Curbina Administrator
  • Member since Mar 1st 2014

Posts by Curbina

    Real, but neither engineering nor science. And his doctorate is not the same as a real doctorate, it is equivalent of an MSc I think. (Italians have different words for things).

    I have to agree in something with THHuxleynew from time to time. AFAIK In Italy you can be called “dottore” after obtaining a “Laurea trienale” that, for all intent and purposes in other countries would earn you a B. Sc. PHD in Italy is called Dottore di Ricerca.

    I wish the best to Frank, he is a great person, I don’t fault him for his optimism, I think he has plenty of reasons for being optimist about LENR, I would only recommend him to stop wasting his life waiting for il dottore to show anything.

    Ruby went to France this past March for the purpose of investigating LENR progress in France. She did spend many days with Jacques Ruer, Mathieu Valat, Christophe Le Roux, Robert Michel and Jean-Paul Biberian, and was able to produce this quality video showing their progress using nanopowders:


    External Content youtu.be
    Content 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.

    I watched this one and was really happy to see that they have achieved high reproducibilty of excess heat, made me eant to know much more about the results!!! This is like the European version of the Japanese NEDO collaboration program.

    The pressure of publishing for Academics to keep their jobs makes for most of this problem. Entire industries arise when such “perverse incentives” arise.

    👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

    You said it in a very compelling way, much thanks for that.

    You got the 6th wrong. Unstable Transuranic have also been detected.

    Thanks for posting this Italian to English translated version of the article, Shane D. , I now understand that the Nature article mentioned is the one recently published authored by Max Fomitchev-Zamilov, ( https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-62055-6 ), by reading the article in Italian I had thought that Francesco Celani had published something in Nature. Anyway this is a good affariitaliani article, signaling once again the steady increase of acceptance of LENR.

    Here is the question for the readers of this thread. How would you compare LeClair's process to BJ Huang's process to decide which would be more useful for anything?

    Both processes are only comparable in the use of cavitation and the occurence of “anomalies”. bjhuang ’s reactor work started from researching heat output anomalies. The main drive of the research is to produce a more energy efficient heating system. Then the material anomalies began to be detected and perused.

    In Florida, home insurance companies require the homeowner to replace their roof every 15 years. If they don't comply, they will either cancel their coverage or start increasing premiums yearly. That is where the problem lies when it comes to rooftop solar...not how long the roofs actually last, which in most cases is far longer than 15.


    So, in order to replace your roof with solar panels, you need to first remove the panels, then reinstall after. That adds quite a bit more to the cost, and few companies are qualified to do the work which adds to the hassle. Also, being in a hurricane impact zone and/or coastal/saltwater environment, all adds up to make solar unattractive in our area.


    Unfortunately, many homeowners are finding out these pitfalls the hard way and paying the price. I can attest, that when the salesmen give their spiel, they don't mention, or at least they didn't to me a few years ago, all these things. Just how much savings/year it will knock off the electricity bill.

    This is the reason I now only install solar panels at floor level, and with regular cleansing in mind. It takes a lot of space, but saves a lot of troubles. For agricultural irrigation makes sense. For houses, probably not at all.

    I don’t see any sign of EDS counts being related to a quantity of a given element, or any comparison with a standard with a known quantity for any element that suggests that the EDS is correctly indicating an actual measurement of any particular element.

    I understand criticisms of transmutation when all results are based in one simple analytic technique, however we are way beyond that, elemental transmutation in cavitation experiments has been confirmed even to the isotopic level by several analytic techniques, more recently by SIMS in the case of bjhuang ’s reactor.

    Kind of an Alexandria Library loss type event but in the XXth century.

    I insist maintenance cost for keeping them clean is absolutely not considered by no one. It's a real nuisance, here in the desert, you have to clean them at least once a week, if you don't, your panels not only perform poorly, they also get damaged.

    Just a follow up comment now that I had a chance to review the SI-d files shared by Bob Greenyer.


    I just looked for the Peak CO2 pressure in mbar in both the TSG run and the Control run, and the peak CO2 pressure of the control is 4,51 times the peak CO2 pressure of the TSG.


    In the case of Oxygen the peak O2 pressure of the control is 0,47 times the peak O2 pressure of the TSG.


    I fiddled a bit with online tools until I convinced myself that mbar pressure was directly convertible to mass and that the ratio of Control/TSG was the same when calculated for the mass in mg/L, so now I can be sure that the unmodified generator releases 4,51 times more CO2 and 0,47 less times O2 than the TSG modified generator. This may not be as spectacular as Bendall claims, but, I repeat once again, is very useful for purposes of continuing using ICEs in an increasingly restrictive scenario.


    Some new videos from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project while in Taipei visiting bjhuang . I think is very interesting a boiler with a single tube reactor uses 23% less energy to achieve the same heating than the control tube.


    There are also some really interesting SIMS results from the damaged pipes. Denying that there's some of nuclear process at play here is becoming impossible.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content 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.

    (pH of tap water (slightly alcaline) versus pH of water that has been processed through Reverse Osmosis and used as boiler water (more alcaline than the tap water) in the experimental reactor, this is the video that prompted me to ask for the pH of the Reverse Osmosis treated water before being used as boiler water).


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content 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.

    (pH of Reverse Osmosis treated water before being used in the experimental boiler, is mildly acidic).


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content 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.

    (discussion of the results of the easy to build but no much high yield reactor and experimental setup that has allowed to measure a 23% less energy consumption in the experimental reactor to achieve the same heating).


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content 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.

    (Acquisition of copper tube sample for analytical purposes)


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content 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.

    (Acquisition of sample from the solder used to build the reactors for analytical purposes)


    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content 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.

    (Discussion of SIMS results from analysing damaged copper pipes of previous reactors)

    The comparison of the exhaust gases data produced by the control genset (unmodified) and the modified with the TSG retrofit is interesting, I dare say even encouraging.


    I would say that they are a repeat and in line with other independent replications, but done with much more care and accuracy, as this is the first experiment openly published and with the obtained data already shared publicly, that used a much more sophisticated gas analyzing equipment.


    To summarize the results, by far, the main difference between the exhaust gases is that in the modified with TSG genset, the exhaust contains, in average, a fifth (1/5) of the CO2% than the exhaust of the unmodified genset, The TSG modified genset also contains higher Oxygen content, and does not contain detectable unburnt Hydrocarbons, I was not able to grasp the difference in CO content, I will have to watch this again to focus on that.


    Anyway, these results, as they stand, and with the big assumption that the mass of the gas flow is comparable in both cases (a sorely missing parameter that remains to be properly addressed, and I hope it will be eventually constrained), imply this retrofit is, at the very least, a useful way to reduce CO2 emissions and HC emissions for any ICE. And just because of that, Kudos to all involved, and much thanks to the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project for doing this excellent experimental independent evaluation of an exotic technological claim.


    I invite everyone interested to download the data and see for yourselves. I already downloaded it but have not been able to install the data viewer software, but already asked for the missing code in order to be able to do my own assesment.


    You can get the RGA Data files, and the viewing software in the article written by Bob about these runs.


    THOR - Control compared with active TSG
    Initial thoughts and mass spectra review
    remoteview.substack.com

    I just don't pay attention to anything that Bendall says, he is IMO as reliable and trustable as "il dottore", so hearing him is a waste of life.


    I do pay attention to the independent replicators and the data that has been produced by them, which has been enough to keep my interest in this device picked and even hopeful, with a few reservations that will be easily solved by further tests. What I have seen from this side tells me this has the potential for being a really useful and practical retrofit for emission reductions from conventional ICEs. That is IMO very interesting on its own.