiral particles migrate at different speeds when exposed to emf radiation, chiral particles will collect into separate regions and then further separate by their charge. This difference in how particles react to deal with photon momentum imparted by emf radiation and the then its subsequent absorption and later release of that energy is called chiral radiation hydrodynamics.

For the theory of how EMF radiation can separate chiral particles, see

Lateral optical force on chiral particles near a surface

In the SAFIRE experiment, multiple layers of chiral particles form. The emf emitted by the stimulating current flow is retarded and stored in each double layer. This storage mechanism is analogous to the way a wall comprised of many layers will retard a large wave.

The speed of light in that current flow is greatly slowed in response to the way hydrogen stores and releases that energy at its intrinsic natural resonance. This storage of this energy is amplified in each double layer as the emf energy moves to the outermost double layer until the outermost layer receives and stores an energy balance sufficient to generate hydrogen fusion that produces helium 3. This is the method in which the Radiation implosion based Teller–Ulam design for the hydrogen bomb works.

Radiation implosion

Tritium is not produced in this fusion reaction since the outermost double layer in which the fusion occurs is comprised of left handed chiral particles. Chiral particle separation insures that no radiation is generated by this fusion reaction.

The LENR reaction in SAFIRE

When the tungsten probe is inserted into a double layer, the Surface Plasmon Polaritons on the surface of the tungsten is excited through the release of the energy stored in the double layer. This high level of stored energy is converted into a polariton petal condensate as the density of polaritons grows large. The condensate generated by the LENR reaction and the chiral separation of particles in the double layer blocks all nuclear level radiation produced by the LENR reaction.

New Breed of Athletic Robots (Video)

New video has been released by Boston Dynamics of some of its latest robots in action. Earlier videos from the company had shown pack-horse type robots that were designed for use by military units covering rough terrain. This latest video shows some four legged and two legged robots doing some very impressive moves.

Watching some of the moves in this video, it’s not hard to think of places these kinds of robots could be put to work, especially in environments which currently involve hard manual labor and repetitive tasks. And of course it brings up the ongoing debate about what such robots might have on the future of work and employment.

It seems like technological sophistication is just continuing to accelerate these days, and it will be interesting to see how our world will adapt.

Does Brilliant Light Power Reactor’s Run on Overunity Too? (A Speculation)

The following post has been submitted by Zephir Zephir

Those who follow experiments of Brilliant Light Power (BLP) of Dr. Randell L. Mills undoubtedly realized, that – despite the hydrino theory used for their explanation – these experiments are conceptually similar to another overunity technologies based on the plasma formation during gas discharges (Papp’s plasma engine, Langmuir’s overunity from atomar hydrogen, Chernetsky plasma generato r or underwater discharges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 for to name just a few), including the cold fusion Quark-X reactor of Andrea Rossi. In addition there is fundamental problem with identification of source of energy in the hydrino model, because Dr. Randell Mills says, that hydrino is energetically most stable ash, so it should pile-up inside our Universe at various places, not to say about forming compounds presented by Dr. Mills. From this perspective his hypothesis, that the hydrino forms dark matter also gives sense – but it should preferably clump and to form hydrino based dense objects all around us – which was never observed.

In dense aether model perspective there is no reason for why the hydrino should be stable, more stable than ground state of hydrogen the more. In this model the particles in vacuum resemble pollen grains floating at the water surface being shaken by its Brownian noise. The similar noise (colloquially called Zero Point Energy) in vacuum is caused by vacuum fluctuations and it’s responsible for the fact, that superfluid helium doesn’t freeze even at zero absolute temperature. We can imagine, that quantum fluctuations of vacuum are shaking with helium atoms and they’re prohibiting them in their arranging into crystal. The similar effect would also prohibit the formation of more compact sub-quantum states, which are considered by Rande l Mills theory. If we squeeze the atoms more, they will not collapse into hydrinos, but they will bounce back into basic quantum state once the pressure gets released (this effect keeps the stars before collapse and it is called degenerated pressure). We can imagine some exotic situations, where subquantum states could be still preferred, like the Casimir vacuum inside metal nanocracks or surface cavities of metals of negative curvature – but just these situations are missing in BLP’s experiments with exploding wires and/or SunCellÂŽ reactor, which contains only molten or evaporate d metal (silver) and plasma – nothing else.

Another pilar of Randell Mills theory is nonradiation condition (see also Sommerfeld radiation condition), which is supposed to stabilize hydrino atoms in accordance to hydrino model. Dr. Mills considers, that hydrogen orbitals form thin spherical shells, the electronic transition of whose get suppressed in similar way, like the radiation of spherical antennae. This is correct insight, but by itself it wouldn’t make hydrino atoms energetically richer. Instead it, it promotes special way of electronic transitions – so called forbidden mechanism, during which the orbital shell collapses all at once during very brief time, being metastable. In my theory of overunity such a metastable transition is of negentropic character, because the spherical shape of electron orbitals prohibits the smooth transition – so it can include negentropic effects, being assisted by vacuum fluctuations. Negentropic effects are quite common in the nature and they involve all irreversible transitions like oversaturation, overheating or overcooling effects, when the energy is not released smoothly – but after overcoming some activation energy. At the moment when this energy gets supplied by vacuum fluctuations, then the net result during fast repeating these transitions can be positive instead of negative.

Considering that energy transitions of hydrogen can be also forbidden, it would mean, that it’s not the hydrino formation itself, but the highly symmetric, i.e. spherical geometry of orbital transition is responsible for observed surplus of energy, claimed by Randall Mills. This explanation actually doesn’t exclude the existence of subquantum statees of hydrogen, on the contrary – it just doesn’t require to be stable, more stable than fundamental ground state the more. It also means, that Dr. Mills hydrino theory is not downright wrong – but merely incomplete description of the reality of BLP process and patents. The advantage of this explanation is, it comprehends another observations of overunity in plasma, which could have the same origin – even without permanent formation of hydrinos. Their atoms just should be present in fully dissociated atomar state (as Lan gmuir al so has found) – because only such a state provides perfectly spherically symmetric orbitals. But monoatomar noble gases and their mixtures (dtto Papp’s engine) are usable for this purpose too. It could also explain, why Dr. Mills observed his overunity effects mostly in ultraviolet spectrum, where the hydrogen atoms get fully dissociated into atomic hydrogen. In this sense it may be important, that some aditives (chlorine or oxygen) may assist during hydrogen ionization or recombination in similar way, like catalytic metals promoted by Dr. Mills (tungsten, silver?).

Of course the overunity during atomar hydrogen recombination could apply also to most recent QuarkX reactor of Andrea Rossi in lesser or greater extent thus complementing nuclear reactions (cold fusion) – but this is just a speculation in a given moment. What is more important is, the assistance of vacuum fluctuations during symmetric collapse of spherical fields may apply to wide range of another overunity phenomena at various scales – from isomerization of nuclei (Valee synergic generator) over plasma overunity (as noted above) to collapse of magnetic domains during saturation of ferromagnets (MEG of T. Beardeen and/or various magnetic motors) and/or collapse of bubbles during cavitation (Rosh buyoance engine) and/or even collapsing fields inside spherical capacitors (Testatica of Paul Baumann) and conical/concentric bucking coils of (various Tesla and Kapanadze generators). These perspective are currently subject of my undergoing private research.

Is This Really Pyroelectric Crystal Nuclear Fusion? (Axil Axil)

The following post has been submitted by Axil Axil.

Is This Really Pyroelectric Crystal Nuclear Fusion?

The author of this article first lists all the indicators that are required to prove that the fusion of deuterium is taking place, but he latter admits that only neutrons were detected coming out of this reaction.

This looks like the LENR reaction to me. The mechanism for the LENR reaction is chiral charge separation similar to what occurs in the SAFIRE system where a double layer of plasma is formed inducing a condition of extreme separation of charge. At its very core, all manifestations of the LENR reaction is caused by chiral spin polarization.

The electric charge separation is produced by Chiral particle spin polarization. The magnetic force generated by this polarization is far stronger than the coulomb force thus resulting in the production of polarized electric fields and current flow.

This polarization will induce a weak force reaction that will produce proton and neutron decay and the associated generation of mesons. Another sign of chiral spin polarization is the lack of radioactive reaction byproducts. Radioactive decay is near instantaneous when it is produced though the application of a left handed chiral polarized particle stream.

Fusion is not happening in this reaction even if neutrons are detected. Fusion requires the production of specific gamma radiation at 3 and 14 Mev. It also requires the production of tritium and He3. Without the generation of ALL these tell tale reaction products, fusion is unproven and the LENR reaction is indicated.

To test this posit as an alternative test to the fusion reaction conjecture, a chiral particle steam produced by this heated crystal will greatly reduce the half life of a radioactive isotope. Is there a LENR experimenter who will verity this posit?

Where chiral spin particle polarization is active, this shows what a double layer can do to a tungsten probe tip. By the way, the same reaction happens in the SunCell except the vaporizing tungsten electrode weighs in at over 100 pounds.

Alan Smith’s Ecalox Laboratory

Alan Smith of Looking for Heat has posted a walk-through tour of his Ecalox Laboratory that he has recently opened near London.

Alan is working with his colleague Russ George who is focusing on the LENR experiments while Alan is building a hydrogen catalysis system (you will see his “Big Momma” reactor in the video).

You will see in the video that there is LENR experimentation underway — this is their second attempt at a LION 2 replication. So far no results have been reported, but I hope we can get some information about it at some point.

Ecalox Laboratory Tour May 2018 from Alan Smith on Vimeo.

Rossi Comments on Safety of the E-Cat Control System

We have been told on many occasions by Andrea Rossi that the control system is a vital part of the control system, but he hasn’t said very much about it beyond that. A few comments from him recently give us a little bit more idea about its functioning, however.

Rossi explained in a recent comment that there is no longer a low-temperature or high-temperature E-Cat, as had been the case in the past. When asked by Gerard McEk whether there was still a future for a low-temperature E-Cat, he responded:

“no, because the high T makes also the low T, just increasing the fluid flow”

So the greater the fluid flow, the lower its temperature would be, since it has less time to interact with the heat source in the E-Cat.

I followed up with a question of my own:

You said that the T of the E-Cat is constant, and the T of the fluid varies according to the flow. You have said the E-Cat reaches very high temperature, so what would happen if the flow was unexpectedly interrupted? Would the E-Cat overheat?

Rossi replied:

Andrea Rossi
April 28, 2018 at 8:55 AM
Frank Acland:
The control system would shut down all if the T goes above the allowed limit.
Warm regards,

There was another question and answer on the same subject:

A Goumy
April 28, 2018 at 9:46 AM
Dear Mr Rossi,

If the control system breaks out, or communication with ECat is lost, does the ECat stop by itself?

Andrea Rossi
April 28, 2018 at 10:27 AM
A Goumy:
Good question.
The answer is yes.
Warm regards

So from Rossi’s responses here, it seems that the E-Cat can start and stop at will, and any malfunction will shut down the E-Cat immediately.

Dr. Alexander Parkhomov’s Fusion Fission Table Overview

Thanks to Bob Greenyer for sharing the following.

Dr. Alexander Parkhomov’s Fusion Fission table overview

Dr. Alexander Parkhomov produced a program that looked at all of the stable element isotopes and calculated nucleon exchange reactions and fission reactions that lead to stable products with a net energy yield.

It took 10 days to calculate the more than 500,000 possible outcomes and their respective energy output.

Thank you to Dr. Parkhomov for this work and making the table available.