Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC) updates.

  • Someone like Mills or Brillouin needs to finally establish a proven validation,


    I doubt anyone has done more independent replications/verifications than Mills. I read some testimonials recently from a couple of them, and they are as convinced today of their work, and results, as when they first ran the tests some years ago.

  • Errata corrige:

    Some 12+ top electrochemists of the day published at least 153 peer reviewed paper claiming to have replicated the (inexistent) FPAHE.


    Ref.: F&P's experiments – 30 years after CF announcement

    That's not an errata, that's an asserta. You're asserting it AFTER the thread was closed down due to a bunch of seagulling skeptopaths and SkWiSSAs like yourself polluting the thread. It was up to you to challenge Jed in a timely fashion with how many times it had been replicated and by how many top electrochemists of the day and you FAILED to do so. So it's your loss that you're unable to go back and rewrite the history of that thread. But feel free to try to correct what Jed said and how many ways you can skeptopathically miscount to 153.


    How many times has the Pons-Fleischmann Anomalous Heating Event been replicated in peer reviewed journals?


    Edited for name calling. Shane

  • "No one can compete with GE and Toyota" is the kind of statement that makes little to no sense to me. ....


    My argument is just that if a non-consumer product has not proven to be dangerous, it will not be required to be proven to be absolutely safe. The burden of proof shifts when it comes to consumer products because of potential backlash. And there are countries in which even consumers product are lightly regulated.

    There's probably more Tuk-tuks sold around the world than GM cars.

    https://www.economist.com/busi…tuking-the-world-by-storm

    Safety isn't the primary issue in many countries. LENR will take the route of the $2500 tuk-tuk more than the $35,000 safe American/Japanese/German car.

  • "It is hardly possible that the repeated observation of such a wide range of disparate phenomena can be explained away by the operation of a whole set of different systematic errors, nor that we have been attending a seance of true believers."


    Martin Fleischmann

  • New Brillouin USPTO Patent Applications --


    United States Patent Application  20190122774   April 25, 2019


    ENERGY GENERATION APPARATUS AND METHOD


    Abstract: A practical technique for inducing and controlling the fusion of nuclei within a solid lattice. A reactor includes a loading source to provide the light nuclei which are to be fused, a lattice which can absorb the light nuclei, a source of phonon energy, and a control mechanism to start and stop stimulation of phonon energy and/or the loading of reactants. The lattice transmits phonon energy sufficient to affect electron-nucleus collapse. By controlling the stimulation of phonon energy and controlling the loading of light nuclei into the lattice, energy released by the fusion reactions is allowed to dissipate before it builds to the point that it causes destruction of the reaction lattice.


    http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi…0122774&RS=DN/20190122774



    United States Patent Application 20190122773 April 25, 2019


    CONTROL OF LOW ENERGY NUCLEAR REACTIONS HYDRIDES, AND AUTONOMOUSLY CONTROLLED HEAT MODULE


    Abstract: A treatment of a possibly powdered, sintered, or deposited lattice (e.g., nickel) for heat generating applications and a way to control low energy nuclear reactions ("LENR") hosted in the lattice by controlling hydride formation. The method of control and treatment involves the use of the reaction lattice, enclosed by an inert cover gas such as argon that carries hydrogen as the reactive gas in a non-flammable mixture. Hydrogen ions in the lattice are transmuted to neutrons as discussed in U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0206715 (Godes_2007)). Hydrogen moving through the lattice interacts with the newly formed neutrons generating an exothermic reaction.


    http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi…0122773&RS=DN/20190122773

  • Nice find Lou Pagnucco . Godes sums up why he succeeds, where others struggle:


    While there is no shortage of people desiring to produce energy through controlled fusion, the techniques can be considered to fall into two general classes, namely hot fusion and cold fusion. Hot fusion has a sound theory, and is known to work in a fashion capable of unleashing great amounts of energy in a very short amount of time. In some instances, the energy is released in an uncontrolled manner, rendering the collection of released energy problematical and expensive, possibly prohibitively so. One set of techniques for getting the hot fusion reaction to occur at a controlled pace uses electrostatic confinement. However, extracting more energy than is used to instigate the reaction is extremely difficult, if not impossible, due to the Bremsstrahlung phenomenon. Another set of techniques uses magnetic confinement, although confinement for an extended period of time has problems similar to those that beset electrostatic confinement. Another set of techniques explores impact fusion, but these attempts suffer from problems similar to those bedeviling the other hot fusion methods.


    [0004] The history of cold fusion is, to say the least, checkered. A workable theory of cold fusion does not appear to have been articulated, and attempts to produce energy using cold fusion have generally not been reproducible and, when excess energy has been generated, have been characterized by rapid destruction of the device cores in which the reactions are occurring.


    [0005] As understood, current state of the art attempts to produce "cold fusion" rely upon an effect best described as "gross loading." Gross loading is the process whereby the matrix is saturated with hydrogen nuclei to the point where, per the theory presented in this application, a small amount of phonon energy initiates a nuclear reaction. Unfortunately, the first reaction creates additional phonons that cause a chain reaction that leads to the destruction of the lattice. This approach can create excess energy because the high loading density alone leads to a system with high Hamiltonian energy in the lattice. This higher energy state leads to phonon-moderated nuclear reactions if the loaded matrix is stimulated with additional energy inputs, including additional loading through electrolysis or other stimuli referenced in the Cravens and Letts paper.


    [0006] [Cravens2003], and the associated research, demonstrate that state of the art researchers have still not recognized the connection between increased lattice energy and heat production. [George1997] describes using ultrasonically induced multi-bubble sonoluminescence to induce fusion events, although because of the gross loading the core is quickly destroyed. In this case the sonoluminescence is both the source of hydrogen production and phonon energy, but there is no mention of any attempt to control phonon production or harness phonons to capture the energy released. [George1999] describes a device that heats a cylinder to 400 F, but no control mechanism is mentioned or described. [George1999] also describes excess .sup.4He production from deuterium during contact with nano-particle palladium on carbon at 200.degree. C.


  • when excess energy has been generated, have been characterized by rapid destruction of the device cores in which the reactions are occurring.


    Only for glow discharge and sonoluminescence (bubble fusion). This is not a problem for electrochemical or gas loading.


    The author seems uninformed.

  • This is not a problem for electrochemical or gas loading.


    Well, since those can both be used simply as preparation methods for fuel that my be run in another system, that's too broad a denial IMHO. We have seen gas loaded metal powders (next to zero palladium btw) achieve a dt in the hundreds of degrees -which led to a melted quartz/alumina core. It's not a question of the system so much, but running 'hot and dry' there is not much in the way of a conductive medium to take XS heat away.

  • I wonder if Cubic Boron Nitride conducts heat as well as carbon diamonds do. If so, that might actually be viable way to cool things. Long ago I knew someone who was trying to deposit Pd on synthetic diamond in a cold fusion experiment. He thought conducting the heat rapidly away was the key to success.

  • No update about Brillouin 's COP ... possibly they have hit a speed bump

    This David Gornoski video is a bit old (5March)

    but I found the idea that a large balloon of Helium product is the equivalent to a day of Florida energy use... novel


    after about tm 30.00 there is political exorcism which may be OT.

  • Its time to look at what is happening to the reactor rod surface..after one year

    If neutrons are operative( as Godes believes) there are going to be transmutations.

    If there are transmutations... only some will be beneficial to the process


    Zamilov thought he observed lanthanide formation with 30 keV electrons after only 20 minutes.

    Brillouin's incoming electrons are much less energetic on average but after one year they may have some effect

    Zamilov's nickel alloy has interesting metals in it... niobium, molybdenum PLUS lanthanides ( watch the video)

    https://www.researchgate.net/p…origin=publication_detail

    Alloy20cb3


    Fe

    ~40%

    Cr

    19.00-21

    Mo

    2.-3

    Ni

    32-38

    Cu

    3-4

    Nb

    0.6-1

  • No update about Brillouin 's COP ... possibly they have hit a speed bump


    June 2018 report ~10 Watts excess power

    December 2018 report ~50 Watts excess power

    March 2019 report ~80 Watts excess power


    It is the trial-and-error method that is the speed bump. The bump we need is exponential x 10^2 buump.


    An organized effort to look at theory could bring what's needed to this finely-crafted reactor. A panel of theorists at ICCF22 could look plainly at this data and systematically determine how their theory matches this experimental data. If it is Controlled Electron Capture, then something is missing, or their would be breakthrough. The theory would give the recipe. What is missing? How do other theories explain this Brillouin data? If a panel of theorists could focus on One Specific Set of data, and say how they can explain it, it would at least eliminate the problem theorists have of *agreeing* on data (because a lot of them do not even agree on what is real in LENR experiments). They would all have the same parameters, same data and they would have to explain it. Just need a moderator!


    More mainstream scientists looking at all this data fresh will certainly see something different, too.


    Next update on Brillouin? Probably ICCF22. I imagine it will be a quiet summer while labs prepare updates for that big event. I wouldn't expect many announcements til then.