Sandia isn't timid. Sandia originated with the Manhattan Project. The first things they tested were atomic bombs. Whether they would examine a preliminarily shown to be promising LENR device, you'd have to ask them. I think they might. They have very diverse interests at that lab and many curious and open minded people.
Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC) updates.
-
-
I'm not saying they are timid at Sandia, but that they have systems and procedures - it's SOP. And in this instance those would not allow black box testing of a nuclear device.
-
These anomalous effects with hydrogen need a different legal and scientific category in order for there to be realistic approaches to testing these apparatuses. We can't lump them in with higher input energy, brute force nuclear reactions in regulation testing and public relations. This is a mostly self organising low imput process if we do it right i'm guessing.
I'm not saying they are timid at Sandia, but that they have systems and procedures - it's SOP. And in this instance those would not allow black box testing of a nuclear device.
I think they should be allowed to mince apart everything but the computing control box. That is the claimed All important IP key in both Brillouin's and Rossi's SKL case.
-
I think they should be allowed to mince apart everything but the computing control box.
I expect any National Lab or other taxpayer supported lab will insist on seeing everything, in detail. You might find a corporate lab willing to do a black box test.
-
I expect any National Lab or other taxpayer supported lab will insist on seeing everything, in detail. You might find a corporate lab willing to do a black box test.
I just want these energy solutions to stay available in the commercial/civilian space. Worst case scenario It is real and gets quarantined to military, expensive scientific, and elite special interest applications of the top handful of countries. These need to be everywhere from Stockholm, to the Caribbean, to desert communities in Africa. IDK if state or commercial verification of any power source would have an impact on that or not. I have no problem with it being sold or people making money justly, but put it on the market like oil/gas/coal is now. An inexpensive fundamental energy source for the vast majority of people from rural to cities in non hostile communities. Probably will be commercial verification for the time being and I don't have a problem as long as it is transparent.
-
I just want these energy solutions to stay available in the commercial/civilian space. Worst case scenario It is real and gets quarantined to military, expensive scientific, and elite special interest applications of the top handful of countries. These need to be everywhere from Stockholm, to the Caribbean, to desert communities in Africa. IDK if state or commercial verification of any power source would have an impact on that or not. I have no problem with it being sold or people making money justly, but put it on the market like oil/gas/coal is now. An inexpensive fundamental energy source for the vast majority of people from rural to cities in non hostile communities. Probably will be commercial verification for the time being and I don't have a problem as long as it is transparent.
The industrial military complex would need a new energy source to be complicated and would need to keep it secret to deprive and to dominate poorer communities or to create scarcity of energy for profit.
This new energy source (which includes LENR) is only complicated because you won’t abandon the thermonuclear mindset. The first of which is insistence that a device causes fusion rather than fusion is colder because the coulomb barrier has been lowered by a change of state of the reactant atoms. The second, is an insistence that the only acceptable energy solution is to produce heat from a device. This new energy source is nuclear fusion without the boom. A complicated device is not required. Further, the output of this new energy source is a fuel. The lack of a boom is not an undesirable. Rather, a fuel output is a benefit because its scarcity can’t be controlled by a few.
The secret is out, and the genie can’t be put back in the bottle. The amount of transmutation is very large well out of the error range. It is impossible to fake the mass and energy balances, so you can verify the truth of it all. There is wealth of information: basic theory calculations, a data deprived balance overall nuclear equation, detailed balance equations for each collision step, and to support the contention that fuel is produced, there is thermodynamic and kinetic analysis. The fuel is produced by a nuclear reaction from ingredients in water which is hardly possible to make scare. The unintended mass production of the fuel is already happening (any process that produces magnecules). There are off patent processes to produce this fuel. So what to stop us make energy abundant?
https://patentimages.storage.g…ade2b/US20180322974A1.pdf
At this point energy scarcity is magic. The sleight of hand to focus your attention somewhere other than on the fuel output of this new energy source. Don’ be part of the misdirection, apathy, and invested interests in coal, oil, thermonuclear etc. Divided and distracted we will fail to make energy abundant.
I need you to verify the proofs for yourself and ask relevant questions until it is as clear to you as it is to me. You will then know the truth. What you do with it is then your choice. Let me help.
-
Can you suggest a simple device built around the basic concepts of your patent application (similar maybe to the Mizuno reactor or Takahashi's dry powder Cu/Ni/ZrO2 reactor) which could work as a simple heater with very low power consumption? Something eminently simple and practical that any idiot like myself could put together in the middle of nowhere (akin to an energy-saving light-bulb) ?
-
The "fuel" you are talking about is dense hydrogen right?? Cause that is what atomic annihilation, resonant chemical energy, and catalysed low energy nuclear events possibly progress or emerge from.
-
The good thing about Holmlid is that he has spent years accumulating experimental data..to support his dense hydrogen
not just theory or proposition like this
From the patent https://patentimages.storage.g…ade2b/US20180322974A1.pdf
"
[ 0004 ] Pharis Williams proposed that fusion could occurbelow the Lawson criterion if magnetic fields of projectile
and target hydrogen atoms could be aligned .
US patent 2012 / 0033775 A1 express this same idea in its summary as follows :
" The electron clouds of the atoms are deformed into a toroidal shape by a magnetic field of the electric arc , thereby exposing the nuclei of both atoms
" Williams and Santilli expect an effect based on a macro magnetic field , not a catalytic ( or a molecular ) effect . Although Santilli proposes that his process generates a new state for the elements , he claims the use of a macro magnetic field and a trigger in his fusion process .
Pharis ?
Pharis "thought differently." He refused to accept "what we now know" of the flame keepers of physics.
Especially when he determined mathematically that "what we now know" was appallingly detached from reality in the "Popcorn" episode
-
-
Can you suggest a simple device built around the basic concepts of your patent application (similar maybe to the Mizuno reactor or Takahashi's dry powder Cu/Ni/ZrO2 reactor) which could work as a simple heater with very low power consumption? Something eminently simple and practical that any idiot like myself could put together in the middle of nowhere (akin to an energy-saving light-bulb) ?
A device producing heat is not the correct way to use concepts in the invention, rather producing a fuel and using that fuel is. However, a device and heat guy like yourself could follow the description in paragraph 0113 re with Stringham et al. I don't know how long the foil will produce heat by just heating it. So you would want to make more active foil to keep producing excess "after heat". Perhaps you could design a way to switch from producing the active foil and getting heat from it. I would think it would be more productive to capture the fuel which likely vaporizes from water (which contains an active foil when it being heated). You could then find out if the classical fuel ( the vapor) can be used instead of gasoline in an engine. In a gas tight system it should be easy to show the gas phase increases in nitrogen due to its formation by nuclear transformation.
The "fuel" you are talking about is dense hydrogen right?? Cause that is what atomic annihilation, resonant chemical energy, and catalysed low energy nuclear events possibly progress or emerge from.
No.
Colder fusion is using magnecules as the nuclear fuel. The electric and/or magnet fields of an atom have an energy content. The energy of the force field can be electric, magnetic or shift between an electric or magnetic field. If the magnetic field of an atoms is increased at the expense of energy transfer from its electric field, the electric field charge is reduced or shielded. Shielding of proton charge cause colder fusion.
Colder fusion is fusion without a boom. Fusion that depends on states of the atoms. It doesn't require a complicated device. Man has been doing it since the first-time welding was done under water in late 1800s. The good news is that a least some of missing energy (compared to expectation for the same thermonuclear transformation) is present in gas produced by an under-water arc as a classical fuel. A fuel value is present in excess of the chemical fuel value established by thermodynamics. A kinetic analysis also supports the present of fuel associated with the production de novo of elements.
The good thing about Holmlid is that he has spent years accumulating experimental data..to support his dense hydrogen
not just theory or proposition like this
This is not just a theory or proposition. You may favor Holmid but your statement is not justified. Show me where my analysis or proofsare wrong. I have statistical valid proof of massive amounts of transmutation. There is not waiting for the next experiment to final prove a colder form of fusion.
-
I have statistical valid proof of massive amounts of transmutation.
Do you mean that you have statistical proof of your claims that are confirmed by an experiment you have performed based on actual analysis and measurement of transmutations, or do you mean that you have statistical support that a hypothesis you have formulated is (possibly or definitely) correct? I must confess to being unclear.
-
-
Do you mean that you have statistical proof of your claims that are confirmed by an experiment you have performed based on actual analysis and measurement of transmutations, or do you mean that you have statistical support that a hypothesis you have formulated is (possibly or definitely) correct? I must confess to being unclear.
The proofs are based on measurement of chemical composition (chemical analysis). The disclosure uses reputable records from the prior art. In one embodiment certified data from an independent lab was the basis for an enabling analysis, and in another embodiment the data originates with NASA. I used tools common to any chemical engineer for analysis. For the 1st proof I used reasonable assumptions, mass balances, and solved for stoichiometry, verified assumption with data out comes and then found the individual collision steps which sum to the overall data derived balanced nuclear equation from stoichiometry. In the second verification I used the NASA data, an assumption based on the balance nuclear equation based of the 1st proof, and mass balance. Both of these proof show large amounts of transmutation. Since you can repeat the math and verify the data sources, then you can judge for yourself if the hypothesis is possibly or definitely correct.
-
maybe you could illustrate your power production mechanism with a diagram?
It's not a device. It's changes of state (like chemistry that extends to nuclear change). The diagrams are a list of steps in a process and balanced equations. If you want a diagram for the device Santilli used to produce samples, then look at his patent application. If you want to see how Richardson produced Aquafuel, I think there is a U-tube video. You have focused on devices for a long time. A good engineer can use many different device as means to accomplish a process step.
-
More from Godes on Disqus.
Hot Fusion? Really?
Brillouin Energy already has 4 Controlled Electron Capture Reactors (CECR) currently functioning in their lab in downtown Berkeley. We achieved this having raised just over $17.6MM as of Jan 2020. Parts are interchangeable between reactors. We have had one catalyst rod that put out more than twice as much heat as the electrical energy put into the catalyst rod. That catalyst rod was able to perform the same way in multiple reactors and several hundred times. This analysis can be performed using something called System Identification. System Identification was developed by Google and discussed in nature Perspective article “Revisiting the cold case of cold fusion” https://www.nature.com/arti.... Published in March 2019. It can also be performed using steady state and water flow calorimetry. The difficulty of raising money is the only reason we are not already to market.
Brillouin Energy has ~60 accredited investors. Several of those investors brought people with PhDs in a variety of disciplines to perform due diligence. Those who invested brought PhDs working in industry. In contrast, dozens of potential investors who brought PhDs from universities never invested. Why is that? It is not a ‘conspiracy’. That would imply a collaboration, I doubt any of the professors knew each other. However ‘institutional investors’ and many others rely on people they deem to be ‘the smartest’ to advise them. Without fail, those investors bring professors. One particular investment group already investing in hot fusion discussed in this article claimed a lack of ability to due diligence on our technology. The investors who bring PhDs from industry prove that it is not a lack of ability, so much as a lack of experience.
We recently had a group of engineers with experience in designing building and operating power plants. They included a nuclear engineer with experience in multiple types of power plants including nuclear plants. That engineer spent more than 3 months investigating our technology. The conclusion is that we have control over heat production. It seems likely that our manufacturing technology can be scaled to produce electricity. They are being backed by big money that thinks we have no options. Negotiations have started but will likely be long. This activity has caused unexpected new alliances that could easily and dramatically shorten the distance to our goal of completely green energy production. The stakes are already being driven much more in our favor as time moves forward.
-
.....still only a COP of 2 .....and I thought he had abandoned the CECR theory?
-
.....still only a COP of 2 .....and I thought he had abandoned the CECR theory?
in the context of Hot fusion a COP 2 is huge.
-
.....true, but disappointing in the context of e.g. Mizuno's reactor.
-
.....true, but disappointing in the context of e.g. Mizuno's reactor.
With all due respect to Mizuno, BEC seem to have far more control over their reactors than Mizuno does his. They also seem to have a better understanding of how to reliably manufacture the key components.
