MFMP: Guess the scientist of new bulletproof experiment

It appears that MFMP is planning some sort of stunt that will "will prove inside 2 weeks the reality of LENR indisputably and live". I have collected information from that thread. Can you guess whose claims will be tested?

The discussion was held in the comments on E-Cat World on 2016-09-19. Go there for context:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…nt-page-1/#comment-288798

What we know...

About the experiment:
"will not need a replication, post verification or any complicated debates to convince doubters"
"will also work at room temperature"
"the ash will confirm the live experiment"
"will be hermetically sealed and operate at room temperature"
"[will be] better than even a closed loop [experiment]"
"MUCH more convincing and visual [than a closed loop experiment]"
"the challenge is the apparatus has components that I suspect the originator would consider proprietary"
"The experiment would be a replication of the originators claims and so in itself be a replication"
"[there] will be evidence in the ash"
"The balls [of DJ Cravens] could be H2 D2 exchange - it is not that."

About the scientist:
"is a respected individual I have met a number of times over several years and responded inside 12 hours to my initial request and after saying that it was an interesting proposition"
"[has] published work is already known to many. [The test] is the most recent work (also published)"
"He even immediately offered to come and lecture about the underlying experiment to Aarhus."
"[is a] party with many serious publications of high quality to stand behind and has been researching in this field nearly as long as Me356 has been alive"
"[is not me356]"
"[is not Piantelli]"

Since the discussion is buried in the comments in that E-Catworld thread here are the relevant comments for somewhat easier context reviewing:

Quote

Bob Greenyer
I have devised an absolutely fool proof experiment that will prove inside 2 weeks the reality of LENR indisputably and live and will not need a replication, post verification or any complicated debates to convince doubters. Moreover it will have implications across many scientific disciplines.
It first needs the cooperation of the key party, which I am in communication with - and of course, their claims need to be real.

georgehants
Bob this sounds very much like a demonstration of the first electric light bulbs, any resemblance.
http://energy.gov/articles/history-light-bulb

Bob Greenyer
No - it is much bigger than a single problem solution - as I say, it will have wide implications across many scientific fields.

georgehants
Thanks Bob, but I meant as you seem to be describing in your answer below, a demonstration that like a light bulb, it is self-evident in that one can see clearly and un-arguably that it either works or it does not.
Good luck, as that would be the Evidence that Cold Fusion needs to escape it's cage and roar into life.
Allowing for the keepers with their whips and rifles doing everything they can to put it back in the cage for their own gain.

Bob Greenyer
I get your point - and yes, it will be like a light bulb in that you can't deny that it works.

Steve Savage
Love what you are doing Bob, however this sounds a lot like some Stoern demos? They never seemed to go well.

Bob Greenyer
This is NOTHING like Stoern - really, not even close. During the experiment - people could come and check it if they cant accept the evidence of their own eyes and what they formerly believed to be "laws of physics" - it will be conclusive even without needing to see it, that is the real beauty.

It will also work at room temperature.

If the claimant is being economical with the truth then his lack of willingness to participate would speak volumes, but he is a respected individual I have met a number of times over several years and responded inside 12 hours to my initial request and after saying that it was an interesting proposition, he only talked about obvious practicalities and previous commitments. He even immediately offered to come and lecture about the underlying experiment to Aarhus.

The nature of the data cannot be a matter of opinion - the physics community will be apoplectic trying to explain it away - and they will not be able to - it will be SO MUCH FUN to watch them squirm. Moreover, the ash will confirm the live experiment for any that would dismiss it as smoke and mirrors (which would be stupid to give the nature of the data).

DrD
Very interesting, can't wait.
Sounds like it might be a "closed system"?

Bob Greenyer
Ideally it will be hermetically sealed and operate at room temperature.

DrD
Hi Bob,
Actually I was meaning "closed loop" as in output driving the input with no other input. That makes a very convincing proof if it can be achieved over a long enough time and easily shown there's no secret enegry source but not so easy in practice.
Just guessing

Bob Greenyer
let's just say it is cooperative.

Bob Greenyer
Actually, this is better than even a closed loop. In a closed loop - the criticism would be of the live feed, that the power monitoring is some how faked.

This experiment will have data that every physicist would consider impossible and therefore not possible to fake, and since it would be streamed beginning to end from a closed system - it could only be considered as real. If they still considered it fake, or smoke and mirrors they can be invited to apply their own monitoring to the untouched system - lastly, if they do not even believe their eyes, the ash which can be sampled in batches - will prove the live experiments data.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

David Brossa
hmm... almost sounds like DJ Cravens LENR spheres a bit. Think that had no input power and runs at room temperature more or less.
https://www.lenr-forum.com/old-forum-static/t-2403.html
https://plus.google.com/photos/100517292944598113317/albums/5896172801049146737/5896172796425182786?pid=5896172796425182786&oid=100517292944598113317

Bob Greenyer
The balls could be H2 D2 exchange - it is not that.

No - this is MUCH more convincing and visual - and convincing to the people that need to be convinced like physicists before this field will really hit main stream.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gerard McEk
Bob, you speak in riddles. How can you be sure it will 'prove indisputably the reality of LENR'? Have you done the test already secretly for yourself on the toilet?

Bob Greenyer (to Gerard McEk)
Hahah - the tests, according to the claimant and the published work is already known to many. It is the most recent work (also published) that if presented in the right way will be absolute categorical proof of LENR - it could not be seen any other way - even when looking at the live stream.

It is so elegant - I need to package all my thinking that supports the experiment but I am right now trying to prepare for ICCF-20 whilst at the same time helping Aarhus Uni break ground and also making a presentation about a very important publication we are going to test the claims of in the coming months.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bob
I applaud the confident attitude and intention! However... many (including many legitimate researchers and reviewers) will still require replication and verification. Replication is not a bad thing! The real break through is if your experiment is fool proof, then it can be replicated! This is what has been missing from LENR/CF and is the base cause of all the debate.

P&F were experts. They did have successful experiments and data. However, even they themselves could not replicate at will. If they had been able too, then we would be driving CF powered cars by now!

So again, I really am anxious for the next month and as always am very supportive of the MFMP's team and work. But I would encourage that plans for replication be not be too far removed or dismissed!

Bob Greenyer (to Bob)
Well the challenge is the apparatus has components that I suspect the originator would consider proprietary - but it does not matter, seriously, the data will speak for itself and could not in any other way be fabricated. It would do its job in 2 weeks but could run (according to the claimant) for 3, 6 ,9 months and doubters could bring their own equipment in to verify what the data says - and the data will say, LENR is real and it is a matter that affects a broad range of scientific disciplines.

Don't worry about our plans - they are iterative, focussed and progressive - as ever, dealing each challenge and question that arises.

But seriously, the experiment I will describe - if the claimant is representing his previous work accurately - will be a slam dunk - you will see.

The experiment would be a replication of the originators claims and so in itself be a replication. The data will not be a subject of opinion simply because of what the data tells you and their will be evidence in the ash if the claimants claims and previously published work is accurate.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ged
Dun dun duuuuun. I look forward to this and the key party. Hopefully they will play nice!

Bob Greenyer (to Ged)
It is a truely beautiful thing - I hope they play nice to - it will be the coolest experiment ever.

Jamie Sibley
Are you able to disclose who's work you will be replicating. I'm sure that information does not need to remain secret. If you are confident that the previous works of this researcher are the easiest to display proof of could fusion, disclosing the name would allow others to start planning their own replications of that persons work.

Bob Greenyer
I will when ready in the next two weeks. It will not remain secret, but I need to get everything together so that I don't have to answer a million and one individual questions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Timar
Is 'the key party' Me356?

Bob Greenyer
No - it is a party with many serious publications of high quality to stand behind and has been researching in this field nearly as long as Me356 has been alive

Timar
Piantelli.

Bob Greenyer
Nope and that is the last reply of this kind.

Display More

I think that contradicts with:

"The balls [of DJ Cravens] could be H2 D2 exchange - it is not that."
"[has] published work is already known to many. [The test] is the most recent work (also published)"
"[is a] party with many serious publications of high quality to stand behind and has been researching in this field nearly as long as Me356 has been alive"

I recall that the balls were not his most recent work at that time.

Would Storms do this?

"He even immediately offered to come and lecture about the underlying experiment to Aarhus."

Quote from Jack Cole

Sounds like either Miley or Holmlid.

I also thought of Holmlid, but then this would seem strange:

"the challenge is the apparatus has components that I suspect the originator would consider proprietary"

And the following would raise some questions. I do not recall reading anything from Greenyer-MFMP that could be related to this statement:

"[he is an] individual I have met a number of times over several years"

However I believe that Holmlid does not own the equipment and the apparati he built, rather his University does. So in this sense the components could be considered "proprietary" as stated in the first point.