For further information, please contact:
    Grant Draper [email protected] +1-415-745-0254
    Michael Halem [email protected] +1-914-407-4520

  • hmmm.

    Lab-scale excess heat. I wonder what they mean by this.
    Will this 35 page report be released to the public?

    BTW: "The Report was peer reviewed by Mr. Halem’s technical colleague". Not only technical colleague but also business partner. is this really peer reviewed?

  • Antoine Guillemin actually exists and he indeed holds a master in applied physics but since he has not worked in the field of nuclear science since his ph. d. and since he is not a renowned/respected professor in this field, this won't change much.

    But, however, he is affiliated with the very renowned Ecole Polytechnique in Lausanne

  • The competence required for good calorimetry is not nuclear physics.
    I would say, from past "experiences", that this competence is more a problem here.
    "Applied" is what we need for this kind of measurement.

    I put much hope in that sentence:
    "The tests, in which 95 channels of data were recorded and then investigated, included multiple technical changes to validate the thermodynamic results."

    Note that here the report is more than independent, it is done to protect one's investment.
    If they are wrong, they lose their money.

    I hope this will help to close conspiracy theory...

    Where is the report itself?

  • Mr. Halem and mr. Guillemin both are members of lenr-invest, which to me brings doubts regarding independent evaluation, see
    An investment company promoting their investment portfolio by own 'independent evaluation' trying to stimulate more external investors to invest in their portfolio while they receive an estimated fee percentage of 10 - 15 %. Kind of fishy business.

    It's very shameful Brillouin allows this kind of very doubtful promotion.
    Why does Brillouin not allow several universities to evaluate their technology independently?
    Not very convincing, even creating more doubts whether Brillouin's technology is commercially viable.

  • Too bad the the report is available on demand with some NDA (what kind?).
    This is due diligence for investment.

    The notion of third party is to question here.
    In a way any third party that invest after the test can be considered non-third-party, but It seems absurd to say it reduce the credibility to invest after the test done while you were not yet investor.

    In a way a physicist that replicate an experiment, and continue working on the subject is said to be "member of the club of the believer". This is a catch-22 fallacy.

    To be honest I would be more convinced by a test done by engineers, in industrial chemistry. The profile of the testers seems nearer to that, than usual physicist.

    Anyway NDA is a problem for public credibility, but investment fund only have to convince investors, not the public. Money talks.

  • Brillouin was also selected as one of the "AlwaysOn Global 100 Companies to Watch."

    Brillouin on its site, in the experiment page, say "substantial heat effect produced by the company’s CECR process technologies in over 50 experiments, run on an independent basis."

    Brillouin happens after Rossi but also with Ni-H reaction. They need to develope their "tubes" in a way enough different than Rossi and they must do not give none detail to Rossi which could modify his patents to disturb the Brillouin development.

  • On E-cat World, a comment by builtitnow reports precision from Robert Godes…lease/#comment-2387825410