Warren Walborn, former head of the American Electric Power corporate venture fund, on Brillouin Energy. Sept 2019.

Interesting.

So obviously this is about funding\investment and this is explicit in the article.

But taking at face value; several months perhaps for next round of funding to enable commercialization in 24 months. So early 2022.

This is the first time I have read the word "commercialization" linked to any LENR project in such a concrete manner (including a timeline).

Other parties continue to hand wave or work in secrecy.

Is this what a starting pistol sounds(reads) like in the world of LENR?

Boilers, obviously [applicant for 1990-2000 Francesco Piantelli's patents is an Italian boilers installer, too].

https://outdoorboiler.com/prod…boiler-system-residential

Good old Brillouin Energy optimistic as ever - good luck to them in obtaining $ millions in investment!

Hi All,

Rossi will beat the projected timelines ("But taking at face value; several months perhaps for next round of funding to enable commercialization in 24 months. So early 2022.").

Moreover, Il Dottore is also ahead in his hairpiece decision making. Warren Walborn should learn from the Italian maestro. Also in this area.

Cheers,

JB

Is this comment saying that they are now above COP 2.3? On their page they have the development of the COP over many months. Extrapolating this data does not give a COP of 10 in 24 months. Does anybody know if they have new results that justify these projections?

No new data - maybe BEC need to consider adding -muon generating systems/ultra dense hydrogen catalysis to generate higher COP'S? They already use Al2O3 but maybe KFeO2 (by mixing KCO3 and Fe2O3 and heating) would be more effective. Theoretically, without the first step of UDH formation fusion reactions cannot occur so strategies to increase this should improve energy out in this non-evacuated hot tube system which also suffers from the presence of other atmospheric gases eg nitrogen known to block muon-catalysed fusion. Electron capture is only part of what is possible.

Quote

Now the company is raising a $15 million round for the final 18-24 months of development to get them to commercialization, and we are evaluating investor candidates to lead and follow in this round.

Of course, this is what all the news releases are about. And to me, that claim sounds as hollow as the ones Darden used to issue about Rossi. One would have to be pretty dumb to invest in Brillouin on the say-so of SAI and Tanzella alone. Obviously, prospective investors should get completely independent and entirely reliable confirmation of the excess heat claims. I bet that if there are sufficiently gullible investors, they won't.

"18 to 24 months?" Yah shoore. Here we were five years ago:

https://coldfusionnow.org/pesn…ael-mckubre-on-brillouin/

Most PES links have disappeared or return errors.

BTW, my pet theory is that the so-called "Q-pulse technology" is introducing measurement errors into the calorimetry and deluding the experimenters into thinking they have excess power. It's just mental masturbation at this point. I admit I have no proof. But the way Brillouin has made past claims, starting with collaboration with the now imprisoned Sterling Allan and his idiotic web site, and the way the company has developed is, to me, very suspicious that there is nothing there. I guess in 18-24 months, we'll see.

SoT calling people dumb and gullible again...

Here are the latest news I got from Firshein in September.

They are building/have built two new calorimetry set-ups, a "mass-flow" one (for see-it-across-the-room purposes) and an SID one (on the basis of the methodology put forward by Team Google). This has taken precedence over raising the COP and will be/is being used for demonstrations to potential investors.

I'll probably get an update from BEC at the beginning of December and let you know if there is anything new.

Quote

SoT calling people dumb and gullible again...

Yup. The previous time was Rossi and Darden. Before that, Steorn. Before that, Carl Tilley. Before that, Dennis Lee. Remember how those turned out? If not, just Google them.

Anyway, I wasn't calling anyone anything. I just said investors should get independent proof. You do know what "indipendent" (the Rossi version) means, right?

BTW, which is it, about the new calorimeters? Is it building or have built? They are a bit different.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

BTW, which is it, about the new calorimeters? Is it building or have built? They are a bit different.

I know the mass-flow one was being finalized in September. The SID one is more complex and I believe Tanzella was still working on it at this stage.

In general terms, what is an "SID" calorimeter? What is the operating principle? Thanks.

PS: Googling SiD returns a bewildering array of stuff. One of the items is "Silicon Detector" as applied to calorimetry in a "Hadron Calorimeter." That was in relationship to SLAC, the National Accelerator Center. https://www6.slac.stanford.edu/

What this is or what it has to do with fairly gross measurement of substantial excess heat in a tabletop device wasn't clear to me. A link would be helpful. Not everyone has the time to "follow things as closely as much of us do," "us" presumably being the "usual suspects?"

Quote from Dr Richard

No new data - maybe BEC need to consider adding -muon generating systems/ultra dense hydrogen catalysis to generate higher COP'S? They already use Al2O3 but maybe KFeO2 (by mixing KCO3 and Fe2O3 and heating) would be more effective. Theoretically, without the first step of UDH formation fusion reactions cannot occur so strategies to increase this should improve energy out in this non-evacuated hot tube system which also suffers from the presence of other atmospheric gases eg nitrogen known to block muon-catalysed fusion. Electron capture is only part of what is possible.

Sure they want minimum ionizing radiation, muon catylized fusion will not be as mobile and versatile. Though it will be more understandable to many mainstream professionals.

Curbina

The first link doesn't work right- when I scroll it, it returns an error message and a blank page. The second is a brief abstract that tells me nothing.

One does not need exotic or elaborate schemes to measure excess heat in a table top sized system. All such systems have sufficient thermal inertia and can be isolated adequately so all that is necessary is mass flow calorimetry, done properly, with instruments proven not to respond to electrical noise in the lab environment. That's best done by calibration under conditions identical to the real experiment except for an inert reactor load. For example, in the Brillouin case, calibration would be done with a calorimeter using the identical pulse source routed into the identical load as the real thing. The only variation for the "blank" run should be the absence and/or substitution of a critical reagent needed for the reaction. The substitute needs to have similar thermal properties to the active ingredient. While accurate execution requires care, the principle is very simple. It is exactly what Rossi always refused to do and what Lewan never insisted on.

Quote from seven_of_twenty

The first link doesn't work right- when I scroll it, it returns an error message and a blank page. The second is a brief abstract that tells me nothing.

Although, based on various reoccurring histories of yours, I highly doubt that the full articles would lead to even a smidgin of comprehension.

Quote from Mr Patronising

That's best done by calibration under conditions identical to the real experiment except for an inert reactor load. For example, in the Brillouin case, calibration would be done with a calorimeter using the identical pulse source routed into the identical load as the real thing

I see you are still teaching scientists to suck eggs, Doc.

Perhaps one day i'll explain to you some mundane, everyday medical stuff. How to check someones tonsils. Or how to perform a digital-rectal exam... If you promise not to get too excited.

Edited by Shane. That is a little too personal!

WARNING: THIS COMPANY MAY BE MISLEADING

1. Anyone making LENR devices is playing around with hydrogen and metals, exactly what you need for hydrino creation.
2. Any company claiming to make heat from LENR will be off-gassing hydrino H2[1/4] gas

How sure are you that they aren't making hydrino's. If you are an investor in this space, we are happy to consult. Here is a quick summary.

They use regular hydrogen and nickel.

-->This is again, the typical setup for Mills 1990’s cells.

They have no published papers in physics journals.

MAJOR RED FLAG. 4/5 of their “publications” justifying their science come from one issue of a single journal. They claim they are “peer-reviewed.” The published 4 articles at once in a “special issue” of the Indian Journal of Current Science, which publishes articles on “Quality of Ph.D. Holders in India” to “Mango Fruit Borers.” Here is the issue where Brillouin “published.”

-->Hydrino energy has 100+ published papers

They claim a net 2x in/out but claim a 100x theoretical expectation

Are they basically generating hydrinos at a very poor rate, that was done in 1990 with similar cells? A claim of potential 100COP appears fabricated for marketing as they have no scientific literature behind them. How do you get to 100COP if you don't know have a theoretical basis?

They claim to make neutrons that are harmless and cold.

--> Publish that result

They are generating 2x input to output energy.

-->That is typical of mixing beakers and test tube of hydrino catalysis.

But it gets worse, they claim to make a new neutron:

LENR does not create high-energy neutrons. The low energy neutrons created in LENR remain localized within the core of the reactor.

--> Why don't you publish a paper about this and publish.

A theoretical fiction is not far from outright fraud. Even if they believe this, not writing a single article on this mechanism indicates they probably don’t believe it either:

Mass is created and a proton is converted to a neutron, causing a tremendous loss of energy in the system. 1H (protium) is converted to 2H (deuterium), 2H (deuterium) is converted to 3H (tritium) and 3H (tritium) is converted to 4H (quatrium). This results in net energy out as the 4H (quatrium) rapidly beta decays to a release of (largely) heat, plus a tiny amount of 4He (helium) into the system.
--> Why don't you publish a paper about this and publish

Warning. We aren't against innovation but it has to be done on solid ground.