Hey Mate thanks for the response. You've got your hands full so this is plenty . I've added both of your suggestions as priorities: light-hydrogen LENR with Ni, Ti and similar metals, and homopolar / Faraday-disk generators. Whenever you feel like looking, I'll happily share what the lab finds, with no expectations at all.

This is awesome, Jim!   I'm particularly interested right now in:
1- LENR which uses light hydrogen (H2 or H2O etc) and various metals (such as Ni, Ti, etc.)
2- spinning disk generators such as Faraday's generator (paradoxical?)

Wish I could help right now, but caring for my wife in hospice and she deserves and needs my attention atm...

I've set up an AI agent that spends up to 8 hours a day on breakthrough energy and propulsion. That covers free-energy and over-unity claims (Sweet's VTA, the Hubbard coil and many more), antigravity and reactionless drives (Exodus, the EmDrive, Pais's patents), anomalous energy (LENR), and real efficiency records in fusion, power grids and spaceflight.

It's strict. Every result has to pass a rule set before the measurement, beat hundreds of random controls, and survive three independent reviewers. Most days it finds nothing, on purpose. So far it has found that the Exodus patent's test for wall attraction doesn't rule it out, and one of its own findings was withdrawn when a reviewer caught a mistake.

What would help most:
📄 Claims or primary documents with real numbers (patents, notebooks, test reports, old newspaper pages)
📊 Raw experimental data (thrust-balance logs, calorimetry, scope captures)
🔧 People with high-voltage or precision-measurement training who could run a ready-designed bench test
🏆 Open energy or propulsion benchmarks with published best scores
🧠 Expert eyes to check its models

Wanted right now: Talley's 1991 US Air Force Phase II report on electrostatic thrust, any record of an Exodus test running on internal batteries, Hubbard's 1920 patent number, and Floyd Sweet's original notebooks.

Full details and the wish list attached - it's an md file but I had to change the file extension to work here.

Reply here or message me. Anything that helps gets credited to you, by name or a pseudonym, and nothing you send is published without your OK. 🙏

Ferritic-pearlitic steel is a widely used type of carbon steel whose microscopic structure consists of a soft, ductile ferrite matrix embedded with islands or regions of harder pearlite.

So is this a material which can
Produce the result ( or some part there of) which the Welder chases?
Sunshine yields fields ?

Quote from: F6FLT on 2026.10.13, 17:31:33This was a ridiculous claim stemming from ignorance of the scientific method.

Such harsh words even if true.
He might be a complete amateur and not even be aware of the scientific method.  We cannot blame him for ignoring what might be a completely alien concept to him.

But if he knows about it and willfully chooses to ignore it then it is a different story.

Anyway, he chose not to accept the registration rules of this forum so he cannot post here ...and defend himself from your harsh words.  That seems unfair.

@Smudge
I agree with most of your analysis but I disagree with you quantitatively about the effects of unfocused sunlight on the remanence and coercivity of ferritic-pearlitic steel.

"This negative result forces me to a definitive scientific conclusion: the millitesla readings previously recorded on the steel grids were a manifestation of a complex residual magnetization of the steel itself, which misled"

Of course! Any ferromagnetic steel can become magnetised. Furthermore, no link to the Casimir effect had ever been established. None of these experiments are 'scientific'. It's fake science. In science, we take the trouble to eliminate all possible artefacts, to repeat experiments with and without variations, to verify the consistency of measurements, and to provide logical reasoning and cause-and-effect relationships, rather than claiming that some amateurish tinkering could "completely challenge standard textbook physics". This was a ridiculous claim stemming from ignorance of the scientific method.

Quote from: Smudge on 2026.10.13, 15:47:37His instrument was sensitive enough to read the Earth's magnetic field that has a value between 30 and 60 mT.  The fact that he zeroed out this field before bringing the steel mesh into play would allow the change in field due to the presence of the steel to appear as a reading.  And depending upon the geometry of the steel it can easily increase the field strength near the steel by that 12 times figure as it has a relative permeability many more times that. He seemed to assume his instrument measured field magnitude irrespective of its orientation whereas it actually needs to have its probe aligned with the vector field direction.  IMO his conclusion about his control experiment are as bad as his original experimental conclusion and not worth agonising over.

Smudge

Smudge
I personally appreciate this analysis.

If you could muse for a moment.. only because I have been wrestling with what a proper measurement protocol would look like for such a claim?

Is there any part of this fixture or the measuring instruments that could be utilized to qualify or negate the claim?

I can't wrap my mind around it. It almost seems like being underwater and trying to measure and look for Water ( analogy)
How to verify prior that there was no magnet field there to begin with and then how to qualify a field strength ( gain )afterwards?

What would this test fixture look like?
Is it possible to measure these kind of things in such a simple apparatus?

Asking for a friend.......

His instrument was sensitive enough to read the Earth's magnetic field that has a value between 30 and 60 mT.  The fact that he zeroed out this field before bringing the steel mesh into play would allow the change in field due to the presence of the steel to appear as a reading.  And depending upon the geometry of the steel it can easily increase the field strength near the steel by that 12 times figure as it has a relative permeability many more times that. He seemed to assume his instrument measured field magnitude irrespective of its orientation whereas it actually needs to have its probe aligned with the vector field direction.  IMO his conclusion about his control experiment are as bad as his original experimental conclusion and not worth agonising over.

Smudge

Itsu
For me this makes many questions..
I had thought the entire experiment
Revolved around Sunshine exposure ( PHOTONS) and the attributes of soft iron
 and its unique properties (firstly.. its ferrous and its domains are able to be manipulated?

Now a _non ferrous protocol " is used to negate the claims?

Also one additional point I hope those more familiar might explain?
How were his measurements adding to
"1200% over ambient?"

He seemed to be versed in measurement
Protocols and definitely had high resolution instrument...
??
Maybe more explanation ?

Anyhoo
For me it's a new itch ( hard to scratch ATM
Non ferrous??
Itsu
Tremendous gratitude
Respectfully
Chet

Thanks Chet for posting this.

It's very unfortunately that it did not pan out the way he had in mind, but it's refreshing to see how he checked his own results and commented on the outcome as he did.

Hopefully he will continue to experiment along this path.

Itsu