MFMP Announces Receipt of Original Palladium Wire Used By Fleischmann and Pons, Plan for Replication of F&P Experiment

The following announcment has been made by the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project

The name of the project they are planning is ‘Vindication’ — for obvious reasons. The announcement was made on their Facebook Page here, and on the Quantum heat page here.


The MFMP has been offerred something no one knew existed, something priceless and which could reveal critical secrets many in the LENR field have been seeking for over a quarter century.

Before Martin Fleischmann left the US, he personally gave a trusted friend an original pre-1989 Johnson Matthey palladium wire – the very same as used in experiments that led to that fateful announcement of a new primary energy source that came to be known as cold fusion.

He has held this secret all these years until now. We checked today with Mike McKubre, Vitorio Violante and Melvin Miles if there was any known public metallurgical and elemental / isotopic characterisation of this material, the answer was a resounding no.

It is known that the early attempts to replicate the Pons and Fleischmann effect mostly failed due to the purity and processing of ‘palladium’ used. In fact ENEA has been trying to establish what additives and structures are critical to creating the effect for more than 2 decades. Many of the principal research labs working in the field are trying to establish the correct crystal shapes, sizes, orientation etc. and chemistry.

In our own nickel powder / hydrogen research, we have tried to get the purest nickel possible – but have failed to see any excess heat. Now we know from our recent isotopic analysis of Dr. Parkhomov’s Nickel, that there is high concentrations of Carbon and Oxygen on the surface, elements also found in Rossi’s fuels.

The unique opportunity we have been honoured with is profoundly important, and there is not a person we asked at the conference that were not falling over themselves to help in what ever way they could. Ultimately it is down to the current owner to decide exactly what happens but from the available piece, which is about the thickness of a toothpick and between 7 and 8 cm long, the current plan is to:

1. Use 3 X 2mm samples to characterise structure, isotopic constitution etc.
2. Run at least two 2cm segments in Pons and Fleischmann cells, copied from the original and/or use the original cell.
3. Reserve remainder
We will auction the ownership rights of the post run, post analysis 2cm segments in a one of a kind, never to be repeated auction. This is an unrepeatable opportunity to own the only known samples of this historic precious metal.

This auction, along with the auction of the donated 1 ounce Pd 1989 “Cold Fusion” coins is design to raise enough money the help ensure a fully faithful replication that will be conducted by someone who is not currently a member of the MFMP and who is a very experienced experimentalist. The work will be conducted in France with the help of Jean-Paul Biberian and all data will public.

We must work with the best resources on the planet to ensure that this materials secrets are revealed for all. It is wonderful to be a part of something that will yield critical data for advancement of the field.
More information to be published about the Vindication program.

The name of the current owner and how he came to be entrusted with the electrode will be revealed in time, right now, given the incredible importance to maintain security, we have been asked to hold off on publishing that information.

We want to take this opportunity however, to publicly thank the donor and curator of this material for coming forward.

  • ecatworld

    “This auction, along with the auction of the donated 1 ounce Pd 1989 “Cold Fusion” coins is design to raise enough money the help ensure a fully faithful replication that will be conducted by someone who is not currently a member of the MFMP and who is a very experienced experimentalist. The work will be conducted in France with the help of Jean-Paul Biberian and all data will public.”

    I wonder if Stanley Pons might be this experienced experimentalist.

    • Ged

      Haha, that would be a twist! I think it needs to be someone new though, to keep the independence of the replication. But it would be really cool to see Dr. Pons run another experiment himself.

    • Veblin

      Unless Stanley Pons comes to do the replication, I would suggest many more small 2mm samples be sent to labs all around the world for every kind of testing that can be done. They should jump at the chance and do it free.Anyone who wants to be paid to test this should not be considerd. I think 2cm replication samples will probably fail and be wasted.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Yes, before burning 2 cm of the original one should try and reconstruct the wire afresh based on the analysed properties of the 2 mm segments. There is a good chance that it would work, and if it does, we would be far more advanced. In theory, it’s even possible that the original wire doesn’t work any more because of some ageing process, but a fresh one made with the same composition and similar grain structure does work.

        In any case, this historic palladium business is a thousand times less urgent than making the Parkhomov replications.

      • Jag Kaurah

        Agree, except that multiple full characterisation and analysis from different top quality labs located in different countries is so important that even if Stanley Pons does the replication, that should be definitely very mush a lesser priority.

    • georgehants

      Perhaps the so called Wonderful Mr. Gates would like to show his empathy for free science and people and donate a few dollars of his personal billions to MFMP.
      Unfortunately no profit in that.
      We are willing to donate another fifty dollars if Bob would be so kind as to give us the link in a reply.

  • Ged

    Well, that is quite the surprise. An actual, original wire. Fits with the ideas that the original material analysis had been found–but now we have the original itself and can do that analysis along with experiments to truly replicate the F-P effect.

    Exciting! Such intense care to be given for such a precious sample; perhaps the only one in the world. The data just from modern material analysis methods alone could be invaluable. So glad you are keeping a lot of it as reserve for the future, as one never knows what new methods will eventually present themselves for analyzing it.

    Do you know who you’ll have analyze the surface structure and material makeup of that small section?

    • Agaricus

      I agree that a modern analysis may provide valuable info, but (depending on how the sample has been stored), even though Pd is relatively unreactive it is possible that the surface structure of the wire may have altered somewhat over 25+ years of storage. In particular, Pd can react slowly with trace amounts of atmospheric sulphur dioxide over time, if water vapour is also present.

  • rats123

    How about MFMP stick to replicating just one experiment. They’re jumping around all over the place.

    • bachcole

      I thought exactly the same thing, but I was too lazy / trusting / unsure to say anything. When they get an honest-to-God replication with lots of excess heat, then, yes, they might want to try other designs/formulas. At least Babbage got a calculator out of his silly antics. MFMP doesn’t have squat, yet.

    • Omega Z

      Take Note that they have multiple teams working different replications in different countries. Also note that this P&F wire replication is being done by an additional team.

      It was MFMP’s intention from the beginning to encourage & implement many different groups of research while doing their own. Spreading the science.
      More teams working cover more ground. It also provides separate replications should any of them find positive results. A ready made 3rd party replication network.

      Also be aware that these people are all volunteers. They have day jobs & families. We should appreciate the fact that they spend nearly all their free time doing this. I appreciate that they help other teams gather materials while waiting on their own to arrive.

  • Hank Mills

    The MFMP have not ran the “glow stick” Parkhomov replication at high enough temps to vaporize lithium and produce excess heat. They do great work, build neat devices, and have great skills: but they are lucky to run one serious, fueled test every couple of weeks. I would suggest they put all their energy, time, and resources into replicating the Ni-LiAlH4 hot cat technology. It provides them with the best chance of producing massive excess heat and even self sustain. The last thing they need to do is take on another project – especially one with no where near the potential of the hot cat.

    • Guest2


      Replicating a Pd system is good for a show, not much of practical value (historic one may be, Pd is bloody expensive to use as a fuel). Ni-LiAlH4 hot cat technology is much more pragmatic.

      • Alan DeAngelis

        Although palladium is more expensive than nickel perhaps the Mitsubishi process could be used to transmute the more abundant element molybdenum into palladium (making it competitive with nickel systems).

        Mo + 4d > Pd

        Or from strontium

        Sr + 4d > Mo

        Mo + 4d > Pd

        I posted this before.

        Maybe in the distant future it may become more important because deuterium
        is more abundant than lithium. People have forgotten Les Case’s football (at
        36:36 min). It was a palladium deuterium gas system.

  • Dr. Mike

    Good luck to MFMP for a successful replication of the original Pons-Fleischmann experiment. What is the “etc.” in step #1 of the plan to characterize the Pd? As a minimum, i would suggest at least do as thorough job as was done in the Lugano report for the fuel and ash.
    Dr. Mike

  • LuFong

    Wow this quite nice surprise. The timing may be perfect as well given all the current LENR cold fusion activity.

  • Ivan Idso

    I think this is a great opportunity and I would never criticize MFMP because they have worked tirelessly. They have families and a life beyond lenr, so I think some people are a bit too demanding while sitting in their armchair barking out directions. Unless you are contributing to the cause, I am not sure you should be telling them how to do it.
    Just saying…

    • hempenearth

      I agree Ivan and don’t forget they are volunteers who know their own resources better than distant bloggers. Some experiments will need to be put on hold until appropriate resources are at hand.

    • Josh G


  • catfish

    Celani, Parkhamov-esque, now this? I really respect the MFMP, but why not stick to one project?

    • Full agree!

      They should focus on one thing.
      Maybe they can outsource this new idea to an independent partner group?

      But please follow the Ni-H poweder approach!

      • MFMP is many teams in fact, and each should as you say to focus on one experiment….
        but the independent teams have different focus.

        • Bob Greenyer

          This is correct.

      • Josh G

        Read their announcement again. That’s exactly what they’re going to do.

    • Bob Greenyer

      We are running not 1 but two live Celani experiments right now, with live data on HUGNet.

      One in France – on a long slow load – ready to finally do the long planned Gamma tests when he is back.

      The other in Switzerland – which is seemingly producing 5% excess now with latest Celani wires. Nicolas would like to wait until he can get back to his lab before standing behind these figures.

      Bob Higgins in New Mexico has made major progress on his Parkhomov experiment build designed to look for Helium, something no-one else is doing, and has Parkhomov Nickel and Ryan Hunt received his Parkhomov Nickel earlier today.

      We are working our buts off here to take things forward.

      • Omega Z

        Why’s it taking so long. Why’s Rossi messing with that, Etc, Etc.

        Probably starting to feel like Rossi about now. huh.

        We live in a point, click world & people tend to forget things take time & waiting. In research, Lots of waiting.
        I see working on different projects while waiting on another to be quite productive. Not a waste of time.

        I note some didn’t read the subject very well. They missed the part that this will be done by another group. If I recall, that was part of the original intent of MFMP. Not to just do your own research, but to help arrange others as well. Maybe people need reminded of this & the fact that your work involves multiple sites in multiple countries.

        I appreciate the work MFMP & you do.
        Let end with have a good day.

  • Teemu Soilamo

    Ugh. Rossi himself said the Pons-Fleischmann approach does not work very well. What are you guys doing!?

    • Bob Greenyer

      We are facilitating it, the bulk of the research will be conducted by people not involved with the project currently. In addition, by doing this work, it is very evident that it will open up all kinds of resources that we have never had access to before.

      • Omega Z

        Maybe consult with Stanley Pons.

  • Josh G

    First off, major kudos to MFMP!!! I have no doubt that your integrity, philosophy and work methods are what inspired the owner to entrust you with this material.

    To all you naysayers from the peanut gallery, take a deep breath. Let’s remember Darden’s admonition to patience. Anyway there is no reason to assume that doing this will slow down MFMP’s dogbone project at all. In fact, from what they’ve said, the MFMP personnel will not be involved in the actual work of doing the replication. Instead it will be headed by Jean-Paul Biberian and another unnamed experimentalist who is not a member of MFMP (unless Biberian is the experimentalist to whom they were referring.)

    Biberian is an *excellent* choice to lead this replication attempt, since he (with Georges Longchampt) is the only person to have ever actually replicated the original F-P experiment as reported at ICCF-6. [Actually, it’s not 100% clear how directly involved he was with setting up the replication attempt. The ICCF-6 paper does not have his name on it, although a follow-up from ICCF-7 does.] It is extremely difficult to replicate experiments in exact detail without trying to ‘improve’ on them. This replication has to be done exactly the same. I hope there will be safeguards and guarantees in place to ensure that that happens. I actually think the analysis of the palladium will be far more important than a replication.

    Also as Melvin Miles points out in Ruby Karat’s video on the SPAWAR co-deposition experiments, the size of the cathode is critical. I don’t know how large the F-P cathodes were, but hopefully there is plenty Palladium to both analyze and use for the experiment.

    Here is McKubre from the history of ICCF-6 on the previous replication attempt []:

    “Jean-Paul presented on behalf of Georges Lonchampt, Centre d’Etudes Nucleaires de Grenoble, “Reproduction of Fleischmann and Pons Experiment.” For the first time ever (before or since) somebody had taken up the task of replicating Fleischmann and Pons experiments in engineering detail without any attempts to “improve.” I will let them speak in their own words from the Proceedings of ICCF6:

    “Introduction. Since the announcement of the cold fusion phenomenon by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989, various techniques have been utilized to produce excess heat. Numerous results have been obtained that are dispersed, and even sometimes contradictory with each other.

    “Being aware of that, we have decided to “simply” reproduce the exact experiments of M. Fleischmann and S. Pons as described in their 1993 article. The purpose of our work is to ascertain the various phenomena involved and the conditions of their apparition in order to master the experiments.”

    “What a novel concept. Understand and master before you attempt to improve? Nobody else has ever managed to display this level of self-discipline — and Lonchampt et al. succeeded admirably! As Jed Rothwell notes in his otherwise fairly harsh review of ICCF6 for Infinite Energy,

    “This is exactly what cold fusion cries out for: careful, step by step replications done by people who follow directions. Biberian said that he and the other scientists in the project wanted to incorporate various ‘creative improvements’ but Lonchampt insisted on doing a precise replication with assistance from Pons and Fleischmann. That is why it worked, as Biberian cheerfully admits. It takes an engineer to do these things right. Everything about this work is superb, even the Abstract.”

    Got to make sure that Biberian doesn’t try out any ‘creative improvements’ this time around without Longchampt (deceased) to reign him in. 🙂

    • Gerrit

      Don’t use words like “peanut gallery” it’s contemptuous.

      We are all in this together and the folks who “only” contribute on the forums are also the ones who post comments elsewhere in the internet and spread the word outside of our little world.

      We are all doing our best.

      • Josh G

        I have no problem with people (like me) whose ‘only’ contribution to LENR is posting on forums. I do have a problem with people who snap to criticize MFMP with a critical and contemptuous tone. I agree with Ivan Idso’s statement below, “I think some people are a bit too demanding while sitting in their armchair barking out directions.”

        I call ’em like I see ’em and the attitude towards MFMP expressed by many people here is akin to a peanut gallery. From Wikipedia: “A peanut gallery was, in the days of vaudeville, a nickname for the cheapest (and ostensibly rowdiest) seats in the theater, the occupants of which were often known to heckle. The least expensive snack served at the theatre would often be peanuts, which the patrons would sometimes throw at the performers on stage to show their disapproval.”

        • Gerrit

          you don’t like their contemptuous tone and therefore you use a contemptuous tone. It’s clear to me now, thanks.

          • Josh G

            Yes, but they earned it. MFMP didn’t. That’s the difference.

        • Mats002

          I am proud of being a peanut in this forum, we all should!

    • you are right, an experienced experimentalist without a theory would do a great job.

      if not Biberian, would have to hire somone like mckubre miles, ENEA team , Kidwell, …

  • Bob, for what it’s worth, when Mitchell Swartz prepares a NANOR, oxidation plays an important role. All though he often uses zirconium, he also works with nickel.

    Your very fortunate to receive the pre 1989 palladium. I was told F&P went back to the same company to get more of the original wire and they only had a foot and a half left.

  • Gerard McEk

    Congratulations MFMP! This is an enormous recognition for your quality work and honesty you are unselfishly doing for the people in the world and surely in line with your aims. It is also a major responsibility and I hope you will be able to copy the Master and prepare a proper foundation for the future LENR science..

  • US_Citizen71

    I think that this is wonderful news. I can think of no better memorial than reproducing that historic experiment with a live feed and modern measuring equipment. An irrefutable proof of the effect that Pond and Fleischmann first detected using the original cell and some of the original wire will be news that has a great chance of being reported in the mainstream media. The project may not increase the knowledge base by any large margin but it has the potential to help bring the current efforts of those like Parkhomov and Rossi to mainstream attention. Changing public opinion and attitude toward cold fusion at the same time.

  • Fyodor

    I have to agree that I don’t really see the point in this. It seems that there are better approaches that have a better chance of producing clear excess energy and are better candidates for developing industrially useful technologies. That, rather, than testing of P&F’s original wires, is more likely to vindicate their work and provide value to everyone going forward.

  • John

    Thanks MFMP. Probably now after so many years we will find out why this technology was suppressed. I hope you disclose everything my question is; If it’s something good for human kind it will be disclosed, but how about a bad news ? like huge radiation or Nuclear thing, will it be suppressed from our knowledge or even then it will be freely open? The results can be positive, but also be negative…. Could be that “they” had a reason or “they’ve” been afraid at the time, and, because of fear they just suppressed it ? I mean, the idea is to stay Open Science even with this or you have other ideas… I think the guy who had this hidden for so many year had good reasons to do it, WHY ?

    • US_Citizen71

      Could it be that you’re a FUD slinging troll that makes your living off of the multi-billion dollar boondoggle that is hot fusion research? Could it be that you’re afraid that vindication of Pons & Fleischmann might end that gravy train? Would you tell us if it were true or would you just keep it to yourself for your protection? I think those who fling FUD on cold fusion have something to hide…WHY… WHAT IS IT THEY ARE AFRAID OF?

  • US_Citizen71

    “I think the main reason, in the time, maybe not now, was that they truly believed that this “gift” of free access to cheap energy for all could unbalance the world, meaning that at the time was excessively disruptive, so many dictators at the time in place, so many communists still fighting, with imperial ideas, so many mafia influence.” – This would generically be true of any new energy source at anytime in history. With multiple replications having been done on palladium deuterium cells all with geiger counters and neutron detection devices as part of the experimental setup and all showing no deadly gamma or neutron radiation detected, why spread FUD about a hidden radiation hazard in Pons & Fleischmann’s original test? Do you have anything, anything at all to substantiate such a claim? Pons is still alive why not ask him why the wire was squirreled away?

  • Obvious

    I think this is pretty cool, but if someone could produce the dried up electrolyte powder from a successful XH experiment with Li in it for testing, I would be happier than with mangling an historic item. I hope there are a couple more of these old pieces around in good shape.
    Unfortunately I don’t think there is a good way to test the wire for contaminants and isotopes without wrecking it.

  • US_Citizen71

    It was bidirectional FUD slinging not debate.