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

There are hints of success in the mountain of data being collected.  There are also plenty of valid criticisms of the experiment to date.  I will try to summarize them here.  First, we will look at the graphs from each cell.  Then we'll look at the arguments about the interpretation.  And finally, we'll talk about the plan to clarify it.

Graphs - 15 minute averages for the last two weeks (since the last power adjustment)

Cell 1.0

The T_Glassout sensor does not show an up trend.  In fact, it shows a drop off.  

Cell 1.1

If we zoom in after the adjustment we see the weekend rise.  

And now the extra sensors for cell 1.1 

T_F2 is on the top flange.  T_G1, T_G2, and T_G3 are glass temperatures. Almost all of these sensors show an initial event between the 28th and 30th and then quite a bit of noise before an uptrend this weekend.  


Serious criticisms against this being real excess heat: 

Honestly, all the great input has been like drinking from a fire hose.  Forgive me if I miss anybody's contribution.  If I do miss your idea, please re-suggest it.

- Small (if any) change to T_Glass out - As is pretty obvious, the T_glass_out sensor is not showing the same rise in temperature that the internal temperatures are on cell 1.0.  On cell 1.1, we had to troubleshoot the sensor a bit.  

- Ascoli65's pressure compensation - Ascoli has made a pressure compensation formula that seems to level out the P_xs line nicely.  Because of the lack of change in excess glass temperature to correspond to the interior temperature, this is a very plausible explanation and a nice piece of work.  I would like to see somebody fit that pressure difference to a thermal conductivity value, but I'm not sure what to do about the convection part.  

- David Roberson's heat up curve fit - While we have not had any power steps to fit his model to, lately, judging from the last one and the final temperature, he was not seeing excess power.  Of course, he was using the exterior temperature and it is clear that it is not rising much.

Arguments for real excess heat:

Evidence of sustained temperature rises on almost all sensors on cell 1.1 - There was a bump of temperatures right after we upped the power between Jan 28th and Jan 30th.  Then there was a gentle temperature rise this last weekend.  Can anybody spot a reason those might not be excess energy?

Offsets of T_Glassout thermocouples - we have some doubts about the reliability of the thermal contact of those sensors.  We had to trouble shoot it last week on cell 1.1.  On cell 1.0 it just a piece of kapton tape holding it in place.  On that cell, as soon as we put the active wire in and reattached the sensor, that sensor started reporting almost 10C cooler at full power.  We decided to go ahead with the test, anyway, since we couldn't figure out why it had acquired that offset and we were using the interior sensors for the power calculation.

Calibration at 0.5 bar in hydrogen was done in 3 runs starting at 12/21/2012.  You can examine the google spreadsheets here for cell 1.0 and here for cell 1.1.  

Thank you Alan G for sharing the graph of that data.  They are extremely close and at this power level, the calibration was done at .91 bar, which we crossed not too long ago and definitely after the internal temperatures started to rise.  

These calibration results are what lead us to decide to use the interior temperatures for the P_xs calculation.  It looked to be a cleaner correlation and to not vary much at all over the desired working pressure range.  

How does Ascoli's pressure compensation fit here? My personal hypothesis is that it may be fitting the change in gas composition over time, instead of the change in Hydrogen density.

Ryan's Hypothesis
I suspect that the gas composition changing.  We suspect the H2 is leaking out.  Are O2 and N2 leaking in and decreasing thermal conductivity?  Would the air leak into the cell based on partial pressure even if the pressure of hydrogen was higher?  Would that be a risk with any long term test, especially if the cell had a known leak?

Next steps:

- Cool down and restart - does it come back, or not? What pressure does it come back to?  How does it fit David Roberson's curve predictor?

- Refresh the H2 - Cool down, vacuum clean, and reload to 0.5 bar clean Hydrogen.

-What other suggestions are there before we do it tomorrow?


 And a good link:  Check out http://chavascience.com/hydrogen-2/thermal-transfer and the pages around it for some excellent info and component calculations for modeling the Celani Cell. 


And the MFMP has a new friend, so go check out his blog:

Dear MFMP,

My name is Dr Bob

I am promoting creative thinking and green energy technologies through my blog and news portal. www.drboblog.com

Can you guys hold a secret??

I am actually a recarnation of Martin Fleischmann cloned in the future and sent back through time to save the world from pollution and corruption. 

Obviously its very important for me that you succeed with your work since you are promoting my technology. 

I have posted a challenge to you on my latest blog post related to donations.... 

Answer me through my blog if you Dare or I will haunt you forever!!!

With Respect / Dr Bob

I love a good sense of humor ;)


And a bonus observation:

This graph shows some of the strange and dynamic things that this system does from time to time.  This is fresh off the server.  What do you make of it?




+1 #115 Dieter Seeliger 2013-02-26 11:46
If you try to read this blog and the specifications of the experiment, you will find the we are not running on AC power !
-1 #114 observer 2013-02-26 11:18
Also, have you noticed there have been no ecat demos for almost 6 months since the Swedish test team revealed the problem with input power measurement? Do you think this is due to the fact they wouid have to use a true RMS meter instead of an average RMS meter to measure the input power?

This also make me wonder about the tests where it was claimed they were seeing 100x or more gains. Perhaps they were just running it at a higher frequency so that much more of the input power was not being measured by the average RMS meter.
-1 #113 observer 2013-02-26 11:14
Listen very carefully to what I say here. I've reviewed every demo of the ecat prior to Sept 2012. In every demo as far as I can tell, an average RMS meter is used to measure the input power. An average RMS meter only measures the input power around a certain frequency range where it assumes all the power lies. The Swedish national test team measured the input power using a true RMS meter which measures all the input power at all frequencies. So, they measured the true total input power which, for that particular test was 3X what the ecat team measured. Can you accept and understand that the input power for all Ecat tests was understated for possibly all ecat tests prior to Sept 2012 because only power at one frequency band and not all frequencies was measured?
+4 #112 Alain Coetmeur 2013-02-25 07:59
Quoting observer:
This has happened since 1989 when all those Universities tried to replicate P&F's experiments. ...

not a general fact.
good team have replicated.
CEA Grenoble have replicated F&P with better calorimetry.
Toyota have replicated Mitsubishi.
Cnam have replicated mizuno.
NASA 2008 have replicated Nasa 89, after Tsinghua replicated NASA89.
NASA89 was judged as a failure because expecting waht should not be expected (neutrons), yet it was a hidden success.

It seems key factor are first goodwill and desire to find, which lead to effort, learning curve, acceptation of facts... or course finally competence, budget and luck count too... but they are linked, often consequence of will, as usual . Contrary to the legend, science is very human.
-6 #111 observer 2013-02-25 04:32
Quoting clovis:
clovis ray
Hi, guys,

Whas sup, with these Swiss folks, they just don't get it, about lenr or anything else, they pue poed, Dr. Rossi's work, and couldn't take measurements correctly, now another bunch says they cant find any excess energy, and now these guys are trying to make the old Carnot effect, deliver electricity, what next, it like a Chinese fire drill,--- lol

The Swedish team used true rms input power measurements while, it's possible the ecat team used average rms measurements for the input power up to that point. I'll let you research the difference between the two.
-4 #110 clovis 2013-02-25 04:01
clovis ray
Hi, guys,

Whas sup, with these Swiss folks, they just don't get it, about lenr or anything else, they pue poed, Dr. Rossi's work, and couldn't take measurements correctly, now another bunch says they cant find any excess energy, and now these guys are trying to make the old Carnot effect, deliver electricity, what next, it like a Chinese fire drill,--- lol
+7 #109 Rats 2013-02-25 02:55
@ #107 observer

So what you're basically saying is STMicroelectron ics is NOT a " professional, well funded, reputable organization"

Sigh, some people are very difficult to please.
+1 #108 Ron B 2013-02-24 22:53
#106 Dieter Seeliger

It's something I gleaned from listening to one of the talks about the e-cat from the man himself, and heard the term "triple nickle" for the first time. Since there's quite a bit of misinformation on the web, I phrased it as "rumor".

I'm surprised that this recent experiment was run with the quality of the nickle as being "unknown". I guess everyone loves a good mystery though : )
+1 #107 observer 2013-02-24 22:05
The Swedish team was a clearly well funded, thorough organization. They even received consultations and advice from prominent LENR individuals. Still, the results are always the same when LENR tests above the garage lab level are done: NULL. This has happened since 1989 when all those Universities tried to replicate P&F's experiments.

There will be excuses made for this later failure. Just as there were excuses for the failure to replicate in 1989, excuses for why P&F weren't able to replicate during the 90's despite significant investment, excuses for why the Swedish team last year found a null result for the hotcat, and excuses for why this Swedish team found yet another null result. Only when a professional, well funded, reputable organization, above the garage lab level, obtains a non-Null result will LENR (if it even exists) move forward.
0 #106 Dieter Seeliger 2013-02-24 18:26
@Ron B.
"Rumors of 99,9% pure Ni" implicit that Celani`s cell with Constantan won`t work at all?
Do you have any link to this "Rumors" ?

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