MFMP Starts New Live Test

An announcement has been made on the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project’s site about a new live test of the US dual cell which is now oriented in the vertical position.

We just started current through the active wires.  We are now in the live test phase with both cells in the vertical apparatus simultaneously.  Cross your fingers for the human race.

And you can watch the live data update every 5 minutes and see it plotted against the calibration curve using this spreadsheet in OpenOffice or LibreOffice (both open source and free downloads).

MFMP Dual Cell

  • AstralProjectee

    I wouldn’t think that putting it vertical would do very much of anything different. But what do I know, I’m no engineer or physicist.

    • Peter_Roe

      I think it must produce a thermal gradient in the gas, bottom to top, but I’m not sure what the implications for measurement are (if any). There will have been a similar, but of course much shorter, gradient in the horizontal configuration.

      Because of factors like this, I would prefer to see direct calorimetry performed, rather than indirect (calculated) estimates of energy in/out (but that’s probably because I only understand relatively simple things!).

  • Ivone Martin FitzGerald

    Thanks, Admin/Frank, for restoring the E-Cat World website to its eye restful appearance.

    • Paolo

      I agree, this layout is much better… thank you Frank!

  • Hampus

    Well warm air rises, so by making it vertical you will see a bigger effect because the heat rise up within the cell. I guess 🙂

  • clovis

    no data feed, nowhere,all i see is–No preview available

  • captain

    Thank U Frank for restoring vertical blog layout. Much better now.

  • georgehants

    Andrea Rossi
    January 13th, 2013 at 8:48 AM
    Dear Giuliano Bettini:
    I am very anxious to read the report of the validation test made by a third party during December 2012.
    Warm regards,

    Peter he answered your comment on the last page Ha.

    • HeS

      Can someone ask A.Rossi simple question:

      If the test results would be negative, he would publish data on the catalyst, that everyone could experiment and see that there is no excess heat

      • KD

        Rossi already stated earlier, that the results of the third party testing are not worse from results obtained by him.

        • HeS

          @:”results of the third party testing are not worse”

          So, why he is “very anxious”?

          • Chris

            Its a usage problem, some English speakers use it as a synonym to eager.

    • Peter_Roe

      His replies on the subject seem evasive to me. It seems unlikely that Rossi, who commissioned the report, would not be aware of the results and would not have set a binding date for completion.

      It seems to me probable that the 3rd party test results are available by now, and confirm Rossi’s informal results, but that his corporate partner does not want the report released at this time (or possibly at all).

      • V.p.S.

        His last prediction for the report was the first week of February. With all possible delays it should be out by the end of February. And if not, let’s wait and see, what kind of explanation for the delay will he present then. Anyway its very probable that his new partner has much more influence on the marketing strategy than we may all think.

        If at some point of time later Defkalion will announce that they also unite with some large industrial partner, well, then we know, what is happening behind the curtains.

      • Pweet

        Keep in mind this is not the first “independent” test of the hot-cat. It is now the third.
        The first was an independent but private test by a Swedish test authority in late July or early August which quickly came to the conclusion that there was no excess heat produced.
        Results were not published because Mr. Rossi said they were under an NDA.

        The second test was originally said to have been completed in October 2012 and the report was due by mid November 2012.
        In October it was reported that the test was “not worse than” the results of the July ‘in house’ tests which were supposed to show a COP of about 3. A bit later Mr. Rossi reported that the tests were “better than” the July tests.

        On or about the last day the report was supposed to be released, it was announced that “there was a serious problem with the test”, without any explanation of what the problem might have been.
        A few weeks later it was announced that “the problem has been resolved”, again with no explanation of what it was or how it was resolved.
        However, it was then announced in a roundabout sort of way that the new partner would be managing the tests and it’s the results of these tests which we are now waiting on, which makes it the third independent test.
        Two points;
        Firstly, It was widely reported that the test by the Swedish authority fell well short of expectations, with no excees heat observed, so there is little doubt on that one.
        Secondly, I think we can take it that the results of the second test fell well short of the claimed performance and probably confirmed the earlier results of the Swedish tests.
        In early December in reply to a question he said, ” The third party is independent and they will publish what they want, where they want and when they want.” and yet so far we have heard nothing more about it from anyone.
        If they had been at all complimentary to the device I’m sure they would have been announced loudly as an independent confirmation, even if there were glaring errors in the technique or measurements. That has never stopped the release of confirming information in the past.

        Finally, if the new partner is conducting or organising the current tests there is the clear possibility that they may be less than independent. Confirmation from anyone would be encouraging but in the face of the two previous tests, if the test authority is perceived to be less than independent then a confirmation from them will be less than totally convincing. We shall see.

        I believe, provided the tests are done to a professional and proper standard they will confirm the results of the two previous independent tests.
        To my mind, only one thing is certain, and that is, if the results are bad they will not be released. They will be locked away and superseded by the announcement of some great new shiny thing to distract the masses from the non-delivery of what was promised,.. again.

        And finally finally, I find it really hard to believe that Mr. Rossi has not had some feedback from the test authority on how things are shaping up. It can still be completely independent while keeping the owner of the technology updated on progress. The fact that he has not been dropping the occasional hint on how good the results are, is not a good sign.

        • Omega Z

          This would be a 3rd party test as in independent of Rossi involvement. Not as a 3rd test…

        • Pweet: But there was also the Penon report (COP>12) made in autumn 2012 about the HotCat. It’s a report with data and named author, while the Swedish one was only a statement on hydrofusion website which was kind of refuted by Rossi.

          • Pweet

            I’m sure the Swedish test people would have been happy to publish a full report on their findings but as stated by Mr. Rossi, they were under a NDA, which is why it was only the conclusion which was released to the public by the agent who had requested the test.
            I realise the Swedish test result calculations are refuted by Mr. Rossi, but that is to be expected because they do not agree with his results. I would do the same myself until proven wrong. However, from what I can gather, the people chosen to do the confirmation were selected on the basis of their expertise in such measurements.
            If I had previously come to the conclusion from past evidence that Mr. Rossi was also an expert in power measurements then there would be some indecision on my part as to whose results I should believe. However, all the video evidence I have seen regarding the power measurements on previous e-cat tests have lead me to the firm conclusion that all early test results on the e-cat were seriously in error, and in obvious ways. On that basis I take the Swedish results as being more likely to be accurate.

            Now that we have moved on to the hot-cat, the performance of this device is difficult to verify by looking at pictures and videos, so we have to rely on reports.
            The Penon report (9th October 2012) which you refer to was a report compiled by Leonardo Corporation (Mr. Rossi) on a test also performed by Mr. Rossi. He clearly states at the start of this report that it is not a third party report. With all due respect to Mr. Rossi, while I find them very interesting, I no longer have a lot of faith in their accuracy. There were later released a number of corrections to that report. They were mostly simple errors which an expert in such measurements should not have made.
            There was supposed to be a follow up report in mid November by the third party group of scientists who were also at that same test. This would have carried much more authority.
            It never came.
            All we got on the due date was the message that a serious problem had arisen, and then later that this problem had been “resolved”. (late November 2012)
            It is now clear the problem was resolved by passing the responsibility for testing onto the new partner, not by addressing the problem which the original third party scientists found with the test results.
            Thus, 3 months later and contrary to what we were promised, we still have no confirmation of the Penon report by the third party scientists present at this test. Therefore I still find that report less than convincing.

          • “It is now clear the problem was resolved by passing ..” How is this clear, what specific evidence do we have for this scenario versus something else such as a normal process delay?

          • Pweet

            It is clear from the current reality, which is;
            the only test which now gets even a mention from Mr. Rossi is the one due from his new “partner”. There is no longer any mention of the test results due from the group of scientists which made concurrent measurements at the October test which the Penon report covered.
            In view of this, I see it as highly unlikely that after three months now with not a peep out of anyone, a report will be issued from that particular group.
            It’s possible but highly improbable and in the absence of any firm announcements, you have to go with the highest probability.
            I would love to hear a response from anyone in that group indicating what the “serious problem” was.

          • A reason that I found the Penon report interesting was the temperature curves, and the published composition of the reactor from which it was possible to estimate its heat capacity. The cooling after turnoff was about 3 times slower than expected from the heat capacity. The cooling curve was consistent with a thermally driven anomalous process with a COP indicated by the measured output/input ratio. To explain those data without anomalous heat is difficult. One cannot do it e.g. by assuming that the output was measured wrong by a linear factor. Of course, if one assumes full fabrication of the data then anything is possible to explain without anomalies. But in that case the fabricator must be sophisticated or else he gets caught by inconsistencies.

          • Pweet

            Yes the cooling curve was interesting, but not conclusive. Without being able to examine the complete setup it is an indication only, not proof. That is why we need third party verification.

            I would hope that the people who are chosen for this have some idea of how quickly a room gets very hot with a heater throwing out 22 kilowatts of radiant energy, for 318 hours no less.
            It would be very difficult to keep the area cool unless you have a specially installed air conditioner to blow lots of cold air directly at this area. An air con with an output capacity of 22 kilowatts should be a noticeable item in the room. It will be big. Did anyone notice one ?
            The normal air conditioning system cannot do this because of the limited air volume given out from the small ceiling ducts.
            An average output of 22 kilowatts of heat for 318 hours would take the paint off the walls without special cooling measures being taken.
            On the other hand, if the Swedish test people were right, an output of 2.4 kilowatts would be warm but that’s all.
            I still think I will go with their assessment until such time as we get an alternate view from a reputable source.

    • captain

      Rossi writes always in a hurry: surely he was meaning ‘impatient’, that’s more appropriate.

  • Hi All,

    Celani wire in cells are powered but at a level that is still allowing them to load a little more Hydrogen as you will be able to see from the lowering of their resistance, this is good.

    The cell temperatures are too low to expect any potential excess at the moment.

    Be aware that the data feed may be a little slow due to demand at the moment.

    We will likely power the cells down shortly and configure it so that there is an extra power supply on the second passive wires in each cell (much like was done in the first EU run). This should take the cell temperatures into the range for triggering of the wires without putting too much current into the Celani wires.

  • GreenWin

    This story is lighting up the internet:

    But we expected this since… 1989.

    • daniel maris

      Er – that post’s got no comments! Hardly “Lighting up”…

      I think it will take confirmation from a Stephen Hawkings or a Bill Gates to get this rolling!

      • Gerrit

        it is already rolling.

        What you mean is that when a high profile character will promote cold fusion the whole world will surely stop and listen, like nobel laureates Julian Schwinger or Brian Josephson or highly tenured scientists like George Miley, Fritz Will, Yoshiaki Arata, P. K. Iyengar.

        • Gerrit

          If you want the world to pay attention, it would probably be better if Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton and Justin Bieber would casually mention the topic.

          • GreenWin

            If you’ve got Kim’s phone number, I’ll give her a call.

  • georgehants

    Andrea Rossi
    January 13th, 2013 at 5:05 PM
    Dear Italo R.:
    The Third Party Validators are totally indipendent from us, they are not paid by us, therefore we cannot urge them or order them anything. They are free to publish where they want, when they want, whatever the results: this is how an indipendent test works.
    All I can do is wait and hope. And work for my Customers 16 hours a day, as usual. What depends on me, depends on me, what is indipendent, is indipendent.
    Warm Regards,

    • daniel maris

      It’s OK, Andrea…we’re used to waiting…and waiting…and…

    • Peter_Roe

      “they are not paid by us,…”

      By whom then? It must be the new owner of the technology, but even so you would expect Rossi to have rather more knowledge about a reporting date, and he has already said he knows the results are ‘not worse’ than his own. Of course the further implication is that AR (as he says) has no control over when the report will be published – or even if it is ever published.

      • Omega Z

        Morning Peter

        Could be Rossi has some feed back I suspect, But not aware of how the Official report will be written up. What it’s conclusion will summarize.

        Also, Didn’t Rossi say that if it wasn’t excepted or published in an Official Journal or Magazine that it would be available in ?arhvix? or something to that effect.

        Guess I’ll try to find that statement if I can…

        • Omega Z

          Found This to My question.

          Andrea Rossi December 22nd, 2012 at 8:49 AM

          Dear Frank Acland:
          If the magazine peer reviewing will be negative, the report will be put on Arxive.
          Warm Regards, A.R.

          • Peter_Roe

            Morning Omega.

            Rossi’s story about this seems a bit confused (or confusing). On the one hand he is talking about a 3rd party test report, but on the other, about submitting a research paper – an entirely different thing.

            At some points he indicates that the results are expected soon, but if (as the comment you’ve copied seems to indicate) he intends to write them up and submit them to a peer-reviewed journal, they would in fact disappear for months while the PR process grinds along its tracks.

            He seems to be saying that only after this process is complete will he publish the paper on Arxive, and if this is the case it might mean that the results may not be seen for up to a year or so from now, whether or not they are accepted by the journal.

            In addition, if the tests were not commissioned by Rossi (as he is now saying) then any decision to publish will not be his to make in any case, as he will not own the data. I have to admit that my expectations are not particularly high at the moment – the story just doesn’t seem to hang together well.

          • Mark

            Doctor Rossi mentioned Juiliano
            Bettini as a member or the head
            of the independent validation
            team. Professor Bettini posted
            an interesting article in JONP,
            sometimes last year or in 2011, about the
            principles of E-Cat. Some comments
            to the article are also worth

          • Ivan Mohorovicic

            Where did Rossi mention that Giuliano Bettini is a member of the validation team?

          • Mark

            Rossi posted following in this thread:
            “Andrea Rossi
            January 13th, 2013 at 8:48 AM
            Dear Giuliano Bettini:
            I am very anxious to read the report of the validation test made by a third party during December 2012.
            Warm regards,

          • Ivan Mohorovicic

            I don’t think he said that Bettini is a member of the validation team, just that he is anxious to read it as probably Bettini is too.

    • This is so not true…

      In the same agreement of the NDA you can set the publication issues, why call third party testing if the third party doesnt publish the test ? mostly is for publicity of your idea/product to get investment, this “is independent of me” is bs.

    • Jimr

      Mr. Rossi, if you have no control over the release of the report, why would you have posted earlier a release date of end of Jan./early Feb. Those type of statements are why people question your honesty.

  • georgehants

    Admin the new RSS feed only selects the one topic, would it be possible to have back the old one that picked up all replies.

  • julius

    The picture is showing what I call a “Quenelle de 175 !”

    At least , this how we do in France.

  • georgehants

    The Worst Scientific Mistakes, Missteps and Misdeeds of 2012
    Science is not immune to the foibles that plague ordinary, not-parked-at-a-lab-bench citizens. But mistakes made in a lab can be dangerous, and even deadly. Misleading or faulty scientific reports can send other scientists astray, wasting years of time and hard-earned research grants. Badly designed apps and poorly analyzed data can help lose a presidential election.
    Every year, a number of scientists are caught in various forms of misbehavior. Now, some scientists even study the misdeeds of others. Here are some of the most notable examples of science-related errors, missteps and dishonesty in 2012, ranging from the mildly amusing to the truly deadly.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Please let us stay on subject, LENR, there are many other sites to discuss “red rain” and other interesting subjects. Where are you Admin?

    • georgehants

      Bernie, if you put up something interesting concerning Cold Fusion I am sure we will all discuss it with you.

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        georgehants…..Sorry I thought we were discussing MFMP, the article we are commenting on is “MFMP Starts New Live Test”. Did I miss something, what does “red rain” have to do with the subject?

    • Karl

      I must say I appreciate George scientific scrap of various science information pieces, even if it sometimes is slightly off topic. It keeps this site lively while we are waiting on the “big thing” to happen from Rossi or other Cold Fusion actors. A driving passion behind this sometimes seemingly off topic notes is often reflecting the one eyed behaviour and sometimes false information from the main stream scientific community, at least how I see it. I think it is very important to keep this in mind as it so negatively influence the truth about Cold Fusion and potentially other information that “we” may not supposed to know of.

      • Peter_Roe


        • barry simon


    • Tangled Connections

      I think we need a new poll!

      Do you find George’s frequent OT posts….

      A. Love them – I’m a much better informed individual thanks to George’s generous spirit.
      B. They’re Ok – I occasionally click through, but he does go on a bit.
      C. What posts? – Oh that George, I just skip em and get to the good bits.
      D. Not Again. – If he doesn’t stop soon I’m going to tear my eyes and post them to him.
      E. Gone Elswhere – Bye……

      I know how I’d vote!

      • freethinker

        Well now,

        George, I will now talk about you in third person. Hope you do not find this offensive.

        George has been in this forum as long as I can remember 🙂 well longer than me, and have continously served up interesting items on cf and lenr. He has also taken active part in many if not most discussions, often with interesting, if sometimes slighty provocative, comments. That is what a forum needs. To me he has earned, if not the right atleast our good will, to be allowed to endulge in occasional OTs.

        Many times his writing is about the corruption of scientific principles and the propagation ad nauseum of dogma. Sometimes it seem very OT but is still somehow relevant, sometimes it is outlandish and way out there somewhere between the Milkyway and Andromeda. To me it is more often than not interesting reading.

        Also there seem to be a vacuum in the information right now, except for MFMP. Where are everybody? McKubre, Hagelstein, Miles, Storm? We basically have only ARs trickle of info in anticipation of some coming great event. Defkalion? That means there are space and time for some alternative angles.

        In the end, admin makes the decision.

        So, George, keep it up. As long as cf/lenr stuff outweigh OT stuff, you have my vote.

        Let the sun in, everybody 🙂

      • Bernie Koppenhofer

        I don’t mind at all if someone posts a new subject like, “For anyone interested in “red rain” we are discussing it at this site, “xxxxxx”. But some of us came to this site because Admin put up a new article, “MFMP Starts New Live Test”…. Red Rain is just way off subject matter and it is my opinion lengthy discussion on that subject should go to another site. Just my opinion, no big deal, I too enjoy georgehants posts.

        • Peter_Roe

          As Freethinker says, there is not much CF news, and diversions are welcome. In any case, any relevant on-topic comments will continue to be made, so there is no detriment to the forum. In fact the fossils in a comet story is so huge that it goes well beyond being a ‘diversion’ and I for one am grateful to George for bringing it to my attention.

          However we are all aware that such things are OT, and limit our discussion accordingly. If these OT discussions become excessive, as they occasionally do, Admin will usually politely request that we take them elsewhere. It’s Frank’s blog, and his call when he judges that a line has been crossed.

          In short, there doesn’t really seem to be any problem. Thanks for your lively and far ranging input George!

      • Tangled Connections

        I’m an A also… Was written with a light heart. Thanks George

    • Chris I

      The real problem isn’t in posts such as his (interesting!) one about the Polonnaruwa meteorite. It’s more to do with those like his self-reply where he makes out that it is being hidden (by The Establishment, of course), especially when it is not really so. See my reply to that one, and you can even try googling the words “Polonnaruwa” and “meteorite” to see what comes up. One online news site had an all too sensationalistic title about it, with one of those alien body photos making it seem at first glance that a humanoid alien had fallen from the sky.

      One thing is to say that researchers can and do make mistakes and some of them, occasionally, have been deliberately deceptive. One can also blame certain other parties for mismanagement and manipulation of research. These considerations do have a part in the topic. Another thing is to keep crying foul in a manner suggesting that the whole academic world is at fault, without at least singling out the really culpable parties.

      • Roger Bird

        MFMP’s presentations are so dense with details that I can’t tell the answers to the following questions: Are they getting excess heat? Are they confirming, so everyone can see it, LENR?

        • Hi Roger,

          We are seeing something interesting already in this run – especially as we change the steady state, these 2L and 14L wires are not playing quite as dynamically as the 300+L wires – but that is to be expected.

          Please see my post below about our internal replication process as detailed from the outset on the site. When the post analysis is done we will be very certain that the apparently successful December 2012 run was successful.

          If you did not catch the SEM before images – some are here:

          Our development direction to insulated steel cells that require nearly no input power to achieve high temperatures, lend themselves to far higher signal to noise ratios.

  • clovis

    Yep, Frank.
    You have things looking up, keep up the good work,
    Just slap a coat of paint on her , and waa,laa —smile

  • georgehants

    January 14th, 2013 at 8:31 AM
    Dear Dr. Rossi,
    According to your last answer it seems that the cat single module cannot be more powerfull than like now. You can rise the power only with more units together. Is there any reason? Can you put more powder and hydrogen to get more energy in a unit?
    Kind regards.

    Andrea Rossi
    January 14th, 2013 at 12:33 PM
    Dear Stefano, you are right. It is a matter of safety.
    Warm Regards,

  • barry simon

    Looks great Frank! Thanks for the info on the MIT Cold Fusion class. It cost zero dollars and by remarkable coincidence that’s exactly what I have in my savings account. I’m going!

  • artefact

    From the Text:
    “We’ve have Kewaunee, which is shutting down in the Midwest because of financial reasons. And now we’ve got UBS analysts and Fitch analysts also claiming it makes no economic sense to keep other nuclear plants running.”

  • GreenWin

    Interesting that mainstream US publisher The Huffington Post is carrying a story titled “Radical Alternatives: Energy Sources to Transform Our Future” first posted end of November.

    There are two mentions of cold fusion – the e-cat, and Brillouin, both in a positive light. This is one of the first Green media sources (GAIAM-TV) to seem enthusiastic about CF. And it fits with the methodical disclosures of new technology and social sciences.

    • daniel maris

      Yeah…whatever happened to Brillouin?

      • Omega Z

        Brillouin has been silent since they signed a deal to build a scaled up prototype with SRI.

        • Yet another company changed from last year when they were on track to have a product for sale to the public by the end of 2012.

          Hopefully a product will be manufactured soon with their Chinese patent office approval.

          First to market and I have not seen the first protoype product actually built before revision

  • daniel maris

    Seems to be that they are getting a negative (!) reading on this test. Is that what others are seeing (no one seems to be discussing the test!!)

    • Ged

      There’s a lot of data feed problems at the moment, but the wires were loading still last I saw, so no expected P_xs. That was awhile ago though.

      Right now power is ramping back up, it seems, so it’ll be negative for awhile.

    • NJT

      Just checked and it looks to be running just over 1.7 watts of power out (P_Xs) at the moment.

  • Mickey

    Well, Gary Wright dropped another bombshell.

    “Has 22 Steps of Love Given up on Rossi?”

    Daniele Passerini, Rossi’s friend shut down his blog.

    Frank – this needs a new page.

    • pg

      He has family issues and can not follow the blog, nothing to do with Rossi

    • captain kirk

      No Gary Wright took a bombshell hit to his brain a while ago…. he’s a total moron

  • Stephen

    vertical, horizontal, upside-down… fine: but does it work?

    I got lost after all the info, calibrations, cross-tests: the impression I get is that they are themselves trying to figure out whether the effect is there or not…

    • daniel maris

      As far as I can tell they seem to be reporting similar results to some other teams: small positive effects that seem to have a rythmn of their own – but nothing on the scale of Rossi’s claims.

    • Hi Stephen,

      Thanks for taking an interest in our work. We are following the evidence with an open mind in order to develop a repeatable experiment that shows incontrovertible excess levels and for long enough so that all known chemical means can be discounted.

      The experiment is not meant to be a power source but a tool for verification and study of the effect.

      In our second active run in the EU we were pretty confident we saw a minimum of 12.5% excess over a time frame that would easily discount chemical means. We are looking forward to getting time on an SEM and other tools to establish if there has been any change in the structure of that wire or its elemental composition, we will report on that when it is done.

      Given that the wire is 0.27g or less in our experiments and only part of it is active, it is a VERY small amount of material that could produce the effect.Additionally no power pulses or waveforms, radio, laser, thermal, pressure, sonic, plasma or arc potential triggering or control methods reported to work in other LENR is used but we are trying to make the experiment open to these tools later on so that researches can have a lot to investigate and value to add when the final design of cells are spread far and wide.

      Even under such steady state thermal activation, ST Microelectronics was effectively reporting potentially extremely high energy densities. There experiment was configured so that VERY low input power resulted in high temperatures, we are also building a cell that will work in this way.

      We were asked by some of our followers in addition to Dr Edmond Storms to try the cells in the vertical orientation. Our experiments have shown we can repeatedly replicate Celani to varying degrees – but we believe that we will have to produce an experiment that will

      – run on much lower input power to achieve loading and triggering temperatures
      – be capable of handling higher pressure and temperatures
      – have much better calorimetry

      It may not be as pretty as Celani’s original, but it will use his wire and it is hoped will reliably produce far more excess heat.

      If you have programming, electronics, materials science, engineering, chemical, data analysis etc skills, keep an eye on our collaborate section for a raft of project related mini-projects for you to get involved with.

      • dandelion

        I am an almost complete illiterate in any kind of science, but I can understand vaguely a small part of what goes on with your experiments. And I respect you people for what you do. But…

        As I have seen, calorimetry is elusive. Detecting surplus power, well, is highly debatable.

        What is not debatable are the results of spectrometry.

        This is why I think, with my feeble mind and weak knowledge, that the most important experiments regarding LENR are not those that concentrate on excess power, but on transmutation at low temperatures. Also, it is my far fetched guess that you will learn much more about the LENR mechanism by following the transmutation phenomenons, rather than the power gain path.

        The word is too big and overused, but there should be a transmutation crusade. A focused effort to prove that you can transmutate elements at temperatures under 1000 Celsius, using far less energy and money than on hot fusion.

        I wish that an effort like yours would be made with the only focus on trasnmutation and spectrometry, not calorimetry. My uneducated guess is that the excess power will be a byproduct of such experiment, and in the effort to increase transmutation, the rise of excess power will follow.

        Please, someone, concentrate on transmutation at low temperatures! I really beg you.

        • Thankyou Dandelion for your thoughtful comments,

          As per the original plan – we are scheduling SEM and EDX Spectroscopy for the EU wire as we did prior to the run to analyse structural and elemental particulars of the 350 layer wire that seamed to have a successful run in December.

          As we are reliant on donations, goodwill of team members and their our own limited resources – we do not have the best equipment in house. Having said that we were given access to great equipment before and hope to secure access soon to do the post run analysis.

          If we see interesting structural changes and elemental transmutations, we may be far more certain that we achieved LENR in that December run. That would verify that we are well on our way to making a reliable, repeatable experiment that can be shared more broadly.

          In Summary: If we see more elements – we can be pretty sure we had success in December – that means we are good to refine the experiment for a wide based replication effort.

          • dandelion

            Thank you, and good luck!

  • jcameron

    Any update on how this is going.