Walkthrough Q&A

Follow-up questions for readers of the plain-language summary and the claims register.

Section A — Who is involved

Q1: Who is Malcolm Bendall?

A British-Australian inventor, now in his mid-50s, self-taught rather than trained in physics or engineering. He has worked on what became the Plasmoid Unification Model since about 2010 and built the first Thunderstorm Generator around 2014. He lives between Australia and Europe and has filed at least one UK patent application (P76426GB, the Vajra turbine). His IP sits with Strike Foundation Earth / Strike Foundation Guarantee Limited. He demonstrates the device in public, lectures (the 16-section MSAART series), and in 2022–⁠2023 looked for investment through Alpha Prospects.

The device, the patent application and the demonstrations all exist. What this site follows is what the device does under measurement, and how the numbers of the model fit together.

Q2: Who is Bob Greenyer and why does his view matter?

A British engineer who in 2012 co-founded the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project (MFMP), a group that catalogues and replicates experiments from the cold fusion / LENR (low-energy nuclear reactions) field since Fleischmann and Pons announced their results in 1989.

His view carries weight because he has twelve years of hands-on work with claims like Bendall’s, builds and instruments his own apparatus, and has no financial tie to Bendall. He opens his “Hypothesis for operation of the TSG” talk with: “This is not perfect. I may be wrong. I have been wrong a lot of times in my life. This may be one of those times.” He works from inside the LENR research community.

Q3: Why hasn’t this been in the mainstream news?

Three reasons come up:

  1. The framing. The model’s cosmology (144,000 as the Aether scalar, the links to the Pyramids) is far from the vocabulary physicists work in, and the hardware claims arrive together with it.
  2. The history of cold fusion. After Fleischmann and Pons in 1989, anomalous heat and transmutation became a difficult topic in mainstream physics. A positive evaluation of Bendall’s device means engaging with LENR, which few physics departments do.
  3. Replication. MFMP is the main independent group so far. News outlets usually wait for several independent replications of a claim this size.

Section B — The device

Q4: Has anyone other than Bendall built a working Thunderstorm Generator?

MFMP has built several, and makers report building scaled-down versions. The published parts list (TGMaterialsList.pdf) is detailed enough for a competent maker to build one over two or three weekends.

The eight-year-old TSG that MFMP examined matters here: it predates Bendall’s commercial activity, ran for an extended period and was then stored. The persistent material changes on its inner sphere (the “yellow features”) are the longest-running physical record available.

Q5: If it works, is this free energy?

No. Even on the most generous reading the energy has sources, and Greenyer’s interpretation names them: (a) the fuel being burned, and (b) electromagnetic ionisation energy in the air — free electrons, UV photolysis products and atmospheric ions. Both are real and both are bounded; the atmospheric part is limited by how fast sunlight produces those species. Conservation of energy holds.

What could be true, and would be remarkable:

Taken together at their most optimistic, these would mean roughly 20–⁠40 % better engine efficiency.

Q6: What about transmutation — is this alchemy?

Since the 1990s the cold fusion field has reported shifts in element ratios. The proposed mechanism is low-energy nuclear reactions in metal lattices, at energies far below the Coulomb barrier as conventionally calculated. If real, these are specific reaction pathways that produce specific isotopic shifts, not lead turned into gold.

In the TSG, MFMP reports changes in the Cr/Ni/Fe ratios of the stainless-steel inner sphere and the appearance of trace elements. That fits EV-induced transmutation as Shoulders described it; deposits from the operating environment also have to be ruled out. The deciding analysis — the same measurement on proper control samples — has not been published yet.

In practical terms, transmutation in the TSG would mean small amounts of trace elements changing over hundreds of operating hours: a physics result rather than a source of materials.

Q7: Why is the device cheap?

The parts are ordinary: stainless-steel hemispheres, copper tube, a UV lamp, water. What matters is how they are arranged.

Q8: Can I buy one?

Not from Bendall; he has not commercialised the device, and his investment round through Alpha Prospects has not led to a product. Kits sold under the “Thunderstorm Generator” name come from third parties of mixed provenance.

Building one from the parts list costs about $700–⁠2,000, depending on the tier and the tools you already have. Treat it as a learning project rather than a finished product.

Section C — The numbers

Q9: The arithmetic is consistent — what does that show?

That the model is built as a closed number system whose identities hold exactly. For example, 144,000 / 5.555… = 25,920 (the “Great Year”) is exact: 144,000 × 9 / 50 = 25,920.

How such a number relates to a measurement is a separate question. Earth’s axial precession period is measured at about 25,772 years today; the rate drifts slowly, and the period was 25,920 years around AD 700 (see the galactic gear note). Bendall treats 25,920 as the underlying value and the measurements as approximations to it.

Q10: Pythagorean ratios in music are numbers too — how do they compare?

Pythagorean ratios come from the physics of a vibrating string: halve the length and the pitch rises an octave, and the 3:2 fifth follows from how the string vibrates. They predict which intervals sound consonant.

The same question can be put to each PUM identity: does it predict a quantity that was not built into the model? The claims register records this for every cosmology claim, and the test protocols include one cosmology-layer test.

Q11: The Great Pyramid’s 51.84° slope — is that a real measurement?

Yes. Petrie’s 1883 survey gives a mean slope of 51.842°, with face-to-face variation of up to ±0.1°, so Bendall’s 51.84° matches to the precision the builders could achieve.

Other constructions meet at the same angle: atan(4/π) ≈ 51.85° (the “π pyramid”, noted in 1859) and atan(√φ) ≈ 51.83° (the “φ pyramid”). The PUM reading, 51.84 = TIME / 10,000, is a further correspondence at this angle.

Q12: Could the device work even if the explanation behind it changes?

Yes, and the history of science has many examples. The Wright brothers’ gliders flew before lift was fully understood, and James Clerk Maxwell held to the luminiferous aether while writing the equations of electromagnetism.

A working device is evaluated on what it does; its explanation is evaluated separately. Greenyer offers a second explanation, in LENR terms, for the same hardware.

Section D — What to do with it

Q13: I’m a hobbyist — should I build one?

If you can work safely, yes. The tier-A unit (~$700) on a small generator takes two or three weekends if you can TIG-weld stainless steel. Run it outdoors only — the closed-loop exhaust is an asphyxiation risk indoors. Photograph the build, rent a 5-gas analyser if you can, and record what you measure.

Protocols 1 and 2 in the test protocols are designed for a hobbyist budget. Running them turns a build into data that others can compare.

Q14: I’m an engineer — what is the most interesting open question?

Greenyer’s hypothesis: does the TSG produce Ken Shoulders-style EVs (exotic vacuum objects) in ambient air, and do they cause transmutation in the inner sphere?

If yes, it is a new way into EV physics, which has been confined to vacuum chambers since the 1970s, and a path to benchtop LENR research. If no, the device is a post-combustion treatment apparatus and the element changes come from surface deposits. Either answer is publishable. Protocols 4 and 5, with proper control samples, address it.

Q15: I’m a researcher with a lab — is this worth a grant?

There is a lab proposal template. The complete protocol fits a $50–⁠100k scope over six months, with a decisive result either way. A few private foundations fund this area, and ARPA-E’s exploratory pool has occasionally funded LENR work.

Journals to consider in parallel: the Journal of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (LENR community) and Combustion and Flame (mainstream). Pre-register the protocol on OSF before collecting data.

Section E — Safety

Q16: Is the TSG dangerous to operate?

Yes, with multiple risk vectors. Anyone building one needs to address:

Treat it as a small home-built reactor with all the appropriate respect.

Section F — The whole picture

Q17: How do the device and the cosmology relate?

They can be evaluated separately, and it helps to do so. The device is a physical apparatus that can be measured; the protocols in note 14 are built for that. The cosmology is a number system, read on its own terms in the distilled structure and the master ledger. Using either one as evidence for or against the other mixes two different kinds of question.

Q18: What evidence would settle the open questions?

For the engineering and LENR claims:

For conventional explanations:

Further reading

Rendered 2026-09-28