Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC) updates.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    Rossi never demonstrated anything that worked,

    Are you sure? How about this:


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


    Have you found any major errors in this paper? If you haven't, perhaps you should qualify your statements a little.


    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    never complained of a lack of control or instability

    On the contrary, he often complained about that. Dewey thought he was faking in some instances, in order to shut down the demonstration. Perhaps that is the case, but people observing earlier demonstrations reported that the temperature was unstable and rising rapidly, and the device appeared to be out of control. That is not proof the effect is real. It is possible Rossi deliberately made it get hot. But it did appear to be unstable, and he did complain about it.

    You can say that again! Oh... you did.


    Quote

    perhaps you should qualify your statements a little.

    OK. Rossi lied about essentially everything -- his customers, his "plants," his association with companies and universities, and many other important things. There is no reason to believe any claim of his. As we have gone around and around many times, that one can't point to a technical error in a paper is not a reason to trust the work because there may be all sorts of things wrong with it that are not "technical." For example lying which Mr. Rossi is very proficient at doing. I won't say anything at all about Dr. Levi because he is apparently "off limits" on this forum.


    So yes, qualify it: There is no convincing evidence, for example corroborative testing by well known testing organizations, that Rossi ever had anything. And because Rossi is a gargantuan liar, nothing he says or reports or is associated with is credible.


    As for lack of control, Rossi conducted numerous demonstrations for guests and during those, there was no protection or barrier whatever. If he thought the device unstable for real, he was criminally negligent. Far more likely, he knew with certainty it was safe because it didn't work. As for deliberate fake heating by tweaking the heater controller, there is that classical voice over video by Krivit:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?…er_embedded&v=uviXoafHWrU

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    For example, read this total nonsense from 2012 by Godes as interviewed in "Cold Fusion Now" -- a misnomer for sure. https://coldfusionnow.org/tag/brillouin-boiler/

    You know what SoT, I’ll give you this. Early communication by Brillouin was overly optimistic. But once SRI became involved, claims started getting reasonable (in itself a good sign that the partnership with SRI was smart). I am pretty sure some investors also played a role in toning down the predictions.


    If you look at Brillouin’s communication for the last three years, you’ll see that it’s been much more conservative. If you’re a scammer in the LENR field, announcing 2.6 CoP makes no sense considering what others are claiming.

    Quote

    If you’re a scammer in the LENR field, announcing 2.6 CoP makes no sense considering what others are claiming.

    Scamming is complicated. How successful scammers scam depends on the nature of the marks. If one is looking for mid-level investment like Brillouin and BLP are, the approach, scam or not, has to be reasonably "scholarly-looking." If one is seeking the lowest possible common denominator of uninformed and ignorant investor, as Rossi is currently forced to do by his past performance, one starts with completely ridiculous premises and gear like the totally silly current Ecats bizarely named after a mercenary Star Trek race's chief protagonist (LOL). It's similar to the approach to really dumb or greedy people used every day by Nigerian scammers.

    Quote from seven_of_twenty

    So yes, qualify it: There is no convincing evidence, for example corroborative testing by well known testing organizations, that Rossi ever had anything.

    Be specific. What error did you find in this paper? Why is it not convincing?


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf


    If you did not find any error, and you do not know anyone else who has, then you should say "I assume there must be an error but I do not know what it is. I base this on Rossi's behavior. I have no actual knowledge of an error in this particular paper." That is reasonable, but it is far different from your absolute assertion that there is an error. You are speculating, rather than reporting specific facts that the rest of us can verify.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Be specific. What error did you find in this paper? Why is it not convincing?


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/LeviGindication.pdf


    If you did not find any error, and you do not know anyone else who has, then you should say "I assume there must be an error but I do not know what it is. I base this on Rossi's behavior. I have no actual knowledge of an error in this particular paper." That is reasonable, but it is far different from your absolute assertion that there is an error. You are speculating, rather than reporting specific facts that the rest of us can verify.

    For one, the total emissivity for calculating the output power was determined by the Optris using the limited spectral sensitivity band of 7.5 to 13.5 um. The exact reverse of Lugano. There is no way to be sure how wrong this is, but it may even result in underestimating the Dummy and active output power.


    The Dummy was an entirely different device from the active device. How similar or different is unknown. If the Joule heater resistances were different, for example, there is no way to know.


    Nobody has ever explained why Rossi’s control boxes waste so much power. The controller for “An Indication of...” burned 110 W for operating the Dummy, and was not even tested for the active run. The controller 110 W for the Dummy run was used for the active run calculations as an estimate.


    The length used for calculations was rounded up 2 cm. This adds about 42 W to the Dummy and probably the Active run by adding over 56 cm2 to the radiant and convection surface area.

    Quote from Shane D.

    https://revolution-green.com/t…-path-carbon-free-future/


    Skip the article and read the comments. Godes is a little fired up.


    I'll reproduce it below as I found that discussion quite interesting.


    Robert E. Godes: "The truly green SMR of the future will be based on Brillouin Energy Corp. CECR technology. As a chemical fuel, two H2+O2 yields only 4.8eV in the formation of two water molecules, i.e., 2(H2O), as compared with Brillouin Energy's CECR reaction, that yield ~27,000,000eV., from two H2 molecules. No radio active input, uses Nickel as a nuclear catalyst, and no radioactive waste. The reaction must be driven and can not run away. It can be driven to destruction, the point where the nickel melts, but there is no danger from penetrating radiation. At the end of the reactors life it can be completely recycled as soon as it cools to room temperature."


    Asterix: "Robert, I'll believe that BEC really has something when they introduce a self-sustaining unit with no external energy inputs. That always seems to be the golden ring that everyone is going for, isn't it?"


    Robert E. Godes: "Yes, and apparently in the meantime you'll do your best to prevent funding it would allow that to happen. Good luck to you. I don't need luck I believe in hard work. That's how I've gotten to 2.7 X and now have a second Catalyst tube over 2X. It's just unfortunate that it is taken 10 years to get this far on the shoestring budgets we've been forced to operate with due to people like yourself."


    Asterix: "You overestimate my power to prevent or encourage anything. I stated what it would take to make me a believer--surely you can't fault me for stating my position."


    Robert E. Godes: "Well I'm curious why you won't believe a completely independent third-party like Stanford Research International (SRI). You apparently have no idea the cost involved in the engineering to build such a system, let alone the materials and machining. Last week we had a group of investors tell us one of their dads was a professor at UC Berkeley in the physics department. Said Professor told them there was no possible way cold fusion could work. That statement was made without even looking at the data. Science is supposed to be driven by data not Dogma. This was the reason Julian Schwinger, a Nobel Laureate and deeply involved in the development of the standard model, resigned from the APS when they refused to even look at a paper he had written on the subject."


    PieEconomics: "Robert, how high a COP do you figure you'll need to get self-looping, and what additional funding do you estimate will be needed to achieve that? Assuming adequate funding, what time frame would you estimate until self-looping?"


    Robert E. Godes: "Thank you for a very astute question. Just to run the system and provide lower level waste heat for end use. 6X. At that point the only cost for access to that waste heat is the capital cost over the life of the device. This will not be an inexpensive unit to design or build but may be worthwhile for some use cases. Economically viable delivery of electricity starts at 10X.

    The primary problem that need to be solved at this point is the manufacturing engineering. We have a 13 tab spreadsheet detailing the use of funds and and a project schedule that will put us at commercial viability with a minimum of $15MM and 24 months after we have access to that capital. $15MM may or may not get us to 10X required for electricity generation but there are many markets worth billions of dollars by the time you get to 4x and that is an under promise over deliver number. I think there is a 60% chance we would achieve 10X with that $15MM.

    If the goal is a self looping / powering system the under promise over deliver number is $25MM."


    Godes here clearly highlights the current goal of Brillouin. Getting to a COP that is sufficient to begin commercialization in the heat market and use the revenue from that to get to higher COPs and expand to new markets.

    NASA's new lightweight fission reactors use a minimum of 25 Kg U235 for reliable power production - why do cold fusion researchers believe they can generate reliable fusion with only 100 - 1000th of this critical mass? Brillouin Energy just need to scale up their operation to achieve a COP of 10. If you don't believe me then wait until I have all the data.

    Dr Richard: From what I gather from the information I was provided, the Hydrogen Hot Tubes used for the optimization of COP are the Isoperibolic HHTs referred to in the SRI Report (which were designed to provide precise calorimetry for the purposes of calibration), but these IPB HHTs are not commercial prototypes. Once Brillouin has reached 4X COP, they will scale up the IPB HHT into commercial HHT prototypes (which should be closer to the "Conflat HHTs" described in the SRI Report) that will produce a much larger amount of heat.


    Moreover, an HHT Boiler will have several of such Commercial HHTs inside it.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.