Report of First MFMP Live Dog Bone Test — Null Result, but Success for Live Open Science [Update #2 MFMP Conclusions on Test Failure]

Last night I followed the first Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project’s Live Dog Bone Test. For those who were not following closely, the procedure was basically this:

An unfueled reactor was tested at various power levels, and temperature measurements (internal and external) were taken using thermocouples. Following this dummy run, the reactor was fueled and the process was repeated. Below is a table with comparative data from each run.


Here’s a nice graph provided by Mr. Moho charting the comparative data:


You can see that at certain temperatures there is a tiny increase in temperature in the live run, but I don’t think anyone is considering that to be signficant, and the conclusion at the end of the test was that this was a null result, with no indication of excess heat being generated by live reactor.

While this result was obviously a disappointment to many of us, I found the ability to participate in this live open science experiment fascinating, educational and enjoyable. It was great to hear the input of the various participants and observers in the streaming video, and especially to hear the evaluation at the end of the experiment as to possible reasons for the null result.

Bob Greenyer had noted earlier in the day that when they were sealing the fuel container, “There was a little sizzle as the bonding agent went in… there is a little water in it. Hopefully there is still some LiAlH4 left intact.” This might indicate that the reactor itself was a dud from the beginning.

There was also discussion about whether there might have been leakage of hydrogen, and if a better means of sealing should be used to contain any high-pressure reactions that might take place.

There was no discussion about giving up the Dog Bone project. The Lugano test and the test reported by Alexander Parkhomov indicate that there is something very interesting going on, and it seems that the MFMP is in this for the long haul. The team is going to evaluate these results (and also try to get more guidance from Alexander Parkhomov), make adjustments and try again.

I really appreciated the opportunity to witness live open science at work, and I think others did too. The MFMP team is very open to ideas from those following their work, and I think we have a collective knowledge base that is very impressive and is a great asset in this quest for the New Fire. We will be following closely here at E-Cat World.

UPDATE: Dr. Parkhomov responded to an inquiry regarding the construction of the reactor he made:

“The searching of cement, which maintains high temperature, was most complex problem, which should be decided at preparation of experiment. Business not only in a chemical structure, but also in a process engineering of application of cement including some stages. The creation of the reactor lasts 3 days. In an outcome the monolithic ceramics which is capable to maintain high pressure at high temperature is received practically.”

He asked me to put him directly in contact with the MFMP team to discuss this further.


Here’s a post from the MFMP Facebook page evaluating why they think the test did not produce any excess heat:

Reactor core autopsy conclusion – we had no H2 or pressure and it was effectively open
[]=Project Dog Bone=[]
Main conclusions:
– The seal was flawed
– The cement had a poor bond to the alumina
Likely effect was that there would have been gas exchange with air, no significant pressure and no Hydrogen.

Photos are attached to the post.

  • artefact

    Yes it was very interesting. And one could see how much work and time they put into this. Thank you!

    • Ged

      I second this thank you for all the hard work and open science.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        This was not yet the experiment „as planned“, since moisture from the cement had obviously reacted with the LiAlH4. Therefore, I would not even speak of a “null result” in a methodological sense. It was just a failure of the setup – so as if you want to test a car with a broken injection pump. No reason to be disappointed, so far.

        • LookMoo

          “Dog Bone” team is just some kids without the right background trying their best. Compare that team to professionals like Alexander G. Parkhomov is un-scientific by any standard.

      • guga

        They did a great job! Great care and a solid methodology are necessary to get a calibration run and a test run the overlap so nicely. But accordingly it is most disappointing and concerning that of all groups doing LENR research or replications, they are not getting excess heat.

        • Ged

          Negative results are hard. This is why science is extremely discouraging much of the time. But there is good reason to believe this was a methods hiccup, as an audible reaction took place between the fuel and sealant. This makes it very likely the fuel was destroyed or otherwise altered (vigorous enough reaction to hear with such small amounts of LiAlH4). That makes it hard to separate the test results being a method failure from an actual null hypothesis result.

        • Ged

          To clarify a bit, they did an incredible job, and the methods are very solid as you note; this fuel-sealant reaction was an unforeseen event, working out the minor kinks.

          • Dr. Mike

            I agree that a failure to seal the reactor is the most likely cause that no excess heat was seem in the MFMP experiment. The best way to seal the reactor might be to use a slightly tapered plug into a tapered hole in the reactor with the Al2O3 cement being applied to just the upper portion of the tapers.. This would minimize any reaction the cement might have with the fuel. Also, in both the Lugano and Parkhomov tests the power was ramped slowly. Although it was claimed in the Lugano tests that slow ramping was done to prevent damage to the heater coils, it is more likely that a slow ramp was used to cure the Al2O3 cement and form a good seal before pressure in the reactor rose significantly. I won’t be surprised if MFMP achieves positive results by just improving their sealing process.
            Dr. Mike

          • rats123

            Hey Mike, it’s ok. We’re all friends here. You can drop the “dr”. 😉

  • artefact

    In one of the next runs I suggest to put a broader spectrum of nickel sizes into the tube like parkhomov.

  • Paul Smith

    About Professor Alexander Parkhomov: It has already been written but I can’t find these informations. What University he comes from and what kind of professor he is? And I know he has written a lot of peer-reviewed scientific papers. It seems he is a great and valuable scientist…

    • psi2u2

      You might want to check out some of the previous threads. Links have been already provided to records of his apparently over 100 professional publications.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Moscow State University

  • Gerard McEk

    Before the next fueled test I would do some tests to see if you can seal it air (hydrogen) tight.
    The best way is to put the dogbone in a vacuum chamber after it is sealed in a helium atmosphere. After evacuation you can test the vacuum tighness with a helium tester, connected to the vacuum chamber. Maybe you are doing it alreay in this way, but this is how it should be done. I know this is an expensive procedure, but you may be able to borrow some equipment from a vacuum company.
    If you heard sissing after placig the fuel inside, you had a reaction, as you said, with moisture and the LiAlH4, which caused also the sealant leak. Maybe you can fuel and seal it under a CO2 or N2 atmosphere? To avoid that the water based cement releases any water internally, you may be able to use a non water based vacuum seal material internally and further the water based cement as others suggested.

  • Mats002

    Thanks to MFMP and all here, there were a lot to learn, this is my view today:

    Over all a well performed procedure that will show expected phenomena if/when it occurs.

    Sum up of main issues and proposed solutions moving forward:
    – Parkhomov had wide variance in Ni grain size, MFMP used narrow variance in the smallest range of size. This was a conscious choice by MFMP.
    – Sealing of the vessel not sufficient?
    — Water based seal might bring moisture to the LiAlH4? Someone said Lugano used water based seal, if so this is not a problem.
    — Should seal in two steps? First a temporary seal for early protection before apply final seal?
    — Could moisture from air sneak in during the procedure?
    – Shake the vessel for even distribution of the powder? Question was asked, uncertanty in answer.
    – Properties of LIAlH4 not sufficient? Should be pure H, no D becasue D is known to kill the process(?)
    – New reference run(s) can wait until if/when expected phenomena occurs

    Would be nice with a sum up elsewhere here on ECW or at MFMP, reviewed by all, above is just my personal list.

    About 150 people in our world shared this live experience of Ni-H LENR+ systems.

    If it was an easy task, anyone could do it.
    Well done, keep going!

    • LuFong

      Parkhomov brought the temperature up more slowly. Also Parkhomov’s temperatures based on the diagram seems to correspond more to the external temperature than the internal temperature.

    • NT

      Bob and MFMP team, Another thought occurred to me as to protecting the LIALH from contamination while loading and sealing the reactor. Why not load the correct amount of LiAlH into a “gelatin like” capsule. It will then be completely protected will the sealant cures at room temperature and dissolve when the unit is heated. One could even have time released agents within the reactor in this manner…

  • Alberonn

    Please MFMP-team : don’t wait too long trying to get info, feedback and commentaries from Prof.Parkhomov : with the attentionlevel rising, it may well be that our little secret will hit Mr Putin and friends, and they will put a muzzle on him to say the least…

  • curbina not logged in

    well, as an experimentalist with limited experience in much humblier endeavours I can only praise the experiment and repeat the mantra: one change per experimental repeat, and several runs in each configuration, the only way to know what is happeming. My Best Regards to the MFMP Team!!!

    • Agreed Curbina, to watch the process was fascinating (though I’m not sure why the wife and kids got up and left). CF wheels turn slowly. Thanks MFMP for your perseverance, transparency and corny jokes. Good luck in the New Year.

      • Curbina

        In my field of applied research, we had to take samples of treated water at intervals, and there was the need to be there in 8 hour shifts just to take the samples at proper time/volume intervals. Yet, the worst part was for the person that later had to analyze the water samples in the amounts of hundreds… 🙂

  • artefact

    They made two runs. One without fuel and one with fuel (in the picture: RUN internal temp)

  • Anon2012_2014

    It was at least fun.

    Frank, I think that one of the voices on the video wanted to know if you could ask Dr. Parkhomov about the cement used to seal the fuel in the tube.

    While your at it, do we know if Parkhomov was using just line AC to heat the heater and if it was 2 phase?

    • Mr. Moho

      He definitely used two phase power, but it’s not clear if it was AC or DC. Can anybody tell from this photo?

    • Casey

      I don’t know if it have any sense, but what about the sealant, dentists are using to seal cavity in the teets. They dry it in couple of minutes. Microwave or ultrasounds?. I don’t know what it is.

      • Anon2012_2014

        I think it is a type of plastic that won’t stand the temperature.

  • aryth

    In the original Parkhomov’s presentation, he specifically note and discuss the apparent (and seemingly required for the reaction) internal pressure of the reactor, which is quite big, on the order of 100 atms, if I remember correctly. With that hissing while sealing the reactor, even if enough LiAlH4 left (which is likely) the pressure-tightness was certainly compromised

    • Mr. Moho

      From calculations on the website it looks as if he filled completely or almost completely the entire internal cell volume with powder, which would make internal pressure pretty large indeed.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        On page 9 of the original Russian document he gives chamber volume as 2 cm3 (2 ml). One gram of solid nickel is only about 0.11 cm3. Because it’s powder rather than solid, the mean density is lower, but I find it hard to believe that the powder could fill the chamber entirely.
        On that page, Parkhomov gives diameter of 4 mm, while later in the same document he gives it as 5 mm. That makes factor 1.56 difference in volume.
        I don’t know where Ecco comment #136 on got the length of Parkhomov’s tube – I don’t recall seeing that parameter given anywhere.
        Anyway, if the powder does fill the chamber quasi-completely, it may make it easier to achieve macroscopically uniform loading and thereby avoid hot spots.

        • Mr. Moho

          It’s in the translated document:

          For the manufacture of reactor Al2O3 ceramics tube length of 120 mm, an outer diameter of 10 mm and an inner diameter of 5 mm is used

          • Pekka Janhunen

            yes, but I don’t know if the 120 mm is the external or internal length; I assume it’s the external

          • Mr. Moho

            A CAD drawing made with measurements provided by Parkhomov in his report was posted on by Ecco and seems to be consistent with how the reactor looks on photos. In other words, it’s likely the external length.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          clarification: concerning the length of tube, I mean the length of the open volume, not the external length.
          another point: besides the loading uniformity, presence of “oversized” grains in the powder might also improve temperature uniformity because of the good thermal conductivity of metals, and to do so without making the gas volume too small. In other words, the powder has enough airgaps for hydrogen and lithium, but on the other hand also forms a metallic nearly uniform temperature “cage”

          • Mr. Moho

            If you assume that the drawing of the reactor in Parkhomov’s document is accurate (it doesn’t seem like it is, however), it turns out that the plugs are 20mm long and that they are placed at a distance of 10mm from the tube ends. This translates into a remaining length of 60 mm for the inner cavity.

            I guess it’s probably better to ask Parkhomov for more details about cell measurements.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            I guess asking the professor is the only way to know (probably MFMP should be the party who communicates with him)

        • Mr. Moho

          I understand that 1 gram of nickel powder can have an apparent density even lower than 1 g/cm3 strongly depending on particle size and surface treatment. However I guess you’re right that in Parkhomov’s case (8-10 um powder) it likely didn’t occupy the entire internal cell volume.

  • Otto1923

    So now LENR critics can cite this as more counter-evidence, ignoring the fact that these guys have no idea what rossis magic powder is composed of or how it is prepared. I’m sorry, this is not just a waste of time, it weakens support for the whole field. What was the point? Publicity? Nothing better to do?

    • Robert Ellefson

      The point is science, not marketing.

    • James Thomas

      Funny how people can reflect on the very same event so differently.

      I personally see it as a super rare opportunity to watch first hand a group of intellectually curious and dedicated researchers compile and use every piece of valid information they can gather and do live open science that has the potential to save the world from much of its woes.

      I can’t congratulate these wonderful people enough.

  • LuFong

    For both the Lugano and Parkhomov the 950C correlates more to the external temperature. For the Dog Bone test, the external temperature broke 850C but not by much. All these “external” temperatures are different as well. I understand that MFMP didn’t want to push the heater too much for fear of breaking it.

    The other thing is I believe Parkhomov stepped up the temperature much more slowly, taking 5 hours to reach 1000C. I’m not suggesting this though but it is something to keep in mind.

    My suspicion is the seal failed but how to test?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      To increase the temperature slowly is a very interesting suggestion. In case that some kind of resonance is required, the risk to skip the critical point would be very high with a ‘staircase-shaped’ control pattern.

    • US_Citizen71

      Maybe the slow increase is to prevent thermal shock on the cement. Didn’t Rossi bring it up slow as well during the first part of the Lugano test?

  • LuFong

    Unfortunately the one he used broke–maybe he has others? You want to test a reactor that works (in theory you should be able to start and top the reaction multiple times until the fuel exhausts).

  • Chris the 2nd

    Remember when Rossi sometimes was described as taking ages to get his reactor going, getting annoyed and then it not working… well now we may have a hypothesis of the cause of those early troubles Rossi had in his lab working on his own.

  • Robert Ellefson

    I have ‘seen’ Storm, extensively in fact. The work that the Hunt family is so graciously performing with the MFMP team is most certainly science. Engineering is applied science, and the exact boundaries at times can be meaningless, as science typically requires some engineering, and vice versa. So then, what is your point? To infer that the work performed here does not qualify as ‘science’ ? You will need more than a blind appeal to authority coming from an anonymous source in order to convince anybody besides those who are prejudiced already..

  • Kristian

    Although we lack detailed data from Parkhomov’s dummy run, it seems like his dummy reactor would reach roughly 900 degrees external temperature using only about 300 W input. (I’m assuming that based on Figure 5 and 6 most of the heat generated in Parkhomov’s report comes from the heating coil alone for input power 300 W). If this assessment is correct, this seems to be a huge discrepancy from MFMPs dog bone, which seems to have difficulty reaching this (potentially critical) temperature even with input power of around 1000 W. Why this discrepancy? (Reactor size, geometry, coil material, temperature measurement point, …?)

    It seems to me that the problem with yesterday’s experiment might simply have been the dog bone’s heating coil’s inability to reach sufficiently high (external) temperature (which appears to be somewhere above 900 degrees).

    I’m basically a layman here, so I might very well have misunderstood something…

    • Mr. Moho

      Parkhomov’s reactor is much smaller than MFMP’s, almost half size.

      • Kristian

        Thanks, that makes sense. However, it still does not seem like yesterday’s experiment reached the external temperature where Parkhomov observed the excess heat.

  • Chris I

    Sounds like Александр will help the MFMP achieve a non-null result!


  • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

    Well, we still don’t know all the secrets for a successful replication, but I feel we are very close to igniting the new fire. Had a great time yesterday seeing Bob chatting with Biberian and Storms. I also thought there was a nice camaraderie along the participants.

    My thanks go out to all of you who are working so hard to give the world this new fire.

  • Mark Szl

    I really appreciate what MFMP is doing. Separate the wheat from the chaff in the LENR community. Great job and a happy and interesting New Year!!!

  • Omega Z

    Discussion of the plug & water seal and steps in power up.

    Lugano Report –>Page 7

    Lastly, the contents of the test tube were poured inside the reactor, in the presence of a member of the experimental team. The leads were reconnected and the cap sealed with a mixture of water and alumina powder cement.

    The E-Cat was placed once again on its metal frame, and power was fed to it, the voltage being increased in progressive steps.

    • Ged

      Since the caps are the stoppers on the reaction tube, I wonder if the sealant is on the seams, and is never near the reactants so as to react.

      • Omega Z

        I don’t think so, but Possible.
        However, I always have to remind myself that if English is not ones native language, it is easy to misuse words. Cap or Plug. This leads to many issues in our discussions that lead to false interpretations.

    • NT

      My response omitted as GED beat me to the same question…

  • Bob Greenyer

    Hi All,

    Here is Ryan’s review

    We are particularly satisfied with the runs lining up, it means we should easily know when we have something interesting, also the clean data – it is a good reusable platform.

    Moreover, it is great that after calibration, a core test is just a 3 hour event, if we can make a reactor that can reliably go to 1400ºC – imagine 100 sites collaborating to do 200 samples per day, all that would need to be streamed is variance from calibration curve – pre-log the mix being done.

    We are compiling a list of questions for Alexander.

    We have been training for over 2 year to jump a hurdle, we just knocked the bar over yesterday, if it is possible to do it, with collective our collective minds and determination we will.

    • NT

      A big Hurrah for you and your team. This is the “scientific method” applied to what will likely become man’s best advance yet…
      Happy New Year to ALL!

  • Bob Greenyer

    Reactor core autopsy conclusion – we had no H2 or pressure and it was effectively open, complete failure of seal, probably before we even inserted the core.

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    • artefact

      Good to know. Looking forward to the next run

    • Bob Greenyer

      I had an idea,

      Put some alumina felt in as a stopper first, drop a few cm of these 2mm glass beads (0% water) into the tube on top and use a blow torch to melt them in position (keep other end cool if needed in water).…
      Lastly put some of the high temp glue.

      • NT

        Anything to make a primary sealant before applying the water base Hi temp glue…

    • NT

      Suspected from the get go because of the pffft upon initial ceramic application, but this is the scientific method for exploration. Can hardly wait for the next attempt…

    • Ged

      It’d probably be good to have Frank update this article with this important update, or post another, so people know why the run was another calibration in spirit.

      Does show that air alone doesn’t release any heat when mixed with the fuel, which is a very important observation indeed!

      • Ged

        Thank you, Frank!

        • ecatworld

          Thanks for the suggestion, Ged.

  • Dr. Mike

    The development of a good mechanical seal would be ideal for future experiments in optimizing the fuel and for a production model that would need periodic re-fueling. I don’t quite see how you could supply the compression, but if you have a design in mind, it would be good for you to share it with MFMP. The seal needs to be good enough to prevent significant leakage of hydrogen at an elevated pressure for a period of time equal to a refueling time.
    Dr. Mike

  • jousterusa

    Pardon my ignorance, but how could this replication possibly succeed without the proprietary catalyst that only Rossi knows how to formulate? BTW, Happy New Year, everyone!

    • Pekka Janhunen

      Things changed on 25 Dec when professor Alexander Parkhomov, Moscow State University, announced how he had gotten a similar reactor to work by using only nickel and LiAlH4. So it’s possible that the proprietary catalyst is just LiAlH4. Good continuation of 2015!

      • Curbina

        What Pekka said. 🙂

      • Valeriy Tarasov

        I also think that LiAlH4 is a key komponent of Rossi’s Cats, since Li nuclei fission, resulting from interaction with protons and producing alpha particles, is an initial (and likely to be main) fission reaction in the mixture with Ni.

      • Ged

        Happy New Year by the way!

      • clovis ray

        what proof do we have, that he achieved the prize, i have heard lots of story’s about such things that turned out to be false.

        • Ged

          Pictures, data, document with brief methods and results, contact by e-mail answering questions… What proof is one looking for exactly?

          Replication is the best sort, and MFMP is working in it.

    • I wondered the same. Apparently much of the Ecat fuel formula is out of the bag.

  • Mr. Moho

    I haven’t. I doubt there were since the plug which that was supposed to seal off the active core apparently failed even before the active run started.

    • Axil Axil

      If money was no object, I would be interested in two tests to be run on a successful dog bone reactor.

      Test 1

      Take a complete temperature based spectral analisys of the light an RF coming from the dog bone in successful operation including emission and absorption lines

      Test 2

      After a successful run of one month in duration, develop a elemental fine grained migration and transmutation analysis of the ENTIRE structure of the dog bone reactor: say on a 10 micron granularity to see where the nuclear active sites are located and how elements move through the grain structure of the alumina..

  • Sanjeev

    Yes that is possible. Knowing well that the third party would totally reveal the contents, IH may have decided to not use their catalyst for this test.
    Or they are so much ahead of the rest that they do not care.
    Or the Li is the catalyst.

  • Tom Law

    Just a thought. Many reactions become more powerful when the contents are excited or stirred. Say for instance you added a few iron filings to the existing fuel then put the reactor under a magnetic field from some type of powered coil. The frequency of the field would need to be modulated so that it caused the filings to jump around.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Iron could also remove any water, binding the oxygen and releasing additional hydrogen.

      • Ged

        Might be why it’s an ingrediant to scrub out the waters. Good point, Andreas.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Good hypothesis

    • Bob Greenyer

      Current thinking is to (pending workable solution from Dr. Parhamov)

      1. Fill single ended reactor tube with “fuel”

      2. Pack a few Alumina felt wads in

      3. Put some Schott Al2O3 matched CTE sealant powder in

      4. With fuel end in coolant, rotate and heat glass sealant powder filled end with a blowtorch applied to the alumina exterior until glass powder melts and effectively seals (backfills) the hole.

      5. have this part outside the reactor during operation as per last test where it would be below the melting point of the seal.

      • Gerard McEk

        Looks prommissing.
        What gas do you use inside the tube?. Air, Nitrogen?

        • Bob Greenyer

          It will be air.

          • Warthog

            Not the best idea. Filling the reactor tube should probably be done in an argon-filled glove bag.

          • Bob Greenyer

            The preparation of the materials was all under argon. LiAlH4 can be exposed to air in its pure form for a short period. In addition, the air in Minnesota is very dry this time of year. Not that Rossi reportedly loaded the Lugano cell in Air.

          • Warthog

            And who knows but what some of the problems Rossi encountered (and apparently still does on occasion) arise from the presence of oxygen and/or water. My wife (also a chemist) did a lot of work with air-sensitive compounds, and I remember all the gyrations she used to go through to exclude even small amounts of oxygen and water.

  • LCD

    Sounds like a good first step. I definitely wouldn’t worry about replicating Rossi at this point, just concentrate on proving out Parhamov.

    Once you guys do that this thing will EXPLODE. no pun intended.

  • Tom Law

    When the e-cat was first announced we were told that it had two heating coils. One was the main heater and the other one was used to control the reaction if it got out of hand. No-one could understand the logic of adding more heat to cool down a reaction. What if the control coil were not used for heating but rather as an electromagnet to excite the iron filings as postulated earlier. This would control how vigorous the reaction was and would also evenly distribute the fuel. An AC current or modulated DC current would mix and vibrate the fuel allowing the power output to be controlled. Perhaps this is what makes Rossi’s cop higher than everyone else’s.

    • Warthog

      “No one could understand the logic of adding more heat to cool down a reaction”

      Only those pre-disposed to skeptopathology, you mean. The control strategy is simplicity itself and not at all difficult to understand. Once the reactor has started and the “startup heater” shut down, the “control heater” CONTINUES TO INPUT HEAT. The reactor temperature is then due to heat from the reaction plus heat from the control heater.

      This level of heat input is exactly balanced by the total heat loss due to cooling (otherwise the temperature would increase). If the temperature begins to rise, the power to the control heater is REDUCED…..which COOLS the reactor at a rate solely limited by the total cooling factors acting on the reactor.

      This results in a very inexpensive, very precise and accurate, and fast reacting control mechanism…..far simpler than, for instance, trying to vary the flow rate of the coolant by means of a mechanical control valve.

  • Axil Axil

    The dry run MFMP dogbone test has indicated the existence of some very weird behavior in the Rossi dog bone experiment.

    The MFMP dog-bone reactor places a theromcoupe both at the core and on the outside of the reactor. These thermocouples in the MFMP test shows us that the core of the dog bone is about 400C hotter than the outside surface.

    In the Rossi dog bone test, we are very fortunate that the temperature of the outside of the reactor got to 1400C. This implies that the core of the Rossi reactor should have reached 1800C if the two dog bone reactors had the same physical behavior pattern. Of coarse, these two reactors do not act the same.

    We know that there is a major difference in reactor behavior because there were a few nickel micro particles that came out of the Rossi reactor with there surface morphology in tact even though their isotope makeup was altered.

    A Sintering/melting test should be conducted to find out what temperature it takes to sinter or melt and destroy the surface structure on micron sized nickel particles in a hydrogen atmosphere. My guess is that that structural transition temperature would be just under 1000C.

    I am interested in what keeps the Rossi micro powder from sintering/melting at high surface temperatures when the reactor is in operation. We call this weird behavior the melting miracle.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      In Rossi’s reactor, a large part of the energy is apparently radiated away from the reaction site before it is thermalized, so that the surface can get hotter than the core. This would be typical for nuclear reactions. See this German patent application (cited by Piantelli):

      Another possible explanation is that the energy is transferred by an EM field that is generated by strong electric currents in a superconducting core (This idea has been discussed on ECW some time ago – see also clovis’ comment below.)

      In the dummy DogBone, the input energy is first transformed into heat and subsequently transferred. That’s why the core gets hotter than the surface.

      The “miracle” results mainly from the fact that we tend to apply our everyday’s experience with electrical or chemical heaters to something unusual like the E-Cat.

  • Preston

    When is the next attempt?

  • Albert D. Kallal

    I suggest some type of screw on end caps.

    Remember, pressure will go up directly in step with temperature. So if you double the temperature, then gas pressure will double!

    This suggests that the “vessel” should not leak, but ALSO needs to withstand pressure. From room temp of say 20c to 1500c (293K to 1773k), then pressure in the vessel will increase 6 times.

    However, if like the famous Pons and Fleishman accident, and a “runaway” reaction occurs, then their experience was everything melted (including the table) due to VERY high temperatures.

    So some type of pop off value likely should be installed.

    If a runaway reaction occurs, likely the device will melt, but some family high pressures could be reached before such melting occurs. Thus risk of explosion does exist. Worse would be materials and fuel inside igniting and thus again explosion risk exists. So both pressure (due to increasing heat) and that of fuel ignition are two real risks here.

    So some precautions should be taken here, as we don’t want to see anyone to get hurt.

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • MasterBlaster7

    Couple of things…

    This is great that MFMP is talking with Parkhomov. Maybe they should go a step further and have Parkhomov fly in to help them with their second attempt. I mean…if its broke…call in the guy that got it right. Then we would have a second replication…good stuff.

    Regarding above…the warnings related to the F&P meltdown are the wrong warnings. If people had been present for the F&P meltdown they could have easily run out of the room. It would be kinda like someone sparked off a plasma torch 5-10 ft. away from them and melted straight down. You might get singed but you would have time to run away from that.

    The correct warning is the pressure explosion warning. Like a grenade. Was it at SRI? I forget….but an early Brillouin boiler type design exploded in a lab and killed some people. It literally is like a grenade or pipe bomb. The Brillouin guys now stand behind bullet proof glass that will stop a .45 cal. round when they are testing their Brillouin boilers and other pressure vessels. So, the mabe the MFMP team should get behind a bunker when they are doing their experiments under pressure….if they aren’t already.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      I don’t recall anyone suggesting or hinting or implying that F&P meltdown was any kind of warning in regards to the F&P experiment. At least not in current threads here.

      So I not sure who or where anyone suggested that some danger existed to P&F or that P&F needed special precautions.

      I CERTAINLY pointed out that IN THIS case such a meltdown could be far more serious.

      The suggestion here is that SINCE WE ARE using a pressure vessel, then the benign accident that P&F witnessed could have far more serious consequences in this case, and thus my suggestion(s) for precautions.

      From a time and constraint point of view, I don’t think some kind of safety enclosure needs to be built, but the addition of a some type of pop-off valve certainly would be prudent. In fact one of the end caps could be the pressure relief system. And I suppose a brick wall on each side would also be prudent.

      In fact the end caps likely are now a point of failure, and thus these existing end caps should be positioned in such a way that failure would not result in a trajectory that put humans in harms way.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada
      [email protected]

  • FxPhil

    The Parkhomov reactor appears to be 2 cores and more complex than the simple single core drawing. It appears to have an internal core sticking out as seen in the right side of the reactor. Which is like the Dog Bone construction and may allow Parkhomov to change fuel loads while keeping the same external heater core.

    This would imply Parkhomov is measuring the temp on the surface of the external / outer core using a metallic wraparound ring to eliminate localised hot spots.

  • Axil Axil

    Airtight metallic sealing at room temperature under small mechanical pressure

    There was a large amount of carbon in the element analysis of the fuel load. Could it be that Rossi used a organic sealant to stop hydrogen leakage?

    From the TPR2 report:

    “Besides the analyzed elements it has been found that the fuel also contains rather high concentrations of C, Ca, Cl, Fe, Mg, Mn and these are not found in the ash.”

    Could it be that Fe, Mg and Mn were nano metals used to seal the fuel?

  • LCD

    Well you could say the same about Rossi. At least he is open about what he did and willing to share

  • Bob Greenyer

    Perhaps later today – we cannot get the Schott Alumina CTE matched ceramic sealing glass for a while and are waiting on feedback from Alexander, so we are thinking about an interim experiment that may give us an indication of pressure in the reaction.

    Keep an eye on FB

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Axil’s comment below about two temperature probes showing 400 C difference gets me worried, for a different reason though. Consider Fourier’s law of thermal conduction, q=kappa*gradT. Alumina’s thermal conductivity kappa at 1000 C is about 5 W/(K m). The heat flux q can be roughly estimated from Stefan-Boltzmann law at 1000 C temperature q=epsilon*sigma*T^4 where epsilon is alumina surface’s infrared emissivity (let us assume epsilon=0.3) and sigma=5.67e-8 W/(K^4 m^2) is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant. With these one obtains q=45 kW/m^2. Solving the temperature gradient gradT inside alumina from the above equation, gradT=q/kappa=45000/5=9000 K/m. If the tube wall thickness is about 4 mm, the temperature jump across the wall is 36 degrees, not more. There is no way it can be 400 C. Anomalous phenomena do not enter into discussion because this was effectively a dummy run.

    Either one or both of the temperature probes malfunctioned, or there is no a proper mechanical contact between the inner and outer alumina cylinders so that the heat flux has to jump from the inner to outer cylinder by thermal radiation. That would explain the huge temperature difference. If this is the case, the dogbone has to be redone, otherwise the reactor’s thermal behaviour is too far from the Lugano experiment and if the anomalous process starts, it will quickly overheat and the powder will melt.

    • Ged

      That is a very interesting point, Pekka. There may be a small air gap, but even then, the heating is coming from the coils embedded in the outer tube, I thought based on design, which would make the dispairity even more unexpected. This is seen with the empty core too, the same as the unsealed fuel filled core.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Are you sure the coils are embedded in the outer tube and not the inner one? If so, then the airgap explanation cannot be correct (which means, I guess, that one of the thermocouples must be wrong).

        (As I understood it, Parkhomov had wound the coils around the inner tube, then applied cement everywhere to fill any gaps and to build the outer surface.)

        • Bob Greenyer

          Hi Pekka,

          The coil is on the outer “heater” tube as per the []=Project Dog Bone=[] design posted here:

          There were actually three B-Type thermocouples, effectively on the same place in the reactor. 1 on the outside in the adjacent fin groove to the K-Type and 2 on each of the two cores tested.

          The B-Type on the outside was consistently higher than the K-type. all three B-Types follow the same data acquisition approach, in addition the volts for the external B-Type are given for post verification against known response curves.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Hi Bob,

            Let us double-check this, because I’m afraid that I have misunderstood something. I’m now looking at the last page of “Bob Higgins PDF” ( It’s a coloured drawing showing three concentric yellow circles (tubes). There is also a blue region adjacent to the two innermost yellow regions whose caption says “After winding heater on tube and encapsulation with a high alumina cement, fill with high alumina filler, maybe something like Vitcast 1400 INS-H.”

            I have thought – and this drawing seems to concur – that one winds the coil onto some tube (whatever its name), because winding it on the inner surface of a tube would sound technically difficult. Then it becomes possible that heat might not get conducted to outer layers, and I guess this is the reason why alumina filler is (or was planned to be?) used. If this is so, then my question is: is it possible that the filler has failed in operation, in the sense that it’s not properly touching the layers on its outside.

            In the figure I’m referring to, there is also a second region (grey one) with filler. That region also must be mechanically tight, with no airgaps, to avoid heat conduction problems. There must not be any airgaps (including ones possibly created by thermal expansion) outward from the heater coils up to the radiation surface of the reactor.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Ok – I see where the confusion has arisen, we actually decided to do away with the outer ceramic and first try something similar to my original 3D printable mold.


            You can see the open ended heater tube, it is basically a tube furnace.

            In this evernote, look at the 7th Image down. The cartable ceramic is cast directly over this,


            And the reactor core you see here, preparing for loading


            Slides into this whole assembly as was shown live on the experiment that was broadcast on the 30.12.14

          • Pekka Janhunen

            Can you tell, is the 400 C temperature difference correct, and if so, what’s the explanation?

            (IT issue by the way: for some reason my browser shows only upper parts of evernote images. I’m able to download them, however, and open by graphics program.)

          • Mats002

            I have the same problem with all (I think) pictures in evernote. I have IE11 and W7 and a good perfomance HP laptop and a good enogh network.

          • I may be out of my element (no pun intended) but would any of that matter, or as you mentioned earlier Bob, regarding Parkhomov’s measuring the outside temperature rather than the inside, would any heat measurements matter if the dummy test showed one set of numbers, but the fuel test showed a COP greater than the dummy test? Wouldn’t the evidence simply be in the COP difference?

          • Ged

            Completely correct. The issue here is that if heat transfer is non optimal, a rapid reaction may overheat and melt the core before the heat can be safely radiated away on the surface. Note, the total amount of heat/energy is not affected.

          • Bob Greenyer

            You must also hold in mind that the current Dog Bone has fine wires closer to the core, where as IHs reactor had wires that were fatter and consequently much closer to the surface.

    • LuFong

      What would the temperature difference between external and internal be with a leak on one end versus no leak? It seems to me that the temperature difference would be greater with the leaky seal (but perhaps not 400C). Might be a good way to detect a leaky seal!

      • Pekka Janhunen

        LuFong: if I understood correctly, the seals are inward of the coil (that is, at smaller r than the coil where r is the radial cylinder coordinate). Heat transfer inside the coil plays no role in this dummy run case because the coil is the only heat source (there is no heat source and therefore no flux and therefore no temperature differences inside the coil, that is, at smaller r than the coil).

  • Bob Greenyer

    It will evolve H which if it does not immediately combine to H2 should dissociate on the Nickel surface. Pressure and heat will allow it to hydride the Nickel.

  • Private Citizen

    So when is the next attempt scheduled?

    • Ged

      Check Bob’s answer to rats123 below.

  • artefact
    • Ged

      I see it’s looking mostly at pressure, but will temperature also be monitored like previously in case this reactor does seal properly and works (as it is a live fuel run)?

      I know the design is a bit different, but total thermal energy should be comparable with the normal alumina reactors unless there is a reaction.

      • artefact

        I could not find that information but there is heat and pressure and ni and LiAlH4.
        It could be that the critical temparature is not reached with the thin steel tube though.

  • LCD

    Oh okay well go ahead and ask Rossi how he did it?
    Since Parhamov is imitating Rossi and it supposedly works it’s the best chance and at the end it’s still trying to replicate Rossi. Win Win

  • LCD

    Okay Clovis, when you look up the history be sure to look up my name too.

    I could say that you are a moron blah blah blah but I’m going to reach out and ask you exactly what is it that I said that offends you, because I don’t think I’m suggesting anything that goes against the spirit of what the ultimate goal is.

    If you want to “replicate” Rossi go ahead and guess, but that’s not the way science works.

    The whole point of MFMP is to get people like parhamov to do what he did. Then once somebody has success you replicate that and build off of it.

    “Replicating” Rossi is not a specific action, it’s a campaign and by me saying let’s concentrate on replicating parhamov it still is in the spirit of that campaign but in a more scientific manner.

    No we don’t know if parhamov actually did it, but we can actually replicate it and find out. We cannot do that with Rossi.

    It actually would be silly not to pursue a design that works even if not as well as Rossi.

    What would happen if we replicated Parhamov/Rossi and then provided that design to the world? We would blow this thing wide open then you would have multiple experiments and multiple versions of this thing.

    • clovis ray

      i have no idea who you are, why don’t you enlighten us, i don’t have to read the history, i’m not the one that is confused, for your info we been trying to replicate the Rossi effect for years now, this is not our first rodeo .

      mf/mp are virtual beginners, to this ongoing experiment, we just completed an experiment, with other materials, searching for lenr, we have heard all the experts tell us what is happening, well at least their theory, and believe you me i have heard a ton of them , some better than others, but all were adding to the final formula. i have followed the mf/mp folks since their beginning, they are a very capable group, Dr. Rossi even said that one of their members was as close to the effect as anyone else, they have some of the best in the business on their team, in my humble opinion, there is none better to take on this project, you keep putting Parhamov name the in front of the master’s name, and it has not been thought through about what will happen when the secret is reviled, IH could shut everyone down, for all i know, after all it is his discovery. no one on earth has did this before, no body, except Dr. Rossi. are you now saying he has nothing, if so your are going against everyone that has looked at the effect. once again he and IH are not going to give away their IP, they have too much time and money invested,
      P.S. I personally kinda like you, you seem to be outspoken, and very interested in lenr, and we welcome all comers, but no one has “seniority here but Frank.

      • LCD

        You’ve been trying to replicate it for years without success. That’s all I read.

        I’m pretty sure if you leave your feelings out of this you’ll understand what I’m saying. Good luck.