MFMP: Guess the scientist of new bulletproof experiment

    • Official Post
    Quote from IH Fanboy

    While that would be interesting, I would be disappointed. We need LENR+ energy to solve the big problems of the world.


    I agree. But here we are talking about room temperature LENR that lasts for a long period. I suspect Bob is starving his Chickens of Calcium even as we speak. Or similar. My money is on plants in a sealed environment. But that is just a guess.


    ETA- My logic is based on this...




    A little late-night research culled some info about what is probably MFMP's all embracing LENR proof. It is an update of the work started by Kerevan in France (causing much derision) and continued in other directions by Vlad Vysotsky in Russia. Here's the basis for my guess.


    Quotes from ECW/LENR Forum.


    '"BG/MFMP 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"?


    BG/MFMP Ideally it will be hermetically sealed and operate at room temperature.


    DrDActually 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


    BG/MFMP Just say it is cooperative. 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."



    So we are looking at 1. Transmutation (ash is proof) 2. Hermetically sealed (or perhaps heretically - might be bean or onion sprouts?) 3. Room Temperature (Vegetable matter again) 4. No possibility of faking power input (there is none)


    What do you think?

    Quote from quizzical


    My guess, or at least one possibility which I think satisfies all of the descriptions given is Mitchell Swartz. He has published many articles in JCMNS, has done demonstrations (with Hagelstein) at MIT, has a company "Nanortech" (http://world.std.com/~mica/nanortech.html) with a COP of 80 (although very low power), and has given numerous talks on his work at ICCF meetings and is I believe scheduled to speak at ICCF20.


    Since when Swartz has been involved with CF experiments or studies related to them? From the hints of Bob Greenyer it sounds as if this scientist has been in the field (in a way or another) since the '80s, possibly before 1989.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    A little late-night research culled some info about what is probably MFMP's all embracing LENR proof. It is an update of the work started by Kerevan in France (causing much derision) and continued in other directions by Vlad Vysotsky in Russia. Here's the basis for my guess.


    I could not think of something less bulletproof than biological transmutations. Even though I'm open to them being a thing, they will be the last bit of evidence for LENR that scientists will take seriously, if only because biological organisms, and especially chickens, are not exactly the kind of environment where you can have a very controlled "before" and "after" state. To really do a controlled experiment you'd have to incinerate the chicken into constituent elements before the experiment and then do a careful isotopic analysis on the charred remains. But now you no longer have a chicken to do the experiment with.


    Quote from Alan Smith

    So we are looking at 1. Transmutation (ash is proof) 2. Hermetically sealed (or perhaps heretically - might be bean or onion sprouts?) 3. Room Temperature (Vegetable matter again) 4. No possibility of faking power input (there is none) What do you think?


    Iwamura, or something similar, perhaps?


    I hope this kind of guessing game does not become the norm for LENR experimentalists. We obviously should also not be satisfied with the practice of asking the person with the mystery close-ended questions and then receiving cryptic answers. Perhaps Alan G. and Bob H. will talk some sense to Bob Greenyer?

    Quote from Eric Walker

    I could not think of something less bulletproof than biological transmutations.


    Iwamura, or something similar, perhaps?


    The only guy which can 100% reproduceably init/stop LENR within 0.1 micro seconds is Stringhams with his sono-fusion coffee-pot. The product is simply He4...


    The experiment is simple and can easily be contained.

    Like any miracle, the demo must be seen to be believed and takes no thinking or analysis to get ingrained inside the head. The same miracle vision must be true of the fuel/ash that can be distributed to the unbeleivers like any relic of a miracle. Yes, this goal of the demo is a hard one to meet, but we will soon see if MFMP can meet it.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    The only guy which can 100% reproduceably init/stop LENR within 0.1 micro seconds is Stringhams with his sono-fusion coffee-pot. The product is simply He4...


    The experiment is simple and can easily be contained.


    I think the article you linked to earlier was from JCMNS vol. 15 — is that right? This is a summary paper of 24 years of research and includes a theoretical excursion. Is there an experimental paper for a single experiment of Stringham's, rather than a summary paper, that you find bulletproof? Detection of energetic alphas is perhaps reliable, if enough steps are taken to rule out other radiations. Detection of helium requires expensive equipment and is difficult, even when enlisting experts such as Brian Oliver, and is not something you could easily carry out during a simple demo.


    I think I read sometime this morning that the mystery experiment that Bob Greenyer was mentioning had to do with neutrons?

    Quote from Eric Walker

    I think I read sometime this morning that the mystery experiment that Bob Greenyer was mentioning had to do with neutrons?


    It seems not. That is a different experiment.


    http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…age-1/#comment-2915813606


    Quote

    Bob Greenyer
    This isn't the experiment I have been referring to recently - but it is one we can do without asking anyone that, if successful, would help people overcome their barriers to accepting this field.


    https://www.facebook.com/Marti…/posts/1276032609094102:0

    • Official Post

    If you follow the articles of Edmund Storms in fact good old PdD can be that one experiment.


    First you need palladium that works, typically PdAg for filters.
    then you treat the Pd electrode with cleaning (Ed propose to use fuming/smoking nitric acid and then bake under oxygen ), loading with D2O electrolysis...
    Then excess heat appears. it mean the electrode is ready.
    you can start or stop the reaction at will he says, and speed is controlled by temperature , until the electrode is empty of D2 destroying the NAE.
    Once dead an electrode should be reactivated by redoing the initial process.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    I think the article you linked to earlier was from JCMNS vol. 15 — is that right?


    Eric: There are many:


    J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 15 (2015) 55–65 - newest summary more or less complete.
    J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 14 (2014) 79–86 - is a summary of the latest experiments.
    J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 13 (2014) 505–515 - is more theory, experimental details.


    J. Condensed Matter Nucl. Sci. 6 (2012) 1–12 - old summary.


    First complete summary (2009)
    Stringham, R. When Bubble Cavitation Becomes Sonofusion. in 237rd ACS National Meeting. 2009. Salt Lake City.

    Wyttenbach, do you have an experimental writeup (not a summary) that you consider to be really convincing, or are we only to look at summaries?


    Allow me to summarize my own (hypothetical) LENR experiments over the years: I have seen COP's of 1000 over the blank runs I have done, using various methods of calorimetry (Seebeck, flow, isoperibolic). In some of those experiments I have seen strong x-ray radiation, and charged particles. Sometimes I used palladium and sometimes I used nickel. Sometimes I used deuterium, and sometimes I used hydrogen. If you would like the details, those are described elsewhere. Do you not agree that this is very convincing?

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Sometimes sounds good:


    Sonofusion is not sometimes: The sometimes is reduced to the COP, which may vary...


    Because you are thorough and would not jump to a strong conclusion such as "The only guy which can 100% reproduceably init/stop LENR within 0.1 micro seconds is Stringhams with his sono-fusion coffee-pot," I am persuaded that you will have done more than just read summaries from Stringham, and that you will actually have looked into experimental writeups. This is because I believe you want to make sure you understand all of the concrete details that pertain to Stringham's conclusions and know what their strengths and weaknesses are so that you can have them clear in your mind, details that may be difficult to assess from a high-level summary. For that reason, you will no doubt have been diligent enough to read several actual experimental writeups before reaching a strong conclusion such as that one. I am hoping you can point me to an experimental writeup that you found especially thought provoking or persuasive.

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    The other question is: What is your point about S*? Do you not like 100% repeatable experiments?..


    Or are you missing a theoretical point?


    No specific point regarding Stringham, and I'm broadly interested in what he's doing. It's just that after reading enough high-level summaries from various researchers, I've begun to find it difficult to assess them on their merits; there are often important details that are hiding in individual experiments that make one think twice about one thing or another. One example has to do with the heat-helium correlation from Miles and SRI. In both cases Pd-Ce/D turns out to show excess heat but no helium, something that would be easy to miss by sticking to the summaries. Over time I've come to distrust the theories that experimentalists put forward about what is going on in their experiments (including Holmlid and Olafsson, as well as Stringham's notion of sonofusion) as well as the generalizations they adopt to summarize their experiments, and I've come to really appreciate lots of low-level details. I think that was my main motivation for asking for a writeup.

    Quote from Eric Walker

    In both cases Pd-Ce/D turns out to show excess heat but no helium, something that would be easy to miss by sticking to the summaries.


    S* measured He4 with values up to 551ppm! which is more or less in line with the heat he gets.


    The oldest He measurements date back more than 10 years and were part of the LENR confirmation by Los Alamos.


    The first thing I would to do, are realtime measurements of his apparatus. You can get anything You like to have: Bremsstrahlung, Neutrons, Helium 3/4, its just a matter of configuration. S* sono-fusion-reactor is a nice testbed for LENR, with a moderate max COP of just below 4 (2013).


    His first goal, I guess, is to sell a small water heater...But it's up to You to read in!

    MFMP talk about "live open science" but at the end of the day no peer reviewed scientific publications have ever been published by the group. We get palmed off with incomplete blogs and videos. Am I being suspicious are are these concerns real?

    • Official Post

    @Hermes:
    I guess their understanding of "open science" is not to publish papers, which are often limited in the amount of data that can be published, but in providing all measurement data they collected while conducting the experiment + the protocols.


    This way each observer can make his own interpretation and discuss the findings on the full amount of data. That could speedup the scientific process very much, from months or years to few days.


    But I have to agree with you: I also don't like their new way to present findings and ideas with videos. This has a lot of overhead (not just in the amount of bytes you have to transfer over the internet) compared to an document which you can flew over.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.