subject:"\[Vo\]\:Brilloun Energy Interview"

*One key point that any successful LENR theory must address is the ways and
means involved with the concentration of power. There must be a mechanism
in nature that gathers weak levels of power from the ambient environment
and concentrates that power to a high enough level to affect the nucleus of
the atom.*

* *

*Even if a candidate mechanism can happen consistent with the laws of
physics, that mechanism must occur trillions of times in a second to
produce the energy levels that are useful in energy applications.*

* *

* *

*LENR theorists pick a likely energy concentration mechanism and project a
technology around that mechanism.*

* *

*In the case of Brillouin, they have selected the Widom and Larson
ultra-low energy neutron formation theory. This reverse beta decay happens
when a proton transforms into a neutron. This process is known to occur on
rare occasions. But the LENR theorist must account for how this  primary
LENR mechanism can support trillions of reactions a second. The LENR  theorist
must also describe how his reaction can support a positive feedback
mechanism that can produce a supercritical meltdown of the supporting metal
lattice, were the heat produced by the primary reaction can build on itself
to account for the meltdown of the supporting metal lattice into a liquid
state as seen in various LENR systems.*

* *

* *

*Most LENR theorists completely ignore this condition because it is very
difficult to explain. How can a lattice based reaction function when the
lattice has disappeared?*

* *

* *

*Be comforted and assured  in the face of these seemingly impossible and
conflicting dilemmas. The Nanoplasmonic theory of LENR covers all these
confounding gate keeper conditions consistent with the many other miracles
that surround LENR.*

* *

.

* *

* *

* *

* *


On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 7:54 AM, Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.comwrote:

 Godes focus on theory make me feel cautious.
 anyway COP of 2 have been tested by SRI, that is the only serious claim I
 am aware of...

 I' afraid that like for BLP, the focus on theory may just slow down
 progress.

 Anyway in the past some technology get working despite bad theory... But
 recently it seems theory is too much respected and slow technology
 progress, and facts awareness. Like LENR denial is an example.

 Theory is a tool, a powerful tool, but it should not be the boss.
 Experiments rules.


 2013/9/13 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

 Does anyone else see that the explanation given by Godes is pure word
 salad having no relationship to reality. The description is in direct and
 basic conflict with what is known and accepted in science.


 I do not know enough about theory to judge that. Here is what I do know
 though. I had a long pizza dinner with these people and several other
 others. During this meal, I tried repeatedly to pin them down to some
 specifics about the calorimetry and the nature of the equipment. I did not
 want to know trade secrets. I wanted to know how big, how hot, how many
 watts in, how many out, how long has it run, how did they measure it. I got
 nothing. Nuuu-thing but blah blah blah about theory and about their earlier
 unrelated technical triumphs. That gave me a bad feeling.

 Maybe there are specifics in this video. I have not watched the whole
 thing. I can't abide any more blather. I heard hours of that already.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Brilloun Energy Interview

2013-09-16 Thread mixent

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Mon, 16 Sep 2013 14:34:52 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
*One key point that any successful LENR theory must address is the ways and
means involved with the concentration of power. There must be a mechanism
in nature that gathers weak levels of power from the ambient environment
and concentrates that power to a high enough level to affect the nucleus of
the atom.*

Hydrinos do not need energy concentration. On the contrary, they actually
release energy while entering the necessary state.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Brilloun Energy Interview

*Hydrinos result from an experimental misinterpretation of the
Nanoplasmonic conversion of infrared radiation converted into the blue
light frequency range released to the far field by the whispering gallery
wave effect ater that infrared EMF is transformed by Fano resonance.*

* *

*If you think this is “word salid” I will be happy to explain the concept
in simple details at your convenience.*

* *

*To start, I describe whispering gallery waves here*
**
*
http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10t=3200start=6000#p102568
*
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:55 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Mon, 16 Sep 2013 14:34:52 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 *One key point that any successful LENR theory must address is the ways
 and
 means involved with the concentration of power. There must be a mechanism
 in nature that gathers weak levels of power from the ambient environment
 and concentrates that power to a high enough level to affect the nucleus
 of
 the atom.*

 Hydrinos do not need energy concentration. On the contrary, they actually
 release energy while entering the necessary state.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Brilloun Energy Interview

2013-09-16 Thread ChemE Stewart

It sounded very soothing


On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 *Hydrinos result from an experimental misinterpretation of the
 Nanoplasmonic conversion of infrared radiation converted into the blue
 light frequency range released to the far field by the whispering gallery
 wave effect ater that infrared EMF is transformed by Fano resonance.*

 * *

 *If you think this is “word salid” I will be happy to explain the concept
 in simple details at your convenience.*

 * *

 *To start, I describe whispering gallery waves here*
 **
 *
 http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/viewtopic.php?f=10t=3200start=6000#p102568
 *
 On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 5:55 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Mon, 16 Sep 2013 14:34:52 -0400:
 Hi,
 [snip]
 *One key point that any successful LENR theory must address is the ways
 and
 means involved with the concentration of power. There must be a mechanism
 in nature that gathers weak levels of power from the ambient environment
 and concentrates that power to a high enough level to affect the nucleus
 of
 the atom.*

 Hydrinos do not need energy concentration. On the contrary, they actually
 release energy while entering the necessary state.

 Regards,

 Robin van Spaandonk

 http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Brilloun Energy Interview

2013-09-16 Thread mixent

In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:47:22 -0400:
Hi Axil,
*Hydrinos result from an experimental misinterpretation of the
Nanoplasmonic conversion of infrared radiation converted into the blue
light frequency range released to the far field by the whispering gallery
wave effect ater that infrared EMF is transformed by Fano resonance.*

* *

*If you think this is word salid I will be happy to explain the concept
in simple details at your convenience.*
[snip]
I don't think it's word salad, but I am also not convinced that it explains away
Hydrinos. 
The evidence for Hydrinos is much stronger than just the result of a single
experiment, and takes multiple forms, i.e. is not susceptible to being explained
by a single misinterpretation.
(See Mills' web site for the many different experiments performed.)

Besides, I only mentioned Hydrinos, because they were the obvious exception to
your statement. However Horace's theory is also an exception, as in fact is also
the explanation involving Rydberg Hydrogen preferred by Defkalion.
(Although in the latter case one may argue that some energy is required to boost
the Hydrogen atom into the Rydberg state, this is trivial in comparison to the
amount of energy normally required to initiate fusion reactions - of the hot
variety).

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Brilloun Energy Interview

Fractional charge carriers discovered

Oct 24, 1997

Last month, two groups of physicists revealed the first direct evidence
that an electric current can be carried by quasiparticles with fractional
charge.

Electric charge normally comes in an indivisible unit: the charge of an
electron. Indeed, quarks were thought to be the only particles with
fractional charge - and today they only exist in particles that have a
integer charge. But last month, two groups of physicists revealed the first
direct evidence that an electric current can be carried by quasiparticles
with fractional charge.All the interacting electrons are there but they
behave as if they are non-interacting quasiparticles with charges of
one-third,  says Moty Heiblum of the Weizmann Institute of
Sciencehttp://www.weizmann.ac.il/~physics/cndnsd.htmlin Rehovot,
Israel, who heads one of the groups.

The Israeli group, published its results in Nature http://www.nature.com/,
while a French group based at the
CEAhttp://paprika.saclay.cea.fr/uk/index.htmllaboratory near Paris,
published its results in Physical
Review Letters http://ojps.aip.org/journals/doc/PRLTAO-home/index.html.

Both groups measured a small electrical current in a two-dimensional
electron gas sandwiched between two semiconductor layers. Fluctuations in
the current - shot noise - were used to measure the electrical charge of
the carrier particles. The sample was chilled to less than 1 K and a strong
magnetic field applied at right angles to the layers. By analysing the shot
noise in this regime, both groups reported evidence that the electric
current is carried by quanta with charge one-third that of the electron.
Up until now, there was no evidence that current could be carried by a
fractionally charged quasiparticle,  says Christian Glattli, who heads the
French group.

The results agree with a theory which was formulated by Robert Laughlin in
1982 to explain the fractional quantum Hall effect. According to Laughlin,
electrons in strong magnetic fields form an exotic new collective state,
similar to the way in which collective states form in superfluid helium. A
quantum of magnetic flux and an electron exist as a quasiparticle that
carries the electric current.

So why did the researchers observe quasiparticles with charges of a third,
rather than any other fraction? In Laughlin's theory, the denominator is
always odd, so *quasiparticles can carry one-third, one-fifth, one-seventh
- or indeed, two-thirds, two-fifths or three-fifths - of the charge on an
electron. *It is very difficult to explain intuitively - it is just how
nature works,  says Heiblum.

It is a beautiful result,  says Mark Fromhold of Nottingham University.
It is remarkable that electrical signals from individual quasi-particles
can be detected and used directly to measure their fractional charge.





As has been produced in the DGT reactor, intense anapole magnetic fields
produced by nanoplasmonic solitons  can effect electron charge in the
vicinity of the soliton as these electrons follow a spiral orbit away
from the soliton constrained on the surface of a Poincaré cone whose origin
is the soliton.







see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect
The *fractional quantum Hall effect* (FQHE)

The* *fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) is a physical phenomenon in
which the Hall conductance of 2D electrons shows precisely quantized
plateaus at fractional values of [image: e^2/h]. It is a property of a
collective state in which electrons bind magnetic flux lines to make new
quasiparticles, and excitations have a
fractionalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractionalization elementary
charge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_charge and possibly also
fractional statistics

Note that a strong magnetic field must be present to form the *
quasiparticles.*

**


On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:02 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:47:22 -0400:
 Hi Axil,
 *Hydrinos result from an experimental misinterpretation of the
 Nanoplasmonic conversion of infrared radiation converted into the blue
 light frequency range released to the far field by the whispering gallery
 wave effect ater that infrared EMF is transformed by Fano resonance.*
 
 * *
 
 *If you think this is “word salid” I will be happy to explain the concept
 in simple details at your convenience.*
 [snip]
 I don't think it's word salad, but I am also not convinced that it
 explains away
 Hydrinos.
 The evidence for Hydrinos is much stronger than just the result of a single
 experiment, and takes multiple forms, i.e. is not susceptible to being
 explained
 by a single misinterpretation.
 (See Mills' web site for the many different experiments performed.)

 Besides, I only mentioned Hydrinos, because they were the obvious
 exception to
 your statement. However Horace's theory is also an exception, as in fact
 is also
 the explanation involving Rydberg Hydrogen preferred by Defkalion.
 (Although

Re: [Vo]:Brilloun Energy Interview

Also see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laughlin_wavefunction

the *Laughlin 
wavefunction*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laughlin_wavefunction#cite_note-1


On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 Fractional charge carriers discovered

 Oct 24, 1997

 Last month, two groups of physicists revealed the first direct evidence
 that an electric current can be carried by quasiparticles with fractional
 charge.

 Electric charge normally comes in an indivisible unit: the charge of an
 electron. Indeed, quarks were thought to be the only particles with
 fractional charge - and today they only exist in particles that have a
 integer charge. But last month, two groups of physicists revealed the first
 direct evidence that an electric current can be carried by quasiparticles
 with fractional charge.All the interacting electrons are there but they
 behave as if they are non-interacting quasiparticles with charges of
 one-third,  says Moty Heiblum of the Weizmann Institute of 
 Sciencehttp://www.weizmann.ac.il/~physics/cndnsd.htmlin Rehovot, Israel, 
 who heads one of the groups.

 The Israeli group, published its results in Naturehttp://www.nature.com/,
 while a French group based at the 
 CEAhttp://paprika.saclay.cea.fr/uk/index.htmllaboratory near Paris, 
 published its results in Physical
 Review Letters http://ojps.aip.org/journals/doc/PRLTAO-home/index.html.

 Both groups measured a small electrical current in a two-dimensional
 electron gas sandwiched between two semiconductor layers. Fluctuations in
 the current - shot noise - were used to measure the electrical charge of
 the carrier particles. The sample was chilled to less than 1 K and a strong
 magnetic field applied at right angles to the layers. By analysing the shot
 noise in this regime, both groups reported evidence that the electric
 current is carried by quanta with charge one-third that of the electron.
 Up until now, there was no evidence that current could be carried by a
 fractionally charged quasiparticle,  says Christian Glattli, who heads the
 French group.

 The results agree with a theory which was formulated by Robert Laughlin in
 1982 to explain the fractional quantum Hall effect. According to Laughlin,
 electrons in strong magnetic fields form an exotic new collective state,
 similar to the way in which collective states form in superfluid helium. A
 quantum of magnetic flux and an electron exist as a quasiparticle that
 carries the electric current.

 So why did the researchers observe quasiparticles with charges of a third,
 rather than any other fraction? In Laughlin's theory, the denominator is
 always odd, so *quasiparticles can carry one-third, one-fifth,
 one-seventh - or indeed, two-thirds, two-fifths or three-fifths - of the
 charge on an electron. *It is very difficult to explain intuitively - it
 is just how nature works,  says Heiblum.

 It is a beautiful result,  says Mark Fromhold of Nottingham University.
 It is remarkable that electrical signals from individual quasi-particles
 can be detected and used directly to measure their fractional charge.





 As has been produced in the DGT reactor, intense anapole magnetic fields
 produced by nanoplasmonic solitons  can effect electron charge in the
 vicinity of the soliton as these electrons follow a spiral orbit away
 from the soliton constrained on the surface of a Poincaré cone whose origin
 is the soliton.







 see

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_quantum_Hall_effect

 The *fractional quantum Hall effect* (FQHE)

 The* *fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE) is a physical phenomenon in
 which the Hall conductance of 2D electrons shows precisely quantized
 plateaus at fractional values of [image: e^2/h]. It is a property of a
 collective state in which electrons bind magnetic flux lines to make new
 quasiparticles, and excitations have a 
 fractionalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractionalization elementary
 charge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_charge and possibly also
 fractional statistics

 Note that a strong magnetic field must be present to form the *
 quasiparticles.*

 **


 On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:02 PM, mix...@bigpond.com wrote:

 In reply to  Axil Axil's message of Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:47:22 -0400:
 Hi Axil,
 *Hydrinos result from an experimental misinterpretation of the
 Nanoplasmonic conversion of infrared radiation converted into the blue
 light frequency range released to the far field by the whispering gallery
 wave effect ater that infrared EMF is transformed by Fano resonance.*
 
 * *
 
 *If you think this is “word salid” I will be happy to explain the concept
 in simple details at your convenience.*
 [snip]
 I don't think it's word salad, but I am also not convinced that it
 explains away
 Hydrinos.
 The evidence for Hydrinos is much stronger than just the result of a
 single
 experiment, and takes multiple forms, i.e. is not susceptible to being
 explained
 by a single misinterpretation.
 (See Mills' web

Re: [Vo]:Brilloun Energy Interview

2013-09-14 Thread pagnucco

Eric,

Perhaps the following recent posting, and its comments is of interest -

Whats the Google-Brillouin Connection?
http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/09/whats-the-google-brillouin-connection/


Eric Walker wrote:
 On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 11:46 AM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

 I'm perplexed that Google wouldn't provide funding after observing some
 of the experiments.


 I didn't hear anything about Google's decision after the neutron
 measurements -- perhaps they did go ahead with funding after all?  I think
 it's pretty cool that Google were even involved.  That means they're
 keeping tabs on this stuff.  I assume the group leading the testing would
 have been their skunkworks, Google X.  I heard a talk by the main guy
 directing Google X, and he said that they go for the big stuff -- projects
 that would not just be incremental improvements, but instead would be game
 changers if they can be realized.  But he also explained that they had to
 make a risk assessment in each case so as to limit their involvement to
 projects that they believed to have a significant chance of succeeding.
  LENR for most people will be perceived to be a threshold phenomenon, so
 apparatuses like Brillouin's 2.0 COP reactors are not a clear shoe-in for
 funding, I suppose, since there is a lot of room for doubt about the
 meaning of the results.

 In light of the claim that they have looked at Brillouin's work, I would
 not be surprised if they have also taken a look at Rossi's or Defkalion's
 reactors.  Also, bear in mind that the projects at SRI International are
 typically funded by outside organizations (e.g., EPRI).  So it is within
 the realm of possibility that Google have funded the SRI examination of
 Brillouin's 100 COP reactor.  This is pure speculation, but interesting
 speculation nonetheless.

 Eric

Re: [Vo]:Brilloun Energy Interview

2013-09-14 Thread Alain Sepeda

Godes focus on theory make me feel cautious.
anyway COP of 2 have been tested by SRI, that is the only serious claim I
am aware of...

I' afraid that like for BLP, the focus on theory may just slow down
progress.

Anyway in the past some technology get working despite bad theory... But
recently it seems theory is too much respected and slow technology
progress, and facts awareness. Like LENR denial is an example.

Theory is a tool, a powerful tool, but it should not be the boss.
Experiments rules.


2013/9/13 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com

 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

 Does anyone else see that the explanation given by Godes is pure word
 salad having no relationship to reality. The description is in direct and
 basic conflict with what is known and accepted in science.


 I do not know enough about theory to judge that. Here is what I do know
 though. I had a long pizza dinner with these people and several other
 others. During this meal, I tried repeatedly to pin them down to some
 specifics about the calorimetry and the nature of the equipment. I did not
 want to know trade secrets. I wanted to know how big, how hot, how many
 watts in, how many out, how long has it run, how did they measure it. I got
 nothing. Nuuu-thing but blah blah blah about theory and about their earlier
 unrelated technical triumphs. That gave me a bad feeling.

 Maybe there are specifics in this video. I have not watched the whole
 thing. I can't abide any more blather. I heard hours of that already.

 - Jed

[Vo]:Brilloun Energy Interview

For those who missed it, yesterday's video interview of Brillouin founders
is at:

Brillouin Energy Interview on Smart Scarecrow Show

http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/09/brillioun-interview-on-smart-scarecrow-show-tonight-live-thread/

Re: [Vo]:Brilloun Energy Interview

The reason for this interview is that Brillouin needs some money for
development of their gas phase reactor.

Brillouin is proposing that their reaction is a variant of the Widom-Larsen
theory, where a fast electron combines with a proton to become a neutron
(reverse beta decay). The Brillion gas phase reaction uses nickel and
hydrogen. Tritium is produced in the claimed reaction cycle but only for
nanoseconds so tritium production cannot be detected. This non detection of
reaction components is convenient to support the Brillouin reaction
narrative: no neutrons of gamma radiation have been detected.

The Brillouin system is a wet system (using electrolysis to release
hydrogen from water).

Brillouin is developing a gas based system using a 600C fluid bed suspended
nickel powder/hydrogen.

High energy electric nano-pulses drive the reaction. Brillouin does not
mention transmutation products; this is a bad sign for progress.

They are expecting high performance (high Q). This implies to me that they
have not yet measured that performance yet.

Their pulse current design has no advantage over a spark from a spark plug
in a gas phase powder based reactor design.

They are using a catalyst in their wet design but Brillouin is not yet
using a secret sauce catalyst in the gas phase reactor design. Their
reaction theory does not support the need for a catalyst. This is an
instance of how theory limits experiment.

IMHO. Brillouin does not understand the details of the Ni/H reaction and
will not succeed in their gas phase reactor design. Brillouin is running a
poor third in the Ni/H reactor race behind Rossi and DGT.

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 12:37 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

For those who missed it, yesterday's video interview of Brillouin founders
is at:

Brillouin Energy Interview on Smart Scarecrow Show

http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/09/brillioun-interview-on-smart-scarecrow-show-tonight-live-thread/

Re: [Vo]:Brilloun Energy Interview

2013-09-13 Thread Brad Lowe

The interview is by Gary with Robert Godes (inventor) and Bob George
(business).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXAg_424_2o

I'd recommend watching from 0:30 to 0:45... then 1:02- 1:08

Highlights:

Brillioun calls their LENR CECR, for Controlled Electron Capture Reaction

The theory is described (0:35-0:42) as electron capture, where a proton
absorbs an electron and becomes a neutron.. with different isotopes of
hydrogen being produced, from 1H to 4H (protium, deuterium, tritium, to
quadium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_hydrogen ) Then beta
decay from quadium to He4 nucleus releasing 20.6Mev. (40:50)

Godes mentions the Brillouin Zone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brillouin_zone that has to do with shared
electron orbitals in a metal matrix...

Godes does a little name dropping by saying Google and Naval Research Lab
has examined their demos looking for radiation... Says radiation is not
present.

They have 3 reactors planned or in development:

1. Wet reactor, 105C at 2.1 COP (graph shown later in video)
2. Wet reactor, 105 (to 120C) at 3.x COP (progress not known)
3. Hydrogen Hot Tube Reactor 600C at 100COP (being built at SRI, no
indication it is running.)

They currently have raised 3 million and employ 13 staff. They are
currently looking for stage two funding. The interview could mainly be for
generating interest in funding.

At 1:02 talks about safety, low-risk of melt-down, versus DGT and Rossi.

1:06 only consumable is hydrogen, and not a lot of it. Says the Nickel is
just a catalyst.

1:07 talks about COP: Expecting to be able to pull 30kw thermal, expecting
it to be no more than 300 watts.

This is for their Hydrogen Hot Tube
http://coldfusionnow.org/brillouin-energy-patent-granted-in-china/

Brillioun Zone: Shared electron orbitals in a matrix
Hamiltonian Dynamic

45: Robert has had scientists out from engineers from the Naval Research
Lab and from Google. They’ve had their gamma detectors there, we’ve checked
for all types of radiation.

35: Energy level of system containing H Brillioun Zone shared electron
orbitals
35-42 best part

For the business end, they want to attract investors... and license the
technology to retrofit coal burning plants as well to sell to HVAC
companies. Bob George has experience taking a company public.

As these guys are in my back yard... I'm pretty excited that they are
making claims of progress.

- Brad

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

The reason for this interview is that Brillouin needs some money for
development of their gas phase reactor.

Brillouin is proposing that their reaction is a variant of the
Widom-Larsen theory, where a fast electron combines with a proton to become
a neutron (reverse beta decay). The Brillion gas phase reaction uses nickel
and hydrogen. Tritium is produced in the claimed reaction cycle but only
for nanoseconds so tritium production cannot be detected. This non
detection of reaction components is convenient to support the Brillouin
reaction narrative: no neutrons of gamma radiation have been detected.

The Brillouin system is a wet system (using electrolysis to release
hydrogen from water).

Brillouin is developing a gas based system using a 600C fluid bed
suspended nickel powder/hydrogen.

High energy electric nano-pulses drive the reaction. Brillouin does not
mention transmutation products; this is a bad sign for progress.

They are expecting high performance (high Q). This implies to me that they
have not yet measured that performance yet.

Their pulse current design has no advantage over a spark from a spark plug
in a gas phase powder based reactor design.

On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 12:37 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

For those who missed it, yesterday's video interview of Brillouin founders
is at:

Brillouin Energy Interview on Smart Scarecrow Show

http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/09/brillioun-interview-on-smart-scarecrow-show-tonight-live-thread/

Re: [Vo]:Brilloun Energy Interview

I'm perplexed that Google wouldn't provide funding after observing some
of the experiments.

Were they either (a) unconvinced, (b) already allied with others,
(c) directed not to engage with Brillouin, (d) reluctant for other reason?

If I recall correctly, Godes claims the absence of tritium is due to its
conversion to the very short-lived H-4, which quickly converts to He.

My interpretation of one of Godes' brief comments is that he attributes 
lack of energetic decay products to the slow compressive nature of the
collisions - instead of usual crashing, bare particle collider collisions.
I think a couple of other people have speculated this could be the case
- possibly due to slow resonant tunneling.

Just my quick take on this.

-- Lou Pagnucco

Axil^2 wrote:
 The reason for this interview is that Brillouin needs some money for
 development of their gas phase reactor.

 Brillouin is proposing that their reaction is a variant of the
 Widom-Larsen
 theory, where a fast electron combines with a proton to become a neutron
 (reverse beta decay). The Brillion gas phase reaction uses nickel and
 hydrogen. Tritium is produced in the claimed reaction cycle but only for
 nanoseconds so tritium production cannot be detected. This non detection
 of
 reaction components is convenient to support the Brillouin reaction
 narrative: no neutrons of gamma radiation have been detected.

 [...]

Re: [Vo]:Brilloun Energy Interview

Keep an open mind, but a closed wallet.



Their gas phase system has the potential to conform to Nanoplasmonic
principles. However, I do not yet detect a good chance for plasma
condensation of the catalyst to nanoparticles. But at least they say that
they use a catalyst.



The reactor architecture is very promising as a large scale megawatt level
LENR system. This type of large reactor is ideal for product placement as
an unmet upcoming LENR energy marketplace need.



In a large scale LENR reactor, fluid bed particle suspension is a very good
idea to maximize particle surface exposure and contact points with other
particles. They should also think about removing heat from the system by
running the hydrogen flow through a heat exchanger (hydrogen to lithium)





I like lithium coolant for this type of system.



* *

* *

* *

* *

* *

* *


On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote:

 Does anyone else see that the explanation given by Godes is pure word
 salad having no relationship to reality. The description is in direct and
 basic conflict with what is known and accepted in science. I'm
 flabbergasted that money is being spent and discussion is taking place
 based on such total absence of basic understanding. THe LENR process
 deserves better.

 Ed

 On Sep 13, 2013, at 12:46 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

  I'm perplexed that Google wouldn't provide funding after observing some
 of the experiments.

 Were they either (a) unconvinced, (b) already allied with others,
 (c) directed not to engage with Brillouin, (d) reluctant for other reason?

 If I recall correctly, Godes claims the absence of tritium is due to its
 conversion to the very short-lived H-4, which quickly converts to He.

 My interpretation of one of Godes' brief comments is that he attributes
 lack of energetic decay products to the slow compressive nature of the
 collisions - instead of usual crashing, bare particle collider collisions.
 I think a couple of other people have speculated this could be the case
 - possibly due to slow resonant tunneling.

 Just my quick take on this.

 -- Lou Pagnucco

 Axil^2 wrote:

 The reason for this interview is that Brillouin needs some money for
 development of their gas phase reactor.

 Brillouin is proposing that their reaction is a variant of the
 Widom-Larsen
 theory, where a fast electron combines with a proton to become a neutron
 (reverse beta decay). The Brillion gas phase reaction uses nickel and
 hydrogen. Tritium is produced in the claimed reaction cycle but only for
 nanoseconds so tritium production cannot be detected. This non detection
 of
 reaction components is convenient to support the Brillouin reaction
 narrative: no neutrons of gamma radiation have been detected.

 [...]

Re: [Vo]:Brilloun Energy Interview

2013-09-13 Thread Edmund Storms

Does anyone else see that the explanation given by Godes is pure word  
salad having no relationship to reality. The description is in direct  
and basic conflict with what is known and accepted in science. I'm  
flabbergasted that money is being spent and discussion is taking place  
based on such total absence of basic understanding. THe LENR process  
deserves better.


Ed
On Sep 13, 2013, at 12:46 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

I'm perplexed that Google wouldn't provide funding after observing  
some

of the experiments.

Were they either (a) unconvinced, (b) already allied with others,
(c) directed not to engage with Brillouin, (d) reluctant for other  
reason?


If I recall correctly, Godes claims the absence of tritium is due to  
its

conversion to the very short-lived H-4, which quickly converts to He.

My interpretation of one of Godes' brief comments is that he  
attributes

lack of energetic decay products to the slow compressive nature of the
collisions - instead of usual crashing, bare particle collider  
collisions.
I think a couple of other people have speculated this could be the  
case

- possibly due to slow resonant tunneling.

Just my quick take on this.

-- Lou Pagnucco

Axil^2 wrote:

The reason for this interview is that Brillouin needs some money for
development of their gas phase reactor.

Brillouin is proposing that their reaction is a variant of the
Widom-Larsen
theory, where a fast electron combines with a proton to become a  
neutron

(reverse beta decay). The Brillion gas phase reaction uses nickel and
hydrogen. Tritium is produced in the claimed reaction cycle but  
only for
nanoseconds so tritium production cannot be detected. This non  
detection

of
reaction components is convenient to support the Brillouin reaction
narrative: no neutrons of gamma radiation have been detected.

[...]

Re: [Vo]:Brilloun Energy Interview

The other thing that bothers me is their claim that the device converts
energy into mass. A kind of nuclear refrigerator they say. That would be
an endothermic reaction. As far as I know, no one has observed significant
endothermic reactions except for chemical reactions in the initial loading
of palladium.

At MIT and later at the NHE they shifted curves and moved data points
around to produce what looked like endothermic reactions, but that was
fake. The NHE did not want to admit that Melvin Miles got significant
excess heat, so they shifted his curve down and down until the total
equaled zero.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Brilloun Energy Interview

Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

Does anyone else see that the explanation given by Godes is pure word salad
 having no relationship to reality. The description is in direct and basic
 conflict with what is known and accepted in science.


I do not know enough about theory to judge that. Here is what I do know
though. I had a long pizza dinner with these people and several other
others. During this meal, I tried repeatedly to pin them down to some
specifics about the calorimetry and the nature of the equipment. I did not
want to know trade secrets. I wanted to know how big, how hot, how many
watts in, how many out, how long has it run, how did they measure it. I got
nothing. Nuuu-thing but blah blah blah about theory and about their earlier
unrelated technical triumphs. That gave me a bad feeling.

Maybe there are specifics in this video. I have not watched the whole
thing. I can't abide any more blather. I heard hours of that already.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Brilloun Energy Interview

http://coldfusionnow.org/brillouin-energy-patent-granted-in-china/

*Essentially, it is a tube containing the catalytic material with the metal
nickel that allows for control over the flow of hydrogen gas as well the
Q-pulses, the electromagnetic pulses that start and drive the reaction. *


This says that they use a catalyst.


*The company has been successful with the nickel environment, but is also
working on a new architecture that uses titanium and tungsten in the core
generator.*


Here brillouin claims success with nickel. What does this success entail?


On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 2:46 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

 I'm perplexed that Google wouldn't provide funding after observing some
 of the experiments.

 Were they either (a) unconvinced, (b) already allied with others,
 (c) directed not to engage with Brillouin, (d) reluctant for other reason?

 If I recall correctly, Godes claims the absence of tritium is due to its
 conversion to the very short-lived H-4, which quickly converts to He.

 My interpretation of one of Godes' brief comments is that he attributes
 lack of energetic decay products to the slow compressive nature of the
 collisions - instead of usual crashing, bare particle collider collisions.
 I think a couple of other people have speculated this could be the case
 - possibly due to slow resonant tunneling.

 Just my quick take on this.

 -- Lou Pagnucco

 Axil^2 wrote:
  The reason for this interview is that Brillouin needs some money for
  development of their gas phase reactor.
 
  Brillouin is proposing that their reaction is a variant of the
  Widom-Larsen
  theory, where a fast electron combines with a proton to become a neutron
  (reverse beta decay). The Brillion gas phase reaction uses nickel and
  hydrogen. Tritium is produced in the claimed reaction cycle but only for
  nanoseconds so tritium production cannot be detected. This non detection
  of
  reaction components is convenient to support the Brillouin reaction
  narrative: no neutrons of gamma radiation have been detected.
 
  [...]

Re: [Vo]:Brilloun Energy Interview

Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

This is standard WL theory. 700K electron volts are needed to make neutron
 production from electrons and protons energetically possible.


I know. I guess the total output is continuously exothermic. But at one
point in the video it sounds like they are predicting an overall
endothermic effect. Maybe I misunderstood.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Brilloun Energy Interview

This is standard WL theory. 700K electron volts are needed to make neutron
production from electrons and protons energetically possible.


On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:

 The other thing that bothers me is their claim that the device converts
 energy into mass. A kind of nuclear refrigerator they say. That would be
 an endothermic reaction. As far as I know, no one has observed significant
 endothermic reactions except for chemical reactions in the initial loading
 of palladium.

 At MIT and later at the NHE they shifted curves and moved data points
 around to produce what looked like endothermic reactions, but that was
 fake. The NHE did not want to admit that Melvin Miles got significant
 excess heat, so they shifted his curve down and down until the total
 equaled zero.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Brilloun Energy Interview

2013-09-13 Thread James Bowery

Its not like Jed to miss something like that.  I sense a Disturbance in The
Force.


On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 3:10 PM, pagnu...@htdconnect.com wrote:

 Axil is correct.

 If Brillouin and W-L are correct, the e+p--n conversion taps 782 KeV
 electromagnetic field energy.  Temperature does not decrease.

 Jed Rothwell wrote:
  Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  This is standard WL theory. 700K electron volts are needed to make
  neutron
  production from electrons and protons energetically possible.
 
 
  I know. I guess the total output is continuously exothermic. But at one
  point in the video it sounds like they are predicting an overall
  endothermic effect. Maybe I misunderstood.
 
  - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Brilloun Energy Interview

Axil is correct.

If Brillouin and W-L are correct, the e+p--n conversion taps 782 KeV
electromagnetic field energy.  Temperature does not decrease.

Jed Rothwell wrote:
 Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:

 This is standard WL theory. 700K electron volts are needed to make
 neutron
 production from electrons and protons energetically possible.


 I know. I guess the total output is continuously exothermic. But at one
 point in the video it sounds like they are predicting an overall
 endothermic effect. Maybe I misunderstood.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Brilloun Energy Interview

Jed,

Google apparently did not archive it, but I recall reading a posting by
Godes to Goat Guy who was a caustic skeptic on an eet blog (I think.)

Godes realized that Goat Guy lived nearby and offered to let him inspect
his lab and test procedures.  Goat Guy did not respond.

Now that Brillouin is in business negotiations, they may be constrained.

-- Lou Pagnucco

Jed Rothwell wrote:
 Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote:

 Does anyone else see that the explanation given by Godes is pure word
 salad
 having no relationship to reality. The description is in direct and
 basic
 conflict with what is known and accepted in science.


 I do not know enough about theory to judge that. Here is what I do know
 though. I had a long pizza dinner with these people and several other
 others. During this meal, I tried repeatedly to pin them down to some
 specifics about the calorimetry and the nature of the equipment. I did not
 want to know trade secrets. I wanted to know how big, how hot, how many
 watts in, how many out, how long has it run, how did they measure it. I
 got
 nothing. Nuuu-thing but blah blah blah about theory and about their
 earlier
 unrelated technical triumphs. That gave me a bad feeling.

 Maybe there are specifics in this video. I have not watched the whole
 thing. I can't abide any more blather. I heard hours of that already.

 - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Brilloun Energy Interview