It's probably time we interview Robert Godes, I'll ask him. I would like to remind JedRothwell that Brilluoin organized a live demonstration of their device at ICCF-24, although it was a far from perfect demo, as they had not tested the device beforehand for some reason. Carl Page has been close to this project since before ICCF-19, it's surprising that such a well-connected guy hasn't found them a commercial partner so far.
Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC) updates.
-
-
Jed, I think you are both right and wrong! Depends on who's watching.
Owner perspective!
I don't see any rational reason from an owner's perspective to convince humanity that LENR works, if they have the funding they need, it's absolutely right to develop this under the radar.
My personal perspective
If I look from a more personal perspective and what is best for the planet Earth, I would like to see a total breakthrough, it can shift the focus so that major investment decisions become sustainable over time. A breakthrough will be redbull and cocaine for our stock market in the coming millennium. )
When LENR is totally accepted, the capital will flow, growing fast is not always easy, culture is complicated in a company that grows quickly.
My belief is that they only make convincing demos to selected investors.
Display MoreI disagree. I wish they would focus on demonstrating the effect to scientists and engineers, to persuade a large number of people that the effect is real. That would be much far cheaper and faster than commercialization. To take my favorite example, the Wright brothers tried to commercialize from 1905 to mid-1908. They got nowhere. Their rivals began to gain in them. Their problem was that very few people believed they could actually fly. On August 8, 1908, Wilbur flew in front of a crowd of experts and reporters in France. He only flew for a few minutes, but those people understood what they saw. They instantly understood that the Wrights had completely solved the problem of flight, that they "mastered the air" as one of the French observers put it. The experts told the reporters what was what, and within days Wilbur was the most famous person in Europe. Hundreds of thousands of people came to see flights. They has no difficulty commercializing after that. See:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com…lane-went-public-8791602/
Here's the thing that a modern person may not realize. In 1908, it was not easy to tell that an airplane was working. You had to be an expert. In 1908, dirigibles had flown long distances. Many people did not understand the difference between lighter-than-air aircraft and airplanes. When they heard that Wilbur flew for a few minutes they said, "So what? The Count Zeppelin has flown for hours." Furthermore, by 1908, some French pilots had flow for hundreds of meters. But their aircraft were barely controlled. Essentially uncontrolled. It was not really flying. More like an uncontrolled hop, like putting a propeller on a washing machine and going some distance through the air. The French did not understand 3-axis control, because they had not read the Wright's 1906 patent. Their engines were far more powerful than the Wright's, but they did not develop enough thrust, because only the Wrights understood the physics of propeller blades.
Along the same lines -- the very same lines! -- it might be difficult for a person in 2022 to tell whether a cold fusion demonstration is doing anything interesting. Whether it is actually producing anomalous energy. This is partly because people do not know much about energy. Even scientists such as Morrison did not understand the difference between power and energy, so he had no idea what F&P were saying. (See https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf) Even when people know know the difference, a badly designed demonstration will fail to convince them. If I were to set up such an demonstration, it would be convincing. I know how to do that, because I have written product manuals and taught people how to use machines in tech support. Not because I have some special genius for explaining things.
Unfortunately, the video of a test published by Brillouin is not convincing. It does not show what is needed. It is not accompanied by instruments, or explained correctly. There is no quantitative analysis. It will not convince engineers or scientists, and it will certainly not convince educated observers or ordinary people.
-
I see a similar opportunity here, I don't think there is any reason to communicate if they have found a strategic partner. If something is both complicated and too disturbing, people choose to talk less rather than more.
It's probably time we interviewed Bob Godes, I will ask him. I would remind JedRothwell that Brilluoin did organise live viewing of their device at ICCF-24, though that was a far from perfect demo, since they had not soak-tested the device beforehand for some reason. Carl Page has been close to this project since before ICCF-19, it is surprising that such a well-connected chap has not so far found them a commercial partner.
-
About the question of LENR maturity, An expert in innovation explains that innovations usually compete against "non-consumption", not against existing technologies...
https://philippesilberzahneng.…-perfection-is-a-mistake/
The first applications are where there is not yet any solution, and where the limited performance are invaluable.One example is about VoIP, explaining that quality was so awful that corporate users, the greatest users of international telephony, refused to use it, but students and expatriated migrants used it much... then quality improved and it replaced usual telephony in companies.
If Brillouin can solve, roughly, the problem of some people that today have no solution, it will pave the way to adoption.
-
The space field first of all.
A propos de la question de la maturité LENR, Un expert en innovation explique que les innovations concurrencent généralement la "non-consommation", pas les technologies existantes...
https://philippesilberzahneng.com/2016/09/21/why-holding-a- une-technologie-perturbatrice-pour-un-standard-de-perfection-est-une-erreur/
Les premières applications sont là où il n'y a pas encore de solution, et où les performances limitées sont inestimables.Un exemple concerne la VoIP, expliquant que la qualité était si déplorable que les entreprises, les plus grandes utilisatrices de la téléphonie internationale, refusaient de l'utiliser, mais les étudiants et les migrants expatriés l'utilisaient beaucoup... puis la qualité s'est améliorée et elle a remplacé la téléphonie habituelle dans les entreprises.
Si Brillouin peut résoudre, en gros, le problème de certaines personnes qui aujourd'hui n'ont pas de solution, il ouvrira la voie à l'adoption.
-
To take my favorite example, the Wright brothers tried to commercialize from 1905 to mid-1908. They got nowhere.
I'm quite fond of the Wright Brothers story too - but I am becoming increasingly worried that we are really still floundering somewhere within the 100 years between George Cayley and the Wright Flyer.
I suspect we might have reached the late 19th century, but just like happened in aviation at that time, we have already lost a number of pioneers who might have made all the difference had they been able to keep going.
I guess the adversarial and competitive nature of early flight research didn't help. But the feverish anticipation of "great financial and reputational rewards" probably discouraged cooperation (as it does now).
-
It's probably time we interviewed Bob Godes, I will ask him. I would remind JedRothwell that Brilluoin did organise live viewing of their device at ICCF-24, though that was a far from perfect demo, since they had not soak-tested the device beforehand for some reason. Carl Page has been close to this project since before ICCF-19, it is surprising that such a well-connected chap has not so far found them a commercial partner.
Not to mention their engagement with SRI.
-
Owner perspective!
I don't see any rational reason from an owner's perspective to convince humanity that LENR works, if they have the funding they need, it's absolutely right to develop this under the radar.
If they want funding they must do a properly presented demonstration. This sort of poorly done demonstration is worse than no demonstration. Viewers will get the impression they are incompetent.
If they want to keep the demonstration private, that is their right, but in this case they decided to make it public.
My belief is that they only make convincing demos to selected investors.
If I were a selected investor, and I saw that video, I would conclude that these people do not understand power, energy, or what their machine is doing. Or, if they do understand, they are trying to make themselves look bad, the way Jim Patterson did at Disneyland. That was the dumbest sales presentation I have ever seen, and I have seen many dumb presentations.
Jag vill påminna JedRothwell om att Brilluoin organiserade livevisning av sin enhet på ICCF-24, även om det var en långt ifrån perfekt demo, eftersom de inte hade testat enheten i förväg för några anledning.
This is in Swedish for some reason. Google Translate tells me it says:
"I would like to remind JedRothwell that Brilluoin organized a live demonstration of their device at ICCF-24, although it was a far from perfect demo, as they had not tested the device beforehand for some reason."
It is very stupid to do a live demonstration when you do not test the device beforehand. That is not merely "asking for trouble." It is begging for trouble. It is writing to Trouble a month beforehand and offering a First Class Air Ticket, all expenses paid, Luxury Hotel accommodation visit by Trouble.
-
I want to emphasize that the test in the video may have shown excess heat. I cannot tell what it showed. The test method itself might be good, but the presentation was flawed. Perhaps it could have been fixed. If they had shown some instruments, a graph or two, and improved the voice-over text, it might have been convincing.
Other people agree with me that the demonstration was inadequate.
-
About the question of LENR maturity, An expert in innovation explains that innovations usually compete against "non-consumption", not against existing technologies...
https://philippesilberzahneng.…-perfection-is-a-mistake/This article is 100% right, and very important. It cites the late Clayton Christensen. I highly recommend his book "The Innovator's Dilemma." I discussed it in my book.
-
This New Jersey case reminds me the helvetians city, Lugano ahahaa
Display MoreIf they want funding they must do a properly presented demonstration. This sort of poorly done demonstration is worse than no demonstration. Viewers will get the impression they are incompetent.
If they want to keep the demonstration private, that is their right, but in this case they decided to make it public.
If I were a selected investor, and I saw that video, I would conclude that these people do not understand power, energy, or what their machine is doing. Or, if they do understand, they are trying to make themselves look bad, the way Jim Patterson did at Disneyland. That was the dumbest sales presentation I have ever seen, and I have seen many dumb presentations.
This is in Swedish for some reason. Google Translate tells me it says:
"I would like to remind JedRothwell that Brilluoin organized a live demonstration of their device at ICCF-24, although it was a far from perfect demo, as they had not tested the device beforehand for some reason."
It is very stupid to do a live demonstration when you do not test the device beforehand. That is not merely "asking for trouble." It is begging for trouble. It is writing to Trouble a month beforehand and offering a First Class Air Ticket, all expenses paid, Luxury Hotel accommodation visit by Trouble.
-
In response to the comment: "My belief is that they only make convincing demos to selected investors" I wrote:
If I were a selected investor, and I saw that video, I would conclude that these people do not understand power, energy, or what their machine is doing.
My point is, the selected investors probably saw that video. They probably saw ICCF24. Suppose they saw a convincing demo in private, followed by this unconvincing demo in public. If I were an investor, I would be disturbed. I would wonder what is going on here, and why are these people doing this?!?
That scenario seems farfetched. People who make a flawed video demonstration probably put on a bad private demonstration. But who knows? Patterson went out of his way to do an unconvincing demonstration, for idiotic reasons. Patterson's reasons were bizarre, but there is a more common idiotic reason for doing bad demonstrations. Some companies try to play technological peek-a-boo -- or a fan-dance striptease -- where they both reveal and hide the technology at the same time. They show just enough to make it tempting, but not enough to let the competition steal the idea. That's the plan, anyway. It never works!
Many scientists, engineers, programmers and inventors do good work, but they present the work poorly, so people cannot tell what they have done. Doing good work and presenting it well are two different skills. Related, but not the same. Smart people sometimes think they are good at everything. They are sometimes overconfident. They put on a demonstration without help from an experienced person. Such as me. I could not begin to do the experiments at Brillouin, but I could improve their presentation. Any tech writer could.
-
Well i suggest rather a more common explanation... An investor wants to know if the technology is easily integrable in some devices, if it could start and stop easily etc etc only some basic needs.. and the main one a relative quick pay back nothing more...XSH performances are only one parameter of these others.
-
Well i suggest rather a more common explanation... An investor wants to know if the technology is easily integrable in some devices, if it could start and stop easily etc etc only some basic needs.. and the main one a relative quick pay back nothing more...XSH performances are only one parameter of these others.
Sorry, but I do not buy that. If this gadget does not produce excess heat, it is useless. It is no better than a doorstop. It has no functionality. If you put in 100 W and you get out 80 W, why would you integrate it in some devices? What would be the point? XSH performance is the one and only purpose of this machine.
A video or a live demonstration has to show that it is producing energy. They cannot prove that beyond doubt. Energy production can be faked. But the video or demo should make the case for energy production. It should be plausible. For example, a technically knowledgeable person watching the video should think:
"Okay, they are using the right kind of meter to measure input. They have it hooked it up correctly. It is showing a reasonable power level for a machine of this size. Okay, we move to output. It shows a Stirling engine. The size of the engine and the speed of rotation is plausible; it is about what you expect. The thermometer on the Stirling engine is showing a temperature I would expect. Okay, here is a graph of input and output power levels and heat. It looks okay . . . The voice-over and time lapse video show it has been running for a long time, so net energy exceeds the limits of chemistry."
And so on. The various facts related by the instruments, graphs and voice-over explanation should fit together. They should present a coherent picture of the machine performance, and an outline of the claims. Tell the viewer how much power goes in, how much comes out, what the temperatures are, Carnot efficiency, how much excess energy, and so on.
-
Well i suggest rather a more common explanation... An investor wants to know if the technology is easily integrable in some devices, if it could start and stop easily etc etc only some basic needs.. and the main one a relative quick pay back nothing more...XSH performances are only one parameter of these othe
Sorry, but I do not buy that. If this gadget does not produce excess heat, it is useless. It is no better than a doorstop. It has no functionality. If you put in 100 W and you get out 80 W, why would you integrate it in some devices? What would be the point? XSH performance is the one and only purpose of this machine
You know, you are both correct. Without XSH the system would be of no interest, but if it produced XSH without being practical it would be interesting but not investable except by the credulous. XSH is the cream on the cake of course, but unless there is some edible cake attached it is a pretty poor diet
-
XSH is the cream on the cake of course
Like the neutrons of ITER that are just waste...
-
You know, you are both correct. Without XSH the system would be of no interest, but if it produced XSH without being practical it would be interesting but not investable except by the credulous.
That's true. But my point was more about a video or demo than the device itself. At this stage, the primary goal of a video must be to show that the gadget is producing energy. Once you get over that hurdle, you might address issues of practicality. That is a big hurdle because any educated person will know that this machine appears to violate physics. Any smart person will know that, and you don't want to attract stupid people, so you have to address the concerns of smart people.
The video in question was only about excess energy. So it should have made a better case. It did not try to address practicality except to say output has increased.
Assuming the machine does what they claim, it should not be difficult to make a better video. The suggestions I made would not be difficult to implement. I am not saying they need a radically new approach, or a completely different video. They do not need Hollywood presentation values, razzle-dazzle special effects, or even a professional voice-over artist. They could present mostly the same video footage. Add a few more shots of instrumentation, some graphs, and better voice-over text. They should pay an experienced video producer, because there is a lot about presentation, timing, lighting, voice-over audio levels, and so on that a professional knows and you do not know. I know little about videos, so I hired a professional for my animated presentation. I know the subject, so I wrote the preliminary script and provided the images. She wrote the final script, set the pace and timing, and hired the voice-over lady. It cost several thousand dollars but it was worth every penny. See:
It is important to know your own limitations. Do not try to do things you are not trained to do. Especially when dealing with investors and other important people.
You probably do not know about video "pace," for example. I did not know, and I still would not know how to set the right pace. Amateurs often zip through a video presentation. A professional knows when to slow things down, give the reader time to understand a graph, or time to grasp what the voice-over just said. A professional voice-over artist is speaking unnaturally slowly, but making it sound normal.
-
I am quite amazed that a discussion about a promising press release has turned into video analysis. I am not saying it has no relevance but it does look like missing the forest for the trees.
-
missing the forest for the trees
Vive la foret.. .en 2023?
-
I am quite amazed that a discussion about a promising press release has turned into video analysis. I am not saying it has no relevance but it does look like missing the forest for the trees.
The press release is about a couple of people effectively working as commercialisation consultants?? I would be more excited if it was an announcement of credible commercial (manufacturing) partners. Seems more like geared towards supporting a fundraising for the investment for the equipment to consider manufacturing themselves but without much (public) evidence that it is ready for such a step.
Oh well, keep fingers crossed for more relevant good news to come out.
Our Partners
Want To Advertise or Sponsor Us?
CLICK HERE to contact us.
CLICK HERE to contact us.