FacebookTwitterDiggStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditTechnoratiLinkedin

Goals and strategy for social funding - suggestions for discusson

on .

The MFMP is here to help show and promote to the world a new form of energy, in its various forms. The project is set up in such a way that it is able to independently think without having to meet the goals of a shareholder, the dictat of a government or sensitivity of an academic body. It is protected from many of the challenges that have held back exploration of this technology in the past by its flexible members, contributing followers and the nature of open approach. Having said all that - we still need to raise funds to enable ongoing research and here we discuss our strategy for crowd funding!

The perfect experiment and beyond

Celani's wire has the potential to form the core of the perfect New Fire experiment for people all over the world to explore LENR. The beauty of Celani wire, is that it is a form of material that can be easily quantified and methodically explored. Understanding what makes it work will enhance control of the reaction etc.etc.

The project has also had a directive to promote the technology and encourage other players to be open about what they are doing. We have experienced that when we have a major development or announcement, other players have come forward with reports or videos or our releases have oftentimes been hijacked by the commentary of others. We actually love this and want to encourage competition in this space, we want to see the world wake up, recognise, invest in and deploy this technology in its many guises.

Crowd funding goals

Now that we are comfortable that we will be demonstrating something of real value soon, we wanted to share with you the planned approach to crowd funding that we have developed over many months should we get to this point. We will be publishing our crowd funding pitch proposal for people to review in the coming days.

Our approach is to aim low to give us the best chance to comfortably finish the internal experiment design and testing - say £50k, then have an initial stretch goal of £150k for minimum of 3 fully supported replications and then a second stretch goal after that of up to 10 funded and supported replications. We have to bear in mind that supplying the rewards and fees may cost over 30% of the headline figure.

Base goal

Target would be to finish the development of an LENR ( ideally New Fire ) experiment that is very hard to refute and suitable for replication.

Stretch Goal 1

Produce, facilitate and distribute a minimum of 3 international independent replications.

Stretch Goal 2

To spread that replication across the world and to follow and promote up to 10 experiments.

Stretch Goal 3

Buy a 1MW E-Cat assuming it can be... if not possible or funds insufficient, moneys go into further research into, or distribution of, other players technology.

The 3rd stretch

We are planning a 3rd stretch goal as you can see above. In preparation for this, we asked Rossi last year, face to face in Switzerland, could we have some e-cats to live test and he said that lack of certification would not make it possible. Then we said could we buy a 1MW plant for a military rehabilitation center or something similar and essentially he said yes and liked the idea. So, here is what we are thinking, we know that whatever we raise, we will put it to great and efficient use either doing primary live research or maybe better supporting the independent replications we enable, making promotional materials and lobbying government and industry. However, we were thinking if we could raise £1.3m - we do all our intended research, but then seek to purchase a 1MW unit from Rossi, we would expect the money to be held in escrow, so no risk of loss, transfer occurs if unit is delivered and proved to perform. Whilst protecting his IP, we would then have a unit that we could open to the public - and first up would be MFMP donors. The whole process from ordering to operation would be published as is our nature.

This would prevent any loss of momentum in our social fundraising if an independent report was published or other combative media activity was pursued... indeed - it could add significant momentum as it would likely be the fastest way any of us could actually see for ourselves a version of the New Fire in a practical application. If there are problems at e-cat order time or there is a failure to deliver, then we have some strong facts to form judgements on - all the while the money raised would be protected.

If Rossi cannot deliver for any reason or we raise more than we need for our Celani replications but do not achieve enough to purchase a 1MW unit then we already have meetings scheduled with Brillouin and Defkalion in Early April. These companies business model is to protect IP and sell licences to drive development of core technology and applications. We would offer to site our data aggregators in their facilities and monitor them for a number of weeks with the live data published through our established channels - they gain credibility that would likely bring them more licence income without any risk to their IP. If they refuse this offer then it might raise questions. Essentially, we would carry out independent live experiments on their "black boxes" in their facilities under their supervision at no cost to them, so there is nearly no plausible excuse for them to deny us - there would only be upside to participating and downside to not participating. We could even offer the same to Rossi - if we did not raise requisite funds. We would obviously seek wide opinion on what other detectors we would need to have in the test rooms to ensure no other forms of energy transfer.

Why this is important

We are seeing something really interesting and potentially amazing on an energy density basis with the Celani wire - we hope that the next tranche of tests will settle the debate we have encouraged and we will have a great tool for further investigation around the world. That deals with the "is it true/repeatable?" question and would kickstart serious international research leading to proper understanding. It does not deal with the "is it useful yet?" question, and that is the basis for the approach we are suggesting above - where we offer free live exposure to the very people that currently claim to have useful implementations.

We feel there is a lot of mental energy being wasted on the "is it or isn't it debate". If we can show - "look, here it is in the lab" - and "there is an example of working practical energy generator" versions of which will be yours in 5/10/15/20 years in your home, individuals and governments can plan accordingly. Public and private money use will be optimised and everyone is ultimately a winner, no more so than the poor and the environment.

So the strategy is to critically test claims across the board, to have a plan where we all win whatever the truth.

In summary, our social funding priorities for this campaign are

1.  Conclude Celani replication and the development of an incontrovertible experiment

2.  Enable independent replications of this incontrovertible experiment

3.  Work within the stated restrictions of other technology providers to provide better evidence of their claims

Openness, honesty, integrity and credibility are our DNA, our ethos, we want to maintain that and not have it called into question. We want to deliver real answers - you are all critical to making that possible, please let us know your thoughts on the above approach.

Add comment

Security code


0 #39 Robert Greenyer 2013-03-29 23:21
@Andreas Van Rooijen

Good - just checking! :-)
0 #38 Andreas Van Rooijen 2013-03-29 18:55
@ Robert, I am aware that you (nor the MFMP) do not intend to break it open or reverse engineer it. Nor do I advocate such a thing. I would consider that to be a waste of time. :-)
+1 #37 Robert Greenyer 2013-03-29 18:30
@Andreas Van Rooijen

We never intended to break it down and in fact can't as the 1MW units are actually sold on a lease basis - a 'buyer' never actually owns them.

We would not want to break one down as it may restrict our options for developing our own technology in an open source way. In addition, it may leave us open to litigation which is simply not worth it.
0 #36 Andreas Van Rooijen 2013-03-29 16:23
1) I can "reassure" you, taking apart a water boiler is not a criminal offence. ;-)
2) You can't monitor those devices from a distance (this can be simpel avoided by using a Faraday cage)
3) I don't think Rossi has any IP to protect, but paradoxically, he has to hide his "invention" from the world to hide that fact.
-1 #35 clovis 2013-03-29 16:04
Al, you obviously don't read about this subject all that much, it 's plain silly to think that Dr. rossi would let people take his ip, if you try and take one apart you would be setting your self up for prison time, each unit will be monitored, he alone controls his ip or device, this team is out to find what is happening with lenr and to develop a data base for others to follow, quit trying to side track this wonderful work, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
0 #34 Robert Greenyer 2013-03-28 01:32

We hear you loud and clear, review others but do not waste precious resources on them. Focus on our replication goals and powder experiments and further develop our Live Open Science hardware and software toolset for general scientific endeavour.

Thanks loads for your time thinking about this. Look out for the proposed Kickstarter introductory pitch document on Friday, we will ask for your critical thinking on that too.

Thanks for working with us to get our strategy and messaging right - you guys are awesome!
0 #33 Robert Greenyer 2013-03-27 23:06
@Roderick Vos

You make some valid points, as we are likely to see the operations, the answer to those questions will be evident.

We have had regular contact with people at UOM - they have been unable to provide resources to date but they have given advice.
0 #32 charlie tapp 2013-03-27 15:51
@ robert greenyer how about this i also have given up on rossi the only reason i follow any of this is to find some understanding in one of my own projects makeing hho were for some reason my bolts going into my reactor got supper hot and melted the pvc container. no high amperage or any kind of explanation untill i read about hydrogen / metal interactions.i trust what you guys say so why not go and meet with anyone you can look at the things they are doing, mabee get a presentation were you actually see their claims tell us whatever you can, then you will see a different response from the crowd. i think everyone here would believe you
+4 #31 Andreas Van Rooijen 2013-03-27 14:49
Quoting Edwin Pell:
Developing an experiment that works and is low cost has great value.

Do not get sucked into the Rossi blackhole. It is a waste of time. It is something I will not support.


@Robert Greenyer, You know my point of view from our email exchanges. I agree with Edwin Pwell. Let's do fase 1 and 2. Don't waste time and or money on fase 3. Also, mentioning Rossi as a goal could scare people away.
+3 #30 Dieter Seeliger 2013-03-27 11:48
I think it should not be our goal to prove the promises of Rossi and his competitors.

If they have anything, it is way below their claims !
Let`s first focus on the base goal and build a Celani replication which is unrefusable !

Don`t waste time and money !
+6 #29 Roderick Vos 2013-03-27 09:23
I personally have serious doubts about the legitimacy of the claims of Rossi and Defkalion. Last year Defkalion said to have a marketable product, this turned out to be false. Maybe you can ask them what happened when you meet. Rossi also made bold statements but has not been able to show any reliable evidence to support his claims. Why would it take more than 2 years to produce good evidence for their technology? Wouldn't they benefit a lot e.g. attracting investment if they produce solid evidence? I think the MFMP should not waste any time on these people. It is up to them to prove their claims. Buying a Rossi reactor would be a waste of money and I think you would have to wait 10 years to see it be delivered. Stick with mr. Celani! He seems to be an honest man who understands the scientific method. Btw. have you contacted the university of Missouri? They bought the company Energetics who are probably able to produce excess heat. Maybe they are willing to work with us.
+5 #28 Robert Greenyer 2013-03-27 01:14
@Robert Ellefson / Edwin Pell

We hear you loud and clear, focus on the open testing and open development of Celani wire and our own powder experiments, only consider testing other technology options if it is at nominal cost.

We agree that an open development of an effective technology has great value.

We also must consider the value of competition - it is valuable if that competition only serves to bring the technology to everyone faster.

It should be added that powder and foam simply cannot be tested and explored in the same precise and controlled flexible way as Celani's wire. Firstly, if we can replicate the V2 results of Celani, the power density of the wire has been calculated to be of the order of Rossi and Defkalions claims. However, a safe, low power experiment in 100s of international labs would allow very rapid testing of the very many ways these type of nano structure based effects can be enhances/optimi sed/triggered. Parameter sweeping by respected institutions with top level equipment will accelerate development enormously.

When we have established a network of contributing collaborators for the Celani cells, these participators might also be able to explore a stock powder cell we could supply or provide blueprints of.

We are getting there people, we should have a good strategy with you continued consideration here. We need to nail this in the next few days, so keep thinking!
0 #27 Robert Ellefson 2013-03-26 23:21
Quoting Al Potenza:
Wouldn't you say that if ... are true, that your entire experiment is mostly moot and besides the point? ....

There is a HUGE difference between having viable public-domain LENR design technology available vs. having a small cadre of monopolists selling what secret elements they choose to sell, on their terms. I will not hope for good to come from reverse-enginee ring other's products, as this would be unethical if not illegal.

So no, it would not be at all moot to continue open-science experiments in pursuit of a viable, useful reactor design technology base for anybody to freely use as they see fit.

Personally, I presume that Rossi, Defkalion, Mills and Brillouin do in fact have LENR reactors working to some degree, but this does not interest me much, given their intentions.
+1 #26 Al Potenza 2013-03-26 22:52
Or would you be only in favour of us using additional funds to extend and accelerate our powder and other primary research?
Wouldn't you say that if Rossi, Defkalion, Brillouin, or Miley claims for thousands of watts, sustained indefinitely and at relatively low cost, are true, that your entire experiment is mostly moot and besides the point? With such energy levels readily available commercially, will additional nickel/hydrogen experiments really be necessary or desirable? At low power levels?

As soon as one of them sells a product, it will be dismantled (legally or otherwise) and at least analyzed if not reverse engineered and we will know how it works. self-destruct" devices are no credible deterrent.

I think the main reason to perform your work is if you do not think Rossi and Defkalion are telling the truth and Brillouin is not ready for prime time. No? Seems to me, the priority should be to rule them in or out.
+7 #25 Edwin Pell 2013-03-26 22:50
Developing an experiment that works and is low cost has great value.

Do not get sucked into the Rossi blackhole. It is a waste of time. It is something I will not support.

+1 #24 Robert Ellefson 2013-03-26 22:26
Quoting Robert Greenyer:
@Robert Ellefson
Given that both Brillouin and Defkalion have invited us to their operations, would your objection be so strong to doing Live experiments on their equipment if there was the funds available and the weighted donors voted for it?

Essentially it is a test of a black box, in the case of Celani, the black box is the wire.

Or would you be only in favour of us using additional funds to extend and accelerate our powder and other primary research?

If you were invited to test their apparatus at minimal expense, this does not seem an unreasonable activity to pursue while doubts persist about LENR's existence. Purchasing a 1MW reactor from Rossi would be an entirely different situation, though. My "weighted donor vote" amounts to nearly zip, but I hope my public-interest intentions are communicated clearly here. Let's light the New Fire TOGETHER!
0 #23 Robert Greenyer 2013-03-26 21:53
@Robert Ellefson

This is an opinion expressed by a number of people and formed part of our expected range of reactions. As is our nature, we decided to be open about our thinking so that we could not loose our supporters as we look to go to a much wider and potentially less friendly audience.

We have tried to avoid being partial in what we do, we are trying to settle debates and doubts across the space. In any event, our priority is open scientific development. It is great to hear that you would passionately advocate our open scientific work, thankyou - we need as many as possible to support us in that way.

Given that both Brillouin and Defkalion have invited us to their operations, would your objection be so strong to doing Live experiments on their equipment if there was the funds available and the weighted donors voted for it?

Essentially it is a test of a black box, in the case of Celani, the black box is the wire.

Or would you be only in favour of us using additional funds to extend and accelerate our powder and other primary research?

We really value your opinion.
+1 #22 Robert Greenyer 2013-03-26 21:34
@Al Potenza

Our priority is to establish a reliable experiment that we can ship across the world for further exploration and understanding of the science. That is what the base goal and first stretches are intended for.

We recognise that we are unlikely to raise the additional money to be able to put these options to a donor vote - but we have to have an effective strategy to make marketing that might work against us achieving our primary goals, work for us.
+4 #21 Robert Ellefson 2013-03-26 21:32
Quoting Robert Greenyer:

We are sure that many people want real answers and what we are suggesting fully protects their IP, on their terms and will help promote them if their claims prove valid but still leaves us free to work with the wider community to define the test protocols and equipment and timeline for testing.

This sounds like you envision MFMP as a testing organization, something like a Consumer Reports, but with advocacy available, if warranted. Will there someday be a price for LENR device vendors to publically advertise "MFMP Certified" status?

Applying science to investigate product performance is not the same as performing science, which is what I thought the MFMP was intended to do, given the talk of "live open science" and such. I have no interest in asking my social network to donate funds to be used to purchase a Rossi reactor, though I would passionately promote an open MFMP reactor development fundraising effort.
+1 #20 Al Potenza 2013-03-26 21:07
Quoting Robert Greenyer:

Rossi has looked us in the eye and said we can buy a 1MW unit, subject to lead time, *terms* and actually being able to pay for it!

A suggestion: why not look Rossi back in the eye and say you'd like to speak to and, preferably, visit a client, any client not connected directly with Rossi, who has a working megawatt plant or any other LENR product Rossi has made?

You may be able to collect fifty thousand dollars for experiments and tests (I hope you do) but I don't think you have the slightest chance of putting together a million dollars from crowd funding for anything claimed by Rossi. The possible exception would be if you could get a wealthy individual interested. Have you considered contacting Dick Smith, the Australian billionaire?

Wikipedia: Quote:
Dick Smith offered Rossi one million dollars to demonstrate that the E-Cat system worked as claimed, ... which Rossi refused."

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