Thanks to BEC for bringing this interesting discussion to our forum. This recent comment, adressed to Storms is the kind of discussion we love to read, and indicate the leading edge status of LENR, where many questions remain open, which doesn't prevent at all an engineering approach from being succesful, and helpful to find the so much wanted answers.
Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC) updates.
-
-
-
However i have an additional question to BEC, you mentioned Rossi, so what should be the link with your activities ?
For clarity, it was Ed Storms in post #708 who mentioned Rossi, not BEC, who did not respond to that particular question in a specific way- but they did offer generalities about the difference in their approach.
We went down a similar path with Rossi that did not end well. Why would anyone expect this approach would end any better?
-
RE: Generator Tarasenko based on the model of the planet Earth Something D. Shane did not let me publish here, look at my experiments, I make nodules, it's very interesting who is doing such things with you. I am a geologist-geophysicist myself.
-
Thank you for this clarification
For clarity, it was Ed Storms in post #708 who mentioned Rossi, not BEC, who did not respond to that particular question in a specific way- but they did offer generalities about the difference in their approach.
-
Ed, in response to
- So, why are such pulses needed in his case and are not required to cause LENR during the hundreds of other successful efforts?
- No other group in the field has been able to take a catalyst from their lab to another lab and get identical results. Brillouin did that with multiple catalyst rods when we were working with SRI International. The Q-Pulse, along with many other aspects of engineering design, allows this capability.
- =====Thanks for the response. I will try to reply. Actually, Takahashi and Fleischman were able to do this. Violante also had a high success rate. You have done nothing unique.
- I agree with Dr. Storms's NAE concept, but that alone does not teach anyone how to form the NAE or build a commercially valuable device. I am an engineer, not a scientist. If something is not beneficial now, I will tuck it away in my mind, like the NAE concept. Now, NAE is a helpful way of describing things. Sorry it took so long to get there.
=========== In fact, the idea of a NAE does teach how to cause LENR, which I will describe at ICCF-24. Also, my work has now demonstrated behavior that is consistent with my ===========model. Building a commercially valuable source of energy is an entirely different problem. In addition to being able to create excess energy, the device must be understood ===========well enough to eliminate any chance of unexpected failure or unexpected excess power. In addition, the total process must be simple to maintain. I do not believe your ===========design has met or can meet these requirements.
Display More- How is it possible for a current pulse to supply the energy and neutrinos required to form a neutron?
- LENR is a multi-body effect as accepted by many researchers in the field. You must consider the Hamiltonian for the entire NAE involved in the reaction.
- ========I have never understood your claim for a Hamitonion being required to understand the process. The Hamiltonian is simply a mathematical description based on several ========assumptions that attempts to describe the energy states in a material. It does not reveal how and why these energy states were created.
- Phonons are bosons (they can be in the same place at the same time). They also have lifetimes that allow them to accumulate. This is observed in the filament of an incandescent bulb that heats up as the phonon content builds when first turned on until it reaches a steady-state operation. Phonon lifetime also explains how things cool down as the phonons decay/die in the system, even in a vacuum.
- ========The Phonon is an imaginary particle that is used to describe how energy is contained in the material in the form of temperature or in other forms related to temperature. ========Your description has no relationship to reality. So, I do not know how to respond to your comments that follow.
- The energy required to effect Electron Capture (EC) is 782KeV. You can say that is not possible, as Rick Whitman of PNNL did when starting our TAP. The problem is, it worked. He simulated confining a proton and electrons in a box on PNNL computers. It results in ultra-cold neutrons, potentially even below 10-50eV. At these extremely low energies, they have incredibly high crosssections. I also worked with Charles Martin to produce a more extensive paper on the subject. See Confinement-Induced-Electron-Capture.pdf
- If phonons represent all energy in the system and each phonon is 5meV, it would require ~1.6E8 phonons constructively interacting to provide 782KeV. This helps to explain why certain sizes and morphology nanoparticles are more likely to have LENR occur. i.e. they form a NAE. If they are too small, there are not enough lattice elements to accumulate the required energy. Other nonlinear effects also arise from things like the Lennard-Jones potential.
- If the average energy in a system is 35meV (0C), then every element has seven phonons associated with it. If the NAE where the reaction is taking place has 2E7 atoms related to it, then that particle can already have enough energy to run the reaction if they align just right. That is enough energy at 0ºC. As things warm up the number of phonons increases, raising the probability of EC by a proton.
- The neutrino's mass is so tiny that the system will pull the neutrino out of the vacuum.
- ========This comment is a perfect example of wishful thinking. Efforts to make neutrons by bombarding protons with energetic electrons fail to make many neutrons simply ========because the neutrino is not available. Also, I have no idea what "pulling out of the vacuum" means. This is one of the typical descriptions used in science fiction that ========seems to have a meaning until the idea is actually examined critically.
- he is claiming to have a method that can have economic importance.
- Yes, we are in the final stages of developing a commercially viable catalyst technology. The technology is in a form factor that easily integrates into OEM products.
- Subject to funding, we will get this technology market-ready in < 24 months.
- ==========I have no doubt that you can make excess power. I and many other people can also make excess power. The question is whether the method is safe, efficient, and ==========cheap. At this stage in our understanding, I would be very reluctant to invest in any method that claimed to make useful power. You say you need two more years. In ==========two more years, I predict your method will be obsolete and without value even though it clearly makes excess energy now.
- Personally, I would not invest in a claim unless these questions can be answered. We went down a similar path with Rossi that did not end well. Why would anyone expect this approach would end any better?
- The questions are answered in this response. Any potential investor that signs an NDA is welcome to bring whoever they like to talk to and work with us in our lab in Berkeley if they feel the questions are not answered.
- Brillouin Energy is a highly open and above-board operation. I genuinely enjoy hosting smart people that ask difficult questions.
- Ed, I look forward to discussing this in person at ICCF24 and invite you to see our lab in Berkeley.
- ========I admire your willingness to discuss these issues and I would like to see your lab.
-
Maybe bring either X-ray film, gieger counters or C-39 detectors to monitor any radiation coming from the HHT's? Unless BEC have checked for this already?
-
The amount of power his method can produce will continue to be limited until he is able to effectively control the creation of the active sites, i.e. the NAE
Robert Godes may need to compare deuterium versus protium...?
As one may conclude by working form the the Quantum Fusion Hypothesis, adding some D2 does increase the the COP. Adding more the COP starts to go down. The QP is imparting enough energy to cause EC on protons (782KeV) but are less likely to localize enough to cause EC on Deuterons that require 3MeV. These are actual observations borne out in the lab.
-
In nickel, a small amount of energy promotes the 4s electrons to the 3d energy level allowing hydrogen nuclei
to occupy the 4s sites. In Pd, the 5s shell is empty but the 4d shell is full12, maximizing the effect
and explaining palladium’s remarkable ability to not only absorb hydrogen.Very relevant.. probably these phonons "potentiated" should have enough total energy to "nail" a proton enough deep.
This total energy should do the job rather as a quanta of energy added( for nailing...) than in a kinematic classic understanding.
It exists another ways than your Q pulse i well understand.
-
As one may conclude by working form the the Quantum Fusion Hypothesis, adding some D2 does increase the the COP. Adding more the COP starts to go down.
This is a very interesting observation. Mizuno, the Clean Planet group and Takahashi and co at Tohaku/Sendai are AFAIK all working with low-pressure systems (way below 1 bar) . Also- looking back I think that Focardi's solid Ni/H work was performed a less than atmospheric pressure. When one considers the claimed very high interstitial pressures in the lattice - where the action happens - it would make you think that external pressures in the reactor were pretty much irrelevant.
From a purely philosophical point of view it might be imagined that the deuterium pressures in an electrolytic system are also low - in terms not of total system pressure but of the partial pressure of free deuterium gas. This had never occurred to me before.
Have you also found it to be the case that low pressure is a key requirement?
-
However, the path to 4 He is through the conversion of a deuteron to a dineutron
adding some D2 does increase the the COP.
How much did the COP increase?...as opposed to protium only ? would it be worthwhile to add a teaspoonful of D2 then rather than a cupful?
The QP is imparting enough energy to cause EC on protons (782KeV) but are less likely to localize enough to cause EC on Deuterons that require 3MeV. These are actual observations borne out in the lab.
The QP theory states
"However, the path to 4 He is through the conversion of a deuteron to a dineutron"
With reference 202.
Is the " is" theoretical only or verified by observation of dineutrons?
-
As these discussions demonstrate, the chosen model determines how the experimental results are interpreted. Unfortunately, if the model is wrong, the interpretation is wrong. Based on my studies, both H and D produce about the same amount of energy but the mixture produces less, as Robert observed. How is this possible?
I propose the fusion reaction occurs as a collective action involving many H or D with many electrons. When only D is present, H4 is produced which decays rapidly to He. When only H is present, D is produced, which eventually fuses to H4. If a mixture of H and D are present, tritium is produced. This reaction is inhibited by the mixed masses present in the collective, which reduces the reaction rate. Also, the amount of energy produced by tritium formation is much less than is released when H4 is produced. So you see, I can explain what Robert observes, as well as many other observations that Robert can not explain. So, the question is, "Which model is the correct one"?
The basic problem we have in this field is the absence of a correct explanation as well as the inability to properly evaluate explanations. Everyone seems to think any idea is equally good. The question now becomes, "How should an explanation be evaluated"?
-
Everyone seems to think any idea is equally good.
The NAE is a broad idea..
but the experimental evidence so far seems to be the heat signature which is hazy
"How should an explanation be evaluated"?
Signature by magnetic gammas seems much less hazy than the heat signature
but this needs to be confirmed by further experiment/ experimenters.
Perhaps Takahashi or Iwamura will seek more gammas ..I have written to them..and others
But they may be on their own tracks..like others in the forest.. far away from samarium..
Pd105 does show up... also Ag109..Ag107...but the Ni 61 signature is weak
-
Quote from I agree with Dr. Storms's NAE concept, but that alone does not teach anyone how to form the NAE or build a commercially valuable device. I am an engineer, not a scientist. If something is not beneficial now, I will tuck it away in my mind, like the NAE concept. Now, NAE is a helpful way of describing things. Sorry it took so long to get there.
My opinion of what the NAE is and how to form it.
The NAE is a superconductor. It can be formed in a number of ways. For example, a High DV/DT electrical spark can form the superconductor. Rydberg matter can form the superconductor. Cavitation also can form the superconductor. Lattice compression in platinum or diamond can from the superconductor.
Holmlid has used a potassium based catalyst to form a hydrogen superconductor call ultra dense hydrogen.
This superconductor serves as an special type of optical cavity in which a "Higgs polariton" metastable condensate forms. When enriched using a source of electrons and photons the EVO grows. But only when an Exotic Vacuum Object ends its life cycle in a Bosenova does it extract energy from the Vacuum.
Unlike nuclear energy, this source of vacuum energy (see the Sen conjecture) is why no gamma radiation, neutrons, or unstable isotopes are formed in the energy generating reaction.
-
-
A discussion would be much more useful when people actually read the literature and apply the knowledge that is well documented rather than using pure imagination.
The idea of the NAE does reveal the path to a commercial device. In fact, it has revealed a path to creating the effect on purpose. The proof will be published soon. Meanwhile, I suggest people consider what I have proposed rather than using their imaginations.
The NAE is not a superconductor and the energy does not come from the vacuum. The energy results from a typical fusion reaction but one that is caused by a novel mechanism. Radiation is emitted but not with an energy normally associated with conventional nuclear reactions. Some of the radiation and the nuclear products result from the associated transmutation reactions, wgic complicates the interpretation.
We have 32 years and thousands of papers showing a great deal about how LENR behaves. We have passed the time for speculation. We now need to do the hard work of making sense of what we know.
-
One of the unsolved issues in the design and construction of a commercial device using the NAE is the destruction of the structure of the device due to transmutation and the destruction of matter. This transmutation problem will force the design of a workable commercial device to be based on a plasma envelope.
Read Chukanov's patent on a commercial vacuum energy based device: Quantum Energy Methods and systems for generating high energy photons or quantum energy. There is no imagination involved here.
The active agent in this functioning commercial device Chukanov calls the “quantum macro object”.
This “quantum macro object” is what I call the EVO as per Ken Shoulder's theory and experimentation. This is the superconductor based NAE that I describe.
Here is a video of a prototype of Chukanov's reactor
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy. -
no gamma radiation, neutrons, or unstable isotopes are formed in the energy generating reaction.
on unstable isotopes.
there is evidence but no confirmation via gamma signature
.eg Biberian .. rather weak,, speculatiion for Pd107
ICCF-21 Tuesday June 5 Presentations – COLD FUSION NOW!
but since you were away Axil there is evidence for unstable isotope eg Sm151
and gamma radiation in the 20-300 Kev region
The NAE may well contain a mixture of magnetic isotopes...Pd105 Ag107Ag109 Ni61.....
with deuterium /protium
-
welcome back!
axil Thanks for adding an extra dimension to the ecumenical dialogue
-
Display More
One of the unsolved issues in the design and construction of a commercial device using the NAE is the destruction of the structure of the device due to transmutation and the destruction of matter. This transmutation problem will force the design of a workable commercial device to be based on a plasma envelope.
Read Chukanov's patent on a commercial vacuum energy based device: Quantum Energy Methods and systems for generating high energy photons or quantum energy. There is no imagination involved here.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US6936971B2/en
The active agent in this functioning commercial device Chukanov calls the “quantum macro object”.
This “quantum macro object” is what I call the EVO as per Ken Shoulder's theory and experimentation. This is the superconductor based NAE that I describe.
Here is a video of a prototype of Chukanov's reactor
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.Kirill Borisovich Chukanov where can I find him, if you know, please give me. I found a plasma and am engaged in ball lightning based on geology, help me with Chukanov.
