Posts by Curbina


    seven_of_twenty , I think in that statement you are being insulting to Mr. Storms, by mistaking his genuine scientific curiosity with gullibility and lack of capacity of distinguishing a potential con. The work of the Now resident in Florida Italian was, and still is, worthy of interest from the scientific point of view, as it was based in the previous published work of Piantelli and Focardi. I don't recommend anyone to invest in the e-cat but I sure think it is an interesting scientific subject and the attempts of replication of the basic effect with nickel powder by Parkhomov and the MFMP, even if did not confirm the Italian's estrambotic COP claims, indeed produced interesting anomalous results, enough to keep research on that line alive, which Parkhomov has, and was published and also presented at the ICCF22. You have to separate the scientific interest in a topic from taking that as a sign of support of the current activities of the person who originates the initial interest.

    Two thermocouples. Thermometry, not calorimetry. I am a little concerned about this, because temperatures can vary or change across a cylinder. I need to look at the numbers and the actual temperature differences. As Ruby said, Greenyer zipped through the presentation so I didn't follow.


    Greenyer told me that Parkhomov has also done phase change calorimetry and other methods, but he does not want to do calorimetry because it is too difficult for long-term experiments. If so, I would suggest he should do only short-term experiments, lasting a day or two. A 7-month-long experiment not as good as a day-long experiment if that means you have to use less reliable methods.


    This is mere quibbling. It was a very interesting result, and it looks pretty good.

    Bob's translation of Pharkomov´s paper is available here: https://drive.google.com/file/…YQeOoePUftdByo7BVnvg/view


    I think the work is very interesting but as his calorimetry is based on an equation for the thermocouples it will never be accepted as valid no matter how consistent the values. I appreciate greatly the elemental analysis as it provides a good backdrop to compare against the potential excess heat. If you find elemental anomalies, it helps building the case.

    This is just the kind of talk of people in love with their conceptual tool that solves some scenarios well enough, but not all, and has become a constraint instead of a stimulus. We need a better model. QM was great at its moment, but now is stagnant, no matter how mathematically beautiful or appealing it may be.

    That statement is only true, if one rejects the production of what was call magnegas as not resulting from the same mechanism behind LENR. But the truth maybe that a commercial company has been making millions of dollars per year by the application of LENR. I haven't seen a better explanation than that the extreme magnetic fields that cause magnetic bond in magnegas are a result of nuclear excitation.

    Drgenek , I have been interested in the so called magnegas for over a decade, but I can’t agree that it is proof of a LENR process, it is indeed an interesting synthetic gas but the scientific claims behind it have never been independently confirmed.

    This is really weird - so you can publish anything you like on ResearchGate then, no matter how ridiculous?

    ResearchGate is an open platform, peer reviewed research can be published (with permission of copyright owner) but also new research or ideas and anyone can review it. If you think this is nonsense, feel free to go there and tell the author why he is wrong. That’s the whole point of publishing, after all.

    Kevran would love this.

    What he needs 2 litres for? Even his reactor is much smaller than two litres. On his video he talks about replication with hydrogen - not water.



    At first, such a water should be reused. At second, the process which needs 200 repetitions for to manifest itself has no chance to success anyway. At any case, he already collected 200$, which should be enough for 40 repetitions.

    Your suggestion of reusing the water is really baffling, how could I reuse heavy water that will be used as part of a solution that will be exposed to ultrasound and later submitted to chemical analysis to look for transmutation?


    And the 200 repetitions is for statistical purposes, increasing n is a constant demand from LENR pseudoskeptics, and If I have the possibility to take care of that complaint, it will be taken care of.

    The cost depends on purity. Highly pure heavy water is far more expensive.


    Years ago, some Chinese sources were supposedly very cheap.

    Well, here in Chile one liter from either Sigma Aldrich or Merck Millipore costs around USD 2500 (99,5% D2O). United Nuclear and other source recommended from the USA costs USD 760 per liter (99,5% D2O as per their specs). Alan Smith has a UK source close in price to the USA sources (around USD 790 per liter if I recall correctly). How do these compare with your suppliers?

    My own project in the works includes two liters of D2O but this is because I plan to perform a couple of hundreds of repetitions with and without 5% D2O. You can’t criticize the amount just because you thinks is too much. If someone plans to generate 200 repetitions with 5 ml of heavy water you need one liter for the experiment and one for the control.

    Heavy water is indeed expensive once you need to purchase it for experiments. The sources shared here when I asked proved to be far less expensive than the local ones, but so far United Nuclear says they can’t ship it internationally, so I understand the frustration of trying to source it at a less bloated price.


    I think Matt has invented a whole new category of science experimentation: gone are the old days of the backyard inventor, we are now in the era of the bedroom inventor! Kudos to him for his enthusiasm and willingness to try to reproduce “impossible things” for himself.


    I would suggest to spend less time doing fancy sociocultural marketing and more time developping a product that works as expected by the grand unified theory. Happy customers is the best marketing known to man.

    Curbina What obsession? And what fraud? I have repeatedly stated that I do not look for fraud here. It seems unlikely. However mistake is infinitely likely. Maybe you would jump to fraud from blatant mistakes - if so i belive you are both uncharitable and wrong.

    You are the one obsessed to find a fault in the simple most undebatable of the reported data: the heater power consumption. There is no way that data is wrong as it was measured, and if you suspect that, you are tacitly accusing Mizuno of fraud.

    I can only understand THHuxleynew obsession with power input to the heater from an assumption of fraud. If someone was determined to commit a fraud in this, that person could use some convoluted circuitry and tricks to have a concealed input masked within an exotic waveform. The Italian that I shall not name was accused of this kind of meter fooling shenanigans and AFAIK it was always suspected and accused of doing so but never conclusively proven other than this being the only “reasonable explanation” before conceding excess heat, but I will not address that any more as it is a well pass dead horse beating.


    So, I think one cannot be faulted to denounce that this obsession with the heater power is a de facto tacit accusation of fraud, as no one would obtain a false reading without purposefully altering the system to do so.

    Also, I brought the issue of Mills here as a way to show Navid where to come with his Mills praise (and also be prepared to face opposition to it). I have already stated my state of simultaneous interest and disappointment with Mills before.

    In any case, please understand that I don’t think that criticism of ideas that challenge QM are a mere knee jerk reaction, and so far as Mills has not been able to demonstrate any of his claims in a exhaustive and rigorous way, I think he will keep harvesting that kind of criticism.

    I’m referring in specific to a Nobel Laureate’s (Philip Anderson) quote aimed at Mills work full of several instances of the F word.