MFMP Glowstick Test — Discussion Thread

Bob Greenyer has posted on the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project’s Facebook page about a new MFMP test to start ‘first thing’ in the morning of April 2, (California time) to be carried out by Alan Goldwater.

Bob reports that the calibration for the *Glowstick* MK2 reactor has all been completed. Bob says that since the nickel powder he was given by Alexander Parkhomov is still in transit, Alan Goldwater will be using Hunter Chemical AH50 Carbonyl Nickel powder, along with lithium aluminum hydride.

Alan Goldwater writes on the MFMP FB page:

If all goes well, I’ll start the live run around 6 AM tomorrow. Interesting things should start happening by Noon and excess heat by 6 PM [we wish!]. Not sure what to do if it’s stable and still running at Midnight. Can I safely get some sleep with a ‘nuclear’ reactor running in my garage?”

Bob Greenyer tells me he hopes he will be able to get some live streaming set up; however, broadcasting from Alan Goldwater’s site has not been set up yet. They will probably use Hugnet data capture to give results in real time.

Let’s keep comment and news about this experiment on this thread — will update as needed tomorrow.

UPDATE: 7:31 a.m. (Pacific time): Bob Greenyer comments here:

“Alan started at 6.30am and is at around 70ºC on a 12 hour ramp to 1200. He is recording all the data, we are trying to find the best way to get a livestream working from his site.”

UPDATE: 9:00 a.m.

Snapshot of the data:


UPDATE 10:09

Live Youtube broadcast here

UPDATE 6:00 pm

The above Youtube stream has reached its 8 hours limit, here’s the current livestream:

  • Sanjeev

    So far, null result with LAD again.

    We can’t force them to try the powder that’s reported to work. There is anyway no guarantee that LAH will work either, we already saw a null result with LAH. So its all hit and miss.

    I do suspect that those who are trying “something different” suffer from ego and perhaps want to show that they achieved something original, superior… not just a copy. This is causing harm and delay, but I can suggest no solution, except wait for an honest and reasonable person to replicate.

  • From:

    “An arbitrary sample of different granules is chosen for the analysis, but the same samples are used for both EDS and SIMS. The fuel contains natural nickel powder with a grain size of a few microns. The existence of natural Nickel content is confirmed by all four analyzing methods being used. In addition the fuel is found to be mixed with a component containing hydrogen, i.e. probably a chemical hydride. From all combined analysis methods of the fuel we find that there are significant quantities of Li, Al, *Fe* and H in addition to Ni. Moreover from the EDS and XPS analysis one finds large amounts of *C* and O. It should be stressed, that the quantities of most elements differ substantially depending on which granule is analyzed.*

    I remember seeing microscope pictures of Rossi’s fuel, or maybe it was Defkalion’s fuel. The pictures showed tiny pieces of steel mixed in with the nickel grains. If someone remembers this picture, please post a link if they have one.

  • Ged

    Well, I’ve been dealing with receiving dangerous goods quite a bit longer than you, then. The problem is you take this beyond the extreme. You are miss-aiming your threats by treating them like a commercial carrier rather than user.

    1. No difference between bulk and non-bulk? You were trained on this? I guess you have forgotten. In addition to all shipping rules being broken up by bulk and non-bulk (211 and 214 in this instance), I’ll give you a hint, it has to do with size and nature of containers (thus amounts; though you could pack less in a bulk container than it holds, the converse is not true–think what 15kg means for a container).

    2. The slips and packages you show are for commercial carriers. When you mail with them, they generally handle this with you when the package is given to them for transport for their liability not yours as they are responsible once they accept and take your money not you (and they mark the package and will often put their labels over anything you put on); unless you want to pre print and expedite, which I already said. They can always refuse. Your job is just to make sure you used the right container (they often check before acceptance). If you didn’t and you -lie- to the carrier and something goes wrong that endangers the other goods or transporter, then you are liable and thus sue-able or court-aable depending on severity. If the carrier failed to have the proper transporting outer box and labels and form yet still transport your material, -they- are liable due to doing the transport and accepting it. This has nothing to do with personal transport.

    3. Don’t try to argue by absudium, that is a fallacy. A vial of LiAlH4 is no danger to “the public”. Far less than a car full of bleach, ammonium and fertilizer coming back from a grocery store, or kerosene from a hardware store. Making threats about seems more naive in action than anything, as it calls question the understanding in scope or how LiAlH4 behaves and works.

    4. Making vague threats is unethical when you know nothing about what someone has done. In fact, you are trying to imply impropriety a priori with no information or knowledge, particularly when transport of hazardous materials is common and easy, including explosives, and generally the responsibility of the carrier. You try to make it sound like a big deal to transport, and thereby use that as “evidence” against them because they have mentioned no ordeal. Hate to break it to you, but any commercial carrier will have no problem setting you up with a proper box and filling out the CAS related form. And in personal transport you assume the liability yourself (but I am pretty sure this whole discussion is about commercial mailing, thus the one you threaten is the commercial carrier not MFMP).

    This is why you are being hilarious, and maybe histerical, and sadly trollish. Threatening to do what?, “turn them in”?, them being the commercial carrier doing the shipping?, call whom?, all because they said they are going to “try” to ship something entirely shippable? Are you trying to claim they aren’t doing right what they have not yet done, which isn’t even their action to do but a commercial carrier’s, all when you have no knowledge on the matter? This is an Aesop waiting to happen.

    In fact, you could get in trouble for making false claims and slanderous statements. It is one thing to simply share what should be done, and another to threaten uselessly. Unless you have direct proof they lied to and tricked a commercial carrier who did not do due dilligence, there is no issue. And then, if they did and you had proof, whom would you turn to? The carrier. So, who is their carrier? Has it even been mailed yet (they said Parkhomov would “try”)? How would you know?

    So, unless you have such direct proof, speak no more on this matter. I am sure your heart is in the right place, but this has been extreme beyond reason.

  • GreenWin

    VaW, make a good point. Would not the “crowdsource” process be at least more quantitative if there was organized assignment to each experiment? Is this not what Edison was effective at doing? In which case would creating an organized hierarchy of “crowdsourced” experiments not only streamline the open science experience — but also thrust it into the Big Science model that has failed us today?

  • GreenWin

    In his 2007 DTRA LENR discussion re detecting a signal for LENR, Dr. Michael Melich, (Navy Postgraduate School, Rossi Board Advisers JNP) suggests transmutation is far more sensitive than excess heat. Perhaps MFMP can find a partner willing to loan the use of XPS spectroscopy to analyze the ash from their present experiments. We now have U Illinois, Georgia Tech, U Missouri SKINR, Texas Tech AHE – Rob Duncan, GW University – Dave Nagel, SRI Mike McKubre, Dr. Yeong Kim – Purdue University, and potential industrial partners STMicro, JET, JWK/Navy or… a federally funded national lab e.g. INL, LLNL, Sandia, etc.

    There is no loss in creating an alliance with organizations better equipped than MFMP. Perhaps more importantly, is the invitation to support grass roots science – rather than positioning one or other an adversary. The perception of “community science” is not lost on industry, academia, or government. It was the purpose of ARPAnet – the foundation of today’s internet (in spite of Algore’s claim.) Good luck Bob and all dedicated contributors to MFMP!

    • Bob Greenyer

      We asked SKINR and they said they did not have the resources to help us.

      We have kind offers of help from EarthTech to do SEM and EDX also, but this technique cannot see light elements.

      At the moment we are looking at bought for ICP-MS analysis which may cost less than $100 a time. This is affordable and also attractive from the point of view they will be a third party who’s reputation is founded on just showing what they see.

  • Ged

    You actinghilarious, and going dangerously close to irrational troll territory. First, I stated that you can’t take it by passenger plane already, so your attempt to look smart fails. Secondly, your logic fails as it is clear what is bulk and non-bulk. Look at the cargo plane, anything less than 15 kg is non-bulk. Pretty simple. Thirdly, despite your claims, you can transport by ship on deck or below. Forthly, there is no where you send this non-descript “documentation” you list; if you want to mail this, you just fill out a hazard sheet provided right at the mail counter, very easy and used for explosives which LiAlH4 is not. We don’t live in police states, and folks carry around explosives like fire works; stuff far more hazardous than LiAlH4 such as black powder can be had by bulk. And that is the lesser explosive materials people use and transport legally! Have you seen the YouTube vids of hunters using the big stuff, aand taking out while trees? LiAlH4 is hardly dangerous with what you can put in a vial, you need to have your sense of context and scope fixed. you’ll find more dangerous over the counter cleaners and fertalizers.

    No, you’re acting absurdly over the top, and no law is on your side. Even regulations (not the same power or thing as laws) are mostly for liability, i.e. Whom to blaim if there is an accident and lawsuit results. You are acting no less absurd than Gary Wright with his attempts to call down the NRC on Rossi, which ended up making him a laughing stock and joke. You really lack concepts of personal liberty. Whatever you do, don’t look up Biohackers, as it may be too stressful to read what private citizens can do outside this police state imagination.

    Go on though, do keep up your pointless vague threats, it amuses me, like watching a rat in a maze.

  • I can think of a number of reasons why this would be useful. Would you say the magnetic properties and thus acoustic wave generating properties would be one possibility?

  • LCD

    I agree with wisdom. It is very important to get one, at least one version working reliably before going off in other directions. This is in fact how science works, build off of what we know works.

    • GreenWin

      I tend to agree with LCD and VaW. Only because this is the accepted norm for scientific method. However, Mike Henderson argues persuasively for the “Edisonian” approach, distributed across many experimenter nodes. Is there any reason we should not pursue both avenues? One obeys the “method”, the other allows the “big iron” approach of trying hundreds+ variations to see what if any works.

      We also suggest the LENR community not overlook the contributions made by various government elements, esp. the U.S. DTRA and Navy which have sponsored study of LENR for nearly a decade.

      • Hi all

        It is a two stage process:

        1) The first step is to focus on a Parkhomov style replication, in order to establish the anomaly exists at a higher probability level toward 5 Sigma.

        2) That said, the Edisonian approach is the correct one to take ONCE! replication is established. You take the Edisonian approach in order to discover the underlying physics, so as to find its boundaries and typify its physics so that theorists have ground on which to base a theory that is supported by scientific experimental data.

        There is no reason both strands can not be taken if there is sufficient resources, but the focus at them moment has to be on replication.

        Kind Regards walker

        • I support your vision.

          Brian Ahern just confirmed that LiAlD4 does not work at 1150C


          • Obvious

            …. did not work in this test….
            One null is not a total negative.
            Information gained nevertheless.
            Good stuff.

            • Right.
              I was just noticing the deuterium, known (as Peter Gluck emphasis) as not working. It is very hard to replicate, exactly.
              Even if MFMP did not replicated exactly, they tried harder than average.

              • Obvious

                It is hard to put the LAD experiment in context.
                If Ni-deuterium has never shown positive results, then perhaps this is one more nail in the coffin of Ni-D LENR.
                On the other hand, it seems to be that this was an absolutely unique experiment. I am not aware that a Rossi-like ceramic tube LAD and Ni experiment has been done before, ever. If IH and Rossi tried it, they aren’t going to say probably anyways.
                If it had worked, it would have open a bunch of new doors.
                So absolutely this experiment was worth doing. Considering the reproducibility problems with Ni-LAH, this last experiment with LAD probably has not confirmed that it cannot work, at least just yet.
                Several more attempts would help solidify the conjecture that LAD-Ni heated to high temperature in a ceramic tube, without electrical heating wires wrapped around it, does not work readily/often/repeatably.

                • After a successful LiAlH4 experiment, LiAlD4 was absolutely a good idea.
                  My first reaction was dubious because it happened before the LiAlH4…

                  anyway it is an interesting result, as one can take it a a good “blank”.
                  One skeptic cannot state that it is very different because lithium, because hydrogen, because aluminium, because…. and so and so…

                  anyway as your enthusiasm show, changing the parameters instead of replicating is a human instinct to discover new direction. As Ian Walker state, and as MFMP try hard, I prefer first identical replication, then changing the measurement setup to check if it is an artifact, then change in the protocol to see what works better or less.

                • Obvious

                  Sometimes the shortcuts through the woods are good, sometimes they just end at a hidden location with toilet paper laying around…

                • MontagueWithnail

                  Mitchell Swartz claimed Ni-D worked in his Nanor reactors. Actually he says that COP increases proportionately with the ratio of D to 1H in his experiments. Hagelstein favours D + 1H => 3He as being the main reaction taking place in Ni-H and has cried out for experimenters to look for 3He (in vain as far as I know).

                • Bob Greenyer

                  According to Piantelli – D does not work with Ni as it is not a fermion.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We tried to tell him, D is not a fermion and so will not interact with Nickel according to Piantelli.

            We also said, that Piantelli and Celani had both many times said it does not work based on experiments. So this experiment can add support to that knowledge.

  • Mike Henderson

    I disagree.

    This is an engineering problem with a highly speculative theoretical foundation. Think Edison’s light bulb: he tried 2000 variations of filaments, voltage, evacuation / fill gases, etc before he hit on a workable design. He applied what he learned from unsuccessful attempts to subsequent trials and says there were no failures at all, only 2000 steps in a process.

    The internet allows us to crowdsource Edison’s 2000-step process. If each attempt is faithfully and openly reported, others can learn from it and explore other fuels, ceramics, heat profiles, pressures, and such. Parkhomov’s reactor is not and identical twin of Rossi’s reactor. Let’s prove they work and find what makes them work.

  • When will bob higgins start his experiment with the original parkhomov powder?

    • Bob Greenyer

      He says the calorimeter is another 10 days out, but he might do thermometry. I think we are going to wait a few days for the SEM / EDX from Edmund Storms on Dr. Parkhomov’s Ni.

      • GreenWin

        Bob, I missed this before posting above. Great idea. Would Ed be willing to run your fuel/ash EDX for the next experiment?

  • EEStorFanFibb

    well, since.. like forever it turns out.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Yes, we know the exact composition of Parkhomov’s fuel.
    Because it’s only nickel and LiAlH4 there are only four elements (well, maybe some trace elements in the nickel and a little N2 and O2 from the air) that we have to can keep track of. With a full analytical package of Parkhomov’s ash (and an analysis of the gas for helium) it will be easier nail down the mechanism.

  • lars

    I am swedish and read the Edström report from Lugano. Before use (fuel) was only C, O, Ni detected. After 6 months use (ash) was a lot detected.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Couple of things,

    1. Dr. Parkhomov was using FeCrAl, Russian analogue of Kanthal A1, if we were to replicate him, we would need this exact same wire.

    2. The internal core temperature was far higher than 900ºC in Alan’s test, as per the published calibrations. Please review the calibration graph here – – and the data published where you can see that 900ºC was reached when the core outside temp was around 790ºC. Bob Higgins explains why

    “The thermal model for Alan’s thermocouple, mounted on the reactor tube, is
    different than Parkhomov’s. Alan’s thermocouple is in a center gap in the
    heater coil turns, the turns being wound directly onto the reactor tube.
    He has his heater coil portions on each side of center covered with a thick
    alumina tube, but the center area where the thermocouple is mounted is not
    covered (not insulated). Thus, there is thermal load to the environment
    (radiation, convection) from the area of the thermocouple that causes the
    thermocouple to read lower than the core temperature or even the surface
    temperature of the reactor tube right under the coils. Fortunately, Alan
    measured this differential in temperature between where he had the
    thermocouple on the reactor tube and the core temperature.”

    It is a little hard to get ones head around. It is estimated that the core temp was over 1200ºC. Alan is prepared to try and melt it, however, Easter, then leaving for ICCF 19 on Tuesday is in the way.

    3. If anyone can point to trusted source showing a certified full assay of the fuel in the Lugano reactor, please do so, that we may consider the claims for Iron content. With such fuel data, calls for “replicating Lugano” would be easier to approach. I have in my spreadsheet given some reasons why Iron may be useful. – – principally, it is a fuel and progresses to 62Ni, in theory it would extend a run. Since Parkhomov has claimed important results with a simple fuel mix, it is worth replicating that first.

    • Freethinker

      There have been graphs presented in this forum portraying the input power. As I only find the RMS voltage, I don’t understand where that data comes from. Are there any supplementary data apart from the one you point out here, placed elsewhere?

      • Bob Greenyer

        it is calculated from the volts and the known resistance of the wires.

        • Freethinker

          🙂 Thanks.

          Elementary, P=U²/R.

          A value of the resistance would be nice too, as I seem not to find it.

      • AlanG

        The resistance of the heater coil against temperature was carefully calibrated before the live test. The power was then calculated for each 1-second sample using Ohms law.

        The inside core temperature was also carefully calibrated against the outside core, giving a second-order polynomial with very good fit. That in turn was used to calculate the inside core temperature during the run with fuel, when it was not possible to have a thermocouple inside the tube. You can see the result of these calculations in the graph at:


        • Mats002

          What about the cooling down at the end curves? Seeing a chart from Sanjeev far below, 1 day ago, made me wonder what kind of differences to find on that part. If the step down in power was made the same in both runs it might be interesting.

        • Freethinker

          Ok. But I fail to find that value of the carefully calibrated resistance.
          Nice graph.

          • artefact

            Around 200 – 300C its 9.0 Ohm and at 900C it is 9.1 Ohm.

            • Freethinker


    • Mr. Moho

      Hi Bob, as for 3), this analysis was linked on a different discussion branch here:

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes we know that. and the assumption I think is that since the fuel ends up as 62Ni and, as I have said before, the reaction chain for Fe (assuming piantelli) is that it tends to 62Ni (need to run that) the bulk of the rest should be Iron and Manganese.


        Because, Iron and Manganese are transition metals and should therefore act as fuel.

        But we don’t know for sure, so calls for “replication” are actually a call for a more assumptive analogue than Dr. Parkhomovs.

      • “I would say Rossi put high carbon steel powder”

        That is an interesting speculation. It would make sense, but I have no idea if it is true or not.

        • Mr. Moho

          I don’t think that anybody can tell if it’s true or not at this stage.

    • AlanG

      My concern in designing the overall test protocol was not to damage
      the heater or cell structure during calibration, so that it could be
      used unchanged for the run with fuel. Parkhomov’s history of failed heater coils
      led me to be cautious in that regard. If there was any evidence that
      the calibration was flawed, the entire experiment would be invalidated.
      ‘Damned if you do, damned if you don’t”

      retrospect, I could have done some things differently but I am
      confident that the data I collected is accurate and valuable. This was
      without doubt a null result for the fuel components used. And the entire
      system is now proven to be reliable and ready for further tests with
      different fuel materials. I welcome reasonable suggestion for future test protocols, like a temperature ramp with abrupt steps or pauses, which can be easily programmed into the system.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      I think if replications become VERY difficult, then perhaps what Parkhomov is doing and in fact finding out from Parkhomov what DID NOT work might be as valuable as “the formula”.

      When Parkhomov came on the scene, there was a “burst” of enthusiasm that LENR may be VERY easy to replace.

      It possible that while building a LENR device is rather easy, getting the right mix may well be more of a challenge then we realize.

      However, it might also be one simple detail. Over time, if results are not possible, then attention to such details becomes more and more critical.

      I think your current path and your sharing of your progress here is a good and solid practical road. I mean you could have waited for Parkhomove fuel sample, but you did not! (good for you!).

      And I dare say, you ARE making and becoming part of history! In fact you already are!!!

      Keep up the work Bob, we appreciate your efforts!

      All the best

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada
      [email protected]

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks, but this is a crowd thing, we’re lighting the New Fire together