MFMP Finds most Encouraging Results So Far

Here’s a video in which Ryan Hunt of the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project describes an experiment with an active and control cell that they have been running for several weeks now. Ryan describes the results of this test as the most encouraging that the MFMP has obtained so far. They report that:

” . . . initially the Control cell was running hotter. After a certian power input and loading level was achieved on one of the active wires in the Active cell, the dominance was reversed, with the Active cell producing temperatures significantly higher than the control. Experiments to explore the validity of this result were performed and seemed to verify that something interesting was happening. The experiment has been extended and the second wire is being loaded as this video is posted. Later, magnetic stimulation will be considered. We will soon launch a similar experiment in France and if it does something equivalent – we will finally have that elusive internal replication. You can follow the story and join the discussion here.”

It’s nice to see the persistence of the MFMP and that they seem to be making progress after so much hard work. As always they encourage comments and suggestions from interested observers. More details can be found at here:

  • Roger Bird

    Concerning Anonymole on September 10, 2013 at 3:14 am. I am getting to the point of not reading your posts any more. We are NOT responsible for your unrealistic and unprovoked expectations. It is as clear as the sky in the Atacama Desert what MFMP is about. You have been around for a while; it is not our problem that you don’t understand MFMP, open sourcing, and the discovery process.

  • georgehants

    What a Wonderful scientific paper that real scientists would debate joyfully and not debunk or abuse.
    Are there any such scientists left on the Planet excepting the few usual Rebels willing to discard religious doctrine and search for the Truth.
    Cold fusion Now
    Power equivalent to the Sun? – We already have it!

    • artefact

      very informative

    • GreenWin

      Could there be a shift in attitude from even the most stuffy, conservative corners of knowledge?? BBC airs a surprisingly supportive segment on panspermia. Propagation of extraterrestrial life.

      Still, NASA, Smithsonian, and ivory tower pundits tiptoe about in a self-induced blackout, denying clear evidence of life on Mars, fidgeting over cold fusion, paralyzed by 24k year-old pyramids.

      “The trumpets sound,
      The old walls heave,
      The clarion calls
      End those who deceive.”

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        Canyonitis: Seeing evidence of ancient Egypt in the Grand Canyon “On April 5, 1909, a front page story in the Arizona Gazette reported on an archaeological expedition in the heart of the Grand Canyon funded by the Smithsonian Institute, which had resulted in the discovery of Egyptian artefacts.”


    • Roger Bird

      OUTSTANDING article. I intend to call my congress folks onto this article. Thank you, georgehants.

      • GreenWin

        And THANKS to author David French for so brilliantly pointing to anomalous understanding of our own Sun. And he did not even mention the vast temp differential between solar corona and solar interior.

        “The disparity between the support for hot versus cold fusion is extreme, indeed scandalous.”

    • NT

      Thanks George for the pointer to this great article. This makes me even more upset over the PTB that control these things in science. Lets hope their little card castles tumble on em all soon for the sake of all mankind!

  • georgehants

    Only slightly off topic.
    Like to thank our American friends for sending over the first lady conductor for last night of the proms in 119 years, Marin Alsop and mezzo, Joyce DiDonato. Wonderful night.
    A little more music and a little less war may be a good idea.

  • Ecco the Dolphin

    @MFMP: What about putting both cells in two separate open tubes (made of plastic? That would have some advantages) with a temperature controlled constant input air flow, and then comparing the output air flow temperature of both cells? Keeping the cells in a vertical orientation would help not only keeping the flow controlled an uniform along the cell length, but also saving space.

    This would an improvement over the current setup, I think. It will ensure that both cells are receiving about the same air flow. It would also partially solve the emissivity issues I mentioned in a previous comment and be cheap to set up.

  • georgehants

    Cold Fusion Now
    Cold Fusion and Skeptopathy
    By Brad Arnold

  • georgehants

    Bob Greenyer, would you be kind enough to explain why you guys feel that there is enough Evidence for Cold Fusion for you to do this work unpaid etc. and yet the main scientific community still debunks and deny’s the effect.
    Is it you, or are they in error for not doing the Research.
    How can you possibly feel that the Research is worth doing when main-line science and media are telling the World, with all their qualified and funded establishments, that you are wasting your time pursuing this effect, that if it where genuine, could of course save millions from suffering and even death.

    • Mycropht

      I believe it is impossible to count cases where significant progress and discoveries happened when someone persevered when government, church or, in this case “the main scientific community” and “main-line science and media” insist that it makes no sense.

      Faith is easy for someone and impossible for others. You are “others” I guess. 🙂

    • Bob Greenyer

      Hi Georgehants

      For so many reasons it important to make this a grass roots effort. None of the MFMP have university tenure to loose or a “distinguished scientific career” to have demolished. Some of the biggest contributors joining our work are either University students that still have open minds or highly intelligent accomplished persons in a wide range of disciplines who have retired, have independent means and are willing to donate their skills and time.

      Governments are so heavily invested in other forms of large scale nuclear energy that this would make a mockery and even the scientists in governments around the world would struggle with some of the concepts in this field. It is so multi-disciplinary involving deep knowledge of thermodynamics, material science, physics, electrical and electronic control, chemistry and engineering. In one respect that is why it is so suited to open science, people can bring their skill set to the table with the chance that it might be the last piece in the puzzle.

      I have worked in banking (as a high level graphic designer/analyst) for the last 10 years under contract and quit last November in part to engage better with the project. Banks only like to get involved when the job is basically done and they can invent money from nowhere to cream off the profits. VCs only want to get involved when it is a dead cert and no body else knows yet.

      Universities avoid it because it does not provide the big dollars that their current programs in competing fields command – University of Missouri is a courageous example of one that is. You see, for a university to get involved and the New Fire be delivered, bang goes research into solar, bio fuel, nuclear fission, hot fusion, wind etc. – an easy choice to make.

      This is just a few examples. The fact remains, humans cannot carry on this path of unrestricted burn rate of our one off Hydro Carbon endowment with no practical alternative.

      The pace of development of this field had been tedious in the extreme and for the most part the exposure was, to all practical analysis, non existent. Something radical had to be done, is the MFMP that thing? Who knows, time and events will be the judge of that, but until something better comes along, we are willing to donate what we can to advance the field because we can and we choose to.

      We’d like to just buy something off the shelf or be confident that “they” are working on solving these issues. Until “they” are ready, we hope to conclude our internal testing so we can move to the next stage of our first aim, in the process engage more people in the science and build momentum.

      Thank you for your critical thinking.

      • GreenWin

        Bob, this is an excellent response to George’s inquiry. You have identified the one major cause of stonewalling in this field of science:

        “Governments are so heavily invested in other forms of large scale nuclear energy that this would make a mockery…”

        Herein lies the tragedy. When government, religion, science, even social and journalistic media invest heavily in a belief system – it is a recipe for stagnation. In particular, the failure or prevention of alternative media to investigate and expose this stagnation has retarded humanitarian benefit.

        The stigmatizing of LENR/cold fusion research is little different than spreading fear of HIV patients, or the uselessness of mentally or physically disabled. Your work in a small but significant way dispels this stigma.

        If only the “greenest” in the environmental community, e.g. NRDC, Sierra, even Algore himself, would listen and learn from the LENR community – we would further dispel stigma and move on to constructive work of transforming the planet for the better. It takes courage and leadership, both of which are exhibited in MFMP work. Carry on, you have many friends and supporters.

        Perhaps the best of Algore will absorb the light and visit Rob Duncan at U Mizzou; together they might kick this ball further down field.

        • georgehants

          And now it’s global COOLING! Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year
          The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter climate change.
          Those predictions now appear gravely flawed.
          Read more:

          • Iggy Dalrymple

            All because I installed 4 LED bulbs. More unintended consequences.

            • Roger Bird

              NO, it was because I had a bunch of sweet hearted, do gooding, young people come to my house and offer to replace ALL of my incandescent bulbs and CFLs, and I couldn’t turn down an offer like that. Obviously some other rich, well-intentioned do gooding older person paid for this service. But it was my house that turned the tide on global warming, and now we have the scourge of global cooling.

              I hate it when that happens. But what I really hate even more is when millions of people thinking with their emotions, like the Red Guards in the 1970’s, the German People from 1933 to 1944 (I figure that most of them realized that they have made a mistake by late 1944), and many anti-LENR people today.

          • daniel maris

            There are many good reasons apart from concern about carbon to invest in green energy – clean air and energy independence for instance.

          • GreenWin

            The record of failure from this planet’s overseers grows longer every day:

            1) Fail to obtain informed consent from program draftees
            2) Fail “climate of fear,” campaign, spending trillions to sell anthropogenic warming and corrupt “carbon credit” trading schemes
            3) Fail at economically viable, safe nuclear fission
            4) Fail at any method of safely disposing 70 tons of radioactive nuclear waste
            5) Fail at promoting, developing and implementing humanitarian technology e.g. cold fusion/LENR, holistic medicine, non-GMO agriculture, etc
            6) Fail, 62 years of broken promises from hot fusion programs costing humans $250+billion yielding ZERO ZED NADA useful energy
            7) Fail to direct and finance mainstream science to investigate anomalous phenomena w/beneficial human potential
            8) Fail of USPTO to protect inventors of alternative energy systems with demonstrable benefit
            9) Fail of “nuclear village” type cartels to acknowledge catastrophic damage from Fukushima and other nuke safety issues
            10) Fail (in US)to support and protect the First Amendment of the US Constitution

            11) FAILURE of leading academic institutions like MIT and CalTech to put aside ego-influenced interests in item #7.

            And more. Is it wrong to try to fix a broken entity? Maybe. But why do we have doctors, mental health workers, auto repairmen, herbalists, chiropractors, religious councilors, help desks, spiritual guides and AA?? If something does not work, we try to fix it. That’s how life improves. That’s how we make ourselves better.

            Pretending something ain’t broke, will never make it better.

            • georgehants

              GreenWin, all agreed, what you say could be aided by a change in people to start talking the Truth themselves and demand that others only talk the Truth.
              I think we could easily add another few thousand items to your list.

            • GreenWin

              Correction in item #4 – there are 70 thousand metric tons of radioactive waste awaiting disposal in the USA.

      • georgehants

        Bob, GreenWin, thank you both for your time and important reply’s
        and congratulations bob on your wonderful scientific en-devours,
        contribution on it’s way.
        Could I narrow down your responses to the university’s.
        Do you think that from the time P&F announced an effect it would have been appropriate for them to have carefully Researched the subject.
        They of course are self-financing and have the time and facilities and should have the inquiring minds and responsibility to follow through on any phenomenon reported.
        I am having trouble in trying to understand the argument that until “somebody” shows Evidence of an effect then science stands back and debunks.
        I have that apparently strange idea that academic science has the job of investigating phenomenon such as ball lightning, sprites, meteorites, air-flight, space-flight etc. etc. all of which where denied from the first by academics.
        I would have to ask the question what are the academic institutions doing with their time and money.

      • Babble

        Venture Capital doesn’t get involved when the outcome is dead certain but they like to invest in things that seem to have a future. If things were dead certain they would never lose but they are lucky if 50% actually make a profit and that is their reason for existence.

        They don’t invest in things that are just trying to prove a point and that is where these experiments exist. I hope you do prove the point but don’t dismiss the way the system works.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I would say Angel Investors take the biggest returns and look to return 1000s% on 1 in 10 investments. They are the big risk takers – but even then – they like to know there is a market for the tech and that, on balance, the tech is realisable.

          LENR has a Future, everyone needs high energy density generators, with or without the bonus of low or nil harmful emissions. The issue is for many VC energy funds is that they may well be invested in competing technologies that are renewable or more traditional HC plays – investing in LENR is at odds with this.

          VCs also like to have a market proven with a first, only or best advantage to build out – demanding large percentages of the equity for involvement with a cycle of repeated share dilution leaving the originator of the tech with little to nothing percentage wise. This may indeed still be a HUGE sum, but for inventors, it is daunting and off-putting the way the process works. It is frankly scary and demoralising so many inventors steer clear.

          A reference core reactor design would root the techs reality for many to build their own products around. That is the process that DGT are pursuing and it is a good one.

          A socially owned core reactor design, even if less capable, would be the Internal Combustion Engine of the modern era – no one owns the rights to that base tech, but many make very good money by making great variations on the theme. People that make poor products on the base tech would fail and that is as it should be.

  • Linda

    Both the software change and the power failure in the middle of these tests invalidate any results on the face of it. The tests should have been restarted.

    Also, an uninterruptable power supply (UPS) is a must – both MFMP and the Greek team have had their tests disrupted by easily avoidable power failures in the middle of their videos. This makes it difficult if not impossible to objectively evaluate results.

    • Robert Ellefson

      Linda, your response is a curious one. Which results specifically do you think are invalidated here by the power outage? Remember, this is a differential test, where both control and active cells received similar treatment, and the results then observed. Following the power outage, the experiment was in essence restarted, and the results observed. The fact that the logbook before, during, and after the power outage is also reported does not change the events that were recorded during the period following the outage, which is where the basis for optimism that excess heat was present occurred. Should HUG have selectively published the experiment logbook for only the data following the outage instead? This would address your criticism, but it would not make for better science.

      The fact that the hydrogen loading of the wires takes time, and that the loading state cannot simply be “reset” with the flip of a switch, prompts practical considerations such as “continue running after power failure.” Adding a UPS will not help if it’s a software glitch that causes the next interruption of an experiment. Rolling with it seems to be a natural choice to make, given the length of these experiments.

      • Linda

        Any break in the continuity of the conditions of an experiment means the possible introduction of variations which make it impossible to tell whether the result was due to the effect under observation, or the sudden change in conditions. In other words, was the different pattern observed after the power outage due to the effect of the experiment, or due to the power outage? We cannot know. So the experiment must be restarted.

        The same goes for the software change; was the pattern change due to the effect, or is there a software bug that inverts the values on the graph? We cannot know. Therefore the experiment needs to be restarted.

        Experimental design must eliminate these variables at the start, otherwise, this is just tinkering – lots a fun, but not good science.

        • Robert Ellefson

          Have you been paying attention to just what the goals of this experiment are? Remember, this is a differential test, so the “conditions” were applied to both cells simultaneously. Given this, please, specifically _which_ results from this experiment need to be discarded, and why? I am seeking a literal answer here, not a rhetorical one. Dogma need not apply, since this is not an application for acceptance to the Church of Peer Review, it is a real science experiment where factual events are being observed, recorded and discussed.

        • Shane D.

          Maybe there is a correlation between power interruption and the effect? The first AHE takes place after power is shut off for the software update. The second, bigger AHE, after a power failure.

          Then the new fire goes cold after MFMP complies with Eccos request.

          Don’t know… just saying. Serendipity has played a part in science discovery before.

        • lcd

          While I concur the results look suspicious from afar it is accepted practice to continue and retest in cases where experiments are long. Look up one of the first papers in superconductivity.

          Anyways, great job MFMP keep up the good work.

    • Anonymole

      I concur Linda. Anybody involved with or aware of this exceedingly controversial subject must know that they must follow the most strict and most rigorous methodology such that there are no obvious anomalies that may be pointed to as points for disqualification. These guys know this yet they release this test? Come on guys. You know everything you say and do will be scrutinized. You must expose no blatant errors, disruptions or mysteries of any kind. Imagine you’re being watched by a team of Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Gates, Piers Morgan, Rachel Maddow (or their scientific counterparts (where appropriate)). No undotted i’s or uncrossed t’s.

      • Robert Ellefson

        That sounds like a recipe for paralysis, not progress.

        • Roger Bird

          I agree Robert. You did good. Thank you. Please do it some more.

      • Shane D.

        You must not follow MFMP… Over the last year they have been very scrutinized and responded accordingly by complying and improving their protocol. Their very informed audience have been very demanding of them and only now, after much trial and error, seem to be cautiously excited.

        And come on…. Piers Morgan and Maddow mentioned in the same breath as scientific “scrutiny”! Think you are blending your political bias with science -which are not good to mix.

        • Anonymole

          If progress is slipshod then is that progress?

          If this is an improvement in protocol then it must have been a sorry sight before.

          And if you don’t think Morgan or Maddow (or their scientific equivalents, as I said) would be hard to convince with the most exacting of evidence then you must subscribe to the Howie Mandel level of evaluation, “Well, at least you tried hard.”

          • Shane D.


            I just have never associated Morgan or Maddow with scientific issues and found it funny that you somehow drug them into this debate. If we go down that path, how about we get someone like Rush Limbaugh from the other side of the political spectrum in on it too?

            Back to the issue; I’m not a scientist, but I’m pretty confident the road to discovery is always slipshod. Do you know of any great advancements that went from concept to market, with plenty of experimenting in between… without a hitch?

            You make it all sound so seamless and clean.

            Anyways… why so harsh on the MFMP guys? They aren’t using your tax money to do this. They are mostly volunteer types with altruistic purpose. What is the harm in keeping silent (if you can’t be supportive) and letting them do what they feel right?

            • Anonymole

              You’re not actually going to defend mediocrity are you?

              And as I stated, initially in support of Linda’s comment, obvious, silly hiccups and disturbances cannot be a part of any experiment in this extremely controversial topic. Given its history you have to agree to that.

              I personally applaud MFMP and all that they do or are trying to do. But they should know better than to dribble out something like this video of their experiment and its obvious discrepancies.

              • Robert Ellefson

                You sure do have a peculiar way of applauding, Mr. Anonymole.

              • Anonymole

                I want to see an out and out success. Not another debacle.

              • Shane D.

                I fail to see where I “defend mediocrity” anonymole. Could you tell me where I did?

                By the way… there are some questions you failed to answer that I asked.

                In a civilized world, it is customary that when one makes an accusation, and then questioned -they should try to the best of their ability to respond in an intelligent fashion.

                We await your response.

                If not, then I suggest you go elsewhere.

              • Anonymole

                That’s right, I forgot, this list is only for those who tow the line and kowtow to half-baked results.

                So, in this experiment the MFMP group did everything they could to alleviate debate? Like I said, all their i’s are dotted and so on? If you think so then yes, you’re defending mediocrity when you say “why so harsh on the MFMP guys?” And just lay off of them and let them keep “doing what they feel right”.

                I want them to DO what’s right not feel it. And if they didn’t want critical analysis then why post a half-assed effort? You guys have a funny idea about what qualifies as compelling results.

                If I missed any other rhetorical questions of yours I apologize.

                • Shane D.

                  MFMP ” doing everything they could to alleviate debate”.

                  Hogwash anonymole. Just the opposite. They did everything to encourage debate. They thrive on it. That is the sustenance that drives them. Maybe you missed it but being an open source concept is all about being “open” hence the name… DUH.

                  Anyone who has spent even a modest amount of time following MFMP on their site would know otherwise.

                  Sorry bud, I’m not into censorship, but when someone persistently slanders without knowing what they speak of then….

              • fortyniner

                “That’s right, I forgot, this list is only for those who tow the line and kowtow to half-baked results”…. “why post a half-assed effort?”… “You guys …”

                Anonymous mole, your petticoats are showing. MFMP’s expressed philosophy is to publish their findings, good, bad and indifferent, not to cherry pick experiements and results that support a particular conclusion. This is what they are doing, with very limited resources, and I am not clear why you purport to think it should be otherwise. The discovery process includes the publication of experiments performed during a process of learning that will enable future experiements to improve, partly through constructive feedback from external observers who MFMP are gracious enough to keep informed.

                Bob Greenyer has already said that the current experiment will be replicated in France with UPS backup and other precautions. I wonder what you will find to attack when the results of this next step are released?

                You appear to be working under the misaprehension, I assume deliberate, that MFMP are in the business of providing indisputable evidence for LENR, rather than being engaged in a process of discovery. Your use of words such as ‘slipshod’, ‘mediocrity’, ‘debacle’ etc. when a single experiment fails to meet a standard that you have set, rather than meeting MFMP’s openly declared criteria, appears to indicate a purposefully dismissive agenda hiding behind the customary claimed desire for their success.

                • Roger Bird

                  Very well put.

                • Anonymole

                  If this video was released under a “here’s some stuff we did. We keep trying. Maybe it shows results, maybe it doesn’t,” type of qualifying umbrella then OK then, I hereby retract my high expectations critique above. So, keep at it. Do better next time. I wish you well.

                  But you all must admit that any publicly demonstrated results (which I apparently and mistakenly took this to be) must not contain any such anomalies as noted above right? Right?

                • D2

                  Couldn’t of said it better myself. The point is could it have been better planned? The answer is yes but this is a PROCESS of discovery not a work in a vacuum. Be thankful MFMP is willing to transparently share there results and accept our constructive criticism so the PROCESS can be evolved over time. Personally I think the transparent sharing of there work, regardless of outcome, adds validity to the whole work not the opposite.

    • HHiram

      Exactly correct. Experiments are about removing variables. Varying the power conditions invalidates the data immediately. This should be obvious to anyone with formal research training.

      This doesn’t mean quit. It means you must restart the experiment after re-designing to ensure that the power variables are controlled, e.g. with a UPS.

      No-one is going to take any results like this seriously until the experiments are run with proper control design, especially when the effect size is so small (possibly within the margin of error anyway?).

      I want to be excited and encouraged by this work, I really do. But these results are simply not admissible as legitimate evidence one way or the other. This work is VERY important, so it is extremely frustrating to see the people involved making such amateurish mistakes.

      • Robert Ellefson

        “Experiments are about removing variables.” – is that what this experiment is really about? My impression was that it is more about exploring whether anomalous heat can be observed with this material.

        When you say “No-one is going to take any results like this seriously” you are apparently insulting the people who are working on this project, because we are indeed people with independent opinions, many of whom choose to take portions of these results quite seriously. This does not mean we consider them worthy of a stand-alone basis for public policy advocacy or (heavens forbid!) peer reviewed publication, it simply means that we see signs that we are making progress towards igniting the New Fire. This is more important, at this stage of our project, than convincing the entire world that our preliminary results are sound. There is a major cultural difference between Open Science and Closed Science, and this interface, right now, is where some of the biggest differences are apparent.

        • HHiram

          I appreciate what you are trying to say, but it mostly sounds like you’re just making excuses for amateurish mistakes.

          If I were these guys, I would either get some experienced scientists to advise me or get some additional training.

          • Robert Ellefson

            If I were you, I would research just what the purpose of this experiment is, and what the nature of Live Open Science is, and what the volunteer-run Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project is organized to accomplish. You could also look into the goals of the newly-organized New Fire Generation charity, and the advisors for that organization. Then you can tell me more about the excuses I’m making, and I’ll place more significance on what you have to say.

            May I request that you please also use your full name? I find it helpful to know whom I am addressing.

    • Bob Greenyer

      We are not going to rely on one experiment in one location, as the original article correctly quotes, we are to start an equivalent experiment in France. The experiment is still in its second phase of loading the second wire.

      Mathieu has at least part of his experiment on Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS), not the building Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) for example. Additionally, he has been making some calibrations of the system to provide a more robust basis for secondary analysis. A range of extra precautions are being taken with that experiment directly learning from the experience in the US and we would encourage more suggestions that take from the US experiment experience.

      It is intended that he will publish his process, learning and proposed experiment route on the MFMP site tomorrow (Monday 9th September 2013).

    • georgehants

      Linda, understand, but would you not agree that the “scientific method” which seems to be, deny anything that does not fit their religion, is to say the least proven in many areas to be woefully inadequate to solve scientific problems.
      Do you not think it is time for science to realise that, better Research that is less formal but will still only find an effect if that effect is genuine, is better than no Research at all.
      It would be nice if you congratulate these guys for their time and efforts that main-line science, certainly in error even if the effect turns out not to exist, choose to ignore.

      • lcd

        George the scientific method is deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning is not the problem and neither its the scientific method. The problem is human emotion in interpreting results.

        • georgehants

          lcd, thank you, therefore “deductive reasoning” from the scientific point of view is, if our “opinion experts” think that something is impossible then we ignore it completely even when there is Evidence to suggest that it could be a reality.
          I find that a rather difficult interpretation of “deductive reasoning” could you enlighten me as to how ignorance and inaction leads to knowledge.

          • NT


          • Roger Bird

            georgehants, you are right. Science is and should be an interplay between inductive thinking, deductive thinking, playing around, observation, and hunches. To say that it is exclusively deductive means that we cannot use fire (the old fire, the fire of combusting logs) since we can find no reason why it works.

    • Roger Bird

      The test results are most certainly invalidated if your perspective is a hard-edged, mean spirited attempt to invalidate anyone whose hypothesis is a threat to you. If you are people who are looking for what is actually going on, then the data is most interesting.

  • GreenWin

    Congratulations on these early results and keep up the good effort MFMP! You are doing extraordinary positive work. Thank you!

    • Barry

      What he said +1.

      • Roger Bird

        What he said +3.141592654

        • D2

          What he said times infinity 🙂

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks GreenWin, Those few words mean a lot.

      It has been really encouraging watching the data coming out of the US this past month, a bit like the December 12, 2012 test, but that was too short to get really excited and the S&G results. These were all stepping stones over the pool of despair that so many that have actually worked actively in this field for years, with little funds, have had to traverse. Without words like these, critical comments on the site and the donations from followers, these tests would literally not have happened.

  • Sven

    Just remember that they are also in need for money to run the show and you can make contribution on their webpage. It doesn’t seem to go well raising the funds. With many small amounts we could speed this up tremendously. So folks, up with the wallets and do the right thing.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks Sven, It has been really difficult the past month in Europe, we were having to discuss at length the merits of buying a $30 flange as one example. Team members were recycling expense cost refunds into the project and that can’t go on for ever.

      We will stick to our guns however, as said above, if the LIVE data (additionally with calibration) in France shows something along the lines of the current US results, we will be able to go to Kickstarter with a strong message.

      We would like 20% … but I think it would be preferable to have 5% twice on independent experiments rather than 20% once. We, as ever, want to be sure that we can verify the claims of others before taking this to a wide audience.

      We have learnt so much with the crowds support so far. If it is possible, we aim to deliver on our goals.

  • Robert Ellefson

    Given the qualitative assessment that excess heat does appear to be present, this news alone is worthy of discussion, and ensuing debate as to potential error sources, etc.

    Considering the particular state of this apparatus, where we are aware of significant “noise” sources as compared to the magnitude of the “signal” source, you will find a reticence to attach particular numbers to performance claims. Concluding one particular number involves many questionable assumptions about which data gets included, what kind of averaging is applied, what kind of noise compensation is applied, if any, etc. While all observers and participants are certainly free to make and share whatever conclusive summary they care to derive, I personally hesitate to make official pronouncements of specific performance claims from the combined MFMP efforts, because they are moving and debatable figures.

    Once we have really solid data which clearly indicates undeniable excess heat occurring on top of well-characterized apparatus noise figures, then you can expect to see conclusive performance numbers being discussed, much more often. That is a big part of our goal.

  • Roger Bird

    Once I look at the time span, the positive results look real. From what I could see, they seem to have two 12 hour time spans of significant (but not dancing in the streets) positive results. I like it.

    Do you suppose that the power outage was part of THE conspiracy by the meanie heads to stop LENR. (:->)

    • And how large is the average excess heat? I can’t find this information?

    • Bob Greenyer

      The outage was caused by a lightening strike, unless the HAARP system can do that – I just think it was mother nature. It may be that the instability helped, everyone pretty much understands now that these systems don’t sing if everything is in steady state.

      One of our most healthily skeptical followers Ecco, calculated 2.5-3W which is up to 12W per gram which is within the capability claimed of the wires supplied by Celani that were used in this experiment. By my calculation this works out at between 6.5 and 8% which is in line with our other results for these types of wires seen now in a range of experiment setups.

      As said above, it is preferable to see repeatable excess heat per gram than a one off high excess that cannot be repeated.

      • Ecco the Dolphin

        I did estimate that the active cell was 2.5-3.0W hotter than the inactive one. As for whether that was caused by anomalous heating or some kind of artifact (systematic error), it’s a different story, though. As long as potential biases aren’t addressed, I wouldn’t really consider the measurements as “excess heat” yet, at least when communicating to the general public.

        The biggest point of concern to me is that although the borosilicate glass tubes used do absorb some infrared radiation (radiated heat), they don’t cover the entire IR spectrum. Loaded Constantan wires might have a different emissivity than unloaded ones or even the NiCr wires used in the control cell. Therefore the amount of radiated heat the tube absorbs (and which radiates back to the mica/wires assembly) might vary.

        If the cells were made 100% opaque as I’ve been asking since last year, I would be much more confident that these results are indeed due to LENR.

        • Ecco the Dolphin

          An implication of this is that a repeatable result might not necessarily be real. In that sense, in my opinion it’s better to have a large signal that sometimes shows than a small one that always does.

          • Bob Greenyer


            We will be addressing your criticisms in two ways moving forward.

            1. Mathieu has purchased all new glass for the French based experiment. this means that any potential challenges due to H2 diffusion induced IR transmissivity will be addressed.

            2. We intend to make the cells opaque at some point and are discussing, ideally external, non-destructive methods for achieving this.

            The beauty of having data that *might* be showing something, is that if the points are addressed and it still shows the same effect, we have retrospective confirmation. We would like to bring forward the day when we can say that our past results were material.

            As a side note, I’d like to reiterate that the recent results from the US are in line with the Steel and Glass results that does not suffer from the valid criticisms you make. Those cells are on hold until we have the finance and resources to run them again, though further experiments with proposed modifications on the US and EU dual Celani cells may provide robust results for us to move forward.

            On your last point, we are re-commencing the Multi-Wire test, though this apparatus has had much less debugging to date it is a good one to watch, which, we know you are!

            Thanks for all your valuable criticisms.

            • Ecco the Dolphin

              More than H2 diffusion in the glass tube affecting its transmittance (in the latest differential experiment both cells are exposed to hydrogen, so this would happen to both glass tubes used) I was concerned that over time local hot spots on the active wires (when directly heated, due to how they’re made – read relatively fragile nano/micro structures) could cause the glass tube exposed to them to be slowly internally coated by nickel/copper particles. This already spectacularly happened a couple times in the past when too much power was applied on one of the active wires, although at a much quicker rate than I hypothesize might happen at lower power over time. When that happened, the coated glass tube ended up retaining more heat than it used to.

              I think the drift or differences in wire IR spectrum, however, are a more serious and real problem, at least as long as transparent tubes are used.

              As for making the cells opaque it must be noted that whenever an external method (tube) is used, there’s the added variable of the gap between the external opaque tube and the glass tube. Painting the tubes (ideally: reflective -ie white or shiny- base coat + outer high emissivity black paint) would solve these problems and make things easier to handle. I don’t know how much non-destructive this solution would be, though.

              The steel&glass cells were a good attempt in solving most of emissivity-induced issues, but the experiment itself was messy and had obvious location bias. I would try repeating it without the water buckets, using a more controlled and monitored location, and monitoring cell flange temperatures. Also after increasing active material mass if possible.

              I’m watching the multi-wire test but there’s some information lacking. It’s difficult to follow the changes performed without a dedicated experiment log (although I would suggest using better methods than a Google Spreadsheet, from which one can’t easily obtain real time notifications – it isn’t even possible sometimes, like with the EU cells). I’ve written a bit about this in the latest blogpost on

  • daniel maris

    Interesting, but I am not sure why they are not cutting to the chase and using nanopowders…

    Was there an estimated COP here. Or was it not significant?

    • Buck

      I agree.

      I would like to understand the rationale behind ignoring the most significant observation: the use of nickle preparations resulted in dramatic proof of the practical nature of LENR phenomena for the laymen, and presumably the scientist.

      I think the answer to this question is important for an organization looking for public support.

    • Robert Ellefson

      Nickel powders and other active materials sources are not being ignored, I assure you. Francesco Celani is the only source, in the entire, known universe, who has been willing to allow us to experiment with their “proven” active materials on open terms. At ICCF18, as we’ve often mentioned, several new offers of collaboration were extended, and we are still in the process of coordinating all that needs to happen in order to realize those offers.

      In the meantime, have you read the paper that Bob Higgins published a few weeks ago? He certainly seems to be making some impressive headway with his powder experiments, and we are hoping to set up collaborative efforts with him ASAP, for example.

      There is not a significant enough COP here to warrant analysis of it, IMHO. The fact of excess heat being evident is a good start, given all of the known limitations of this apparatus. Only when a system is well-characterized and well-controlled do specific performance metrics like COP carry real significance.

    • Warthog

      Speaking of nanopowders:

      I wonder if this synthesis technique will work with one of the “nuclear active environment” elements (palladium, nickel). There are theoretical hints around various LENR discussions that a similar structure is necessary for LENR.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Celani’s approach is a scientific one. Do a specific process, with known materials, applied to a substrate to ensure easy analysis and test. Rinse, repeat. It might seem a little tedious at times, but this is often how things are developed in science, just, right now, it is out in the open, warts and all for everyone to participate in.

      We are not at this stage trying to produce a heater etc. we are trying to nail down what has an effect on the claimed process in order to settle the debate on the reality of excess heat. Once everyone knows that is real and the parameters that control it – development will be widespread and rapid.

      The reality is we are in the US testing nano powders right now and this is on our site.

      We have also been offered pre-processed nano powders by third parties, as well as told who the suppliers are of powders tested successfully in Japan. Mathieu is working with some of the people that have come forward to offer their support in order to develop nano powder production methods – with support from the crowd, this work can accelerate and we hope to see similar interesting results in this material approach.

      Already, the powder research done within the group has shown the difficulties in measuring such things as resistance in an experiment and this only goes to re-enforce the inspiration of Celani to build an experiment on wire.

  • clovis

    hi, guys,
    Yep, these guys are on the cutting edge, i am glad that they are going to try the magnetic fields thing, i will be interested in what that results will be when they start pulsing those waves up to the natural resonance of the nickle, it is my belief that is when they will see the rossi effect.—good work guys, you are doing a fine, and correct, job, thanks for keeping us so informed here at e-catworld.

    • Chuck

      I have to admit to being confused by all of this MFMP stuff. Surely Celani, being part of the LENR movement since forever, knows exactly what Rossi and Defkalion are doing.

      So why the excitement about getting tiny amounts of anomalous heat from the MFMP setup? I thought that Rossi and DGT had conclusively demonstrated repeatable massively large amounts of anomalous heat and were, in fact, in the process of getting ready to introduce production units for sale.

      This seems an awful lot like someone announcing today that he’s discovered an incandescent lamp that can give out a dim red glow for 50 hours or an airplane that flew for 18 seconds.

      What’s the subtext that I’m missing here? Is it that DGT and Rossi really don’t have anything?

      • DGT and Rossi are preparing commercial devices with business secrets.

        No one realy knows if they realy have something (just some questionable confirmations like the “independent” report of the hot-cat), and, if they have something real, how it’s working.

        MFMP is doing basic research in this field. The current scientific opinion is that LENR (often called “cold fusion”) cannot work, and is not replicateable. But this is the basic for mainstream scientific research.

        The MFMP Team wants to solve exactly this problem.
        -> demonstrate the effect, and show a way how to build a similar device that can trigger the effect as well.

        This is the scientific method. Only after some big universities are able to build their own LENR device (maybe with the instructions from MFMP), they will accept that there is realy some (currently) unexplainable nuclear reaction, and they have to confess that they erroneously denied and hampered the research and development of this technology for over two decades now.

        After one reactor modell is reproducable, the physicists, chemicist and all other researchers will start researching on the effect. And with better understanding of the effect, you are able to optimize it (= more energy/higher excess heat). The first step is not to show large amounts of energy, but show a way to get the effect, also if it reveals only tiny amounts of energy.

      • clovis

        Hi, Chuck,
        Strange question, i would think the reason is quite straightforward, this wonderful group is finding out for them self,and letting us follow along and find out for our self,neither rossi nor dgt is going to give up their ip because of the money involved. these reactors would not be hard to build , if you only knew how, hence the MF/MP, Great bunch of guys, and i can’t say enough about their work, and lenr works believe it.—- i hope that clears that up for you.

        • I believe, however, that the preparation of the wire that Celani is supplying the MFMP for use in these experiments is a secret.

          • clovis

            Hi, frank.
            Yeh, but there are other core designs, like daniel’s remark about nanopowder, the way i understand how the wire is made is by sputtering or sitting of molten nickel on to a wire in layers, this nickel wire can be had, if you know where to look. smile.

          • Chuck

            …and that goes to the nub of my question–the Celani wire is “secret”; Rossi is “secret”; DGT is “secret”–what addition to understanding does MFMP contribute, other than more secret sauce?

            If MFMP started out with commercially available nickel and worked out why and how it should produce anomalous heat, then I’d say that they’re contributing to the general knowledge.

            If Rossi or DGT expects to gain IP protection, they’ll have to disclose in a patent someday–and then the secret, if any, will be out in the open.

            • Robert Ellefson

              The initial inspiration for the MFMP project was when ICCF17 attendees decided to replicate and distribute a proof-of-LENR apparatus that showed anomalous heat. Francesco Celani was the only source of active material then, and remains so, at this point. Developing a new active material from scratch does not appear to be a trivial process, judging by progress in the field over the past couple of decades. BTW, while Celani has chosen to keep the exact steps for his latest process a secret, he does permit “white box” testing with his wires, placing no restrictions on our analytical observations of the material. This is qualitatively different than Rossi’s approach to secrecy.

              We do plan to work closely on the materials science research aspects, when resources permit. If you’d like to contribute, we could use the help.

            • Bob Greenyer

              It is our belief that everything that is needed to make his wires is published in his papers and patent application. To date, we have not been prevented testing the wires with EDX to examine their elemental / compound composition and SEM to study their morphology.

              Only after seeing repeatable, incontrovertible excess would it be sensible and appropriate for us to attempt replication of wire processing and then only if we had available funds.

              Despite that, we are not idle in our thinking on this matter.

            • Roger Bird

              It “adds” to our knowledge if someone can get an LENR reaction with NO expectation of financial reward. It will help put an end to the anti-LENR babble. After that, what you said would be a most excellent idea.

      • Roger Bird

        Chuck, the subtext is that most people on Planet Earth are either completely oblivious to LENR or disbelieve it. So, it helps to have another confirmation.