Assuming all crypto projects are scams is no different from assuming all cold fusion projects are pseudoscience / scams.
I'm not assuming that all cryptocurrency projects are scams! But at least 99% of them are scams. And people lost large amounts of hard earned money in false promises.
This is also often reported in big media.
Thus cryptocurrency has a bad image, which shouldn't be coupled to a topic which also has a hard time to gain credibility.
Thanks teppo . Good video. Although Tanzella talks little about BEC, he is mostly associated with them so I copied it here. He covers just about everything going on in the field; from SRI, Storms, McKubre, Google, ARPA-E, and more.
The panel has at least a few hot fusion physicists, and when some ask questions I get the impression they are trying to protect their goose laying those golden eggs. They were polite about it at least. I think Fran picked up on that, and tread lightly when it came to funding LENR, and talking about the role LENR could play in the energy mix.
There are other things ongoing regarding the demonstration of the effect. They've not been made public yet but they should be in a matter of weeks.
Now, months later....?
Now, months later....?
Unfortunately, they would probably have been revealed if the ARPA-E grants had gone Brillouin's way, but now it won't be made public until who knows when...
There have been other developments on the business in the last month, but they're not public yet either. There will be probably be an announcement at some point, but I'm not sure when.
As a shareholder, the news I have been getting from the last 12 months have been the best since my initial investment. Unfortunately, I can't share much with you yet.
As a shareholder, the news I have been getting from the last 12 months have been the best since my initial investment. Unfortunately, I can't share much with you yet.
Fair enough. Hoping the best for you.
Not been keeping up on this, and things seem to go quiet for long periods, so pardon my ignorance.
In my view Brillouin are one of the LENR research teams that I am most optimistic about.
So if the ARPA-E grants have not gone to Brillouin then are there some even more promising LENR groups out there?
Or was there some technicality that stopped Brillouin from getting the funds?
Or has the funding all been grabbed by the hot fusion mafia as we feared?
So if the ARPA-E grants have not gone to Brillouin then are there some even more promising LENR groups out there?
Or was there some technicality that stopped Brillouin from getting the funds?
I thought at first it was because BEC was a for-profit company, but 2 of the 8 Teams are also. Could be because ETC has done a lot of work for the military, and Amphionic for NASA. Maybe Ahlfors could find out.
I think the ARPA-E money is strictly for academic work to come up with a scientific description of the phenomenon. In reality, there are several different types of LENReactions. Brillouin Energy is following the one that I can see a clear path to commercialization. Furthermore, I think they are all quite multidisciplined in nature, So I hope the teams working on it are multidisciplined as well. I expect to file new IP this week, allowing me to work with one of the teams. If I can develop a strong working relationship, it is possible to design an experiment(s) that can reliably produce nuclear effects.
Not been keeping up on this, and things seem to go quiet for long periods, so pardon my ignorance.
In my view Brillouin are one of the LENR research teams that I am most optimistic about.
So if the ARPA-E grants have not gone to Brillouin then are there some even more promising LENR groups out there?
Or was there some technicality that stopped Brillouin from getting the funds?
Or has the funding all been grabbed by the hot fusion mafia as we feared?
They have data suggesting excess heat which is exceedingly complex and susceptible to misinterpretation due to EMC issues. I have only seen the one SRI produced experiment which shows excess heat, and although SRI moved it to their lab (where it also worked the same way) that in no way validates the many assumptions on which excess heat results stand.
if, as the alt mechanism suggests, the results are all complex experimental artifacts (which look likely given the SRI setup and that very high EMI pulse), then the progress shown since then - with the same apparatus, is just optimising those artifacts.
I see no way to check whether they have ever had anything real other than completely different and more robust ways to measure power generation. That, for me, should be their next step. After all, if their results are real they have easily high enough results to measure excess power many different ways with a provable excess.
The fact that has not happened (and especially 3rd party measurement) is for me a red flag.
I think the ARPA-E money is strictly for academic work to come up with a scientific description of the phenomenon.
A mechanistic description or theory of LENR would be great.
But that is not always the way forward.
I have in mind the matter phase of superconductivity which was discovered in 1911, completely unexpectedly and no theorists predicted this phenomenon.
Some progress was made in 1935 with the London equations but theoretical explanations did not happen till the 1950s with the Ginzburg-Landau theory and the BCS theory.
But the implications of the BCS theory was that superconductivity could not happen at temperatures above 30K.
In 1986 the experimentalists Bednorz and Muller proved that this was not correct.
So in this area the experimentalists have had to forge ahead with the theorists taking years or decades to provide some insight and in some instances the experimenters have had to ignore the theorists.
Today superconductivity is widely utilised and a lot of money is spent on experimental research but we still do not have a complete theoretical understanding of the phenomenon.
So I think LENR funding should not just bet on a theory of the process. We should support the experimenters to improve and validate the results and then the theorists can pick over the data and do their bit. The more data the theorists have the more chance we will get a useful theory.
THH, speaking from someone who is in the process of validating our current technology in multiple labs I personally appreciate your critical feedback as something I can learn from.
One lab where I am at right now did a calibration run, kind of half expecting to see another negative result, then ran our reactor and saw significant signal but instead of popping the champagne bottles, this particular professor decided to disassemble the whole apparatus, recalibrate all the critical sensors, run another dummy experiment and then finally rerun the active reactor without changing any wires or settings in order to minimize any possible systemic errors.
We also are putting together a collaborative effort of multiple labs with blinded reactors and doing a round robin validation where we measure reactors unknown whether they are dummy or active and then sharing these reactors so that 3 or 4 labs all make their measurements and then upload their results to the cloud where they will finally be unblinded and shared.
We are also doing our best to upgrade our calorimetry equipment to squeeze out all the uncertainty we can and using multiple sensors for each point as much as possible.
BEC has had enough oomph to raise multiple rounds of funding at high evaluations but it’s not always in the company’s best interests to publish and publicize such results. Clean Planet has also done the same. Both of these companies are ahead of us in this sense.
What I’m trying to say is that it’s not always the private company’s motivation to prove all the skeptics wrong. Their main mission is to raise funds and move the company forward.
Finally, could you please be a little more precise in your criticism of the BEC SRI report? Measurement of pulses can be famously problematic but from a practical side, if you just measure power at the plug over a long enough period you can easily get enough data to satisfy the critics. If it was me, that’s what I would be doing.
We also are putting together a collaborative effort of multiple labs with blinded reactors and doing a round robin validation where we measure reactors unknown whether they are dummy or active and then sharing these reactors so that 3 or 4 labs all make their measurements and then upload their results to the cloud where they will finally be unblinded and shared.
Must be very confident in what you have to do that. Has this "blinded reactor" test been done before by others in the field? I don't recall ever hearing about it being used. Certainly, if it pans out the way we all hope, the results will be hard for a skep, or investor to ignore.
Good luck.
The fact that has not happened (and especially 3rd party measurement) is for me a red flag.
Is this chatGPT or our forum clown??
Brillouin has run certification tests that confirmed a total COP close to 3.
Even better they have done isotope analysis that for 1000% confirms what already Rossi's/Prakhomovs isotopes did show.
Nickel is transmuted upwards. But who would sign a NDA with a clown?
Our Partners
