I will keep trying to find episodes
Well done for finding that one. There didn't seem to be many episodes online - I have had a quick look before.
I don't know how amenable ITV Yorkshire (the successor to Yorkshire Television) would be to requests for archive footage. I might try contacting them (I actually live in the area).
Display MoreSome of us, here, have already done a bit of digging. The Companies House website can be a treasure trove.
As far as I can see, their modus operandi might be to find people already working on some technology, offer them them a bit of "development money", and then claim the technology is theirs.
But at the same time they start making unsupportable claims, which are almost guaranteed to destroy any prospect of progress - by triggering exposés. I don't know if that is just stupidity, or some kind of deliberate ploy.
Although I am reminded of Hanlon's Razor.
In a way, it doesn’t make much sense.
The classical way would be to raise money from credulous investors, and then live high on the hog by funneling funds out of the business via inflated and/or non-legitimate expenses or dodgy capex (eg. Buy a property for x and then sell it to the business for 1.5x.)
The great advantage of doing this in what is essentially the deep tech venture capital space is that when it finally comes off the rails, you can just throw your hands in the air and say ‘we always said it was high risk and uncertain’ and the inherent complexity of the technology makes it hard to assert, let alone prove, malicious intent. Failure was an act of god.
This goes on in Australia in the listed biotech space. A company has a compound, raises money from investors, progresses the compound, burns through the cash, and then rinses and repeats. When it all goes south, they can simply say that it was a pre revenue company with a single product and the product didn’t, in the end, prove efficacious. It happens all the time for completely normal and above board reasons, and so it’s harder to assert fraud.
What do you say now if the claim in 'Eng8 is bogus' blog post is correct and he used bogus 'Cambridge International Science Publishing' to publish it? I saw him using this book as proof that his 'quantum of this and that' theory is endorsed internationally. That was unusually followed by a video presentation if a moving dolly claimed to be gravitation-defying device and claims that no one in the audience have security clearance level high enough to see other implementation now working for strengthening Russian already oh so powerful military might.
I say that ENG8 is doing exactly as Frogfall suggested with
As far as I can see, their modus operandi might be to find people already working on some technology, offer them them a bit of "development money", and then claim the technology is theirs
--
From meeting Mr. Black personally, I can confirm this is true. He asked me a lot of questions about my experimental design. I intentionally made it clear my work was Open Source and would not fall under any IP claims to contribute to the body of science. As far as Mr.Lenov, he has published papers and is ex-Russian Military Sci-Tech Officer. Mr. Black allegedly spent 3 months at his home outside of Moscow from our conversation at ICCF25.
It is my understanding the Aquaous Reactor design is what Mr. Lenov worked on as well as a GUT (Grand Unified Theory) similar to Salvatore Pais's Theory on a "Super Force".
I am working on a article and GitHub Repository to share my research on this work to hopefully stir up more collaboration on the matter, as I think there is a direct correlation with LENR as it can't be explained with our current generally accepted physical models. I don't really like to wax theoretic though, I would prefer to just test hypothesis.
It is highly likely that Mr. Lenov's aqueous reactor is not a unique design and can't be really be patented since he wasn't the original discoverer of the technology.
There is always ways to engineer around this of course with proprietary electronics and material designs etc.
It's my greatest hope that people don't narrow the recent publicity down to an absolute dichotomy, as that does a disservice to scientific understand and physical truths in my opinion..
I hope that answers your question and if you have any more I'm always open to discuss things further.
https://www.bingeclock.com/s/dont-ask-me/
I will keep trying to find episodes.
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
Frogfall Is there any keywords about the episode you remember so one could find it in the YT transcripts by scrapping all the episodes?
I can scrape the data pretty quickly with some coding and an AI assistant.
Is there any keywords about the episode you remember so one could find it in the YT transcripts by scraping all the episodes?
Although I've always had a rather uncanny memory, for all kinds of stuff, I think that is probably asking a bit much - for something only seen once from over 45 years ago 
I just remember it as a set of images/scenes from the broadcast, together with some thoughts I had at the time - but cannot remember details of any of the dialogue. However, I would not be surprised if Magnus Pyke used the phrase "conservation of energy", at some point, as people usually do in that situation.
But that presupposes we have access to videos/transcripts of all the episodes. As far as I know, there is only one available at the moment. Don't forget that TV companies often wiped and reused broadcast tapes in the 1970s. These were just "throw away" half-hour programs, and probably weren't transferred to film for international syndication.
Anybody know anything about this?2023-10-30-ENG8-IM-INSTITUTIONAL-RAISE-JAN-2024-1.pdf2023-10-30-ENG8-IM-INSTITUTIONAL-RAISE-JAN-2024-1.pdf
Anybody know anything about this?2023-10-30-ENG8-IM-INSTITUTIONAL-RAISE-JAN-2024-1.pdf2023-10-30-ENG8-IM-INSTITUTIONAL-RAISE-JAN-2024-1.pdf
Well, I had not seen these documents before (can I ask where you got them? probably from ENG8 website?), and I think it's really awful how they conflate and mix so many different things. I hope they had some sort of authorization to present "validations" from third parties, if not, things could get ugly. Awful. Really Awful.
100mm GBP is certainly ambitious.
That was my impression as well. They use UL as proof of their power validation. I have been struggling to get the LENR industry leading researchers to do an independent validation study for us and it’s not easy. Very few labs are qualified to do this with full credibility.
The lab they cite in the UK certainly seems highly credible on its face, but I find it strange that they just pop up without any interaction with our community. That is certainly not impossible but my spider senses are telling me to investigate further.
I got this ppt from a VC who asked me about it and he said it was already public.
I got this ppt from a VC who asked me about it and he said it was already public.
Do you know if they’d done any diligence on the team?
I think you are right. This operation is just masquerading as a scam - but it isn't following the usual scam playbook. I'm guessing that is because it is meant to be "rumbled" and exposed as a scam.
It is a hit job.
Just look at the "useful references" page of the presentation. There is the potential for a large amount of collateral damage to the wider field (including this forum).
"ICCF-25 MIT" some scammers put this together for sure...
Alan features quite a bit in this video - (772) ENG8 EnergyCell validations - August 2023 - YouTube
For me, they have been careful to appear to make claims about results, whilst not making claims about results
This sentence:
"ENG8 has reached this point as it has been independently verified to produce a Q factor value of 2.4 thermal or 5 electrical, validated by Underwriters Laboratories."
Seems they also had a freudian slip in 2021 "valuation" instead of validation. Oops. In 2023 they included the Q factor but didn't bother to write the all important power output.
Wow boys, you are letting your imagination go wild. This story certainly has red flags, but I honestly think is more akin to an European IH than a full fledged money grabbing scam.
If I was putting together a document for a $120m offer for institutional offers, with the extensive team they claim to have, I would think that they had enough proof readers not to make so many very basic mistakes.
If I was putting together a document for a $120m offer for institutional offers, with the extensive team they claim to have, I would think that they had enough proof readers not to make so many very basic mistakes.
I agree. Plenty of typos and ambiguous statements.
Here's their patent application from 2022.
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/d7/f3/a6/7cf7ec1b70eb7f/WO2022175691A2.pdf
The principals are all apparently Russian, with a presence in London to raise funding.Vladimir Leonov whose work is claimed as the basis of the device, is known for his superunification theory and offshoots quantum energetics and anti-gravity.
George Egely's involvement gives the work some credibility. Alan Smith may be restricted by NDA from discussing his recent work with the Egely device, but any direct impressions he can share would be appreciated!
George Egely's involvement gives the work some credibility. Alan Smith may be restricted by NDA from discussing his recent work with the Egely device, but any direct impressions he can share would be appreciated!
I have no recollection of signing an NDA, and feel free to speak as I see fit anyway as I am not discussing technical matters in depth.. The UL USA COP-5 claim is for George's work only, It has nothing to do with ENG8's science team, the ENG8 gliding arc 'tornado' reactor or R&D. But I have not seen the promised UL report. According to the time-scale I have been given by Haslen Back I should get this in around 2 weeks. Until then it is all verbal. I visited George's lab at my own expense a few months back, and saw an early system running, as did Jean-Paul Biberian on another occasion. We both saw it produce an apparently positive electrical COP, shown by relative thermometry using rather sketchy calorimeters of around 2 based on their math, which has since been amended withe a 'cooling' effect - though not enough to make it totally uninteresting. .
Another replicator (I cannot say who simply because they asked me not to) with a serious lab also worked on this and re-built George's device several times- they saw nothing, but another look at the data they produced and the application of some different math saw a small positive COP. Rebuilding was required since the hand-built systems George's guys produced were not reliable because of poor build quality.
I haven't run the early version device I have here, George told me not to as the 'electrodes were no good' I was promised more, but they haven't yet arrived despite some nagging from me. Dave Nagel also visited the Aviero Portugal lab last month, but has not yet come to any firm conclusion about any of the tech.
Finally ENG8 do not currently possess a pressurised water system at all, that is at Biaco near Brighton AFAIK. ENG8 asked me to build one for them They are fighting in a London court with Biaco over trade marks and possibly more- but they do expect to get it back I suppose..
gliding arc 'tornado' reactor
Talking of that device, this news article from a couple days ago reminded me of it.
