MFMP Post Test Data on Water Heating Experiment [Updated with more data]

The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project team is reporting results of an interesting experiment comparing the ability of two cells — one active (using wire provided by Francesco Celani), and one passive (using NiChrome wire) — to keep water at a constant temperature. The idea is that excess heat from an LENR reaction in the active would require less input power to maintain that temperature than in the passive cell. A chart of preliminary findings is displayed below

MFMP water bath data

The indications from this test show that it is taking less power for the Cell 2 to mantain the target temperature. The blog post states, “the first test run of the Steel and Glass cell suggested that it took approximately 6% more power to maintain the same volume of water at the same temperature in the control cell when compared to the active cell.”

The team is quick to point out that there needs to be more work done to be sure that these are valid results and state that in future tests they will be using different wires, running the test for a longer period, sealing the water containers so top-ups are not needed, and some other changes.

Here’s a short video showing how this test was set up:

UPDATE: Here’s a second chart showing data from later on in the the same experiment. This one covers four days — from the 21st to the 24th of May.

MFMP Water bath experiment #2

  • Andreiko

    The cigar by Krivit just keeps getting shorter and keeps going harder stink.

  • artefact

    NewEnergyTimes:

    Open Letter to Rossi’s Academic E-Cat Promoters

    http://news.newenergytimes.net/2013/06/06/open-letter-to-rossis-academic-e-cat-promoters/

    • Bento

      Can’t wait for their(academics) response. Could be very important.

      • AB

        Krivit is a nobody and all he has is conjecture.

        I would not be surprised if the authors ignored him. Levi has negative experiences with Krivit and might warn the other authors.

        • AB

          If you haven’t seen Krivit’s interview with Levi, it’s quite informative.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml-NElJ-Cf0

          • Roger Bird

            Krivit was even obnoxious in that interview. It made me feel uncomfortable. I think that Krivit may have seen a matchbook cover that said “How to be a journalist is 5 easy steps”.

            • Jjaroslav

              Totally in agreement …there is a type of journalist that gets their nut solely by churning and having an under-reaching agenda. As long we keep responding to him he is relevant….ignore him….with luck he will slink back into his hole.

              There is plenty of room for cogent feed back to all the diligent scientists carefully pursuing LENR without these irrelevant diversions…..
              in the end as Rossi says, in true Missouri fashion, and great for a transplanting Italian, he will either show us, or not…
              Personally, I feel pretty lucky to be a witness to what may be one of the greatest transformations to hit this planet.

              • Roger Bird

                “Personally, I feel pretty lucky to be a witness to what may be one of the greatest transformations to hit this planet.” Big DITTOS.

        • Jerry Jones

          no one pays any attention to Krivit anymore,there is something dilutional going on in his head.

          • Roger Bird

            “dilutional” probably; he is diluting his integrity with way to much of something. I think that you meant “delusional”. Both his dilutional and his delusional are probably based upon anger and an intense desire to be the center of attention.

    • HeS

      @Steven B. Krivit:
      “He offered to demonstrate it to me while it was running and allowed me to videotape. In the opinion of skilled engineers who later viewed the videotape, the steam output appeared to be equivalent to a 1,000 Watt electric tea kettle. Rossi, however, claimed it was producing 5,000 Watts of heat.”

      Opinion (done “by skilled engineers”:) on the basis of video tapes are more accurate than direct measurements made by the experimenters?
      What the crap.

      • daniel maris

        I’ve seen my kettle blowing steam on thousands of occasions. Sometimes the steam is very visible, sometimes it isn’t – all depending on a host of lighting factors.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          True. It also depends on the abundance of small particles in air. In wintertime one can see one’s breath more easily when there is a diesel engine running nearby which emits small particles. (It also makes one think what one breaths.)

          • Omega Z

            Pekka

            Yes, most people in the world prefer to live in the dark.

            They do not want to see how their food is processed.

            They do not want to think about the fact the air they breath in was just breathed out by the 1 standing next to them.

            Most are like a skittish horse who can’t function in the real world without their blinders.

            • Roger Bird

              And don’t forget that each and everyone of them is INFINITELY precious.

    • khawk

      Who is this guy and who is supporting this vendetta? He has very little integrity in his so called approach as a truth seeker.

    • Roger Bird

      Please, reading Krivit is too painful. Could someone give us a 2 or 4 line summary?

  • Omega Z

    I’ve meant to post this factoid since the 3rd party report came out and keep forgetting.

    It has to do with the COP. Dec.- 5.6 // Mar.- 2.6
    Aside from the smaller Charge & lower operating Temps.
    The December test started with the H-Cat already fired up.
    March test started from Cold.
    The 4 hour start up takes a huge toll on the COP.
    Subtracting the start up from the Data would very likely push the March COP to 4.

    • fortyniner

      Thanks – missed that. From the flanged design I would guess that the ‘H2′ is a pre-production prototype designed to run submerged in coolant, so during the test in air, the cell was probably run severely ‘throttled back’ to avoid heat damage. Perhaps we’ll find out sometime how much heat output this design is actually capable of producing.

    • MaxS

      you need to include the total enery input, including start up phase, that is why the Dec test is problematic, apart from the fact that most authors did not even attend the Dec test

      • Pedro

        The test was stopped after 100 hours although it could have go on for a much longer period… If it had run for 6 months (as is planned for the next test) the 4 hours startup would not have any influence on the COP and therefor the december test was far more representative of normal operation COP.

        • kasom

          exact!

        • Thinks4Self

          One thing to keep in mind, is that both the December and March tests were air cooled. A production reactor would likely have cooling fins and be liquid cooled. Resulting in far more heat output, due to the ability to transfer more heat away from the reactor and thus a much larger charge would be used in the core.

      • Omega Z

        MaxS

        I was just indicating things that can vary the COP.
        In reality you have to take all energy used into account including the Controls. Which I believe the March test did.

        Note also the longer it runs, the higher the COP will be. But there is in my laymen terms, A compounding half-life factor to COP recovery which means diminishing returns over time. You will never recover 100% of what you lost.

        A similar process applies to COP multiples. Going from COP=10 to COP=20 only reduces input by half. 20 to 40 reduces the input by half of half & so on. This in fact puts a logical limit to COP unless you just make a final leap to 100% SSM.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    I think Dr. Rossi is finally acknowledging he is up against some very powerful money interests. I hope he is right about installing plants.

    Andrea Rossi
    June 6th, 2013 at 6:19 PM
    Fabio 82:
    We will be subject to a massive attempt of discredit, from many differentiated sources, but I think that we can win just installing operating plants. Our work will beat any chatter.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • fortyniner

      I hope the inevitable attacks will be limited to a few shills and tame publications spouting the usual tripe. Much worse has been visited on other inventors who have threatened vested interests in the past.

  • buffalo

    cant wait till mfmp start with the powders,ive got a feeling powders will give promising results.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Us too! In fact we did start, but first test did not go so well and we had to re-organise the area, add protection, replace hard drives and update software.

      For in-situ ionising particle emission and stimulation potential, I’d like to have fiber free Potassium Titanate in there or Thorium Dioxide (highest melting point of any oxide 3390ºC). The latter would help prevent sintering as it would act as a thermal sink as well as a Nickel particle separator.

      http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/powder-test-cells

      • fortyniner

        “we had to re-organise the area, add protection, replace hard drives…”

        Dispersal of the nickel in a neutral carrier in various different proportions sounds like a good idea, if I am reading the above statement correctly. Perhaps at a later stage you could add a hydride H donor so you can dispense with hydrogen feed other than for metal loading. Very hopeful though if the right precautions are put in place.

      • georgehants

        Bob, Morning, could I ask, have you received any offers of help or funding from any main-line scientific sources.
        If not, what are your thoughts regarding the situation where Cold Fusion is left almost entirely to individuals like your good-selves. Mr Rossi etc.
        How do you feel that such an important, now confirmed subject is still being denied and delayed by the administrations etc. who are charged with the responsibility of forwarding scientific knowledge for the benefit of the World.

        • Bob Greenyer

          A politicians first job is to get elected, his second job is to get re-elected. In a world where real politik is driven by pleasing the majority and pandering to the donors seeking funding from “governments” ( read peoples future taxes ) is always going to be a challenge, Especially if the amount of money for the research is too small to create a “we created this many jobs with this investment” headline. Additionally, it makes a farce of 10s of billions of previous spending. Big challenges on the political front.

          Researchers find it very difficult to get money in any case, so when they have something that people agree is something worthy or resources, NO ONE wants to rock the boat. The New Fire is the equivalent of a cluster bomb on current research budgets, if proven, it make a farce of 100,000s of peoples life work.

          So there are challenges.

          Forget banks, they are only interested in “supporting R&D” when it is already a dead-cert and they are at no risk, normally by giving a loan to a predator to either by up the IP of enough of the key staff to sink the original innovator organisation.

          Since it is our Grandchildren’s taxation that is now being spent on ill fated mega projects to approach solving the coming energy crisis from other angles, it is prudent to give the New Fire a good crack of the whip.

          This will not come from banks, nor politics nor the old pipeline business models… they are only interested in patent and restrict.

          The new world is about platforms and collective discovery, since however new energy is paid for, we all end up paying, why don’t we just CHOOSE what we want to see happen.

          That is the beauty of something like kickstarter, it allows good ideas that would be rejected out of hand by a bank (because you can’t produce a 5 year business plan with any credibility) to happen – because people want them to happen.

          We want to conclude the the Celani reactor replication and distribution to stimulate deep understanding of the phenomenon and then move on to creating open source reactors based on other morphology, material science etc.

          We need an army of people to fight for us when we can actually launch our campaign. Our current issue is HSBC has a policy for non-profit organisations, it has a policy for international companies, but not one that is both… and without the account, we cannot launch the kickstarter… we are hoping for a resolution soon.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Dear Bob, you seem to have an understanding of politics (esp. regarding jobs creating headline news) which is close to my experience. My example is space. In USA and Germany etc., space is big enough to create such this-many-jobs announcements from politicians. There space gets funding, but is bureaucratic and inefficient, not innovative. In Finland space is so small that such news are not generated, hence it receives very little funding, like LENR globally. But with the small money, nothing prevents us from being innovative. My point is that more than the subject, the political dynamics determines the size of funding and type of activity, because even the same subject (for example space) can yield widely different outcomes in different countries. Fortunately in space, projects are usually international collaboration which gives another degree of freedom that one can utilise.

            • Bob Greenyer

              Volunteers are worth ten forced men my dad used to say. When one is doing something one wants to do, rather than has to do, so much more gets done.

              “Jobs for the boys” approach to science is expensive and wasteful and it takes too much hard earned tax around the world. We’d like to see science get to a point were the public can feel attached to it and their is no mystery anymore… they are empowered to drive it rather that be baffled not only by what it is doing but how it came to receive the funding!

  • Curbina

    And following with the idea about involving Dr. Hal Puthoff’s EarthTech in this, this paragraph is tantalizing: (http://www.earthtech.org/index.php/cold-fusion)

    “The culmination of our efforts to build an accurate and reliable calorimeter for cold fusion experimentation is an instrument we call MOAC (Mother of All Calorimeters). MOAC was designed to achieve +/- 0.1% relative accuracy. At the typical input power level of 10 watts, that is equivalent to +/- 0.01 watts. On a good day, when freshly calibrated, this accuracy is actually achieved. A month after calibration, the system typically drifts by up to 0.03 watts. Despite this small problem, we feel that MOAC is one of the best calorimeters now available for cold fusion research. We are committed to maintaining MOAC in top working condition on a continuous basis. In the interest of scientific progress, we have made a standing offer for free testing of promising cold fusion cells in MOAC.”

  • Curbina

    I wonder if Dr. Hal Puthoff from EarthTech could help with better calorimetric methods, as they say to have the “Mother of All Calorimeters” (MOAC). I know they have an interest in LENR, but I have not hear of any of the independent groups like Celani, or MFMP, or Athanor, making an attempt to get help in proper measurements from EarthTech.

  • Roger Bird

    You will want to read this:

    http://egooutpeters.blogspot.ro/2013/06/a-veterans-voice.html

    Notice that Yeong Kim, a very distinguished physicist, is calling Defkalion his “friends”.

    • Methusela

      Yes, it’s very interesting, particularly the following from a DFG ‘do they have it, or not?’ perspective:

      Recently, I had an opportunity to observe experimental runs of DGTG’s R-5 reactor carried out by their group of scientists in Vancouver. The results were positive. More importantly the results are reproducible, since there had been many positive runs with other observers so far in addition to my observation. This is very significant historically since we have now a device which yields reproducible results for the first time. It is a break-through which we have been waiting for.
      The break-through is accomplished by new comers, new breed of scientists and engineers lead by a mathematician who became an excellent scientist. This is a new wave and new paradigm change.

      Professor Kim’s was the first academic to put forward his theory to explain what’s happening inside the E-CAT (it even made it into the Wiki E-CAT article, after a major battle).

    • AB

      Pekka, what do you think of Yeong Kim’s theory? Any obvious problems with the Widom-Larsen theory?

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I find Kim’s theory interesting, the two main unclear issues for me are: 1) can one have BEC at such high temperature, 2) I was not able to follow a key calculation in Kim’s paper.

        I do not consider WLT as an interesting theory because it contradicts with experiment in too many ways. One is that it postulates a large number of cold neutrons (one per nuclear reaction) inside the active material while basically none is observed to escape it. In other words WLT would postulate that all cold neutrons would disappear without a trace after entering LENR material. Experimentally, cold neutrons behave differently: after entering warmer matter, some of them can interact elastically with its nuclei, gain energy, become normal thermal neutrons and escape. There are also the problems of 1) how to get ~0.7 MeV from plasmons to get the neutrons formed, 2) to explain away the gammas and 3) to explain the lack of radioactivity afterwards. Theories requiring only a single “miracle” are more attractive than theories which requires four independent ones.

    • artefact

      Peter Gluck on Vortex said:
      “Yeong is a great scientist and he is very generous and friendly. And he
      has great courage and takes responsibilty- he is an authority in two fields of physics and even more. You can now find all his papers at the iste of his University mentioned in the Interview.. His presenation at ICCF-18 will be a historic one.”

      Looking forward to the presentation….

    • khawk

      I posted a comment under the egoout article on the Kim interview that was something along the lines of that Kim’s support for Defkalion is also good news for the E-Cat after Defkalion’s claim that they “lifted” Rossi’s catalyst. It was deleted by the moderator in minutes.

  • Roger Bird
    • cx

      doesnt load

    • fortyniner

      Thanks, a good neutral ‘state of play’ article in a rather dour engineering publication. The ‘whatever it is, its not cold fusion, OK?’ slant is a tad irritating.

  • Kim

    Not sure why were messing around with Celeni’s wires.

    Did not Celeni Show excess energy already?

    Now when Rossi got his excess thermal heat he burnt
    his finger it was so hot.

    He knew right there. Did not need any fancy measuring
    equipment, he knew he had lift off!

    Respect
    Kim

    • Robert Ellefson

      Perhaps you would like to share any suggestions you might have as to how we create a reaction sufficient to burn your fingers and not bother measuring the power? I agree, this sounds like a great plan of action.

      • Kim

        I do have a suggestion.

        Place Nickel into a plasma state under containment
        and then introduce Hydrogen Plasma. Skip the
        Lattice structure.

        I bet things would start hopping then.

        Respect
        Kim

        • Robert Ellefson

          That sounds fairly difficult to accomplish, from a practical perspective. Do you have any thoughts on how to accomplish this with a reasonable amount of money, intended for replication? We’re talking about specific equipment here; after all, that is what the goal involves: spreading gear along with ideas.

          • Alex

            Hydrogen Plasma can form in high pressure, with a low input power. However, good luck with Nickel plasma, I wouldn’t know. Plus, they would need to both be kept at way different pressures to be stable. Introducing them together in one plasma chamber may prove difficult as by the time you have the pressure temperature needed to bring nickel into a plasma, your hydrogen would more than likely be helium or something heavier by then. Your also talking fusion temperatures.

            • Roger Bird

              I don’t see why making them into plasmas would do any good. The whole point I thought of the lattice was to confine those little suckers so that have to fall in love and get married.

              • fortyniner

                Agreed – there doesn’t seem to be any evidence available that supports the idea that a metal plasma would enhance cold fusion, and there is no theoretical reason to suggest this either.

                Even disregarding the practical issues that would be involved with generating and confining a metal plasma using electric arcs or lasers, I think MFMP are right to continue to look at surface reactions in wire or powder, although possibly electrically ionised hydrogen may be a useful path to follow at some stage.

            • Ted-X

              Nickel as nickel tetracarbonyl has a boiling point of about 40-50 deg. Celsius.
              Under LENR conditions nickel complexed with CO would be in the vapor phase (Defkalion process?). Partial ionization (0.001%?) might be sufficient. There are resonance structures in nickel tetracarbonyl and electrons apparently passing through the nucleus due to electron hybridization process. The bonds are mostly covalent.

          • Kim

            The University of Wisconsin has a device
            I believe fits the bill and could be
            used as a starting point in extracting
            the energy evolving from the intimate
            relations ship of hydrogen and nickel

            http://iec.neep.wisc.edu/

            Respect
            Kim

        • Lukedc

          Place Nickel into a plasma state under containment and then introduce Hydrogen Plasma. Skip the Lattice structure

          Sooo.
          How do you propose to confine the plasma?
          If would require a repurposed Tokomak and an untold amount of ancillary equipment.
          Sticking with the current method that Bob and the team are employing is prudent in this case. They have made inroads and are getting close to a good method for the replication of LENR+
          Remember that is their goal. Not to heat their office or generate Kilowatts of electricity. They are following the scientific method and want to create a replicable process.

        • Zedshort

          That is purely fanciful, shoot-from-the-hip nonsense. Do you believe plasmas to be magical?

    • Tom H

      Look up nickel hydride heat pumps. Add resistive heating elements. There are many ways to burn your finger.

  • K

    Have you tried high frequencies and skin effect ?

  • Roger Bird

    Any LENR and LENR+ believer who continues to fret in print or even in their heads about AGW is not being true to themselves. If you really, really, really believe that LENR and LENR+ is real, then you would stop fretting, one way or the other, about AGW.

    • HHiram

      AGW will continue to be a huge problem unless we reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Even if we stopped burning all fossil fuels right now, AGW would continue for several centuries because of the gigatons of CO2 we have already added to the atmosphere. So unless we use LENR to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere, we are going to need to take other action to decrease CO2 concentration from 400ppm back down to ~250ppm, otherwise sea level rise, polar ice cap retreat and other major climate changes will continue unabated. Reforestation and soil recovery in desertified drylands are the obvious solutions, though it is not clear how LENR would help with either of those directly.

      And this ignores the equally large problem of ocean acidification, for which LENR offers no direct solution.

      Anyone who says we don’t need to worry about AGW doesn’t adequately understand the problem.

      • Thinks4Self

        The extra CO2 in the atmosphere is already beginning to green deserts, try reading recent news. Regardless of what we do the ice caps will melt and the earth’s temperature will rise eventually. Our orbit is heading into its circle phase. The belief that we can keep the earth at a temperature that we would like it to be permanently is nothing but folly.

  • Roger Bird

    I am probably confused, but, I’m thinking via typing: energy = heat = I^2 * R. This means that if the resistance of the wires in the cells are different, then the whole thing is screwed up. And if the resistance changes with heat differently for different material, then the whole thing is screwed up.

    • Stefan

      There are many issues like this probably,

      Schematic Action,
      * find properties x1,x2,x3,x4,x4 etc that can affect each cell
      * produce N tests where you randomize the factors to each cell
      * perform a factor analysis and get a statistical conclusion
      * Consider finding out about factors that are important and
      eliminate their influences.
      * Consider DOE like techniques to keep the N to a minimum.
      * If you go for a distributed scientific approach, make sure to
      organize it so that no publication bias and the like can be questioned.

      Perhaps consider redo this loop many times, but make sure to do a bonferoni like correction so that you do not go into a scientific blunder because you try too many things at 95%.

      My 2C

      • Stefan

        Eh, the parent was talking about a effect connected to the material of cause it cannot be randomized, anyhow the gist
        of the message is something that still can be considered.

        Cheers

    • robiD

      The resistances are supplied with the same *power*.
      They set the power to a constant value in the power supply and not the voltage or the current.

      • Roger Bird

        So there are power supplies that can deliver both constant current and constant voltage? I guess I am getting old. In my day, 1982, power supplies were either one or the other, but not both.

        • Robert Ellefson

          The tracking of resistance and power supply output voltage was manually tuned periodically once gas loading had normalized and the rate of change of resistance meant it occured slowly enough for this to be practical. In any event, both current and voltage were logged and total power estimates can be independently verified with this data.

          • atanguy

            Did you switch the cells+wires and power system so to compare the celani effect on each of them?

            • Bob Greenyer

              Cells is on the list for a switch, sure we can add power supplies. Switching the wires as well, not practical with this kind of experiment, and give the switching cells and Power supplies is practical, I am not sure what else it would tell you – but could be done I suppose.

    • Paul Mannstein

      If one makes the product of input voltage times current identical to both cells then it makes no difference if the resistance of the heater wires is not the same.

      Pinput=Vref*Iref=Vtest*Itest where the Vref and Iref refers to the voltage and current to the reference cell respectively and Vtest and Itest is the voltage and current to the test cell respectively. Even though the voltages and currents are not the same as long as the products are identical the input powers will be the same.

    • Mick D

      Constantan wire that Cellini uses has a constant R vs temperature. Not sure about the control wire. They could have used untreated constantan or simlpy calibrated the wire.

  • AB

    Italian politician wants support for LENR research

    At least that’s how I understood it.

    • Roger Bird

      If you can actually understand a Google Translate, it probably actually said what you thought you understood.

      Wow!!!

      To every action there is an equal and oppositely directed reaction. (I just made that up.) Depend upon there being some opposition to this.

    • Chris I

      I went to the original and I didn’t make the detailed comparison.

      In short, a senator is querying the government as to whether, considering all said in the paragraphs previous to the last, it has any intention of promoting research into these topics which could relieve our dependence on importations of fossil fuels and cause less pollution.

      The premises include a concise summary of the key facts, including the Elforsk report and the involvement of ENEA with partners, as exposed in Brussels.

    • Jim

      +1

  • blaze

    6% is within measure of error unfortunately, and pretty much meaningless to outside observers.

    Worthwhile to keep trying to get something better. Maybe when you’re around 15%+ or so people will try to reproduce your results.

    Also, bob, you really need another cell which has the same input as the LENR cell. So 3 cells in total.

    • Roger Bird

      I think that several cells of each would not be a bad idea.

    • Bob Greenyer

      It is 8.3 – 10% difference when near steady state. The 6% estimate quoted in the article above was for the first experiment with these cells. Even with the 10% the Active cell is a constant 0.2+ ºC above the the Control. The fluctuation across the last two days is due to ambient etc. and affects both cell similarly (though the higher temp Active cell drops faster do to its higher temperature differential from ambient as one would expect)

      What measurement error are you referring to, power, temperature?

      The next experiment will put 2 X 400L wires into the active cell.

      RUN 1: 14L + 16L > estimated control needed 6% more power to maintain same bath temp

      RUN 2: 14L + 360L > estimated control needed 10% more power to maintain same bath temp (this run)

      RUN 3: 400+L + 400+L > might see over 15%, no guarantees though!

      If we see a growth in RUN3 – we might just appeal to Celani for a big bunch of wires, and throw them in and see if the effect scales.

    • Shane D.

      Seems like every experiment MFMP has done since the beginning has produced a little (3->10%) excess heat while the control did not… whatever the cell type.

      Maybe not enough to give absolute confidence that they have “new fire”, but seems cause for some optimism that they are on the right path.

      How many dummy experiments can one run and always have excess anything, even with all the different variables involved? And as they go on the variables get ever more factored out… yet there is that persistent excess.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Shane, you are right on the money, When in December, we saw 12.5% we could only claim it with low confidence despite Mathieu’s meticulous calibrations. In the tests in Feb, the excess again was easy to challenge – because in both of these kind of experiments, their were so many ways to criticise the results.

        Then came the crowd/team funded Steel and Glass cell (thanks)… a derivative of the Celani cell that allows all IR to be thermalised, lower input powers in order to reach high wire temperatures and the insulating low pressure void between the glass and the steel allows for the experiment to be immersed in water – OR… in the future to have the steel cap made into a heat exchanger for precise fluid based mass flow calorimetry.

        This current experiment has a long time constant and the specific heat capacity of water combine to give very smooth data where noise is dealt with by the design of the experiment. Signal is what drops out of control and active cell bath temperatures + affect of ambient etc.

        It is also trivial to understand, even for early school science classes – whereas other calorimeters / experiment designs need a huge degree of mental agility to comprehend.

        Also, having 2 identical cells with only the wire different means no calibration needed as you are doing a differential live comparison.

        The V2 protocol dual Celani cell experiments are also differential. But we are calibrating for good measure and that multi day process started yesterday in the EU with live data streaming as we speak. We are doing “belt and braces” on this experiment. This protocol does not have Hydrogen in calibration or active run in the Control cell (it has a dynamic vacuum) and so there is no chance for the NiChrome wire to produce LENR heat as it may actually be doing in the Steel and Glass experiment just reported on (the control cells NiChrome wire is in same H2 environment).

        A modification of the S&G design might also allow use of high tension pass throughs (for arc and glow discharge) and adding mounting points at the base for say a soft x-ray emmitter or a magnetron (ensure length of cell allows for standing microwaves). Also a Light guide would allow introduction of EUV or whatever given suitable sources that may be available to certain research facilities.

        We can also pack the cell with more wire if, as reported but STM, it works via thermal only.

        Get it predictable, reliable and flexible, and let the world join in the journey to find out what makes it work harder!

    • atanguy

      No,switching the cells will be enough to see if the effect is the same.

  • Roger Bird

    Seems sort of bass-ackwards to be changing the input so that the temperatures are the same. Why did you do it that way rather than give them both exactly the same input and compare the temperatures?

    At only 6% difference, I am not all that crazy about one side of the setup being up against a wall and the other side being up against air.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Because the evaporation rate would be different when a steady state is reached as if the Active cell is producing excess heat, it will raise the bath temperature higher and faster. Long time constants and differential evaporation rates means this kind of experiment, as set up, takes a bit of effort to get to steady steady state, but once there the cells should track each other nicely.

      Once this is done a few times with similar wires in basically the same set up, using a joule heater to pre-heat the water to target temp and then turn on the cells at the expected input power differential should make this a repeatable demonstration.

      • Roger Bird

        Most excellent!!! to not have to fuss with the evaporation.

        But what about one unit being next to the wall and the other not. At only 6% difference, this could mess with your results.

        • Bob Greenyer

          It is 8.3 – 10% difference when near steady state. The 6% estimate quoted in the article above was for the first experiment with these cells.

          The cool down at the end after power switched off points to a very equivalent thermal insulation for both cells. Besides this will be a non discussion point in the next experiment where the cells will likely be sat in two off the shelf chest freezers. See comments on our site for the type of thing I am referring to.

    • Bob Greenyer

      6% was an estimate for the first run – this had a 14L and 16L wires in the active cell.

      This one had a 14L and a 360L.

      For nearly 2 days ( when the cells were close to tracking and steady state) at the end of this run. It took between 8.3% and 10% more power in the Control to heat its bath water to ballpark the same temp as that of the active cells.

      If you look here

      http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-2/152-can-it-be-chemical

      and double the figures (2m of active wire) – we would need to produce around 5W excess for an hour to be beyond chemical and there would be no hydrogen left in the cell, the pressure data points to this not being the case.

      This experiment is doing the extra work of 5W – 6W every hour for around 2 days.

      • artefact

        exciting

      • Omega Z

        Bob Greenyer

        I noticed someone on Vortex thought that the Ni-chrome wire may be a somewhat active element due to the Nickel content.

        If so, that would indicate the possibility of under measuring the excess on Celani’s wire.

        Do you intend to try something different.

  • Bob Greenyer

    @ALL

    We have posted a graph produced by a follower from the data pulled off the laptop from the end of this experiment run. It is posted on our blog in UPDATE#3.

    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-4/271-s-g-cells-preliminary-test-findings-for-run-2

  • Bento

    why not ask Peter Hagelstein if he is interested in running the same experiment in his lab. Same set up with the Celani wire.
    He’s an open minded academic.

    • Bob Greenyer

      When we have a better experiment design and protocol – we want as many people to run them as possible!

      • GrosBen

        Sure we want but where can we buy these wires ?

        • Bob Greenyer

          As part of the Kickstarter (when HSBC have given us a bank account!) we will be providing rewards for pledges of cells, one type will be an improved derivative of the cells in this experiment.

          We intend for the following.

          If the person receiving the cell agrees to publish their protocol up front in their own blog area on the MFMP site and demonstrate they can live publish their data to the site also (say for calibrations and dummy runs) then we aim to provide them wires for free.

  • lenrdawn

    Bob, you asked “what then?”

    Nothing much, sadly. Experiments like that have been conducted over years and while I’m sure you’d be as thorough as possible, there will always be the possibility of a systematical error – especially when there is nothing else supporting the nuclear hypothesis as source for the supposed extra energy (radiation, transmutation than can’t be ruled out as contamination etc.).

    The only real way I see out of that (and it would in fact be much, much easier than what you’ve done so far anyway) would be to run the reactors in a high quality insulation environment (say less than a watt loss), heat them up to trigger temperature and then just let them run for a couple of weeks. Nobody could argue with that. I understand Celani tried just that and failed while you haven’t tried, correct? May I ask why?

    If it is accepted that electricity flowing through the wire somehow contributes to keeping the process going, then it stands to reason to suspect that it is also critical to get it started and other parameters like waveform, voltage, current or whatever would also potentially be of importance. But finding the right mixture may be an impossible task with experiments designed like the ones you’ve been using up until now.

    This is just a comment from the peanut gallery, of course, but wouldn’t it be worthwhile to forget all about calorimetry for now, try the insulation test and (if that fails) continue with a setup allowing for real-time or almost-real-time identification via i.e. high-res IR cameras while slowly cycling through frequency bands, current shifts and what not?

    Obviously, if the insulation test DOESN’T fail, you’ve not only reached the high goals you set for yourself but also done something nobody in the field has achieved before.

    • Bob Greenyer

      The Steel and Glass cell is a device that allows a high degree of insulation. between the inner Glass and the outer steel we can put any gas at any pressure down to vacuum. Vacuum is an excellent insulator as our burned out wires in vacuums will attest to.

      Running short experiments with our lower capability wires allows us to see what is right and wrong about approach and canvass the opinion of the crowd. This enables us to build better experiments for when we really mean it!

      That time is approaching with the Steel and Glass… So, better wires, better insulation (in chest freezers) stop evaporation loss etc. etc… then run for a longer time.

      The Dual Cells in the US and EU, when they are running, will be long term test, and likewise, they are running in dynamic vacuum which is a great insulator.

      The advantage however of the Steel and Glass is that the inner chamber can have H2, the gap can have a controlled pressure that means the inner chamber can be held at trigger temp range when the cell is immersed in a fluid AND ALL of the IR is thermalised by the steel outer.

      One problem is that the Nichrome resistor in the Steel and Glass control contains Nickel and is in H2 environment, so may produce excess heat (Celani has stopped using NiChrome). This is not a problem in the V2 protocol Celani cells as there is no H2 during the control and active runs, so NiChrome is ok.

      We have run experiments for a good number of weeks and if the excess could be without question it is way beyond chemical – in fact we calculated that we easily go through chemical.

      http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-2/152-can-it-be-chemical

      Problem is there were many criticisms of those experiments. The current experiments remove most of the criticisms we had in the past. If we produce excess on long runs then the debate will be closer to being concluded.

      Look out for the graph of the second block of data.

      • lenrdawn

        I must have expressed myself poorly. What I meant was that you should run the experiment without any input power at all once the temperature supposed to trigger the reaction has been reached. With your setups so far that didn’t work because you only produced a few Watts (if any) and with your experiments that can’t sustain the reaction because you’re potentially losing orders of magnitudes of that via radiation and convection. Now if you’d insulate it down to the loss of a Watt and the temperature remains stable or rises over long periods of time without any input, you’d have something you could really call solid evidence.

      • Thinks4Self

        If I can make a suggestion, you might source some large blocks of Styrofoam instead of coolers. Cut them in half and hollow them out to fit the setups. Or better yet use expanding foam inside a box to create the block around the cells without any seams. Five or six inches of Styrofoam surrounding the cells should give you all the insulation you need.

    • Robert Ellefson

      There are many ways to improve this experiment. This has been repeatedly acknowledged and discussed at length now. While additional suggestions remain pertinent, I think a consideration of the reported results, flaws and all, is still due here.

      Have you taken a look at the data closely? Without question, the pertinent signals are surrounded by large amounts of noise, but if you perform qualitative regression analysis on the data, I think you will see some interesting behavior. I posted a graph in the comments thread for the original report blog post, along with some discussion of divergent behavior of the two cells. I’m curious what your interpretation of this time period would yield. Would you mind sharing with us your insights?

      • lenrdawn

        You mean that rise in temperature by about .2 C in something like 10-12 minutes starting at around 14:25 or so?

        • Robert Ellefson

          No, that’s not what I mean. Try having another read through the comments, please. Your opinion matters here, as does everybody else’s. Look closely! Look also at the second series that was just posted. It’s much more informative from a qualitative view.

        • NJT

          Given what information is shown and known, the second graph is very impressive. Good work MFMP team! Keep it up…

  • Alp

    @Bob:

    Same question as was asked of previous experiments by several people on your web site: how about using (*much*) more active material to improve the signal to noise ratio?

    (thanks)

    • Bob Greenyer

      We are preparing just such an experiment right now. We only have a certain amount of wire and need to work within that constraint. But we are going to pack several pieces into the relatively minute Concentric Calorimeter, Ryan is preparing the blog on it now which I hope we can get out before the weekend.

      The next Steel and Glass run will have 2 X 1M of 400L wires, which is more than even Celani has tried according to my recent conversation with him. Though this is a far larger dissipating device than the Concentric Calorimeter.

      • NJT

        Good luck and I really appreciate your postings here Bob…

      • Ben

        I think that an experiment with several times more wire would be very promising!

  • georgehants

    22 PASI
    Thursday, June 6, 2013
    The pro-rector Ruocco welcomes the LENR to Wisdom
    (Author: Vincent Valenzi)
    I’m here to bring you a brief account of the day [ yesterday June 5, 2013 ] marking the revival of Wisdom on the physical border, an increase of coherence in the scientific system that is essential to proceed in the progress and development of applications that are expected from our society.
    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2F22passi.blogspot.co.uk%2F2013%2F06%2F5-maggio-2013-il-prorettore-ruocco.html%3Futm_source%3Dfeedburner%26utm_medium%3Dfeed%26utm_campaign%3DFeed%3A%2Bblogspot%2FGneRw%2B%28%253Cp%2Balign%253D%2522right%2522%253EVentidue%2Bpassi%2Bd%2527amore%2Be%2Bdintorni%2B%2B%2B%253C%2Fp%253E%29

  • Bento

    The fact that one cell uses less energy doesn’t mean it’s a nuclear reaction, maybe it’s just a better chemical reaction.
    One of the two is just a better water boiler.

    • Bob Greenyer

      But when the experiment is configured so as many as possible are happy with that and it runs for many months, what then?

      • http://www.e-catworld.com admin

        Hi Bob, thanks for dropping by — it’s always good to have your input here in regards to the MFMP work!

        • Bob Greenyer

          A pleasure,

          The challenge with revealing every step is that people get to see the work in progress… the great thing is, so much wonderful feedback is produced that can rapidly advances the quality of the work.

          However cleaver one thinks one is, there is always things that are missed and they can be obvious things after they have been pointed out. The idea of doing a short experiment like this and showing the results is that people can easily see what can be improved, whereas asking people to look at an experimental protocol on white paper and offer up comment and insight is nigh on impossible.

          We are happy that we have a chance to be doers – it is fun. We want to get to a point where things are simple, fun and repeatable – we believe a derivation of this experiment is a good candidate.

          • Alp

            Hi. Are you planning to interchange the cells?

            • Bob Greenyer

              Yes, this type of protocol component has been proposed and will be done at some point. The overall apparatus and setup needs vast improvement first before doing longer runs.

          • Bernie Koppenhofer

            Gives me more confidence in the Rossi Third party results, it is very hard to create an experiment that includes all the possible inconsistencies, I think the recent third party team did a very good job.

            • Alp

              One thing I am puzzled about. If you believe that Rossi makes kilowatts comparatively easily, and will soon sell commercially through places like Home Depot, why is the MFMP going through all the difficult and tedious work with Celani wire to make a few milliwatts?

              I am not disparaging their work. I am just curious. Do they not believe Rossi?

              • Omega Z

                Alp

                I believe it’s all about spreading the knowledge & promoting advanced research in the next generation.

                There is room for lots of improvement but someone needs to help provide the tools. Something they can put their hands on.

                Something MFMP intends to do once they get the bugs worked out. Provide as many units as possible for experimentalists to start out with.

                • Bob Greenyer

                  You are bang on.

              • Bob Greenyer

                If we can repeatably demonstrate that we are producing a few Watts excess over extended periods from thermally activated wires, then, considering the amount of active component/surface area we a ball-park Rossi claimed energy densities.

                Then we have a precise amount of active component measurable and directly controllable that we can explore what really makes it work.

                Additionally, not every application needs KW – think of a mobile phone/tablet that you never need to charge or a pacemaker.

      • Bento

        Thx, I have to think about that.

  • Robyn Wyrick

    Interesting story about a metal-free catalyst that outperforms platinum.

    http://phys.org/news/2013-06-metal-free-catalyst-outperforms-platinum-fuel.html

  • Sven Brus

    The clock seems to not be working?

    • Zedshort

      I think they are not showing the lower part of the plot. The four lines should converge to the same start temperature and time and when the power was zero.

      • Sven Brus

        Oh my mistake… Its been running over several days.

  • andreiko

    Waarom niet cel 1 en cel 2 op een afzonderlijke weegschaal in gelijke omstandigheden en het verschil van het verdampte water met de verdampings formule van water, de calorien berekenen?

  • lenrdawn

    I’m a little dismayed about the setup. Here’s another view: http://www.quantumheat.org/images/igallery/resized/201-300/SteelGlassCells_Setup1-206-960-640-80.jpg

    The experiment in the corner is the active cell – right next to the walls, the cartons and the other experiment. This is so obviously biased for both, convective and radiative energy loss, that they should have known from the start that it can’t ever be conclusive. Sometimes it seems like they’re wasting a lot of time. The required improvements should have been foreseeable before. So why run this experiment at all in this form?

    • Ecco the Dolphin

      They did state that the set up will be improved in that direction but I agree that it’s not very productive to invest time in obviously flawed experiments that can’t possibly lead to conclusive results.

      If the excess heat was much larger it wouldn’t matter too much, though. It’s frustrating that they can’t just put enough wire in their cells to achieve that, for the same input power.

      • Bob Greenyer

        We are putting far more capable wires (according to Celani) in the next runs of all experiments and a bunch of wires in an up and coming Concentric Calorimeter experiment.

    • fortyniner

      I reluctantly have to agree in this particular case. Obviously there must be a way for heat to be lost or the experiment couldn’t work, but it is absolutely critical that the ways in which heat is lost must be absolutely identical in both cases, which it clearly can’t be in the corner setup shown in the photo linked above.

      I don’t much like this experiment as there are too many possible variables, and certainly changes such as those marked on the graph must be eliminated entirely. The only way I can see this working properly is to seal the complete systems within identical aluminium canisters, preferably finned, mounted in identical airflow conditions, so that only heat loss by direct contact with the air can take place.

      As rate of heat loss would increase with temperature this would place a small negative bias on the results, making any positive difference even more convincing.

      • Bob Greenyer

        There is the second block of data which is more steady state, we will post a blog update with a new graph similar to that above – you can download the data form here if you want to see sooner.

        This second preliminary run is much better than the first and there is much to improve.

        http://bit.ly/11khllg

    • AB

      Yes, that’s something that could be improved.

      • AB

        By the way: I’m not convinced that this would skew the results in favor of the active cell. It could also skew them in favor of the control cell as one side of the wall looks uninsulated to me, which means that it’s likely going to absorb more heat than the insulation material. Without performing a test it’s hard to say.

        • AB

          Nevermind, it is probably insulated.

    • Tom H

      Switch and rerun again. If the corner cell requires less energy with the inactive wire you have learned something.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Switch and re-run will likely be done in further iterations of this experiment.

    • Timar

      I agree. This whole setup seems kind of botchy, unfortunately. It would only allow valid conclusions if there were large amounts of excess heat, which is not to be expected from those cells.

      • Bob Greenyer

        There is the second block of data which is more steady state, we will post a blog update with a new graph similar to that above – you can download the data form here if you want to see sooner.

        http://bit.ly/11khllg

    • John-64

      I have to agree. The experiments are right next to each other! Also the insulation is pretty thin. Maybe we could chip in and buy them some expanded polystyrene?

      There is no top insulation.

      • Bob Greenyer

        All sorted on next run.

    • Jim

      “So why run this experiment at all in this form?”

      Learning curve on physical component arrangement, connection and performance.

      As successful inventors know, reality contains more information than simulations, regardless of the media (including blog posts).