BEC Brillouin Energy
  • Male
  • from Berkeley, CA
  • Member since Dec 4th 2014
  • Last Activity:

Posts by BEC

    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.

    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.

    Who"
    " 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"
    from http://aonetwork.com/blogs/Unv…lobal-100-Companies-Watch

    By whom?


    I guess it musty be the blind mice.

    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?
    (http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.html&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PG01&S1=20150187444.PGNR.&OS=dn/20150187444&RS=DN/20150187444)
    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.

    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


    http://coldfusionnow.org/sri-r…different-types-of-cells/


    I remember SRI International made a few Brillouin replications in their labs to test theory and performance, under NDA.
    http://pesn.com/2014/01/16/960…ly_and_SRI-International/


    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?