MFMP Seeking Input on Campaign Document.

The MFMP team has just put up a blog post in which they are asking for input from the LENR-following community about the following document that they are going to put on their Kickstarter page. I spoke with Bob Greenyer tonight and he said that the feedback they had received here and on had been very helpful in helping them define the scope of their future goals which are outlined below. The purpose of posting this document here, as well as on is to give as many people the chance to provide readers to help them make this document as effective as possible. The audience for the document is the general public — mostly people who have no knowledge of LENR to this point.

If you have any suggestions, comments, corrections, etc. that would be helpful to the MFMP team, please post them in the comments below, or on the Quantumheat site. They are not seeking a critique of the project itself — that has now been decided — they are now looking for help with making the pitch document as good as it can be.


The goal of this project is to show the world there is a safe, cheap way to harness energy from the atom without harmful emissions or residue.

It will achieve this for £50,000 by successfully concluding our replications of a leading scientists recent experiments, publishing them Live at

Stretch Goal 1: If we can raise £150,000, we will then produce a minimum of 3 complete set-ups and send them to internationally respected competent institutions. When there, they will run a live web connected experiment, over a few weeks, that anyone can follow, analyse and be confident in. Subsequently, the institutions will be free to extend the experiment in any way they choose. The more money we raise, the more experiments we can distribute and the better we can publicise them.

Stretch Goal 2: If we can raise over £350,000 we will ship out and support a minimum of 10 experiments and use any spare funds to start work on complete open source energy generators and associated control and data logging software and hardware.

So why should I care?

Safe abundant energy will allow us to turn the deserts green, stop destruction of forests, provide water where it is lacking, 24/367 vertical farming of all climates crops within cities, long distance guilt free travel, end of the acceleration of climate change, the list is endless. Most importantly, it gives our children and the flora and fauna of our home a future.

So what is the experiment?

An experiment to demonstrate the releasing of energy from the mass of hydrogen by use of a special nano material under thermal and other changes.

It is a relatively simple piece of precision engineering combined with active elements designed to show power excess higher than any known chemical process could explain. It is connected to the internet in independent locations and published live so that data can not be cherry picked or controlled by a vested interest and is free to be analysed and challenged by anyone. The exact same experiments will be run first and afterwards the participating organisations will be free take the science wherever the data and their skillset leads them.

The purpose is to provide incontrovertible evidence of the effect so that the world then has a real choice as to how to invests its time and effort moving forward.

To produce the multiple replications, ship media teams, do legal, build a better site, handle the aftermath will all take significant funds and we would love it if you could help.

Tell me more!

It seems that extremely small amounts of common safe input material can result in vast amounts of excess heat by weight and minute amounts of harmless contained ash. That is the power of E = (MC^2) X (Open Minds)

Because it does the useful heating bit that fire does much better and avoids the nasty emissions, it is definitely an upgrade, so we call it the New FireWe believe it is the most important thing man has ever invented. So what is the New Fire?

The New Fire involves a selection of safe elements interacting in such a way that they can release energy from themselves as they change to other harmless elements.

Whilst we are open and independent, an amazing scientist called Professor Francesco Celani, has been working very closely with us, this affable guy was invited early last year to CERN to represent the state of the art for the whole community of researchers in this field. His presentation can be read here:

Celani’s Cern Presentation

Since this presentation, Toyota has replicated Mitsubishi Industrial’s experiment. This is independent proof from top Japanese industry that you can turn Tungsten into Platinum without needing a tame supernovae. There is also good evidence to suggest that mercury is transmuting in common fluorescent lightbulbs. This means that there is much more to learn about the structure of matter and how it can be made to interact – but then we know that you always knew that humans didn’t know everything already!

Celani himself made great strides since giving that presentation and for the first time, showed an experiment publicly that he claimed produced significant excess heat in both National Instruments Week in Texas where NI showcased their support for Celani as they did for the emerging field in general. He then re-ran the experiment with positive results a few days later at ICCF-17 in Daejeon, South Korea.

It was at ICCF-17 that the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project (MFMP) at was born and where, along with many others, Celani encouraged us to take this project Social. Check out our channel for some of the people that spurred us on.

The primary goal of the MFMP has always been stated here as:

Show to the world there is a new practical primary energy source we call the New Fire

There were several candidate experimental routes and we explored several but in the end we where struck by the openness of Celani and his willingness to work with us. The beauty of the Celani cell as presented was that it was simply driven by thermal, pressure and power changes and had a reportedly significant excess heat (revealing an incredible underlying energy density), this means that if it did work as claimed, it would make it easy to extend the experiment in many ways. Additionally, the cell was attractive and it could be clearly seen by the observer that there was no trickery, the active component and cell specifics were not hidden in any way. We therefore set about the Celani replication plan.

Before we could really ask anyone else to get involved, we had to be sure for ourselves that the effect was real. So having obtained assurances Celani would supply the active wire to us, we set out to build replicas of the Celani cell and to go through a process of meticulous LIVE testing in the full glare and critique of the scientific community. Here is the blog of the on-going work.

This work has involved many thousands of hours of work from the facilitators and their own private company resources and cash. In addition very generous donations were made on the site which have made a real difference to our work. Special thanks goes Paul Hunt who has fronted a good chunk of the engineering costs, here is an early video of his operation.

There were setbacks but we persevered and after a partial success in the US, the EU set up, when it went to an active run, seamed to show something positive.

At around the same time ST Microelectronics (huge multi-national electronics firm) reported that they had successfully shown significant excess heat with Celani supplied wires.

This fact, Nasa’s comments at the end of the year (8mins in), and our own research has given us the confidence to ask you all to help us light the New FireWe have not stopped experimenting, indeed in the next few weeks there will be between 2 and 4 cells running and publishing live on our site and we encourage you to look at the data and suggest ways we can improve the cells that are sent out after this Kickstarter. In recent weeks we have had some real heavy weights like Dr Edmond Storms in this space join the other leading scientists that are advising us.

How is the New Fire different from LENR?

The New Fire is a subset of Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENR). Specifically, the New Fire is those LENR reactions that produce excess thermal heat from safe and abundant source elements, creates no emissions during the reaction and leaves no long term harmful waste.

Live Open Science

During the course of carrying out our work, we believe we have stumbled upon a new way of pursuing science. Rather than designing and using secret apparatus behind closed doors in secret locations and running experiments first, collecting the data, selecting data, treating the data, publishing reports to closed groups and then, later, publishing to the public. We are publishing our apparatus designs, experiment procedure to the web and LIVE publishing our experiment data RAW as it is generated and analysis tools to the web for anyone to pick holes in and analyse. It has meant that we have benefitted from a huge number of active participants to the MFMP and we are expanding this type of collaboration into many related areas of the project and its support.

We are calling this Live Open Science (LOS) it is a process everyone can be a part of – we believe their are millions of minds out there that can make a real difference to science – intuition and reasoned direction comes to us all. We hope that this kickstarter means that our vision of live science for the people and by the people can come to other projects soon. One of our collaborators put this piece together to summarise his feelings for the project.

Whilst it was necessary for us to do the internal replications. We do not feel it is sufficient for the world to either know or believe that there is a real alternative for humanities future. We have been advised by scientists that we need to do at least 3 exact successful replications at respected independent locations for it to be accepted. We need a minimum net of £105,000 to achieve that, but we would like to raise more and get 5 or more out there, maybe as many as 10 would be awesome and then any extra money could go to full on publicity of the Live experiments – say through media blitzes and social web promotion. If we could get cells into top institutions in US, EU, Japan, India, China, South Korea for starters that would be awesome – why? Look here!

The Mayan’s were Right, the old world ended in 2012, the world of the New Fire is here and according to Nasa, it may enable us to leave the planet.

But my science professor says different…

Well, say, that you appreciate his opinion but could he go and study QuantumHeat.orgthis site and this paper from 2007 (before much of the recent research) and come back with justifications for his stance.

Some say that the only way to achieve something is to copy the way the rest of the universe does it naturally. That is plain bonkers, by using what is there in the universe and engaging the brain, humans have created the microwave oven for instance that makes power specifically shake water molecules in a tuned cavity to heat food.

Many of the human races greatest advancements come from learning how we can make novel stuff that will react in a specific way when energy of one form or another is applied and the basis for the New Fire is no different.


– The New Fire is real and has the potential to profoundly change humanity
– Multiple international internet based live replications of an experiment demonstrating this will Kickstart public and private investment into this space
– Much of the world issues will be mitigated
– It will allow us to ultimately leave this rock
– More information and many additional links available here

This work is dedicated to the great British electrochemist Pr. Martin Fleischmann

  • Ken

    Frank… I think this is your answer to promoting LENR or i should say cold fusion. Might i suggest a media campaign with Fox news. This may sound premature but if we get together a petition with enough signatures we may get them to do a story. I’ve also posted the document over at (

    There may also be a need to consolidate all inputs from all sites covering this. Maybe setup a list of sites covering this like then MFMP can review the inputs and compile a database.


    • Mike J

      Ken – you say promote LENR with FOX News ) alternative energy there is no way in Hell Fox News would touch alternative energy, where have you been?

      • Peter Roe

        Once the proof is available it might be possible to interest people like Alex Jones or Jesse Ventura in the ‘suppression’ story. The mainstream media will continue to ignore the whole thing until some time after their offices are powered by LENR, unless at some point they are briefed to spread disinformation such as fake safety ‘concerns’.

        • Ken

          ^ What Peter said. But it’s not too much of a stretch to give it a try. If they did agree to do a story then it would serve to make a larger portion of the population and world aware.

        • GreenWin

          Standing orders to all mainstream press are “No LENR stories” not approved by HQ. Only Forbes and NASA LaRC have approval to do very limited mainstream stories on LENR. This follows news blackout ordered after the FoxNews story on Rossi’s October 2011 1MW demo – naming Navy’s SPAWAR in attendance. This is prime evidence of violation of U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment:

          “The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech.”

      • Roger Bird

        I have not been watching MFMP much because I have not heard anything about replication. As much as I am in love with LENR and believe and hope in it, I still need replication to get excited. Did I miss something? I sure hope so. So I think that all this talk of campaign seems a little premature to me.

        • Hi Roger

          Every experiment we have run, we have replicated what Celani found in the resistance dropping (R/R0) changes in his wire when loading with Hydrogen. In many of the rest of the experiments we have seen some evidence of of PXs on the same basis as Celani’s findings, however, as it was a replication of Celani’s experimental design, there were many ways in which it can be criticised and the apparent PXs dismissed – none more so than gas pressure and composition questions and related convection and conduction issues.

          We have developed a number of calorimeters and cells some of which have been passed over and currently have:

          – Improved celani type (we call V1.3) and we are gearing up to run 4 of these in 2 differential experiments in US and France (Mathieu and Ryan)

          – 2 X very much improved and flexible cell made of steel and glass that is suitable for hydrostatic bath and mass flow fluid calorimetry, we are gearing up these in a differential test in Switzerland (Nicolas)

          – New concentric calorimeter designed for highly accurate experiments with both wires and powders.

          These last ones may be available as rewards for a pledge on the Kickstarter also and will allow 3rd parties to join the project testing nano powders – but significant legal liability issues need to be resolved.

          If we replicate the approximate 26% PXs Celani saw in the V2 vacuum protocol for just 275mg of wire (a fraction of which is actually the nano structured Nuclear Active Environment) in the up and coming differential tests, we will be happy with that – especially if the more accurate steel and glass and concentric calorimeters prove positive also. The V2 protocol removes the gas issues and allows loading and triggering temperatures to be reached with much lower input power than we used before.

          Celani considers our effort replication – but we are mindful of the questions raised by scientists and our followers and we are addressing them so the confidence level can rise.

          • Roger Bird

            What is a PX?

            I presume that you already had your answer typed out for any goofs that come around like me that ask a question like that.

          • Adam Lepczak

            The Px is a value of the unexplained, excess, heat measured in Watts.

          • Roger Bird

            Is PX a % or a multiple or the absolute value. I know that COP is a multiple.

        • Ken

          You missed a lot. They have been replicating supplying live feed of the data.

          Curious if anyone here has every heard of the Key Ring Atom Theory by Dannel Roberts? Interesting spin on particle mechanics and it may offer a better tool set to explain LENR better than the standard model.

          You can read the basics at (


          • Roger Bird

            What does “supplying live feed of the data” mean?

          • artefact

            When they run experiments they stream the data like voltage, preasure, heat at different places, resistance etc live on there website behind the LIVE DATA link.
            The history is also available i think. The experiments log on the right of it tells what is being done in the tests.

          • Not only do we stream it live, the data is available online for post analysis by anyone…

            Look at the experiment log book to find out when certain things where done – like this one for the EU cell


            Then put in the two/from times and level of averaging and you can download the dataset to verify or challenge our findings.

  • Ken

    Roughly $62K US is pocket change if you count the number of people following cold fusion/LENR. I don’t see MFMP’s goals as being unattainable. As far as respectable competent institutions, may i suggest that MFMP get a list together to go with this document. A worry some may have would be that these institutions might resist such a demonstration.


    • We sent a questionnaire to ICCF-17 delegates and have got a range of potential institutions nominated, we have also had a number of approaches and have had meetings with Indian authorities, more on that later.

      We are preparing a survey following on from the discussions over the past weeks that will have this as one of the questions. When all nominations are in, donors to the project will be given the vote to choose the organisations to prioritise in each region.

  • Hampus

    It’s a bit long, and a would love to see a short movie about the project.

    And one thing that get people paying on kick starter is the personal gain. You could have

    10£ get your own flieschman Tshirt
    100£ get your own nickel powder
    1000£ come and visit the lab and get a dinner with the team.

    • Ken

      Great ideas! I second that vote.

    • Hi Hampus,

      Please have a look at the suggested rewards here

      • Hampus

        Very nice 🙂

    • JJE

      Personally, if I make a donation, and I will, I don’t want receive a gadget. Money is too precious, especially in this project, to spend it in futilities.

      On the other hand, on the right side of the E-Cat World page, I see this: Total Voters: 1,727. If each voter gives only £ 30, the first goal is reached…

      Where can I pay 🙂 ?


      • artefact

        From ColdFusionNow:

        Cold fusion powered car engineer has history of discovery
        (Dennis Cravens)

        Interesting background information…

      • That is very generous of you JJE.

        We loose 9% in fees on Kickstarter even with no reward given, 4.5% if you donate directly on the site.

      • Stephen

        Sorry for asking such a naive question, but did they observe excess heat or not? And if the answer is yes, with what level of confidence? This is a serious question, not a provocation… the website is full of interesting stuff and comments but… I could not find the proof of the effect, which I would say is the most important thing.

        Sure, there is the live data but they say there is still quite a bit of systematics to sort out. So is it still all preliminary work?

        • Kim

          It seems they give a plethora of info
          yet in the final analysis the only thing
          I want to know is

          What is the imput.

          What is the output.


          • Stephen


        • Shane D.


          As Bob mentioned, MFMP has put out an incredible amount of info about their activities and findings. So much info it seems, that many lose the forest for the trees and see nothing.

          Here is a good video Bob linked to above:

          At the end he concludes that their low ball, most conservative estimate, for excess power from their cells is 12% while their more liberal estimate is 50%.

          I did follow the debates on the MFMP site while this was happening and some knowledgable people had some real misgivings re MFMPs conclusion. Not all, but most.

          It was a real eye-opener for me… as I thought calorimetry was an established basic 1/2/3 science. But it appears there is some amount of art involved, and where there is art, unfortunately there is plenty of room for interpretation.

          The only thing to do, which MFMP is setting up to do, is to so limit the variables through high engineering, that the relatively small excess is irrefutable.

          Of course, if MFMP were producing 600% excess like Rossi claims, then this debate would be unneccessary.

          • Stephen

            Thank you!

            Indeed… I am sure it’s not easy to measure output heat in a reliable way. I appreciate the amount of info they provide on the site. Maybe they might organize information so that oen can spot key info more easily!

            Also, I share your view that a 600% excess heat would not require such a detailed discussion.

        • The results here in the EU were pretty interesting.

          This was as close as we got to a replication of Celani’s ICCF-17 experiment, however, we, scientists and the followers of the project found too many ways to cast doubt on the experiment design and our replication. So thinking caps had to be donned and Celani came up with a great new protocol which we documented here:

          The good news is that if the V2 protocol replications match Celani’s finding, it will retrospectively validate our other results to a degree, but more importantly, according to one of our followers calculations, it points to an energy density of the order of Rossis claims for the Celani wire.

          We are really looking forward to the coming weeks and the pressure is really on!

  • SolarSurfer

    “The goal of this project is to show the world there is a safe, cheap way to harness energy from the atom without harmful emissions or residue.

    It will achieve this for £50,000 by successfully concluding our replications of a leading scientists recent experiments, publishing them Live at”

    That is a really bold and weird claim. How can you predict being successful? Confidence is a good thing but nobody not firmly believing in LENR anyway will read any further after that kind of introduction. The “LENR is real” mantra will get you a lot of cheers on this blog but no money out there in the world which you’re trying to convince of something you, let’s be honest, haven’t done yet.

    • SolarSurfer,

      Good points – we toyed on making the production of a video documentary of our journey the focus of the fundraiser – this we can 100% guarantee.

      There is a secondary potential 100% thing we can deliver now in addition to this – that is calorimeters and associated equipment for people to join the project.

      The phrases you identify are something that we are not wholly comfortable and one of the many reasons this text is open for discussion.

      Thankyou for your input. Do you have any ideas for a better way of putting something across that will help us take the project forward significantly? Please bear in mind that integrity and honesty is paramount to us.

  • Matt

    I don’t quite get it. “The goal is to show the world…” The goal still is to find out if there is anything at all.

    • Fair point

      • GreenWin

        No. We have 23 years of hard evidence proving there IS something. The best proponent of this is Dr. Robert Duncan at SKINR, University Missouri where the next ICCF-18 is being hosted by National Instruments and the Italian Dept Energy, ENEA.

        Pretending there is “nothing” to LENR is head-in-the-sand behavior of path-osceps.

        • The MFMP is not just about one particular replication, it is about bringing wider awareness to this science and hopefully to educate about the facts that are out there and help find evidence to support further study.

  • Publishing of LENR-matters in germany is very rare and even difficult. For this reason I put the above mentioned site in the web. Now I registrate over 1000 eccesses per month. This is my contributen to inform the peoble in Germany!
    Dr. Reiner Seibt – Bautzen, Germany

    • Hello Reiner!
      See also this Site:

      Maybe interesting for your visitors as well!

    • I took a short look on your site.

      Unfortunately you also mention magnet engines, pure perpetuum mobiles, which don’t consume fuels or initiation energy to release (exothermic) energy. This breaks the law of conservation of energy 🙁

      This makes your site unprofessional and dubious, and no one with basic knowledges in physics will trust your other paragraphes…

      If you want more seriousness, please provider only facts.
      For example peer reviewed papers, history, why it was a mistake to call it cold fusion (because physically it’s not fusion) and so on…

      • georgehants

        barty, do you really believe that the laws of physics are to be trusted.
        Do you think these scientists below are “unprofessional.
        New research shows speed of light is a variable”
        Do you not think any science that is afraid to look beyond current Dogma and into the unknown, as with Cold Fusion etc. is as you say “unprofessional and dubious,”

        • buffalo

          for example..the 2nd law of thermodynamics is certainly not fact a lot of evidence is piling up right now in many corners of the world to discredit it.this may yet prove more disturbing to the status quo than lenr itself.

          • On the opposite with speed of data transmission it is one of the most solid “law”.
            It is proven to be behind the heisenberg inequality that is resisting to many attacks.

            note that it is equivalent to the first thermodynamic law, because if you can reduce entropy, you can produce energy, and with energy creation (not transformation) to can reduce entropy…

            speed of light=limited group speed , general relativity+gauge equivalence, and 1+2thermodynamic/heisenberg law seems to be the 3 basics of all.

            the rest seems to be adjusted a little from standard model… not much.

            the great hop of progress is in better using the laws, without staying in comfortazble zone…

            LENR is such a case, where there is no necessary break of TD law, no QM broken, just probable new way to compute QM equations (multi body, coherence)…

          • buffalo

            my replies jump to top of thread sometimes.chek it out

          • georgehants

            AlainCo, regarding your last sentence, I agree, but —-
            Do you agree that it would be a very poor scientist who did not allow until shown otherwise, that Cold Fusion could break every known law including what is currently understood about the Quantum.

          • not needed…
            LENR is not yet understood but seems no more surprising than semiconductors or superconductors, or cavitation…

            It could break long validated laws, but the new theory would have to be compatible with what we observed before… it should only add more decimal to existing theories.

            I like occam razor… until we have to break QM, TD and GR laws, let us assume that things are good old complex QM in lattice…

            If I’m wrong, I will change opinion once the new theory appear unavoidable…

          • Job001

            Slight focus issue. Although most science theory is excellent, occasionally we improve upon science by refining old theory to fit the new data.
            The big issues seem to come from three fundamental areas:

            1.Bias (Theory/Economic (funding, jobs)).
            2.New Research observation incoherence with old data/theory.
            3.Application assumptions and calculations.

            LENR science is progressing very well given that issues exist in all three areas. LENR transmutations, energy yields, independent replication, competing theory, and research are all showing excellent progress even to the point where many consider LENR results proven while the theory needs more research. Even gravity(the cause thereof) remains unproven after over 300 years!
            IMHO, exceptionally few scientists are unbiased observational scientists and most are “plug and chug” users of science theory. Sadly this results in biased, wrong assumptions and bad science.

            IMHO, LENR criticisms come from funding biased scientists and energy cartels that will suffer less business or those who have not educated themselves on LENR, almost totally.

    • Sanjeev

      Good effort !
      I can’t find any link to, which is the most useful site on lenr one can find.
      There is a link to feng shui site, which can repel science people.

      You can see the links on this site (right hand side) for more.

  • Steve R

    1. The goal is great — but I suggest you rethink the appeal. It would be better if you first decide whether you’re preaching to the choir (and thus don’t have to explain LENR), the faithful (do have to explain LENR, but not green energy) or the public (then drop most of the technical details and give links for those interested).
    2. You’ve given us no idea of how you arrived at those amounts. A sentence or two summary and a link to a budget would be a lot more persuasive. It’s perfectly fine if that budget includes the pay for people who work on the project, but if so that should be explicit –along with what would happen to any remainder if the project comes in under budget.
    4. You might think it’s the most important invention that man has even made, but that leaves out half the human race. Not only should you rephrase, but that might give you a clue that you need to broaden your thinking about your audience.
    5. One of the hallmarks of both charlatans and the mentally ill is they insist there is some magic in their own terminology. You’re free to call it the New Fire, but you haven’t shown you have standing to ask us to do so. You’re selling, not buying — and the basic principle of sales is you start where the customer is comfortable.
    5. And it’s not at all like fire. You could just as well as called it the new metabolism.

    I guess this sounds rather cranky, but I hope you can see my intentions are good; I want this to succeed, and a better appeal might raise the odds.

    • AB

      I like your pragmatic criticism.

    • Hi Steve,

      You make some GREAT points, thanks a lot – I especially see the value in talking through the cost base for producing things. We can list the cost of various rewards to pledges and justification for cell costs etc. I think it would be good to detail the net we hope to get from various rewards – we are hoping to net 70% from pledges, but if everyone wants to pledge for cells that average net may be drastically reduced – however, the upside might be that they join the project and we can make faster progress… also more people will appreciate the amount of work that goes into this!

  • My quick take on the proposed text. The subtitles are basically fine. The Achilles heel is the section “So what is the experiment”, because after reading it I still don’t know what is the experiment. I think that it should be rewritten completely. Perhaps divide it into “What is the claim/effect” and “What is the evidence”. Somewhere the word metal hydride should appear, because that’s what the material is, inarguably. Nuclear energy tapping metal hydride reactor.

    Overall, I would question the timing. Why not wait for Rossi’s report and then write it armed with that knowledge. Even if your work is technically independent from Rossi, he is the “Big John” whose doings set the tone.

    • georgehants

      +1, last sentence.

    • Hi Pekka,

      I am a great admirer of your lucid thinking and clear presentation when you discuss matters here, we would be totally stoked if you would consider having a go at writing a description of the experiment.

      We will make the pitch text a live document and you could join the edit team.

      • Thanks, when it’s open please inform me what I should do to get access, email is firstname dot lastname at fmi dot fi

  • b4FreeEnergy

    It would be nice if they could pull off a similar demonstration as Dr. T. Henry Moray apparently already did in the beginning of the 1900’s … (Lit an array of 35 light bulbs of 100W connected to nothing)

    I guess there will be no funding problems anymore after that, nevertheless for some people the amount of money they ask is peanuts.

    • At this stage we are replicating Celani’s experiments, If we match or get close to Celani’s V2 protocol experiments results, the energy density of the active material is very large.

      We are about making something that shows beyond doubt the effect and allows it to be scientifically explored.

  • Philippe Goulet

    I’m with john-64, how much does a CELANI cell/wire cqosts ? You could get crowd funding for shares of the “wires”, build the setup and then send it out to labs. I have not followed you experiments but I recalled Cellani got Watts of excessive heat. Have you at least been able to replicate anything like him already ?

    • Hi Philippe,

      Yes we have seen PXs in the same order as Celani however, the cells and protocols replicated then had too many ways in which the results could be brought into question – so we have gone forward on many fronts and so has Celani.

      Celani developed a new protocol that is much more definitive and showed approx 26% PXs from minute amount of active material. We are preparing to run advanced versions of this experiment in the coming weeks in multiple locations.

      You can see details of the protocol in this blog.

  • AB

    I cannot stress enough how much the success of a kickstarter campaign depends on a well written and structured presentation. Furthermore people are more likely to donate if you’re willing to build a relationship with them by offering them something in return. It doesn’t have to be more than regular updates to keep them informed on the progress.

    As for the presentation: I would recommend being honest, straightforward, using an affirmative and positive language and keeping the discussion to the essentials. The titles in particular are important because they will be the first things somebody will read. Only if the titles are attractive he will read the rest.

    For example: “why should I care?” as title is neither affirmative nor positive. It would change it to “Abundant clean energy can transform the world and we want to make it a reality”. That’s much more powerful language, isn’t it? Actually, this should be the first title in your presentation unless you can come up with something even better.

    The “tell me more” section is too long winded and should be split into two parts and probably reduced a little bit as well.

    Also, put your work before that of anyone else in the presentation. So first, talk about what you have done, what you want to achieve, what you want to do, etc, then mention the work of other groups and the background and so forth. Show off your work! In this way the discussion flows more naturally compared to starting from the beginning – when people come to your project, the probably first want to hear about the project rather than the background or history.

    The maya part should also go. Keep things to the essentials.

    Also, what’s missing are a few lines of who the team doing this actually is and what their credentials are.

    • AB

      Lastly, there are too many hyperlinks. It makes me feel overwhelmed because to understand what you’re actually saying I would have to read most or all of them which is very time consuming.

      Reduce the number of hyperlinks in the body of the presentation to the essentials and instead move them to a section at the end titled “further reading” or something like that. As a general rule on how to handle hyperlinks, the reader should not have to click a hyperlink to understand the presentation.

      • Peter Roe

        Bob Greenyer

        I’ve edited your text for grammar and spelling, and made some other relatively minor changes. If you want to see the suggestions, please download the zip at (MS Word format).

        However, I agree fully with AB’s comments, and think you could improve the presentation enormously if you did a complete rewrite following his ideas.

        • Peter, thank you so much for this proactive work – I have skimmed your edit and I think it is an improvement in several areas.

          We are considering making this into a Live doc, we would very much appreciate you joining as an author / editor – you will need to get a free gmail account and contact us via the green “+” on the site.

        • GreenWin

          In addition to above, you might want to include the NY Times article (jan 2013) on HUG and its sustainable farm approach. There seems little reason to negate the fact that HUG/MFMP occupy the same space – and sustainability is a key goal.

          The more the “green” world recognizes LENR is the best path to sustainability – the wider your contribution base. At the moment, Sierra, WWF, Nature Conservancy etc. are all in deep denial. Once (and if) they open their eyes this project will rapidly fund itself.

      • Some very good points here – we will likely take them on board.

        Thanks AB!

    • AB

      Another tip I have is to look at the most funded kickstarter projects an to learn from them:

    • NJT

      Most excellent suggestion AB and Peter. I will be contributing my small part (US $100)…

  • andreiko

    Geachte planeetbewoners,

    Vertrouw niet op mensen die iets zekerweten, want het weten van vandaag is niet het weten van morgen.

  • buffalo

    @alainco.totaly wrong.the 1st law of thermodynamics has absolutely nothing to do with the 2nd law thermodynamics.the 1st law says you cant create energy from nothing.the 2nd law says you cant recycle energy FOR nothing,which is simply untrue.the 2nd law says you cant create order from chaos without creating more chaos,which is simply untrue.

    • kasom


      fullstopzeroblank is this Your handwriting on an appletoy?

      Would be nice if You try to make Your comments a little bit easier to read and understand

  • lcd

    If you haven’t already gotten approval from kickstarter Isuggest you ask them because They are very picky. Indiogogo might be the better bet.

    • We got approval, it took a lot of time in fact. However, depending on wording and the actual thrust of the project, we may still have problems on actual attempting to launch.

      We have already spoken with Indigogo at a high level and they are very accommodating but their exposure is lower.

  • Shane D.

    In reading the many comments here the phrase “too many cooks in the kitchen” comes to mind. Of course, the concept of crowd funding and open source lends itself to having too many opinions… or cooks in the kitchen.

    Bob seems like a good leader and good leaders look at all input and draw from their natural abilities to settle on a course of action. It may not be to everyones liking as one sees here, but it satisfies most… which I think the MFMP plan does.

    That said, I think the only weakness, obvioulsy, is the need for money. Lets face it, most of us would just love that this labor intensive and expensive endeavor be done without the need of OUR money. None of us has a problem with any group, or individual, doing research on LENR. All the better to get this thing kickstarted… just that it not be done on YOUR dime. Human nature I guess.

    But the fact is that these things, absent an angel investor, needs access to money to be effective. We do want this MFMP to keep going even if Rossi comes through soon. Rossi obviously has found a sweet spot that gives him industrial grade LENR that no one is even close to approaching. He won’t share that with the world you know, and it could take a long time for others to find the right mix to duplicate. All the reason to fund MFMP.

    LENR is in it’s infancy and the more people around the world studying it’s effects the quicker the world will enjoy it’s benefits. To date, ONLY Celani and MFMP have offered to share their knowledge as a humanitarian gift. Throwing a few bucks their way is the least we could do in return.

    Only problem I see with money collections is whether there are enough interested LENR followers, each of whom puts up say $20-50 (US or Euro), to get to the funding levels needed? I already put up 50 and would do another 50 as part of a large group, but we need more than the 800 or so people that read ECW to do their little part.

    I could donate more -as I’m sure others could, but then that defeats the concept of crowd funding.

    • buffalo

      @shane d. I must strongly disagree with you when you say it would take a long time to find rossi,s secret can only be one or combination of a limited number of elements on the periodic table of elements so it WILL be replicated fast if its useful.even rossi has said its inevitable.

      • How about, in addition to making our Celani replications, we offer a few pledge rewards

        – complete concentric calorimeter, supplied with small amount of block constantan (we think we saw PXs from the stock stuff) and details of where to acquire nano powders
        – data acquisition boards, software, control laptop and support to connect to the hive


        This calorimeter will allow people to accurately test small amounts of nano powder and constantan wire and people who pledge can be an active part of the open source project doing parameter sweeps on triggering and active material treatment and catalysts.

        Then we can all light the New Fire together.

        Sound like a plan?

      • sempervivum

        Yes , but Rossi himself remarked that it was a million to one chance that anybody could replicate his formulae when Defkalion stated they had the secret.
        He may have engineered some sort of unique surface morphology
        to elements of the compound.
        And Bob , I am more than willing to throw in $50 , but I agree with Roger Bird, please do not use acronyms without explanation.It is extremely frustrating for those who do not hold a scientific degree

        • Hi sempervivum,

          If it was extremely hard to reproduce because it was surface treatment – then he might be more open about it because that is basically Celani’s approach. More likely it is a simple combination of particle size and treatment combined with a number of elemental or chemical “catalysts”. There is good amount of understanding in the science papers describing things that may assist and some insight in Piantellis patents.

          I can only apologise for not speaking in simple to understand phrases. If anyone has a specific doubt I would hope I could get it across.

          We are planning a FAQ/Glossary on the site for people to get to grips with terms and other aspects surrounding the project, but like everything else this takes resources.

        • Roger Bird

          sempervivum, don’t feel alone. Everyone eventually gets around to agreeing with me. (:->)

  • Sanjeev

    It will be an interesting experiment in itself to see how many people contribute on this thing which for them does not exist yet and which was long ago declared a pseudoscience by the priests of science. I wish them all the best.

    It’d have been wiser if before asking for investments, there was something to show, like a prototype which works, so that you could get many serious people as well. At this time you are mostly dependent on believers, not too many are there.

    It can pick up some interest after Rossi’s report. Totally depends on who signs that report.

    • We are very interested too Sanjeev, but we have to get the message right, maybe it is too soon, we have been holding off for a long time on this for precisely more certain results that can not be challenged. If we see what Celani saw in the V2 protocol work – then we are game on.

      • Richard

        I’ve been following this site almost since it’s inception and I have to say that this may be the first time since the beginning that I can say I feel more positive today than yesterday. I have grown weary with Rossi’s cryptic and often conflicting comments and promises that never seem to come to fruition. I fully expect to hear that the report due in April will not be released because of some third party privacy protection.
        Count me in as part of this crowd funding, but please, please make every effort to keep us appraised of developments, big and small, positive or otherwise so we’re not left feeling duped, which is how I have felt for the last 2 years.

        • Hi Richard,

          We are all about informing – we have put so much out there, hardly anyone has the time to read it – we know this, because even regular visitors here ask questions that have been answered on our site. That maybe because we don’t have the resources to produce a condensed easy to absorb periodical (anyone want to help with that?) or it might be the site design which we are also trying to address.

          We hope that many people can receive or take on experiments and the project will then take on a life of its own well beyond the effort that can currently be mustered.

          Thank you for offerring to donate. We will respect your generosity.

        • Roger Bird

          And wouldn’t it be nice if these reports were presented in such a way that people who did quite make Mensa understood.

  • Dickyaesta

    I am sorry to spoil the party somewhat, but it seems the Chinese have not heard of Cold Fusion or find it irrelevant and plan High Current DC transport lines 3 times which has the USA today:


    and other link about new nuclear reactors in China:


    and even the europeans seem to want in on large distance DC current transport which no is neccesary when Cold fusions breaks through


    Sorry for doublé post this but the other post is awaiting moderation.

    • GreenWin

      The old school is loath to move beyond its dogmatic schedule for human technology. Fortunately, there are good people who no only disagree, but are moving forward with LENR and a whole host of enlightening disclosures.

      There will always remain the religious conservatives who reject technology and hide in insular worlds of horse and buggy and no electricity. It’s a personal choice. Not a social one.

    • Job001

      The China “top down” perspective seems to be that nuclear, coal, wind, hydro, and solar are sufficient for now and they need not yet concern themselves much with health and environment.

      China is installing new infrastructure, including high speed rail, cities, DC grid, and advanced nuclear at a very fast rate. The US isn’t even maintaining existing infrastructure. So, you’ve not spoiled any party.

      • Omega z

        China has been building like crazy for the last 2 decades because their playing catch up. And will probably take another 2 or 3 decades to actually catch up with the Industrialized Countries.

        Problem with the U.S. trying to maintain our grid is Special interest Groups. We needs this but not in my backyard syndrome.

        With new technologies DC current is OK if your building from ground up. Not so much for an existing system. Costs would be astronomical not including the fact that everyone would have to have a Dc-Ac convertor or replace every Electronic appliance & device in their home.

        High Speed Rail isn’t cost effective in the U.S except for a couple short routes. In those few case by the time you get up to speed it’s already time to slow down.

        You also can’t build a straight line in the U.S. Every little town want’s to be included on the way. The fact it’s a hundred miles out of the way doesn’t matter. You end up with a pretzel.

        Example: They built a new 4-lane in my area. Supposed to take 4 years & 37 miles long.
        Reality: Took 14 years & is 68 miles long. On a Good day, it may save you 5 minutes from the old route that was only 65 miles.

        Most Countries can Build a Large section of High Speed rail for 10 Billion dollars. In the U.S. it costs that much to just talk about & prepare. Not a single shovel of dirt turned over.

        We already have a few passenger rail lines that would be cheaper for the Government to provide Free Charter flight service then present rail subsidies. Estimated 50% savings.

        I read a report about the Greek Rail System that stated that for every $1 in receipts they take in, Their Government has to spend $7 to keep it going.

        Amateurs. Let the U.S. build a High Speed Rail System. I guarantee we can spend $50 dollars for every dollar in receipts.
        May be better to wait & see if LENR makes Computer controlled Flying Cars feasible.

        • After a basic cooker for the third world, LENR powered computer assisted flying cars in next on my list.

          Put in destination, direct flight path is negotiated in cloud and clearance given, lay back sleep, wake up at destination.

        • Peter Roe

          We have found the solution in the UK: just add government taxes and ‘green’ premiums to car fuels to more than treble the basic cost, massively restrict town and city parking and make it inconvenient, unreliable and also prohibitively expensive, then rip off rail travellers with fares that make the eyes water but seem doable (just) when compared with the cost of using the car and the risk of being unable to find parking at the destination.

          Edit – meant to be a reply to omega z above but there seems to be a problem.

        • Dickyaesta

          Thanks Greenwin and Peter.

          I was wondering these people(the leaders!?) should know more (about Lenr etc.)than us and invest wisely, be it Chinese public money, US or European, but it seems again ‘wheels within wheels’ all moving in different ways, but then if they are all connected the result should be predictable in the end!

          I hope LENR or Rossi etc. will prevail, because all other turns of the wheels wil have us back in the dark ages fast.

          • the experience is that the leader ignore the innovations, because they a screened by advisors afraid to tell heretic things.

            today industrial seems open to LENR, provided all is private.

    • Peter Roe

      Improved grid distribution would make sense for centralised electricity production whether this is powered by CF or any other means. I think it is probable that CF may be ‘permitted’ in this context but probably prohibited from smaller scale applications and private domestic use, in China as elsewhere. As Omega says, the Chinese choice of HVDC rather than HVAC transmission seems a little strange.

      Edit – we seem to have lost indenting for some reason.

  • e-catworld readers might be interested in the following news:

    “Cheaper green energy storage solution invented by Calgary profs
    Chat over beer generates lower-cost way to make hydrogen from water”

    apparently they are working with catalyst that is up to 1000 times
    cheaper than the usual catalysts using electrolysis for HH hydrogen
    from water.

    • artefact

      “The new process also allows catalysts to be made from relatively non-toxic metal compounds such as iron oxide, better known as rust.”

      Fire Water Fuel – a clean energy company