Quote from David Nygren

What you are seeing in this video is a small stirling engine that is running off of the heat being generated within Brillouin Energy’s Hydrogen Hot Tube (HHT).

What we are seeing here does not prove a damn thing about anything. Okay, maybe there is more information in a longer video presentation, or a paper, but this alone tells us nothing.

You could make a brief demo more convincing than this. In this video, there is no way to know whether the input power to the Brillouin gadget produces enough resistance heating to drive the Stirling engine. The gadget could be acting as nothing more than a complicated electric heater. To demonstrate that is not the case, at very least, you would have show the Stirling engine not moving (or barely moving) on top of a resistance heater, and then show it moving with the same input power going into the gadget. That would not be very convincing. There are ways it could be a mistake. But it would be a start.

I do not understand why people do unconvincing demonstrations. It is worse than no demonstration. Arata did something similar to this, with a small thermoelectric gadget driving a small motor. It proved nothing, for the same reason this proves nothing.

Godes just shared these on Twitter.

Scientfic evidence that Brillouin is safe nuclear energy

Below are two points that together provide scientifically verified evidence that Brillouin energy can control LENR heat production and nuclear effects in…

docs.google.com

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ElBNQxbkl9QnS4JH9ldoleeUkDMevJQa/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZJ2KPpOszbXm0ICU4VjAISpVUggflIgz/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ynR2ZJPdRJmw07FEi-P1kTq57tkH2AEe/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/14sZvkbfbuQe1uwCad_HR64EAQ_oR9ONM/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GxaPzJ1HGuQzCgHLhDPA8jI-Vz7-u_NE/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fH0175cM87dfj1LpqzJiUhm9QZPXG79j/view

Looks like BEC is doing now what we thought Rossi will do in 2012.

Congratulation to BEC and Robert Godes. If it is true they may be near to enter the market with a mass produced device.

Just for reference, here is the twitter post orsova mentioned:

Lots of new information from Robert!

Thanks orsova for finding.

Definitive Scientific Proof of Controlled LENR Heat Production

in Brillouin Energy Corp’s Hydrogen Hot Tube™ (HHT™) reactor systems

Below is a summary of points that together provide independent, scientifically verified evidence that Brillouin energy can control LENR heat production and nuclear effects in its test reactors.

1. Brillouin Energy has evidence of heat production beyond any chemical means:
   1. The Brillouin Milestone Technical Progress Highlights (Milestone Highlights, 2019) document shows data from a series of experiments employing precision calorimetry.
   2. These tests provide proof of heat production with no known chemical reactions between the materials in the reactor that could account for the heat produced.
   3. This data resulted from an 18-month campaign run on a single catalyst rod focusing on continually refining the drive signal to maximize power output.
   4. Upon removing the catalyst rod from the reactor, it appeared unchanged, with no signs of degradation.
      
      
2. Brillouin has independent proof of nuclear effects consistent with the accumulation of neutrons. The only source of such neutrons is the reaction driven by our control system. The basis for this is a series of related independent expert tests and the Reports that resulted from those tests:
   1. The Brillouin Cerium Lab Test Report 2020 contains further proof of nuclear reactions. The results found on page 4 stem from the metal missing in the last picture of this album, showing a significant reduction in the most abundant isotope of nickel, while the heaviest isotope increased by 125%.
   2. The combination of Brillouin 3rd Party Test Results and Analysis, the Tanzella ERC Challenge Test Report, and the Cerium lab test of the rod, which produced the Cerium Report, provide definitive scientific evidence of LENR heat production and Brillouin’s ability to control it.
   3. The change in isotopic ratios indicates an accumulation of neutrons in the system. On this scale, the only apparent neutron source is the reaction driven by Brillouin’s reactor control system.
   4. The experiment was conducted by a PhD nuclear physicist and engineer on behalf of a private equity firm, which was performing due diligence on Brillouin Energy’s technology. The physicist/engineer’s background included several executive-level positions at GE-Hitachi’s Nuclear Energy Division. The experiment conducted by this due diligence expert was run on a different catalyst rod than the Milestone Highlights 2019 experiments and replaced the hydrogen fuel with Helium and Argon. After running Brillouin’s HHT reactor in inert gas for more than a month, the documented nuclear event occurred, causing the center of the catalyst rod to vaporize. By depriving the catalyst of hydrogen, it was possible to get the system to run away. This runaway event generated NO hazardous radiation and only caused the reactor to shut down. Brillouin Helium vs. Hydrogen Why the COP Goes Up provides a full explanation of why this happened.
      
      
3. Brillouin Energy has an earlier result demonstrating definitive independent scientific proof of LENR from our WET™ reactor work, where our reactor produced Tritium.
   1. See Brillouin Claytor Tritium Test Results Final 2-27-15

For more information, please contact us through our Website’s Contact

Tom Claytor is a world-class expert when it comes to measuring Tritium.

Quote from David Nygren

See Brillouin Claytor Tritium Test Results Final 2-27-15

Brillouin still needs to get funding out of these results, however good they are. I know David Firshein is hard at work trying to pitch this to investors.

I have been following the claims being made by Godes for years with dismay. I agree, he has made excess energy that results from a nuclear process. He has also caused transmutation. BUT, many people have made excess energy and transmutation without applying the current pulses Robert claims are required. So, why are such pulses needed in his case and are not required to cause LENR during the hundreds of other successful efforts? How is it possible for a current pulse to supply the energy and neutrinos required to form a neutron? Why are the neutrons not detected in great numbers as a result of the process? His theory also ignores all other observed behaviors reported by other people.

Nevertheless, he is claiming to have a method that can have economic importance. Personally, I would not invest in a claim unless these questions can be answered. We went down a similar path with Rossi that did not end well. Why would anyone expect this approach would end any better?

On the other hand, I believe the nuclear process requires the formation of a special condition in a material where hydrogen atoms and extra electrons can accumulate in order to create an entirely new kind of nuclear structure. The applied currents would help the required electrons to accumulate. However, these electrons are not making neutrons. Instead, they make what everyone else has detected, i.e. 4He. The transmutation product results when this unusual structure interacts with the surrounding atoms before the final nuclear product is formed. In other words, Godes has identified only part of the answer. The amount of power his method can produce will continue to be limited until he is able to effectively control the creation of the active sites, i.e. the NAE. I hope he would explore this idea before committing to a larger program.

I quote from the document entitled "Why would one see more energy out when you replace

Hydrogen with Helium in a Brillouin reactor?" which reads:-

"At large scale we may see some ⁶³Ni decays. You get a gama out of the decay of ⁶³Ni to ⁶³Cu because ⁶³Ni is a spin 1/2 and ⁶³Cu is a spin 3/2. This transition provides the spin 1 change necessary for gamma emission."

I believe ⁶³Ni beta decays without any gamma emission at all. And in fact Brillouin apparently did not detect any gammas. Brillouin predict them, as explained above, based on the need to conserve spin. But this is taken care of by the emission of the 2 fermions, the beta particle and the neutrino. The energy of this decay is only 67 keV which doesn't leave much scope for creating an excited state of ⁶³Cu. See https://ehs.stanford.edu/refer…3-radionuclide-fact-sheet

In contrast ⁶⁵Ni decays much more energetically than ⁶³Ni with a half life of just 2.5 hours. It can and often does populate an excited states of ⁶⁵Cu which emit copious gammas of over 1 MeV. The question is, what evidence is there for these isotopes?

Any scientific endeavour raises more questions than answers. At least Robert Godes appears to be sincere, unlike our friend Rossi. Just give Brillouin more time, I suggest, to answer these questions, why?

Quote from Storms

So, why are such pulses needed in his case and are not required to cause LENR during the hundreds of other successful efforts? How is it possible for a current pulse to supply the energy and neutrinos required to form a neutron?

As the SO(4) physics model shows all Nickel isotopes contain internal excess charge structures. This allows H*-H* to add like 2 neutrons what his transmutations in fact confirm.

But........... All Nickel H*-H* fusion reactions are to energetic (> + 16MeV) and exceed the gamma threshold of all target nuclei. As a consequence Ni-H*-H*-Ni clusters do form out that most of the time decay asymmetrically into equipotential nuclei == no energy is produced. I think most energy comes either from rare D* or reactions that involve 61-Ni or other contamination.

For those that have a more deep understanding the 4-He experiment Robert did run gives a good hint how you can work around the Ni-H*-H*-Ni cluster issue.

Well even Rossi appeared to be sincere at first. To avoid premature acceptance of conjecture as fact we need to raise scientific standards and avoid unsupported claims. Scientific criticism and peer review are an essential part of the process. Note that I do not accuse anyone of insincerity.

Quote from WJMFC

Well even Rossi appeared to be sincere at first.

“Sincerity - if you can fake that, you've got it made.”

George Burns

Quote from WJMFC

Scientific criticism and peer review are an essential part of the process.

I think the most essential thing in this instance is an independent replication. Independent replication is less important with other experiments. I mean other experiments from "mainstream" cold fusion, which are similar to previous work. A person replicating excess heat in bulk palladium is replicating the original F&P experiment, and also the many follow-up replications of it. So that result can be believed. But the Brillouin techniques and results are quite different from most other cold fusion experiments, so I think they must be independently replicated before we can be confident they are real.

That does not mean we should ignore these results, dismiss them. Any result endorsed by people such as Tanzella and Claytor has a lot of credibility!

Quote from Dr Richard*

Just give Brillouin more time, I suggest, to answer these questions

I think they have already taken far too much time, and too much money. They need to focus on essentials. As Wilbur Wright said in 1912:

"When the detailed story is written of the means by which success in human flight was finally attained, it will be seen that this success was not won by spending more time than others had spent, nor by taking greater risks than others had taken.

Those who failed for lack of time had already used more time than was necessary; those who failed for lack of money had already spent more money than was necessary; and those who were cut off by accident had previously enjoyed as many lucky escapes as reasonably could be expected."

To put it the other way, the people at Brillouin need to stop farting around with non-essentials, such as trying to make a commercially useful prototype. Just demonstrate the effect at 10 W and they can get a billion dollars overnight.

Quote from LCC

Brillouin still needs to get funding out of these results, however good they are.

In my opinion, they could get all the funding in the world, if the would only act rationally, and do a clear, irrefutable laboratory scale demonstration of excess heat. Everything else they have done is a distraction, and a waste of time and effort.

Quote from LCC

I know David Firshein is hard at work trying to pitch this to investors.

Doing everything but what is needed, as I say. Perhaps behind the scenes they are doing the right things, but putting the right things behind the scenes and out of view is itself a huge mistake. That is one of the mistakes the Wrights made from 1905 to 1908. They almost lost their edge and almost lost getting the credit for their invention by keeping things under wraps. See:

https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJthewrightb.pdf

Many others have made this mistake in the history of science and technology.

Quote from JedRothwell

I think they have already taken far too much time, and too much money.

Multiply "too much money" by several million dollars for Randall Mills at Blacklight Power, or whatever it is he calls the company these days. For the last 20 years I have had no idea what his experiments were supposed to be demonstrating. You might say that I am not expert enough to grasp these esoteric claims. True enough! I am not expert enough. But that's the whole point. They should be able to devise an experiment that I can understand.

Why me? Why should Mills care what I can understand? Because I understand a reasonable amount about physics and calorimetry. I am a good stand-in for your typical venture capitalist or investor with a technical background and an undergraduate education in physics. If I have no clue what Mills is doing, neither will most investors. Whatever the hell he is trying to demonstrate, I am sure it could be done in ways that I could grasp, using classical 19th century measurement techniques. The claims are that macroscopic energy levels are being generated. Not just individual nuclear reactions. Macroscopic energy can always be measured when reaches the end stage of waste heat, which entropy says it must do. However exotic it is in creation, all energy ends up as waste heat. You just have to contain it.

I would probably not know how to evaluate a claim that Mills is detecting individual nuclear reactions. I could not evaluate Russ George's claims about gamma rays. Although as far as I know, experts do not usually describe gamma rays with the metrics applied to chorus line dancing.

Quote from Alan Smith

“Sincerity - if you can fake that, you've got it made.”

"Always be sincere, whether you mean it or not" - Michael Flanders

Quote from Storms

The amount of power his method can produce will continue to be limited until he is able to effectively control the creation of the active sites, i.e. the NAE

Quote from Wyttenbach

But........... All Nickel H*-H* fusion reactions are to energetic (> + 16MeV) and exceed the gamma threshold of all target nuclei. As a consequence Ni-H*-H*-Ni clusters do form out that most of the time decay asymmetrically into equipotential nuclei == no energy is produced. I think most energy comes either from rare D* or reactions that involve 61-Ni or other contamination.

Robert Godes may need to compare deuterium versus protium...?

Robert Godes has made the same mistake Rossi made. He tried to scale up before he understood how the energy source actually worked. He created a theory and then assumed it was correct because he could make some extra energy. As a result, he not only wasted a lot of money but will never have a useful generator. Meanwhile, the potential for fraud has increased.

I'm amazed this obvious problem with LENR is not understood by everyone. This method will never be applied to produce commercial energy until it is correctly understood. At the present time, we are decades away from having even a basic understanding of LENR. It's fun to speculate, but this will not lead to a useful product. The issue is not whether the claim can be replicated. In fact, I can cause excess energy to be produced any time I want. The question is what is the cause and what variables control the process. Replication does not answer these questions. Unless effective research methods are actually applied, I see no hope for progress during the next 31 years.

Quote from Storms

The question is what is the cause and what variables control the process. Replication does not answer these questions. Unless effective research methods are actually applied, I see no hope for progress during the next 31 years.

I believe the science of cold fusion is far more advanced than you think. In fact it is so because of the excellent data you provided and that of many others. My opinion is that output of a cold fusion reaction is mostly not heat. Call it mostly entropy you like but that doesn't recognize that entropy isn't just disorder. Most entropy is actual radiation; it is just not electromagnetic. There are 100s of papers about this torsion field. Yet it is not well understood.

Agreed, the way things are now.

Currently i continue NIH investigations and yes, i'm agree your NAE are important however their stimulation too.

Quote from Storms

Robert Godes a fait la même erreur que Rossi. Il a essayé de passer à l'échelle avant de comprendre comment la source d'énergie fonctionnait réellement. Il a créé une théorie et a ensuite supposé qu'elle était correcte parce qu'il pouvait produire de l'énergie supplémentaire. En conséquence, non seulement il a gaspillé beaucoup d'argent, mais il n'aura jamais de générateur utile. Pendant ce temps, le potentiel de fraude a augmenté.

Je suis étonné que ce problème évident avec LENR ne soit pas compris par tout le monde. Cette méthode ne sera jamais appliquée pour produire de l'énergie commerciale tant qu'elle n'aura pas été correctement comprise. À l'heure actuelle, nous sommes à des décennies d'avoir même une compréhension de base de LENR. C'est amusant de spéculer, mais cela ne mènera pas à un produit utile. La question n'est pas de savoir si l'allégation peut être reproduite. En fait, je peux provoquer la production d'un excès d'énergie à tout moment. La question est quelle est la cause et quelles variables contrôlent le processus. La réplication ne répond pas à ces questions. À moins que des méthodes de recherche efficaces ne soient effectivement appliquées, je ne vois aucun espoir de progrès au cours des 31 prochaines années.