MFMP Presents Experiment Overview

The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project has put together a slide show that outlines all the experiments the team has done so far, those currently under way, and those yet to be done. They’ve only been working on LENR for about nine months and they have done so many experiments it can be a bit hard keeping up with all the different projects they have been working on at their Pine River, Minnesota laboratory. This presentation provides a nice way to differentiate between them.

The slide show can be seen here.

Interestingly, on the last slide they state:

Idea Scenario: diversify from Celani
Goal: Facilitate compelling LENR experiments to foster research investment around the world
It would be IDEAL if one of the companies claiming consistent success would share their know-how or license their technology to develop replicable experiments/demonstrations from.

  • Brillouin
  • Defkalion GT
  • Rossi (Leonardo Corp.)

When they talk about diversifying from Celani, they are referring to the fact that most of their work to date has been on specially processed wire that has been prepared by Francesco Celani’s team, and which is proprietary — meaning the MFMP folks do know how it is processed. The MFMP team is modeling the ‘open science’ approach, where all important data and information is shared openly with observers — and it is quite a different way of doing things than is normal in the traditional commercial realm where Rossi and others operate. As time goes on it will be interesting to see if some of the more closed operators open up a little and share some of their secrets.

Slide 12 shows the nickel powder test cell that the team is about to start working on ‘ASAP’ — something new for them, and interesting to a lot of observers here.

  • artefact

    I love this picture:

    http://matslew.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/glowing-hotcat.jpg

    You can see the shadows of the heating element which is not as hot as the inner core.

    • buffalo

      amazing pic

  • georgehants

    Now the scientists on page can earn their money.
    Let’s have the clear “expert” interpretation telling us —-
    Is this Genuine.
    Can we now open our bottles of Pop.

  • artefact

    Mats Lewan:

    “Two 100 hour scientific tests confirm anomalous heat production in Rossi’s E-Cat”

    “We plan to publish a follow-up report with comments in Ny Teknik soon.”

    http://matslew.wordpress.com/2013/05/20/two-100-hour-scientific-tests-confirm-anomalous-heat-production-in-rossis-e-cat/

    • Bob Greenyer

      This is excellent news, congrats to Rossi, this will greatly help the MFMP pursue wider live open science research in this space given that people can start being certain the effect is real.

      We already have a big momentum, watch out for imminent developments and key new additions to our programme.

      With your help, we’ll make this technology available to all.

      • artefact

        Good to hear about the momentum.

  • andreiko

    Remelting of oil tankers to E-Cats has begun!!!!

  • Eric

    Admin – wake up 🙂 The report requires its own thread!
    I’m now convinced we are watching new physics being born. This is huge. My biggest concern now is that the catalyst secret is *way* too important to be kept by one person only. I sure hope Rossi has good protection and back-up plans if something would happen to him.
    Otherwise this will be our century’s version of Fermat’s last theorem.

    • R101

      Some one got Franks phone number? 🙂

    • georgehants

      Agreed get out of bed.
      On Vortex after the announcement was made they are now arguing about a perfectly good joke by someone about football teams.
      Scientists at there best again.

      • artefact

        🙂

        • daniel maris

          I happened to up late rather than early and so enjoyed being (thanks to Adam) one of the first among the general public to know! 🙂

  • John

    There’s only seven names on the report. Rossi claimed “11 university professors”. Do you guys think that there may be another report on the way?

  • David

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

    Is this the report? Was published May 16th. Why does noone talk about it? =]

  • artefact

    Rossi says:


    Andrea Rossi
    May 20th, 2013 at 1:25 AM
    Dear Todd Burkett:
    IThank you. This is one of the most important days of my life.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • R101

      I believe it’s going to be one of the most important days for a lot of us here.

      Congratulations Andrea!

    • Roger Bird

      I guess “Rossi says” has taken one a whole new level of credibility and meaning.

  • artefact

    “In the next test experiment which is expected to start in the summer of 2013, and will last about six month, a long term performance of the E-Cat HT2 will be tested. This test will be crucial for further attemps to unveil the origin of the heat phenomenon observed so far.”

  • AB

    It’s going to be interesting to see how the world will react to the paper.

    • rolando

      Interesting indeed

      Burning Coal for energy ends in near future! Victoria has a dirtiest Brown coal power station in the world.

  • Peter Roe

    So it’s finally here, and we now know the ‘problem’ with the first set of tests!:

    “In that experiment the device was destroyed in course of experimental run, when the steel cylinder containing the active charge overheated and melted.”

    Unfortunately this accident means that the repeat was run at a low input power (about a third of the amount that melted the first unit) meaning that the COP was relatively low at about 3. Nevertheless it is positive, although there are undoubtedly a number of aspects, such as calorimetry based on calculated values from IR measurements, which will leave the findings open to possible doubt by those determined to find some.

    There is no indication as to why this report has been published on ArXiv, but as Rossi said that if there were problems with getting it into a printed journal, this would be his fallback route. It seems therefore that there were indeed problems, although we can’t know at what stage, or whether they were real or externally manufactured. Unfortunately this also means no peer review, which again provides an opening for the skeptics.

    So while this final publication is very welcome, and certainly confirms to more rational observers that Rossi’s ‘effect’ is completely real and measurable, I think it may be largely ignored in the ‘mainstream’ and I doubt that it will make a particularly large splash. But is is another huge nail in the coffin of the naysayers.

    • Roger Bird

      Forbes will publish it or publish an article with a link about it. And the report will be very favorable. This will probably be the leaking hole in the dam that will bring down the dam of incredulity.

  • Omega Z

    Financial support from Alba Langenskiöld Foundation and ELFORSK AB, for the Swedish participation in the E-Cat test experiment, is gratefully acknowledged.

  • LB

    Does anybody know if it has been accepted for publication
    in any peer-reviewed mag?

  • Fibb

    I just wrote this on Rossi’s blog. It of course will never see the light of day.

    You fan boys give your heads a shake.

    “I’m not impressed that your recent customer is your US partner, your 3rd party scientists are your insiders and supporters, and you are funding your operations with license fees gathered by Mr. Green. It all seems rather incestuous. My apologies if you are for real, but the optics are not currently favourable. I hope you will appreciate the feedback and I wish you luck.”

    • RenzoB

      Fibb, please consider keeping silence instead of further embarassing yourself

    • lukedc

      Seriously, are you here for the lulz? If you want to debate serious science and a potential game changing tech then that’s why most of us are here..

      • Roger Bird

        “lulz” ???

    • Roger Bird

      Fibb is socially retarded. This is why he can’t read the social/soft evidence, why he is so rude as to call these investigators who have put their careers on the line frauds, and why he(or she) has to follow the crowd in all his thinking. He is what is called a dependent thinker.

      • Dickyaesta

        Roger I like that: ‘Dependent’ thinker that is it and the world is full of them, ashame on them, but then to be conscient of your and other worlds costs mind energy and that seems too much for most of us!

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    My first fast read through of report indicates they were very conservative in all their measurements. It is still a very positive report. The skeptics are going to have a tough time with this one.

  • pg

    Hi Pekka, woud you be able to comment on the 3rd party report as for the link below? We need an expert eye.

    Thank you

    • Pekka Janhunen

      I have glanced through the report and by and large it seems to be what we expected. One reactor (in December test) had COP approximately 6, the other (in March test) about 2.5. One reactor was destroyed in testing by melting in November (I remember when Rossi wrote about a problem on JONP but didn’t disclose the details). No signs of radioactivity were found. One of the authors (Bo Höistad) is a familiar name to me: about 10 years ago a colleague of mine applied for some job at Uppsala University and I remember that the applications were addressed to Prof. Höistad.
      Perhaps the COP is a slight disappointment, but on the other hand the complete absence of radioactivity despite careful measuring is positive news for public acceptance.

      • Torbjörn

        “In the December test, about 160 net kWh were produced, with a consumption of 35 kWh” COP = 4,57

        • Pekka Janhunen

          True, but on the other hand equation (19) gives COP=5.6+-0.8. I haven’t yet read the report through carefully.

      • pg

        is this report a green light for the device to be put on the market, and does it mean that the device as it is already suitable to be sold for industrial applications?

    • artefact

      pg, the report was submitted on May 16 ( + 1 )to Arxiv 🙂

  • DaveS

    THE THIRD PARTY REPORT ON THE ECAT HAS BEEN RELEASED AT ECAT.COM!!!

  • Adam Lepczak

    The 3rd party independent report is here folks:
    http://ecat.com/files/Indication-of-anomalous-heat-energy-production-in-a-reactor-device.pdf

    This is IT!
    Enjoy!

    • daniel maris

      Wow! Really?

      • daniel maris

        To answer my own question: YES!

        ABSTRACT:
        An experimental investigation of possible anomalous heat production in a special type of reactor tube named E – Cat HT is carried out. The reactor tube is charged with a small amount of
        hydrogen loaded nickel powder plus some additives
        . The reaction is primarily initiated by heat
        from resistor coils inside the reactor tube.
        Measurement of the produced heat was performed with high – resolution thermal imaging cameras, recording data every second from the hot reactor
        tube. The measurements of electrical power input were performed with a large bandwidth three
        – phase power analyzer. Data were collected in two experimental runs lasting 96 and 116 hours,
        respectively. An anomalous heat production was indicated in both experiments. The 116 – hour experiment also included a calibration of the experimental set – up without the active charge resent in the E – Cat HT . In this case, no extra heat was generated beyond the expected heat from the electric input.Computed volumetric and gravimetric energy densities were found to be far above those of
        any known chemical source. Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the
        measurements, the result is still one
        order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources.

    • Tyler

      Pretty compelling report. Good stuff, go Rossi.

      “The results obtained indicate that energy was produced in decidedly higher quantities than what may be gained from any conventional source. …the results obtained place both devices several orders of magnitude outside the bounds of the Ragone plot region for chemical sources. Even from the standpoint of a “blind” evaluation of volumetric energy density, if we consider the whole volume of the reactor core and the most conservative figures on energy production, we still get a value of (7.93 ± 0.8) 102 MJ/Liter that is one order of magnitude higher than any conventional source.”

      We’ll see if anyone in mainstream science or media finally notices…
      tyler

      • daniel maris

        I guess it depends where it’s published, Tyler.

        No doubt the sceptics will argue that Levi is an interested party. But equally one can see that if this is the real thing Rossi could only entrust the device to people he could have faith in.

        Let the storm begin!

      • daniel maris

        Are the findings in line with what you expected?

        I thought it was good they were testing the hot cat, because it looks a lot easier to isolate.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I feel that as the second test was less successful, it adds credence.

          This is a good day.

          Bob

          • Roger Bird

            There were 3 tests. The first test (November) was meaningless outside of the context of the December and March tests. In the context of the December and March tests, the first test means that the unit melted almost certainly because the thing worked TOO well.

    • daniel maris

      Thanks Adam.

    • daniel maris

      It was published at arXiv.org which seems to be a place for pre-prints of scientific papers run by Cornell University – but I may be wrong! Leave that to someone else to confirm…

      Are they finding it difficult to get published in a big name journal?

    • Lukedc

      Digesting the report now. Cop around 3…

      • daniel maris

        Bit lower I think, if you take into account the electricity consumed – seems to be well over 2 though…on the other hand they indicate the COP rises with temperature…but then you are into the issue of stability I think.

    • Dickyaesta

      Perfect, great, wow. Thanks for the info Adam.

      Now the analysis of the analysis and we are home free. COP of about 3 doesn’t seem too much though, maybe others can come up with a better result to make it a commercial success?!

    • Dickyaesta

      Perfect, great, wow. Thanks for the info Adam.

      Now the analysis of the analysis and we are home free. COP of about 3 doesn’t seem too much though, so the Hot Cat or the E-cat HT is really where it is at. OK. Impressive also the pictures.

    • Roger Bird

      Wow!!

      I guess soft/social evidence is not always wrong, eh? you patho-skeptics.

      But these 3rd party independent tests will still not be accepted by hardcore skeptics. Their guide is rationality, and their rationality says that it can’t be so, because their rationality is based upon a different framework of experience, namely hot-fusion and the almighty Coulomb barrier. But eventually, when they see them sold at Home Depot, they will believe.

      • Omega Z

        No they wont Roger.

        The Earth is still flat. 🙂

      • AlainCo

        that is exactly what Thomas Kuhn explain about the denialism of anomaly during scientific revolution.
        until they find the answer to all question, at the theory level, no fact will be accepted. point.

        end of the story.

        and that psychiatric experiment is replicated along history of science.

    • Adam Lepczak

      Greetings again,
      I have found a direct link to the paper as submitted on arXiv.org:
      http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913

      I guess that should be considered to be an “official” link.

    • Karl

      It is truly emotional to finally read the report from the independent test that verify anomalous heat. Rossi has now been proven to have the real deal. Very – very important report regardless where it is published.

    • artefact

      “Torbjörn Hartman”
      Torbjörn, is that you?! 🙂

    • David

      This is a great day!

    • Bob

      Wow! I would have to say that on a first quick read,,,I’m impressed.
      Not so much with the second test in March, but as they point out, it was at a lower operating temperature.
      I am most impressed with the picture of the December test.
      If that picture was taken with an input power of only 360 watts, I’m really impressed. And I thought they would be coming up with a COP of about 1.1
      How can I be wrong and still be happy? 🙂
      I hope nothing comes up to ruin it for me. and you. and everyone.
      Did I mention that I’m impressed?

      • Roger Bird

        Bob, I knew that you had it in you.

      • Bob

        Oops! I read it a bit too fast. The pic shows a test at an input power of 1kw, not 360 watts.
        Provided that the input power did not rise about 1kw I’m still imopressed.
        I’ll take two please.

  • Linda

    Good science being done by MFMP.

    Guys, might I suggest you go with larger experiments, using powders, and have a look at the Berlius Process for clues on how to add a carbon catalyst. Rossi appears to have been working on just that arrangement when he stumbled across an excess of heat you didn’t need a meter to measure it was so obvious.

    Good luck!

    • Ted-X

      I think you mean the Bergius process of hydrogenation of coal into liquid hydrocarbons.
      The carbon effect might be due to surface carbonylation of nickel with carbon monoxide. Acetone (Celani) and Miles (potassium carbonate) could both generate carbon monoxide at the LENR conditions. Whoever will work with Ni and CO – check the toxicity and ventilation first.

      • Linda

        Thanks Ted, yes, that’s exactly what I mean. I type that on my mobile, and I can’t see the whole comment screen at the same time its a real pain. :l

    • lukedc

      Good comment.
      My personal opinion is that the MFMP team should have had a go at replicating Rossi or DGT in the first instance. But in tackling the Celani cell the team has honed the aspects of fine calorimetry and now going forward have a better idea.
      Nickel powder experiments should be expedited inclusive of flow calorimetry. This could really produce conclusive results either way.
      Unfortunately AR is not forthcoming with the catalyst. A crowd sourced edisonian approach to determining the catalyst is the only way that I can see it being uncovered/discovered in the short term.

      • Bob Greenyer

        You are right on the money, we would like 100 people to join us with reactors based off our experience to date that can be linked into the wider effort in the live open science model. This will be the manhattan project for LENR but made social for the connected world.

        Cells will be designed to take wire and powder modules
        Cells will allow high accuracy calorimetry
        Cells will allow a wide range of triggering/regulation methods
        There will be a list of candidate catalysts, accelerants and triggering methods for the effort to work on.

        Participants will publish suggested experiment protocol and reactants etc. to invite critique
        Participants will run experiment live

        If a positive result is obtained – this can be fed into the wider effort as a new start point.

        With 100+ participants, we can sweep parameters 2 orders of magnitude faster than we are doing currently.

  • Cat Jonessen

    What the MFMP brings to the game is very careful measurements of energy production. This is something that obviously Rossi does not do at all.

    Does it seem strange to anyone else that the output Rossi claims is always a power of 10? He talks about 10kW and 1kW and 100kW units all the time. When asked about heat, he will give a range from 350 to 1000 C. How can this be? The answer is that it is simple to measure temperature and very tricky to measure power. Rossi measures temperature with a hand held device but we have no evidence that he does careful calorimetry. The best we have seen is a 5 gallon bucket measuring condensed steam and some scribbles on a notepad. Even the 1MW test didn’t produce 1MW (less than half actually), and those numbers were done sloppily.

    If the third party report ever surfaces, I predict that it will not contain careful calorimetry, and hence will not be convincing. I applaud MFMP for doing it right (even if they haven’t found any excess heat yet).

    • buffalo

      err,are you kidding me mr joneson.the 3rd partiers are THE ones who will take fanatical precautions when it comes to measuring that thing.

  • RonB

    Can anyone think of any reason why AR doesn’t name the folks that conducted the 3rd party testing? At some point in the future when we’ve still not seen any published report, do you think that AR might name them?

    WRT newfire. I followed the first cells very closely and while it might appear it was just wishful thinking that there was excess power, I saw enough evidence that something extraordinary was happening.

    • lenrdawn

      “I saw enough evidence that something extraordinary was happening”

      Can you elaborate on that? Everybody else seems to have missed it.

      • freethinker

        Who is “Everybody Else”? Elaborate on that, please.

    • Bob

      “and while it might appear it was just wishful thinking that there was excess power”

      RonB, I agree with you on the above statement.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Could it be possible that June, 2013 is the month when MFMP comes out with positive results and the Rossi third party report also reports positive results??? Exciting times!

    • kwhilborn

      I will start holding my breath!

      • Roger Bird

        I understand your sarcasm, really. But if you disbelieve, then why are you here? Really, I’m not trying to be confrontational or obnoxious. I am here because I am excited about the imminent arrival of commercial LENR.

  • RenzoB

    prof Stremmenos says he replicated the ecat process 🙂

    On saturday 18 there was a meeting of the Lions Club in Bologna and prof Stremmenos was among the speakers

    Program:
    http://prometeon.it/download/CONVEGNO_LIONS_18_MAGGIO_2013-definitivo.pdf

    On Prometeon website there is a summary of his part
    http://prometeon.it/news.php

    18/5/13 – The direct testimony of prof. Stremmenos

    For the first time in a long time, Christos Stremmenos, a physicist who worked on the development of the E-Cat and retired professor at the Department of Physical Chemistry, University of Bologna, has returned to speak in public about LENR, and he did it at a conference on energy saving, held in Bologna on 18 May, organized by the local Lions Club, with a popular talk entitled “Cold fusion or LENR: cheap energy and no environmental impact. ”

    Professor Stremmenos briefly explained to the many present engineers his personal experience with Eng. Rossi and the E-Cat, which is from the first tests to subsequent developments, emphasizing the complete reproducibility of the underlying phenomenon of LENR, the high stability of the reaction, the COP always greater than 6, the total absence of neutrons or radioactive waste, the intrinsic safety of the machine, as well as the very low cost of the thermal energy produced by it: less than 0.01 € / kWh.

    Perhaps the most interesting part of the intervention was his testimony, unusual for the general public, on a test of an entirely different nature from the previous ones that Eng. Rossi made himself available to perform. In a reactor built by Stremmenos with a geometry and a technique different from Rossi’s reactors, there has been used the same “dusts” used by the E-Cat. The results have been very positive, and this was a further confirmation of the validity of the process.

  • Redford

    “they have been working on at their Pine River, Minnesota laboratory

    Actually a good deal is made in Europa…

  • artefact

    From JONP:

    renatoestri
    May 19th, 2013 at 3:21 AM
    TO ALL THE READERS OF THIS JOURNAL:
    PLEASE FIND HERE THE LINK OF THE INTERESTING CONFERENCE MADE YESTERDAY BY PROF.
    CHRISTOS STREMMENOS AT THE LIONS CLUB OF BOLOGNA

    http://www.ordingbo.it/eventi2013/maggio-agosto/CONVEGNO_LIONS_18_MAGGIO_2013-definitivo.pdf

  • andreiko

    Dr. Rossi and his team test E_Cat (with Stirling Engine)!The Stirling Engine converts heat into electricity and has a history with Philips!

    • daniel maris

      Is this an assertion, a dream you had or what – please explain.

    • Lukedc

      Please explain. This would be a big change. If Phillips is involved then this could be compelling evidence.

      • lenrdawn

        Anrei didn’t say Philips was “involved”. He said the Sterling Engine has a history with Philips (which is true, of course. They’ve been playing with it since the 1930s or so) – not that Philips was involved with Rossi.

    • Bob

      Are you sure?
      Stirling engines convert low grade heat to rotary motion only. To convert that to electricity you would need to run it through an alternator. (or generator)
      I will add that because they use low grade heat they are very large for the small power output they produce.

  • buffalo

    the celani wire system is just too small to reach any definitive conclusions so gearing up for the powder-packed test-tubes is a good move and should be intresting,basicly mini-ecats.i suggest they test the following powders: nickel,platinum,cobalt,tungsten,titanium,zirconium and the rare earth alloys eg.samarium-cobalt,lanthanum-nickel etc.

    • Warthog

      The Celani wire system is certainly large enough to prove or disprove the “anomalous heat effect”. It is certainly desirable to “go large” and to investigate other combinations, but to say “too small to reach definitive conclusions” is simply wrong.

      • buffalo

        @warthog,can you elaborate please.

        • Warthog

          Simply put. Drawing “definitive conclusions” requires that the signal be above the “noise”, and that sources of error have been eliminated or corrected for. Has nothing to do with the size of the equipment.

      • lenrdawn

        I’ve heard that argument on quantumheat and don’t quite know what to make of it. More wire would theoretically enhance the effect (if there was one) and could potentially lead to higher signal to noise ratio. But so far they haven’t detected any signal at all, so it would be difficult to say how much of the wire would be needed. 10 times as much as now? 100? 10.000?

        • buffalo

          problem is the mass of constintan powder stuck onto a single wire,or even 5 wires is still too small given the percentage of nickel that supposedly actually undergoes nuke disintergration.

          • lenrdawn

            Does anybody have an idea what that percentage would be?

      • Roger Bird

        It seems to me that the Celani wires probably won’t ever be commercializable. Although, I could be wrong. Last year I was wrong; I thought that I was wrong about something and it turned out that I wasn’t. That was a mistake on my part. (:->)

  • david

    The Cold Fusion or LENR development was first announced to an astonished world by Dr. Fleischman and Dr. Pons in 1989. In fact it was predicted by Benjamin Creme, of Share International, in one of his books, published in 1979. Share International is worth checking out, if only for this reason, although progressive scientists may also be interested in other areas of its teachings, such as the elusive subatomic branch of physics.

  • lenrdawn

    They’ll probably never say it, but I think MFMP practically invalidated Celani’s wire experiments from last year by replicating them. Their temperature measurements confirmed those made by Celani at ICCF and NI Week but interpreting them in the context of careful calibration and much better calorimetry reveals that Celani’s calculations for excess heat were based on unrealistic assumptions (especially the assumptions that the pressure was constant and internal effects caused by changes in ambient temperature could be safely ignored) and may very well be an artifact. Bad news but sorting out the stuff that doesn’t work and improving on what does is part of progress.

    I’d love to see them having a go at an e-cat but if the 3rd party report is real, it’d be superfluous.

    • Mannstein

      By now they must have run side by side experiments with loaded and unloaded wires to take care of systemic errors in their apparatus consequently laying to rest any doubt the effect is real.

    • Redford

      If I remember right, they did say it, then retracted from it. They rather left me the impression of running behind and making some “beginners” mistake – not blaming them, just pointing out the whole measurement process seems to be a tricky one to monitor that level of COP (simpler with Rossi stuff).

      That being said I stopped following on a daily basis months ago.

      • lenrdawn

        I agree. My argument was that they invalidated Celani by measuring much the same temperatures but then had to concede that it was most probably a secondary effect (like pressure and changes in thermal conductivity / IR transparency etc.). So Celani was probably right with his temperature measurements but wrong with the conclusion that it was anomalous heat indicative of LENR.

        • Omega Z

          They Actually used a different setup. They didn’t precisely duplicate Celani’s system.

          They used different hardware with the intent of producing similar results while being prepared to go beyond that. The Idea was to save costs on the hardware for the advances planned.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      +1

    • Ash

      MFMP has certainly shown that Celani’s results are due to measurement issues and poor calorimetry. I’ve followed MFMP closely and every claim of excess power has been followed with a retraction. The excess power amounts are also getting smaller as the test rig gets improved calorimetry, and they are likely to converge at zero excess power.

      It’s ironic that the team who planned to ‘light the New Fire’ have instead disproved one of the most credible LENR experiments.

  • Nixter

    You have to respect the MFMP team, they see the target, and they are aiming for it. I hope they get some solid data before the Rossi report comes out so that they will be amongst the pool of initial researchers with “expert” knowledge in the emerging new field. There will be a vacuum of people who know how to reproduce a LENR plus effect and any who have basic research in the science will be highly valued. Even though LENR science is not quite ready for prime time, I think Dr. Rossi may soon force the issue upon the World.

    Dr. Rossi himself would agree that his technology is immature, that does not mean that it is non-functional, only that it is still being refined while under research and development.

    When the Wright brothers flew their first airplane it was unstable, dangerous and barely functional, but it WAS able to fly. Rossi’s E-Cats are in a similar situation and they may still be experiencing problems based on LENR science’s present knowledge based limitations, but if his E-Cats are able to produce energy as specified, and they probably do,… for the most part. I think Dr. Rossi has probably progressed beyond the initial unreliable stage and reached a zone of stability and controllability along with a better understanding of the underlying principles. As with the original Wright flyer, the problems are addressed and resolved on a continuous basis, causing the divisions between various models to become blurred as the design continuously evolves. With a new technology like this, there is no textbook or course to guide you precisely, you must write your own manual based on discoveries learned while testing in the laboratory. Dr. Rossi definitely has something very interesting about to emerge, it is the magnitude of his discovery that is unknown, not its authenticity.

    • lenrdawn

      “they will be amongst the pool of initial researchers with “expert” knowledge in the emerging new field”

      Yes, but I am afraid that won’t be worth anything. Not for long, at least. Their entire operation is on a shoestring. Once the floodgates break and serious money and brain/manpower is thrown at LENR from the likes of Siemens, GE, Alstom or Hitachi and the big labs, they’d all be sidelined in a matter of days.

      • artefact

        I could imagine that they will be “bought” by one of them to kickstart their research. When the floodgates break every week of advance will count.
        Or they could do consulting. They will have lots of experience with different reactortypes and measurements (Think lenrcam etc.)

        • lenrdawn

          No disrespect towards MFMP. They’re doing a fine job considering their budget. But this is a low-tech operation. If they’d be shifted to a serious research lab that’s been operating on the cutting edge for a couple of decades with more than a handful of Nobels in the bag and where money isn’t much of an issue (say IBM or CERN), they’d take years just to adjust culturally and catch up on the equipment. It’d be different if they had any secret knowledge but (thankfully) they don’t.

          • buffalo

            @lenrdawn..dont count your chickens,you,l be amazed what can be done in a basement homelab.information is power in this game.

          • Warthog

            Low-budget, not low tech. Many successful small companies do much good work “on a shoestring”. You do NOT need huge investments to “do good science”. Do things happen faster…..yes. Better….no. I’ve worked in both environments (huge company and “three guys in a garage”), and the latter actually gave me MORE scope, freedom, and often equipment than the large but myopic enterprise.

            • Omega Z

              Warthog

              Your Right. Even in today’s modern over cost world, 80% of all advances Still come from the Garage variety research & development.

              The reason this isn’t well known is that, Big Money is quick to buy it up & lay claim/credit for it’s development.

          • lenrdawn

            buffalo, warthog

            Read what I’ve said BEFORE replying. Nobody denies that great things can be done on a small budget. This is about what would become of the MFMP guys in case some big lab picks up their work.

            • buffalo

              wich begs the question: how open would mfmp be if they were to stumble upon a ‘freaky’ COP of say 30.

              • lenrdawn

                Good question. So far they’ve been pretty open about everything (that we saw, obviously, which admittedly makes it kind of a circular argument). But IF they come across something like COP 30, then they’d probably describe the setup beforehand and publish measurements live as they used to. So I’d think the question of how open they’d be wouldn’t come up.

                • buffalo

                  open excluding revealing catalyst sauce,*ping*,another rossi is born…

            • Omega Z

              lenrdawn

              If as buffalo has suggested that MFMP stumbled over something with COP=30, I have no doubt they would license it a make a fortune.

              That Said, From what I’m aware of about the founders is a Large portion of that money would go into other projects that would be for the benefit of the people.

              At least that’s what I gather from their past. And what their trying to do now.