Why are BEC rejecting their own CECR theory? Looks like shooting themselves in the foot after the Nature revelation that there is no such thing as lenr or cold fusion! I just don't get it! Have they joined Team Google (since Page's brother is on their advisory committee) and have decided that cold fusion can be accounted for simply by metallic lattice expansion driven by hydrogen absorption?
Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC) updates.
-
-
Have they joined Team Google (since Page's brother is on their advisory committee)
A few months ago they were not. That could have changed, but I doubt it. My impression at the time was that Trevithick was happy with the team he had, and joining with others in the field was no longer an attractive option. I would assume that would include BEC. Never know though...things change.
-
Why are BEC rejecting their own CECR theory? ...
I feel it very good when someone adapt his vision after observations...
This paper is very interesting not in the finding, but in the method.
This is exactly what I imagined as the way to find the theory... improve instruments, use various kind of microscopes and spectrometers...
And if they can change their theory this mean that with good observation they may find the good theory....
Their instrumentation setup is very interesting....
Good news.
-
Quote
BEC is struggling for mainstream acceptance
Yeah. Because they have shown nothing which is both credible and impressive. So far only Mizuno has, IMO, and of course, that is only if the claims in the recent papers with JedRothwell bear out in credible and independent replications and validations.
QuoteFind one that fulfills your criteria (above) prepared to state in writing they will test a cold fusion device.
Earthtech may not be ideal as Alan Smith noted, but they would be a very good start. If they could get solid looking positive data, it would seem many others would be happy to confirm it further. As for getting a renown test lab to test Brillouin's reactor, I suspect Sandia would do it as a scam-busting effort from their view. Hell, they have tested all sorts of phony explosive detectors and they didn't even charge for it. Of course, they would only test a system if they could provide their own input power (if required) and measure their own output power and they would have to be able to manipulate physically to be sure there were no tricks. In other words, any device would have to be submitted as a black box plus instructions.
Typical Sandia scam (or no scam) report: https://web.archive.org/web/20…ts/440/moleeval_apr02.pdf
-
Yeah. Because they have shown nothing which is both credible and impressive.
Other than their three independent reports, which its fairly obvious, you haven't read.
You not being able to tell the difference between the third report and a summary of it, and your long and inglorious history of never reading anything long or technical, are the giveaways here.
-
In other words, any device would have to be submitted as a black box plus instructions.
In which case Sandia would not touch it with a bargepole. Nor would UL or anybody else in the business. Without complete disclosure of every tiny detail they will not test.
-
I suppose BEC are just moving on with the times and putting LENR on the back burner after the TG Nature paper/ but space-time crystal theory or dipole alignment within electric fields? How these mechanisms can generate energy output>energy input remains to be shown, seems very speculative & without any fusion reaction its difficult to see how any excess energy can be generated. The Japanese NEDO abstracts are all very positive in favor of LENR (and the techniques of co-deposition of Cu/Ni nanoparticles on ZrO2 don't seem that far away from what Brillouin Energy is doing (using Al2O3 instead of ZrO2). Well we were kind of agreed that dense H/D formation is a necessary first step for LENR to occur (Wyttenbach) - maybe the metal oxides Al2O3/ZrO2/KFeO2 are all capable dehydrogenation catalysts in dissociating D2 or H2 into atomic forms thus leading to dense or ultra dense forms absorbed within the Cu/Ni lattice. Is this what BEC are measuring, I wonder? Once formed, UDH/D subjected to RF Q-pulses will cause localized electron heating, with IR release, consequently leading to chains of nuclear reactions as outlined by Holmlid's theories/experiments releasing K-mesons from proton disintegration etc muons, positron-electron annihilation, fusion reactions etc are all theoretically possible. But from a simplistic engineering point of view, I can understand R. Godes probably not particularly caring about the mechanisms as such so long as it works-and lets face it the Widom Larson CECR theory has probably had its day - just surprised me I guess because he seemed so convinced by this-but good to move on to novel ideas especially if it opens the door to TG backing if only theoretical or whatever.
-
Wasn't anyone else surprised by this disclosure abandoning previous theory?
-
Just a point on the sub-nano THz 3D imagery by Rahman&Rahman at Applied Research&Photonics.
I have skeptical remarks on this technology, as it break diffraction limits my many orders of magnitude.
In the founding papers of that technology, it is explained by scanning and reconstruction .
Is there any good reference, replication, that may confirm it is a recognized method today?
I've seen collaboration papers, good network across the planet, papers from 2013 to now,
eg: https://prnano.scholasticahq.c…ctometry-and-spectrometry
article:
https://www.insidescience.org/…-jobs-perhaps-skin-cancer
he vas invited as keynote speaked
https://biosensors.conferenceseries.com/registration.php
patents:
https://patents.google.com/pat…2/en?inventor=Anis+Rahman
https://patents.google.com/pat…ntor=Anis+Rahman&sort=new
so personaly I'm confident if not enthusiastic, but who knows...
His profile
https://www.scopus.com/authid/….uri?authorId=24071903200
-
I think the combination of many scans, and the fact that reflected, transmitted and diffracted rays are combined from both surfaces of a sample and assembled by software into a coherent image is the key. A bit like a combination of electron microscopy and X-ray diffraction chrystallography. But I can see that by using the limits of standard optical microscopy as a benchmark it does seem a bit incredible.
-
Wasn't anyone else surprised by this disclosure abandoning previous theory?
I was not less surprised than somehow startled. Changing horses on the middle of the race has never been a wise thing to do. I see this as a sort of desperate move. I hope they benefit from it, anyway.
-
Towing the TG line might be the hidden advantage here.
-
Is it a stretch to read the new paper in the context of Walborn's assertion that they've recently had some sort of breakthrough? I'm a little leery of Walborn, but the timing is kind of interesting.
?
-
Quote
In which case Sandia would not touch it with a bargepole. Nor would UL or anybody else in the business. Without complete disclosure of every tiny detail they will not test.
You have a point because of safety. They might have to do a minimal teardown before testing. But they have had no problems testing explosive detectors. None of the tests I saw involved anything other than prototype devices which were not UL approved and could conceivably have presented hazards. True, for the most part, Sandia bought the devices and tore them down but that was after testing so the inventors could not claim damage. And I know of one instance in which they allowed the inventor to perform the test on their site with Sandia provided test samples but without tearing down the machine. I am pretty sure something could be worked out so that they could test Brillouin's kludge.
Sandia did not charge for the explosive detector tests I know about, perhaps because DOD was a potential customer. If so, the same consideration applies here.
I will venture a prediction. BEC/Brillouin will never allow a truly independent and competent test. Not ever. Just an unprovable opinion, of course.
-
But they have had no problems testing explosive detectors.
Testing a twopenny circuit board designed to find a pocket and find golf balls is not the same as testing a larger high-temperature device containing materials that might be hazardous. It is necessary to compare oranges with oranges, not kiwi fruit.
-
Quote
Testing a twopenny circuit board designed to find a pocket and find golf balls is not the same as testing a larger high-temperature device containing materials that might be hazardous. It is necessary to compare oranges with oranges, not kiwi fruit.
Sure. But they didn't know what was in the pistol-sized device before they took it apart which they could do because they bought it. Also, IIRC, either Sandia or an equivalent lab, tested much larger rack mount sized detectors which were fakes. I'd have to look it up again. And BEC has never sold anything so I doubt they would start now.
In the case of a reactor, maybe Sandia would do non-destructive testing and imaging such as a field X-ray, radiation detectors and perhaps an ultrasound to get some idea what it was. To get fanciful, they could have it sniffed by a detector dog. Of course, they could see it run in the BEC lab and measure it there.
I think if BEC gave a robust demo in public, there would be either test labs or university labs who would jump at a chance to work with BEC to test the reactors properly and independently. In all the years Brillouin has promoted reactors, they never have had a single independent test. Anyway, none they talked about or which was public. That tells me volumes.
BTW, the dowsing devices were never "designed to find... golf balls." They were designed to deceive and were monumentally successful at it when sold as explosive detectors. That resulted in the waste of many millions of dollars and injuries and deaths of unknown numbers of people including three deaths and 8 injuries in a single incident videotaped in Thailand in (appx) 2008. That and much more is told here: http://sniffexquestions.blogspot.com/
The "detectors" couldn't find anything which was easily and readily demonstrated in tests like this one: http://sniffextest.blogspot.com/
No, it was not about finding golf balls. Sandia and the sites linked above helped the US and UK authorities bring the scams down.
-
No, it was not about finding golf balls. Sandia and the sites linked above helped the US and UK authorities bring the scams down.
You have a short memory- this is sniffex (the golf ball detector) by a different name- somebody seems to have done a good job purging google of the sniffex brand.
-
Believe me, when it comes to the unconscionable criminals who contributed to many deaths, even more maimings and possible the bombing crash of an airliner in Egypt and countless casualties in Iraq, my memory is quite good. The device below is what you are thinking about. I have one on a bookshelf. I bought it on eBay for $12.
I had a small part in bringing down the deadly explosive detector scam, especially in the US. Based on what they saw on the internet, the FBI requested and I submitted evidence including some original photo memory cards.
QuoteThe prototype for the device began life in the US as the Gopher - marketed as "the perfect gift for the golfer who has everything." The $20 (£12) plastic gadget claimed to use advanced technology, "programmed to detect the elements found in all golf balls".
"Had it stayed a golf ball finder, this would never have been an issue," says Det Con Joanne Law, who investigated the scam for City of London Police.
But - with the simple addition of a new label - the Gopher became the "Quadro Tracker" - and was sold by a former used car salesman to point out drugs and explosives. After the FBI declared it a fraud in 1996, a British man involved with the device brought the idea back to the UK, where the scam resurfaced as the "Mole."
from "The Story of the Fake Bomb Detector" https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29459896
... the "Sniffex" name was only for the supposed explosive detector. And coincidentally, "The Sniffex device should not be confused with SniffEx, a prize-winning chemical vapor sensor developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratories (ORNL).[7] That sensor was originally called "Sniffex" until Homeland Safety International enforced its trademark and asked ORNL to stop using the name.[4]" (Wikipedia)Some justice happened but not nearly enough:
QuoteIn 2013, conman James McCormick from Somerset was jailed for 10 years after being found guilty of three offences of fraud, having sold fake “ADE 651” bomb detectors to Iraq.
From the 2015 Vanity Fair article: https://www.vanityfair.com/new…/fake-bomb-detectors-iraq
Finally, there is this document, originally from a Sandia or ONR researcher (forget which) -- the original had his name, this copy doesn't: http://em.fis.unam.mx/public/mochan/blog/20110612gt200.pdf
-
when it comes to the unconscionable criminals who contributed to many deaths
Robert Godes has a few sins undoubtedly..
but not big ones...
-
. . . Sandia would not touch it with a bargepole. Nor would UL or anybody else in the business. Without complete disclosure of every tiny detail they will not test.
UL would never test it in the first place. They do not do science. They only test to ensure safety. Having said that, let me add that you are 100% right. Maybe even more right than you realize. To have a product tested by UL, you have to pay them a fee, and you have to fill in a detailed application form. (Years ago, I knew some people who applied, and I saw the paperwork.) You have to provide a complete set of blueprints and specifications, with the part number and vendor of every component. You send in several finished products. They don't take prototypes, as I recall. They break down some of the finished products to confirm they meet specifications. In other words, they take them apart and look at every component.
In short, there are no secrets with UL.
I wouldn't know about Sandia, but I expect you are right about them, too.
