Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC) updates.

Currently i continue NIH investigations and yes, i'm agree your NAE are important however their stimulation too.

Quote from Storms

Robert Godes a fait la même erreur que Rossi. Il a essayé de passer à l'échelle avant de comprendre comment la source d'énergie fonctionnait réellement. Il a créé une théorie et a ensuite supposé qu'elle était correcte parce qu'il pouvait produire de l'énergie supplémentaire. En conséquence, non seulement il a gaspillé beaucoup d'argent, mais il n'aura jamais de générateur utile. Pendant ce temps, le potentiel de fraude a augmenté.

Je suis étonné que ce problème évident avec LENR ne soit pas compris par tout le monde. Cette méthode ne sera jamais appliquée pour produire de l'énergie commerciale tant qu'elle n'aura pas été correctement comprise. À l'heure actuelle, nous sommes à des décennies d'avoir même une compréhension de base de LENR. C'est amusant de spéculer, mais cela ne mènera pas à un produit utile. La question n'est pas de savoir si l'allégation peut être reproduite. En fait, je peux provoquer la production d'un excès d'énergie à tout moment. La question est quelle est la cause et quelles variables contrôlent le processus. La réplication ne répond pas à ces questions. À moins que des méthodes de recherche efficaces ne soient effectivement appliquées, je ne vois aucun espoir de progrès au cours des 31 prochaines années.

Quote

I'm amazed this obvious problem with LENR is not understood by everyone. This method will never be applied to produce commercial energy until it is correctly understood. At the present time, we are decades away from having even a basic understanding of LENR. It's fun to speculate, but this will not lead to a useful product. The issue is not whether the claim can be replicated.

I agree Ed. All the problems which have held up the field will evaporate if and when we understand the underlying process. You are one of the few experimental researchers who are actually trying to do this. Far too many cannot even identify the nuclear reactions compatible with their experiment or predicted by their model. 30 years on, people are still measuring excess heat (and little else) and this adds nothing new to our understanding. Indeed it makes it look like they still doubt if CMNS is real. They are making a grave disservice to the field.

The evidence shows that the mass change produced by the heat-producing reaction matches the amount of energy produced. Therefore, most of the energy generated by the process ends up as heat within the calorimeter. The process also produces radiation, but not the kind that hot fusion emits. Although, both the required nuclear products and radiation are different than expected, they are clearly present. We also know that the energy-producing process only needs special sites in the material and increased temperature to function.

The nuclear process can be initiated with reliability without having to know anything about how the nuclear process actually works. Nevertheless, commercial use will not be permitted until the nuclear process can be proven to be safe. In order to study the nuclear process, the material must be caused to produce heat because heat is the signature of the LENR reaction. So, we're forced to study heat production as the best path to the eventual understanding of the nuclear process.

Now that I can cause the heat effect without fail, I intend to first find out how to increase the amount of power and then discover how the nuclear process actually works. I have some ideas worth exploring, which will guide my efforts. Hopefully, I will be granted a few more years to find the secret and a few more dollars to keep the lights on.

Rothwell: " For the last 20 years I have had no idea what his experiments were supposed to be demonstrating. "

Wow. Probably the best, most published (via numerous papers with collaboration even) experimenter and theorist manages to remain 'obscure' ... that takes special talent on someone's part to ignore that mass of publications and experiments.

For me, the turning point were the BrLP experiments where Mills had gotten the 'reaction dynamics' so high that he easily evaporated Tungsten electrodes ... and did everybody miss the calorimetry tests just a few years back wherein the water in a barrel was brought to a boil, and its cinch simple to measure the input electrical power and KNOWING how much water was 'moved' in temperature, COP is easily measured ... all this, just a couple years back, seems to have been forcefully removed from the 'collective', community memory.

Quote from _Jim

Rothwell: " For the last 20 years I have had no idea what his experiments were supposed to be demonstrating. "

Wow. Probably the best, most published (via numerous papers with collaboration even) experimenter and theorist manages to remain 'obscure' ... that takes special talent on someone's part to ignore that mass of publications and experiments.

For me, the turning point were the BrLP experiments where Mills had gotten the 'reaction dynamics' so high that he easily evaporated Tungsten electrodes ... and did everybody miss the calorimetry tests just a few years back wherein the water in a barrel was brought to a boil, and its cinch simple to measure the input electrical power and KNOWING how much water was 'moved' in temperature, COP is easily measured ... all this, just a couple years back, seems to have been forcefully removed from the 'collective', community memory.

Quote from Storms

In fact, I can cause excess energy to be produced any time I want.

I have trouble believing this boast. Have you demonstrated this to qualified independent verifiers, or are we supposed to take your word on this? If you could do this on demand, it seems like you would be on the path to a Nobel Prize, like Rossi.

Tungsten is vaporized remarkably easily. This fact has been ignored, however the vapors are often used as proof of some sort of remarkable heat by some people. Maybe because they don't know any better, and probably some do know this but prefer not to offer up that information because it undermines something they are trying to demonstrate.

For example, a Tungsten welding rod can be burned to a very sharp point using a cheap oxy-propane gas torch. The key is not the heat, although certainly some fairly high temperature is reached (enough to braze quickly), but hot oxygen. But Brown never mentioned that, for example. And be reminded that the melting point of Tungsten can only be achieved in an oxygen free environment.

'Unless effective research methods are actually applied..." Ed Storms

(Google translate from the French quote)

Effective research methods are certainly found in many CMNS research groups today. These groups are growing in number, quality and many have the essential multidisciplinary fields represented for advancing this art. A few of these groups have surfaced for the first time this year. I expect more will this next year.

There indeed may be five to ten years of data, from advanced groups effective research, that has not been published yet. Competitive research.

At ARPA-E LENR it was stated that publishing/securing patents is fine but that publishing the research efforts and data that supports these patents is essential for the field to advance.

We now have the most advanced labs refining this technology. I expect deeper understanding of the nano and quantum physics within CMNS energy systems is advancing rapidly. A comprehensive working theory for design of reactors may exist or be complete if all the existing parts are drawn together correctly.

Keep in mind, sometimes we mix up BEC with BrLP (referred to as BLP in the old days). Carry on.

Quote from Storms

I have some ideas worth exploring, which will guide my effort

Are you able to share these ideas here?

Does anyone know if BEC will be presenting at ICCF24? I heard that they were, but do not see them listed as a speaker. They are just across the bay, so it seems business savvy to be there.

Quote from WJMFC

I quote from the document entitled "Why would one see more energy out when you replace

Hydrogen with Helium in a Brillouin reactor?" which reads:-

"At large scale we may see some ⁶³Ni decays. You get a gama out of the decay of ⁶³Ni to ⁶³Cu because ⁶³Ni is a spin 1/2 and ⁶³Cu is a spin 3/2. This transition provides the spin 1 change necessary for gamma emission."

I believe ⁶³Ni beta decays without any gamma emission at all. And in fact Brillouin apparently did not detect any gammas. Brillouin predict them, as explained above, based on the need to conserve spin. But this is taken care of by the emission of the 2 fermions, the beta particle and the neutrino. The energy of this decay is only 67 keV which doesn't leave much scope for creating an excited state of ⁶³Cu. See https://ehs.stanford.edu/refer…3-radionuclide-fact-sheet

In contrast ⁶⁵Ni decays much more energetically than ⁶³Ni with a half life of just 2.5 hours. It can and often does populate an excited states of ⁶⁵Cu which emit copious gammas of over 1 MeV. The question is, what evidence is there for these isotopes?

Sadly Cerium Laboratories does not have the ability to look at more than one element at a time and can only provide information on the naturally occurring isotopes. If someone knows of a lab that can provide information on all AMU between 56 and 70 it might be worth running the experiment again on another catalyst rod. The national labs, that I suspect have this ability refuse to work with us.

"The CRADA has been put on a hold for now by the lab. Because the research your company is conducting is controversial and has, as far as we can discern, not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, the lab is apprehensive about us entering into a contract with your company."

This experiment takes up 2 to 3 months of reactor time which is a precious commodity even if you have several of them running.

Display More

At Decay radiation information on 65Ni from www.nndc.bnl.gov < 40% of the 65Ni produces gamma > 1MeV. Even under conditions way outside the allowed operating conditions (Those of this test) the amount of 65Ni produced is small and inside a stainless steal reactor. The event occurred several hours before we discovered it had happened and there was no evidence of reradiation left at that time.

Gamma and X-ray radiation:

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

I have trouble believing this boast. Have you demonstrated this to qualified independent verifiers, or are we supposed to take your word on this? If you could do this on demand, it seems like you would be on the path to a Nobel Prize, like Rossi.

That is what Brillouin 3rd Party Test Results and Analysis is all about. ? Did you miss that?

Quote from Shane D.

Does anyone know if BEC will be presenting at ICCF24? I heard that they were, but do not see them listed as a speaker. They are just across the bay, so it seems business savvy to be there.

We will have a unit operating continuously 24hr/ day through the conference. We will transport it down on the Friday before and get it running before the start of the conference. It should be running at the start on Monday and remain running until we remove the unit to take it back to our lab in Berkeley. Brillouin staff will be on hand for most if not all of the show.

Quote from Storms

The evidence shows that the mass change produced by the heat-producing reaction matches the amount of energy produced. Therefore, most of the energy generated by the process ends up as heat within the calorimeter. The process also produces radiation, but not the kind that hot fusion emits. Although, both the required nuclear products and radiation are different than expected, they are clearly present. We also know that the energy-producing process only needs special sites in the material and increased temperature to function.

The nuclear process can be initiated with reliability without having to know anything about how the nuclear process actually works. Nevertheless, commercial use will not be permitted until the nuclear process can be proven to be safe. In order to study the nuclear process, the material must be caused to produce heat because heat is the signature of the LENR reaction. So, we're forced to study heat production as the best path to the eventual understanding of the nuclear process.

Now that I can cause the heat effect without fail, I intend to first find out how to increase the amount of power and then discover how the nuclear process actually works. I have some ideas worth exploring, which will guide my efforts. Hopefully, I will be granted a few more years to find the secret and a few more dollars to keep the lights on.

You say "Now that I can cause the heat effect without fail, ". Have you taken this to ARPAE? This is exactly what they are looking for Ed. I will reply to your first response next week.

Quote from BEC

We will have a unit operating continuously 24hr/ day through the conference. We will transport it down on the Friday before and get it running before the start of the conference. It should be running at the start on Monday and remain running until we remove the unit to take it back to our lab in Berkeley. Brillouin staff will be on hand for most if not all of the show.

Thanks for the confirmation. Gordon will have a live demo of his LEC also. This ICCF is shaping up to be a good one.

Quote from BEC

At Decay radiation information on 65Ni from www.nndc.bnl.gov < 40% of the 65Ni produces gamma > 1MeV. Even under conditions way outside the allowed operating conditions (Those of this test) the amount of 65Ni produced is small and inside a stainless steal reactor. The event occurred several hours before we discovered it had happened and there was no evidence of reradiation left at that time.

If the ⁶⁵Ni could be measured by mass spectroscopy then the gamma radiation expected would be very easily measured and identified using a gamma spectrometer. This could be done without disturbing an experiment. You wouldn't need to go to any external lab.

It's all very well claiming that ⁶⁵Ni was only "discovered" later, but if you suspected neutron capture you should have have made a list of all possible reactions in advance of any experiment. And given that these neutrons are conjectured to come from energetic electrons, as in the Widom Larsen theory, you would need to consider these electrons too.

So for example an energetic electron could be captured by ⁵⁸Ni (the most abundant isotope of nickel) to produce ⁵⁸Co decaying by gamma and positron emission.

⁵⁸Ni+ e- --> ⁵⁸Co -0.382 MeV

Although this electron capture reaction is endothermic, the required energy is less than that required to make neutrons. And if you had made neutrons, the stainless steel would have been activated. It seems that neither energetic electrons nor neutrons fit your observations.

BTW, do you agree that ⁶³Ni will not produce any gammas?

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

I have trouble believing this boast. Have you demonstrated this to qualified independent verifiers, or are we supposed to take your word on this? If you could do this on demand, it seems like you would be on the path to a Nobel Prize, like Rossi

I think your comment here displays a total lack of experience in selling new and disruptive technology.

Over the last 5 years I have researched, engineered tested and promoted 2 useful, reliable, and highly profitable 'net zero' chemistry-based solutions to current industrial problems. They have been independently verified, have been subject to rigorous and independent commercial, chemical, and environmental impact analysis. They also received a lot of interested comments from people heavily involved in the relevant industries. Recently a major player has expressed serious interest in building a commercial pilot plant using one of my systems. Only then will the rest of the world really take notice. But the curve from acceptance to commercial implementation now stretches to 2024. That's 7 years.

That's how long something orthodox takes, for something more contentious it takes much longer, no matter how compelling the data.

Quote from Wyttenbach

I think most energy comes either from rare D* or reactions that involve 61-Ni or other contamination.

If most of the energy has one or 2 origins, it cannot be so rare! My own ENP model also proposes a role for 61Ni (and also 58Ni). Deuterium is not required.

Still, it would be an interesting experiment with a higher concentration of deuterons as, opposed to protons, within the hydrogen hot tubes. Higher power output over an expanded timescale could be the clincher especially since @Wyttenbach's SO(4) theory would seem to predict this. Alongside measurements of He4 or indeed tritium release. Seems like a simple enough test which might disprove or prove the Widom-Larsen theory BEC quite rightly, I think, adopted, to account for their genuine results. Good luck to Robert Godes!