FacebookTwitterDiggStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditTechnoratiLinkedin

Welcome

The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project is a group dedicated to researching Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (often referred to as LENR) while sharing all procedures, data, and results openly online. We rely on comments from online contributors to aid us in developing our experiments and contemplating the results. We invite everyone to participate in our discussions, which take place in the comments of our experiment posts. These links can be seen along the right-hand side of this page. Please browse around and give us your feedback. We look forward to seeing you around Quantum Heat.

Join us and become part of the project. Become one of the active commenters, who question our work and suggest next steps.

Or, if you are an experimenter, talk to us about becoming an affiliated lab and doing your work in a Live Open Science manner.

I hope you are all ready for this, in the next couple of weeks we are all going to have an immense amount of data to work through and we are going to need your help looking for anomalies, patterns, features and most importantly, science.

We know you have been asking for a new wire to be tested since it became apparent that the first one might possibly have been fried. And that will happen next week in the EU cell. We need this to be followed closely.

Whilst that will be as close as we have come yet to a direct replication of Celani's original work - we have heard your calls for more, and you are going to get more, much more. We are going to get to the bottom of this. See what you can spot in this little teaser video.

 

There are going to be a number of different iterations of Celani's wires, with differing numbers of layers set into metal, borosilicate, quartz single and double ended cells and some insulated, some with a calorimeter or two.

We need everyone to come join the party, invite your friends. Be open minded, help us follow the evidence, let's do science.

UPDATE

There has been some good discussion on the Air Flow Calorimeter but we feel people have been running a little blind up till now, so in the below video, you can see Paul Hunt, the man that has bankrolled much of the hardware you have been watching to date discussing the design. Please discuss any improvements you think can be made and any links to component suppliers.

 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

Comments   

 
0 #44 Ged 2012-12-05 16:59
At 1 Bar of pressure in He, the P_xs seems to be well into negative temperature, bouncing up around 0. This is in opposition to the 1 W or so P_xs of the hydrogen runs at this pressure. Still a very minor "signal" in the noise, if it is such (which one can only know after full analysis of the data). Still makes me wonder just how functional the wire is; but it leaves the mystery of the hydrogen/argon pressure-temper ature relationship... still no full explanation.
Quote
 
 
+4 #43 Robert Greenyer 2012-12-05 08:37
@Dieter

In order to rapidly meet your call and others to know what is being run in the cells. I suggested and interim solution to Ryan last night which he has implemented. It is linked at the top of the page next to the LIVE data.

From tomorrow, everyone should be able to see what is going on in various reactors at these links.

Keep those ideas coming!
Quote
 
 
+1 #42 Dieter Seeliger 2012-12-05 06:57
@Robert,
thanx for your return, also a link with descriptions would be great !
Keep up your great work and tnx for publishing your data.
BR Dieter

Found the log link in the top row :-)
Perfect !!!
Quote
 
 
0 #41 Ged 2012-12-05 05:06
@123star,

Yeah, it was dropping for the while I was watching, but did jump on the next pressure release. I have a limited view of the data unfortunately. This'll be very interesting, and we should be able to directly compare this to the previous "experimental" runs.
Quote
 
 
0 #40 123star 2012-12-05 04:12
@Ged
T_Glassout seems increasing (while pressure is decreasing) so far to me. Are you sure you are looking at the right cell (#1)?.We are at 4 bar now. Of course, we can only really compare the data points corresponding to (48W, 3.5bar) and (48W, 0.5 bar).
Let's see if T_Glassout will decrease between 3.5 and 0.5 bar.
I suggest taking more data points around these two pressures.
Quote
 
 
0 #39 Ged 2012-12-05 03:04
@123star,

Actually, nevermind. The calibration was a spread of input powers at the same pressure. This is the same input power over a spread of pressures. This will be effectively a new calibration curve.

The T_GlassOut is apparently dropping with pressure so far though.
Quote
 
 
0 #38 Ged 2012-12-05 02:53
@123star,

I would expect the P_xs then to run near 0 all the way through, since it's based on helium as its calibration point? This'll be fun to watch, see if we reconfirm our earlier findings.
Quote
 
 
+3 #37 vjman 2012-12-05 01:04
Quoting Rats:
Quoting observer:
My comments are due to the fact there appears to be a positive bias to this experiment. Meaning, it appears you want to prove Celani's results. My opinion is to do the science properly. If you happen to disprove and invalidate all of Celani's work along the way, that's how science works. Likewise, if you prove him right, that is good science also.


I couldn't have said it better myself.



Only people who believe in positive result have the diligence to work through all the obstacles and exhaust all possible approaches before they reach a conclusion. If they didn't have the positive bias they would have given up long ago.
Quote
 
 
0 #36 123star 2012-12-05 00:00
I see from the Cell #1 log that a pressure drop test in Helium is in progress. From the previous calibrations we expect the temperature to drop as the pressure drops (at least in a particular pressure range), unlike the Hydrogen/Argon case. Can't wait to see what will happen :)
Quote
 
 
0 #35 Pelluet 2012-12-04 22:51
seems to be a good way that to increase the controlled environment of the cell, even if it could also introduce other complexities when the target of th experiment is only to deliver the proof ... what it could be ?
Quote
 
 
+1 #34 charlie tapp 2012-12-04 20:33
mabee try putting a positive charge on the wire before loading with hydrogen, kind of like what you would do with an electrophorus, so the -13.6 ev hydrogen will be more atracted to the warm wire , mabee that is why it works sometimes and not others.
Quote
 
 
+1 #33 Rats 2012-12-04 19:33
Quoting observer:
My comments are due to the fact there appears to be a positive bias to this experiment. Meaning, it appears you want to prove Celani's results. My opinion is to do the science properly. If you happen to disprove and invalidate all of Celani's work along the way, that's how science works. Likewise, if you prove him right, that is good science also.


I couldn't have said it better myself.
Quote
 
 
+1 #32 Rats 2012-12-04 19:30
Quoting observer:
It sounds like you are trying to move forward without resolving perhaps around 6 open issues. The most important issue that needs to be resolved before moving forward is whether or not your work regarding the pressure invalidates some or all of Celani's results. Please try to resolve the open issues before moving forward.


Once again I second what Observer has said. As per your own analysis it is highly likely there were measurement errors made by Celani.

It is paramount this issue is resolved before you continue with your experimentation .
Quote
 
 
+4 #31 Ged 2012-12-04 16:43
A lot of detractors here suddenly, but the Robert and crew are handling them with aplomb. Keep up the great work guys!
Quote
 
 
+3 #30 Robert Greenyer 2012-12-04 16:23
@Dieter

This is a top priority but awaiting the open sourcing as resources are constrained. Maybe a temporary measure would be to have a Google spreadsheet (possibly linked) with start/stop times and a basic descriptions.
Quote
 
 
+9 #29 Robert Greenyer 2012-12-04 16:16
@Dan

Thank you so much for your questions, it is great to have you looking at our humble effort. Please continue to contribute if you can.

We are not afraid of the truth. We are investigating this first candidate internally (but with full disclosure) in order to establish the truth without grant or external benefactor other than our own resources and kind donations made by some people towards this effort. This is not spending anyones public money, nor is the projects aims for profit.

This is grass roots stuff and anyone with the skills and resources and more importantly commitment to make this better can join the effort. Many are, and we thank them.

We are exploring further the pressure effects, both in US and particularly the EU with extra calibration runs specifically for this purpose. This is not a matter of flicking a switch and seeing if the lightbulb turns on, we are following the evidence and making adjustments to explore things deeper. It is laughable to suggest that we can promote something we have not conclusively demonstrated. We are promoting a project who's first aim is to find an experiment worth replicating independently and there are many that would seriously not want to see that happen.

Celani's cell is reported to produce excess heat of a magnitude that should be visible above noise to several methods of assessment. We have only tested one wire to date (perhaps clumsily), Celani was doing this for over 1 year before achieving his published results. Never the less, much has been learnt by everyone that has taken a serious interest in what we are doing.

We have been offerred access to some great calorimetry equipment but this may not be easy to manufacture cost effectively for wide distribution. We are not discounting taking up these offers, if we need to, when time and resources of all parties permit. We are also considering flow calorimetry for the SS cell - but we are only just getting it into its starting blocks!

We wish we could magic the answer up in a moment, but things take time. We hope that people can see we are not being idle.

We are not starting out with a conclusion and trying to find data to fit it. We are starting out with an aim and looking for a candidate experiment to conclusively support that aim that can stand the test of multiple independent live replication - we are taking no ones word for it, only data talks in this game. Publishing the method (even if challenged) and the results live means third parties can often draw conclusions before we can, we find that both exciting and profoundly democratic.

So in summary

1. We have to think there is a point yes, but being open and live precludes us from making conclusions for anyone. The way science is taught today says that attempting to light the New Fire is a pointless endeavour, which surely is not being scientific.

2. We are doing, as detailed above.

3. We are working through various approaches.
Quote
 
 
+2 #28 Dieter Seeliger 2012-12-04 13:27
@Robert & Ryan,
I would like to ask for a new feature of your life view interface:

It would be a great improvement if you could add some notes to your timeline. It is very hard to match the given data in the live view with any changes you performed, running the reactor.

BR Dieter
Quote
 
 
+1 #27 Dan Smith 2012-12-04 12:22
I'm extremely confused on this project and your approach.

1. As others have noted, you are not coming from a neutral perspective but appear to want to promote the cold fusion concept, which is not really 'doing science' in the way I was taught. The New Fire may turn out to the The New Experimental Error.

2. You need to fully investigate the anomalous pressure artifacts reported recently before moving ahead. Celani hasn't published enough of his data for others to see this anomaly but it looks like a smoking gun to those of us with lab experience.

3. Better calorimetry is a great idea, but air calorimetry is not much better than what you have now. Please invest the effort in liquid calorimetry if you want to see accurate results.

It's possible that your experiments will disprove Celani, which will be actual science, but doesn't fit with some of the promotional efforts of the site.
Quote
 
 
+4 #26 Robert Greenyer 2012-12-04 12:16
@Observer

We are relative new comers to this field where others have been toiling in the wilderness for nigh on a quarter of a century. Being little more than 3 weeks into experiments we are rapidly discovering how to make better controls/ equipment/ environments and how to iron out noise in the system.

With the constructive criticism and help from others here, prominent scientists and Celani himself, we are, from first principles in the full glare of all opinions, performing uncut experiments. Some of the real value in what we are doing is daily documenting from the beginning, the whys and wherefores of how to explore this field, this will be very important to the science.

It is true that we would like to find a candidate experiment that repeatedly demonstrates the New Fire and shows that it has utility. If we thought this endeavour was futile from the outset, we would not have committed large amounts of personal time, cash and our various companies resources to the disposal of the MFMP.

The way we have set this whole process up is self regulating, in the end, we have to be pretty damn sure the candidate experiments we send out work, as they will be sent to externally nominated and publicly voted for qualified and competent independent bodies. We don't want to look like fools - that is why you are seeing us expand our internal testing so that we can fully establish the parameters and build a robust demonstration.

Celani has said he is willing for us to publish some of our private communications with him, including unpublished experiments he has performed. You will see the timing and significance of this in an up and coming blog. Despite this information, we are challenging an aspect of what he has reported, but we admit that we are not infallible and the error may lie with us or the first rudimentary, dissimilar experiments we have performed to date.

We are reminded that if this was easy, everyone would be doing it. If we can make it easy, then hopefully, everyone will be doing it and science and the wider community will be the better for it.
Quote
 
 
+2 #25 observer 2012-12-04 10:30
My comments are due to the fact there appears to be a positive bias to this experiment. Meaning, it appears you want to prove Celani's results. My opinion is to do the science properly. If you happen to disprove and invalidate all of Celani's work along the way, that's how science works. Likewise, if you prove him right, that is good science also.
Quote
 

Here is your generous contributions so far towards our $500,000 target, thanks everyone! : $45,020   Please Donate
See the current state of our booked costs here