FacebookTwitterDiggStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditTechnoratiLinkedin


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.

  • Error loading feed data

The data for the last week was promising but far from incontrovertible.  The excess energy was above the confidence limits, but still low enough that some unknown systematic change could account for it.

Because of hard drive problems, we ended up resetting the instrumentation and letting the cells cool down.  When we were ready to warm it back up, we took the opportunity to do do a test requested by an enthusiastic regular commenter David Roberson.

We stepped up the power on the active wire (red channel) and then stepped the power up on the NiCr wire (blue channel) till it was at near full power.  Then we cooled the cell, again, before stepping to full power on the red channel and then full power on the blue channel.

David has prepared a transient analysis routine based on differential equations and has been comparing the rise and fall of power steps to the equation model he has fit to it.

I have run the latest calibration power steps in my program and the system is well behaved in the time domain.  I got an excellent quadratic fit where the R^2 value=.999912 using data derived from the end of each of the power levels.

There appears to be a step in power out of .4 watts when the power input was 68.9 watts that occurred near the end of that input level.  The mica was running around 203 degrees at that level of input.  This result needs to be further verified.

I have concentrated my runs on cell 1.0 thus far.  The major  power steps that we planned might reveal additional information.

The fact that the curve match was excellent over such a large range of input powers suggests that there is most likely only a small quantity of excess power being generated during this test sequence.  Perhaps the cell needs more time to operate before it becomes active.

I just completed running my program on cell 1.1 data and it is acting endothermic according to the simulation.  I was able to obtain an excellent calibration curve fit to the quadratic equation with the R^2 = .999984 which is better than I obtained for cell 1.0.  The excess power step for cell 1.1 obtained when both wires are conducting maximum current is approximately -2.2 watts which I believe is within range of what I was seeing on earlier tests.

An interesting difference is that the excess power output of cell 1.1 with just the Celani wire driven measures approximately zero.  

When driven at maximum input power cell 1.0 was generating zero excess power  while cell 1.1 appears to be absorbing power.  This situation should be further explored.

I am working upon an alternate explanation as to what is causing the cell calibration to drift with the assumption that it might be as a result of varying amounts of IR being emitted by the wires.  A better understanding ot this issue will be forthcoming as I continue to review the system behavior.

Both cells follow the calculated time domain curves quite well and I do not detect any significant deviations.  The quality of the curve fit as compared to the actual data is remarkable.  If excess power were to be generated at a significant amount for any changing cell temperature, then the curve fit that is observed would not be this ideal.
I am attaching two Excel files for you to use as you prepare the document.  The curve fit file which is number ...FC0101 (72).xlsx looks very impressive.  This is where I took your downloaded data and used it to obtain the a,b, and c=0 parameters.  The first sheet is a repeat of the download itself while the second one demonstrates how I obtain the coefficients.
The second file is a display of the time domain responses to the large steps that you ran.  It is remarkable how closely the actual data follows the delayed calculated values.   Either or both of the curves look very good but undressed.

Here are two example Excel files and a more detailed write up of his methods all zipped up together.


Now that we are back up to nearly the input power level we were before, it is definitely interesting that both cells are showing significantly lower output than before. 

We approached where we were before by small steps.  Cell 1.1 tracked somewhere near zero P_xs, but Cell 1.0 lingered behind in the negative 2 to 3 watt range.  Think it is an exothermic phase? Is this the zero output level and our calibrations were high?

We'll let this cook for a while, I think.  Then we will attempt a suggested experiment by long time active follower Ecco; a high temperature and pressure run to test for more loading.

In other news, we have preliminary calibration data and analysis of the stainless cell in the Air Flow Calorimeter.  I will have to put that in the next post, though.  And, before I can share the data live, I would like to rearrange the website to list the different experiments more clearly.  Any suggestions?

UPDATE#1 - back to higher Pxs

So the past seven hours started with a large uptick in PXs that seamed to be precipitated by a sharp (but very small) change in T_Ambient.

This seams to have stabilised around 2.75W with spikes above 3W.

Might be good to let this one run for a while. Here is a composite long time graph (in Indian time) spanning back to the last power step ups made in post Roberson test.


0 #80 Dieter Seeliger 2013-02-02 10:30
#70 Ryan Hunt ...@Everybody.........

Thinking a while about this change in the phase of the relationship of XPs and ambient temp let me assume, that this relationship is a possible artefact of your data aquisition board.
This is the only part in your measurements which is direct influenced by the ambient temperatures.
Please have a close look to the software/firmwa re of these DAQ boards.
There must be a correction factor somewere inside which is calculated from the ambient temp. If this correction factor is used in different program routines it could happen, that it is calculated in different manner ?
I assume this, as I saw, that you are using these boards also to control your building and the data red from your building control system is persented in °C or °F, so you must do a data conversion/corr ection somewhere in your software/firmwa re.
+3 #79 Robert Greenyer 2013-02-01 19:15
@Maxwell61 and robiD

Ok - so i read Mario Massa's comments - what 9 years of singing latin and a bit of french can do for your Italian comprehension.. . oh and frengly.com!

It seams he has relevant skills to off the MFMP, would be good to hear if he can directly support the project.
0 #78 robiD 2013-02-01 14:34
Quoting Maxwell61:

What you said it's not entirely correct:

OK, now is Mario Massa that directly speaks about inaccuracies in your previous comment. You can read his answer posted a fews minutes ago:
comment: 01 February 2013 14:03
+1 #77 Maxwell61 2013-02-01 13:08
@Robert Greenyer
I'm not speaking for Mario Massa ROB :-) I guess if you're interested , you have to double check his credentials with Celani and contact him! Which i think is an excellent idea for 2 good reasons:
- Is the only external technician (and an expert in calorimetry) that's been involved with all the 3 scientists & theri cell. And have personal relationships with all of them.
- Is the only person i know that is at the same time beloved by the 100% of believers and 100% of die-hard skeptics, which says all.....
0 #76 Maxwell61 2013-02-01 13:00
In my message the relevant suggestion was clearly to take infos about Dr. Mario Massa calorimetry device, directly asking Celani. Detail here are probably OT. I'll just reply once.
What you said it's not entirely correct:
- i did'nt mention a water device for the Piantelli tests but for later applications.
- from the link you provide, Mario Massa says "Perchè quando Focardi mi ha concesso di farlo (su una cella Piantelli) l'esito è stato negativo?" fast traslation: "Why the test was negative when Focardi gave me the opportunity of testing a Piantelli cell?"
- Few msg ahead he say that the tests, meaning their own tests, were made in person by themselves. So we have the embarassing situation of no results when Massa made the test himself and different (supposedly positive) results when the tests were made by Focardi. A bit more complicated scenario of the one you're suggesting
0 #75 Robert Greenyer 2013-02-01 12:35
@Chuck & DS

Now we are thinking!


We are currently building a submersible cell in EU - if Mario Massa is willing to build us a calorimeter as you describe and send it to us then we would be happy to run the cell in it.
0 #74 robiD 2013-02-01 12:18
Quoting Maxwell61:
The italian Eng. Mario Massa, an axpert in calorimetry, after a measuerement on Piantelli's cell...

That's not completely correct. Obviously Engineer Massa will answer by himself but:
- Mario Massa made a calorimeter for a test on Piantelli/Focar di's cell but he didn't make any calorimetric measurement on the cell (Focardi did it);
- the calorimeter used in that case was a flow AIR calorimeter with a volume of about 90 liters, and NOT a water one;
- the calorimeter had 3 probes and and error of 2W with 100W input without calibration;
- the cost of 100 Euros was related to the "material" used without: manpower cost, probes (high quality), instrumentation s for data acquisition, and computer for data elaboration.
- the story is not known only by Ascoli65 because it has been written on 22passi and everyone can read it:
+2 #73 Maxwell61 2013-02-01 09:41
The italian Eng. Mario Massa, an axpert in calorimetry, after a measuerement on Piantelli's cell (results unpublished) in Piantellli's lab, built few years ago a water-based device for his friend Focardi, but left unused in Bologna University. Mario Massa is a personal friend of Dr. Celani, and recently offered to Celani to build a kind of water tank calorimeter to put inside his cell, untouched, and get bullet proof calorimetry. He claim some 100 eur as manufacturing cost. Celani did'nt go any further. If you want to know more you can ask directly Celani and, in case of interest, a contact information with Mario Massa.
Asoli65 knows the story and can confirm the mint reputation of Dr. Mario Massa in the cold fusion italian community.
0 #72 Dieter Seeliger 2013-02-01 09:03
although the cave is a nice idea, there would be another possible solution for a stable thermal chamber.
If you can use groundwater from a deep well, this water can be used to stabilize a climate chamber.
I know some wells here in my neigborhood which have a fixed temperature of 8°C during the whole year.

BR & have anice weekend !
0 #71 Chuck 2013-02-01 00:20
@Robert, if you can zip the rig up in a watertight container of some stuff and toss it into someone's swimming pool or fishpond, there's enough thermal inertia there to sompletely smooth out your environmental temperature problem.

Water baths are not completely unknown in the physics lab.

Add comment

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

MFMP Facebook Feed