MFMP and Stoyan Sarg Team Up to Experiment with Nickel Powder

The Martin Fleischmann memorial project have announced on their blog that they have entered into a partnership with Canadian physicist Dr. Stoyan Sarg who has researched extensively in the field of cold fusion and who is one of the most prominent scientists in the world advocating for nickel-hydrogen LENR research.

Dr. Sarg recently published an article, “Nickel-Hydrogen Cold Fusion by Intermediate Rydberg State of Hydrogen: Selection of the Isotopes for Energy Optimization and Radioactive Waste Minimization” which was published in General Science Journal on January 25, 2014. In the article Sarg sets forth his own theory as to what might be happening in the reactions experienced by Andrea Rossi and Defklalion GT, and looks at the problem of Coulomb barrier from a ‘new point of view.’

The MFMP state that Dr. Sarg has offered to share his insights about nickel-hydrogen LENRs with them as they begin to carry out experiments with nickel powder.

More information about some of the details of this collaborative effort can be found here on the website.

  • Daniel Maris

    Has this article been posted?

    He sounds pretty reasonable and knowledgable to be fair!

  • Andreas Moraitis

    My impression is that the information flow has significantly increased during the last weeks, at least since the revelation of the Rossi/Industrial Heat connection. Sometimes it appears to be already too much: I should do other things instead of reading all this stuff. On the other hand, for me the CF/LENR story – starting with Fleischmann & Pons 1989 and revived by Rossi in 2011 – is the most exciting story since Apollo 11 landed on the moon. Who wants to miss that opportunity…

  • Bob Greenyer

    Some times research is not glamorous, we have learnt a huge amount and cut our teeth openly as experimentalists (some of the team were experienced before anyhow), we would love to have had NANORs from 2012, and we did ask Mitchell Swartz in person to provide us with some at ICCF17, but what we were proposing was a bit radical so his caution was understandable. Francesco Celani’s bravery was groundbreaking. One thing is for certain, if we had received some NANORs and they had delivered as claimed, then we would know much less about experimenting.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Hi Bachcole,

    This comes from way back in the valve days… some metals can be much more effective at certain temperatures to remove large volumes of gasses from vacuum apparatus than a vacuum pump. In fact, we may find that we might need to selective remove a gas, say O2 – try doing that with a pump.

  • david55

    Very similar experiment to Blacklight power plasma reactor.

    Blacklight power plasma reactor.

  • Obvious

    Has anyone tried rubidium carbonate for electrolyte? I’m not sure why, but that thought popped out of my subconscious and asserted itself while reading through the posts below.
    (My subconscious works in weird ways, as many of my posts can attest, but generally it knows what it doing). It might be the photon slowing effect that my mind likes, or something else, maybe magnetism?

    • Bob Greenyer

      The powder cells and Celani wire investigation we are undertaking are “dry” cells, so we don’t use electrolyte.

      • Obvious

        Thanks. I was thinking of wet cells.
        There wasn’t a really good spot to ask the question, so I thought while some experts were discussing things it would be a good idea to ask while I had the chance. I don’t currently have a good idea as to using Rb in a dry cell that isn’t overly dangerous. I’ll dig around a bit to see why I thought it might be useful today, and reconsider.

        • Obvious

          I found that Bush and Eagleton did some work with rubidium carbonate in wet cells, where transmutation of rubidium to strontium was reported. However, I cannot find a digital copy of their work online. I’ll have to see if I can scrounge up a physical copy somewhere.

  • Barry8

    Good work Bob, MFMP seem like the new LENR generation.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks, but I am just passing on the message, Dr. Stoyan Sarg should be given the credit for stepping forward.

  • BroKeeper

    I’m curious Bob, would a 3D printer be of interest in play here, or has technology not developed enough to reduce the nano particle surface-to-volume ratio significantly, also is it cost prohibited? I was thinking if it were granular enough for a checkered board type lattice with offset stacked layers for separation and small spacing for hydrogen passage would increase its efficiency.
    Also, If frequency is a factor perhaps a sheath of graphene could act as a half-wave microwave guide for focusing its compressive states and maybe effect its magnetic side effects. Just a couple of ideas within infinite configurations to think about.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Hi BroKeeper

      We have been engaging with one of the worlds leading laser metal sintering companies and recorded videos at their UK representatives head office. There is great potential and we have roughed out a research program – this will not be cheap however. When there is time to process the material, we’ll post a blog.

      Please engage with this developing project on our site as I think you can offer a lot of ideas we might miss.

      • BroKeeper

        I will. Thanks for the interesting update on the sintering process. My best wishes on your research and the outstanding support from Dr. Sarg.

    • MasterBlaster7

      Check the Greer story on here…the story previous to this. That is right on point. I started a discussion like this over there. A micro nickle lattice and a macro structural latice.

      • BroKeeper

        ‘Great minds think alike’ aye MB? (:->) IMO I would think it would provide greater electrical/frequency input stability.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Peter, your unstinting work to promote understanding of this field is laudable and we hope you will be able to encourage the best experimentalists out there to constructively criticise any work we are able to do to maximise the chances of finding this biggest pussy in the zoo.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    They say that 63Ni is thought to be a possible trigger for the production of Rydberg hydrogen, particularly in Rossi’s E-Cat. You will need a neutron to create 63Ni from 62Ni. Therefore, I suppose that one part of the reaction chain should be inverse beta decay, according to Widom-Larsen. However, we know that Rossi doesn’t support the idea of inverse beta decay. Of course he must not necessarily be right, but there is another issue: 63Ni has a half-life of about 100 years, thus it should be detectable in the ash. But it was reported that the ash is not radioactive. Any ideas how to explain that?

    • Bob Greenyer

      The 63Ni as you say has a 100 year half life and it is commercially produced by Neutron bombardment for a wide range of uses. Here is one such company:

      Stoyan in his recent paper argues that this might have been used in minute quantities coated to one of the cylinders in the HCAT as 100 year half life would effectively mean it was a constant emission and the Beta- is easy shielded showing no external signature. I am not aware of the HCAT ash being tested.

      We are electing to go for the DGT broadband HV arc approach to creation of Rydberg matter as we know there are many examples of matter reorganisation derived from this (including lightening) and the open circuit design will have little barriers to replication as there is no expensive and regulatory complications.

      Additionally the use of Tesla technology to create the HV opens up longitudinal (scalar) waves to the cell and he is going to put forward an open design for a cell that should be optimised for this type of triggering.

      • LENR G

        I support MFMP’s upcoming investigation of nickel powder based reactors.

        But… could you elaborate on the situation with the Nanors Dr. Swartz has demonstrated? It seems to me that they would be quite easy and relatively inexpensive to test and that Dr. Swartz has offered to make them available to MFMP. Is there a plan to test Nanors? Is there a reason it’s not top priority?

        I think I read that it’s a matter of resources somewhere. What resources do you need?

        If these Nanors really work and MFMP could validate them in the next couple of months we could get them into labs across the world and finally take down the wall holding back progress.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Dear LENR G

          I wrote a response with respect to NANORs in an answer below. I’ll copy it here for continuity.

          “Mitchell Swartz is working through his transition at the moment, exploring new rewarding research avenues and has recently contacted with respect to us openly running NANOR experiments saying “What you are doing is important, and your name is high up on our list.” We have a really exciting thing we would like to do with the NANORs if he is able to provide us with some… and that would be to give you, the crowd, DIRECT remote control of the experiment!”

          This would involve allowing you, the crowd, to create a log-in, or use your facebook/google account, and then you would book a time slot to run an experiment from a range of experiments defined by Mitchell. If someone was booked in, you would get see the experiment live. We have visited an organisation in India that last year did something similar with super capacitors, batteries and capacitors, for people to do basic experiments from anywhere and so the core work has been done and we would look to pay to re-purpose this work for the NANOR cited in one of our independent locations in US or EU.

          The cost will depend on what is needed to run the NANOR, but first we need Mitchell Swartz to gain agreement to supply one/some.

          • LENR G

            Thank you. Very cool!

            Has there been any guidance from Swartz on when the NANORs will become available to MFMP?

            • Bob Greenyer

              They are managing the deep interest that was generated following the course at MIT, they are taking the time to properly plan what will work for them best. As I said above, Mitchell Swartz recently said to us “What you are doing is important, and your name is high up on our list.” but things take time and are out of our control.

              We have always said from the very beginning that the NANOR was one of our preferred ways to achieve our primary goal. Mitchell has never said a categoric no, ever which is good, also, the MFMP quite rightly needed to prove that it would actually carry out experiments responsibly. We believe we have demonstrated that with the support of the crowd, we can deliver and we hope that Mitchell and his key stakeholders allow us to test his tech, even if just as a “black box”.

              Having an experiment on-line 24 hours and accessible to all to run, we feel would be a game changer in establishing the reality of LENR and the NANOR is ideally suited to this task.

              • LENR G

                Given that the average COP over a long duration is the key metric as to whether LENR exists or not, I would hope that MFMP also ran parallel tests that had more stable input energy than the crowd-sourced effort.

                Let’s face it, the crowd-sourced one will be a mess to sort out with lots of people glowing about the amazing instantaneous COP they got, others saying it doesn’t work at all, and nobody really knowing what the overall energy balance is from the time of hook up (will a running tally of this be calculated and displayed?). Especially if it is necessary to stop the experiments briefly for maintenance/changes as has been the case in MFMP experiments so far. Once the experiment is paused, the “chain of evidence” is broken, so to speak, then third parties can’t have complete confidence the same NANOR is being tested (versus switched out for another one pre-loaded with chemical potential energy).

                We need one long continuous run with more or less stable inputs to get a clear result.

                • Bob Greenyer

                  The NANOR – would likely only be only one and be say marked by Mitchell and by able to be viewed live under a streaming video from a fixed location. It would be controlled by a precise power supply and reliable, proven data acquisition equipment.

                  Data would be live but also an aggregate should be included and this is a great idea. Your comments are exactly the things we would seek to account for when we had a NANOR to test.

                • LENR G

                  Along with showing the aggregate energy in/out, the chemical energy density threshold should be calculated and displayed (just take the total weight of the NANOR and assume it is combustible hydrogen).

                  Imagine the excitement when (if?) the total net energy out approaches and surpasses the maximum chemical energy possible. NANOR specific energy density versus hydrogen specific energy density.

                  LENR Internet party!

                  You could even have a live Ragone chart plotting the NANOR average specific energy and power as new data comes in.

                  I could probably work that up for you.

                • Bob Greenyer

                  These are all excellent ideas LENR G.

                  Let’s see if we can encourage Mitchell to send us a NANOR soon!

          • Mr. Moho

            May I ask you what is it to be gained by allowing public the public to remotely control (I would guess to a limited extent) a NANOR under testing? To be honest, I would rather MFMP to invest resources on making their own experiments more scientifically robust and making experimental data and logs more clearly presented / accessible.

            • Bob Greenyer

              Dear Mr Moho,

              What is to be gained is engagement and a free running – unmanned experiment that is very simply run by someone that wants to see LENR in action from their smart device or computer. Like said already, most of the work for this approach has been done already by a third party, so we would not have to start from scratch.

              In respect of improving our results, we are doing just that, In France, Mathieu has removed the leak from the dual cells and has improved the temperature monitoring for a new, very precise run. He has also been building a separate Celani cell to sit inside a mass flow calorimeter provided by Jean-Paul Biberian that also has been enhanced. There is a LOT of equipment being put together in France to run a very high quality flow calorimetry assessment of Celani’s wires – including a lab chiller and very precise pump equipment and discussion and blogs for this are on the site. We are thinking twice to cut once.

              We hope to have also the resources by the end of this week to conclude the shielding on the NaI gamma detector which will be used for the re-running of the dual cells.

              In the US, they should have received new wires, and when they can dig themselves out of the snow, they will be running more tests to establish the H2 splitting of Celani’s wires, the results of which will give us a robust understanding of what the wires might do and the potential effect of H re-combination – a point of question for some of our experiments to date.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Thank you for the clarification. Tiny amounts of 63Ni would likely be unproblematic. But I have a quite different idea: What if Rossi uses a HV arc generator as well? He initially spoke about some “internal heater”, and later in the same context about a device that “produces frequencies”. An arc generator would generate both some heat and – if periodically triggered – a “frequency”. Maybe Rossi wanted to remain honest, but without disclosing too much information.

        • Bob Greenyer

          We will of course need a heater to raise the reactants into their claimed active temperature ranges and the metal hydride (hydrogen reservoir) above the threshold to release H2. Time will tell.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Rossi uses an external heater (which seems to be indeed a heater in the usual sense) in order to reach the required temperatures. That’s why I doubt that a second heat source is necessary. The question is also that the mysterious internal device is used to control the reaction. It seems unlikely that you can prevent a thermal runaway by applying additional heat to the system.

            • Bob Greenyer

              Actually, depending on the Hydrogen “reservoir” used, or combinations thereof/getters, at some higher temperatures, some might start to re-uptake H2 and therefore slow a reaction. Look at Zirconium for instance. You could even have two zones of a reactor at different temperatures, one controlled to release Hydrogen, the other to adsorb/absorb. At some temperatures, Zr can adsorb 1500 times its own volume at 1 atm. This way you can have a sealed reactor with H2 pressure control.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I thought about it again. A periodically triggered arc generator would make a lot of noise. Observers would likely be able to hear that. But the hidden device could produce a magnetic field, EM waves or perhaps even ultrasound. I hope that Rossi will disclose it in one of the the announced patent applications.

      • Ted-X

        Bob Greenyer, You can consider using some carbon dioxide, some carbonate or any compound (such as acetone) containing carbon and oxygen. Under the cold fusion conditions they will form a volatile nickel tetracarbonyl (and a range of partial-carbonyls at the surface), where the electrons in the hybridized orbitals (rather than in the Rydberg model) are actually *passing through the nucleus* of the nickel atom (this should facilitate a beta-caption of the electron). Just be careful, nickel tetracarbonyl is quite toxic, although unstable in the air (reacts with water vapour within one minute). I just wonder why nobody has an interest in the hybridized orbitals passing through the nucleus and a correlation between this effect and electron capture by the nucleus. I think that there is some work, but very little, on the effects of chemical structure on the electron capture effect. Structure modification of the nickel (microcrystals, like from quick cooling, similar to tempering of steel, instead of nano-sized particles) might be another approach.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Hi Ted-X

          You are dead right (or should that be right about dead) – bad jokes aside, tetra-carbonyl is VERY toxic and volatile – we want to avoid having a replication that requires super toxic stuff. In fact, there is a lot of talk about Ni “nano powders” which are also deeply dangerous to be exposed to – that is why micro powders with nano structure are the order of the day!

          Watch the blog for the material science contributions to this effort, I think you may be able to add valuable knowledge and guidance for this critical aspect.

          HUKEs work on electron screening in Deuterium loaded palladium (possibly the only LENR work to be verified and accepted/published by a major journal) is important. It would be great if someone could perform similar study with Ni/Cr+H

          • Ted-X

            Bob, With small quantities of carbon-oxygen compounds, non-volatile mono- di- and tricarbonyls of nickel will form on the surface more likely than nickel tetracarbonate. There is a thermodynamic equilibrium between all those forms of carbonyls, CO2, CO and methane. I think that carbon monoxide can penetrate along microcracks or grain boundaries, that is why I suggested “tempering” process for nickel (tempering reduces the grain size). Extreme cooling results in the formation of glassmet (extremely small grains, commercial process used for making of the cores of transformers). In metallurgy, it is known that gases, such as nitrogen or carbon monoxide (even elemental carbon) diffuse into the metals. Any metallurgist on the list?
            Extreme cooling (liquid nitrogen for 48 hours, commercial process) is known to create microcrystals (tool-steel treatment, hardness increases two times). Try this commercial method with nickel, it should not be very expensive: extremely fast cooling as a first process to try and and static, liq. N2 for 2-3 days as the second one.

            • Bob Greenyer

              Hi Ted-X,

              It sounds like you have a lot to offer the material science side of this work. When we blog about that aspect, we would be very grateful if you would contribute on the site or put yourself forward for the material science working group. We need to think twice and cut once to get the most from our limited resources. Whatever we can achieve will be in the public record – so your help will be logged as you give it and credit will be given by default where due.

              • Ted-X

                Bob, I will join The Quantum Heat Forum, understanding that the contributions will be made public and “pro publico bono” (for the benefit of the general public). Some assurance of preventing patenting by others would help, perhaps a separate website or a web-page: “Information/Technologies Placed in Public Domain to Prevent Patenting”.

                • Bob Greenyer

                  That is very gracious of you and again, you have a good idea with regard to making contributions public. We are all about that – but having a specific place where potentially novel ideas can be pointed to would be a good approach.

                  Please contact us through the Green Arrow on the site if you have any registration issues and to contact us directly.

      • US_Citizen71

        Have you considered using Americium 241 to ionize the hydrogen? The reason I ask is that Nickel 63 seems like it might be more costly and harder to procure comparatively. Rossi claims to have been all but bankrupt when he started the research that became the ECat and Americium 241 out of an old smoke detector would have been an easy source for a ionization source at the time.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Stoyan argues that a low energy Beta- is needed, so Americium in not appropriate.

          Our initial thrust is to use novel broadband HV arc based on Tesla technology, this will allow longitudinal (scalar) waves and Stoyan says if we can engineer the cells and run experiments he will contribute the proposed driving system and schematics. This may be ideal to route to an open source working high power solution.

          • US_Citizen71

            Completely understand, I would make use of Sarg Stoyan’s expertise while you have it as well.

            If and when you get to trying radioactive ionization sources you might keep the Americium in mind. Rossi has always said beta decay was not involved that could be because he is using an alpha source. The alpha particles may also be the cause of the helium that he claimed was detected in early tests. Alphas plus electrons would give you helium in the ash.

            Good luck, it sounds like an exciting time at MFMP!

  • Fortyniner

    Dr Sarg has also predicted a possible chromium-hydrogen LENR system which I hope MFMP will also take a look at. There is chromium in Celani’s treated nichrome wires, and in the stainless steel used in early Rossi and DGT reactors – perhaps this is significant?

    • Bob Greenyer

      The content of Celanis processed “active” wires starts as Cu55% Ni44% and 1%Mn – the surface of which is manipulated through Joule heating cycles and acid etc processes to change the morphology and relative elemental proportions – so no Chromium I am afraid in those.

      Having said that – our “passive” wires are unmodified NiCr wires – so those do contain Cr and interestingly Celani has stopped using them in favour of Platinum because of suspected excess heat (though that might be coming from the Cr content).

      The really exciting part of this collaboration is that if Cr micro particles can be made to undergo the same suggested Neutron capture process that Stoyan advocates for Ni and Cr, we could end up with an open source novel New Fire reactor tech. But it is prudent to start from the point for which there is the most claimed success.

      • Fortyniner

        My bad – I was getting mixed up with your ‘control’ wires (another ‘senior’ moment!).

        I think that MFMP + Dr Sarg will be a killer combination and I’m looking forward to following your efforts with Ni and Cr nanopowder. Ongoing plaudits for all your great work – may the ‘breakthrough come very soon.

        • Bob Greenyer

          No problem… there is so much to try and understand – that’s why it really helps us when the crowd challenges our work and investigates alternative solutions to things we propose. Having someone as mind numbingly intelligent as Dr Stoyan Sarg step up, brings so much to the table that we can all think on and learn from.

          • GreenWin

            Congratulations on this development Bob. Sarg seems to be an ideal partner for this phase of your work. The online element will attract experimenters and perhaps some added funding. For interesting theory, check out Gordon Dougherty’s comment (will look for link) re role of Casimir effect in fractional H1. This would suggest an etched geometry creating Casimir gaps could also facilitate LENR heat.

            • Bob Greenyer

              Dear Greenwin,

              Thanks, I did read his thoughts and they are very interesting as they feed into a lot of the understanding that surface morphology/structures are key to LENR. Words like, resonance, monopoles, plasmons, vortexes, antennae, cavities, cracks, flux etc all speak to a world of micro and nano engineering. As said on the blog, we are not really experts in theory, we are testing the claims of others with the best guidance we can derive from work that in some cases is over 100years old. We need to make educated guesses as to the best way forward and I think that Gordon may be a great contributor to the discussion as we move forward.

  • Marc Ellenbroek

    I hope for a fruitful cooperation.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks Mark – keep checking on the blog, Stoyan wrote a few hours ago that he is preparing the first detailed draft schematic of his suggested reactor design for open evaluation and discussion. We will post it as soon as we have it.

  • Buck

    I wish all the best in MFMP’s & Dr. Sarg’s collaboration.

    • Bob Greenyer

      We are happy that we are getting closer to a certain answer with respect to Celani’s technology and his first mover willingness, to have his wires openly and rigorously tested by an independent body, was an incredibly brave act and essentially is what made the MFMP happen. It can not be overstated how important his decision was.

      We are now extremely pleased that Stoyan has taken a similar decision, Dr Sarg is not just a theoretician with a unique and fresh understanding of the structure of matter, he is an experimentalist who wants to explore practical examples that are implicated by his musings. He is prepared to step forward and be accountable for his claims, this takes guts. Moreover, he has no vested interest in the commercial aspects of the sciences physical embodiment, so he can draw from his broad experience without fear of repercussion from investors and the like.

      Mitchell Swartz is working through his transition at the moment, exploring new rewarding research avenues and has recently contacted with respect to us openly running NANOR experiments saying “What you are doing is important, and your name is high up on our list.” We have a really exciting thing we would like to do with the NANORs if he is able to provide us with some… and that would be to give you, the crowd, DIRECT remote control of the experiment!

      • Ronzonni

        What do you think the answer is going to be about Celani’s technology?

        • Bob Greenyer

          My opinion is not important, the facts will speak for themselves. To date we have seen similar (albeit small) signals supporting Celani’s claims with a range of experiments in multiple locations, based on calibrations and differentials.

          There are a few remaining criticisms of the results to date and the experiments being undertaken in this first half of the year in US and EU should provide clarity. Specifically, we are closing down discussion of IR transparency (by mass-flow calorimetry and Isothermal bath experiments), inaccurate thermal assessment (by mass flow calorimetry) and purported Langmuir effects (by cam cell in US and long term aggregate net power assessment).

          Small, robust, repeatable and safe signal is critical as a minimum for us to make a strong claim.