Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC) updates.

  • Nobody will license a process that delivers only a COP between 1.5..2. Either they have something better or they have to refill their tank.


    Wyttenbach.


    That is the COP SRI saw in their independent replication...which they say is very conservative, but Godes claims they get 4 in their own lab. They do have some OEM's already. If you read this clip carefully though, it does not sound as if they are able to harness enough excess heat to start the commercialization process yet...which supports what you say:


    "Canada and South Korea are already leveraging this proprietary system by preparing the market for reliable low-cost thermal energy."

  • Quote

    SRI is one of the finest research facilities in the world, and they verified BEC's tech. Be honest, you are never going to be satisfied.

    Of course I would be satisfied if the correct methodology (complete envelope calorimetry either by heat flux or liquid cooling) would be used, not point temperature measurements. I would already feel better about it if it were SRI as a company making the announcements rather than BEC citing that a small subgroup of SRI, composed of "usual suspects" had done the work. And Sandia is a national lab and a much better source for testing of systems like this than SRI which, in my estimation, has slipped considerably since its peak.


    I'd be interested to know what kirkshanahan thinks of the paper I linked above and again here: http://brillouinenergy.com/wp-…/SRI_Technical_Report.pdf He'd be much better than me at spotting the rotten part of the apple but it's a long paper so he may choose not to review it.


    BTW, this sort of work is vastly different in every way from Rossi's. The equipment looks well designed and made and the paper contains a lot of appropriate construction information and performance data. Most unRossified. It also helps that Tanzella is the author. None of this makes it ironclad though. And Godes in particular, has been making overblown and unsupported projections about his alleged technology for more than five years since he first published a hilarious diagram (seems he couldn't spell "hydrogen" or "pulse") on Sterling Alan's moronic web site. So his claim of a COP of 4 should not be believed on his say so.


    Finally, it would be interesting to know who the large companies are which are allegedly funding this. I bet one is IH and we know their track record so far,;(. But because of the way this was done and looks and because Tenzella is the author of that report, it isn't an automatic writeoff.

  • I would already feel better about it if it were SRI as a company making the announcements rather than BEC citing that a small subgroup of SRI, composed of "usual suspects" had done the work. And Sandia is a national lab and a much better source for testing of systems like this than SRI which, in my estimation, has slipped considerably since its peak.


    You sure know how to dig that knife into the back, and twist! LOLs. Those "usual suspects" BTW, are world class electrochemists. Both could easily have worked for a national lab had they so decided.


    SRI was paid by the NRL/ARL (forget which one), to test other systems claiming LENR, so they obviously have a more favorable opinion of SRI's capabilities than you. And may I ask by what measure you judge that: "SRI, has slipped considerably since it's peak", and when that supposed peak was?

  • Shane D.


    SRI is a mixed bag. Some of their work is fine. But they slipped in my estimation way back when they took Targ and Puthoff under their wing and did little to prevent those two from being roundly and embarrassingly bamboozled by Uri Geller. Geller is a transparent liar who does fairly common magic tricks and foists them off as paranormal. T&P tested him and decided he really had powers. They published the experiments in Nature but the work was so bad, Nature required them to retract it. Blush. They also slipped when they approved work on remote viewing which, it can be easily shown, is total nonsense. The proof requires minimal effort and expense.


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parapsychology_research_at_SRI


    Shane, how do you explain that there is no mention of the work with Brillouin or with low energy nuclear reactions in general on the SRI web site? At least, there was none I could find. If it's there, it's not terribly obvious. Anyone find it?


    https://www.sri.com/


    Tell me this: if SRI was working with anyone who had LENR technology nearing deployment of any sort or even such technology that could prove that LENR "works," you don't think that this world-shaking fact would be prominently featured on their web site? Cue: excuses

  • Shane, how do you explain that there is no mention of the work with Brillouin or with low energy nuclear reactions in general on the SRI web site? At least, there was none I could find. If it's there, it's not terribly obvious.


    Because SRI is a commercial concern, and everything they do is confidential unless all parties decide otherwise.


  • SOT,


    If you dig hard enough, you can find something foolish every research scientist, in any of the "national labs" you hold as your "gold standard", has said, or believed in. For that matter, you can discredit every business, every organization, you me, and everyone here, if you so choose to cherry pick a few public comments here and there, and exploit it.


    Funny, in that you are notoriously too lazy to ever read up on the science of what they do, yet have spend countless hours in your current, and former Mary avatar, to find what controversial little things they say, or believed, and then use that to discredit them, and their institutions.


    And the examples you bring up are about being fooled by con artists, and have nothing to do with the current discussion. SRI could not have been fooled by a smooth talker, or slight of hand. They brought the reactors to their own facility, and with no help from BEC, replicated.

  • Wyttenbach.


    That is the COP SRI saw in their independent replication...which they say is very conservative, but Godes claims they get 4 in their own lab. They do have some OEM's already. If you read this clip carefully though, it does not sound as if they are able to harness enough excess heat to start the commercialization process yet...which supports what you say:


    "Canada and South Korea are already leveraging this proprietary system by preparing the market for reliable low-cost thermal energy."

    You can get a COP of 4-8 from a GSHP. No need for liquid silver or whatever they use...or is that BLP.

  • Wyttenbach.

    That is the COP SRI saw in their independent replication...which they say is very conservative, but Godes claims they get 4 in their own lab.


    Of course you never bring your best process into a lab! The Japanese do the same. They just publish the enough good ones...


    Swarz told a years ago that the best nanors are above COP 8. But that's usually true at the beginning. For selling a product it must hold for months.

  • Quote

    And the examples you bring up are about being fooled by con artists, and have nothing to do with the current discussion. SRI could not have been fooled by a smooth talker, or slight of hand. They brought the reactors to their own facility, and with no help from BEC, replicated.


    My point was that in the past the entire company endorsed stuff that could have been determined to be crap with one or two simple tests that nobody required or performed. Nowadays, I call this the IH Phenomenon. In Brillouin's instance, I think SRI (actually a very small part of SRI) may have been fooled by what I like to call mismeasurement. kirkshanahan has other names for important subtypes of the phenomenon. This may be accidental mismeasurement whereas what Rossi does is premeditated and precomputed and pretested mismeasurement.


    Hmmm... ok, so in your estimation, when should Brillouin bring out a demo or product whose ability to generate Pout>Pin is generally believed by a majority of scientists? 2 more years from now? 5? 10? 20?


    Alan Smith I can't prove you wrong that SRI is secretive about Brillouin for protection. But I think a much more likely explanation is that nobody outside Tanzella et al. 's area thinks much of Brillouin if they even know it's something SRI does. Here's the thing. If they are trying to hide the company and SRI's association with it, they are doing a terrible job, are they not?

  • In Brillouin's instance, I think SRI (actually a very small part of SRI) may have been fooled by what I like to call mismeasurement. kirkshanahanhas other names for important subtypes of the phenomenon. This may be accidental mismeasurement whereas what Rossi does is premeditated and precomputed and pretested mismeasurement.


    Hopefully Kirk comes back from vacation soon, and saves you from yourself.

  • tanzella of brillouin's theory involved the production of H(4)


    2018Tanzella_19-e1541784817190.jpg


    I wonder if by taking Leif Holmlid's new findings into account that the brillouin reaction is some sort of muon based catalyzed fusion reaction where muons play the critical role in energy production after the formation of hydrogen-4. If the brillouin reaction is based on the production of sub atomic particles via H(4), brillouin might increase their COP by confining the byproducts of their reaction so that the muons and other charged particles are not lost before the catalyzed reaction can take place and also increase subatomic particle output by applying a Holmlid based stimulus (laser, spark, XUV light) to the H(4).

  • Alan SmithI can't prove you wrong that SRI is secretive about Brillouin for protection. But I think a much more likely explanation is that nobody outside Tanzella et al. 's area thinks much of Brillouin if they even know it's something SRI does. Here's the thing. If they are trying to hide the company and SRI's association with it, they are doing a terrible job, are they not?


    Protection my fundament! An NDA is an NDA, no further explanation is required or meaningful. If SRI (or any of your favourite testers) test something that involves the disclosure of IP then an NDA will always be required by the investors who pay for the test and it works both ways or not at all, any information disclosed is by mutual agreement. And BTW, Fran Tanzella no longer works at SRI.

  • An apparently little-known fact is that technology companies find it much easier to raise money when they unambiguously demonstrate that their technology actually works. Many of these companies even have IP and are parties to NDAs! And they still can prove that their technology works. Who knew?

  • An apparently little-known fact is that technology companies find it much easier to raise money when they unambiguously demonstrate that their technology actually works. Many of these companies even have IP and are parties to NDAs! And they still can prove that their technology works. Who knew?


    Everybody in the game knows that. It's almost as fruitful as source of income as being a lawyer, except you are mostly obliged to take lawyers on trust as demos of actual working ones aren't often available.

  • Quote

    And besides that, SRI no longer does LENR research. They shut it down, along with some other smaller programs as part of a cost saving measure.


    Seriously? And you still think that SRI proved to their own satisfaction that Brillouin's claims or even a significant subset are true? That would require believing that they dropped a potentially trillion dollar business as part of a cost saving measure.

  • Seriously? And you still think that SRI proved to their own satisfaction that Brillouin's claims or even a significant subset are true? That would require believing that they dropped a potentially trillion dollar business as part of a cost saving measure.


    Yes, I have no doubt Tanzella and his team have satisfied themselves BEC's tech is "true". He showed that by recently becoming a member of their advisory board. You do not do that if you think the tech is worthless. Same goes for McKubre.


    By closing their LENR research department, SRI is not "potentially dropping a trillion dollar business". It is not their business to make money off of. They were under NDA, and contract with BEC. If anyone makes a trillion, it will be BEC.

  • I'm astonished at how many people on this forum have been picked up by companies and such to further the cause of LENR as a world saving technology.


    LENR and its underlying ,mechanisms will form the basis of how many of the most pressing scientific mysteries and issues will be solved. This new awakening will advance science by hundreds of years.