MFMP Reveals Fundraising Strategy

In a recent blog post over at the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project team set forth their strategy for raising funds to enable them to achieve short and long term goals in their quest to provide incontrovertible evidence that LENR is indeed a New Fire that needs to be lit for the benefit of humanity.

They have a base goal of raising + which would go towards completing their experiments with Celani wire. They have recently built version 1.3 of their Celani cells about which they say:

“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”.

Beyond the base goal they have “stretch goals” of higher amounts. £150,000+ would allow them to distribute 3 Celani cells for replication around the world; £350,000+ would expand that distribution to 10 experiments worldwide; £1.3 million+ would allow them to purchase a 1 MW E-Cat plant from Andrea Rossi, and put it to use as a demonstration model that could be put on display for the world to see.

As many people have been saying, working LENR machines will be more convincing than scientific reports, and I think the efforts of the MFMP are terrific. I am particularly interested in the idea of purchasing an E-Cat that could be put on display for people to visit, inspect and test. A showcase plant open to the public that is not hidden away in some factory could do a great deal in demonstrating the value of this technology to the world.

There’s a lot of work ahead before this could happen, of course. The fundraising goals are ambitious, and even the base goal is high. My understanding is that before long the MFMP team will be launching a Kickstarter campaign, and then we well get an idea of how much financial support is out there for their goals.

  • Lukedc

    MFMP do have noble goals.
    It will be interesting to see how their kickstarter ambitions pan out for them. I will put up a modest amount when it comes online. Anything to get the sheeples eyes opened.

    • Bernie Koppenhofer

      It bothers me that they rely on others to provide them with the basic ingredients for LENR reactors. As I understand the situation developing the materials used is 75% or more of the research necessary to make an LENR reactor. I will probably donate, but it would be a lot more if they were doing open source testing and material science.

      • artefact

        They do have several powder reactors where they want to try by them self to get them running. They allready collected the funds of 5000 to do that.

        • Hi Artefact,

          The $5000 was an incentive for Paul to fund the re-start of his powder research – but in an open way and through the MFMP. The money raised was for the MFMP primary goals – that of establishing a reliable incontrovertible experiment and distributing it.

  • kwhilborn

    How do we know they are not ALL fundraising. What do they pay themselves? What investments will be split among them when they fold?

    Money raising/fake charities are a dime a dozen and Id like to see more public disclosure about their expenses. Their website is geared for donations as they ask for money so often there.

    I KNOW LENR is real. I would love MFMP to be above board, but I have suspicions.

    What is the consensus about them?

    Do they show their expenses?

    Are they legit?

    • Betuswonkel

      The MFMP seem very legit to me.
      They do not only run on donation but also put in a lot of their private money. And yes they show their expanse, the materials at least, man hours are not included.
      If it were a fake money raising charity it would be the worst one in the world. They already spend a lot of man hours on the project. If you include this, then the total expanses are way more than the money collected so far.
      If they wanted a fake money raising charity then LENR would be a bad toppic choice. A fake save the children charity or something is less complicated and attracts more people than LENR research.
      I think they are doing good work and that it is one of the best charities i have ever supported. If they succeed their impact will be greater then the work of Greenpeace, WWF, etc. charities combined.

  • SolarSurfer

    My impression is that their fundraising seems a little over ambitious. According to the counter on their site they have collected a little less than 14,000 dollars so far (from a 500,000 target) in half a year. I contributed a small amount when they started but lost interest a bit because they seem to have lost sight of their goals. If I were to contribute now I wouldn’t even know whether my money would go into the original Celani replication attempt or the new powder experiments, a cute computer animation or a dinner with Celani. I’d like them to get back to the basics and concentrate on that alone until they either succeed or don’t. They can think about other things once they got there. (OK, that is just my own opinion – but then: what I’d contribute would also be my own money).

  • georgehants

    “we may need some sort of new theoretical understanding.”
    Look Close! Something’s Strange in the Photo of the Universe
    The ancient, leftover light from the Big Bang, however, seems lopsided, with a huge swath of sky at a slightly cooler temperature than the rest. It could simply be a fluke, like getting 50 heads in a row in a coin toss. Or it could mean that the age-old assumption about cosmic uniformity is wrong. The chance is maybe one in a few hundred that this asymmetry could happen randomly, says Bean. “So is it really significant or not? It’s tantalizing.”
    Read more:

    • Karl

      Perhaps universe in indefinitely large and that there are a repeatable recreation of galaxies, each with a limited life lengths. Also, the red shift which basically define the expansion of universe and the big bang, is it an illusion? Humans may perhaps need a different approach to form a physical theory without the many enigmas in the micro and the macro world. This to fully grasp and theoretically explain the phenomena behind what we call Cold Fusion.

      • georgehants

        Karl, agreed many possibilities as with everything.
        What we need, I think is for science to stop making out they have all the answers and set the young free to try and find our possible reality.

    • Peter Roe

      For me the ‘big bang’ theory looks like some serious anthropomorphism. We are born, live and die, so the universe must do the same. Infinity seems to make people (even scientists) uncomfortable, and more comfortable pictures seem to be adopted even if the framework built around it has to be bent out of shape to accommodate the idea (e.g., FTL expansion in the first microseconds).

      • GreenWin

        Peter, consider for a moment that human perception molds human observation. i.e. a fully malleable universe in which human intent actually changes the assemblage of matter. This is the reason scurrying sceps shrink in the face of “believers” since, in fact, heart and mindful belief physically defines our world.

        • Peter Roe

          I agree entirely that all human perception is through a limited set of senses and expectations. As to an ‘observer effect’ on the macro scale, I think the best I could say is that I am open to the idea. (That said, I do routinely use the ‘visualise an empty parking space’ thing with about 90% success!).

          • GreenWin

            Parking spaces appear to confirm intention bias. Just how macro this effect can be made is a big question. At great magnitude, could we not imagine a fellow visualizing a parking space for his… galaxy?

            I am still a bit agog from your remarkable GroHat AGW solution Peter. Hence this grandiose vision of vision.

  • georgehants

    Just interesting information
    Climategate Leaker: Our Civilization Is Being Killed By Lying ‘Science’ Elitists
    This private musing between two climate scientist colleagues first surfaced along with a whole raft of embarrassing material in 2011, when the anonymous Climategate leaker who calls himself “Mr. FOIA” leaked his second set of emails from Britain’s disgraced Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. Now, Mr. FOIA has emerged for a third time, sharing with the world not only his entire batch of 220,000 encrypted emails and documents but also, for the first time, his thoughts.

    • Peter Roe

      More damning background to the AGW scare story that will probably bounce off believers like water off a duck’s back. Obviously the politicians will continue to cling onto this bone until it is forcibly levered out of their jaws by a real scientific and popular ‘concensus’.

      The Ike quote shows incredible prescience:

      “In holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

      • georgehants

        Declassified Docs Reveal Genocide Caused By Chemtrail Testing,

      • GreenWin

        Peter, Ike’s statement, indeed prescient, demonstrates the irredeemable state of “climate science.” And as the troika of corporate politics, science elitism, and cartoon media continues to unravel, should we not worry of blowback?

        Will there be a call for “trials?” Should the coverups and clandestine manipulations come to light at one time – will the villagers not set torches afire and storm the castle??

        As I prefer to make the world a more entertaining place, I will focus on New Fire as the final equalizer. Pardon the guilty (except Mann, Huizenga, Ballinger, Koonin etc) and begin the enlightening work of transition to the New Fire infrastructure.

        Going forward, humanity must heed Eisenhower’s warning and install mechanisms to prevent a scientific elite from using the planet as its personal lap dog.

    • robyn wyrick

      George, I really want to tell you: though I often differ with some of your comments, I think it’s a real service how you keep posting your thoughts, discoveries – and links.

      It reminds me of a good friend, (a commodities trader) who, back in 2002 expressed his concern that the housing market was showing all the signs of a global economic bubble, and from what he could tell, the big banks were so tied up with it that when it burst – in his words – it would be worse than the great depression.

      And while we might have dodged the great depression level – for now – he still thinks the problem is not over.

      Interesting how outsiders are so often the voices of reason.

      And I say this as a real believer that Global Climate Change is real, and man-made.

      Knock ’em dead man.

      • georgehants

        robyn, thanks, let me make it clear re. Global Warming, I think it is possible that we are in such a position but the Evidence and reports are so distorted and invented that it is laughable.
        Of course if I where a Scientist having to earn my living by following an “opinion” I would probably see Global Warming everywhere as well.
        Only when capitalism and money are thrown to the dogs will, at last the Truth begin to be seen in many areas.

        • georgehants

          Astrobiology Magazine
          Turning Excess Carbon Dioxide Into Fuel
          Source: University of Georgia
          Excess carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere created by the widespread burning of fossil fuels is the major driving force of global climate change, and researchers the world over are looking for new ways to generate power that leaves a smaller carbon footprint.

          • GreenWin

            If all humans were issued gas masks to capture and store CO2 exhalations – imagine the trove of fuel! And should clotheswear designers get in on the act, the masks could reflect aesthetic style and beauty!

          • Peter Roe

            In the spirit of giving, I offer my new invention – the GroHat. This a a very broad-brimmed hat of stiff contruction, with a plastic dome covering the whole thing. The hat is equipped with a simple hydroponic system in which crop plants such as tomatoes are grown.

            A mask feeds out-breath to the dome, where the CO2 and warmth massively enhance growth, while the dome admits light from above, even if you are sitting in an office. A waste product becomes sorely-needed food, while requiring no more effort than simply wearing a hat. It’s just win-win all the way.

            The world can thank me later.

          • georgehants

            Now guys I don’t think you are giving this Global Warming thing the reverence it deserves.
            Science could of course do something really daft and put up one Website showing the actual records of the World temperatures over time so that everybody can look at the Evidence.
            Maybe they do not have enough money for thermometers after paying for all the research showing that Global Warming is proven by the Fact that in never snowed in Rome last August.

          • Fibb

            global warming is a very serious and real threat. the Arctic is broken, leading to cold air heading farther south, more often. grab a clue.

          • GreenWin

            Fibb, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Chill.

          • GreenWin

            Arghhh… I am bettered! A “GroHat” makes perfect sense. Feed your EPA-confirmed CO2 pollutant (aka human respiration) to the dome garden… Relax in the sunshine, and come July, ripe tomatoes!!

            Peter Roe for Nobel Biology 2013. With this caliber of invention – how far can we be from Martian colonies??

          • Peter Roe

            Thank you GW – naturally I flush with humble pride at your comment. I expect my solution to not only mitigate AGW to a significant extent but also to massively reduce the cost of table salads, thus raising the living standards of millions of sore-pressed middle class chatterati (who by coincidence also tend to be those who fret most about global warming).

          • Peter Roe

            While I would expect your idea of a simple mask and wearable carbon capture system to be the most widely adopted, I would expect those who really care about our environment to choose to wear a GroHat as both a symbol of their concern and a practical means of climate mitigation.

          • HeS

            @gergehants:”is the major driving force of global climate change”

            Climate change?? This is not Global Warming?
            What happened? We won in the fight against Global Warming? Hurrah, but it is a little too cold:)

  • Peterem

    Energy subsidies account for $1.9trn globally – IMF
    Our Reporter March 28, 2013


    A new report, released yesterday by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has urged policymakers the world over to reform subsidies for products from coal to gasoline, saying that global energy subsidy world over currently stands at $1.9 trillion, with Nigeria alone accounting for N1.3 trillion in subsidy payments for last year alone. In his presentation at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington D.C, yesterday, IMF First Deputy Managing Director, David Lipton, argued that this could translate into major gains both for economic growth and the environment.

  • buffalo

    the mfmp guys are like a bunch of kids throwing matches on evrything in the room live on tv.there is little order,originality, chaos.hard to take their results seriously.let them put me as their director and then you will see crystal clear order.

    • If you are serious, please get in contact through the site.

      • robyn wyrick

        With due respect, there is nothing serious about buffalo’s post. It is critical, but not specific. It is inflammatory but not illuminating. It criticizes lack of order, but does so wildly.

        I don’t mean it personally, just specific to the post – but it is a laughable conceit.

    • To address your other points.

      We necessarily have a lack of originality in our Celani replications, that is the point, we do feel that we have enhanced his work and are doing so with the dual differential cells, the steel and glass cells, the concentric calorimeter (the latter is funded by Paul only).

      It is original to publish schematics, protocols and analysis tools and methods before an experiment and live publish data and encourage others to criticise and analyse everything we are doing.

      Please elaborate on what you feel is unnoriginal and childish – as definitely the latter is not our aim.

      • buffalo

        whats childish bob is that the technical/scientific jargon is tossed around bak n 4ward so much that nobody actualy knows what you are doing.its chaotic.its better to translate and sort it out for the layperson ie.majority’we are looking now to see if the temp will suddenly spike in this thing’as opposed to ‘chek the 1×10.2/3.2 tangent on the spectrofometer go past the 0.3 equilibrium constant’.confusing(smokescreen?)

        • Lukedc

          I really don’t like what I am reading here admin.

          • buffalo

            @lukedc its positive criticism help them

          • Barry

            buffalo, if that’s your attempt at positive I’d hate to hear your negative criticism.

          • buffalo

            im a scientist barry.i want order.

          • Barry

            Hi buffalo, just remember there’s IQ but there is also EQ.

          • GreenWin

            Barry, glad to see your post. As a Bostonian you will find this interesting. And confirmation of Rossi’s confidence in the success of the E-CAT. Since he’s (fictitiously) eying purchase of the legendary Boston Bruins:



        • @Buffalo

          You make a valid point. We do need to simplify the reporting for those that jsut don’t know what it all means. We do want to do that and it has been a topic of conversation, but we are predominantly scientists and engineer volunteers, reporting as fast as we can as we move forward.

          We do have a number of scientists advising us – but the discussions with them would likely need even more work to understand.

          We are open, there is nothing to stop anyone that understands what is going on offering up a laymans version of what is happening. If you or others can help with that please get in contact.

          We are not trying to confuse people and would obviously like the project to be as accessible as possible. Can you point to other examples of good practice in the field that we can learn from?

  • @SolarSurfer

    Firstly, thankyou for your donation.

    Our 100% primary focus is the Celani replications, this should never be in doubt. Members of the team are significantly subsidising those experiments in both cost, premises and labour resources and the donations received are really helping. Paul hunt has also gone to extreme personal expense to explore novel ways of solving many of the questions raised along our way – some of which have proved dead ends, others that have been superseded.

    The Powder cells are being purely funded by Paul Hunt at the moment and support for these will come if we exceed the top stretch goals for the Celani replication, pending donor voting. The powder cells are being run by a university educated intern called Wesley Baish. This research is open because Paul was so impressed by the MFMP and the engagement from outside, that he decided open research was the way forward. There is no financial and very little donated labour resource drain on the MFMP for this work. In addition, they agreed to re-start Powder funding and testing if £5000+ was raised before Kickstarter for the main Celani replications – which was generous!

    Between members, donors and volunteer time, but particularly Paul, very much more than $150,000 has been donated to the project.

    The character was 100% funded by myself and being produced by my staff as an out of the box thinking gift to the project – not one single cent has been spent out of MFMP funds.

    As you can see from the proposed open discussion on our Kickstarter targets, our low goal is £50,000 to conclude the initial replications – if we can’t raise that, it is quite sad. We have a £150,000 to get a minimum number of replications to independent testers. We have been discussing openly what is the strategy we should adopt if we all managed to raise more for further work and there is a consensus forming, come and join the discussion.

    Myself, Mathieu and Nicolas are donating sometimes 12+ hours a day to the project – with regular questions from our families and friends asking us to justify why we are spending so much time and money on it, we do it because we believe it is important.


    We are a Community Interest Company, it is not for profit entity, no dividends can be paid, if the company folds, value of liquidated assets are legally required to be given to the international charity “Save the Children”. It is true that charity trustees can charge for conference work, research work, expenses etc. etc. and that is true for C.I.C.s – it would be nice if we did, the reality has been we have paid to the project in time and money to make it happen. Right now, as I write this, my 4 year old daughter is waiting for me to take her to the swimming pool.


    We only wish we had set up as a charity, we set up as an C.I.C. to be a non-profit that gets around the restrictions on charities for Kickstarter – this week has been very frustrating, as we found that we would have been a slamdunk win for one of 4, £500,000 awards in the “Google Global Challange Awards” … see here

    Here is their criteria:
    We look for organizations that meet three key criteria:

    – Innovative approach or technology that can deliver transformational impact
    – Specific project that tests a big game-changing idea
    – Brilliant team with successful track record and a healthy disregard for the impossible

    Organisations receive a one-time grant to bring their big idea to life.

    Global Impact Awards are not confined to a specific issue. We look for projects that help drive data-based decision making, transparency of results and accountability across the sector.

    Just have to be a UK based charity – and the charity commission would only change our status in 4 – 6 weeks and the project application period from announcement was less that 4 weeks! Absolutely gutted! Only chance is to find a friendly charity that can apply on our behalf – particularly on the Live Open Science hardware/software side. We are all so busy right now with the up and coming Celani V1.3 tests and the Kickstarter preparations.

    @Bernie Koppenhofer

    We are doing material science analysis on the Celani wires. We are doing material science open research in the Powder experiments. People are invited here to engage in this work

    Keep challenging us!

    • SolarSurfer

      Maybe what irritates me a little is the “your money” approach. Let me exaggerate a bit to make my point clear: Why should I give any more of MY money to you so you can replicate Celani when you spend YOUR money on creating a cartoon character and Paul spends HIS money on powder cells. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that you think the Celani replication is less important than Commander Pyro or whatever the name was. So if you don’t bother, why should I? See what I mean? Of course it is your right to spend your time and money on whatever you want – but if the donations to MFMP don’t go where you hoped or expected, then you may want to start thinking about whether the way I feel about your activities lately is not necessarily unique.

      • We are very thankful for donations and appreciate there is a range of opinions. I invite you to look at all of the things that have made calls on our funds by taking a look and the last 10 blog posts. I am saddened that there is the impression that we are not focussed on Celani replication and clearly we need to improve messaging.

        In fact, HUG offering to re-start the powder work stimulated over $5000 in donations to the on-going Celani replication. The HUG powder experiment has its own resources and funding, provided by Paul. I hope that after we have achieved Celani replications, donors may see the value in supporting open source powder work.

        I have donated well in excess of 600 hours, Mathieu, similar, Nicolas 300. All team members have donate time, resources and cash to Celani replication work.

        All money donated has gone only on Celani replication – and a huge amount more besides. If a critical to the experiment off the shelf valve costs $1,500 and we have 8 Celani cells running (as we pretty much will have soon), that is $12,000 alone! We have received less than $14,000 to date. We feel that we are very fortunate to have had internal resources too, but will, energy and cash are not infinite, so we are as efficient as humanly possible.

        I hope we can put your fears to rest in the near future.

        • GreenWin

          Bob, a component of “open” research is the ability to disregard distractions. I think your approach to Celani cell verification has been laudable so far. In particular I find Paul’s selfless contributions to be well beyond expectation.
          Thank you to all at MFMP and quantumheat.

          One question: why when the NY Times covered the HUG work on sustainability was there zero mention of these LENR experiments? A comment to NY Times was deleted w/o response. Agency oversight?

          • We cannot force a free press to say what they want.

            In the example of the local Minnesota press/tv news, they ignored stuff and weighted it to the local audience – this is just a fact of life.

            Any awareness is good at this stage.

    • 1: Tom and Doug seems to like to speak about Cold Fusion. We could ask them to make a show about MFMP, they did a great job on Andrea Rossi.

      They would appeal to the target audience who is not interested in intricate details about “spectrofometers”.

      2: The Google Competition requires (for some reason)you are UK Non – Profit. I called the Charity Commission and they explained that I would have to be located/based in Wales or Britain to register. (Otherwise we could have applied through my charity / non – profit) Does anyone else see a work around ?

      • Dr. Bob,

        I am increasingly appreciative of your hands on positive action. Thankyou.

        1. Tom and Doug could help yes, I really like what they did with Rossi, fun and informative and much more likely to gain a wider group of listeners. The Celani replication is complimentary to all New Fire players as it is about establishing parameters through scientific method. Could you work on setting that up?

        2. The Google challenge is for a UK Charity only, we are already a UK non-profit… It can have operations around the world – that is why the award totally fits the Celani replication/Live Open Science work we are doing. We really need an appropriate charity to work with us to apply for the award on our behalf – that is the only possible way I can see to have a chance. If you or anyone can help with us on that it would be greatly appreciated but we are all out of time preparing for the tests and the Kickstarter right now.

  • buffalo

    presentation bob,presentation for starters must be ruthlessly organized.its not to your benefit,and less so to the benefit of many spectators,both scientists and laymen(who are the majority visitors) to do an experiment and then self-cross-examine it with so many issues that it blurs the line btween a definite failure or definite success.look at j.naudin for example,he makes sure that he has eliminated as many ifs or buts as possible before going live to avoid mass confusion and it realy boosts the credibility of the experiments.

    • @Buffalo

      You are right, we are trying a new way which has challenges… J. Naudin has, I understand, made mistakes in the past.

      We have avoided mistakes and improved things quickly by being open – We don’t have a problem with someone criticising our results, that is the point of being open, we are trying to get all the qualified criticism over with and address before we make any bold claims about experiments we do.

      Since there is no other off-the shelf, try at your UNI experiment that repeatedly works and is stable, we believe our primary goal is as relevant as ever.

  • Hello Guys,

    I think that the MFMP is making a awesome effort.

    When I donated to them, I did not only donate because of the technology they work with but also because of who they are, the connections they have and because of what is at risk for them.

    Personally, when I dont know what to do next, (Which happens a lot)
    I just do anything… because every step in the right direction is a step closer to the goal.

    No one wants this more then them.
    And that is the reason they will soon receive more money from my side.

    / Dr Bob

  • artefact

    From JONP:

    Giuseppe Castrogiovanni
    March 28th, 2013 at 8:52 AM
    Dear Mr. Rossi, congratulations for the results of tests!

    Another step toward a great technological revolution, but that is not all. Now skeptics in good faith will be convinced of that.
    Remain enemies and skeptics in bad faith. These people shouldn’t change their mind now. So, who acted in bad faith, now will do this even more.

    Some facts alone as the NASA’s research about LENR, should have been enough for giving credit to LENR.
    Mr. Rossi, the fact that you were not requested money to anyone -you speak of playing football with the human bones- is a great sign of seriousness of the enterprise you’re realizing.

    Now the recognition of patent becomes a little less important, what matters is that Ecat enters market with maximum reliability and with a significant technological advantage. Isn’t it?

    I ask you some questions:
    1) Are the cost of realization of Ecat and Hotcat (without the production of electricity) quite similar?
    2) On the basis of the latest developments how many month, you think, will it take to place the first HotCat in the market?
    3) Are you considering pairing a micro turbine (or other device) with each Hotcat? Or by connecting all the Hotcat with a larger and more efficient device?
    4) What efficiency can you achieve in electricity production and you are planning to implement in Hotcat?
    5) How much electricity can be produced in the form of electromagnetic field from each HotCat? I imagine you’ve measured that. What kind of figures are we talking about? You think, is it worth to harness that?
    6) Can Widom-Larsen’s theory alone be able to explain the phenomenon?
    7) Is there a unifying theory that can explain the LENR?

    Thank you for your answers e in bocca al lupo!


    Andrea Rossi
    March 28th, 2013 at 9:22 AM
    Dear Giuseppe Castrogiovanni:
    1- no
    2- one
    3- yes
    4- the efficiency of a Carnot Cycle does not depend from the source of energy, as well as the efficiency of any kind of conversion
    5- this issue is under scrutiny
    6- My opinion is that the WL theory is wrong, because, for example, does not respect the leptons conservation law and considers virtual particles, which are very shortlived resonances between actual particles during a decay process, as if they were elementary particles with consistent lifetime.
    7- I have a theory about our effect.
    Warm Regards,

    • KD

      The lately given answers by Rossi, suggests that in middle of April the results of third party test, will be publicized and by end of April, first Hot 1MW reactor will be delivered to customer. Encouraging information.
      I will be very satisfied if it take even 1 month longer.

      • artefact

        Add to that, that the next delivered HotCats are said to have new technologie (two stages) with the effect to deliver a much better COP. He said “the mouse activates the aggressivity of a Cat”.

  • Leo Kaas

    I had the pleasure of meeting with Malachi Heder and Ryan Hunt a few months ago at MFMP. Being able to talk to them face to face and see the experiment first hand, left me with a positive impression of their project. They were very open and patient with all our questions. I wish them the best of luck and in their fund raising efforts. And most of all good luck on the new experiment next week.

    • If anyone wants to meet me, look me in the eye and quiz me to death I can meet in Brno, Czech Republic next week and in London, UK from from 4/4/13 – please contact through the website and we can arrange a group get together!

  • KD

    For me, it is good idea to buy Rossis 1MW E-Cat reactor to show to the public that LENR is real.
    But it would be wrong to do this, just to steal Rossi IP secrets. Since he gave years of work a finances.

    But why not combine the showing of E-Cat with real use it for profit by associated business.
    For example for processing food with low temperature reactor or use it in bakery wit Hot E-Cat. In this case the heat might be stored in the massive walls of baking furnace.

    At the same time the reactor might be use to show visitors that it is working. Of course for fee, which funds cold be used to finance research, to exploit the LENR effect, with using other materials then Rossi is doing.

    • KD

      Also, such possibility to see the working reactor, would be useful for wide range of businesses, building all kind of equipment. To study, if they can combine theirs product with E-Cat.
      Such visitors might be even more profitable.

    • We never intended to reverse engineer it – we have never suggested doing that. It would also count against our open development of powder reactors.

      We intended to purchase for a military veteran rehabilitation centre to offset/reduce their energy bills, like this one in UK

      And Rossi was OK with that. We respect Celani’s IP, we would do with this also.

      We would be happy for delivery to be direct and for the institute to manage security. We would like for 3rd party visits and fro us to run a COP test over time on it only.

      I like your idea also, where energy savings could be embedded into cheaper products. Nice thinking!

  • Robert Ellefson

    Wow, I’m really surprised to read so many strongly-expressed negative thoughts about the wonderful work that the MFMP has been doing. Some people here are speaking in terms almost as if to accuse them of fraudulent charity fundraising! Given the remarkably significant quantity and quality of work they have publically produced so far, particularly considering the palty sums raised by their public donation mechanism to date, I really find it beyond comprehension that people would choose to speak so discouragingly about them and their work. Clearly, they have given FAR more than they have taken in, both in cash and in their precious time, and deserve our enduring gratitude for their selfless contributions to the public interest.

    Are there any other LENR research organizations who have committed to publically sharing ANY, much less ALL of their results?

    • artefact


    • Hal


    • +3

    • Peter Roe

      I think some people may be impatient with Rossi but taking it out on MFMP. Instant gratification is now so deeply engrained it is almost seen as a ‘right’ by some.

    • GreenWin

      Robert, some people are threatened by open science and knowledge. The majority here clearly applaud the magnificent work of MFMP. As do I. Bravo – donation in process.

    • SolarSurfer

      Gratitude is certainly something they enjoy and mostly deserve. However they’re asking for serious money and there it gets a bit more complicated. When I donate to something like this (and I’m not talking about 20 bucks) I want to know what it’s being used for, what it might achieve and where the entire thing I’m donating to is headed. In the case of MFMP that is no longer clear for me. YMMV.

      P.S. I consider plans like buying an e-cat not sufficiently considered. The mere idea seems preposterous. 1.5m is a lot of money for an outfit as small as this and what would it achieve? If Rossi would want the world to know how his e-cats work, he could do that a lot better than MFMP ever could – and if he doesn’t want the world to know, selling one to MFMP would be the last thing he’d do.

      • SolarSurfer

        Can’t help wondering what justifies blocking this comment…

        • buffalo

          buying a 1mw ecat? Its beyond preposterous.why would they want to do this if they have a fully equiped lab enough to build their own device? And why doesnt the billionaire ryan hunt put his hand in his own pocket and purchase a 1mw ecat?

      • @SolarSurfer

        You are right about the 1MW purchase “3rd stretch goal” – we knew the idea may be controversial and that is why we opened it up for debate on our site in the latest blog entry.

        If you look at the comments you will be able to see that after discussion – it is evident that we need to reconsider this idea – with a focus on our long term goals as laid out at the beginning of the project here

    • Barry


    • Karl


    • @ALL

      Thanks for your kind words and support.

      I specifically asked Frank to not moderate the MFMP article he decided to post on ECW, we have never deleted a post on our site (other than when people have asked us to delete their own errors). That might account for some of the candid comments, but it is good to see that many of them are the result of misunderstanding. We need to know what everyone thinks in order to act in a balanced way.

      It is a challenge when only one volunteer is responsible for addressing public questions when there could be thousands of responses in a month which have to be read. When that same volunteer has many other responsibilities to take things forward the time spent now on getting messaging right will free much more time later when more people are engaged.

      There is a difficulty with being open about what an organisation does and is thinking – when we ask people to comment on our thinking, the thinking runs the risk of being taken on as fact.

      Perhaps we should have two sections to the site, one that is fact and the blog – where we are free to be open about our thinking (but comes with a health warning).

      Rest assured, we have not strayed from targeting our primary goal – that of development and distribution of an incontrovertible New Fire experiment to multiple independent respected institutions.

    • NJT

      +6 onward…

  • vbasic

    At first, I was all onboard for the Memorial fund. I like the Celani Wire experiment and their openness. But, Celani gave them wire for the cell experiments, and now they want to believe it costs 150k for others to replicate the cells and experiments. How much did it cost the Memorial Fund to do their experiments?. Also, there is no way Rossi would sell them a 1MW plant, since it is proprietary technology which he wouldn’t want toyed with. I’m disappointed in the direction they are heading. I didn’t like the kickstart thing (bumper stickers? selling Celani wire? not cool ) and the cartoon is horrible. I wish they return to basics and stop trying to be the big dog in open source LENR research. I think the University of Missouri;s program will achieve what the Memorial Fund is trying and get better results.

    • freethinker

      I am sad to say ….


    • @vbasic

      In our blog post here on rewards:

      You will see that for £5,000 we aim to provide a workable core cell of the type we are iteratively working to. We hope the current V1.3 cells that we are doing preparatory tests on right now will form the basis for this.

      We are also considering rewarding pledges for £5,000 separately, the concentric tube calorimeter that can test both powders and wires and promise highly accurate results.

      We will supply Block constantan with both, but people receiving these cells will need to have their own data acquisition tools and we may not be able to supply the off-the shelf swagelock valves as they are $1,500 a piece and 9% is lost to Kickstarter fees before bill of materials, labour etc.

      This is 1/3 of what we initially thought we could build cells for. You have very clearly highlighted that we need to improve messaging.

      If you follow the open discussion here:

      you will be aware of the discussion surrounding strategy and how the position has settled to focussing on our core research.

      In the “Let’s build a goddam Tesla” Indigogo, the largest amount of money was raised from bumper stickers! Endorsed photos and t-shirts were also very good at raising funds. Despite having our suggested pledge rewards published for discussion and alternative suggestions for 3 weeks we have barely had any alternatives suggested at all. We are as a team first time pitching on KickStarter, we did a lot of research to find out what things are received best, please if anyone has a lot of experience in doing Kickstarters, then step forward. If anyone has better ideas or can offer up rewards for pledges at no cost from their companies resources, please contact us.

      • Redford

        I have to say coming here and replying is already something good. That being said, you didn’t adress his main grip. He was actually ok with stickers but he doesn’t get how it can cost 150k to replicate the cells & experiment. I can imagine it all depends on how you want to do it but that needs to be said.

        • If you are talking about the replication cost.

          Assuming that after fees and pledge reward costs we get 70% of Kickstarter revenue. The net for the £50 / 150 / 350k KS would be:

          £35k – to complete experiment and protocol design (assuming successful Celani V2 protocol)

          £70k (over first £35k) – to then build, supply with computer, data acquisition, legal for each site/country, video record, several months support, shipping etc etc… little over £23k for each of the first 3 replications – is that fair?

          £210k (over first £35k) – for 10, that figure would drop to £21 (maybe less?) – is that reasonable?

          Given that the data acquisition used on Celani’s ICCF-17 set up was by itself an off the shelf £25k+ purchase, do you think we are being realistic?

          • Redford

            I think the issue is not reasonable or not but rather what’s the point ? I understood MFMP goal was to create a protocole to make replication easier. But what you’re aiming at now is to be like a company selling gear and services – actually not even that, making people offer gear & service to others. I am pretty sure the logic of it escapes me and has to be explain somewhere but it’s true that it’s all but obvious. So far when reading this you could has well mentionning “Chardonnay” to be send so Science Magasine and that would make as much sense. Again I am sure there’s one but I can understand why some are put off.

            Also I agree, the cartoon character is a miss. Having one, maybe, but not that one. My sympathy for the person who did it but it’s a cruel word with so much professionnal visuals everywhere that it’s not really forgiving to the hobbyist.

          • Currently – there is no affordable device that people can buy off the shelf to explore this science reliably and simply. Yes we are developing better protocol. That will be the same for powder works – but there is so many people to convince and so many things to explore.

            An experiment that is known to produce a measurable effect and canot be criticised will enable research labs, governments and companies around the world to start believing and understanding the technology. This is very early technology and there are literally millions of potential variations of ways to trigger and control the output – and it is inconceivable that a few volunteers reliant on donations could do all this work by themselves.

            Buy having 10,100,1000 groups across the world openly working on this, finding the sweet spot will be made trivial. See our open document here for an idea of what needs to be explored.


            At some point, it would be good to have some funding for the MFMP coming from sources other than donations and members own resources, it would allow improvement of the core experiments, hardware and software, web presence and education materials. So, if the units were to give a modest return to ensure on-going functioning of the project, we feel that is a positive thing.

  • GreenWin

    A message of Welcome from Dr. Robert Duncan, General Chair ICCF-18:

    Co-sponsored by Italian ENEA and National Instruments. It would be exciting to see MFMP exhibit their latest proofs at the conference.

    • georgehants

      He says —
      “and as we apply the scientific method to understanding anomalous phenomena that are based upon reproducible empirical reports”
      I hope they do not use the same “scientific method” as most of main-stream science has with Cold Fusion and many other subjects or we can be sure that it will be found by “expert opinion” that all Evidence must be ignored and we must base all knowledge on the dictates of the Holy establishment fathers.

      • GreenWin

        George, the present anomaly is in the capital H of holy.

    • GreenWin

      The presence of the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Panel at ICCF-18 indicates LENR technology has moved into the venture capital mindset. This means we can expect to see escalating announcements of startup businesses focused around E-cat product derivatives. As LENR represents the largest energy transition in human history, we’ll see something of a Sutter’s Mill goldrush effect.

      Heck, I may grab a pickaxe and throw a hat in the ring!

    • We have submitted 2 paper abstracts for consideration that we wish to present at ICCF-18.

      1. On Celani excess heat replication work

      2. On Live Open Science

      Whilst we do not have “proof” yet, we do hope to have something closer to an experiment that is difficult to criticise the results of. Ideally, we would be able to announce independent people that are to independently test or are testing standardised equipment and protocols.

      • NJT

        Good work Bob and group – keep at it!

    • It would be nice if Rossi’s ecat is independently proven to work until the ICCF-18 starts, and Rossi holds a presentation with a working low-temp-ecat as demonstration 😉

      • NJT


    • buffalo

      ok bob.thanks for facing my barrage of inquisitional questions head-on mate as there are many organisations out there who wuldve simply ignored them if asked going to contact you soon regarding what i believe to be major discovery related to all this lenr research but not nuclear at all.

      • It is no problem at all to answer questions. The discussions and points raised here are often valid and point to areas where we need to get better at communicating. When all you guys are confident and clearly understand what we are doing – then the chances of a successful fundraising from a much wider audience is far higher. I can easily handle a few misconceptions and knowledge gaps of people here, but imagine when there are 20,000 people, we need to have the answers clearly defined now, this is a very useful exercise.

        I am really interested to hear your thoughts, please contact us through the site using the little green “+”

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    This is the first time I have heard Rossi go into any detail about theory especially talking about a specific theory (WL theory) I am not a physicist, can anyone help?

    Giuseppe Castrogiovanni asked Rossi:

    6) Can Widom-Larsen’s theory alone be able to explain the phenomenon?

    Rossi answered:

    6- My opinion is that the WL theory is wrong, because, for example, does not respect the leptons conservation law and considers virtual particles, which are very shortlived resonances between actual particles during a decay process, as if they were elementary particles with consistent lifetime.
    7- I have a theory about our effect.
    Warm Regards,

    • I guess he meant the heavy electrons which are expected by the WL-Theory.
      To create them there are very special conditions neccessary, and the probability this happens is very low.
      Then there is a even lower probability this heavy electron captures a proton from the nickle nucleus to form a neutron (as “reverse beta-minus-decay”), which is emitted and enters the hydrogen-nucleus.

      Pure theoretically the WL-Theory is possible, but in practice it’s very unlikely.

      I think that’s what Rossi meant.

  • artefact


    THE MORNING SHOW with Patrick Timpone, Brad Arnold, Cold Fusion NOW!

    • GreenWin

      This is great to see even off-center media picking up the CF story. A humble note for Brad whom I greatly respect… A touch less tech talk. The public needs to hear there is a “clean, green, abundant” source of energy. They care how it works about as much as how a 4G LTE cell phone works. IMO.

  • buffalo

    why is the billionaire ryan hunt paying for the powder experiments and not the other stuff?

    • @Buffalo

      Paul Hunt is no billionaire, he is of much more modest means and he earnt his money through invention.

      He has been contributing hand over fist financially for the Celani replications and we are extremely thankful for his philanthropic nature. You can see lots of evidence for this on QuantumHeat site.

      He was initially doing powder experiments in secret before his son Ryan joined the project. After joining the project, the focus shifted to openly testing Celani wire, this was the only focus for some 5 months.

      As the Celani replication work was progressing really well and seemingly coming to a conclusion, Paul Hunt wanted to re-start the powder program, but in an open way. We wanted to see if there was an appetite in our followers for that to happen and it became very clear that there was keen interest.

      So more resources have been brought in by Paul, outside of MFMP resources but with the work being shown on the MFMP site – where anyone can engage and debate it.

  • buffalo

    my replies jump sometimes to top of thread

    • Peter Roe

      Lucky you. Mine usually get auto-moderated!

      (OK, that is a slight exaggeration)