Analysis of Fuel Samples from MFMP Reactor Runs Show ‘Statistically Significant’ Isotope Changes

The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project has announced on its website and Facebook Page report results of isotopic analysis carried out by Marissa Little of EarthTech International, a private research organization in Austin Texas, which carries out independent laboratory testing.

Marissa Little of EarthTech has published a report of the testing they have done on samples that were taken from reactors used in tests carried out by the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project. Here’s a link to the Earth Tech report:

The key data can be found in this table:


The findings are very interesting. Here is the conclusion from the report:

The change in Ni60/62 ratio from natural abundance in sample #21 and #59 is statistically significant. We cannot currently conceive of an isotope fractionation process that would have caused such a change in the experiment as we understand it. The sign of the change in the isotope ratio matches what was reported in the Lugano Report of the Rossi device – i.e., a relative increase in the amount of Ni62. However, the change in the MFMP samples was significantly less than in the Lugano Report. Barring deliberate fraud, these appear to be intriguing results and warrant further investigation.

A statistically significant isotopic shift is a very interesting result, especially as it seems to be along the same lines as the Lugano report, and gives evidence that there is some unusual activity taking place in the fuels that are being heated up inside these dogbone reactors.

  • Buck

    Congratulations ! ! !

  • Paul

    Great MFMP! Isotopic analysis is a fundamental type of contribute that you can provide. We hope that you can do similar analysis also for the powders provided by other successful experiments or replicators. Then, a huge advancement of science would be granted.

    • Bob Greenyer

      We intend to – with the willing participation of testing bodies.

  • Mats002

    Congratulations MFMP!!! Is it significant enough to ‘call it’ and be ‘all in’?

    • Bob Greenyer

      I’ll reserve judgment until I know what sample is what.

      If indeed the 2 samples with non-natural isotopic Nickel ratio are both ashes – then I shall move my position from cautiously optimistic to strongly advocative.

      The bar I set for my opinion, as publicly pronounced before this data came in this evening was that I would need to see statistically significant isotopic shifts.

      I am looking forward to them reporting on any potential changes in 58Ni and 64Ni because at either end of the stable isotopic “happiness” scale the former is depressive and the latter manic and these are those that I would consider most likely to change.

      When other parties have responded, then this data may be supported or diluted. It could be a very interesting week.

  • Bernard Pierrat

    Oh happy day ! Congratulations to the winners

    • A little cold water…

      One possibility is that the 6.78 and 6.79 are GS3 fuel and ash, so nothing happened during the GS3 run and for some reason the fuel had abnormal isotope ratios.

      And the other one would be GS2 ash and is basically the same as normal so nothing happened in GS2 either.

      What was the origin of the GS3 fuel?

      • ss dd

        “Note we do not know which sample is what – but there is

        – a sample of GS3 fuel
        – a sample of GS3 ash

        – a sample of GS2 ash”

        source MFMP facebook

        • ss dd

          Nevermind, I see what you mean now.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Exactly LENR G – and right now – that is why I am at cautiously optimistic – but my reservation is mostly because the nickel is Parkhomov Nickel in both GS3 cases and not in the third.

        On that note however – we have Parkhomov Ni alone undergoing full isotopic analysis at University of Missouri – but maybe we do not need to wait until then – Parkhomov already did an analysis on his Nickel fuel.

        And.. well.. look (Parkhomov’s data attached)

        he said also that natural ratio is 7.27, but the 60Ni/62Ni ratio in his before and after is:

        before 26.4/4.0 = 6.6
        After 27.1/4.1 = 6.6

        Now we do not know if that is down to the tool used, but it is interesting – also, if the two Ni with low isotopic ratios are both Parkhomov – as you can see – ratio can still mean they are changing in the way implied by Lugano and the two samples with the same Nickel ratio have the biggest swing in 7Li/6Li – so there really is all to play for and need for a full isotopic assay of the Ni- so the testing party is right to take a deeper look at the material.

        By the way – look at how much the Parkhomov LiAlH4 was depleted in 6Li.

        It is my understanding that all of these samples did not use Parkhomov LiAlH4.

        • LuFong

          What about the Li7/6 ratio? According to Rossi this is the actual fuel. Looking at the Li7/6 ratio only would suggest that MFMP #21 might be the fuel and not the ash. The report states “A study of the Li isotope variations in the materials used is not recommended at this time as the Ni results could prove more conclusive” although this is not a rationale to ignore Li results in my mind.

          Edit: Actually I may be misinterpreting what Li7/6 means. It’s probably not the ration of Li7 to Li6 but just the Li %. I would be interested in any clarification of these results.

          • Bob Greenyer

            See my post below responding to LENR G

            either way you look at it – the data is interesting, only after the key to the publicly issued index file is released can we start making firmer conclusions.

            I am hoping that the other parties will report their data soon.

          • Bob Greenyer

            It is the ratio.

        • builditnow

          Alan, during the last GS4 run, also gave fuel samples to one of the local’s interested in LENR who is going to do isotopic analysis a the University of Berkeley, California. Alan is not letting us know what the test samples were in order to have the samples tested blind.

          Also, if enrichment helps the reaction, then would longer test runs potentially enrich and slowly perform better over time or does the sample have to be processed in some fashion in between tests. Another reason for Alan to automate his test setup so that the test can run much longer. See the project & donation request at

          • Bob Greenyer

            Excellent – yes Alan said you had offerred to run that sample set and thank you.

            My hypothesis is that the reaction will get more effective as less protons are absorbed by Nickel as it becomes more 62Ni and more are ejected to interact with 7Li – this is why the Lugano reactor got better with age.

            This assumes 2 things – 1. Piantelli theory, 2. Lugano is valid.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks, not sure we are there yet though. It is a tease.

  • Whoa….

    The Ni62 monster seemingly confirmed. E-Cats shake loose nucleons (from Li7, Ni-60) that fall into nature’s biggest available atomic energy wells (Ni62).

    • bfast

      This is truly exciting! MFMP is clearly getting LENR!! Now all they need to do is successfully measure the excess heat, and have another party replicate their results. Today we are DEFINITELY closer!

      I love, “We cannot currently conceive of an isotope fractionation process that would have caused such a change…”

  • Obvious

    So, to what specifically do the low ratio samples belong?

    • The presumption is that they are GS2 ash and GS3 ash with the other one being GS3 fuel (see ‘website’ link in article). But we won’t know for sure until the double-blind index is released. There’s still some outstanding reports. MFMP covered all the reasonable bases to make these results credible. So we’re waiting for the rest still.

      • Obvious

        So there are more data to come, then the reveal?
        How exciting!

      • Bob Greenyer

        As LENR G said we don’t know which is which – but when the key is released, if the Ni changes are only in ash and across the independent parties I’d be very keen to get the Padua cell tested as it has run hot for around 1/4+ the time of the Lugano experiment and a trend rate may be possible to establish publicly.

        One of our next priorities would be to help Bob Higgins run the {Garbage Can} experiment as that is designed specifically to see if there is helium evolved – if there is helium it removes a large number of possible reaction pathways/hypothesis.

        The testing parties all asked me if I knew what the numbered samples were – and all I could say is “even if I wanted to, I simply don’t know!”

        The sample originator does not know which samples were sent where or even who the possibilities for providing tests were so could not have influenced them.

        The different testing parties did not know who else were conducting tests. One asked for the information and I refused. I did say that all data would be shared for comparison and analysis.

        The testing body in this instance only ever tests for the semi-conductor industry, the intermediary handling the samples is considered their “weird” customer.

        We have not the means, inclination or motive to falsify the isotopic constituents of the samples.

        • EEStorFanFibb

          I’m confused by who actually did the analysis. It appears it was done FOR Marissa Little not BY Marissa Little. Frank and Bob can you clear this up please?

          • Bob Greenyer

            I do not know and the lab prefers to remain anonymous.

            I believe the other testing bodies can report the actual labs involved when they publish their data.

          • NCkhawk

            Nice work Bob – Earthtec did some excellent work on some of Letts Dual Red Laser calorimetry and is a credible outfit. Noted on the need to wait for all the data before reaching conclusions but this sounds promising. . If possible and provided that the report / data are positive, pls take steps to instill confidence in the chain-of-custody for these samples as they moved to the lab for analysis – its best to get ahead of the naysayers if possible.

          • Bob Greenyer


  • Kevmo

    The differences in percentage were about 6% to 2%. No doubt the skeptopaths will claim measurement error. At what point would a journal like “Nature” or “Science Daily” accept the claim at face value?

    • The report says “The isotopic composition of terrestrial nickel is invariant within the measurement uncertainty . The difference in the table between the NIST standard and the theoretical value can be taken as a measure of the accuracy of this particular set up.”

      So if 0.28% is the expected accuracy and the results show changes of greater than 6% then you have yourself a statistically significant result.

      Of course people screw up in many ways though so that’s why it was a good idea for MFMP to send the samples to multiple labs. Hopefully they’ll all report consistent results.

  • Bob Greenyer

    let’s see when the other data is in and the key file released.

    We need all the Ni isotopes to know what we are looking at.

    • Omega Z

      Oh come on Andrea is it positive or negative.

      And now Bob, from your present perspective, you understand well why Rossi invokes the (F9). Actually, you probably already understood. Maybe this post will help others.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Exactly – Data can look positive, but analysis my prove it circumstantial.

        It is curious that Parkhomov Ni has high 62Ni and 64Ni ratios – and considering Rossi says this is needed for better yield – perhaps this is why Parkhomov got excess heat and the GS3 was the first experiment that showed something interesting.

        Full Ni analysis and then the key file is needed.

  • Ged

    Looking forward to the key and the rest of the data from the other labs. I didn’t think the tests ran long enough or hot enough to have released enough energy to, if isotope shifts were the source, generate enough shifts to be statistically significantly observable. I would gladly be wrong, yet again.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I have been informed it may take a week+ for the full Ni assay from this party.

      One party has already done a full assay as I understand – but wants to study and prepare a proper report

      another party has only recently received their sample set.

      • Ged

        Gotchya, thank you for the update! I am encouraged by the one group wanting to make a proper report. That is code speak for us scientists for having results that are interesting to us.

  • ss dd

    Title of the article should be changed IMO, the results do not show isotope change at this point.

    • LCD

      Yeah I have to agree

      • Bob Greenyer

        I have to agree. For instance:

        “Analysis of Samples from MFMP Reactor Runs Show ‘Statistically Significant’ Isotope variance from natural Ni”

  • what is strange isn that one of the sample
    show no shift for Li but some of Ni,
    and one no shift for Ni, some for Li,
    and one both shift

    one interpretation is just error margin or screwup…
    another is that Ni and Li shift are independent phenomenons, one producing energy (Li) and one linked to bad triggering (Ni), and that all run behaved differently.
    can someone describe the 3 runs in questions

    • Bob Greenyer

      I can’t. The process we set up leaves me as blind as the testers. I have added what I know – the most important information is the fuel Ni isotope ratio reported by Parkhomov that we hope University of Missouri will confirm. This data leads me to suspect the GS3 fuel and ash are the ones with the low 60Ni/62Ni ratio.

    • LuFong

      Read the whole report and not just the conclusions and table like did to explain the Li numbers.

      • You are right. I managed to get the report on google drive (technical pb here with google drive).
        It is more clear.
        They prefer not to conclude on Li which have too variable abundance, and may suffer of fractionation more easily.
        Ni however is good indicator.

  • Gerard McEk

    This is an extremely important result and I know is has been done very carefully, such that no one who measured it, could have known which sample was taken before and after the measurement.
    Congratulations MFMP!
    I do hope we soon will be able to see tests that ran a longer time and produce more significant results.
    Bob, I know is is difficult, but do you think you will be able to analyse the gas in the reactor too in the future? If helium and tritium are being found, that would even more prove something is going on in the reactor and it would also considerably contribute to the development of the theorie (if measurements can also be done quantitatively).

    • tlp

      And also if hydrinos are being found.

      • Michael W Wolf

        I think some very smart people are beginning to realize the reality of hydrinos. There are hints of it all over the internet.

        • tlp

          Interesting! Could you give links to those hints?

          • Bob Greenyer


            Getting there – One party has said this

            “I have run the analyses and am still working on the calculations. Should have some results soon.

            The analyses that were contracted to be performed were a comparison of isotope ratios. Elemental concentration data from these analyses are limited and should be considered semi-quantitative.”

          • Bob Greenyer

            It is Coorstek ultra pure Al2O3

    • Bob Greenyer

      Please note that I cannot personally draw conclusions from the above data as it is only partial and we need the other testers to report on their samples and the release of the key file.

      The MFMP experiment called {Garbage Can} that is the design and brainchild of Bob Higgins is the one designed to test for helium isotopes.

      This will come online as BobH is able – it is very important.

      • Michael W Wolf

        I appreciate your scientific skepticism Mr Greenyer. But I am not a scientist, so I’ll say it. OMG, cheap transmutation just like Rossi said. A new world is coming. Full of hope and abundance.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I share your hope.

  • Bob Greenyer

    hopefully within two weeks – waiting for Lithium to arrive

    • Robert Ellefson

      What form and source of lithium are you going to be using?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Initially billets.

        We are arranging a material exchange process with a university to acquire the stabilised Lithium powder that you identified (thank you)

    • Bob Greenyer

      I have good news – we have lithium wire now – next experiment will contain pure lithium.

    • Bob Greenyer

      I have also just received the Lithium Billets

      So we have two options already – need to investigate best handling practices.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Well – it may be, depending on which sample is which, and also what the %age ratios of the full Ni isotope analysis is for each sample. As was shown in Parkhomov’s data his nickel 60/62 ratio was the same for fuel and ash … but BOTH had gone up in relation to all the other isotopes.

        So we need the full Assay and then the Key, so we know which sample is which – this will take around 1 week.

  • Stephen

    Do we already know the molecular chemical composition of the ash? I remember Sango Boks SEM EDX analysis ( 27 August) had oxygen in both the Fuel and Ash and was able to indicate the relative NI, Al and O chemical abundance in three samples but not the Lithium and Hydrogen. I’m wondering if the O In the Ash could indicate something about the abundance of LI and H etc would we expect the LiH generated during the burn to be converted to LiOH and AL to AL3O2 or something. Is the there LiH or LiOH even present or has all the Hydrogen been removed and we only have Li or LiO2? Do we know where about the Oxygen is stored in the LiALH4 fuel as well? There seems to be quite a lot of oxygen present relative to Al in all the samples, but less in 2 of them them than the other. Would it also be present as a gas in any of the samples?

    • Stephen

      I suppose the ratios in the SEM/EDX analysis are from the surface rather than the bulk so maybe the high Oxygen ratio can make more sense if that is the case. Reading elsewhere a certain amount of oxidation of the surface of the LiAlH4 fuel can occur with exposure to the air.

      • Bob Greenyer

        The University of Missouri are expected to be doing a full elemental and isotopic Assay of Parkhomov Ni and LiAlH4 – this will look at the bulk.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thanks Marissa

  • Bob Greenyer

    Could you run the numbers for the Upsalla University alternative hypothesis?

    7Li + xNi > 6Li + (x+1)Ni

  • Bob Greenyer

    He has admitted that he filled in data acquisition drop outs on his charts.

    We will know if his Ni data is accurate (or his testers equipment/process dodgy) when we get the full isotopic analysis of his Ni back from University of Missouri – we need to keep this a fact based discussion.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I am saying that it is a possible explanation for one aspect of this data that currently requires me to treat it with caution – but since I do not know what sample is from what – I can’t say.

    Truth will out – we just have a little bit of a frustrating time – at least we can all share the pain.

    • Bob Greenyer

      one of the samples is raw fuel.

    • Bob Greenyer




      • Bob Greenyer

        This level of energy release could be within the bounds of GS3 experiment.

        Bob Higgins’ experiment designed to look for helium is now more important than ever – i spoke to him this morning and he said that he will get to it right away.

        • fact police

          It sounds like the energy is comparable to the input, which would be outside the error bounds, but you would know better.

          And keep in mind that that energy can only be a fraction of the total. The same reaction would be occurring with Ni58, and there is twice as much Ni58, and Ni60 is an intermediate *product* in the Ni58 reaction chain. So, the total energy should be manyfold higher.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I think it is wise to wait until we see the final assay, across multiple testers and then start discussing what might have happened, if indeed anything happened.

        • Marissa Little

          I have to admit that I didn’t question the recommendation overly much. There were concerns about solubility, overwhelming the delicate detector with Ni while looking for Li, and adjusting the mass windows. It seems obvious in hindsight that the mass window should still have been able to see all nickel isotopes. I’ve asked the lab for more clarification on all of this.

    • US_Citizen71

      Not my wheelhouse so this is completely out of left field.

      What about cooling the Lithium with liquid nitrogen and then crushing it with something like a steel mortar and pestle?

      • Robert Ellefson

        Nitrogen reacts with lithium, although at cryogenic temperatures perhaps the reaction rate is suitable enough for rapid processing. I don’t know if the residual nitrogen would pose a later hazard or not. Liquid helium might be an option, or perhaps crushed dry ice. If not for the violent reactions involving lithium handled incorrectly, I would be tempted to set out to experiment with as many of these avenues as possible. However, given the hazards involved, I’m hoping to hear from more experienced and knowledgeable folks about these matters before I try any of them out.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Seeing as Lithium spontaneously reacts with nitrogen – this may not be advisable, Liquid Helium (if you could get some) might be an option.

  • Bob Greenyer


    One party says that the testing is still at the back of the que and will not be done this week.

    Another party says they are on holiday for two weeks!

  • Bob Greenyer

    We know there is some diffusion into the alumina, or at least deposition, from the “Bang!” fragment photos.

  • Timar

    From the MFMP Facebook page:

    MURR, University of Missouri isotopic analysis of Ni and Li

    []=Project Dog Bone=[]

    The analysis is for Parkhomov Ni and LiAlH4 as well GS2 Ash and GS3
    Fuel/Ash (which contained Parkhomov Ni) and was conducted at

    Results are

    We know from previous EDX that Parkhomov LiAlH4 contains Chlorine, but
    in terms of 7Li and 6Li, both US sourced and Parkhomov LiAlH4 both have
    near-natural isotopic ratios as given on wikipedia.

    Both were 7Li 92.6 : 6Li 7.4 to 1dp

    For tester notes and more discussion go here:

    We thank the University of Missouri for conducting this Assay.