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

As most of you know by now, there was a report of an independent validation test performed on Andrea Rossi's Ecat this week.  (view it here)  

Overall positive impression

Our preliminary assessment among the team is that it is a generally good report with no obvious errors or glaring omissions.  It is easily the best evidence to date that Rossi has a working technology, and, if verified openly and widely, this report could be remembered as historic.

That's not to say that we feel total confidence in the report, either.  It is unfortunate that there are some justified concerns about the independence of the test team, since many of the authors are names that we have seen before in the context of Rossi.  Plus, we are disappointed that none of the authors are willing to present at ICCF18 in July, which would certainly be an extremely welcoming audience for such a report, if the details stand up to further scrutiny.

Other technical questions and criticisms

It was good that the authors were satisfyingly conservative when things were in question.  Examples include using an emissivity of 1 for the first test, using bottom side of apparatus, including the shadowed areas, and adding an additional 10% for unknown errors.

It was also satisfying that even if they ignored convection and included the control box power, it was still above unity.  

The whole COP discussion is rather arbitrary IF the input power goes primarily to heating up the bulk to trigger it thermally, as it appears.  A little insulation - or better, yet, an adjustable cooling system, might allow the device to run at or near self sustaining.  

However, some things about the input power measurement aren't entirely clear.  A block diagram of the wiring and instrumentation points would clarify where they were measuring the power input from at different points in the experiment.  Some screen captures of the wave form on the power input would be stronger indication that it was something the power analyzer could accurately measure.  Rossi has mentioned using frequencies to stimulate the reaction to occur.  If the frequency of that was high enough, the power meter may not "see" the power delivered by that part of the wave form.  If the control box was putting out that sort of signal for the live run and the "dummy" run, though, the dummy run would have appeared to show excess energy, which is good that it did not according to the report.  However, the active load may interact in a way that allows high frequency power use while the resistive load does not.  It is not clear from the report if the control box was used in the dummy mode in the same way it was during the active run.

The specs for the power meter used are here:  http://www.industrial-needs.com/technical-data/power-anlayser-PCE-830.htm 

I'm not very convinced by the heating cycle shape argument - that is a system with a lot of non-linearities and multiple time constants involved.  I think more tests, or comparison to the temperature curves of the "dummy" unit, and with varying controlled heater power cycles would be a more valid comparison.

One further takeaway was that it seamed from this report, that this reactor design is difficult to control at the higher COPS. Strong evidence of this is the failure of the first test. This may be due to the nature of close location of nano particles in the fuel mix but may be effectively resolved by better thermal extraction as mentioned above.

Call for more openness to prove this to the world definitively

We, the MFMP, on behalf of the global population, call on the authors and Andrea Rossi to make the raw data and more detailed instrumention details for the entire test available for verification of calculations made form the data.  We are willing to host the data and help stimulate the analysis of it, or simply be another participant re-analyzing it.  

This publication raises the bar for Defkalion, Brillouin, and anybody else claiming a valid technology to present something more compelling, also.  

Many comments in the LENR blogosphere have suggested that the MFMP would be a good, independent, trust worthy validator.  We are honoured by these views and would certainly be eager to help facilitate any further validation tests for Rossi, Defkallion, or Brillouin etc. in any way that would ensure the facts are established whilst the IP of the originator is wholly protected. 


0 #88 cs go giveaway 2017-01-02 20:12
Incredible points. Great arguments. Keep up the great effort.
0 #87 cs go giveaway 2017-01-02 20:12
Incredible points. Great arguments. Keep up the great effort.
0 #86 hoodies and jackets 2016-11-18 00:30
Fine way of describing, and good piece of writing to take data regarding my presentation subject matter, which i am going
to deliver in academy.
0 #85 Robert Ellefson 2013-06-23 18:17

You walk up to an Engineer, and ask, "Please tell me, yes or no, can pigs fly?"

With a brief pause to gather his response, the engineer replies "Yes."

Rather surprised, you seek out a distinguished Biologist, and ask, "Please tell me, yes or no, can pigs fly?"

Without so much as a pause, the biologist quickly and contemptively issues a stern "NO!" before walking away.

Satisfied with the pertinent authority's answer, you then return home to your visiting cousin, who is about to depart on an overseas trip. You share your newfound information with him. While at first he is discouraged, he later decides to take a risk, and find out for himself.

So, he packs his suitcase, kisses his family goodbye, and heads off with his prize-winning potbelly pig in tow, properly behaving itself on leash.

When he arrives at the airport, the ticket agent answers "Yes, with these conditions..."
0 #84 Sanjeev 2013-06-13 01:02
From Mats Lewan's site

UPDATE: I have been in contact with a representative of PCE Instruments UK Ltd who has confirmed that the PCE-830 cannot detect DC tension. When connected to an AC source with an offset DC tension it will display the graph of the AC tension correctly but it will not detect the offset DC tension.
So finally someone confirmed it, as the specs say, PCE-830 cannot detect any DC, not values, nor waveform.

This means that, to eliminate this major criticism, another test with proper RMS meters is a must now.
+1 #83 David Roberson 2013-06-11 23:04
AC power measurement information:

I just wanted to point out that the total power being sourced by a sine wave voltage AC power line is completely determined by the RMS supply voltage and the RMS fundamental frequency current being sourced through that device. The harmonics flowing through the source do not need to be considered to calculate the source power.

Also, any DC currents that flow through the source due to rectification in the load network do not change the calculated input power as long as a DC source is not hidden behind the AC line pins.

These statements can easily be demonstrated with a simple spice model.

This was discussed in length on vortex.
0 #82 Sanjeev 2013-06-11 01:27

Report is now updated with an appendix. It shows the input waveforms and a connection diagram.

Can the PCE-830 show a DC offset in the waveform if it is present ? Anyone with some experience with PCE here ?
0 #81 MikeS 2013-06-07 00:53
Rossi's E-Cat has fascinated me ever since a friend told me about it. I have a couple of computer science degrees and more of an EE background than the average compsci, but I'm not an engineer or scientist.

Have any of you seen this scathing review of the independent test? Some of his points make sense to me (from a layman's point-of-view). Any thoughts from those of you who are higher on the sci and eng food chain than I am?


The author is clearly convinced that Rossi is a fraud. Me? I have no idea--but I have to say that Rossi's weird antics over the last couple of years make me somewhat more skeptical.

The friend who told me about E-Cat has a good point when he reminds me that Rossi's inability to patent anything w/ "cold fusion" attached means that Rossi's goal is to sell E-Cats, not satisfy the scientific curiosity of others.
-2 #80 Mitch Trachtenberg 2013-05-29 15:26
Quoting Renton:

Ok, let me try to understand your reasons...
You do think that LERN is real but since Rossi's claims are so exceptional you also believe that he is a scam that will hurt and discredit the field once it is found out.
Is this correct?

I do not know if LENR is real. I am intrigued by the Celani results and by the nature of the MFMP. I found the SRI online presentation on LENR interesting and it certainly points to a real phenomenon.

Beside the exceptional claims of Rossi, do you have any other reason that makes you believe that all this is a scam?
When you claim to be able to produce utility levels of power, it would be trivial to do an air-gap demonstration proving your power production. His failure over years to do a demo that satisfies the majority of the scientific press leaves me extremely dubious. The demo really is not hard to do properly. That's the sum of my reasoning.
0 #79 Maxwell61 2013-05-29 11:10
So, now that we know that the pic of the PCE is related to a fully undergoing test, the 6th day of test on a 7 dey test, someone should explain the funny readings (note also the negative PF) and what they does imply.

As someone on Vortex today noted, the mode selected is 3p3w.
You can look for the wire connections in the Pic. 4,5,6 (they forgot to translate from italian "Fig" that is "Figura"=picture).

The readings are instead apprpriate in the "dummy" march test showing all 3 voltages with 3 digit (bit blurry pic).

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