... he can go positive and start to plan for proprietary blockbuster applications. That is where the profits lie.
Sure, but I think that Rossi's steam quality would better match the requirements of espresso machines. 
All these millions of espresso machines. A real blockbuster application with huge profits.
Sure, but I think that Rossi's steam quality would better match the requirements of espresso machines.
All these millions of espresso machines. A real blockbuster application with huge profits.
I just authored a post that explains a technology that makes steam production from a LENR source obsolete: LENR Energy Harvesting. It is similar in concept if not in detail to the SunCell where very high frequency EMF produced by a reaction(LENR?) is downshifted and converted into a waveform that is easily converted to current by photovoltaic cells.
IHFB - I think that a Brillouin demo has been run in the past for an IH exec. Where did you get that SRI verified their reactor? If you're refering to McKubre's letter then that is a supportive document but is not a a verified reactor sign off. As I've…
Several announcements/articles regarding recent tests/validation of Brillouin Energy are located here: http://ecat.org/tag/brillouin-energy/ The first one is particularly interesting. Below are some excerpts:
(1): Brillouin Energy Independent Report Validates TechnologyPosted on December 3, 2015
BERKELEY, CA, December 1, 2015 – Brillouin Energy Corp., developer of renewable energy technologies capable of producing commercially useful amounts of thermal energy (heat) based on controlled low energy nuclear reactions (“LENR”), announced today that its Hydrogen Hot Tube (HHT) Boiler System reactor core modules, were the subject of a recently completed independent Technical Validation Report.
The 35-page Report was prepared as technical due diligence by Michael Halem, a third party technical investigator. The Technical Validation Report summarizes the investigation into Brillouin Energy’s HHT single tube core prototypes at Brillouin’s Berkeley laboratory and at its research partner SRI International. The results are drawn from a series of calibrated tests of both systems. Mr. Halem personally designed tests on the HHT systems and then directed the technical staff of Brillouin Energy and SRI to execute the test plans. The tests, in which 95 channels of data were recorded and then investigated, included multiple technical changes to validate the thermodynamic results. In all cases, the results were consistent: the data demonstrate with very high confidence that the Brillouin Energy HHT prototype repeatedly produced lab-scale excess heat from LENR. “I was given full access to the experiments,” said Mr. Halem. “I was able to confirm, with a high degree of confidence, excess energy output above chemical and likely due to a nuclear reaction.” The Technical Validation Report affirms that Brillouin Energy’s HHT technology “is scalable by assembling multiple HHT tubes” in a reactor system. The Report was peer reviewed by Mr. Halem’s technical colleague, Dr. Antoine Guillemin who holds his Masters in Nuclear Physics and Ph.D. in Building Physics. Brillouin Energy’s Technical Validation Report is available upon request to qualified interested parties under a customary non-disclosure agreement. For further information, please contact: Grant Draper [email protected] +1-415-745-0254 Michael Halem [email protected] +1-914-407-4520
(2): Brillouin Energy Corp. presented its groundbreaking thermal energy technology on Capitol Hill last week.
Attendees included Members of Congress, congressional aides, federal government officials, industry representatives, and citizens’ groups concerned with the federal government’s progress on developing clean energy solutions. “It was great to see that much interest in DC for a true safe green nuclear power technology,” commented Brillouin’s President and Chief Technology Officer, Robert Godes. Attendees were able to learn about Brillouin’s prototype LENR reactors and hear from a number of speakers, including Dr. Michael McKubre of Stanford Research International (SRI). Brillouin and SRI have entered into a technology research agreement under which SRI is engaged in calibration testing and independent analysis of the Brillouin technology. As Dr. McKubre noted in a report distributed at the event, “it is very clear that something on the order of four times (4x) and potentially more gain in power (and therefore ultimately energy) was achieved at an impressive and industrially significant operating temperature of around 640°C. To my knowledge this had not been achieved before in the LENR field. The fact that the Q pulse input is capable of triggering the excess power on and off is also highly significant.”
(3): Infinite Energy has posted a nice article on Brillouin Energy and its founder Robert Godes. Brillouin consistently demonstrates with its ongoing collaboration with SRI to be a leader in the LENR field and the pursuit of commercialization of their technology. Fran Tanzella from SRI declares that SRI has interacted with Robert and the Brillouin team over the past three years and have come to believe that the early high-pressure “Wet Boiler” results were reproducible, controllable and significant. “I personally presented that work at ICCF17 because I believe it is real and important,” Tanzella says.
joshua cude wrote: [to Jed Rothwell]:
If I said that, I was wrong. Probably deceived. I now agree that the information he gave out earlier was invalid. Whether it was a mistake or a lie I cannot judge.
This was classic Joshua Cude. In the Playground here, he brought up something I wrote about Rossi in 2011. I responded, showing that he'd quoted me out of context, creating a distorted appearance. And this was not the first time he brought it up. If anyone is curious, I responded here with: The Playground
Sane people learn not to continue communicating with trolls. Here, he has done the same thing with Jed, bringing up a 2011 comment. Jed wasn't being careful in it, something that I argued with him about at the time. Nothing from Rossi was "proof" because it was not verifiable. It was all managed demonstration. This got more and more obvious as time went on.
So, has Joshua mentioned this before? Is the Pope Catholic?
[email protected]/msg55862.html">https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg55862.html is Jed's original comment. I've had many discussions with Jed about the careless use of the word "proof." However, that's all that this was. We don't actually know yet what happened with all the demonstrations. But the appearance was strong, then, that there was real heat, and this was the conclusion of many observers. None of this was "science." By 2011, I was making the point, mostly privately to CMNS researchers, including Jed, that a skilled fraud could fake any test, could fool any expert, if the fraud had full control over a demonstration. Magicians do this all the time. And this is why we insist on independent replication, and why the GPT was seriously problematic, simply because Rossi was there 24/7.
[email protected]/msg55928.html">https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg55928.html was Cude's response. Fri, 18 Nov 2011
http://ecatnews.com/?p=2464&cpage=2 October 28, 2012 "Popeye" appears to be Cude.
http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=3402&page=30 Feb 10th 2013 Cude cites this together with my comment from 2011, even though the discussion had nothing to do with Rossi. The tactic has been used by a number of trolls. Raise the name of someone active, such as a scientist, and if they have ever made a mistake, or that might look like a mistake, point it out as proof of total gullibility. Pure ad hominem.
[email protected]/msg79991.html">https://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-[email protected]/msg79991.html 13 May 2013 is particularly outrageous. Rothwell is supporting certain kinds of skepticism and so Cude trots out the statement, insisting that "according to your statement, skepticism of the whole field is justified."
I do not welcome discussion with the anonymous trolls. It's tragic, in fact. Cude knows a great deal about cold fusion, but he uses it all to pursue "debunking," instead of truth. If the truth is artifact or error, pursuit of truth will show that. But when the goal is debunking, truth is obscured, because fact is cherry-picked to support a preconception. Debate of this kind is acceptable in a moderated adversarial forum (like a court of law). It is not acceptable in collegial discussion, and when this kind of argument is allowed, sane people leave.
Here, again, that old Rothwell statement was totally irrelevant. Joshua, completely off topic now, pulls out the old statement:
Rothwell wrote:
In 2011, you wrote:"Rossi has given out *far* more proof than any previous cold fusion researcher."So, do you therefore concede that no previous cold fusion researcher has provided proof of cold fusion?
Cude is using the old statement, as he has over and over, as an element in a syllogism. I've mentioned that he has honed arguments. This is far from the strongest of them because it is so obviously ad-hominem. He has others, and he does keep developing now ones. I''ve seen a few now in the Playground that I didn't see before. It's tempting to respond, except that to respond responsibly with more than "liar, liar, pants on fire," requires research. It takes hours. That is why, now, I am suggesting to readers that if they are tempted to believe Cude, ask. Cude will point to evidence that, if you don't know the context and the field, will look as he claims. He's become really good at that.
Really good at deceiving the naive.
And, yes, this is ad-hominem. This does not establish that he's wrong about cold fusion. What it shows is that he is not a part of the real conversation taking place among scientists and those interested in the energy future of humanity. It's just noise. For years, I studied Cudes' writings, answering the issues he raises in detail (extensively on newvortex), because part of my job is to speak to skeptics, and to develop consensus. I need to know those arguments. But he is far beyond what genuine skeptics express. He is an attack dog.
So, after Jed admits his error, Cude comes back:
insisting that Rossi had provided first principles proof better than any in the field still damages your credibility.
And after that, you're [sic] certainty about cold fusion doesn't say nearly as much for the field.
Jed Rothwell is a real person. Jushua Cude is an anonymous troll, who can walk away from every error if he wants. The position here is obvious: if a real person ever makes a mistake, they are to be nailed to it for the rest of their life, they will never again be credible. The example that Cude is setting is "Be anonymous!" But science depends on reputation. Cude attacks the real scientists, dismissing them all as deluded. And people, including scientists, do make mistakes. Cude is, in fact, an enemy of science and of humanity.
@Dewey. I am unable to contact Sam at the moment, and have no idea what was deleted, so I can only make a general comment on policy re comments as co-owner of 'Lookingforheat'. LFH is a private company dedicated to providing otherwise hard to find materials and equipment to independent LENR researchers. We are very happy to publish critical comments about our methods and products - you can see them on the site and on our YT channel.
What we will not allow -ever- is a reprise of the Rossi/IH battle on our site. If you posted something about that, it will be removed. I strive for a fair balance here, but LFH is another place which has no overlap with legal dramas at all.
I hope you are not allowing LFH to go the way of E-Scat world....censorship kills innovation and invention. Your response sounds like an excuse to me to...I continue to be less and less impressed with "LFH Sam". He is starting to become more and more of a negative mark on LFH....
For example, if a turbofan jet engine that uses Rossi's product is sold, the majority of the profit would go to the engine manufacturer and not to the manufacture of the heat generation reactor chip.
A turbofan is probably not a good example. A patent lasts 20 years. It takes 10 or 20 years to design, test and manufacture a turbofan engine, so by the time the first ones come out, this technology will be in the public domain. This technology will not have an immediate effect on big ticket items such as aerospace engines.
(I doubt this technology exists, but for the sake of argument let us assume it does.)
Axil - I'm sure that a handful of folks appreciate your optimism regarding Rossi's technology. His junk doesn't work.
Shane D - That would be great news if true. Have you seen an SRI document that supports that claim?
Quiz - Halem is an investor in Brillouin - his opinion doesn't count.
Some folks are bullish on Brillouin and we're pulling for them.
For the sake of argument,
A "heat-generation reactor chip" or pencil or whatever produces heat at 1/40 the cost of jet fuel for equivalent BTUs.
Consider also the fuel weight saving, and the useful life of the reactor (as well as the turbofan engine) and it seems clear that the value of the reactor in terms of fuel cost savings would be staggering.
A turbofan engine basically never wears out, as long as it is properly maintained (e.g., overhauled every 10,000 hours).
A jet-fuel powered turbofan will burn 250 gallons per hour. So a two-engined aircraft will burn 500 gallons per hour, and over a 10,000 hour maintenance cycle, that comes to $5 M for fuel, at current price of about $1/gal of jet fuel.
So if there is a device that can provide the same amount of energy for 1/40 the fuel cost, it will save the airline almost $4.9M of fuel ($5M - (1/40 * $5M)) over 10,000 hours (not to mention the compound benefits of reduced takeoff weight and reduced pollution).
Of course, each engine will cost around $20 M ..
Regardless, if such technology existed, it would make sense for airlines to pay up to at least as much as $4.9M per device plus fuel, (assuming that they last at least 10,000 hours).
Meanwhile, if I am Rolls Royce, I am quite happy to sell a turbofan at a 40% "profit", or about $8M per engine for a device that should last for many tens of thousands of hours.
Yet, if I am selling a LENR reactor, as long as my cost per unit is below, say, $1 million per device, I will earn much more profit over the life of a typical passenger aircraft than Rolls Royce.
So most of the profit will go to whoever can actually produce such devices, not to the engine manufacturers.
What comes next? Fantasies about using Rossi's products for time travel and laser swords?
An over complicated espresso machine might be more realistic.
Axil - I'm sure that a handful of folks appreciate your optimism regarding Rossi's technology. His junk doesn't work.
Dewey, you know what the LENR tech can do, that is why you have invested in it and that is way you will try to maintain your position in that technology. Every post that you write is a testament to the validity of the LENR technology. You need to realize that the value in this tech is in its application to replace existing industries in electrical power, and the power plants of homes, autos, aircraft, trains, and ships.
The point is that Rossi has not thought of everything. He is only one man and the applications for LENR is huge, Value added development that uses the Quark as a base will be as profitable as the reactor itself.
The Quark needs to be upgraded to produce direct electric power. The production of steam is a complete waste of the power of the LENR technology. Heat is a small fraction of the power that the Quark can produce.
The person who develops that technology will also make a profit on each Quark sold and that profit margin will be grater than what Rossi can make.
Those innovators that can use Rossi's product to great effect in the marketplace will reap great profits and monopolize highly profitable emerging markets.
If Dewey Weaver has inside info relating to the capabilities of Rossi's products, he can go positive and start to plan for proprietary blockbuster applications. That is where the profits lie. The future will belong to those who prepare for it.
People do not know how to read Axil and take many of his comments too literally. He can be quite funny, as he is above. I do not say this as a backhanded compliment but as a genuine one. Because Axil is often quite subtle, many people miss the humor.
Quote from "Dewey"Sifferkoll - glad to see you back here posting. More than investors are curious about Rossi's claims. There are investigators involved now thanks to all the racket that Rossi raised with his PR war. You guys poked the dragon - might be a larger than expected price to pay.
Yeah, your friend Freddie in the dungeon said that didn't he? Good to hear you are not ignoring each other anymore ... Bad teamwork that is.
Quotewould be worth more than $89M and yes,that could be raised from the existing network on relatively short notice.
Back to the real question. Do you still believe it is easy to raise $89M for a tech where you do not CONTROL&OWN the IP, only license it, and if you piss off the inventor? Is not this the absolute core of the IH problem, then tell me?
Since I've been following this for a while now and had the pleasure (!) to communicate with you ... I've come to the conclusion that you IH guys might have some skillset/connnections in the paperwork domain, but are basically worthless when it comes to actually doing anything, like managing people and/or producing stuff.
Quiz, Dewey,
if I recall correctly, the report cited did not mention anything about nuclear by products,
which I found puzzling.
if I was going to throw money at LENR, Brillouin might be with considering, but the founder tends to blubber
The Quark needs to be upgraded to produce direct electric power.
Why quark? and not Tofu? It's much healthier.
With direct electricity generation?? Rossi has lost his mind. Even Mills has to prove that his solution will work for more than an hour... And his "path to current" is physically well founded, but for the engineering its a nightmare.
Why quark? and not Tofu? It's much healthier.
With direct electricity generation?? Rossi has lost his mind. Even Mills has to prove that his solution will work for more than an hour... And his "path to current" is physically well founded, but for the engineering its a nightmare.
In the earlier generations of Rossi's reactors, non heat based energy was less accessible and most of it was converted to heat.
With the Quark and its very high operating temperatures and semilucent EMF emitting structure, the EMF is readily available for direct conversion to DC current using newly emerging technology.
Mills is using a simple low efficiency conversion method but at least his design priorities are in the right place. Rossi's single tract thinking in stubbornly concentrating on heat production that might well be used by another technology developer as an opening to innovate a strap on technology that greatly increases the efficiency of the Quark.
I hope you are not allowing LFH to go the way of E-Scat world....censorship kills innovation and invention. Your response sounds like an excuse to me to...I continue to be less and less impressed with "LFH Sam". He is starting to become more and more of a negative mark on LFH....
You are entitled to your opinions about LFH and Sam. That is all they are though, your opinions. As for LFH 'going the way of E-Cat world' that is rather like saying 'I hope Home Depot doesn't go the way of the Republican party. Lookingforheat.com is a technical resource for experimenters, not a talking shop or virtual courtroom for legal arguments for or against anyone. Comments are totally welcome on LFH -even negative ones - but only insofar as they are about scientific and technical matters.
You are entitled to your opinions about LFH and Sam. That is all they are though, your opinions. As for LFH 'going the way of E-Cat world' that is rather like saying 'I hope Home Depot doesn't go the way of the Republican party. Lookingforheat.com is a technical resource for experimenters, not a talking shop or virtual courtroom for legal arguments for or against anyone. Comments are totally welcome on LFH -even negative ones - but only insofar as they are about scientific and technical matters.
I can respect that. I am glad to hear your response regarding E-Cat World.
Sifferkoll - I've learned a lot about you in the last 24 hours and choose not to engage with you any further.
Take good care.
- Dewey
