MFMP and Me356 Testing — Monday, May 29 (New Live Test Started)

Here’s a new thread for another day of testing by the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project who are going again to visit Me356. From the testing so far, there has been no clear evidence that Me356 has a working LENR reactor. Me356 has posted some comments on the previous thread explaining that he has been working over the last day (when the MFMP were taking a break), hoping to get something ready for today that will work better.

A new video from the MFMP has been posted on Facebook, made as they are driving to Me356’s place — see here:

They say that Me356 has told them that he won’t be able to use an earlier reactor for testing today, so I assume they will be working with the reactor they used on Friday and Saturday, perhaps after Me356 has made some modifications. I’ll add more info in this post as it is made available today.

MFMP have posted a couple of new videos today; one showing a new ground attachment, and one showing the flow of water supply following a fix of a pump by Me356.

The latest update from Bob Greenyer: “Testing dummy reactor now as heat source for exchanger to characterise the thermal losses in the mass flow calorimetry.”

Live data feed for test that has just started:

  • So after all the excitement, it was basically a dud? Not enough material was ready for testing? Confidentiality wasn’t guaranteed on an open source testing platform? Maybe time to get Dr. Diamandis on board?

  • Jarea

    Your greediness cannot compete with the one the biggest powers already have. They will crush any attempt to do it. Only a social and open movement can break that trend. If you worry about the amount of money invested, then you are shortsighted. The amount of money and expertise you earn if you really breakthrough to the market will make your rich even if you don´t have patents. You can see that model with any other device. What is important is the expertise and moreover to reach the market.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Celani had very serious problems with INFN and could not supply wires then Lugano report and our limited resources were focussed on establishing the validity of the emissivity determination in Lugano and then, following the release of the Rossi patent, the viability of the claims implied to yield significant excess.

  • Chapman

    I think the question regarding the importance of using a proven reactor can best be found by re-examining MFMP’s mission on site.

    They were not there to test the “out-of-the-box” market readiness of Me356’s manufacturing skills. They were there to verify the operational data reported by him concerning experiments with a LENR reactor of his own construction.

    I am not interested in weather any individual frog MIGHT sing. I came to the show because you said you had A PARTICULAR frog that DOES. SHOW me THAT one! Do not waste my time by merely inviting me along to search a pond for another that MIGHT be of equal talent. Where is the one with the cute little Top Hat that you told me about???

    I am not being critical here, I am simply saying that travelling all that way, only to be presented with a virgin reactor, and an attitude of “I don’t know WHAT it will do, but lets find out together” is frustrating. This was supposed to be a validation, not a collaborative experiment without predetermined expectation.

    Sorry, but “Show me the FROG from the video you posted. THAT’S what I came to see”.

    • Adam Lepczak

      I could not agree more. I was under the impression before the test that me356’s reactors are a “done deal” getting ready to go “industrial”. Even during the 1st test we were not communicated the fact that he didn’t have enough time to make fuel and it was only processed 1/14 – whatever that means.
      Make sure to select the right frog next time.

  • sam

    Suhas is the one i am looking forward to MFMP testing.

  • georgehants

    Many thanks to all involved, look forward to future tests and good luck with them.
    Cold Fusion is for people not profit.

  • Dr. Mike

    What difference does it make if a proven reactor or an unproven reactor goes in his black box? If he has to modify his reactor to put it in a black box, the black box version should have been proven to work before offering it to MFMP for testing. I for one hope that me356 does have something that he is able to patent and possibly make a little profit from his hard work. His improvements to LENR technology will be a gift to humanity even if he does earn some profit from that technology. Perhaps some of his ideas can be combined with Rossi’s to make a usable commercial reactor.

  • More like trailing at halftime after an inexplicable own goal. Still time for a comeback.

  • Axil Axil

    “Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.”

    Lessons can be drawn from this latest failure about the nature of LENR and what causes it to fail. ME356 has informed us that the reactor melted through at a hot spot and the hydrogen leaked out at this point of failure through the material that comprises the reactor tube.

    Rossi has had this problem for many years and it has only been resolved in the last year when Rossi realized that LENR will seek to reach a temperature that is beyond the containment capacity of the material that he had been using over the years.

    When Rossi moved to replace his tube material with something that can contain the maximum temperature that the LENR reactor can reach, then Rossi was on his way to achieving Sigma 5.

    Me356 has not learned this lesson from Rossi and because of this lack of understanding; his reactors will occasionally melt through.

    Rossi has given us this maximum temperature that the LENR reaction wants to reach when it is given its head. 3000K is that temperature for Rossi. His tube material is a ceramic insulator like alumina but melts at a temperature that exceeds the 3000K maximum temperature that LENR wants to get to. Until Me356 changes his tube material to contain the maximum temperature that LERN can attain, his reactor will not be ready for the marketplace.

    • LilyLover

      Thank you Axil for this analysis.

    • Sean

      Just watched a program about the secrets of the super elements. Using Rhenium seems to be a good material for heat resistance. Possibly combining with other materials will do the job. Melting point is published at 3459K .

      • Axil Axil

        Me356 states that a flaw in the heating element burned through the containment tube and destroyed the reactors hydrogen containment.

        I am concerned about ANY possibility that the containment of the ME356 reactor can be breached.

        We know that when the LENR reaction really gets going without control in a meltdown situation, it can vaporize concrete, rebar, stainless steel, and alumina. This observation implies that the LENR reaction can reach a temperature of 3000C and can bring in and feed on the matter that surrounds it.

        The electromagnetic nature of the LENR reaction requires that the material used to contain the LENR reaction must be an insulator like alumina. Ceramics that can contain the LENR reaction exist but these high temperature insulators are both hard to fabricate and expensive.

        It would be prudent to invest in the extra expense involved in the use of best available containment material to minimize any possibility of an uncontrolled breach of the LENR reactors containment no matter what the cause.

        I for one would not put a LENR reactor in my basement without the assuredly of absolute containment. If the LENR reaction gets out and invades my basement floor and begins a 3000C uncontrolled China syndrome type conflagration, I would think twice about recommending that reactor to my neighbors or in general supporting it publicly.

        • R101

          Don’t worry too much about the China Syndrome Axil.
          After all there’s currently three nuclear piles on a voyage to the centre of the earth at Fukushima Daiichi and no one seems to give damn.

          • Axil Axil

            True, but they are not in your own basement.

        • Sean

          Gosh, now I realise the hurdles that seem to be mounting up. Thank you for pointing this out. The LENR physics works. However I can now see the challenges ahead. Is it possible to hold these LENR materials in some sort of magnetic bottle?. I see now why they have to hold the fusion reactions in the Tokmak so as to keep away from other materials. A comparison is like an internal combustion engine. You can burn fuel an oxygen with ease, however look under the hood and there you have a lot of metallurgy and technology to support that burn and turn it in to useful work.

  • Dr. Mike

    Agree with you 100%. All details of the experiment should have been worked out with me356 before MFMP headed for Europe. That’s why I stated the main problem was poor communication.

  • HAL9000

    The ECCO testing should provide a much more satisfying result. Sonoluminescense can be reproduced in the amateur lab for a few hundred dollars. The next step up is sonofusion, which I think is the approach to LENR that Suhas has successfully achieved. MFMP is ready for this challenge, thanks to the me365 trek. This next LENRbuster chapter should be a great ride!

    • Bob Greenyer

      Sonoluminescense may take part in the converging acoustical arrangement of the fuel processing stage, but less likely IMPO in the reactor (although there is high levels of ultrasound).

      I agree about the potential for positive outcome, just based on steam ejection rate and dryness. I will post a video on that in due course.

  • interstellar hobo

    Every single lenr test mfmp has done has not shown a positive. It’s over. I’m sad but it is the reality. They tried.

    Rossi, me356, Celini, Parkhamov, defcalion et all have all made statements that do not live up to reality. There is too much bait and switch.

    Stick a fork in it. It’s done.

    • Bob Greenyer

      We have tested 3 samples recently, one from Parkhomov (KV3) reactor and two from Suhas (foil and processed fuel) and both appear to show transmutations. This would indicate LENR has taken place.

      In the case of Celani wire, our observed apparent excess from both calibration and real time comparison was in line with his observations when he adjusted for his NI week and ICCF17 errors. However, that work did not easily point to commercial grade heat production.

      Of course all of the team on AURA would have loved a high COP outcome, but just because it did not happen this time will not stop us.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        „We have tested 3 samples recently, one from Parkhomov (KV3) reactor and two from Suhas (foil and processed fuel) and both appear to show transmutations. This would indicate LENR has taken place.“

        Such results are certainly interesting, but even if confirmed they would be no proof of the possibility to get a COP > 1. See Cockroft-Walton or Farnsworth-Hirsch, for example (nuclear but COP < 1). What we need first is a decent COP, everything else may come later.

        Thank you anyway for the great show!

  • Bruce__H

    If there is going to be more rounds of testing I would definitely have me356 prepare a dummy reactor. This is needed because there will be peculiarities of the actual physical arrangement on the test site that may not be apparent either before or after the actual test. For instance heat may end up warming the test equipment, lab benches, etc and this could go unaccounted for. By far the cleanest experimental design is to run a dummy with the same equipment which would automatically control for such things. Doing some sort of control in retrospect off-site (as was suggested t one point I think) just isn’t enough. And this dummy should be exactly the same as the active reactor except with the fuel unprocessed (as basically happened the series of tests we just saw. AND .. if possible … it would be best if nature of the particular reactor was blinded to the operators (this would take foresight but is doable).

    I foresee a long term win-win scenario here if me356 and the MFMP group keep up their collaboration. If me356’s setup does end up producing excess heat then we are into a new era of energy, if it doesn’t then we are into a new era of reliable testing of LENR claims and the LENR community can finally shuck off the “pathological science” tag. I’ll be contributing to the MPFP now because I think they have proved themselves. I hope others do likewise.

  • Stephen

    Thanks again to Me356 for keeping us updated with the test analysis from your end and in particular regarding the device.

    I really appreciated the test especially how anomalies from previous days were quickly investigated by the community and lessons learned about engineering and method robustly incorporated in to later testing especially the last days test.

    This is how real life testing occurs especially with first tests of new devices with new equipment. The lessons learned and how they are carried forward to the next tests is the most important thing. It gives me confidence seeing this as it’s familiar to my experience with other things.

    I liked the last day especially with the initial checkouts of the test equipment and heat exchanger followed by attempted calibration of the heat exchanger with the water heater and and evaluation of the “average COP” calculation before the actual test run. There will of course be later improvements but this approach looked really good.

    I think elsewhere others have mentioned having a pre test readiness review before subsequent tests which is a good idea I think, but I wonder if MFMP are thinking of having a post test review of this test maybe after a few days to allow the results to be digested and more understood? Or perhaps more appropriately online, an online “lessons learnt” document in one place that can be consolidated updated as things are thought of going forward.

    There are a lot of ideas already here and on LF etc about improving the calculation of Average COP, improving data analysis etc i suppose other ideas will become apparent in the next days.

    I also wonder if there could be a way to calibrated the test equipment on site of the test with a known steam source rather than the hot water source? It could be interesting to clearly identify heat losses in such an arrangement even if they are marginal.

    With the earlier sparging test would it have been beneficial to have the whole pipe insulated (even in the water) to ensure that the steam does not condense in the pipe causing pressure drop issues etc in the pipework before release into
    The bucket? I wonder if this could have caused steam flow issues in that particular test.

    Thanks Me356 and MFMP for keeping us updated and let us know if when and how we can help.

  • So either we have a con man who sued his victims to cap off his 6 year+ conspiracy whirlwind and a copycat troll who invited MFPM into his lair on the chance that they got a false positive and to see if they could see past his fake sincerity…


    …we have a tragicomic sequence of false starts, misunderstandings and suppression efforts.

    • me356

      I recommend to check the facts. Your informations looks to be very wrong and false.

      • Don’t be offended me356, we greatly appreciate your efforts and you’re now my favorite LENR researcher having cooperated with MFMP and engaging Live Open Science.

        But we have been trying to sort out fact from fiction in this whole bizarre LENR affair. We seek proof and we want this tech to emerge now. We need it now. I personally had high hopes for this test as you come across as skilled and sincere… and had claimed many working reactors. So when MFMP scheduled a test with you I expected a working reactor.

        Misunderstanding… new device not really ready for testing… I get it.

        It’s just that we can’t take anybody’s word for it. Anybody’s. There have been so many lies and so much misdirection already.

        • me356

          I understand you, but again there are not true informations in what you have written. I believe you will understand it soon once missing information is provided.

          • I look forward to additional info!

            What exactly do you consider false in what I wrote? I presented the scenarios that remain plausible to an outside observer. As a primary participant you get a different view of things of course, But out here in the peanut gallery we can only try to string together facts and observe behavior.

            If you have verifiable facts that prove your assertions, we welcome them. In fact, we beg and plead for them.

            • Dr. Mike

              It seems obvious that me356 really didn’t understand your original comment. I think he missed the “OR” part! However, it doesn’t seem fair to connect Rossi and me356 with the “and” portion of your first sentence. Misleading business partners and possibly failing to fulfill contractual requirements seems to me to be quite different from what I see as poor communication between me356 and the MFMP team. The one thing that I hope that is learned from this fiasco is that MFMP should insist on only testing a reactor that the inventor claims to be working. Their goal should be to determine if the performance of the reactor is what the inventor claims it to be.

              • Agreed, however the probability of me356 having working reactors and Rossi not is, in my opinion, negligibly small. That is the link for me.

                They also have in common that they have submitted a device for testing by teams of scientists.

                • Dr. Mike

                  I agree that they both have produced working reactors with Rossi’s reactors probably having higher COP’s just because he has been working so much longer on the development. Although Rossi did submit a reactor to the Lugano scientists, he prevented them from running an adequate control and more or less dictated the calorimetry that they used, including I imagine how to take the optical temperature measurements incorrectly. At least me356 let MFMP bring their own measurement equipment and technique for measuring the reactor output.

          • Stephen Harrison

            Me, thanks for allowing these test, are you saying that the COP rates that you reported previously i.e. >6 still stand and that the reactor just tested was faulty.Do you still have confidence in your COP assessment techniques?

          • Well, it’s been 6 days. When can we expect the missing information?

        • Toussaint françois

          For me the results are depressing, for now on my hopes are focused on Suhas and Rossi tests.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            It was a clean, professionally conducted experiment, which is what we need. I would rather get depressed about a sloppy methodology with a doubtful outcome.

            • Toussaint françois

              I agree no problem with the experiment MFMP did a splendid job, it is the results which are far from the announced COP 5/10 that is depressing

      • Rip Kirbyian

        Is this to be interpreted as that the main motivation was not to verify LENR but your new untested device?

  • Anon2012_2014

    Frank and Ecat World Community,

    Do this older LENR follower a favor and _please_ do make a headline if Bob/Me356 get a solid LENR confirming result. Like all of us, I am pulling for them.

    Thank you,


  • Stephen

    I wasn’t able to follow everything today unfortunately but I followed what I could. To me from what I saw that was a really very well run test today a bit frustrating as the data seems so tantalizingly close but I have to say it still somehow feels rewarding… probably because so much was learned.

    Thanks so much to MFMP and Me356 and everyone who participated here and elsewhere for running this test today. It gave me great hope for the future.

    Looking forward now to the deeper data analysis and seeing what it tells us about this particular test and also we can learn for future tests.

    Will there be a follow up test in the near future when Me356 feels ready for it?

  • Mats002

    OT: While waiting for aftermath and ECCO test and because Frank et al busted the ORBO by testing it, I suggest buy a Keshe Home Unit kit to test for €176. There are people out there who bought, build and claim to have overunity. It is electricity in and out, no calorimetry needed:

    Could be fun.

  • radvar

    Question for me356:
    I can appreciate the desire for privacy while you work. However, I wonder if you would be willing to disclose your overall strategy in these efforts. Context can go a long way in interpreting perceptions. Along those lines: Are you planning to pursue major variants? Do you anticipate broader collaboration? Do you expect to publish at some point? Are you interested in commercializing your methods? Do you have other goals for the work?
    Do you have any time projections for such events?

  • Adam Lepczak

    Great job MFMP.
    As of now, data as measured by the testing team does not support me365’s claims of COP >1

    • Ged

      Definitely not, with this device. If there was a minor effect this last run, it wasn’t significant.

  • Stephen Taylor

    Data analysis will take a while. Will be interesting to get MFMP’s thoughts.

    • Ged

      Could still be some interesting surprises hiding in the data that may help design future work.

  • “Time to pack it up.”

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Yes. Anyway, it’s not MFMP’s fault – they did an excellent job. Chapeau!

      • Mats002

        Applaus to both MFMP and Me356 – experiments beat discussions everytime!

        A LOT learned.

        • Ged

          Yep! Negative results are vitally important. And all this can be applied to their own work and the next stages with ECCO.

          • Mats002

            I am willing to get Me356 another chance. If there is another ‘fail’ of claims I think we learned how very skilled people can misinterpret COP measurements.

            ECCO next.

  • Gerard McEk

    Questions to ME356:
    Based on your experience what do you expect of this test:
    1. COP will go up if this test is continued
    2. The COP will probably not increase
    3. The COP will stay on about 1

    Assuming the COP stays at about 1, will you be able to prepare a test that shows with 100% certainty a COP>2?
    If yes, how much time do you need?

    • me356

      Yesterday I have found that the reactor melted inside and at the end of day the driving resistance has shorted. It was found that used heater had an issue from manufacturing process.
      Today after couple of hours it was possible to extract the resistance and put there a new one.
      Unfortunately the old heater was melted and joined to the core which lead to big troubles during replacement. Due to this it caused even bigger hydrogen leak that was present from the beginning. So possible operation and performance was limited even more.

      1. No due to the major hydrogen leak. Only with frequent recharging.
      2. it will increase if the reactor will be flawless
      3. see 1 and 2.

      Yes, this was also planned. But this test had no certainty for absolutely anything.

      • SG

        Thank you for graciously hosting the MFMP team. I hope you will receive Bob again in the future once you have addressed these issues, and continue to press forward with opening your reactor up for scrutiny. There is no better trusted group of people in our community than the MFMP. And as LENRG mentioned, we will be in your corner as long as you agressively push for open verification.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Me356, just one speculative thought: Maybe the inner shell of your heat exchanger is a good IR reflector? That might be a reason for overheating the reactor core. You could reduce this effect by using a different material, or coating the inner surface with an IR-absorbing paint. In case that the paint would get too hot you could leave some free space between the reactor and the exchanger (heat transfer will be primarily radiative at elevated temperatures).

        Thanks again for your offer to the MFMP.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          To put it more clearly: By „inner shell“ I meant the part that points toward the reactor (actually an „outer shell“ if only the heat exchanger is considered).

      • Gerard McEk

        Me356, thank you for your answer. I am sure that you must be very disappointed, just like almost everybody following the LENR saga. I hope you will be able to prove with help of MFMP that you really master LENR soon.

  • Rene

    Bob, I recommend that the power-in values for the instantaneous COP readings should be offset by the measured reactor’s thermal time constant. That does require running a calibration pretest to determine the time constant, but it would stop or minimize the wild swings we see. At the very least, the moving average computations have to have an averaging window size twice that of the time constant.

    • Ged

      The peak to peak lag from the power cycling could be used to that end.

  • Rene

    Moving average COP 1.06. To account for losses and precision of the setup, I would have to see a COP of 1.2 to be convince some minor LENR is happening. So, this indicates nothing significant happened.
    Was a free steam flow video ever taken?
    Leaving the testing equipment behind while the MFMP team goes to their next visit is a good idea. A lot has been learned about dirty electrical power, floating grounds, variable water inlet pressure, RFI affecting particle measuring apparatus. Basically, prior to today, I would not have high confidence in any claims about heat output and COP simply because the measurements could have been tainted by numerous interference sources. For however long the calibrated equipment is there and noise cleanup protocols are in place, I look forward to seeing what me356 can accomplish in getting his reactor(s) working. Maybe after Suhas tests the MFMP team can swing by Czechia if results warrant another look, time and funds permitting.

    • Ged

      The power cycling makes it a bit harder to tell what is happening too.

      • Rene

        The smoothed 15 minute running average clearly shows nothing significant is happening.

        • Engineer48

          Hi Rene,


          • Chapman

            deep sigh….

            I am saddened at the results, but incredibly impressed with the efforts of the MFMP team, as well as the real time analysis and feedback by YOU guys here on the forum. VERY enjoyable… Thanks.

  • Mats002

    Thanks to Can over at LENRForum for graphing COP without the first startup part:

    • nietsnie

      Bob, considering if the dummy heater has a known output, have you calculated how much heat is lost by the rig in the earlier test? That could be added into to total.

    • Rene

      Mats thanks. The charts indicate the medium and long term COP, within measurement precision limits, is not significant. No excess heat measured.

      • Mats002

        Q&A with Can:

        About the COP graph: MFMP Average (red line) goes over 1 while your blue calculation goes just below 1. Would you like to comment that please?

        For some reason the rolling average (both 5-minute – provided by MFMP – and 15-minute, but I also tried 30-minute with similar results) of the “instant” power out/in COP is giving ~10% higher values than the COP calculated using cumulative energy out/in, even after starting the calculation at a later time in the test. Since my excess energy calculation matches that also provided by MFMP, I think there could be something off with the instant COP values.

  • Mats002

    Question to Bob/Me356:
    The fuel was not processed enough but do you consider that fuel is being further processed during this run and if so there is a chance for better performance the longer the run last?

  • nietsnie

    Can anyone explain why the COP Moving Average has been above 1 for over an hour and yet the Total Excess Energy has slowly lost ground over the same period of time? That doesn’t make sense to me.

    • Mats002

      I thought the same. One explanation is that most of the loss was made during startup. If you take away the first 30 minutes or so I think it should be positive overall. Add to that thermal losses from control box, reactor and heat exchanger and the COP should be even better. But we should also account for the error bars in the total system to at least +/- 10% so it is hard to tell. It is tantalizing.

    • US_Citizen71

      The moving average does drop below 1 just not for long intervals. The TEE value is decreasing but ever so slowly. So COP is something like .9999

      • nietsnie

        Oh, I see COPMA is below 1 now. I guess I just hadn’t looked while that was happening.

  • Mats002

    From the log:
    16:46 – changing the pump to a lower flow to run slightly hotter and make dry steam

    • Ged

      This shall be interesting.

    • Engineer48

      Hi Mats2,

      And how do they know when or if the reactor is generating dry / superheated steam?

      Need to measure reactor outlet steam pressure and steam temperature to know that. Can’t see that either is being measured.

      • Mats002

        Hi Eng,
        Don’t know answer to that, hope Bob can fill in some answers here when he gets time.

  • Jag Kaurah

    Looks like the reactor is starting to work

    • It’s deluding.
      As long as the “Total Excess Energy Estimate” decreases (going deeper into the negative) there is still more energy put into the device than came out.

      The ouput energy is very well oriented to the input energy, so it’s hard to say if there is something happening.
      Such effects can be related to the mass flow calorimeter and heat exchanger.

      • Zeddicus23

        The negative excess energy due to approximately 6% heat losses seems to be much larger than the “total excess energy estimate”. This suggests a COP which is actually somewhat larger than 1.

        • Hopefully, we have to wait for the data analysis afterwards.

    • Steve Albers

      Each power out peak is slightly higher than the last, as is the output temperature. Unsure though if the COP is rising much yet.

      • Ged

        Kinda like a lawnmower chugging at startup.

        • nietsnie

          Give it another pull, Ged.

      • Steve Albers

        Interesting spike just now in power out, bucking the trend, but then really dropped off.