Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC) updates.

  • The singular issue that Brillouin Energy has not solved is the distruction of their reactor's structure by the LENR reaction when the COP is high. This issue was Rossi's downfall in the Dural test. Rossi has solved this issue by confining the LENR reaction to the plasma which keeps the LENR reaction away from the structure of the reactor.

  • 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.

    Your assumption is that like nuclear energy, the LENR reaction consumes matter to produce energy. This assumption may not always be the case. There may be a channel for energy generation in LENR that may be confined to extraction of energy from the vacuum through hawking radiation. A LENR reactor may run for centuries and keep its energy output consistent over that timeframe. That is not to say that there is a channel for energy generation that is based on matter reconfiguration, but this channel can be suppressed by the proper design of the reactor.

  • 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?


    Fusion does not require a critical mass. A critical mass is only needed for a fission chain reaction. It is defined as, "the minimum amount of fissile material needed to maintain a nuclear chain reaction."

  • Yay! Axil is back. May the laughter begin.


    Brillouin was claiming essentially the same thing as now four years ago. COP 2, McKubre, Tanzella, SRI, mumble mumble etc. etc. Godes waxing ecstatic, the whole thing.

    Basically, little or nothing has changed in four years. Sorry, that's a hallmark for junk science.


    ETA:


    Quote

    Simon Derricutt Mod • 4 years ago

    Brillouin, however, are still in process of getting a confirmation of their process at SRI.


    Quote

    AlainCo Simon Derricutt • 4 years ago

    The work of Ed in his writing is mostly review. only recently he proposed experiments to test his theory... we will see.

    about concrete result, assuming LENr is at least the real and unstable phenomenon it seems, and not a scam, we have :

    - Tanzella (SRI) reporting COP2 for Brillouin WET reactor at ICCF17.


    Quote

    AlainCo Simon Derricutt • 4 years ago

    brillouin have the report of tanzella with real but modest performance of their WET process (COP2)...

    If you accept that McKubre have done good experiments since the beginning, you can judge that his claims are credible, even if it is surely optimistic.


    https://revolution-green.com/l…fkalion-bad-measurements/


    ETA(2): To address the issue of whether the current report from SRI is an independent evaluation of Brillouin... it is. But Brillouin chose the most LENR-friendly possible independent test organization when he chose McKubre's and Tanzella's lab. To be fair, I know little about Tanzella but I have followed McKubre. In the past, McKubre gaves favorable attention and public comment to such obvious scams as Rossi, Defkalion and Papp. Of all the test organizations and labs, SRI is the last I would choose to evaluate LENR claims. And don't forget, in the 1980's, SRI was roundly fooled by self-styled psychic and in reality mediocre magician, Uri Geller. Brillouin should have chosen the likes of ORNL, Sandia, UL, CERN, GE, GM, General Atomic, and similar independents.


    One criterion for a valid test is an independent organization. SRI is one. The other criterion is an organization which performs tests critically, objectively and without prior bias. IMO, McKubre's lab is not such a place. I can't say about Tanzella either way.


    robert bryant : "mumble mumble" addresses the snow jobs by Godes in print since at least 2013, which have never changed. If you don't like my remarks about it, try refuting them instead of ridiculing them.

  • axil : is that your own opinion or has it been expressed as such by Brillouin? I can't seem to remember reading about this specific problem.

    This issue is common to most LENR reactor designs. It becomes apparent when the reactor is pushed to high energy production levels.


    For example, in an interview that Dennis Cravens had with Host Ruby Carat, he describes these pin holes seen in his reactor at 2:00 and states that his reactor fails when the power level produced get high. Cravens just ignores these holes and what causes them. He also ignored me when I tried to tell him why his reactor was failing at high power.


    Hear at between 2:00 and 3:30 into this interview. Click on the red box to activate the link.


  • url?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.coldfusionnow.com%2Fpodcast%2FRuby-Carat-Dennis-Cravens-Cold-Fusion-Now-015


  • We have seen these pin holes develop in the meltdown of the LION reactor. This damage is a product of the inherent nature of the LENR active agent. If you are interested in learning more, I will be glad to help.

  • There may be holes in your argument

    This behavior of the active agent has been seen in about a half dozen reactor designs that have been analyzed by MFMP and is the basis of the O day presentation that Bob Greenyer will give ...sooner or later...


    Also see the holes rendered in this Russian paper on the first page


    https://translate.google.com/t…231%2F004a%2F02311041.htm


    Investigation of the characteristics of MagnetoToroElectric Emanations with the help of photographic film detectors

  • is the basis of the O day presentation the Bob Greenyer will give ...sooner or later...


    I look forward to the O's in that argument ..

    sooner or later.


    I don't believe there has been

    much evidence of holes.


    Excursions, runaways,

    failure due to overheating yes..

    but Brillouin's one tube seems to havesurvived for months .

    What COP do you expect holes to appear at?

    It is now 2.7

  • Quote

    ...when the COP of Brillouin's reactor becomes competitive.

    When is that expected, folks? Oh... and competitive to what? In what way? "Competitive " is so lacking in meaning when you are referring to solid accomplishments in getting practical power and energy out of LENR.

  • Also see the holes rendered in this Russian paper on the first page

    I can't see the relevance of Shiskins birds and holes to LENR reactors


    "Voltage pulses of either + 590 V or + 30 kV with a rise front of up to 30 ns were applied from the high-voltage generator to the top plate pressed by the duralumin dice"

    "

    "Experiments with bodies of revolution were carried out on a special installation. The installation consisted of a brushless high-speed motor (up to 50,000 revolutions per minute) attached to the table top, an engine power supply and an engine remote control device.The bodies of rotation of various materials, made in the form of cones with a diameter of 20 mm and a height of 20 mm (photo 4), were mounted on the motor axis. "

  • When is that expected, folks? Oh... and competitive to what? In what way? "Competitive " is so lacking in meaning when you are referring to solid accomplishments in getting practical power and energy out of LENR.

    I'm confused why you sound gleeful when you attack LENR. If/when it is definitively proved successful as a mechanism for power generation, wouldn't it benefit everyone? (Other than hot fusion researchers of course)

  • Quote

    I'm confused why you sound gleeful when you attack LENR.

    I'm confused too. What sounds "gleeful?" How am I attacking LENR? A new source of cheap, clean power would be wonderful. I'm not sure it would benefit "everyone" though but talking about consequences of practical energy from LENR is a bit premature, don't you think?

  • but talking about consequences of practical energy from LENR is a bit premature, don't you think?

    No, I do not think so. The only hope of getting funding is to explain the potential benefits to investors and the public. These advantages are not self-evident. I explained them in my book. It was not easy. I did not find these advantages easy to understand or obvious. Judging by many of your comments, I do not think you understand them. You do not appear to understand what the experimental results indicate about the nature of the reaction. They show that if the reaction can be controlled, it will almost certainly be far cheaper than conventional energy, and billions of times more abundant.