Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC) updates.

  • [THH Rossi (according to one reading) occupies such a space where he clearly lies through his teeth about many things, clearly devises complex false positive experiments, but could nevertheless believe parts of his own spin. ]


    No. Rossi's efforts to deceive were so detailed and repeated in multiple variations that they required planning and a full knowledge that the premise was false.


    You just said the same thing as THH. And then you said "no," THH is wrong. You insist he did not say what he just said.


    THH: Rossi lies through his teeth . . . and clearly devises false positive experiments.


    YOU: No! Rossi deceives in ways that require planning and full knowledge!


    That's the SAME THING. The difference is, THH wonders if Rossi also believes his own claims. There are many examples of people who think their results are real, or they think they will soon accomplish something, but they need a flashy demonstration or extra "emphasis" (falsification, really) so that other people will see how good they are. This used to happen a lot in the software business. Trade show demos were often fake. They displayed what the programmer hoped he would soon achieve, even though the software could not actually do it yet.

  • You keep saying this THH, although the (studiously ignored) question remains: Why doesn't this measurement error show up during the empty reactor control tests?


    All it needs is some difference in earthing, wire positions, etc. If anyone could post again the reports I'll have another look, since I can't remember the details now. Was it just the Interim report that had most details of methodology?

  • My point was that Rossi's "work" screams premeditation. Premeditators can not believe their own claims.


    Of course they can! Edison and Steve Jobs were famous for putting on premeditated fake demonstrations. They exaggerated to the point of deceiving people about their inventions. They claimed they had things working long before they actually did. But they also actually did develop working products. They were fakers at times and real inventors at other times.

  • Maybe a 9 year old but apparently not JedRothwelland several others here.


    Your first statement was: "If it can heat a room or water, I'll take it. And it will sell billions." Do you think that is not obvious to me? Do you think anyone disagrees that a device which heats a room or water would prove the point, and it would sell billions? What you say here is Pointing Out The Obvious.


    What you say elsewhere is often flat out wrong. You think it is obvious, but it is not obvious -- it is incorrect.


    You also have a bad habit of imagining you understand things without reading them. You oversimplify. You think that every aspect of cold fusion technology should be intuitively obvious, or self-evident. I wrote a hundred pages showing that is not the case, and I described dozens of ramifications suggested by Clarke and others that you have not thought of. But you are a know-it-all and you claim you know stuff without reading it. By ESP I suppose. Then you turn around and say you don't know it, it doesn't matter, you don't care to know it, and there is no point because the technology is not here yet. That is a lot like saying in 1994: "there is no point to thinking about how the internet will impact business." "Not our problem!" -- said the management at Sears, while Jeff Bezos methodically took their business away and bankrupted their company. Ignorance is bliss. Knowledge is overrated. Reading history to understand the present and predict the future is a waste of time. There is only the eternal present, and we should make the same mistakes again and again, and learn nothing from them.

  • What I'd really like to hear are some ideas from Brillouin about how they can increase the COP of their system. I have my own ideas, but I wish they would share their own.

    If you read the SRI report, you’ll find that they will only share those ideas with people who have signed an NDA, which seems reasonable to me.

  • My view is changing. At this point, with LENR continuing to exist as a taboo subject that's not accepted by the mainstream as real, I don't personally consider keeping information confidential as reasonable. It may be perfectly legally acceptable and the owners of specific technology have all the right in the world to do so, but I think cooperating openly so that at least one system can be advanced to the level that it becomes absolutely indisputable to the entire world should be the primary goal. Then I'll have no problem whatsoever with secrecy. But until then all secrecy does is put personal desire for financial gain before proving the reality of LENR.

  • What I'd really like to hear are some ideas from Brillouin about how they can increase the COP of their system.


    What I would really like to hear from Brillouin is not another word about the damned COP! This is a terrific waste of time and money. It is misguided. It is as if they are trying to invent the airplane; they can't even get off the ground yet, but they have put all other research on hold while they work to develop retractable landing gear and an on-board toilet. They should concentrate on making a good demonstration to convince leading experts their claims are real. From that, they can collect a billion dollars in investment money. Then they can improve the COP. Their business strategy is backward. Last things first.


    A COP would only be an issue with actual working commercial technology, and there is no way they can develop and deploy commercial technology at this stage. It will take billions of dollars! Heck, just getting safety certifications and permission to sell the thing will cost ~$1 billion, judging by what it cost to develop the Prius and self-driving cars. The Prius is a minor incremental improvement to existing technology compared to the Brillouin gadget. The regulatory obstacles they face, and the need to reassure the public this technology is safe, will be far more challenging and expensive than a Prius. As they should be. The public will not stand for half-baked assurances from an unknown company. We are not living in 1820.


    (I would invite LCC to tell them that's what I think, but I believe they have already heard that from me, while eating pizza. They have never shown any interest in what I have to say. So let me suggest to LCC that you are likely to lose your investment with a company that concentrates on the COP at this stage.)


    At Vortex I wrote:


    Brilloun's statements say they "have to" reach a certain COP before they can sell devices. This is a misguided business strategy, in my opinion. They don't have to reach any particular performance level, and there no need to make the thing practical at this stage. They can succeed faster and make more money if they demonstrate impractical devices today, rather than wait months or years for a practical device. Waiting until it becomes practical is likely to mean they will wait forever. Or wait until they run out of money, gumption, and the patience of the investors. They should take what they have, make the best of it, and do something now. An impractical device today would be far better than a practical device in 5 years. The impractical device would bring in billions of dollars of R&D money, which in 5 years would result in products far better than they can develop at the present pace, with present funding levels.

  • Quote

    You think that every aspect of cold fusion technology should be intuitively obvious, or self-evident.

    You are citing things I never said just as you did with Shanahan. It's a really bad habit. And then you nit pick others. Even worse in context. Where did I ever say "every aspect of cold fusion technology should be ... etc." I doubt there yet is a "cold fusion technology" but should there be one now or in the future, I am sure it will have subtleties which will be far from obvious. All I said was that it isn't necessary to know all the ramifications of a technology when a practical "embodiment" of it doesn't exist and isn't even close to existing.


    Quote

    I wrote a hundred pages showing that is not the case, and I described dozens of ramifications suggested by Clarke and others that you have not thought of.

    That I have not thought of a lot aspects of cold fusion is probable but how would you know what I thought of? Is reading minds a new talent of yours?


    Quote

    That is a lot like saying in 1994: "there is no point to thinking about how the internet will impact business."

    Matter of opinion I guess. To my view, it's more like saying it in 1964 or 1944 when the internet was barely or not at all a plausible thing. The basic issue is you think cold fusion is a fait accompli and I am not sure it even exists, much less in a useful form.

  • Quote

    Brilloun's statements say they "have to" reach a certain COP before they can sell devices. This is a misguided business strategy, in my opinion. They don't have to reach any particular performance level, and there no need to make the thing practical at this stage. They can succeed faster and make more money if they demonstrate impractical devices today, rather than wait months or years for a practical device. Waiting until it becomes practical is likely to mean they will wait forever. Or wait until they run out of money, gumption, and the patience of the investors. They should take what they have, make the best of it, and do something now. An impractical device today would be far better than a practical device in 5 years. The impractical device would bring in billions of dollars of R&D money, which in 5 years would result in products far better than they can develop at the present pace, with present funding levels

    Well, wow. JedRothwell and I agree here for the most part. I would add that the claim that the only proof of a device being real and practical will be when it is marketed is also a hallmark of high tech scams and ignorant acolytes, it is so absurd. Whether or not it took in money from actual sales, an impractical but unequivocally working example of an LENR device would be worth tons of development money. An example might be a very large and complicated and heavy machine which made relatively little power but made it on a self-sufficient basis with no power input and ran for a long time. So on the above, I agree entirely with JedRothwell .

  • But until then all secrecy does is put personal desire for financial gain before proving the reality of LENR.


    Whereas I oppose secrecy because it prevents financial gain. It defeats the purpose. It is the Duke Nukem business model: get yourself stuck in secret eternal R&D mode year after year. Keep changing the goals; focus on accomplishing things you cannot possibly accomplish, and that would do no good even if you did manage to pull them off, such as achieving a high COP. A COP, before anyone knows how it works! Above all, avoid doing anything that will bring in a billion dollars in investment money. Do nothing that will give you an actual path to developing commercial technology. Stick to pipe-dream business models, based on "Oh, how I wish this is how world worked," rather than how it actually works.


    I do not blame these people for being too greedy. I say they are not greedy enough! They are more in love with their theories and fantasies and whacko business models than with money. I wish they loved money so much they would put aside the fantasies and try to make a quick billion dollars instead.


    I have seen this again and again, with people such as Patterson. It leads straight to oblivion. You cannot develop world-changing technology with three people and a dog. You have to bring in the big guns, the talent, the multimillion dollar gadgets. You have to form alliances with the big money and big corporations. That's what Edison did to develop the incandescent light. That's what every successful industrial inventor did, at some stage. You can start small. You have to start small. But if you do not bring in the resources to get to the market, you never will get to the market. A shoestring effort would take decades -- actually it will never pan out. There is too much you don't know and you are incapable of doing.

  • The Brillouin tubes at 2.7 COP represent something which can't be marketed very well..


    but will attract development money


    Not the way they are presenting it. Not from what I have seen and heard. Okay, the SRI report is good, but I think investors will be alienated by the presentation and their business strategy. I wouldn't invest in it, even if I thought it was real. Half the problem is, I cannot even tell if it is real! And I should be able to. That should be the first priority. If the performance is real, and not an error in calorimetry, there are ways to make an indisputable demonstration. You don't need a self-sustaining machine or anything like that.


    Maybe there are investors who have different ideas about how to succeed in business than I have. Maybe they will find people who are impressed, and will invest. I hope they do.