MFMP Running ‘Glowiness’ Test

The Martin Fleischhmann Memorial Project is currently running (Wednesday, Feb 4th, 9:00 pm US Central time) what they describe as the ‘Glowiness’ test on the Dogbone.

Bob Greenyer says:

We are back up and running, with a test designed to answer three questions.
1. How much power can we get into a dog bone
2. do we see the dummy core “glowing” through this dog bones “fat coil” on standard photos
3. with a “fat coil” are the internal and external temperatures closer

They want to see if there is any glowing coming through the Dog Bone when they turn on an internal coil that is placed within the core of the reactor (trying to simulate the Hot Cat used in the Lugano test)

The video can be seen here:

  • NT

    Interesting, thanks MFMP and Frank for your continuing time and dedication to these experiments…

  • Alain Samoun

    Now.I’m probably wrong,but if I was doing the test myself I would do first a sort of qualitative test:
    – Two TC one external and one internal to the reactor and record a dummy in the temperature range steps 300 – 600 – 900 – 1200 and stay maybe 30 minutes on each step.
    – Repeat the dummy test but this time with the powder and see if there is any difference in the temperature recordings.
    – From the result above then, if there is an anomaly, I would do a quantitative test,trying to be close to Lugano or Parkhomov conditions with more sophisticated measurements – camera/pyrometer and / or calorimeter.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Obviously, it is impossible to copy the Lugano test exactly without having access to the used material. Moreover, even an experiment with the original Hot-Cat casing would leave open questions due to the large local temperature differences (particularly, the tops of the fins were proven to be much cooler than the inner parts). In principle, thermal imaging is a reliable method, but to make it as safe as possible safe one should better use a reactor casing that has an even surface and is coated with standard emissivity paint, like the one of the Hot-Cat in the first Levi et al. test.

      The DogBone experiments have led to some important insights, but MFMP should eventually return to their own path and try to get evidence for excess heat. Although this might be possible with the current devices, for a quantitative assessment a simpler design would be recommendable. Ideally, it should be suitable both for thermal measurements (by TC’s, pyrometer, or camera) and water calorimetry à la Parkhomov.

      • I agree with you! It could be much harder to prove the validity of the lugano thermal measurement than just to prove that the fuel mix is creating excess heat. Then the type of measurement is not that meaningful and important anymore. The important point is: does it make excess heat or not.

        When we know it does, then we could talk about how accurate the Levi measurement was.

  • Gerrit

    [OT] nickel seems to be the new wonder material. It is used to make a new steel as strong as titanium, yet cheap.

  • Bob Greenyer

    DB Glowiness – Silicon Carbide Element

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    Last night we baked out the SiC element and today we are taking it up to high temperatures, we hope to charge a core and place it in later also.

    • Ged

      Good luck guys!

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks Ged. We are preparing a test to see if the Aluminum Ferrule based swageloks can handle the pressure in a very Parkhomov fashion.

        If it does, we will charge a core for this SiC element and see if we see something different from this run.

        • artefact

          Can you estimate when the next live stream takes place?

        • Ged

          Seriously looking forward to it. The 2 kW necessary to drive internal temps up to 1.5k C was also some very nice data provided by the SiC run.

          We’re learning a lot about Lugano just from the inference of the MFMP attempts and testings. Shadows, check; more than 900 W needed for those temps, check; was the Optris used right, inconclusive.

          Now this new test will be moving into your own uncharted territory, and that is always exciting. Seriously hope this holds in the pressure, at least steadily enough for us to test — looking back at the stainless steel it’s actually striking how fast the pressure was lost, so it won’t take much to improve on that.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks Ged

  • Robert Ellefson

    Why is there so much emphasis on settling the debates over the Lugano report? What outcome can be expected from this activity, in the best case? It seems to me that if a definitive answer is reached regarding alumina emissivity and possible corrections to reported thermometry values of the Lugano report, then still we are left with nearly-indentical divisions of people who reasonably interpret the evidence, and people who unreasonably deny the evidence. Meanwhile, the oligarchs are doing whatever it is they are doing to prepare for LENR, or not, regardless of the outcome of this line of investigation.

    If you want to move the field forward now, creating an open, tangible, and replicable demonstration of substantial and reliable excess heat is the only thing that will change minds that are determined not to believe anything having to do with LENR until they read about it in Science or Nature. Hunting for your own active powder recipe would seem most productive at this stage, IMHO. I believe that the Lugano report contains all the information needed to replicate Rossi’s performance levels, minus tricky details like sealing methods, etc. The fuel composition is pretty well laid bare, with only a few measured elements not attributed to specific reactants yet.

    • Anon2012_2014

      Agreed. Let’s do the Parkhomov replication.

      • Bob Greenyer

        We have just completed the SiC test.

        We have been testing the sealing method that Parkhomov provided us with through January as published. We were not successful to date in achieving it he has sent us some additional notes, which we have published.

        We are going to test today an alternative method, using a Swagelok (aluminium ferrules) in a parkhomov way (inside a glass jar) if it works, we will have shown an extremely simple way to make test reactors.

        Also, we will have the SiC element characterised and can take a core up in that.

        • Anon2012_2014


    • Obvious

      A little off topic, but what are your thoughts on the mass 147 (samarium?) in the Lugano assays?

  • Bob Greenyer

    Data is data, we do not consider work failure but learning. We have won some and lost some.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We are doing our best, we have built a reactor for this purpose yesterday, but we ran out of time. We had to prove the sealing method also, which we have done – and then some! We had tried for nearly a month to seal like Parkhomov without success.

  • bkrharold just reported the experiment blew up after 3 hours 27 minutes