Report of First MFMP Live Dog Bone Test — Null Result, but Success for Live Open Science [Update #2 MFMP Conclusions on Test Failure]

Last night I followed the first Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project’s Live Dog Bone Test. For those who were not following closely, the procedure was basically this:

An unfueled reactor was tested at various power levels, and temperature measurements (internal and external) were taken using thermocouples. Following this dummy run, the reactor was fueled and the process was repeated. Below is a table with comparative data from each run.


Here’s a nice graph provided by Mr. Moho charting the comparative data:


You can see that at certain temperatures there is a tiny increase in temperature in the live run, but I don’t think anyone is considering that to be signficant, and the conclusion at the end of the test was that this was a null result, with no indication of excess heat being generated by live reactor.

While this result was obviously a disappointment to many of us, I found the ability to participate in this live open science experiment fascinating, educational and enjoyable. It was great to hear the input of the various participants and observers in the streaming video, and especially to hear the evaluation at the end of the experiment as to possible reasons for the null result.

Bob Greenyer had noted earlier in the day that when they were sealing the fuel container, “There was a little sizzle as the bonding agent went in… there is a little water in it. Hopefully there is still some LiAlH4 left intact.” This might indicate that the reactor itself was a dud from the beginning.

There was also discussion about whether there might have been leakage of hydrogen, and if a better means of sealing should be used to contain any high-pressure reactions that might take place.

There was no discussion about giving up the Dog Bone project. The Lugano test and the test reported by Alexander Parkhomov indicate that there is something very interesting going on, and it seems that the MFMP is in this for the long haul. The team is going to evaluate these results (and also try to get more guidance from Alexander Parkhomov), make adjustments and try again.

I really appreciated the opportunity to witness live open science at work, and I think others did too. The MFMP team is very open to ideas from those following their work, and I think we have a collective knowledge base that is very impressive and is a great asset in this quest for the New Fire. We will be following closely here at E-Cat World.

UPDATE: Dr. Parkhomov responded to an inquiry regarding the construction of the reactor he made:

“The searching of cement, which maintains high temperature, was most complex problem, which should be decided at preparation of experiment. Business not only in a chemical structure, but also in a process engineering of application of cement including some stages. The creation of the reactor lasts 3 days. In an outcome the monolithic ceramics which is capable to maintain high pressure at high temperature is received practically.”

He asked me to put him directly in contact with the MFMP team to discuss this further.


Here’s a post from the MFMP Facebook page evaluating why they think the test did not produce any excess heat:

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.

Photos are attached to the post.

  • LCD

    Okay Clovis, when you look up the history be sure to look up my name too.

    I could say that you are a moron blah blah blah but I’m going to reach out and ask you exactly what is it that I said that offends you, because I don’t think I’m suggesting anything that goes against the spirit of what the ultimate goal is.

    If you want to “replicate” Rossi go ahead and guess, but that’s not the way science works.

    The whole point of MFMP is to get people like parhamov to do what he did. Then once somebody has success you replicate that and build off of it.

    “Replicating” Rossi is not a specific action, it’s a campaign and by me saying let’s concentrate on replicating parhamov it still is in the spirit of that campaign but in a more scientific manner.

    No we don’t know if parhamov actually did it, but we can actually replicate it and find out. We cannot do that with Rossi.

    It actually would be silly not to pursue a design that works even if not as well as Rossi.

    What would happen if we replicated Parhamov/Rossi and then provided that design to the world? We would blow this thing wide open then you would have multiple experiments and multiple versions of this thing.

    • clovis ray

      i have no idea who you are, why don’t you enlighten us, i don’t have to read the history, i’m not the one that is confused, for your info we been trying to replicate the Rossi effect for years now, this is not our first rodeo .

      mf/mp are virtual beginners, to this ongoing experiment, we just completed an experiment, with other materials, searching for lenr, we have heard all the experts tell us what is happening, well at least their theory, and believe you me i have heard a ton of them , some better than others, but all were adding to the final formula. i have followed the mf/mp folks since their beginning, they are a very capable group, Dr. Rossi even said that one of their members was as close to the effect as anyone else, they have some of the best in the business on their team, in my humble opinion, there is none better to take on this project, you keep putting Parhamov name the in front of the master’s name, and it has not been thought through about what will happen when the secret is reviled, IH could shut everyone down, for all i know, after all it is his discovery. no one on earth has did this before, no body, except Dr. Rossi. are you now saying he has nothing, if so your are going against everyone that has looked at the effect. once again he and IH are not going to give away their IP, they have too much time and money invested,
      P.S. I personally kinda like you, you seem to be outspoken, and very interested in lenr, and we welcome all comers, but no one has “seniority here but Frank.

      • LCD

        You’ve been trying to replicate it for years without success. That’s all I read.

        I’m pretty sure if you leave your feelings out of this you’ll understand what I’m saying. Good luck.

  • LCD

    Oh okay well go ahead and ask Rossi how he did it?
    Since Parhamov is imitating Rossi and it supposedly works it’s the best chance and at the end it’s still trying to replicate Rossi. Win Win

  • artefact
    • Ged

      I see it’s looking mostly at pressure, but will temperature also be monitored like previously in case this reactor does seal properly and works (as it is a live fuel run)?

      I know the design is a bit different, but total thermal energy should be comparable with the normal alumina reactors unless there is a reaction.

      • artefact

        I could not find that information but there is heat and pressure and ni and LiAlH4.
        It could be that the critical temparature is not reached with the thin steel tube though.

  • Private Citizen

    So when is the next attempt scheduled?

    • Ged

      Check Bob’s answer to rats123 below.

  • artefact

    From a comment @MFMP Facebook
    Osmo Laaksonen made an analysis of Parkhomovs devices:

    • Ged

      Cool beans, thanks for the link. A nice equipment list for replication and careful DIY’s.

  • Bob Greenyer

    It will evolve H which if it does not immediately combine to H2 should dissociate on the Nickel surface. Pressure and heat will allow it to hydride the Nickel.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Axil’s comment below about two temperature probes showing 400 C difference gets me worried, for a different reason though. Consider Fourier’s law of thermal conduction, q=kappa*gradT. Alumina’s thermal conductivity kappa at 1000 C is about 5 W/(K m). The heat flux q can be roughly estimated from Stefan-Boltzmann law at 1000 C temperature q=epsilon*sigma*T^4 where epsilon is alumina surface’s infrared emissivity (let us assume epsilon=0.3) and sigma=5.67e-8 W/(K^4 m^2) is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. With these one obtains q=45 kW/m^2. Solving the temperature gradient gradT inside alumina from the above equation, gradT=q/kappa=45000/5=9000 K/m. If the tube wall thickness is about 4 mm, the temperature jump across the wall is 36 degrees, not more. There is no way it can be 400 C. Anomalous phenomena do not enter into discussion because this was effectively a dummy run.

    Either one or both of the temperature probes malfunctioned, or there is no a proper mechanical contact between the inner and outer alumina cylinders so that the heat flux has to jump from the inner to outer cylinder by thermal radiation. That would explain the huge temperature difference. If this is the case, the dogbone has to be redone, otherwise the reactor’s thermal behaviour is too far from the Lugano experiment and if the anomalous process starts, it will quickly overheat and the powder will melt.

    • Ged

      That is a very interesting point, Pekka. There may be a small air gap, but even then, the heating is coming from the coils embedded in the outer tube, I thought based on design, which would make the dispairity even more unexpected. This is seen with the empty core too, the same as the unsealed fuel filled core.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Are you sure the coils are embedded in the outer tube and not the inner one? If so, then the airgap explanation cannot be correct (which means, I guess, that one of the thermocouples must be wrong).

        (As I understood it, Parkhomov had wound the coils around the inner tube, then applied cement everywhere to fill any gaps and to build the outer surface.)

        • Bob Greenyer

          Hi Pekka,

          The coil is on the outer “heater” tube as per the []=Project Dog Bone=[] design posted here:

          There were actually three B-Type thermocouples, effectively on the same place in the reactor. 1 on the outside in the adjacent fin groove to the K-Type and 2 on each of the two cores tested.

          The B-Type on the outside was consistently higher than the K-type. all three B-Types follow the same data acquisition approach, in addition the volts for the external B-Type are given for post verification against known response curves.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Hi Bob,

            Let us double-check this, because I’m afraid that I have misunderstood something. I’m now looking at the last page of “Bob Higgins PDF” ( It’s a coloured drawing showing three concentric yellow circles (tubes). There is also a blue region adjacent to the two innermost yellow regions whose caption says “After winding heater on tube and encapsulation with a high alumina cement, fill with high alumina filler, maybe something like Vitcast 1400 INS-H.”

            I have thought – and this drawing seems to concur – that one winds the coil onto some tube (whatever its name), because winding it on the inner surface of a tube would sound technically difficult. Then it becomes possible that heat might not get conducted to outer layers, and I guess this is the reason why alumina filler is (or was planned to be?) used. If this is so, then my question is: is it possible that the filler has failed in operation, in the sense that it’s not properly touching the layers on its outside.

            In the figure I’m referring to, there is also a second region (grey one) with filler. That region also must be mechanically tight, with no airgaps, to avoid heat conduction problems. There must not be any airgaps (including ones possibly created by thermal expansion) outward from the heater coils up to the radiation surface of the reactor.

            • Bob Greenyer

              Ok – I see where the confusion has arisen, we actually decided to do away with the outer ceramic and first try something similar to my original 3D printable mold.


              You can see the open ended heater tube, it is basically a tube furnace.

              In this evernote, look at the 7th Image down. The cartable ceramic is cast directly over this,


              And the reactor core you see here, preparing for loading


              Slides into this whole assembly as was shown live on the experiment that was broadcast on the 30.12.14

              • Pekka Janhunen

                Can you tell, is the 400 C temperature difference correct, and if so, what’s the explanation?

                (IT issue by the way: for some reason my browser shows only upper parts of evernote images. I’m able to download them, however, and open by graphics program.)

                • Mats002

                  I have the same problem with all (I think) pictures in evernote. I have IE11 and W7 and a good perfomance HP laptop and a good enogh network.

              • I may be out of my element (no pun intended) but would any of that matter, or as you mentioned earlier Bob, regarding Parkhomov’s measuring the outside temperature rather than the inside, would any heat measurements matter if the dummy test showed one set of numbers, but the fuel test showed a COP greater than the dummy test? Wouldn’t the evidence simply be in the COP difference?

                • Ged

                  Completely correct. The issue here is that if heat transfer is non optimal, a rapid reaction may overheat and melt the core before the heat can be safely radiated away on the surface. Note, the total amount of heat/energy is not affected.

            • Bob Greenyer

              You must also hold in mind that the current Dog Bone has fine wires closer to the core, where as IHs reactor had wires that were fatter and consequently much closer to the surface.

    • LuFong

      What would the temperature difference between external and internal be with a leak on one end versus no leak? It seems to me that the temperature difference would be greater with the leaky seal (but perhaps not 400C). Might be a good way to detect a leaky seal!

      • Pekka Janhunen

        LuFong: if I understood correctly, the seals are inward of the coil (that is, at smaller r than the coil where r is the radial cylinder coordinate). Heat transfer inside the coil plays no role in this dummy run case because the coil is the only heat source (there is no heat source and therefore no flux and therefore no temperature differences inside the coil, that is, at smaller r than the coil).

  • Bob Greenyer

    Perhaps later today – we cannot get the Schott Alumina CTE matched ceramic sealing glass for a while and are waiting on feedback from Alexander, so we are thinking about an interim experiment that may give us an indication of pressure in the reaction.

    Keep an eye on FB

  • LCD

    Well you could say the same about Rossi. At least he is open about what he did and willing to share

  • Axil Axil

    Airtight metallic sealing at room temperature under small mechanical pressure

    There was a large amount of carbon in the element analysis of the fuel load. Could it be that Rossi used a organic sealant to stop hydrogen leakage?

    From the TPR2 report:

    “Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash.”

    Could it be that Fe, Mg and Mn were nano metals used to seal the fuel?

  • FxPhil

    The Parkhomov reactor appears to be 2 cores and more complex than the simple single core drawing. It appears to have an internal core sticking out as seen in the right side of the reactor. Which is like the Dog Bone construction and may allow Parkhomov to change fuel loads while keeping the same external heater core.

    This would imply Parkhomov is measuring the temp on the surface of the external / outer core using a metallic wraparound ring to eliminate localised hot spots.

  • MasterBlaster7

    Couple of things…

    This is great that MFMP is talking with Parkhomov. Maybe they should go a step further and have Parkhomov fly in to help them with their second attempt. I mean…if its broke…call in the guy that got it right. Then we would have a second replication…good stuff.

    Regarding above…the warnings related to the F&P meltdown are the wrong warnings. If people had been present for the F&P meltdown they could have easily run out of the room. It would be kinda like someone sparked off a plasma torch 5-10 ft. away from them and melted straight down. You might get singed but you would have time to run away from that.

    The correct warning is the pressure explosion warning. Like a grenade. Was it at SRI? I forget….but an early Brillouin boiler type design exploded in a lab and killed some people. It literally is like a grenade or pipe bomb. The Brillouin guys now stand behind bullet proof glass that will stop a .45 cal. round when they are testing their Brillouin boilers and other pressure vessels. So, the mabe the MFMP team should get behind a bunker when they are doing their experiments under pressure….if they aren’t already.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    I suggest some type of screw on end caps.

    Remember, pressure will go up directly in step with temperature. So if you double the temperature, then gas pressure will double!

    This suggests that the “vessel” should not leak, but ALSO needs to withstand pressure. From room temp of say 20c to 1500c (293K to 1773k), then pressure in the vessel will increase 6 times.

    However, if like the famous Pons and Fleishman accident, and a “runaway” reaction occurs, then their experience was everything melted (including the table) due to VERY high temperatures.

    So some type of pop off value likely should be installed.

    If a runaway reaction occurs, likely the device will melt, but some family high pressures could be reached before such melting occurs. Thus risk of explosion does exist. Worse would be materials and fuel inside igniting and thus again explosion risk exists. So both pressure (due to increasing heat) and that of fuel ignition are two real risks here.

    So some precautions should be taken here, as we don’t want to see anyone to get hurt.

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Preston

    When is the next attempt?

  • Axil Axil

    If money was no object, I would be interested in two tests to be run on a successful dog bone reactor.

    Test 1

    Take a complete temperature based spectral analisys of the light an RF coming from the dog bone in successful operation including emission and absorption lines

    Test 2

    After a successful run of one month in duration, develop a elemental fine grained migration and transmutation analysis of the ENTIRE structure of the dog bone reactor: say on a 10 micron granularity to see where the nuclear active sites are located and how elements move through the grain structure of the alumina..

  • Axil Axil

    The dry run MFMP dogbone test has indicated the existence of some very weird behavior in the Rossi dog bone experiment.

    The MFMP dog-bone reactor places a theromcoupe both at the core and on the outside of the reactor. These thermocouples in the MFMP test shows us that the core of the dog bone is about 400C hotter than the outside surface.

    In the Rossi dog bone test, we are very fortunate that the temperature of the outside of the reactor got to 1400C. This implies that the core of the Rossi reactor should have reached 1800C if the two dog bone reactors had the same physical behavior pattern. Of coarse, these two reactors do not act the same.

    We know that there is a major difference in reactor behavior because there were a few nickel micro particles that came out of the Rossi reactor with there surface morphology in tact even though their isotope makeup was altered.

    A Sintering/melting test should be conducted to find out what temperature it takes to sinter or melt and destroy the surface structure on micron sized nickel particles in a hydrogen atmosphere. My guess is that that structural transition temperature would be just under 1000C.

    I am interested in what keeps the Rossi micro powder from sintering/melting at high surface temperatures when the reactor is in operation. We call this weird behavior the melting miracle.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      In Rossi’s reactor, a large part of the energy is apparently radiated away from the reaction site before it is thermalized, so that the surface can get hotter than the core. This would be typical for nuclear reactions. See this German patent application (cited by Piantelli):

      Another possible explanation is that the energy is transferred by an EM field that is generated by strong electric currents in a superconducting core (This idea has been discussed on ECW some time ago – see also clovis’ comment below.)

      In the dummy DogBone, the input energy is first transformed into heat and subsequently transferred. That’s why the core gets hotter than the surface.

      The “miracle” results mainly from the fact that we tend to apply our everyday’s experience with electrical or chemical heaters to something unusual like the E-Cat.