Monday, August 15, 2016



"Biotransmutation of isotopes - purely physical LENR process, optimized and coordinated with the features of living dynamic systems" (Vladimir Vysotskii)


Today we are presenting the opinion oF Prof. Vladimir Vysotskii about some recent biotransmutation results and papers which were signalled in EGO OUT too. I have asked our friend what should we think about the process and what hopes may we invest in it. The text of his fast answer follows:'Biotransmutation  of uranium - discovery and consequences
Биотрансмутация уран
а – открытие и следствия.

The paper: "Biotransmutation of uranium- discovery and consequences " has two parts:

The first part is about the press conference in Switzerland with the participation of two biochemists from Russia, and the second part characterizes the possible perspectives of the utilization of the biotechnology in the nuclear processes.  On one hand I support unconditionally the research on this theme/field which I consider very important.
On the other hand I have some observations regarding this work.
First about the initial part and the "discovery" of the two biochemists.

1. Experiments on CNF can not form radioactive isotopes. This conclusion follows not only from the generalization of the results obtained till now worldwide, however also directly from the theoretical analysis. This also applies to experiments on biological transmutation of isotopes. The reasons for this prohibition are connected with the fundamental laws of physics, and they will be discussed in my report at ICCF20. I believe that the statements made in  the article and the comments at the press conference in Switzerland claiming  possibility of formation in the course of LENR involving biological systems of radioactive isotopes of polonium, radon, France, radium, actinium, thorium, protactinium, uranium, neptunium, americium and other radionuclides have no real reasons  and are just kind of advertisments.

2. If the authors suppose that the processes in biological cultures take place in the same manner as in usual nuclear physics and that in their experiments radioactive isotopes are formed, then it is necessary to record the gamma radiation as an intermediary stadium of the formation of radioactive isotopes. This is linked to the fact that after any standard fusion, it comes a cascade of fast nuclear transitions associated with emission of gamma quantas and this leads to the formation of stable or long-lived metastable nuclei . (there are exceptions but few). At fusion there will be generated minimum 1 gamma quanta per nucleus, but it can be much more. Then for example for uranium- for 1gram there will be generated not less than .3*10^21 gamma quantas. if we suppose that 1 gram of uranium is formed in 10 days then the activity of sucha a source is  3*10^15 gamma quantas per 1 second that corresponds to 10^6 Curie. The dosis of irradiation near to this source in 10 days is Manny millions of Rontgen . Under such a flux of gammas the microbiological cultures will fast be destroyed.killed and the personal will also very fast get  a lethal dosis
Conclusion there will be no significant gamma rays and no radioactive isotopes will be formed.
We have verified many times the radiation background of our cells and have never observed any increase over the basic level.

In our coming paper for ICCF-20 we will explain the cause of the absence of gamma radiation at the LENR reactions and especially in the biotransmutation processes and why only stable isotopes are formed- on the basis of physical nature.

 (In fact rays can be much more). Then, for example, the synthesis of 1 gram of uranium will be generated at least 3 x 10 21 gamma rays. Assuming that 1 gram of uranium synthesized for 10 days, the activity of such a source is equal to 3 x 10 15 gamma rays for one second, which corresponds to 10 Ci ~ 6. The radiation dose received by the vicinity of the source of up to 10 days, in line with many millions of X-rays. With such a stream of gamma rays microbiological culture die quickly, and the staff are very quick to get a lethal dose.

3. During the press conference in Switzerland the authors have declared tht they have lead  thousands of experiments however have not demonstrated a single one. Thus the proof basis of the successful experiments performed by the authors is simply missing.

4. All the synthesized chemical elements must be adapted  to the biological culture that allow such a process. It is not understandable if we follow the logic of authors why the cultures must permit the synthesis of specific isotopes. In the materials presented by the authors such biological aspects are missing.
In our own studies, we have shown (based on the accompanying biochemical analysis) which elements and isotopes  can be really created in such processes.However many stable isotopes, including some of  those about which the authors stated at a press conference in Switzerland have said they are formed  formed in such processes, actually can not. About the possibility of the synthesis of radioactive isotopes we have related above.

5.  Both the  patent, and the article on the press conference are completely lackings any theoretical model, justifying the suppression of the action of the Coulomb barrier (especially for heavy nuclei). The lack of theory does not allow the authors to conduct targeted and optimized experiments. 

In his studies, we have shown (based on the accompanying biochemical analysis) which elements and isotopes in reality can be created in such processes. Very many stable isotopes, one of those about which the authors stated at a press conference in Switzerland, formed in such processes can not. On the impossibility of the synthesis of radioactive isotopes mentioned above.

5. In the patent, and this article of the press conference is completely lacks any theoretical model, justifying the suppression of the action of the Coulomb barrier (especially for heavy nuclei). The lack of theory does not allow the authors to conduct targeted experiments optimized. Justification authors such as - "a bacterium suitable for core and snap off of the proton or neutron core" - are unacceptable in modern science. Explanations of the authors like these"the bacteria approaches the nuclei and extracts a proton or an neutron" are not admissible by the modern science.

6. I do not agree completely with the idea from the given paper saying"No one reputed scientific journal from the West will accept for publication papers about transmutation if this is not made with accelerators. Most scientists and the editors
of scientific publications are captured by the scientific dogma that rejects such things.

I would argue that if the work is done at an appropriate scientific level, contains specific repeatable results and has a logical, mathematical and physical basis , it can be published. In particular, in addition to two books, published in Russia and India, we have published several articles in reputable journals of nuclear physics 
(see please e.g.:

"Transmutation of stable isotopes and deactivation of radioactive waste in growing biological systems", Annals of Nucl. Energy, 2013, v.62, p.626-633;

Coherent correlated states and low-energy nuclear reactions in non stationary systems. European Phys. Journal. A (2013) v.49, issue 8: 99, p.1-12;

Acceleration of low energy nuclear reactions by formation of correlated states of interacting particles in dynamical systems, Annals of Nucl. Energy, 2013, v.62, p.618-625).

However to publish low-level work is impossible and unnecessary!

 7. We have received an international patent (
"Method for purifying water of radionuclides".
No. WO 2015156698 A1 (PCT / RU2014 / 000273)
priority April 11, 2014,
which describes the technology of transmutation of stable and radioactive isotopes by biological systems.  But, why the  authors do not refer to it, although we have also received the Russian patent RU 2563511C2 (Microbiological process of transmutation of chemical elements and isotopes and transformation of the chemical elements). They surely must know about our international patent applictiom and our Russian patent. 

And now a few words about the second part of the paper, dedicated to the perspectives  of utilization of the biological transmutation in science and technology.

Based on those shown above, we can conclude that such technological directionsas utilization of radioactive isotopes and synthesis of rare elements- are possible and real. In our book:
(«Nuclear fusion and transmutation of isotopes in biological systems»  (2003)

we have given some possible recipes for obtaining, for example of gold and platinum.
In an other monograph
(Nuclear transmutation of stable and radioactiveisotopes in biological systemsPentagon PressIndia, 2010
and in some papers (eg. 
Annals of Nucl. Energy, 2013, v.62, p.626-633)

we have described the results of successful experiment for the acceleration of the deactivation of the radioactive wastes with the transformation of these in in stable isotopes of other elements.
In special in experiments performed recently we have shown that the time of desactivation of one of the most dangerous isotopes coming from reactors Cs 137we can decrease the time of conversion  from the natural (almost 30 years) to less than 1 month in the stable isotope Ba 138.
Also all the tasks for the synthesis of radioactive nuclei as preparation of fuel for nuclear fission, preparation of radioactive elements for nuclear medicine, ,military uses of LENR for preparation of nuclear fuel all these are in principle impossible
just for the particularities of the LENR reactions. 

THANKS dear Vladimir waiting for your great ICCF-20 paper!


1) Rossi: Customer’s Manufacturing Process was Endothermic (Update — AR: Water Used for Cooling Purposes)

and from Andrea Rossi's  site
August 14, 2016 at 6:37 PM

Dr Andrea Rossi,
I imagine that the JMP plant used the thermal energy for endothermic physical and/or chemical interactions, while the excess heat, if necessary, was removed by means of air and water, am I correct?
Thank you if you can answer,

Andrea Rossi
August 14, 2016 at 7:26 PM

Warm Regards,

Oystein Lande
August 14, 2016 at 4:40 PM

Dear mr Rossi,

Did the 1MW customer also use water for cooling purposes in his endothermic process ?

Andrea Rossi
August 14, 2016 at 7:23 PM

Oystein Lande:
Warm Regards,

The only proposed mechanism for major heat removal that I have seen that is consistent with what's known about the Doral facility is cooling with water, with the heat going down the drain. I checked the Miami rates; this would easily cost over $5,000 per month in water and sewer charges, it could be substantially more (water going down a drain can be a problem if too hot, hence more water might be used to take the temperature down to an acceptable level.)

Hi Abd,
Heat would be divided up,
Some into the product.
Some process hot & moist waste heat up the shiny metal vent pipe to the roof.
Some plant radiated waste heat as warm air exhausted by the vent fan above the JMP plant.
Some process water used to increase the temp of city water that eventually went down the drain.
Some into the concrete floor, walls & roof.
Dealing with and engaging the various ways to manage the different forms of waste heat is what the engineers that designed the plant did.
Would further suggest the warmed cooling water would normally be put through a cooling tower but as this was a temp plant, no way nor reason to build one. So city water was heated by the process, maybe pooled and recirculated but eventually ended up going down the drain.

5) Book for downloading


Piketty on Free Higher Education and the Value of Meritocracy by John Danaher
Philosophical Disquisitions

Learning: Experience Plus Reflection


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.


    It looks like to me, the water billing for non residential customers in dade county is based on the size of the meter, not how much water is used in excess of the maximum rate per gallage. For example, for a 3 inch meter, the cost is under $100 per month no matter how much water that is used.