While this is great, the real question is, can you build more of them? How difficult is it to reproduce? Brillouin Energy has produced another catalyst rod that produces similar results and now have dozens of catalyst rods that produce clear evidence of 1.3 to 1.7. As we refine our manufacturing the technology we are developing moves steadily closer to production ready.
- from Berkeley, CA
- Member since Dec 4th 2014
- Last Activity:
I do not interpret it that way. If you keep reading, it is clear that GEC is paying NASA a nominal fee for the services/facilities they will provide, and that it is GEC doing most of the heavy lifting.
No argument but is seems like people thought GEC was being paid by NASA not the other way around.
Well there are a few coherent sentences in there, not a lot of them, but then you see things like
62−xN i + xn∗ →62 N i
What? You have 62Ni that you imagine is smaller by x neutrons that you add in an wind up back at 62Ni.
then we have this winner that seems to be fission of 2 neutrons out of Ni64. That is actually quite endothermic.
"The main sources of the bound nucleons are
64N i →62 N i + 2n∗ "
I honestly don't have time for this sort of nonsense.
Some one famous once said any publicity is good publicity as long as you spell my name right. We now have 15 people contracting with brillouin to move the engineering physics forward and that show brought several potential investors to our web site. Now we can get into the details with them so they can make a truly informed choice as to weather or not they wish to invest in the real technology that Brillouin Energy Corp. is developing.
You say aboveQuote
Now I am able to turn the excess heat on and off on will
I assume you mean "at will". You also sayQuote
that temperatures of the heater are very same in both cases.Power was also very same.
So how do you turn it on and off? Our understanding was that T < 1300 C there was no excess heat and T > 1300 C is when the system starts to produce excess heat.
- There are a number of inconsistencies in there nuclear equations.
- The input energy free neutron sources they are proposing are not rate controllable other than with shielding.
- I suspect there is no functional device of any use as the last thing they say is "We hope soon more researchers will furtherly develop the exposed ideas"
- I suspect this is a stab in the dark at the obtuse output from Rossi.
The article did not specify the units on the money raised. We received a response to the post from the author today with a slight update stating
The number is 69 mill NOK, which is around 9,2 million USD ( a little less in USD, but the conversion rate has changed since we talked, so it´s difficult to get an exact number), so this should be all right. There´s nothing in the article saying this number is in dollars - on the contrary it explicitly says that it is stated in Norwegian kroner.Unfortunately, it´s a massive undertaking to translate this entire piece to English and I can´t do that. But you may find most of what you´re wondering about through Google Translate, as you suggest. The article has´t reached our front page on the Internet yet, but it has been published here: http://www.aftenposten.no/fakt…i-et-helt-ar-8160528.html
Those new funds that have come in are already being used to build new evolution of cores and reactors.
The reason for 104KW thermal is expected losses between the reactor and the sterling engine. The sterling engine only needs ~85KW Thermal to produce 25KWe.
Anything to do with Kitco would be primarily the price of of precious metals. If you can make gold for less than the current price the price will drop below the current price to the price point where you can make it.
I'm not sure if i follow you.
" The AlwaysOn editorial team, along with partners at GSV Capital, KPMG, Bridge Bank, Draper Fisher Jurvetson, Samsung Ventures, Citi Ventures, Bessemer Venture Partners, Intel Capital, Accel Partners, Yodlee Interactive, Foundation Capital, New Enterprise Associates, Institutional Venture Partners, Lightspeed Venture Partners, Venrock, Zetta Ventures, a16z, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, Anthem Venture Partners, Mohr Davidow Ventures, Flybridge Capital Partners, Keiretsu Forum, Greylock Partners, Morgan Stanley, and industry experts across the globe, went to scour the entrepreneurial ecosystem to find the top Global 100 companies to Watch private companies that are at the forefront of new innovation in the world of technology. - See more at: http://aonetwork.com/blogs/Unv…atch#sthash.gOwnySks.dpuf"
I guess it musty be the blind mice.
It is just an example of what it could look like.
Is the photo in the first post a real working boiler, or just an example how it could look like?
It looks like a usual heating system every household has in it's basement.
Just exchange it with your old fossil fuel one, and save money.
I think Peter Hagelstein mathematically rigorous lossy spin boson model is a much better explanation for dealing with large quantity of energy than the [lexicon]Widom-Larsen theory[/lexicon].
The principles of operation on which you describe in your latest patent the system should work seem comparable to the [lexicon]Widom-Larsen theory[/lexicon]. Why didn'n you refer to that theory as well?
Do you believe that electron capture is the only principle that should be applied to LENR?
Without reference to older interviews or presentations what is the status of the reactors they are currently testing:
- reactor size in kW - current HHT systems are not likely to produce
more than 200W from 20cm^2 of active surface.
- internal temperature and temperature at heat exchanger - in the 500 to 700C range.
- COP - 4
- repeatability/consistency, operating hours - couple of weeks.
- startup/shutdown time - it is a boiler so even though the core temp may reach hundreds of degree quickly, there is significant thermal mass to the system.
- any external verifications - SRI and Tom Claytor has performed his own first principles test of the hypothesis12 times all positive. He has also tested multiple samples of water from our wet reactor. Runs designed to produce tritium did. Often at several sigma above background some as high as 5 + Sigma.
- initial target market and timeline to commercialization - behind the fence energy requirements of major corporations. We expect these development partners to begin building generation units 18 to 24 months after we close the first development deal.
Even a partial answer to these questions would be great to get everyone up to speed again as to where they are at now. It would be great to separate plans of where they'd like to be and what they're achieving in the lab right now.
- reactor size in kW - current HHT systems are not likely to produce
Currently those results are only being shared with qualified investors and major corporations we are working on a development deal with. The only information I have seen about SRI and Brillouin from ICC f 19 is this
I remember SRI International made a few Brillouin replications in their labs to test theory and performance, under NDA.
Are there plans to release reports of their work to the public?
Better avenues than sunrise are now available. We are now taking with multiple higher level companies that have huge internal energy needs.
Few years ago there was announce of two partnership.
One is a conditional funding by Sunrise Securities, toward revamping old coal power plants.
Another was unclear involving an undisclosed Korean company.
Is it still active, and can you say more ?
I have been grilled by many people with PhD's in many different fields including high energy physics, particle physics, nuclear physics, theoretical physics... The biggest issue people have is that I cross many domains of knowledge. I am curious Pathoskeptic, do you have any degrees?
You company has existed since 1992. As far as I know, you have not delivered anything functional. The "theories" represented on your pages are obvious gibberish to anyone who understands even very basic nuclear physics.
What are your plans for the future, and how are going to keep your fairytale alive?
It is always helpful, as here, when people write up ideas properly.
The calculations here (not original, but still worth doing) show that with high lattice energy (3keV or greater) tunnelling probability is greatly enhanced, as you'd expect.
The paper then suggests that lattice energy of individual deuterons can be enhanced by resonance above the typical value of 0.1ev at 1000K. That is also true.
The paper provides no estimate of what is the possible strength of that effect, and here the hole in this work becomes obvious to any physicist. At high energies solid state lattices behave nonlinearly - as you would expect, and the simple equation for resonance does not work. At energies of 100eV or so, some 30X lower than needed for this mechanism to work, the deuteron energy is larger than its lattice binding energy and therefore no resonance is possible - instead the deuteron escapes the lattice. (100eV is an upper approximation, the actual energy needed on any real lattice is a good deal lower than this).
For this class of mechanisms to work you need some way of binding deuterons electrostatically at an energy on the order of 3keV. Unfortunately QM prohibits that by quantising deuteron and electron wave functions as is well known.
I'd hope the LENR community is sufficiently clued up to point out such an obvious hole as this. In fact I'm sure parts of it are.
Well, the holes in understanding of reality are what the LENR community relies on.
I do like his handle, it's a great summary of his position. We do appreciate the comic relief you provide.
It is summed up quite nicely in this quote from the paper. "We first suggest and show a sort of possible mechanism to create a new type of nuclear fusion,"