MFMP and Me356 Testing — Saturday May 27

Here is a new thread for a new day of potential testing by the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project of Me356’s claimed LENR system. Friday’s testing did not show excess energy from the sparge testing, and the MFMP had planned to return today for continued work.

There have some posts by Bob Greenyer on the previous thread which have updates on the current situation:

“me has some sickness in his family and has been unable to condition the reactor, we are going to get more insulation for the flow calorimeter and then apply it and see where he is after that.”

“It is exhausting – for us and me356. Full respect to him for allowing the test.
We need to find the optimum way to give him the best chance of giving the AURA it’s best shot during this next”

Here’s a comment below from me356:

“I can only tell, that the test was conducted in the condition that was very far from ready from my side. This mean that I was not prepared for testing with the current reactor at all. But this is the only one with a cover – thus nothing else can’t be tested in this way. I didn’t knew that the test will occur at this time as I was informed just few days before, but I dont want to waste money and time that was spent for already bought tickets and accommodation. So I have nothing to loose whatever it will work or not.
MFMP was informed very clearly that the result can be whatever in advance, but I have to thank to all the members that have putted so much work in it. Except timing (that I was unable to affect) the test is conducted very well and all members are very proffesional.
So we have to hope that this one will work, since there are major issues that should be solved first. But there is no time on side of MFMP to wait for this.
In any way I am enjoying working with them. Soon we will know more.”

Live data from the MFMP is here:

and here:

  • Frank Acland

    I have created a new thread here on ECW for today’s testing —

  • 11:00 on site, me356 has just got reactor into and operational state and also removed a pump that was identified in the water supply system, which was likely largely responsible for the saw-tooth variation in pressure that we saw during Run 1. He has also got a new grounding point installed in the lab.

  • Frost*
  • Bob Greenyer

    Hi Guys,

    me356 should be ready for us now and we are about to depart to the test site – look out for the en-route facebook live.

    • The facebook live stream is only visible with a facebook account.
      Can’t watch it :/

  • Sam Hansson

    I found this today on the xprize webpage which shows further that the xprize foundation is seriously considering a competition where exotic new energy technologies could compete for a prize. There are some highly qualified and intelligent people spearheading this project.

    The first signs we saw from the xprize showing interest for those fields of research was when the idea of a Forbidden Energy Competition was awarded 25K USD during a Visioneers sumit. They are now awarding 50K USD in collaboration with HeroX, money that is going towards collecting data in a wiki for new energy technologies as well propositions for outlining the Xprize.

    There was a webinar a few weeks back at HeroX where James Farell, Carl Page and others participated and presented some issues that would need to be overcome, for example how to compare and measure various technologies towards each other and how to engage some of the more promising teams and technologies out there.

    Even if a prize eventually could not be paid out the competition would raise awareness towards the fields of research and need for new energy technologies. It could also lead to a better understanding of which technologies that are most prominent and which researchers that are sincere, it would basically be a great funding platform (hopefully) for the LENR researchers. Instead of having an incentive to perform lab studies for a university the researchers could gather funding to have fun and test out their crazy ideas, getting money to actually build make something useful out of for example Pd.

    The way I envision the Xprize, teams would initially cooperate with local universities or independent measuring entities. Combining the concept of LOS with the Xprize competition could make the competition much more interesting to follow so there is with a great deal of interest for me to now follow the MFMP’s testing of devices, not build by themselves tested in their members labs, but actual black box measurements of someones else’s technology. With a competition groups like The MFMP and could crowdfund a lot more resources for equipment and tests, and this could widen the LOS community and concept by a multitude.

    There is lots of potential, for everyone, even the skeptics, can you see it?

  • Axil Axil

    This is the reactor in action.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Most likely it’s just the camera that wobbles.

      • Mike Henderson

        Hmmm. What caused the camera to wobble? As I recall, there’s nobody in the building with the reactor during this test. me356 monitored from a distance.

  • Mats002

    Rossi is not OPEN science, it is constricted with a lot of NDA:s and a play game of no, yes and warm regards.

  • Axil Axil

    We all know what the ME reactor looks like. We have seen the videos of it in action. We have seen it in action when the stimulus was applied and the tube began to glow. Putting it in a box will not hide anything from us that we do not already know.

    What is different between the old days before ME356 went dark and this new version is that ME356 always tested his original system remotely at a distance with a lot of space between the experimenter and the experiment.

    Now there are people in intimate contact with the reactor. The MEMP crew is within spitting distance of the reactor. What has changed? Maybe the box that covers the tube is a shield to keep the reactor safe or this NEW reactor is a safe version of ME356’s original design that took out his test equipment at 3 meters distance.

    What is the definition of a working reactor anyway? The generation of over unity heat aside, maybe a safe reactor is a working reactor and an unsafe reactor no matter how much heat it can produce does not work.

  • Anon2012_2014

    “Would make a great team with Rossi”

    Me356 works with Bob to conduct a test in the open. He is thus 100x better than Rossi who shows us nothing. It is entirely reasonable of Me356 to state he needs more time for this test as it IS progressing right now. Rossi has never done this level of public testing.

    Rossi and BLP need to learn from Me356’s open testing of his technology.

    Thank you Me356 for your open testing.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Some things to consider for tomorrow – add anything you thing we need to capture also.

    – Weigh reactor with water at end of run
    – Record steam free ejection rate on high speed camera
    – do test with dummy reactor heating heat exchanger (to test COP determined by calorimetry of known device output).
    – Ask for ash sample from old Nickel reactor for analysis
    – Turn off reactor and let water continue to flow.
    – Pressure regulator

    • SD

      Display a rolling average COP over a period of e.g. 5 minutes.

      • nietsnie

        …but please do that in *addition* to the immediate COP stat, which is handy for making reality check comparisons.

    • Rene

      Check all line voltages, neutral and ground. Ensure all RFI emitters are grounded.

    • Stephen

      Hi Bob, good luck to all of you today.

      I still hope for positive test today but I have some ideas that might be interesting too. Especially if the fuel needs to be processed more.

      I wonder if Me356 can give you some pointers in fuel processesing that might help with this test in the future and also help your glow stick experiments preparation in the future?

      How long does he process the fuel for?

      Does it involve heating/cooling soaking in hydrogen under pressure or other stimulation In a particular way?

      Is the processing endothermic or exothermic or does it have other interesting observable parameters?

      Does he process the fuel once it’s already in the device or is it necessary to process it outside the device?

      If it’s in the device does it require stimulation and control in a similar way to when in operation but with different parameters.

      If so could MFMP also monitor the preparation process with out it giving away critical points he prefers to keep secret at this time?

      Perhaps this is an opportunity to learn about these things too.

      What ever happens today I wish both MFMP and Me356 the best. Live testing is difficult but I think it always builds something positive for the future work whatever the results.

      • Indeed interesting that the fuel processing needs so much time (seemingly weeks to months?), according to the “1/14” of usual processing time.

        This would also explain why other replicators, which process their fuel only for a few hours or over night, don’t see any effect.

        Maybe they did everything right, except this step.

        • Axil Axil

          Could the fuel processing be generating ultra dense (metallic) hydrogen?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Suhas fuel takes 200 hours.

  • Deeply cynical and conspiratorial is one way to go though life…

  • Confirmation from BG downthread that the me356 posting here is the real me356.

    LENR G • 11 hours ago
    Bob Greenyer, can you confirm that this is the real me356 posting to ECW?

    Bob Greenyer LENR G • 10 minutes ago
    Yes it is, we had very bad internet in Krakow during our day off, however, some long emails were exchanged and me356s contributions here are entirely consistent with his emails to the team today.

    I am impressed at his willingness to engage with people here with such detailed responses.

    • His engagement has been super helpful for us to better understand the situation and manage our expectations. Hope to hear more from him!

  • Rene

    This is what a 3KW wet steam generator puts out. It is a rather lively amount of hiss from the small orifice hose. Is there any reason to not expect that amount of liveliness and noise (not the buzz, but the hiss) in the LENR reactor’s generated steam? Dry steam may be invisible but it ought to be noisy coming out of a small orifice.

    • Sean

      I too would expect a spectacular display of steam. When I blow down a 15″ Gauge steam locomotive using its 1/2″ drain valve, the steam rushes out at an ear screeching 100 db. The steam jet blowing sideways for at least 60 feet and eventual making a massive cloud. This little locomotive boiler is 14HP or around 10.4KW. So I would expect LENR to do the similar at the very least. If not, then more work has to be done before LENR is sent market to do some real useful tasks. After following LENR for quite some time (1989 on wards), I now believe the only way LENR going to be developed, is by a massive industrial scale with some of the best minds in physics and engineering. Plus a lot of capital$. More people involved the better. They have done it with Calder Hall in 1956 (Using slide rule and rudimentary computing.) so they can do LENR with today’s advanced technology very easily. It will happen for sure.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        It makes a difference whether you release an accumulated amount of high pressured steam from a vessel or vent the same amount of steam continuously at near atmospheric pressure. Distribution of energy over time matters. To give an analogue example: 1000 kcal equal almost exactly the energy that is released in the explosion of 1 kg TNT. The latter will look spectacular, while digesting a Hamburger might result at most in some less inspiring gaseous emissions…

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Should better read „hamburger“. Of course, I did not mean an inhabitant of Hamburg (city in Germany) 😉

        • Sean

          You make a good point. However I am able to supply 2 large cylinders of 150 PSI steam continuously at 14HP and a small lick of oil fire while pulling 48 passengers on the level. Again look at the chimney, see the exhausted steam blasting like a rocket. Those cylinders are also supplied by Qty2, 1/2” dia pipes. I have seen a flash steam boiler without accumulation and a small gas burner to heat it. The result is just as spectacular when water is pumped into to coils. It is vicious, very viscous at 1013mb atmosphere pressure. It will blow you over. Have witnessed the Stanley steamer car here at Amberly museum. It ain’t slow and can climb hills with ease. Incidentally I am in my workshop producing a large Briggs style boiler. LENR should easily power this boiler. Steam locomotive are very inefficient you know. Best to use GE steam turbines.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Are these14 HP mechanical power? If so, thermal power would be a multiple of that. The ‘impressiveness’ of the result will also depend on the geometry of the system (volume of the vessel, relative size of the opening…). Therefore, it might be tricky to compare the output of steam-producing devices of different design on a perceptual basis.

            BTW I have seen steam locomotives in my childhood – the sound is indeed awe-inspiring!

            • Sean

              Normally your HP is what the boiler can produce so there is a rudimentary formula to work out. You have to calculate the total heating surface of the boiler including the fire tubes. More scientifically, the HP to the wheels is a lot less due to losses. However the locomotive manufacture would publish what is known as tractive effort at the point of contact between the wheels and the steel rail. Years ago steam engines were placed on dynamometer only to realise the inefficiency of the steam locomotive around 12% . That was the end of the steam age.

  • Zeddicus23

    I now see that I misread me356’s post. Apparently, he stated that fuel processing was only 1/14 complete, not 1/4 complete. Based on me356’s statement that he would expect the processing (along with other preparations) to be complete in one month, this would indicate that the fuel was only processed for 1-2 days, even though he stated that he found out about the test on May 4 (based on a private forum message). This raises a number of questions….

  • Dr. Mike

    Thanks to all that asked me356 really good questions, and thanks to me356 for answering those questions!

  • Zeddicus23

    Thanks to me356 for answering my (and others) questions. Hopefully, the test will go better on Monday even if the device/fuel preparation was only 1/4 complete.

    Regarding the schedule for the test, my impression is that originally the ECCO test was scheduled first, followed by AURA (e.g. me356), and that for some reason later on this was switched. Perhaps this could explain some of the problems?

    I agree with LENR G’s comment that if you remain open and aggressive about testing and disseminating your reactors we will all be in your corner!

    Good luck tomorrow!

  • Dr. Mike

    As I stated in a comment 5-6 above, I think MFMP is doing a fairly good job. However, a number of other LENR experiments have resulted in more questions than answers. Right now the only thing that I see as an issue with MFMP is that it appears that there was some communication problem with me356 as to when his reactor would be ready to test.

  • Engineer48


    You guys need to log and display the pump mass flow rate as that flow rate is what sets the min thermal heat output needed to produce superheated dry steam.

    Approx 1.5kg/hr and 1kw of output energy will generate dry superheated steam. A flow rate above that will generate wet steam and below that the temp of the superheated dry steam will increase.

    Point being that too much water mass flow rate may generate wet steam instead of dry steam.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      They are using a secondary heat exchanger with liquid water, therefore steam quality in the primary system is not relevant.

      • Engineer48

        Hi AM,

        Using steam introduces problems. Using hot water on both sides of the heat exchanger is a really good idea. However as the energy per mass of hot water is a LOT less than using superheated dry steam, the water flow rate into the reactor will need to be quite high.

        We still need to know the flow rates of both the primary and secondary sides of the MFMP heat exchanger and the inlet and outlet temperatures.

        I do hope they have temp probes inserted INSIDE the hoses , in the actual fluid flow and not using temp probes on the surface of the hoses or even worst their IR sensor.

        Those inline fluid flow temp sensors need to be at least 50mm AWAY from the mass of the heat exchanger. No way should the temp sensors be placed on the inlet and outlets of the heat exchanger as that is a route to disaster.

        • Dr. Mike

          If it were possible to use hot water flowing through the reactor, no heat exchanger would be needed. This would make for a much better test, but from what I understand from the many posted comments is that running a high water flow though the reactor would over cool it in a way that would adversely affect its operation.
          You are correct that the water flow into the reactor, its temperature, and the water temperature coming out of the primary side of the heat exchanger need to be measured to account for output heat not converted in the heat exchanger. Also, you are correct that temperature probes need to be in the fluid flow.

          • Gerard McEk

            Yes, I asked the same question to Bob G. He replied that the measurement would be conservative, doing it in this way.
            Assuming dry steam and assuming all steam is condensed in the heat exchanger, the ‘conservative fault’ may be 10%, when the primary water leaves the heat exchanger with a temperature increase of 50 degrees, is my estimation.

            • Dr. Mike

              Somewhere around a 10% error was what I was estimating. No reason not to include this measurement in the COP calculation even if it’s just a few percent.

          • Engineer48

            Hi Dr Mike,

            Every reactor has a inbuilt heat exchanger that flows some type of heat transfer fluid around the outside of the primary reactor heat generator. This allows the fluid flow rate to be adjusted to maintain desired reactor core temp at a temp much higher than the external fluid temp.

            However the external fluid energy content is balanced to that being generated in the reactor core.

            If the fluid flow is too high, it takes away too much energy and the core temp drops.

            Likewise if the flow bis too low, not enough energy is taken away and reactor core temp increases.

            So a proper fluid flow rate is critical to allow the reactor to achieve it’s operational temp. Which means flow will probably start very low, to allow reactor core temp to increase and then once temp starts to climb, so too should flow increase to track increasing core temp until it finally reaches the desired temp, then flow increase to maintain core temp constant.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Another point is the internal design of the heat exchangers. If there is not enough surface area, increasing the flow rate would probably not help much. In the yesterday’s test, the secondary exchanger absorbed about 600W at relatively low temperature differences. So far, we do not know how it would cope with several kilowatts of power.

  • Evidence suggests otherwise. Why do you say this?

  • me356

    Please don’t be sad. As I have said I was far from ready for the testing, but at least we are trying to get as much as possible from the situation that occured.
    I was informed (the first time) that the test will occur on 4th may by a private message from forum – not MFMP member. The test was not planned by me and conditions when I will be ready were clear. I hope that it will be clearly explained by MFMP so you will understand it well.
    You will see that there is nothing strange and we will do our best.

    So again to be perfectly clear, nothing that was tested was ready for making any conclusions. But we have hoped and still hope that it will work tommorow somehow even that there are more very important issues that require fixing. All these things are old only few days and were untested or measured even internally.

    • If you remain open and aggressive about testing and disseminating your reactors we will all be in your corner!

      Good luck tomorrow!

      BTW — we have no way of knowing you are really me356 unless MFMP corroborates or you give us some information that only the real me356 would know.

      • Bob Greenyer, can you confirm that this is the real me356 posting to ECW?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Yes it is, we had very bad internet in Krakow during our day off, however, some long emails were exchanged and me356s contributions here are entirely consistent with his emails to the team today.

          I am impressed at his willingness to engage with people here with such detailed responses.

      • Don’t know why he isn’t posting at LENR Forum.
        There he has a genuine user account.

        • Might be because he’s immediately attacked over there.

          But we don’t know who is posting here yet… awaiting some kind of corroboration.

          EDIT: I find the “Please don’t be sad” opening to be suspect… something a troll would say for amusement.

          • Except Hank Mills’ rage tour I don’t see any hard attack to me356.
            Some obvious questions and doubts, yes.

            But I guess that was foreseeable and me356 has not to treat them.
            The noise will become silence when MFMP measursed COP > 2 in one of his reactors.

            • Because that’s where me356 was originally posting a lot of people over there have certain expectations of him vis a vis sharing info. I’ve read some pretty nasty stuff over there and a lot of pestering.

            • Ged

              Uh, yeah no. I have seen the sort of commenting atmosphere that goes on over there. Destructively caustic doesn’t even begin to cover it. I am sad you don’t see it and have let that place decay so badly.

          • sam

            “Please dont be sad” tells me he is genuine.

    • Goodrice

      This doesn’t sound right.

      On 2017-04-30 David Nygren, LENR-Forum administrator posted this:

      David Nygren
      This morning I received an update from me356.
      He tells the research goes forward and that he will try to find time to answer some questions soon.

      from me356

      Finally we have finished first control box prototype which is designed just for the purpose. It will offer touchscreen for basic control, data logging, remote configuration and regulation.

      It will be powering our 10kW unit so I am very happy it is finally ready, so we will not need any other third party systems as it is designed here. Controlling will be just matter of pressing the start button.

      Now we are designing the reactor enclosure so it can be maintained by anyone with no risk for electrical shock or burn. It could be ready in 2 – 3 weeks so then more wide tests can start.

      • The only detail that seems off is the power rating. What specifically troubles you about this?

        • Goodrice

          If you look further into the link there’s an excerpt from the MFMP Aura Plans document. It doesn’t sound like it was not ready to perform.

          We are planning to test the AURA device this is the MFMPs internal name for the as yet officially un-named technology from ‘me356’. me356 is a researcher/inventor somewhere in eastern Europe that claims to have prepared 2 copies of his most recent device that he has developed over the last several years. He is claiming around 12 kW output with a stable coefficient of performance (COP) as high as 10 based on the current generation of his technology. In certain circumstances for short periods, me356 says this COP can be increased to as high as 40. One of these devices will be connected to a large family house heating system, the other is understood to be in a separate building where we will have greater freedom to move around it, mount it, and configure the test. We know almost nothing about how his recent technology is configured internally. We know he has observed radiation in the past. The MFMP has been invited to validate his performance claims in private communications with Bob Greenyer.

          • I would also like to know why me356 opted for a new 4kW reactor design instead of just copying the ones that worked.

            Maybe there’s a good answer for that. Maybe there isn’t. But he had no reason to lie and then let them come anyway. If he was only blowing smoke he would have bailed at the last minute. But he didn’t.

            • me356

              I have not opted for a 4kW reactor at all. This was only my very, very rough guess what the output might be due to the issues that were already known before the test was conducted. The tested unit is supposed to operate at 10kW output with full available power.
              The unit was limited to not exceed half the input power it can utilize for such reasons. This is why there are just 1kW peaks at the input.

              • Thanks for the clarification. Makes sense.

                If this reactor was basically a copy of others that have worked previously can you explain why this one so far has not worked as expected? What changed in your design?

                • me356

                  You are welcome. Due to lack of time I would like to answer all the questions, but at least I wanted to make it more clear about the situation.

                  The core is almost identical to the previous version (little bit shorter which results in less volume for the fuel).
                  There are just differences in input/output pipes and their positioning.
                  There are very different sensors and their connection.
                  Tested reactor was supposed to be installed in the house and this was reason why the cover was produced first. Also it has modifications that should bring improvements in the cooling of the core. But from yesterdays tests it looks that it is not optimal change – but still does not present the issue why it was not performing..

                  The most important difference between working reactors is that the fuel was processed only for approx. 1/14 time from what is done normally because in other way it was absolutely not possible to perform the test in given timeframe.
                  Also it was not possible to process the fuel in advance so I have no supply of processed fuel.

                  Fuel from the previous reactors can’t be taken out so this is not possibility too.

                  The biggest change is the control box as all the previous reactors were controlled by dedicated units for particular things. Now everything is designed from scratch in the control box. These (old) units can’t be used now, because they are compatible with the older reactors only. To interface it we will need to replace the control unit and do a new connectors and some circuits for the reactor.
                  For this we will need at least week.

                  There is possibility to take another reactor and old control units that are proven to work, but after investigation it looks like not real solution. For me it is more important to leave all confident information as planned. It is not possible to not see what is used and wrapping in the card boxes is really solution not worth such science.

                  So in my opinion there is no better solution than process the fuel in the current reactor as it will lead for the success with almost perfect certainty.

                • Stefan Israelsson Tampe

                  me356: I think that you are the master of your tooling. But from my point of view I cannot leave out that there is the risk that you had a bug in your earlier energy measurements that e.g. might have led you to optimize away the effect you had, something I suspect is easy to do if one tinker around a lot. Anyway it is too early to discuss this but in case you have time and will could you elaborate or point to how your measurements where done regarding your earlier energy measurements that you base your estimates on?

          • Goodrice

            Also, this appears to contradict what the me356 posting on ECW is writing:

            The MFMP has been invited to validate his performance claims in private communications with Bob Greenyer.

            • me356

              There is no contradiction.
              All MFMP members are always welcome here. They are really professionals and very kind persons. I hope that we will enjoy tommorow in the same way as we did in the past days.

              But regarding the particular test I have not said it is ready so I was surprised a lot that the test was already planned and everything arranged.

              Now the fuel processing is established again, so lets hope for the best.

  • Alright so here’s where we stand. We’ve been interpreting this wrong.

    What to us feels like a disastrous culmination of a long frustrating process to get validation of me356’s claims is just a step in the process.

    me356 has created his first prototype reactor for outside testing and maybe dissemination. It doesn’t work yet. He thought he could get it working by test day but he couldn’t (hey, I’ve been there… we all have). He’ll try to fix it enough to get a positive result by Monday… but MFMP is invited back in about a month’s time when all the bugs are worked out.

    Boo: Negative so far… negative Monday… me356 disappears again.
    Yay: Negative so far… additional Monday tests… revisiting me356 in the summer to retest the reactor.

    If Monday is also negative then we have ECCO and a possible revisit to me356.


    PS – while Sunday’s test is being considered negative there are some interesting things to look at such as long periods where the average COP stayed between 1.0 and 1.1. Maybe just an artifact of some kind but considering the earlier testing showed heat loss of around 10%… anything over 0.9 for an extended period requires explanation… as does an extended period of ~0.7 COP (endothermic reaction?).

    * Thanks to Can on LENR Forum for the graph!

    • Mats002

      Yeah – something is going on here, either in the reactor or in the calorimetry system…

      • Yes, the charts are clearly different from what we have seen by other replicators.

        But we have to keep in mind that this time the temperature is measured by a flow calorimeter behind a heat exchanger.
        This smoothes and lags the temperature readings and therefore the COP value estimations.

        Yesterday we saw up to 30 second delays of temperature increase after power down.

        • Making it possible to game the results for say a couple of minutes… but not 20 minutes.

          • True 🙂
            A COP of 2 or higher would end any speculation.

            What we know so far is that the system MFMP designed and developed seems to be working very good and reliable.

            • Yeah at the very least we now have confidence that the MFMP flow calorimetery has an error of less than 20%… so anything over ~ COP 1.3 for an extended period of time would be pretty convincing.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      One thing that MFMP could do is to weigh the device again after having filled it with water. That would allow at least a rough estimate of its thermal storage capacity.

      • Agreed. And I wonder how much experience me356 has with using water as a heat transfer mechanism. If that part of the reactor is new it adds a level of complexity that he’ll need time to figure out.

      • Ged

        And of course, if there is a leak inside the reactor and water is hitting the heating coils, that could be short circuiting the whole thing and preventing proper heating. Power would be going into electrolysis or finding a different ground path and be “mysteriously dissapearing” as the reactor fails to heat.

    • Dr. Mike

      Perhaps the COP’s in the 0.7-0.9 range are due to not measuring the heat that isn’t captured by the heat exchanger and to not including heat losses in the heat exchanger? If the reactor is not putting out much heat, these two mechanisms could account for COP’s in this range. Also, the lag of the heat exchanger makes the COP data a little hard to interpret.

  • Jean Bourguignon

    Dear Me 356 and all….
    Congratulation for the prospective contribution to the world that we hope ….
    We undersand that you do not want to use other reactors because you do not want , as you say, “to allow disclosure of the confidential parts”. ! We like you for the talent and gift you have= and we like all the more in our memory JONAS SALK , who will be “always be remembered as the man who stopped polio” with the vaccin he gave to freely to humanity….refusing all patents!
    All the best. God bless you

  • Sam Hansson

    Hi MFMP

    Me356 he should have, based on what’s said earlier, lots of ways to show at least an anomaly even if you do not get this reactor or other reactors up running for excess heat measurements.

    For example
    * Show that he can make nickel powder breed to a higher extent than others
    * Shower of radioactive particles

    I appreciate you have been working hard and a day off is well deserved and it will do you all good. Please do your best to push him for whatever he can provide.

    • Bob Greenyer

      We will of course do our best.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Hi All,

    me356 said he would need a day, we suggested if he can possibly box his previous reactor and we test that – it would be desirable. Either way – we will be back testing on Monday.

    We are going to also take the day off in sunny Krakow, Poland.

    • Stephen

      Thanks Bob. Keep us updated if you can. But more importantly take a good rest today MFMP surely deserve that. I guess Monday’s testing could be intensive.

      I think I may understand some of the surrounding circumstances of the test so far. With Ecco coming up it was a golden opportunity to combine and validate everything together. And I think maybe Me356 really wanted to use the device he wants to distribute for external validation.

      I guess a lot has been learned and bugs resolved in those respects. Which is a big positive. We have a good calorimeter set up now i think and have learned a few things about the limitations and constraints of using the sparging approach.

      I do think at this stage a verification with an earlier device could be a good move if Me356 is willing. It would not only help the community in this time we really need it if it worked out well. It could also have very good practical uses for the test for example it be a good verification for the test data that could also maybe help Me356 debug validate and improve his new device. It could be a good cross reference for a future verification test on his new device before distribution.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks. All parties have learned a great deal, we have learned what is actually simple and what is practical. We have learned what provides meaningful data and what does not.

        me356 has learned a lot about this reactor design in practical testing, so we hope that our collective community endeavour can provide direction for his development, though me356 is confident that he knows what the issues are and how to solve them.

        We will try to give me as much time tomorrow to get things straight at his end and be over for an afternoon / early evening test.

    • Mats002

      You are SO worth it!
      Great job done so far!

    • I really would like to see one of his previous 100% working reactors.
      Maybe he can make a wooden box or just wrap it into an old t-shirt or blanket.

      You don’t have to make photos or videos. The data is what counts. Maybe he just wanted to have it in the box because of the photos and videos, not because of you as MFMP team.

      Hope he agrees to such a test.

      Anyway: Very good work of the MFMP!

      • Bob Greenyer

        me356 is working as hard as he can, we have suggested this, however, he is confident that AURA should deliver excess hear, perhaps he wants to move forwards not backward – but of course the data is the most important thing.

        We are very encouraged by the reliability of the flow calorimetry system devised – a testament to all involved. It should be able to handle upto 12kW should that be available in time.

    • LuFong

      Hi Bob,

      I have a suggestion for Monday’s test. If possible could MFMP test the system at the end by turning off the reactor heating but allow the water to continue to flow. Doing so should help characterize the heat capacity of the system and it’s efficiency (assuming no heat after death).

      Thanks and let me356 know how much some of us appreciate him letting MFMP test his early systems. Enjoy Krakow.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Hi there, this is a good idea, one of several presented today – we will try to work this in.

    • sam

      Enjoy your day off team MFMP.

    • Adam Lepczak

      Enjoy Kraków & well deserved break. My brother was just there on Friday with his kids. Serdecznie witamy!

  • help_lenr

    Waste of time.

    Once again MFMP stuff cannot do good work.

    Now they will explain that actually they succeed,

  • Dr. Mike

    I have a couple of questions for MFMP:
    1) Are you measuring the water flow into the reactor (or out of steam outlet of the heat exchanger), and are you measuring the temperature of the water into the reactor and out of the “steam” outlet of the heat exchanger? (This data is needed to determine the heat generated by the reactor that is not captured in the heat exchanger.)
    2) Have you determined the efficiency of the heat exchanger, that is, the amount of heat that the heat exchanger loses to the environment that is not measured by the cooling water in the heat exchanger? (This energy loss can probably be ignored if the steam connection from the reactor to the heat exchanger is short and/or well insulated, and the heat exchanger itself is well insulated.)

    It appears to me that all of the calibration of the measuring instruments, the redundancy of measurement techniques, and procedure for determining how much heat is coming out of the heat exchanger has been done really well!

  • Zeddicus23

    It might be a good idea if MFMP could start with a “null” test on Monday to demonstrate (by obtaining a COP of 1) that their power measurements and calorimetry are working, and then only try to “turn on” the reactor afterwards. For example, if there is a critical temperature needed for the reaction to start, they could start with a lower input power and/or larger cooling rate to make sure it is off, and verify the calorimetry and measurements of electrical input power and thermal power.

    • Dr. Mike

      I guess my approach would be quite different. I would have me356 provide a reactor that is already running at close to full output power, then have MFMP hook up their calorimetry equipment (the heat exchanger, flowmeters, thermocouples, and electrical measurement equipment) to the operating reactor. This procedure would prevent any of MFNP’s calorimetry equipment from adversely affecting the reactor start up (such as a grounding problem with a meter).

  • nietsnie

    Yes it does. But, don’t forget: there are people on the field actually doing the work. And then there’s us here in the stands complaining about the lack of cushion in the seats and how we’re only getting tanned on one side.

    We didn’t pay to be here and we can leave at any time. That these people who are actually doing it are willing to share with the likes of us, who are not, is an undeserved blessing – and we should remember that.

  • Andrew

    This is what science is about. Experiments to prove or disprove. Either is ok in my books.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Totally agree.

    • Dr. Mike

      I certainly agree that an experiment which either proves or disproves a theoretical hypothesis contributes to the advancement of science. However, experiments which are poorly run (such as, not running a proper control, not using measurement equipment properly, or not taking sufficient data) do little to advance science. If MFMP do not get to test a working reactor, I can’t say that any contribution has been made to science by their endeavor.

  • Skip

    I understand the disappointment, but let’s not give up yet.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      As with many scientific discoveries things go slowly. I understand that they must go slow in order to be safe or financially sound, but it is frustrating to see such potential in so much time come to nothing. I’ve followed LENR since 2011 when I saw the Rossi test on youtube, but now we are 6 years later and i’m starting to doubt if I will see cold fusion/LENR in my lifetime. I really would like to see some solid evidence now… Hopefully the ECCO reactor will be the test that restores my faith in LERN.

    • Ged

      Good point :). Plenty more to go!

  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Well, this is does not look good.

    At all…

    Me356 has had a lot of time to prepare and seemed very confident of his reactor but the end result is zero. Nada. That’s disturbing. This test should have been about a firm positive result that LENR is undeniable, but the end result up to this moment is the reverse: based on the end results it’s very deniable.

    Many of us rely on an outside dependable independent resource to check these claims, so therefore i really appreciate MFMP for doing this test. I do not see this as money wasted; instead MFMP proved their independence and also how valuable their concept of Live Open Science is. If anything this test shows how difficult it is to build a proper reactor and do correct calorimetry.

    However, like others I do not understand why a new reactor was needed for this test instead of a known working reactor. Even though I hate this: “exceptional claims do need exceptional evidence”. The whole LENR field is tainted with false positives and if the tests will stay negative until Monday (which it sounds like it will), that does not help the field in any way.

    So far I do not know if me356 has something or not. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt and he sounds sincere, but in this case I do think that if you have something, you better be prepared to make sure that it works. Otherwise it’s more damaging than doing good.

    • Ged

      Results will be what they will be, positive or negative. But thankfully there is one more day of testing to go, so time for me356 to correct the errors if there are any. Then on to the dusty plasma reactor, ECCO, which is to be 100% openly shared. That and its unique method unlike anything we have witnessed so far will make it very very interesting to see. So, a couple weeks and then we get that, if the AURA turns out to be a dissapointment or not. The lessons here should help there too.

      • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

        Indeed, results are what they are and they do not lie. However, they made me more skeptical of the whole cold fusion concept. Maybe me356 can turn this around with some spectacular results in the last tests.

        The ECCO reactor seems fairly different in design and a really interesting development. Even though up to now the whole field is very uncertain, it’s potential, if true, is still mind blowing. Rest assured I will be watching as I know you will also 😉

    • Toussaint françois

      What I fear in this field is mythomaniac’s !