Video spotted by Greg Goble. Robert Godes talks Brillouin with 'The Women of BSV'.
Maybe the :'electron capture ' was too deep to explain to the women of Bitcoin Satoshi
but BSV + LENR could be a thing..
"London 2023 BLOCKCHAIN CONFERENCE Join us at the Queen Elizabeth II Centre, 31st May - 2nd June 2023 to learn how we can bring the world of enterprise and blockchain together. - GET YOUR TICKET TODAY!
Just before ICCF25!
3:52
we we build that up to helium one neutron at a time using this technology
and that releases nuclear energy but without the radiation
7:29
the catalyst is nickel nickel
is used as a catalyst so a catalyst is something that lowers the energy barrier for a reaction
but in this case we're using it as
nuclear catalyst and so are you are you pulling
protons out of the hydrogen and making neutrons how is this how is this going so
once it's in the nickel lattice i can go really deep into but i won't for this audience
8:42
we use a shock sort of like a hammer um
to convert the proton it takes energy to turn a proton into a neutron it's very endothermic and absorbs energy to make that transition because it's endothermic that's converting that energy into mass
the neutron that forms is really really cold i mean like even colder than the bose einstein
condensate if anybody has heard of that,but those are really cold
and so when you have a really cold neutron it has a really high cross section which
means it's more than happy to bind with anything that's that comes
within the nuclear binding distance and it's that binding energy that gets released as heat
heat as phonons is that the technical term of how the energy comes out
9:39
so we had we've had catalyst rods run for
nearly two years uh that the the one that we had running for you know 18 months more or less
continuously uh got broken and then broke the end off of it when we pulled it out it was
pristine it looked way better than when we put it in because it's operating in a pure
hydrogen environment so it strips all the oxides that gives nickel kind of a dullish..
8:42
we use a shock sort of like a hammer um
it sounds like what said Focardi in the past ?
it sounds like what said Focardi in the past ?
As does the reference to a Nickel Rod - as used by Focardi in many experiments.
And confirmed by these guys at CERN while they are simultaneously in denial.
I am quite amazed that a discussion about a promising press release has turned into video analysis. I am not saying it has no relevance but it does look like missing the forest for the trees.
That one video is the only thing we have to go on. If there were a better video or a demonstration, we would be talking about that instead. There is nothing else to discuss, except their papers. Which we have discussed.
What is promising about the press release? It just says they have consultants working on commercialization. That has nothing to do with the science. There are no technical details in the press release.
As far as I know, Brillouin has never demonstrated they have anything. They have published papers about their claims, and so did SRI, so they have a measure of credibility. We should take them seriously. But they have not been independently replicated. They have not demonstrated the effect. People may have visited them, but we have not heard from anyone who said: "I think it is real because I saw it do thus and such." In short, we do not know if their claims are true. We don't know they are false, either. Until they are independently replicated, the people at Brillouin will not know either.
If their claims are true, they could demonstrate the effect. It is large enough and stable enough to demonstrate. A demo would not be 100% convincing, but it would be better than nothing. They could have done that with the video, and at ICCF24. Frankly, when people make extravagant claims for many years without proof, I get suspicious. If they do not want people to believe them, or they do not want to go to the trouble to do a proper demonstration, they should not make any claims. Just keep everything under wraps.
As far as I know, Brillouin has never demonstrated they have anything. They have published papers about their claims, and so did SRI, so they have a measure of credibility. We should take them seriously. But they have not been independently replicated
Fran Tanzella is still working inhis own private lab as independent tester and advisor. SRI is no more insofar as LENR is concerned.
While remaining strictly factual, this report stipulates they have observed heat but which aren' tlinked with absorption or adsorption common behaior, which has been the dominant doxa since 1989.
Also, the author goes astray in trying to explain this heat by the fact that hydrogen "loading" a metal modifies its thermal behavior. To summarize, when the observation goes beyond established knowledge, we quickly fall into esoteric explanations.
Display MoreAs does the reference to a Nickel Rod - as used by Focardi in many experiments.
And confirmed by these guys at CERN while they are simultaneously in denial.
Fran Tanzella is still working inhis own private lab as independent tester and advisor. SRI is no more insofar as LENR is concerned.
The Brillouin work was done when Fran was still at SRI. For that matter, anything Fran says has credibility, even if he is working in his garage.
I am not, for one minute, dismissing these claims. I am saying we cannot judge them yet. I am also saying Brillouin might be making a mistake. They will not know for sure until they are independently replicated. Anyone can make a mistake.
The Brillouin work was done when Fran was still at SRI. For that matter, anything Fran says has credibility, even if he is working in his garage.
I have been to Fran's new lab. Not huge but very well equipped. Up against the tracks and in the motor trade area but very proper. And he is still on the case with Brilluoin.
I wasn't suggesting he was actually working in a garage! Not that I have anything anything against garages. Hey, if a garage is good enough for Woz, Dave and Bill . . .
Bad for calorimetry though. Mizuno's lab resembles a garage, with uncontrolled temperatures.
It's probably time we interview Robert Godes, I'll ask him. I would like to remind JedRothwell that Brilluoin organized a live demonstration of their device at ICCF-24, although it was a far from perfect demo, as they had not tested the device beforehand for some reason. Carl Page has been close to this project since before ICCF-19, it's surprising that such a well-connected guy hasn't found them a commercial partner so far.
I don't think this description is accurate. Their device has certainly been tested, quite extensively. Brillouin runs their reactors over very long duration tests with continuous data collection, and this isn't secret, Robert has shown their control panel in his videos. I spoke to Robert at the conference and it was explained to me that they were having new troubles with arcing. My recollection is that they encountered troubles after transporting their gear to the conference and reassembling the system.
JedRothwell, just like in the story of the Wright brothers, who were concerned about their competitors seeing how their machines worked, BEC is concerned that any particular information they release might be useful to their competitors. This is not limited to scientific understanding, it also extends to business strategy. There's lots of potential commercialization strategies in the world of energy, and sometimes your competitive advantage is simply your idea about where to enter the market and how to capitalize. This is true across all industries. I think it's prudent that we not bash groups who are going about their work in this way. Even academics engage in some amount of secret keeping because of the competitive aspects of the research world. Lets be inclusive and supportive, the BEC team is all good honest people who want to see CF / LENR / CMNS enter the mainstream just like all the rest of us.
Their device has certainly been tested, quite extensively.
So they say. I expect it is true. But until they describe these tests in detail and publish independent replications, we cannot draw any conclusions. The tests might be flawed. If they want to convince the public, they need to reveal much more. If they don't care whether the public believes them -- the public including us -- they should not talk about the tests.
JedRothwell, just like in the story of the Wright brothers, who were concerned about their competitors seeing how their machines worked, BEC is concerned that any particular information they release might be useful to their competitors.
The Wright brothers were geniuses and good at many things, but they were lousy businessmen. Their concerns about competition nearly destroyed them. BEC being concerned about information used by their competition is nuts. Their competition will be every industrial company on earth. Every single detail about their machine will be known to the whole world the moment they convince the public it is real. It will be impossible to hide anything, and pointless to try. It would be like trying to hide the details of the DOS operating system in 1984. (Any programmer could see every detail with a reverse compiler. Programs were simple back then.)
There's lots of potential commercialization strategies in the world of energy, and sometimes your competitive advantage is simply your idea about where to enter the market and how to capitalize.
That is preposterous. The market for this technology is hundreds of trillions of dollars a year. It will be incorporated in just about every machine. Where to enter the market? The market is everywhere. There is no way BEC could cover more than a tiny fraction of one percent of the market. They can hope to license the technology to a broad range of industrial corporations and make billions of dollars, but they can no more control the market, take a significant share of it, or even anticipate the opportunities than they can stop the Mississippi River from flowing.
I think it's prudent that we not bash groups who are going about their work in this way. Even academics engage in some amount of secret keeping because of the competitive aspects of the research world.
BEC and many others want to have it both ways. They want to keep things secret yet they also want investors and the public to acknowledge they have something important. They want to be believed. It cannot work that way. The claims are unbelievable. They appear to violate basic physics. Until they convince the public and scientists worldwide that the claims are true, they will not be believed, and they will have no credibility. The only way to convince scientists is to conduct demonstrations and facilitate independent replications. If they will not take these steps, they might as well keep the whole thing under wraps. It is a de facto secret, since no one believes it. No one should believe it. You should not believe a claim that has not been independently replicated, with the replications published in detail. Those are the rules. BEC does not get a free pass.
JedRothwell you don't understand humans.
Their competition will be every industrial company on earth. Every single detail about their machine will be known to the whole world the moment they convince the public it is real. It will be impossible to hide anything, and pointless to try. It would be like trying to hide the details of the DOS operating system in 1984. (Any programmer could see every detail with a reverse compiler. Programs were simple back then.)
This is absolutely bang on. Moreover, the wall of money for R&D would mean such a rapid pace of technological improvement that vast swathes of the current state of the art would be obsolete inside 3-5 years.
The winners will ultimately be the big industrial concerns, imo.
The winners will ultimately be the big industrial concerns, imo.
That is true. The losers will also be big industrial concerns that fail to meet the challenge and go out of business, the way railroads were bankrupted by airlines, and minicomputers by personal computers.
The thing is, big industrial concerns spring out of nowhere is a surprisingly short time, and they seldom live longer than people. 80 to 100 years is about the limit. The biggest corporations of 1920 are nearly all extinct. AT&T and GM both went bankrupt years ago. Only the names survive. The Pennsylvania Railroad was the mightiest corporation, with the most influence, but it is long gone. GE is in a death spiral. It is no longer part of the DOW. Only Ford, the Union Pacific and a few others survive. It is likely that in response to cold fusion, new corporations will spring up as quickly as Microsoft, Google or Amazon did, and they will destroy some of the older industrial corporations. Amazon may not look like an industrial corporation, but it is, with warehouses, robots and delivery trucks.
Machines using cold fusion will be very different from today's machines with internal combustion engines or plug-in or battery electricity. I predict that many will be smaller. A company that is used to making things on today's large scale may not be able to adapt quickly enough, and it may be driven out of business. See:
https://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJhowtofixgl.pdf
I also predict that energy-intensive applications such as small VTOL aircraft will become widespread, and this will reduce the need for highways, long-haul trucks and railroads. I do not think all automobiles will be replaced by flying cars. They would be too disruptive in urban and suburban neighborhoods. Automated VTOL delivery from factories to distribution warehouses and places like Lowe's might become common. Things like that may put trucking companies and truck manufacturers out of business.
Electric car manufacturers should be able to adapt to cold fusion quickly, but if one fails to do that, it will be gone in ten years, as quickly as DEC and Data General disappeared. DEC was the second largest computer company in the world in 1980. It was on life support by 1990, and gone by 1998.
Electric power companies will not survive cold fusion. Wind and solar power will quickly go extinct. Oil and natural gas companies such as ExxonMobil will go bankrupt in 10 or 20 years. They have no future. They should be liquidated in an orderly fashion to reduce the economic impact of their demise. They will have no role to play, and no relevant expertise to contribute to cold fusion technology. A toymaker is better positioned to make money with cold fusion than ExxonMobil is. ExxonMobil likes to say they are "in the energy business." That's not true. They are in the business of digging wells and shipping gigantic quantities of liquids and gas. Those skills are not applicable to cold fusion.
Not sure it is relayed here, but Greg Goble report me this talk on Bitcoin mining by Robert Godes
Oh no, please no cryptocurrency scams and promo in one sentence with LENR...
Oh no, please no cryptocurrency scams and promo in one sentence with LENR...
Assuming all crypto projects are scams is no different from assuming all cold fusion projects are pseudoscience / scams.
Assuming all crypto projects are scams is no different from assuming all cold fusion projects are pseudoscience / scams.
I'm not assuming that all cryptocurrency projects are scams! But at least 99% of them are scams. And people lost large amounts of hard earned money in false promises.
This is also often reported in big media.
Thus cryptocurrency has a bad image, which shouldn't be coupled to a topic which also has a hard time to gain credibility.
