Teaser from MFMP

I’m not sure what is going on here, but MFMP has a teaser post up on their blog which suggests something significant is about to be revealed.

On July 27 they wrote a post titled “Could this be it?…. Ready, Set, Go…..” in which they said:

Preparing a big blog post… No we are not hacked…

Keep watching…

And recently they posted an update where they wrote:

We are re-grouping… so much to digest… spent whole day with Francesco Celani yesterday which held us back from working on the blog, but it has added a raft of new understanding…

So it sounds like this news has something to do with Celani who they have been cooperating with for quite a while now. I know Bob Greenyer is a reader here — anything to add Bob? 🙂

  • Bob Greenyer

    It is a lot to do with everything. With the communities help and some focus, we have a real opportunity of pulling all the pieces together. There was some great new insight that came out of the conference but the biggest opportunity that emerged was the palpable chance that the community may be able to work together to the same end, rather than pulling in different directions.

    Some delegates to the conference noted that, for far too long, there have been commercial operations that have taken the work from the dedicated scientists there, expanded on it and not given much back. Francesco Celani by his courageous cooperation has shown a different way and Defkalion has also been setting a good example, they recognise how they got to where they are and give due credit for it, are working with members of the community and are willing to share much of their approach widely. Recently Jean-Paul Biberian has chosen a more open approach. The damn is breaking.

    This is bigger than any one of us and it is becoming evident that we’ll get there faster if we work together. Some key common parameters that drive successful implementations of the New Fire emerged and these will be discussed in context of seeing just how significant the SKINNR operation is.

  • kasom

    this didn’t tease me, just another no-show. Simply replicating Celanis ICCF17 setup upfront would have given them much more awareness and funding. But they didn’t, just tried many worthless variants.

    My sympathy for this project was big at the beginning but has lowered extremely meanwhile.

    • Bob Greenyer

      We did replicate Celani with the best knowledge we could gather from available sources and with the unrestricted help of the crowd. We saw in 12/12/12 what later turned out was the capability of that wire type – 12.5% over 48hours on the most conservative baseline. Only much later did we discover that the wire he used in NI Week and Korea was 700+Layers – we subsequently received one of these wires but are prudently waiting for the right time to try it.

      Both Celani and ourselves had swathes of people saying whatever this type of experiment produced, it would be discounted… So even before the 12/12/12 test, we decided to mount a Celani style cell in a steel chamber. This experiment, in its second differential test run produced very robust results which we are keen to repeat in a live run.


      This highly valuable variant deals with questions around

      – Languimir effect
      – Infra red thermalisation
      – convection and conduction issues
      – questions over calorimetry
      – has a control

      We took the credibility of the experiment again further when doing the vacuum test with a control. This experiment showed the peak excess and a step in output that aligns with Defkalions findings (though we did not know it at the time).

      In a separate test in one of the 1/4″ reactors holding a Celani wire, we saw some strange oscillations in pressure and resistance, we asked people what that could be without credible answer. At ICCF18, Mike McKubre talked about how this was seen in his experiments and we now have much greater understanding to moved forward. This was direct corroborative value derived from one of these variants.

      We are volunteers for the most part, working this science into our lives and publishing data live.

      Given that what we have achieved, a small proportion of which is indicated above, we would like to understand how we can better communicate our work as you demonstrate clearly that we need to do that better.

      Please suggest ways in which we can work more effectively to “Show” what we are doing.

      • Roger Bird

        You could start by explaining with one phrase “Have you gotten excess heat or not?”. After reading what you just wrote, I am not sure if you got excess heat or not. Only four phrases will be understood: Yes, no, maybe, we don’t know. Any thing else will be not communicating.

        • daniel maris

          Roger – I think you called that right! We are in a new era…the time for ambiguities is past.

          There must also be an issue with these treated wires in that the treatment must involve some energy input which (as far as I can tell) seems to get left out of the energy account.

        • NT

          Roger, yep plain folks understand those simple and to the point words and phrases. I hope the team will implement your suggestions in some way on their front (home) page regarding their current experiment(s).

        • Robert Ellefson

          I think “maybe” would be my choice of those four. I hope this helps, but I’m really unclear as to how or why it will help any more than the detailed descriptions of our results that have been given to date. Either way, the reported results can only be considered ambiguous. That’s the simple truth. We have repeatedly stated our intentions and plans for improving these results, so that we can say “yes” with confidence. That’s the whole idea here!

          This isn’t reality television, or a serialized blog story to follow, it’s real science taking place under significant constraints of actual human beings volunteering their precious time and money to produce something of lasting value for the global public. Please, turn on your television if we aren’t fulfilling enough of your entertainment needs.

          • b4FreeEnergy

            “Please, turn on your television if we aren’t fulfilling enough of your entertainment needs.”

            Exactly! 🙂

          • Roger Bird

            Don’t expect much cheering or financial support if your attitude is ” Please, turn on your television if we aren’t fulfilling enough of your entertainment needs.”

          • Robert Ellefson

            Thanks for the advice, Roger. In fact, I was not anticipating significant funding to come from people seeking entertainment value from their investments in public-domain technology development. I suspect we will primarily obtain funding from people interested more in the science and public benefits aspects of our mission than in the entertainment value. That said, we do intend to inform people of our progress as we go, and clear communications are certainly a goal of ours. I doubt we will ever be able to fulfill the desires of 100% of the public observers of our work. As long as we stay true to our mission and produce the intended progress towards our scientific goals, I’m personally OK with losing a few readers along the way if they lack the patience needed for actual science to be performed prior to the concluding results being published.

          • Roger Bird

            Robert Ellefson, I am one of the “workers” for LENR also. A day does not go by that I do not tell lots of people about it. It does not seem like work because I want to do it and I am having fun when I do it, so I am not obliging anyone. But for me to do a better “job”, I need information at my finger tips and not information that requires hours of study. If I was able to know what MFMP was doing at a glance, it would add to my arsenal.

            When the May 2013 third party report came out, just the pictures were enough to tell me all that I needed to know. And when I read the report, it was easy. Then I was able to lay this information on to perhaps hundreds of people, friends, relatives, email contacts, and strangers in numerous venues like Townhall.com, NBC.com, HuffingtonPost.com, etc. But I go to the MFMP site, and I have no idea what it is I am looking at. And even 10 minutes of study does not tell me anything that will help me tell other people about LENR. By minute 15, I just give up and go elsewhere.

            It is true, I am not a scientist. I am just an old man who is a jack of many trades and a master of only clear thinking and nimbleness of paradigm shifting. This makes for me to be very good at talking to liberals and conservatives and health oriented people and all kinds of people about LENR. I have unique skills that do not fit nicely into any categories. (:->)

          • Robert Ellefson

            Roger, when we have results like those observed by Levi et. al, you can be sure that we will do a write-up that you can easily cite. In fact, I’ll be most pleased to carefully incorporate your direct feedback in making it just as clear and succinct as possible. Until then, there is no easy answer to give you other than “maybe.” Personally, I think “we’re working on it” would be a better summary, if I could use that many words.

      • hempenearth

        Hi Bob,
        Perhaps a very short summary or headlines on the front page of your website for time poor non scientists might help.
        Keep up the fantastic work!

        • winebuff

          Ithink a overview of what’s going on in each experiment is s good idea and then a summary of what results you gathered from the test run. I go to the site often. I understand in general but I’m still not well versed in physics and scientific test protocol. I understand from my own experiences that a shoestring operation is tough to make it self explanatory it takes too much time.

          Great work!

  • Steve G


  • kwhilborn

    Dang. A whole day with Celani brought in a RAFT of understanding. Just imagine if they spent a day and a half.

    • fortyniner

      A boatload? Maybe that would be 2 days…

      • Blanco69

        On form Peter, on form. 🙂

        • Gerrit

          A Rossi aircraft carrier perhaps ?

  • artefact


    “This staged post we are preparing …

    It will likely leave you with a strong sense that this technology will be realised and that there is a growing international force that will enable that.”


    • daniel maris

      Sounds like they are looking to provide a clear overview of the state of progress – interesting and informative perhaps but not necessarily earth-shattering.

  • artefact


    Open Letter on LOS

    “We are aware that there is a large number of new people that are starting to pay attention to this field and our work also. Below, we discuss some of how we came to do what we are doing and the potential wider impact of the approach.


    • georgehants

      Wonderful, now I can relax.
      MFMP have observed the corruption and incompetence of science demonstrated by Cold Fusion, but rife in many other scientific subjects.
      Rather than just Talk they have decided to try and do something positive and constructive to help all of mankind.
      I wish them every success, as their success is everybody’s success, except the arrogant, corrupt majority of the scientific establishment.
      No more Bloody experts voicing qualified “opinion” like crazy preachers, but every word spoken and written on view for all to applaud, debate, or when as stupid as most of the pronouncements of these Dogma hugging individuals, just laughed at.
      Maybe now the young can actually learn how to do Science and not how to be a meek pointless yes-man.
      This is how every aspect of society should progress to be run, open clear Facts on the Internet for every body to see.
      No more hidden Bloody experts giving out religious pronouncements based on nothing but Dogma and controlling the herd.

  • Roger Bird

    The biggest problem for me with this post is the that it keeps coming at me 3 times for every response.

    And then, of course, the print is so very small that I have to zoom in to read it.

    And now, the time has passed that I care, but I can’t seem to unsubscribe.

  • Felix Fervens

    I really want to love the MFMP team.
    The open science is a great notion.

    But am I alone in finding it hard to follow their site? Yes, there is live data for a bunch of experiments, but I’m never sure which ones are showing promise and which not, which are outdated but still spewing data, which are loading, why the plateaus, dips and peaks. An explanation of the status of each experiment along with the live data might be helpful. Also, some kind of ranking system for which current experiments are showing most promise might help.

    Guess I’m trying to say that when visiting the site, an easy way to see the CURRENT STATUS of each project would be most helpful.

    Yes, there are general blog posts every few days, but they most often are not informative about the status of the actual science.

    Is the ‘excess power” in some of the experiments within the range of experimental error? (I believe they claim it is) Have they either replicated or refuted Celani’s findings?

    As far as I recall Celani was claiming 10-20 watts excess power on about 50 watts input in the older version of his tech. Why don’t they just test one of Celani’s best cells under MFMP laboratory conditions, before trying to independently engineer a model of their own?

    • Felix Fervens

      >(I believe they claim it is)
      should read “is not”

      – admin: can edit my previous comment and delete this one if you want.

    • Bob Greenyer

      We are funded by donations and contributions from members in cash and in Kind. We are doing what we can.

      We are aware of the navigation issues, we are defining this process as we go, but we have a good understanding of what is needed. We are working on resolving every criticism you have rightly levelled and will be showing our thoughts for direction in the coming weeks. I think you will like it, we just have to muster the means to deliver!

      With regard to Celani and the level of excess, we are not willing to claim specific numbers with certainty until it is unquestionable, indeed Celani was the same. We are working through the scientific method to establish certainty.

      About the actual promising results we have obtained, we have a significant new understanding of both correct protocol and upper limits from the man himself and will be blogging on this as and when we have time.

    • Roger Bird

      I agree.

      • NT

        Me too, I support and applaud their efforts though and have contributed to same. Good folks working there…

  • Jouni

    Nice text from Finnish authority:

    “Does scientific discipline concern LENR? ”

    • This is from the guys behind Etiam Inc.!

    • dsm


      That paper is not in support of LENR/LENR+ or HENI. It sets out to rebut all the current claims that could produce effective anomalous heat, including those from Widom-Larsen theory and Prof Yeong Kim and the recent claims in the Norway patent published in march.

      Nothing there that helps LENR/LENR+/HENI at all ?


    • dsm

      Thinking out loud …

      I keep thinking about the style of this document and it has me wondering if it was actually authored by the infamous ‘Popeye’ who used to post in ECN and Wavewatching Blogs.

      One of Popeye’s incredible abilities was to logic anyone to death with his impeccable rational as to why LENR/LENR+ wasn’t real. There was never any doubt that Popeye was a very talented scientist of some sort (I lean towards an active high energy physicist who had every reason in the world to squash any interest in LENR/LENR+). I may be wrong so this post can only be taken as an unanswered question as to authorship.

      Whoever posted the paper here may well be being mischievous.

      It has been interesting that Popeye appears not to have bought into the DGT ‘demo’ debates.


  • Roger Bird

    I have been reading a lot of predictions here about how LENR+ will be adopted and how it will impact our economy and our energy system. No one seems to have included in their predictions the fact that our grid in relationship to the sun is like a man standing with his legs spread and his eyes closed and his hands clasped behind his back in front of an angry sadistic psychopath. Not if, but when a coronal mass ejection comparable to the 1859 Carrington event hits Planet Earth, we will be screwed, blued, and tattooed. Unless we switch to home LENR units, hopefully before the next solar maximum in 2024. This certainty and the resultant fear hopefully will get people and governments to hurry along the inevitable process of converting to home energy systems.

    And I think that those power line towers would make excellent nesting sites for birds. I am sure that there are plenty of good-hearted animal lovers who would be delighted to install some platforms upon which large birds could nest. And the wires could be harvested by entrepreneurial types. But the first order of survival (not business) is to stop our dependence upon a fragile electrical grid.

    • NT

      Ya Roger, more excellent justification for our governments to rapidly move LENR along, but they won’t, unfortunately, for all of us pion taxpayers!

    • Thinks4Self

      Unless the home units have vacuum tubes in their control boxes instead of silicon based parts, they will be dead from something like the 1859 event too. With all the big players using some type of high frequency waveform as a control mechanism your only hope would be to install it underground in a lead lined room.

      • Iggy Dalrymple

        What if it’s buried?

        • Thinks4Self

          Even buried in a lead lined room there still is the problem of the giant above ground antenna attached to it, otherwise known as your household wiring. Some type of disconnect breaker could be added but it must trip before the control box and generator let their smoke out.

          • Roger Bird

            Then it is to be done.

          • bkuecollardollar

            Or switch from silicon to a more Radiation proof material like GaAs. Check out Poet Technologies Inc.

  • Robyn Wyrick

    I put in $100 toward their project – which is spit in the can, really – but I am as happy as a clam with their progress.

    I did see the teaser, and I didn’t like it much, but heck, what do I know, they say they have something to say; all to the good.

    Here’s my thing, though: to Robert and the other folks at MFMP, many thanks to your radically valuable efforts. If you’re ever in Southern Maryland, stop in for a meal, I’d love to hear the latest.

    Thanks again!

    • Bob Greenyer


      Thankyou, it really helped. That is such a kind offer – we have a growing team in the US, I hope one of us will be able to take up your offer.

  • Tom59

    Need urgently buy some New Fire T-shirts (ECW)and Cold Fusion calendars (from Ruby) as long as they are still available…

  • Jim

    I still think more people could participate (and donate) if there were a clearly labeled schematic flow diagram with numbered elements, and that those numbers were tied to a database of the issues, questions and target points for improvement.

    This is just basic systems modeling; there are tens of thousands of IT people in India (for example) who get paid $30 per hour to create such models.

    The presented information and dialog at the site is at least one half order of magnitude too sci-engineer-geek for me, and I consider myself generally pretty geeky.

    It may be open source science, but the style of presentation of information and specialized knowledge required to interpret it makes it a closed club.

    All I can do is wish them well.

    • Roger Bird

      And I thought that with my pathetic psychology degree that I was the only one. Thank you, Jim.

    • Bob Greenyer

      We have recognised this and intend to focus on producing clear info graphic media to explain what is going on. This would have been a challenge at the beginning, as, quite honestly, we were learning too!

      • Jim

        Point taken, Bob.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Because of this response from Rossi, I think we can eliminate DEKA as his partner because DEKA has developed a Sterling engine.

    Andrea Rossi
    July 30th, 2013 at 9:41 PM
    Sammy M:
    I arrived to the conclusion that does not exist any Sterling Engine mature for an application to the E-Cat. We received many proposals regarding concepts, prototypes to be developed: we need a product off the shelf.
    Warm Regards,

    • SammyM

      Yes, my thinking exactly. That’s one of the reasons I asked. DEKA was a good guess but now seems unlikely. If he’s giving up on the stirling engine (spelled with an ‘i’) then what’s his next move?

      • Roger Bird

        I think that the Stirling engine is a sterling idea. Don’t you?

  • Joe Shea

    Bob’s Greenyer’s last note was right on. The most productive thing these scientists can do right now is to establish a consortium – i.e., a partnership – among the significant players, and then work together to commercialize their work. I would love to see AR as a part of it, but his very flawed public relations will make it difficult for him to survive alone. If he just spent a $1,000 or $1,500 a month on a PR guy, he would be on top of the world.

  • charlie tapp

    hey mfmp get back to work so i can read your comments on our websight.remember i am still waiting for a big blog.just kidding mfmp these guys are great.

  • charlie tapp

    hey mfmp get back to work so i can read your comments on our websight.remember i am still waiting for a big blog.just kidding mfmp these guys are great.