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

    Quote from Shane D.

    One of your objections about having only published 5 papers (4 in the Indian Science Journal), probably means little.


    The basis of science is confirmation via experiments and publications. To say that means little is to suggest that the scientific method is some passe phenomenon.

    How would you feel about that for pharamceuticals? Gates can invest it doesn't make it scientific.


    I assure you if they can make cold neutrons others can.


    If they are off-gasing hydrino gas and they say they are doing nuclear stuff...is it really safe tech if it isn't published science....would you want that in your home?

    Let's not knock BEC - they have been granted patents preceding/or concomitant with any hydrino or ultra dense hydrogen theorizing - based on radically simple cold fusion engineering principles - and therefore could well turn out to be the first group to successfully engineer cold fusion reactors.

    • Official Post


    I did not mean LENR/BEC are not doing good science (clearly they are), but that they should not be judged by how, or where they publish. By that measure, LENR will always be seen as a pariah science compared to others, because mainstream journals simply refuse to publish the fields work, much less peer review it. They knowingly block it, which they then conveniently use as an excuse to ignore it. Nice little Catch-22 trap. I do not see the purpose to then play into that game, by rating each other on how many papers are published, and where?


    Now granted, Mills should be commended for the quality, and amount of science (via experiments) he has done. He has probably outproduced others in that regard by a wide margin. Still though, for all his efforts few know of him, and almost no one takes his GUTCP seriously. That is not his fault IMO, but my point is that his path has gotten him less penetration with mainstream science, and the public consiousness than LENR.


    I have to agree with Dr. Richard that we should refrain from knocking BEC. Same goes for BLP also IMO. Both as far as I am concerned, are doing the best they can with the unlevel playing field they are forced to compete on. Both are legitimate, with honest intentions. Yes, who has the better approach, the better science, and experiments are all debatable..which we are here for.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    I am reluctant to criticise anybody actually putting their neck on the block by doing off-piste research.


    I am all for research. That is why I said they should publish. Criticism is around throwing theories on an envelope and then posting them on a website with no real effort to validate. I think anyone who would buy one of their products should agree - they should know how it works.


    Quote

    Mills can't patent hydrinos - they must be a natural phenomenon or they would not exist.


    You can patent a process. The nuances are tricky. But yes, a natural phenomenon. I'm not sure why this subject was brought up though since I didn't state anything about patentability.


    My absolute criticism, which is relevant and timely is that the LENR folks have not looked at the published research and theory - let's look in the mirror here - because of their own biases and preconceptions. How many teams have tried to confirm and do hydrino experimentation - not many. That bias is holding back the community and the world and wasting time.


    Simon Brink is a good example of someone who has looked carefully and obviously tried to reproduce.

    Quote from Navid

    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.”


    The Indian Journal of Current Science is definitely peer-reviewed. The peer-review is tough and thoroughgoing.


    I do not see why you put "Mango Fruit Borers" and "published" in quotes. The article was definitely published. Mango Fruit Borers (Citripestis eutraphera) are a serious problem in South Asia.

    Navid That bias is holding back the community and the world and wasting time.

    Then again - weren't Fleischmann & Pons, and every cold fusionist since doing some form or other of hydrino research (ie when one considers hydrino or ultra dense hydrogen formation is a necessary first step in LENR/cold fusion)? Don't common physical principles underly all of this work? Mills' hydrino theory does need extension to cover subsequent LENR once hydrinos have been formed.

    Quote from Navid

    JedRothwellYou've got to be kidding me.


    About what? About the peer-review in the Indian Journal of Current Science? I know it was rigorous because I helped write some of the papers, and I saw the reviewer's comments.


    You can look up Mango Fruit Borers (Citripestis eutraphera) yourself. Surely you realize that entomology is important science.

    Quote from Dr Richard

    Navid That bias is holding back the community and the world and wasting time.

    Then again - weren't Fleischmann & Pons, and every cold fusionist since doing some form or other of hydrino research (ie when one considers hydrino or ultra dense hydrogen formation is a necessary first step in LENR/cold fusion)?


    BIAS is what happens in peoples minds and egos.


    Most people spending their lives on a subject after being dipped in fire - would look for answers. Fleischmann did not. TEN YEARS AND NOT A LOOK. And then when you get notified "maybe there is something to do this." YOU DO NOTHING. What explains that --- BIAS--- nothing else. 493 Old Trenton Road, East Windsor, New Jersey. Drive down for an afternoon. I don't know, you spent your whole life on the subject? Why not spend --- I don't know --- a few weeks reading Mills work?


    Nothing. NOTHING!


    "It all seems quite crazy!"


    Famous last words.


    Miles-Fleischmann-Letter-Summary.jpg

    Quote from JedRothwell

    About what? About the peer-review in the Indian Journal of Current Science? I know it was rigorous because I helped write some of the papers, and I saw the reviewer's comments.


    You can look up Mango Fruit Borers (Citripestis eutraphera) yourself. Surely you realize that entomology is important science.


    Jed, there are the primary and secondary journals in every field. This journal is none of those. It is a place to put something that doesn't go anywhere else. What was the reason to put it this journal - and 4 articles in an issue? And then no more submissions...

    Another comment from Godes, the key point of which is that they seem to be allowing a thorough due diligence process.


    Thanks for mentioning us! You seem to be expressing concern over our lack of institutional investors to legitimize the technology as well as our lack of retail investors.

    When trying to answer a question I find it is useful to ask questions yourself. First, why might Brillouin Energy choose to only accept accredited investors? Although our company started with a dozen or so friends and family who are not accredited, federal law allows a maximum of 35 non-accredited investors. A brief google search will confirm this:

    How many non accredited investors can you have?https://www.sec.gov/oiea/investor-alerts-bulletins/ib_privateplacements.html

    Under Rule 505, issuers may offer and sell up to $5 million of their securities in any 12-month period. There are limits on the types of investors who may purchase the securities. The issuer may sell to an unlimited number of accredited investors, but to no more than 35 non-accredited investors.

    Of the accredited investors we have, several actually brought people with PhDs in a variety of disciplines to perform due diligence. The investors who brought PhDs working in industry always invest. In contrast, potential investors bringing PhDs from universities never invest. Why is that? It is not a ‘conspiracy’, as you say. That would imply a collaboration, I doubt any of the professors knew each other. However all the ‘institutional investors’ rely on people they deem to be ‘the smartest’ to advise them. Without fail, the institutional investors bring professors. One particular hot fusion investment group claimed a lack of ability to do due diligence on our technology. The investors bring PhDs from industry prove that it is not a lack of ability, so much as a lack of experience.

    You compare us to the “Scuderi Group”, a group fined by the SEC for misleading investors. Brillouin Energy is extremely open about the technology we are inventing and how investments are utilized. All successful developers of hardware who have visited our lab have been extremely impressed by our lab. Several of the PhDs and other founders who have come to our lab were amazed by what we have accomplished given the money we had raised.

    You are almost certainly correct in your belief that all the notable institutions who just invested $145 million for CFS and First Light Fusion were aware of your company. Unfortunately for them, they jumped out of an airplane wearing a backpack handed to them by one of the smartest people who did not recognize the difference between a backpack and a parachute.

    We had a PhD physicist who currently works at one of the mentioned hot fusion companies come and visit us. They stated that they wanted to come and work for us because we are in a great position. We looked at them quizzically. They said ‘we put in an enormous amount of energy and we can't figure out exactly where it all went. People are quibbling over exactly how much energy you are producing’. The physicist also stated how amazed they were at how skilled the founder of their company was at raising money for basic research. When we told them we doubted the founder was telling them that they were raising money for basic research, they looked at us and said ‘well, but that's what we're doing’. Backpack indeed.

    Quote
    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



    Actual truth may be well outside of both LENR, both hydrino theory. But this thread is about Brillouin Energy and their theory is about Electron Capture Reaction. Which is essentially classical physics process, I just don't know, how they got into this mechanism. Like Widom-Larsen theory, Godes proposes that neutrons are created as a first step, both via LENR proton + electron + 0.782MeV = neutron and via deuteron + electron + 3MeV = “di-neutron” . He says that a di-neutron is not bound, but it’s “very nearly” bound. Godes acknowledges that “This large energy barrier seems insurmountable” but then quotes Peter Hagelstein as having proven that “it is entirely possible to localize several MeV energy”. Despite dedicating a section to explaining what Brillouin zones are, Godes never uses or refers to this concept anywhere else in the paper. Godes is electrotechnical engineer by profession and he utilizes “Quantum compression pulses” (Q-pulses), which is fancy name for very short bursts of current through a thin palladium wire loaded with hydrogen, causing very high current density. The current density is further enhanced due to the skin effect, which is interesting experimental approach.

    Theoretically is it dangerous? Cause I wouldn't mind some release from any reactor if it isn't.

    A pulse of electricity to a metal hydride or to a chemical hydrate can condense photons at the energy of hydrogen ionization. But the reaction also occurs in gas and was proven with gas. Here is a proven reaction: proton + electron + an energy( E= n*n(13.6 eV)= energy that can transfer to the nucleus where n is a quantum number. That energy to the nuclei of target and projectile atoms causes a giant dipole resonance in each which causes shielding of the nuclear positives charges and therefore fusion below the predictions of the coulomb barrier to fusion. Neutrons are not usual formed even though 0.782 MeV is a quantum level match to the above equation. Rather, the neutrons which start the series of fusion reactions come from photodisintegration of deuterium. (See the exact chemical fusion sequences verified by mass balance and stoichiometry by examining the reference in my profile.)


    It may seem strange that photodisintegration which requires 2.26 MeV, occurs in preference to absorption of 0.78 MeV to form a neutron but the stoichiometry supports the production of protons from deuterium. Further, the uncertainty principle can reasonable be applied to link the endothermic photodisintegration reaction to the exothermic neutron absorption by oxygen.


    If the energy production was from hydrinos then why does the stoichiometry show de novo production of nitrogen? There seems to be no need for hydrinos to account for nuclear reaction. All of the reactant and products atoms are accounted, so where are the hydrinos? The energy production is nuclear; not chemical via hydrinos.


    Neutrons are not set free by this reaction but are indeed a first step. My personal guess is that reaction above which is proven by chemical measurements has simple variants that explain the observations of BLP, Brillouin Energy and host of others.


    By the way, due to lack of funding I will not be able to nationalize my pending PCT applications by the Nov. 2, 2019 deadline. So if you haven't bothered to consider my model for cold fusion due to patent concerns, I hope you will now feel free to get serious about helping us get this new energy source developed. Since, naturally occurring states have been disclosed and the means for making them is disclosed, you would only be limited by my disclosure in the US, if and when the US patent office finishes whatever it is doing and issues me a patent.

    I don't think BEC were using deuterium routinely, so how could the energy be coming from photo disintegration of deuterium? Unless this occurred subsequent to electron capture, cold neutron then secondary D formation - and the only photons involved would be low energy IR via heating from the Q-pulses (no lasers involved). The Widom-Larsen hypothesis is really just as good as any other as a working hypothesis until such a time that new physics (arising principally from Holmlid/Norront Fusion - muon-catalysed fusion theories) can think outside the SM box. Until this is fully understood all Robert Godes can do is do what he is doing - bravely try and increase the COP by trial and error (but clearly try out a few ideas like using UDH/hydrino catalysts like KFeO2, ZrO2 or hydrogenation catalysts like Ir or Rh).

    I don't understand why they'd bother with misdirection - and if there was a clear increase in COP with deuterium compared to hydrogen gas surely such a finding would have been reported in support of LENR? (It has been claimed in other systems but not in BEC's case, I think)

    Quote from Zephir_AWT

    Actual truth may be well outside of both LENR, both hydrino theory. But this thread is about Brillouin Energy and their theory is about Electron Capture Reaction. Which is essentially classical physics process, I just don't know, how they got into this mechanism. Like Widom-Larsen theory,Godes proposes that neutrons are created as a first step, bothvia LENR proton + electron + 0.782MeV = neutron and via deuteron +electron + 3MeV = “di-neutron” . He says that a di-neutron is not bound,but it’s “very nearly” bound.


    Widom Larson is not a theory: It is just a set of fringe claims (of two very business oriented untalented -I would say suspect physicists) as nobody ever has use neutrons in LENR.


    We know that the first step to LENR is H*/D* aka dense hydrogen. H*/D* can be promoted like a neutron. H*/D* can move behind the electron! coulomb barrier and attach/synchronize with the nuclear structure. But fusion dos not happen because a so called strong force does attract H*/D*. The orbits of a nucleus and H*/D* must match in energy to be able to do the first binding.


    Any believe that neutrons can be formed is way more fringe than ITER's claims once to be able to fuse Hydrogen. Neutrons are only stable inside a nucleus thus we can only say that a neutron equivalent structure can be formed inside a nucleus! But the neutron inside a nucleus is not the same particle as the free neutron because n = e+p and the combined structure engages in different substructures of any nucleus.


    Thus the classic picture of a nucleus being made of neutrons and protons only holds if you smash it into basic particles. A nucleus is a complex structure of proton/electrons - or more general charge.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.