Posts by BEC

I think the ARPA-E money is strictly for academic work to come up with a scientific description of the phenomenon. In reality, there are several different types of LENReactions. Brillouin Energy is following the one that I can see a clear path to commercialization. Furthermore, I think they are all quite multidisciplined in nature, So I hope the teams working on it are multidisciplined as well. I expect to file new IP this week, allowing me to work with one of the teams. If I can develop a strong working relationship, it is possible to design an experiment(s) that can reliably produce nuclear effects.

I will not be responding to any additional posts as we have actual work that moves our technology forward and responding to this type of questioning does not move the needle. I hope to see you all at ICCF24.

1. Please don't waste our time with never seen or suspected reactions. Also, ⁵⁸Co, if made using neutron spallation, decays to 58Ni.
2. You clearly don't understand thermodynamics, nuclear physics or quantum mechanics. Based on your logic the W boson force carier could not exist.
3. Same as 2. Also, Rogue waves can and do occur in nature. The LENR heat reaction has been seen in industrial processes since the invention of hydrogenation.

Quote from RobertBryant

The amount of power his method can produce will continue to be limited until he is able to effectively control the creation of the active sites, i.e. the NAE

Robert Godes may need to compare deuterium versus protium...?

As one may conclude by working form the the Quantum Fusion Hypothesis, adding some D2 does increase the the COP. Adding more the COP starts to go down. The QP is imparting enough energy to cause EC on protons (782KeV) but are less likely to localize enough to cause EC on Deuterons that require 3MeV. These are actual observations borne out in the lab.

Quote from Storms

I have been following the claims being made by Godes for years with dismay. I agree, he has made excess energy that results from a nuclear process. He has also caused transmutation. BUT, many people have made excess energy and transmutation without applying the current pulses Robert claims are required. So, why are such pulses needed in his case and are not required to cause LENR during the hundreds of other successful efforts? How is it possible for a current pulse to supply the energy and neutrinos required to form a neutron? Why are the neutrons not detected in great numbers as a result of the process? His theory also ignores all other observed behaviors reported by other people.

Nevertheless, he is claiming to have a method that can have economic importance. Personally, I would not invest in a claim unless these questions can be answered. We went down a similar path with Rossi that did not end well. Why would anyone expect this approach would end any better?

On the other hand, I believe the nuclear process requires the formation of a special condition in a material where hydrogen atoms and extra electrons can accumulate in order to create an entirely new kind of nuclear structure. The applied currents would help the required electrons to accumulate. However, these electrons are not making neutrons. Instead, they make what everyone else has detected, i.e. 4He. The transmutation product results when this unusual structure interacts with the surrounding atoms before the final nuclear product is formed. In other words, Godes has identified only part of the answer. The amount of power his method can produce will continue to be limited until he is able to effectively control the creation of the active sites, i.e. the NAE. I hope he would explore this idea before committing to a larger program.

Ed, in response to

1. So, why are such pulses needed in his case and are not required to cause LENR during the hundreds of other successful efforts?

• No other group in the field has been able to take a catalyst from their lab to another lab and get identical results. Brillouin did that with multiple catalyst rods when we were working with SRI International. The Q-Pulse, along with many other aspects of engineering design, allows this capability.
  
  
• I agree with Dr. Storms's NAE concept, but that alone does not teach anyone how to form the NAE or build a commercially valuable device. I am an engineer, not a scientist. If something is not beneficial now, I will tuck it away in my mind, like the NAE concept. Now, NAE is a helpful way of describing things. Sorry it took so long to get there.

1. How is it possible for a current pulse to supply the energy and neutrinos required to form a neutron?

• LENR is a multi-body effect as accepted by many researchers in the field. You must consider the Hamiltonian for the entire NAE involved in the reaction.
  
  
• Phonons are bosons (they can be in the same place at the same time). They also have lifetimes that allow them to accumulate. This is observed in the filament of an incandescent bulb that heats up as the phonon content builds when first turned on until it reaches a steady-state operation. Phonon lifetime also explains how things cool down as the phonons decay/die in the system, even in a vacuum.
  
  
• The energy required to effect Electron Capture (EC) is 782KeV. You can say that is not possible, as Rick Whitman of PNNL did when starting our TAP. The problem is, it worked. He simulated confining a proton and electrons in a box on PNNL computers. It results in ultra-cold neutrons, potentially even below 10^-50eV. At these extremely low energies, they have incredibly high crosssections. I also worked with Charles Martin to produce a more extensive paper on the subject. See Confinement-Induced-Electron-Capture.pdf
  
• If phonons represent all energy in the system and each phonon is 5meV, it would require ~1.6E8 phonons constructively interacting to provide 782KeV. This helps to explain why certain sizes and morphology nanoparticles are more likely to have LENR occur. i.e. they form a NAE. If they are too small, there are not enough lattice elements to accumulate the required energy. Other nonlinear effects also arise from things like the Lennard-Jones potential.
  
  
• If the average energy in a system is 35meV (0C), then every element has seven phonons associated with it. If the NAE where the reaction is taking place has 2E7 atoms related to it, then that particle can already have enough energy to run the reaction if they align just right. That is enough energy at 0ºC. As things warm up the number of phonons increases, raising the probability of EC by a proton.
  
  
• The neutrino's mass is so tiny that the system will pull the neutrino out of the vacuum.
  
  

1. he is claiming to have a method that can have economic importance.
   1. Yes, we are in the final stages of developing a commercially viable catalyst technology. The technology is in a form factor that easily integrates into OEM products.
   2. Subject to funding, we will get this technology market-ready in < 24 months.

1. Personally, I would not invest in a claim unless these questions can be answered. We went down a similar path with Rossi that did not end well. Why would anyone expect this approach would end any better?
   1. The questions are answered in this response. Any potential investor that signs an NDA is welcome to bring whoever they like to talk to and work with us in our lab in Berkeley if they feel the questions are not answered.
   2. Brillouin Energy is a highly open and above-board operation. I genuinely enjoy hosting smart people that ask difficult questions.
   3. Ed, I look forward to discussing this in person at ICCF24 and invite you to see our lab in Berkeley.

Quote from JedRothwell

What we are seeing here does not prove a damn thing about anything. Okay, maybe there is more information in a longer video presentation, or a paper, but this alone tells us nothing.

You could make a brief demo more convincing than this. In this video, there is no way to know whether the input power to the Brillouin gadget produces enough resistance heating to drive the Stirling engine. The gadget could be acting as nothing more than a complicated electric heater. To demonstrate that is not the case, at very least, you would have show the Stirling engine not moving (or barely moving) on top of a resistance heater, and then show it moving with the same input power going into the gadget. That would not be very convincing. There are ways it could be a mistake. But it would be a start.

I do not understand why people do unconvincing demonstrations. It is worse than no demonstration. Arata did something similar to this, with a small thermoelectric gadget driving a small motor. It proved nothing, for the same reason this proves nothing.

I guess you did listen beyond 46 seconds into the video. The important concept of the video is the HHT^TM is designed for scalability and easy integration into OEM products. The other part you seem to be missing is that this is not a brief flash in the pan type of reaction or product. It can be turned on up down and off on command.

Quote from Nar

Who did the test and wrote the report? Somebody seems to have redacted that information for some reason.

It was performed under NDA. If you are a qualified investor and willing to sign an NDA we will disclose the unredacted report.

Quote from WJMFC

If the ⁶⁵Ni could be measured by mass spectroscopy then the gamma radiation expected would be very easily measured and identified using a gamma spectrometer. This could be done without disturbing an experiment. You wouldn't need to go to any external lab.

It's all very well claiming that ⁶⁵Ni was only "discovered" later, but if you suspected neutron capture you should have have made a list of all possible reactions in advance of any experiment. And given that these neutrons are conjectured to come from energetic electrons, as in the Widom Larsen theory, you would need to consider these electrons too.

So for example an energetic electron could be captured by ⁵⁸Ni (the most abundant isotope of nickel) to produce ⁵⁸Co decaying by gamma and positron emission.

⁵⁸Ni+ e- --> ⁵⁸Co -0.382 MeV

Although this electron capture reaction is endothermic, the required energy is less than that required to make neutrons. And if you had made neutrons, the stainless steel would have been activated. It seems that neither energetic electrons nor neutrons fit your observations.

BTW, do you agree that ⁶³Ni will not produce any gammas?

Display More

1. I am unsure what you are referring to in the statement "⁶⁵Ni was only "discovered" later".
2. Cerium can not provide any information on radioactive isotopes.
3. As the binding / nucleon in Ni is > 8MeV the Q-Pulse is unlikely to generate EC in Nickel.
4. The neutrons formed are EXTREMLY cold. On the order < E-20eV and will not leave the Nickle lattice. They will only interact with the catalyst lattice if the catalyst has been deprived of Hydrogen. Neutrons, when they form are well away from the lattice elements. This is why most researchers agree that you must have hydrogen moving through the lattice, although most don't recognize why that is necessary.
5. On "⁶³Ni will not produce any gammas?". Never really looked at it as it is not of interest to me but sounds reasonable. I'm an engineer not a scientist. I only study what is necessary to solve problems in designing a product.

Quote from Storms

The evidence shows that the mass change produced by the heat-producing reaction matches the amount of energy produced. Therefore, most of the energy generated by the process ends up as heat within the calorimeter. The process also produces radiation, but not the kind that hot fusion emits. Although, both the required nuclear products and radiation are different than expected, they are clearly present. We also know that the energy-producing process only needs special sites in the material and increased temperature to function.

The nuclear process can be initiated with reliability without having to know anything about how the nuclear process actually works. Nevertheless, commercial use will not be permitted until the nuclear process can be proven to be safe. In order to study the nuclear process, the material must be caused to produce heat because heat is the signature of the LENR reaction. So, we're forced to study heat production as the best path to the eventual understanding of the nuclear process.

Now that I can cause the heat effect without fail, I intend to first find out how to increase the amount of power and then discover how the nuclear process actually works. I have some ideas worth exploring, which will guide my efforts. Hopefully, I will be granted a few more years to find the secret and a few more dollars to keep the lights on.

You say "Now that I can cause the heat effect without fail, ". Have you taken this to ARPAE? This is exactly what they are looking for Ed. I will reply to your first response next week.

Quote from Shane D.

Does anyone know if BEC will be presenting at ICCF24? I heard that they were, but do not see them listed as a speaker. They are just across the bay, so it seems business savvy to be there.

We will have a unit operating continuously 24hr/ day through the conference. We will transport it down on the Friday before and get it running before the start of the conference. It should be running at the start on Monday and remain running until we remove the unit to take it back to our lab in Berkeley. Brillouin staff will be on hand for most if not all of the show.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

I have trouble believing this boast. Have you demonstrated this to qualified independent verifiers, or are we supposed to take your word on this? If you could do this on demand, it seems like you would be on the path to a Nobel Prize, like Rossi.

That is what Brillouin 3rd Party Test Results and Analysis is all about. ? Did you miss that?

Quote from WJMFC

I quote from the document entitled "Why would one see more energy out when you replace

Hydrogen with Helium in a Brillouin reactor?" which reads:-

"At large scale we may see some ⁶³Ni decays. You get a gama out of the decay of ⁶³Ni to ⁶³Cu because ⁶³Ni is a spin 1/2 and ⁶³Cu is a spin 3/2. This transition provides the spin 1 change necessary for gamma emission."

I believe ⁶³Ni beta decays without any gamma emission at all. And in fact Brillouin apparently did not detect any gammas. Brillouin predict them, as explained above, based on the need to conserve spin. But this is taken care of by the emission of the 2 fermions, the beta particle and the neutrino. The energy of this decay is only 67 keV which doesn't leave much scope for creating an excited state of ⁶³Cu. See https://ehs.stanford.edu/refer…3-radionuclide-fact-sheet

In contrast ⁶⁵Ni decays much more energetically than ⁶³Ni with a half life of just 2.5 hours. It can and often does populate an excited states of ⁶⁵Cu which emit copious gammas of over 1 MeV. The question is, what evidence is there for these isotopes?

Sadly Cerium Laboratories does not have the ability to look at more than one element at a time and can only provide information on the naturally occurring isotopes. If someone knows of a lab that can provide information on all AMU between 56 and 70 it might be worth running the experiment again on another catalyst rod. The national labs, that I suspect have this ability refuse to work with us.

"The CRADA has been put on a hold for now by the lab. Because the research your company is conducting is controversial and has, as far as we can discern, not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, the lab is apprehensive about us entering into a contract with your company."

This experiment takes up 2 to 3 months of reactor time which is a precious commodity even if you have several of them running.

Display More

At Decay radiation information on 65Ni from www.nndc.bnl.gov < 40% of the 65Ni produces gamma > 1MeV. Even under conditions way outside the allowed operating conditions (Those of this test) the amount of 65Ni produced is small and inside a stainless steal reactor. The event occurred several hours before we discovered it had happened and there was no evidence of reradiation left at that time.

Gamma and X-ray radiation:

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.

Quote from Shane D.

BEC,

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.

They are actually paying NASA to build something based on NASA's patent. This is still great news for LENR but Oy I wish them luck.

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 above

Quote

Now I am able to turn the excess heat on and off on will

I assume you mean "at will". You also say

Quote

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
Regards,
Per Kristian
"
Those new funds that have come in are already being used to build new evolution of cores and reactors.