MFMP Dog Bone Test (‘D B Day’) Live Thread

The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project’s Dog Bone Test is now being streamed live on the internet. I thought I would create a new post so we can keep track of this event in one place. It’s getting late in Europe, and it’s likely that the test will be going on for many hours, and it would be helpful if readers here could help other readers by commenting on significant aspects of the testing.

Here is a link to the MFMP’s Evernote feed where they share updates, images and other notes.

https://www.evernote.com/pub/marpooties/projectdogbone#st=p&n=df20c844-ed5b-4d6b-9958-26b2c616154f

This is a link to HUGnetView site where the data stream will be posted:

http://data.hugnetlab.com/

Here’s a link to the MFMP Facebook page where they are also providing updates:

https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject

Below is the live Youtube stream showing the Dog Bone reactor.

This is live open science, folks — let’s enjoy the show, regardless of how things turn out. I think it’s fair to say that results could be positive or negative.

  • Ged

    Update on the MFMP Facebook from their reactor autopsy I feel is important to put here too so people can see:

    “Reactor core autopsy conclusion – we had no H2 or pressure and it was effectively open

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    Main conclusions:
    – The seal was flawed
    – The cement had a poor bond to the alumina

    Likely effect was that there would have been gas exchange with air, no significant pressure and no Hydrogen.”

    The reactor was sadly dead and this can be chalked up as a calibration run. Good news is 1) the powder by itself doesn’t change the reactor thermal behavior and will not present any error, and 2) air does not react with the fuel mix or give any heat. Important data learned, even if the poor thing was not functional.

  • rats123

    Just want to say good on MFMP for persevering. I, amongst others, have been critical of the way Bob and co have been running the tests. I feel there were simpler ways of confirming the LENR effect e.g. obtaining Piantelli’s test unit and testing it, rather than creating a test unit from scratch. Once the excess heat was confirmed the set up from scratch could be attempted later.

    Nonetheless no one can take the dedication, perseverance, attention to detail, and most importantly, the openness demonstrated by MFMP. I really hope you guys crack it.

    Happy New Year to all!

  • Ged

    Show me data where the mistake was exactly. I need facts not belief.

  • georgehants

    Sorry if it has already been asked but would it be worth asking Mr. Parkhomov if he would be willing to invite Bob Greenyer over to his lab to observe the procedures he is using.
    Could save a lot of time on trial and error.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Problems of visa either way, but we are considering it.

  • artefact

    @Bob, are calibration runs necessary in further tests if you just swap the cores?

    Thank you for all your efforts.

    • Bob Greenyer

      No, we can just run tests.

      It is a pleasure we are one big team.

  • Gerrit

    [OT] siliconrepublic’s article “8 clean-energy stories that brightened our world in 2014” discusses the e-cat and Bill Gates’ Italy trip as 2 of the 8. If developments keep going like we have seen the last few months, 2015 has good chances of bringing of the start of a new era.

    http://www.siliconrepublic.com/clean-tech/item/39783-8-clean-energy-stories-that

  • SiriusMan

    Even despite the experimental outcome here, this was a fantastic effort by the MFMP team.

    In fact, if the experiment HAD shown excess heat, I would have become immediately suspicious that some error had been made. In my experience, experiments *NEVER* work on the first attempt. It’s like its a law of nature or something…..

    Keep going!

  • Mike Ivanov

    The test clearly shows the importance of calibration. Both Lugano and Parkhomov tests actually look much less credible for me, comparing to this one.

    • Ged

      Parkhomov calibrated a dummy run from what he said, coming to within 10% of the calculated baseline based on water chemistry. So, depends on how much you trust a completely uninvolved Russian nuclear physicist with a crazy amount of peer reviewed publications. Maybe he’s playing with everyone? That’s the only nefarious reason I can think of.

      • Mike Ivanov

        I trust what Parkhomov did exactly what he said in his report. And his report does not show two curves for loaded and dummy devices like report from MFMP.

        • Ged

          It would be nice to see. But the COP data is anamoly data, same as climate science reports for the Earth’s temp. This means you can redraw the dummy curve by removing the anamoly, easy as that, if you want.

          • Mike Ivanov

            What do you mean by “redraw”? Parkhomov claims what he had tested an and verified the the method how he had measured the heat energy. For dummy run it should be close 1:1.

            • Ged

              You missed the point. Saying a COP is 2.58 at a certain value of input, means the 1:1 baseline was 2.58 times less than the experimental value reported. Simple algebra gives you back the dummy run values within 10% by just dividing out the excess COP of the live run (and remembering power = temp^4). Simple as pie.

              • Mike Ivanov

                No, I am talking about doing real dummy run, not reverse calculated one. Of course you can draw imaginary 1:1 base line, but what is the point?

                • Ged

                  He did do a real dummy run, and reported it was within 10% of the calculations. Thus you can draw your own dummy curve based on the COP anamoly. There is no point in all that other seeing how the curve shape changes with temp, is my point 😉

  • NT

    Bob, If you have no other good choices of sealant and since the water based ceramic sealant is a major concern because of its reaction on contact with the Lithium aluminum hydroxide releasing the needed hydrogen to atmosphere before it cures and seals. Why not use a “two part barrier” sealant system? The first inner sealant, consisting of something simple that will not poison the internal reaction, but temporarily creates a barrier between the Lithium aluminum hydroxide in the reactor tube and the water based ceramic sealer. Something inert and simple such as dipped molten lab glass on the inner end of the ceramic plug, even canners beeswax might work – ha, until the outer ceramic sealant has cured properly and seals the unit. Perhaps a real dumb idea – but here it is for what it is worth…

    • Mr. Moho

      More than the loss of hydrogen I would be concerned that the loss of LiAlH4 in its original form due to water means that its oxide reduction capabilities – which could be essential for the thermal anomaly to occur (read Abd’s comment about this for more details as for why) – will be irreversibly lost.

      At this point I don’t think LiAlH4 only acts as a hydrogen carrier and lithium source inside the cell.

      • NT

        In any case the material needs to be preserved and not contaminated with water, in the now used sealant, or anything else before a proper seal is in place in the reactor…

  • Mr. Moho

    It looks like the active run was very marginally hotter than calibration above 500 °C (although the opposite happened for the last data point), but it’s well within tolerances:

    http://i.imgur.com/fwTWy5F.png

    Besides asking Parkhomov for every possible detail of his cell and experiment, and attempting a perfectly identical replication of his replication (which the MFMP Dog Bone wasn’t) I would also try investigating whether something didn’t go wrong when sealing off the active core. It sounded as if water from the water-based cement for the alumina plug reacted with the LiAlH4.

    • Mr. Moho

      In the best case, ignoring error margins and that we’re still only dealing with fixed point temperature measurements and not actual output heat measurements, it took 585W for the active core to match the temperature measured at 599W with the calibration run, which would imply a 2.39% power gain.

  • Bob Greenyer

    It was certainly history in terms of peer review – just need more detail from the claimant.