Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC) updates.

Quote

SRI is one of the finest research facilities in the world, and they verified BEC's tech. Be honest, you are never going to be satisfied.

Of course I would be satisfied if the correct methodology (complete envelope calorimetry either by heat flux or liquid cooling) would be used, not point temperature measurements. I would already feel better about it if it were SRI as a company making the announcements rather than BEC citing that a small subgroup of SRI, composed of "usual suspects" had done the work. And Sandia is a national lab and a much better source for testing of systems like this than SRI which, in my estimation, has slipped considerably since its peak.

I'd be interested to know what kirkshanahan thinks of the paper I linked above and again here: http://brillouinenergy.com/wp-…/SRI_Technical_Report.pdf He'd be much better than me at spotting the rotten part of the apple but it's a long paper so he may choose not to review it.

BTW, this sort of work is vastly different in every way from Rossi's. The equipment looks well designed and made and the paper contains a lot of appropriate construction information and performance data. Most unRossified. It also helps that Tanzella is the author. None of this makes it ironclad though. And Godes in particular, has been making overblown and unsupported projections about his alleged technology for more than five years since he first published a hilarious diagram (seems he couldn't spell "hydrogen" or "pulse") on Sterling Alan's moronic web site. So his claim of a COP of 4 should not be believed on his say so.

Finally, it would be interesting to know who the large companies are which are allegedly funding this. I bet one is IH and we know their track record so far,. But because of the way this was done and looks and because Tenzella is the author of that report, it isn't an automatic writeoff.

Shane D.

SRI is a mixed bag. Some of their work is fine. But they slipped in my estimation way back when they took Targ and Puthoff under their wing and did little to prevent those two from being roundly and embarrassingly bamboozled by Uri Geller. Geller is a transparent liar who does fairly common magic tricks and foists them off as paranormal. T&P tested him and decided he really had powers. They published the experiments in Nature but the work was so bad, Nature required them to retract it. Blush. They also slipped when they approved work on remote viewing which, it can be easily shown, is total nonsense. The proof requires minimal effort and expense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology_research_at_SRI

Shane, how do you explain that there is no mention of the work with Brillouin or with low energy nuclear reactions in general on the SRI web site? At least, there was none I could find. If it's there, it's not terribly obvious. Anyone find it?

https://www.sri.com/

Tell me this: if SRI was working with anyone who had LENR technology nearing deployment of any sort or even such technology that could prove that LENR "works," you don't think that this world-shaking fact would be prominently featured on their web site? Cue: excuses

Quote from Shane D.

Wyttenbach.

That is the COP SRI saw in their independent replication...which they say is very conservative, but Godes claims they get 4 in their own lab. They do have some OEM's already. If you read this clip carefully though, it does not sound as if they are able to harness enough excess heat to start the commercialization process yet...which supports what you say:

"Canada and South Korea are already leveraging this proprietary system by preparing the market for reliable low-cost thermal energy."

You can get a COP of 4-8 from a GSHP. No need for liquid silver or whatever they use...or is that BLP.

Quote from Shane D.

Wyttenbach.

That is the COP SRI saw in their independent replication...which they say is very conservative, but Godes claims they get 4 in their own lab.

Of course you never bring your best process into a lab! The Japanese do the same. They just publish the enough good ones...

Swarz told a years ago that the best nanors are above COP 8. But that's usually true at the beginning. For selling a product it must hold for months.

Quote

And the examples you bring up are about being fooled by con artists, and have nothing to do with the current discussion. SRI could not have been fooled by a smooth talker, or slight of hand. They brought the reactors to their own facility, and with no help from BEC, replicated.

My point was that in the past the entire company endorsed stuff that could have been determined to be crap with one or two simple tests that nobody required or performed. Nowadays, I call this the IH Phenomenon. In Brillouin's instance, I think SRI (actually a very small part of SRI) may have been fooled by what I like to call mismeasurement. kirkshanahan has other names for important subtypes of the phenomenon. This may be accidental mismeasurement whereas what Rossi does is premeditated and precomputed and pretested mismeasurement.

Hmmm... ok, so in your estimation, when should Brillouin bring out a demo or product whose ability to generate P_out>P_in is generally believed by a majority of scientists? 2 more years from now? 5? 10? 20?

Alan Smith I can't prove you wrong that SRI is secretive about Brillouin for protection. But I think a much more likely explanation is that nobody outside Tanzella et al. 's area thinks much of Brillouin if they even know it's something SRI does. Here's the thing. If they are trying to hide the company and SRI's association with it, they are doing a terrible job, are they not?

tanzella of brillouin's theory involved the production of H(4)

I wonder if by taking Leif Holmlid's new findings into account that the brillouin reaction is some sort of muon based catalyzed fusion reaction where muons play the critical role in energy production after the formation of hydrogen-4. If the brillouin reaction is based on the production of sub atomic particles via H(4), brillouin might increase their COP by confining the byproducts of their reaction so that the muons and other charged particles are not lost before the catalyzed reaction can take place and also increase subatomic particle output by applying a Holmlid based stimulus (laser, spark, XUV light) to the H(4).

An apparently little-known fact is that technology companies find it much easier to raise money when they unambiguously demonstrate that their technology actually works. Many of these companies even have IP and are parties to NDAs! And they still can prove that their technology works. Who knew?

Quote

And besides that, SRI no longer does LENR research. They shut it down, along with some other smaller programs as part of a cost saving measure.

Seriously? And you still think that SRI proved to their own satisfaction that Brillouin's claims or even a significant subset are true? That would require believing that they dropped a potentially trillion dollar business as part of a cost saving measure.

Quote from Promethian

I'm astonished at how many people on this forum have been picked up by companies and such to further the cause of LENR as a world saving technology.

LENR and its underlying ,mechanisms will form the basis of how many of the most pressing scientific mysteries and issues will be solved. This new awakening will advance science by hundreds of years.