MFMP Glowstick 3 Test — Was there Excess Heat? (Update: MFMP Provides Interim Analysis)

Thanks to Stephen Taylor for this suggestion:

@admin Frank, do you think it would be a good idea to start a GS3 summary thread? I am a little confused about what was learned and even uncertain what was observed. There were some measurement problems because of the coil bind or something and I’m not sure how to interpret the data at this point. Not sure where the discussion is happening. Any guidance will be appreciated.

I think Stephen’s idea is good — we’ve had lots of discussion, but now all the testing has finished I’m wondering if we are in a position to come to any firm conclusions. I have to confess that I am not sure what to think regarding the testing. There did seem to be some data that indicated that excess heat was measured in the test — but there has also been statements from members of the MFMP that cast doubt on that.

I don’t feel qualified to make an kind of firm evaluation on this test, so this thread is for you to put forward your best thinking on the topic. Thanks in advance!

UPDATE (June 13, 2015)

The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project have posted the following analysis of their recent Glowstick 3 test on their Facebook page.

Did the *GlowStick* GS3 see excess heat?
[]=Project Dog Bone=[]
Alan has been analysing the data from the calibration, active and subsequent re-heat runs and whilst it appears at that some of the observed departure from calibration can be explained by wire binding and movement – not all can be.
See the attached adjusted graph published for discussion (GS3 Active Run 27 May 2015 – with correction for heater coil misalignment).
For all the data and Notes, block diagram, schematics, bill of materials for the experiment go here

Jack Cole commented on the experiment also:

“The declining and increasing power above the Parkhomov zone make it less likely that moved or constricted coils are the explanation. The coil would have to be shifting about to create an effect like that.”
Then he compares the recent family of GS3 charts produced by followers Sanjeev, Ged and Ecco (see graph with blue arrows) that have a similar behaviour to one of his own experiments he suspected of producing excess heat (see attached graph)

“Here is a chart from an experiment I did that showed apparent excess heat.”
Notice the similarities…

It is too premature to call anything, a post tear-down calibration may help, the real clincher would be evidence of elemental or isotopic ratio changes in the ash. Here is what the plan is in that direction in Alan’s own words:

“I’ll be opening the GS3 reactor on Monday after checking the residual pressure. Then I’ll pump it down to vacuum and leave it for a while to de-load the hydrogen. After reinstalling the core thermocouple I’ll do a final calibration run. These steps will be done with the reactor in place on the test stand, without disturbing the thermocouples or heater coil.
As a final step I’ll remove the fuel and divide it into samples for isotopic analysis.”

Whatever the outcome, we have to thank Alan and Skip for a job well done.

As ever, to discuss this more fully, head over to our main site here




  • Asterix

    Here’s a thought-

    Instead of a blank run (no material) as the reference sample, why not make up a similar quantity of the hydride and a material with a nearly identical specific heat and division as the “dummy” charge? Iron would be a good candidate and would present more of an apples-to-apples test protocol. Sub-micron size (colloidal) iron is inexpensive and readily available.

    The alternative would be an isotopic form of nickel that was known to be unreactive–however, I suspect that would be cost-prohibitive.

    • Daniel Maris

      Yes, that sounds like a good idea. I have thought before that another fuel not thought to be LENR-productive would be a good dummy.

  • Stephen Taylor

    I read that Alan might be considering a small increase in the diameter of the reactor tube in a future test. Perhaps this means the fuel charge diameter is increased. Such an increase may improve performance. Also, a small increase in fuel mass, perhaps .8g or even 1g would be potential candidates for further study. Wish we could run hundreds of trials in the next few seconds or so. Seriously though, thought needs to be given to how we might access more and longer trials with less exhaustion of testers.

    • Bob Matulis

      Stephen, I agree more and longer trials would be helpful. I would have like to have seen the subsequent tests of the same duration as the original test.
      I am very grateful for all the time and effort being put forth to advance this science. This was the most encouraging test in a long time.

      • William D. Fleming

        I wonder if the fueled and unfueled cells should have more separation or thermal isolation.

        • Omega Z

          Two separate cells & equipment would be best.
          Money & equipment available often dictates how these tests are done. Also, many of these people have day jobs. Sadly, It is not the optimal way to do these tests.

      • US_Citizen71

        I think it is time to add some form of calorimetry. Watching the reactors glow pulse is cool and hypnotizing, but personally I could live without it. Getting a good measurement on energy output I think is more important.

  • Stephen Taylor

    Use a thin stainless steel fuel container per Parkhomov. This has several advantages. It adds iron to the fuel mix? It allows some control of the fuel charge geometry. It moderates local hot spots.

  • Daniel Maris

    Use the heat to produce electricity via possibly a small Stirling Engine. I wondered if that would provide more assurance that any anomalous heat was real and not an artefact.

    • Omega Z

      Stirling engines have 15% to 20% efficiency.
      You would need a COP>6 to loop it.

      • Daniel Maris

        I disagree. This is not about creating an overall energy gain, it is to see whether there is a DIFFERENCE between the null and the fuelled reactors.

        So, if the input is in both cases X Watt Hours, what you might see is the null reactor produced X minus 100 Whs whereas the fuelled reactor produce more e.g. X minus 50 Whs (if there is anomalous heat being produced in the fuelled reactor). If there is no reaction, the electricity produced should be roughly the same.

        • Omega Z

          Maybe I misunderstood.
          I thought you meant to loop the system so no external power would be need. If that were the case, you would need COP>6 to break even.

  • bfast

    Little frustrated here! They designed a test, they ran a test, they got the hoped for result — so the question is asked but not answered of whether LENR happened. What will it take to get rid of the question marks? We need a conclusive public test.

    • Ged

      Analysis is a slow, steady process. Largely it is a process of elimination till only one plausibility remains. It takes time and effort and further experiments to cover all the bases.

    • Bob Matulis

      My take is there was a decent chance LENR happened. But it was akin to a spark instead of a flame. A 1.3ish COP is quite an accomplishment but a 2 to 3ish COP for an extended period are the type of results that will clearly demonstrate LENR and will provide adequate ash to analyse.

    • Bob Greenyer

      If the ash comes back with elemental or isotopic shifts – it will be very strong evidence of LENR.

      Until then, it will be a best guess on publicly available data.

      • timycelyn

        Bob, take care and get well soon!

        On elemental / isotopic analysis, it is my prediction that there will be an effect – but it will be so small as to not be statistically significant, and the result will be inconclusive.

        Sorry to be a Jeremiah – and I hope I am wrong – but the cell was not active for enough hours, I fear. We only really have live run 1 as one where things may have happened, with a maybe/maybe back up of live run three.

        I’m not arguing for or against doing the analysis, just doing a little expectation adjustment…..

        • John

          MFMP how is the status of this ”
          MFMP Announces Receipt of Original Palladium Wire Used By Fleischmann and Pons, Plan for Replication of F&P Experiment” ? Are you guys on the path to rebuild P&F experiment?

          • Bob Greenyer

            The original owner of the material was diagnosed with a long term acute condition. We are working to find a way to take this project thread forward.

  • Allan Kiik

    I don’t think it is reasonable to search for isotopic change before long and high COP experiment is achieved. Right now, we don’t even know if the effect in first run was real thing or instrument/measurement error. It’s difficult and expensive test, why do this before strong effect have been observed for long enough for isotopic change accumulation?

  • Bob Greenyer

    I think the Power monitor is a must.

  • Hi all

    I think you might find it useful for you all to find out what the COP of a Nuclear Power Station is?

    I leave that one in the capable hands of each of you along with your good friend Google. 😉

    Kind Regards walker

    • Ged

      Closest I can find is that nuclear power plants are around 33-37% efficient. The max for power plants in general is about 40% thermal efficiency (compare to a spark plug in a car which is about 20% efficient). There’s some calculations in this paper .

      • Mats002

        COP 1.4 then.

        • fact police

          No, 0.4 then. Where do you get the “1”?

      • Omega Z

        Most Nuke plant turbines operate with about 300`C steam. Thus 30% is usually the average. No need to explain the need why Nuke plants operate at such low grade heat. Right. 🙂

      • fact police

        Right. This represents the output electrical power divided by the thermal power produced by the fuel, whether it is nuclear fuel or fossil fuel.

        If the thermal power produced by the fuel is taken as the input power, then the corresponding COP’s are 0.33 and 0.4, and could not be greater than unity without violating the conservation of energy.

        But in cold fusion, the thermal power produced by the fuel (in this case, nickel and hydrogen) is *not* counted. Only external thermal or electrical power is counted in that case. Then COP can exceed unity, because the energy comes from uncounted nuclear reactions.

        In a heat pump, COP can exceed unity because the energy comes from the environment, and is not counted as an input.

        If the thermal power from the fuel is not counted in fossil fueled or nuclear fueled plants, then the COP is infinite in both cases.

    • fact police

      Using the definition of COP applied to cold fusion, a nuclear fission reactor has an infinite COP. A fission reactor is entirely self-sustaining. Once the fuel is prepared, it doesn’t even need external energy to start it, apart from withdrawing the control rods.

      The energy is released when uranium atoms are split. If you count the energy stored in the nuclei as input energy, then you should also count the potential nuclear energy in cold fusion. If all sources of energy are counted, a COP > 1 would violate the conservation of energy. Even cold fusion advocates don’t claim that.

  • Mats002

    Thanks to Alan, Skip and MFMP: “Answers to many of the questions posed can be found in the complete documentation of the experiment, available at:

    I’ve included a system block diagram showing the control and power components, a drawing of the cell and all the data files.

    The decision to use sine wave power was made to ensure that thermocouple data was free of RFI problems. PID control was employed to permit automation of the desired complex temperature rise profile, with uninterrupted, detailed data collection over an experiment lasting several days.”

  • Stephen

    In Sanjeev’s plot of temperature versus heater power for the first run we have an initial knee at about 200 deg C. Is this the about the temperature the cold e-cat works? If so perhaps the 600 deg C in the hot cat is only required to provide the Hydrogen in the LAH case.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      i think you are right on Stephen, hit me right between the eyes when i saw the 200 C event – home heater E-Cat! 600 C also! Jim

  • Sanjeev

    They have PCE 830 a very good power analyzer.

    • Bob Greenyer

      This is true, I flew with it to US for the Jan/Feb tests.

      When it was time for it to be used in Padua, it was sent on a “Guaranteed” delivery service to Mathieu in France – which owing to French customs strikes, it got delayed – arriving after he had departed for the conference. Then, it was sent again by his work – but got delayed again – never reaching Padua and causing all manner of nightmares for us (including $100s dollars extra accommodation and transport costs so we could run the experiment). It got bounced back to France and then got sent onto me, arriving after I had my first slot of time to re-heat the Padua cell. One thing we learnt about “guaranteed” services – they count for nothing, when you ask for a change of destination if they fail to meet their guarantee – they offer two options, return to start with refund or wait until it gets delivered.

      The whole shipping nightmare cost around many $100s, which is unfortunate and a waste – but more importantly, it missed being in the right place at the right time. Where it is now, it can be utilised for EU teams as and when they are ready, I nearly have everything in place (just need time). Could loan out to me356 – to improve his data and possibly also to the Open Power Association who lent us their unit – which is not as good – currently we are assisting them to do a full replication and they are progressing nicely.

      The asset is still on the books and has good retained value as it was secured at a deep discount. I feel it is better that we have another unit state-side for teams there to maximise the value of the volunteer research time.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Alkali metals like lithium are strong reducing agents, or electron donors. This might be one of the reasons why they are useful in LENR experiments. Electric current is an even more effective ‘electron donor’, so maybe passing it directly through the fuel could be an option.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      See MPMP’s „Sparky Powder Cell“:

      They might consider running this cell with a Ni-LiAlH4 fuel, instead of using only Ni.

    • KL

      I like the idea of the electric current. If the purpose of the lithium (in successful LENR events) is to function as an electron donor, then reagents like LiAlH4 won’t help that much since the Lithium and Aluminum have already lost their electrons to the hydrogen (in other words, already oxidized).

      Using pure Li or Al metal (in its fully reduced state) might be an interesting experiment since bare metals would have a lot more electrons to donate. Electroplating the inside of the reaction chamber with Aluminum might be another route.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thankyou for your generosity – I will try to secure a similar discount on another unit as I did the first, one that could stay stateside.

  • Bob Greenyer

    In Europe. It basically costs 25% of its value to ship across the pond and risk of damage etc – so plan is to get one for stateside.

  • magicsnd1

    For context, here’s an excerpt from my Notes file (in the archive):
    This test [reheat#2] was meant to detect a gross failure of the DAQ as the cause of the active temperature jump seen in run#1 (the long one) at around 600 C. I think this jump may have resulted from a physical behavior of the heater coil. It was seen to be constrained from proper expansion, and an adjustment was made to it at the end of the test run. The TC offset immediately dropped, suggesting this to be a contributing cause.

    Following this discovery, I did an additional calibration [reheat#3] to measure the amount of error resulting from the stuck heater coil. The chart shows the effect of correcting this error.

    • Ged

      Interesting thing is that didn’t change, compared to re-heat 1, the power to temperature curve. Only the original run apparently breaks that P to T relationship, and dramatically.

      Awesome graph and work on correcting for the coil bias!

      • Mats002

        Ged, exactly where is that awesome graph, link please.

        • Ged

          That graph is posted right above :P. But here’s a direct link too

          I believe it is far too conservative and probably inaccurately too large a shift (based on the behavior), but even with such a “correction”, the excess effect is not removed.

          • Mats002

            So, it is still (after another iteration of corrections) Excess heat??? :;;;;-)

          • Ged

            Seems so! Looking at temp versus power in particular shows it most starkly. As Jack Cole illustrated above, there are also the power down blips that happen only for the first run, and not for any subsequent runs nor calibration. It’s similar to what he saw when producing potential excess heat as well.

            We need calorimetry though at this point now.

          • Mars002

            Let’s shift our attention to Brian and Jack then, both advancing to calometry.
            DIY – Pro Labs 2 – 0
            I love that score!!!

          • Mats002

            Parkhomov and Songsheng and Rossi himself will be 2 – 3 but where is the thin line of PROof?

          • Mats002

            I just realized a social reality: I trust MFMP (west) more than Russia (language barrier) and China (culture and language barrier) and Rossi (Italian associated to maffia). So: trust is an actionable parameter for LENR (and any other subject), Peter Gluck: what is your analysis?

          • James Andrew Rovnak

            Good eye GED – even more LENR was there, No?

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Also happen to be where one would expect Li plasma to occur & LI to start contibuting to release of nuclear energy Alan. see my comment above to Bachcole about the new player unifiedGravity on the block – just read their patent which kept me up till 4 AM last night & shed a lot of light on conversion of Li for me that I have tried to understand for a long time. Think Stephen will enjoy that patent application also.


      PS Again great Job Alan enjoyed talking to you during the test although I did not know who you were till one of the viewers pointed that out to me. I wondered how Magicsnd1 new so much. Note time constants you got with fuzzy logic controller may be influenced by its detunning PID settings as one approaches set point to minimize undershoot/overshoot of target setpoint!

  • Ged

    Look at the data and see what you think :). No amount of trying to remove the excess from the data has succeeded, it’s still there. But it will never be declared such until further replications and particularly calorimetry is done; due to everyone being so conservative about it as there are so many unknowns with a thermometry methodology like this.

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Right on Ged you are a great thinker in my book I have to tell you that with all due considerations.
      Your friend & admirer

  • pg

    i will wait until ” MIT is claiming they have discovered a new form of energy that is clean, cheap and abundant, in collaboration with GE, Lockheed Martin and Exxon Renewables”

    • James Andrew Rovnak

      Nice Idea but they are very slow & super conservative group who killed LENR for a long while, No?
      PS We should be heating our homes with clean LENR energy right now if it weren’t for their oversights failures around 1989! I live in New England where we have to poison ourselves & our children with effluents of burning fossil fuels because of MIT’s short comings, no less! They are a great institution of learning however & I love & use their open course program with great appreciation.

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    Good show Bachcole enjoy your comment thoroughly & eternal optimism


  • James Andrew Rovnak

    Its there Baccole of that I am certain but see what the ash says, No? Only hope there is enough to measure well for we did not run as long as Lugano! That test by Rossi cued every experimenter on what to put in his fuel element on many guesses as to why by them. take a look at following tweet for uncontestable evidence by a new player in field about LENR energies truth both in theory & experimental evidence at least in the case of converting Li isotopes up the chain to get their useful power to warm us eventual,

    • Bob Greenyer

      I agree that this patent is profound, we reported on it some time ago and it really opens the door to Lithium derived energy with very low projectile energy.

      What is incredible about this patent is the scores of well conducted experiments.

  • James Andrew Rovnak

    I don’t joke lightly, do a lot of dreaming & reflections base on my past life experiences as a Nuclear Engineer who left to work in fossil & petrochemical plants for a while because no one wanted to build inherently safe reactors, then back to nuclear. I was born & raised in a small Pennsylvania coal town & remember as a kid seeing grown men coming out of the mines with white circles around their eyes & coal black faces & tried unsuccessfully to do something about their plight with my career. Many I knew died of black lung disease, no less, unfortunately for them & their families & I did nothing to help of that I am deeply sorry!

  • Mats002

    It is not my intension to discredit anyone, all those people are great men doing fantastic things. My point is that most people – including myself – tend to trust some sources of information more than other. Soft and even hard evidence will be valued differently by people depending on their relation to the source of information.

  • Curbina

    Hello, I’ve been unable (time wise) to post comments for a while but have kept reading the new posts and respective comments. About the ongoing analysis of the GS3 results I’d like to ask Alan Goldwater and Bob Greenyer about their personal opinion on the analysis. I think the revised and adjusted input power vs temp plot is clear to show that at least in a range of temps there was “excess heat”. The results are at least encouraging.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Firstly, the test that Alan and Skip performed was brilliantly executed and I doff my hat to them.

      My personal opinion is that this is annoying – in the same way that the Mathieu’s Dec 12 2012 test with Celani wire that apparently produced 12.5% excess was annoying. It is annoying because it is not so huge that it cannot be dismissed, but it is tantalising and a good motivator for everyone to plough onwards.

      For me, thermometry is a good screening approach because it is relatively cheap and can show things that may have promise – but conclusive at this level – no. Well understood calorimetry like Parkhomov’s original approach is much easier to debate.

      In the end, it is all in the ash – this test is sufficiently interesting to warrant asking those that have offerred to analyse ash for us, to do so. If the ash shows elemental or isotopic changes in line with those claimed by others and which would be expected to yield excess heat – then we’d be in a better position to call it.

      • Curbina

        Thanks for your comment Bob. I hope something valuable is revealed by the ash analysis.

        • Ged

          The temperature versus time chart is up there too, above in this article, so I do not understand your objection as written.

          The power versus temperature chart I made is a double moving average across 12 or so minutes, so fast, transitory events such as thermal inertia are not visible.

  • pg

    was it too subtle?

  • Ted-X

    OFF-TOPIC: The hibiscus tea may cause loss of hair.

    • bachcole

      I think that Ted-X was putting me on:

      “In Ayurveda, Hibiscus (Jaswand) is known for healthy hair. Hibiscus
      promotes hair growth, stops hairfall, and delays premature graying.”

      My wife will want to know about this.

  • fact police

    There is no definition of COP that would give you 1.4