MFMP Letter to Donors on LENR Replication Breakthrough

Thanks to e-dog for posting this in a comment. It’s a letter from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project explaining their E-Cat replication breakthrough that has been announced.

Here’s the complete letter to the donors from MFMP:

Dear Donor,

During ICCF-17 in South Korea, shortly following the sad death of Dr. Martin Fleischmann, it became abundantly clear to a group of fresh attendees that the old approach to science, combined with the ostracisation of the great minds that had worked in the face of ridicule, was not delivering on the promise of of what we immediately called, “The New Fire”.

It also was clear that there was something to investigate and we were morally bound to do it.

We said that people would not believe, until they could experience it as if they were doing themselves and so the idea of Live Open Science was born. That was not enough, it had to be an effort that was free from commercial or government interests and that result and so it had to be conducted by the people, for the people. Our journey was made possible by the courage of Francesco Celani and we thank him profusely.

Your donations played a critical role in realising this vision, but you know that, what we know you will want to hear is what we have to share tomorrow.

We have been running and analysing an experiment live over the past Month. First for us in this experiment were:

– Parkhomov Baking of Ni(correctly done)

– Pre Hydrogenation of Ni

– Proper baking out of cell under vacuum

– Parkhomov pressure

– Piantelli de-oxygenation

– Piantelli ‘loading’ + proper dwell times

– Piantelli capture analogue

– Use of free Lithium

– Use of calibrated NaI

– Cycles attempting to create nano Ni distillates (inspired by “Bang!” discovery of dissolved Ni)

– Long Run

You can see that there are steps in there that came about only because of activities that were made possible by donations. The critical visits to Piantelli and Parkhomov.

Around the beginning of the month we saw what appeared to be up to a COP of 1.2, not earth shattering, but sustained and robust and in line with both observations by others and the Lugano report when adjusted for correct emissivity. Over the next weeks we tried various bookend calibrations which supported this finding.

We have said that only two paths would satisfy us:

Statistically significant Isotopic or elemental shifts from Fuel to Ash

Statistically significant emissions commensurate, correlating, or anti correlating to excess heat

We are happy to tell you that we believe we have satisfied our condition 2, yet of course we’d like to replicate ourselves. Actually, though, it goes much further than that. What we will share is that the way in which we discovered it and the journey of analysis that makes it virtually impossible to say that Rossi does not have what he claims. It also shows that, whilst he may have been optimistic in how fast this would play out, he has been telling the truth, quite openly for years. Not only that, nature itself has been telling the same story and it told us too.

By the 16/02/2016 we had given up trying to destroy the *GlowStick* 5.2, part of a long lineage of []=Project Dog Bone=[] experiments. After the reactor was turned off, Alan shared the remainder of the data files from the NaI scintillator kindly donated by a project follower called Stephen (Thankyou Stephen, really).

Project follower and open science legend, Ecco, first took a look at the data and found some anomalies – one SO striking that we thought there had been an equipment failure. We did not know the time that the anomalies occurred and had to wait until Alan woke to explain the time stamps so we could correlate it with the thermal and power data published live to HUGNet (Thankyou Ryan and Paul Hunt).

To our extreme surprise, the onset of excess heat followed the massive anomaly in emissions and the minor anomalies were during and only during excess heat.

This led us on a path of discovery, the sequence of which explains:

The massive count signal discovered by Francesco Celani during Rossi’s first public demo

How Rossi knew his reactor had started

How the E-Cat generates excess heat

How it self sustains

How it can scale easily

That it is safe

It also showed us how replicators can know they have succeeded in triggering the New Fire and how to enhance the excess heat.

Subsequent to this, we found out Rossi had travelled the same design journey and had publicly shared it in the past.

The irony is – this was all being conducted live in the open, including discussions and graphing, whilst people were distracted with news of the end of the 1MW 1 year test. Same day…

In the past week we have been checking, cross checking to verify and this morning we cleared our last serious doubt, again live, with shared data. Because this is already in the open we want people to know so that they can start replicating based on what works, moreover, the insight will allow people to immediately start improving on our results.

Thank you for making this possible

We did it

We lit the New Fire Together!

  • Ged

    We really need the figures in that e-mail to be posted up here for it to be complete, though.

  • RLittle

    Congratulations MFMP!

  • Ged

    Hey Frank. It looks like the MFMP’s report write up on this is posted up on their page here: . With direct link: .

    That may help folks digest the discussion better. I think Bob posted this earlier too, but it was buried.

  • US_Citizen71
    • Mats002

      To clearify: above images were part of the letter, those are the images Ged (below) asked for.

      • US_Citizen71

        Yep, I should have been more clear.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Rossi’s approach to multiple reactors and his recent statement that the fuel size was determined after thousands of trials suggests that his method is not easily scalable. If MFMP has scalability then you may have found a virtue all your own. Lock the specifics down and stake your claim to them, MFMP needs to provide a unique solution if you wish to realize it in society.

    MFMP, I hope you have a lawyer, it is time for one.

    • deleo77

      Perhaps, but just thinking that Rossi had a 5 year engineering head start on everyone else is the bigger deal IMO. Rossi today said he was even delighted at hearing that MFMP replicated his work. His engineering lead time was enormous, patent or no patent.

      • Ophelia Rump

        And when someone starts selling “Glow Buddys” or whatever they decide to call what is essentially a clone of Rossi’s reactor on the internet and they work, how will IH feel about that?

        • Bob Greenyer

          The patent did that.

          • Kevmo

            Patents didn’t protect the Wright brothers from having their IP stolen from them. It was deemed “too important” for just a small group of investors to reap the benefits.

            The Japanese became experts at stealing patents and patent trolling in the 1970’s onward. The Chinese simply steal the IP.

            What we’re about to see is going to be ugly, all-out international renegade capitalism trade wars. Think about it: If you are Zimbabwe and can make reactors out of available materials, would you buy them from someone who owns the patent overseas? Or would you make them yourself and sell them out the back door?

            Does India pay royalties to Ford Motorcar for every little zippetydoodah car that gets sold in their country? NO. Nor can Ford stop them from selling in multiple international markets. Ford can only stop them from selling them in America and a few other protected markets.

          • Warthog

            Good to see you here…Kev. Not like the nest of skeptics that lives at FR, is it?

          • Kevmo

            Been a while, Warthog. Did you post this at FR? I see things are vicious as usual over there during primary season.

          • Warthog

            Haven’t yet, but thinking about it. I usually wait a while after the initial attention spike, as there is usually a good concise summary of the item. Although there have been a few summaries to date, I think things need a bit more time to “gel”.

      • Thomas Baccei

        I have watched the LENR development for years. I have donated a fair amount of money to MFMP. I’m just amazed that considering that their goal was replication, they would publish with such conviction without ever having done even a single replication themselves. I remain hopeful but find that to be really quite shaky. Doesn’t anyone else think that a delay of a few weeks that provided a single solid replication would have made this all more, well, substantial?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Firstly – a big thank you for your support.

          It will become clear it is not shaky as I get time to roll out the rest of the information.

    • Gerard McEk

      I assume MFMP has no desire to commercialize their development.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Whether MFMP desires to commercialize or not, if they wish to open source they still need to protect the rights to do so. There is also the small matter of anyone who was ever associated with MFMP going commercial which I think is the usual result of an open source project. MFMP needs to avoid unnecessarily catching an bullet. If MFMP is now on the chessboard, they need to play the game.

        • Observer

          The purpose of “open science” is immediate disclosure. This completely under-minds the patent process, unless someone (like Rossi) has already submitted a patent application covering what was disclosed. What the disclosure does do is make it impossible for the patent office to bar the award of patents for a technology for national security reasons since keeping it secret becomes a moot point.

    • John

      Rossi copied Pons & Fleischmann he did not invented anything really new, and all his work is based on hundreds of patents and studies before him. Rossi invented the Gamma Shield and luckly the shied helped the reaction. There is no lawyer capable of put millions of guys like us in jail. We will be a Million LENR individuals hard to find or prosecute

      • That is an unfair statement. Using low cost nickel powder and hydrogen gas was new, as was his added extra ingredients which are still only fully known to him. Rossi uses electromagnetic stimulation, which is also new. Rossi’s name will still be known a thousand years from now.

        • jimbo92107

          Agreed. Rossi has done a stretch of feverish, sustained R&D equivalent to anything Edison ever did, and he’s still going at it to bring our species a chance to save this planet from death by carbon.

          The MFMP project is a way to validate and extend Rossi’s work, as well as a way to promote more research by independent minds in this burgeoning field.

      • Billy Jackson

        I am unsure i care for the term “copied” Rossi’s e-cat is not a direct result of just following the P&F Formula but 1000’s of hours of experimentation and enhancement that was built off the findings of P&F. Credit belongs to P&F for kicking it off.. but you cant take credit away from Rossi by implying even if unintentionally that all he did was copy someone.

      • Kevmo

        Rossi independently replicated a Focardi NiH cell. He took it one step further by introducing his secret ingredient which was probably just Tungsten. Its purpose was to split H2 gas into H1 gas so that the reactor underwent a pre-LENR startup phase where the H1 gas recombined into H2 gas in an ENDOTHERMIC reaction.

        What that does is lock in various sites in the Nickel substrate where the H2 gas is properly loaded to generate the next steps of LENR. Focardi said in an interview that this was Rossi’s main contribution.

        Basically, he took the NiH backwater LENR reaction that almost no one could get to work and started showing very high COPs & high replicability to Focardi and others. He’s been tweaking it ever since.

        He never wanted to demo it as a scientific wonder, but relented when Focardi developed cancer and wanted the credit for all his hard work. It was clear that an industrial product wouldn’t wow customers until well after Focardi’s death.

        Rossi is a businessman and a brilliant tinkerer, not necessarily a scientist.

      • Rene

        No disrespect to you, John, but what you wrote shows a lack of understanding of how patents work, and, for that matter, how new and creditable discoveries *are* built atop the past discoveries of others.
        Rossi’s claims are unique and non-obvious ergo they are his. Period.

        • DrD

          And no one can be jailed for contravening a patent. You might be sued but only if you take commercial gain from it.

      • Omega Z

        Fleischmann & Pons worked with an electrolysis setup. Rossi’s technology is a dry system. They are not the same. Note that there were not hundreds of patents before Rossi’s work. Only a few on various attributes.

        Fleischmann & Pons were crucified for their work by Hot Fusion researchers in fear of losing the hot fusion funding. That should never have happened.

        There are those who’ve been aware of this phenomena for around 100 years. There is published scientific papers dating to at least 1962. F&P’s work was follow on work of others before them. That’s the way it works. Apple didn’t invent the telephone or even the cell phone. They merely built on previous work.

        I want to see patents on this early technology. I want Corporations to spend 100’s of billion$ building out the manufacturing base to mass produce these devices. They can build it far cheaper, better & safer then 1000’s of individuals. This is how it’s done if you want the masses to have access to this technology.

        I wonder how many would have home computers or smart phones if it were left to individuals to build their own from scratch?

      • HS61AF91

        very true; a Million LENR individuals hard to find or prosecute

      • Warthog

        Rossi’s approach is VERY different from P&F. The only similarity is that they both are “cold fusion”. Rossi’s approach is much more related to Piantelli’s work, which came about independently from P&F. But as I understand the patent process, obtaining a patent only gives the patent holder a monopoly on SELLING the tech….I think anyone can build and use a patented item for personal uses.

        • MasterBlaster7

          Correct. Patent law protection is based on selling an item, not building one for personal use.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Of course I would naturally defend F&P however, the Ni + H system was observed by chance and then invented by Francesco Piantelli, quite independently later that same year. Without this discovery and demonstrated effect, there would be no Rossi E-Cat.

        F&P and many other researchers used Lithium and even at ICCF-13 Lithium 7 > 6 was reported on in 2007.

        However Rossi made Nickel Powders work and was the first to seemingly make a practical device.

        Credit where due.

    • Rene

      MPMP: Congratulations! Definitely get a lawyer and settle out your claims to make it clear what you have done for the commons.

  • Navdrew

    Has anyone asked Parkhomov if he used lead or tungsten as the heat source in his replication reactor?

  • Gracious.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Really, due respect and the very first time he has directly referred to us to the best of my knowledge.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Happy happy, joy joy, 3.5 years of penury and jail to look forward to for just trying to be scientific – well – at least I’ll get free board and lodging!

        • Omega Z

          Not going to happen.

          You’re going to have to work for a living like everyone else unless you intend to manufacture using others IP without compensation.

          IH/Rossi are not concerned with what your doing. They are aware that anyone can do research & to my knowledge, there’s nothing illegal about reverse engineering. Only copying there technology for product to distribute. I’m confident you know what lines you can cross or not cross.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I know. Makers make.

  • Sanjeev

    Signal analysis is now published on QH

    [UPDATE#3 – Photometric analysis of the signal]

    • psi2u2

      “the journey of analysis that makes it virtually impossible to say that Rossi does not have what he claims. It also shows that, whilst he may have been optimistic in how fast this would play out, he has been telling the truth, quite openly for years. Not only that, nature itself has been telling the same story and it told us too.”


  • Dr. Mike

    From the above letter it appears that MFMP has made some exciting discoveries. When will they have a scientific report published on their results that discusses the experiment, the experimental results, and the conclusions from the experiment? This report should be as important as that on the 1Mw plant on furthering LENR science.

    • Bob Greenyer

      We are going to be preparing it between now and April (but don’t hold me to that!).

      Critical to our often stated operational plan is to replicate ourselves first.

      • Gerard McEk

        Hi Bob, congrats for you and your team.
        I hope you can answer the following questions:
        You are goring to replicate this live I hope?
        What type of reactor do you intend to use (Al2O3 or tungsten or both)?
        Do you intend to thermalize the gammas?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Of course we will do it live, as is the way we do our experiments.

          Exactly the same

          No changes in first part of run – so don’t expect higher COP – however, I am going to suggest that we do another calibration with say a tungsten hood that we can put over the cores after we *hopefully* see the turn on and minor emissions again.

          • Stephen

            Will you also be recording the temperature of the lead shielding behind both the null and active side? Could be interesting if beta- or X-Ray’s are thermalised there. And comparing null and active side effects might add some interesting info.

            I wish you could get an Optris it would be perfect for that kind of background measurement.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I am trying to organise an Optris for Alan.

      • Gerard McEk

        Some more questions:
        How do you intend to measure the temperature?
        Do you believe the temperature was measured wrongly in Lugano?

        • Bob Greenyer

          I think we need to get an Optris to Alan.

          Yes – it was measured wrongly in Lugano

          • jousterusa

            This may be the most important communication E-Catworld has ever published. I think the MFMP scientists started out with a strong dose of skepticism that only a long and rigorous series of experiments finally overcame. It lets a dedicated natural skeptic like myself go forward with much greater confidence!

          • US_Citizen71

            Does a liner/shield such as a layer of tungsten inside the alumina possibly change the IR output frequencies? Since alumina is semi-transparent to some IR frequencies a hot layer of tungsten below the alumina exterior would complicated IR temperature measurement, would it not? I still think MFMP would be better off measuring heat content (calorimetry) going forward than thermometry, it is less ambiguous.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We cannot physically change the attempted exact replications – otherwise people would just say they are not.

            I am trying to secure an Optris for Alan, but I think even better, would be to hire one of these that a contributor posted to our site.


          • US_Citizen71

            I understand, but I can’t wait for the time when you can. That counter/spectrograph would be an awesome addition!

            Good luck, God speed!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks – hope to see you on the next Run

          • Kevmo

            In my thirst for updates, I thought I’d find the MFMP Wikipedia page. But there is none. Anyone here a Wikipedia editor? It’s time to open a page on MFMP. Cold fusion has been an embattled topic on Wikipedia but now the upper ground can be claimed.

      • Josh G

        Congratulations on your discovery!!! Well earned. We all owe you guys our gratitude. Will you be presenting your initial results at ICCF-20?

        • Bob Greenyer

          First presentation may be in April – Hopefully after we have self-replicated or others have so a sufficiently acceptable degree

      • Dr. Mike

        I agree that a replication is needed for your report- looking forward to reviewing your results and conclusions! After a successful replication, I would suggest proceeding with some of the experiments that I outlined in my 5-17-2015 post on this website. In particular, I think investigating how the COP can be enhanced by optimizing the EMF signal supplied to the reactor would be one of the most interesting scientific paths to explore.
        Dr. Mike

  • Nadiem

    Have been reading the news for year, but never posted anything here. But now i have to say “thank you”. Super news 🙂

  • gdaigle

    Perhaps Huffington Post will pick up on the announcement and Mats’ translation for non-scientists. They did a reasonably good job on their last coverage of LENR:

  • f sedei

    Congrats on a wonderful breakthrough. But, I have to wonder if this is the same formula that Rossi uses for his ECat Low Energy Reaction. There may be, and probably is, more than one way to skin the Cat (so to speak.)

  • Bob Greenyer

    We tried to really break the GS5.2 experiment – and failed – this bodes well, it means that we have a 2 week run window where we can try to see the effect again. If it turns on early and shows excess – it should be worth investigating the ash.

  • Fibber McGourlick

    The amazing people on MFMP have made history by offering undiluted proof of LENR. They should be in line for part of the Nobel Prize for physics/chemistry/or peace, once things really take off (probably after the Rossi/IH 1yr/1MW test result is published to the world. In the meantime it seems to me that Bob G. should get some sleep. He’s all over these sites all the time, explaining and correcting. Good work, Mr. G.

  • Frank Acland

    Valerio Pensabene
    February 25, 2016 at 6:35 PM
    Caro Dr Rossi:
    Do all these replications of the Rossi Effect infringe your US Patent?

    Valerio Pensabene:

    Laboratory replication for scientific purposes are not patent infringements and I am delighted to read about them. Only if it is put in commerce an apparatus, that copies one or more of the claims of our patents, our attorneys will immediately file a suit.
    Warm Regards,

    • georgehants

      Pathetic, Mr. Rossi is clearly saying sod the World, I want money, money, money.
      What a sad society we live in.

      • psi2u2

        Where did he say that? This is your interpretation.

        • georgehants

          psi2u2, as I am completely open-minded, I am happy to listen to other “interpretations.”

          • psi2u2

            No comment. 😉

  • Bob Greenyer

    I like the name!