Curbina Administrator
  • Member since Mar 1st 2014

Posts by Curbina

    Someone could think I am masochistic to come back to this thread to post a new paper by Galushkin (Mr. FPE is real but is not nuclear). Nothing really new in this paper, but is from 2023 so, one can confirm tha Galushkin is still claiming he solved the FPE effect.

    Here it is.

    Posting here, for its "setting the historical record straight" value, the paper from S. B, Krivit and M. H. Miles that is derived from the work presented by S.B. Krivit at ICCF 25th. It was published in the Journal of Electrochemistry (Chinese Journal).


    Confirmation of Anomalous-Heat Report

    Steven B. Krivit and Melvin H. Miles


    Abstract: This study identifies, for the first time, critical calculation errors made by Nathan Lewis and his co-authors, in their study presented May 1, 1989, at the American Physical Society meeting in Baltimore, Maryland. Lewis et al. analysed calorimetrically measured heat results in nine experiments reported by Martin Fleischmann and his co-authors. According to the Lewis et al. analysis, each of the experiments, where calculated for no recombination, showed anomalous power losses. When we used the same raw data, correct calculations indicate that each experiment showed anomalous power gains. As such, these data suggest the possibility of a new, energy-producing physical phenomenon.

    I understood that JedRothwell plans to link to papers already available on Sci-hub, putting a link to Sci-hub is hardly an offense. And Sci-hub has remained available in the same mirrors for more than three years now, as they are now hosted in countries where they know they won’t be sacked down. I don’t know if Sci-hub is open to receive new documents as donation, as a way to make all the library available through them, I would have to look.

    This just reminded me how confused everyone is, usually, when talking about the "wireless" nature of Tesla's idea. He did not meant to transmit power through the air, but through the Earth (good ole ground). Even Neil de Grasse Tyson is confused about this.

    The idea is in principle good, I recall systems that propose to do this with an onboard microlagae culture absorbing the CO2 but those were not really practical to scale up.

    Now, Engineering this system to use the waste heat of the engine as the only energy source required, that would be brilliant.

    If the Thunderstorm generator is independently validated with regards to the CO2 emission reduction claim, this would be obsolete already.

    You didn't understood me right. I specifically asked NOT about bursts. But a continuous output of at least 1 kj/second, which is 1 kW.

    Ok, then the only contender would be Mizuno, with the caveat that the reproducibility in general has been limited, and at those power levels no one has published results besides Mizuno (Mizuno claims 1 kW and up to 3 kW outputs from his R20 experiments). Here is the paper presented by JedRothwell at ICCF 22.

    If you mean instantaneous bursts of power of that magnitude, perhaps there's none that was ever deemed to be independently reproducible (from the top of my head Mizuno's Pd rubbed on Ni mesh so called R20 reactor that is claimed to have produced 3 KW heat), but cumulative excess heats of Mega Joules has been recorded in some experiments.

    Regarding this wonderful video, Storms has conveyed to us the following message [edited to protect certain personal details]:

    Although the method I use to activate has worked on numerous occasions, some of the important variables are still unknown and uncontrolled... Whether I keep in touch with this subject will depend on how much interest is shown in my ideas. Jed now has all the literature I have assembled, thanks to the efforts of Tom Grimshaw. This information will be made available on and amplified by AI thanks to Jed. Perhaps now people might discover what is actually known.

    Our problem is not the level of acceptance. Our problem is the inability of people in this field to change their minds about how the process works as new information becomes available. In addition, the political system still fears this source of energy, so I do not expect its beliefs to change until the effect is so huge that it cannot be ignored. This will not happen as long as people keep ignoring the actual observed behaviors. We can never have proof so we have to work with clues that point in an effective direction. That style of science appears to no longer exist.


    I think we all agree the marketplace will prove/disprove the Thunderstorm Generator. So, I am curious if BG is there solely to satisfy his own curiosity, at the invite of the company, or both? And if he concludes it works before the market has had it's say in the matter, then what? Is there a quid pro quo?

    Frogfall said earlier the free energy forums already take his participation as an endorsement. I certainly don't think that is Bob's intent, and not his fault if true, but the thought has crossed my mind that his involvement is giving more legitimacy to the tech at this early stage than it deserves. Especially in light of some of the background dug up on this thread, and with the company actively seeking money.

    AFAIK the MFMP interest on this is to accrue more evidence for their proposed scientific model of LENR and keeping things entirely open source.

    I guess that Bob’s personal focus on this is, after evaluation and confirmation of the usefullness of the idea, to make it available for anyone that wants it to use it by teaching people to build it. The open source spirit is central. No quid pro quo could be derived in this context, the interest on the technology is to see if it works and if it does, teach as many people as possible about it and encourage DYI.

    Bob has shared the following insight with me:

    Eventually one learns that Nature produces these things!

    If you get 'Haze' particles, you will include micrometeorites, lightning produced ones and output from extremely energetic systems that have a lot of turbulence - such as, coal fired power stations.

    It is the co-location with produced carbon and other cluster synthesised elements that is the point. Iron crenelated sphere in centre - all of the background is basically Zinc Oxide - so good contrast.

    On BSD full, you can really see the contrast

    and on the close up, you can really see the accretion band of carbon mostly - you see this on many of them, this cannot be contamination.

    Note our replication of Matsumoto's carbon film AND his lower left one showing the iron ball - at the end of the pools of carbon there is the Iron Rich crenelated spheres - all over the place.

    This is a HUGE image, you can again see the synthesised material orbiting around the Fe + O ball (see top right), on the lovely contrast of the Zinc Oxide substrate.

    On the middle line to the right, you can see where an Fe + O ball has been lost but you can still see the 'Hook' of the orbiting material.

    On the Bottom right, you can see another, well embedded in the material it carried with it, with material orbiting around its equator as the material froze out, it even has a sattellite.

    In these examples, the materials are orbiting clockwise.


    Thanks. How many different machines were they scanned on? Was the second one scanned on a different machine to the other three?

    Bob Greenyer clarified for me as follows:

    The first one was scanned by Tomáš Jędrzejek on his own FEI SEM on the Czech boarder - Underwater discharge between W electrodes in K2CO3 in Alumina tubes. Sample placed in SEM in short period of time.

    The second one was from an ULTR experiment conducted by Alan Goldwater on his own Hitachi SEM in California - 900 seconds of 43 kHz vibration in water with Al foil, sample analysed ASAP.

    The 3rd (Henk Jurriens VEGA Valley examined after months) and the 4th (Malcolm Bendalls 8 year old TSG) were scanned by Bob Greenyer on rented and maintained SEMs in Prague.

    That cannot be taken as evidence that nanospheres are unable to be produced through a variety of mundane processes.

    But you have to be very precise on the kind of microsphere we are talking about, these are Fe and O rich, hollow, with a characteristic crenelated surface. We are not talking about any microsphere here, but of the ones of this particular kind.