Posted on 03/30/2012 5:10:35 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
James Martinez of Cash Flow Radio has conducted an interview with Brillouin Energy‘s Chief Executive Officer Robert George and President and Chief Technical Officer Robert E. Godes.
The reason they said they are ready to conduct an interview at this point (and not earlier) is because they have been able to develop a control system that allows a reaction to start and stop, and run in a steady state mode. They said that next month they will be working with Mike McKubre of SRI International to run a reactor at a higher temperature.
Godes states that the Brillouin’s reaction starts with an endothermic reaction (reaction that absorbs heat) and ends with a more powerful exothermic reaction (reaction releases heat). Brillouin is working on two systems, the first one provides heat at 140 degrees C, (called the “wet boiler”) the second one reaches 400 – 450 degrees C. George says that they have applied for patents, but have been told by a patent examiner at the US Patent Office that the office is still not permitted to grant patents in the cold fusion field.
Robert George said that financing has been difficult to obtain, and they are working towards securing a two million dollar investment. Their business plan is not to manufacture products, but to license technology to third party producers. George says that Brillouin has been receiving visits from a number of entities, including the Naval Research Lab and “major corporations.”
Godes expresses doubts about whether both Andrea Rossi and Defkalion actually have technology that is ready for the marketplace, but says he would like to see them succeed in order to bring recognition and acceptance to the field of cold fusion.
The real purpose of the NIF is nuclear weapons testing research. Neither they or the Scam Cat inventor will deliver power plants.
I've done consulting work for (and at) LLNL (though not on anything fusion-related).
How many urinal cakes did you sell?
So. You're one of those idiots who think theory trumps experimental data. I suspected as much. The Gamow Window and any other theory fall before replicable experimental data. Apparently the "new breed" of physicist you represent has forgotten what Einstein, Feynmann, and countless others understood to be the fundamental basis for ALL science.
As I said "....mumble, mumble....Coulomb barrier.....mumble mumble....". Totally typical.
This is on the low end. Typical is ~420 to 650C. Of course, this is using water. There are other working fluids that can use lower temperatures. It's all a question of the minimum thermal efficiency you're willing to settle for.
"I don't know if I'm reading this correctly. You said it's similar to zirconium oxide -palladium or that is what they use? So, is it an electrolytic cell like P&F? If so, what is the availability of this element, zirconium oxide?
My bad. You're right. They are using an electrolysis cell. I knew they had used an e-cell for their phase 1 tests, but thought they had switched to gas loading for phase 2, but what they have actually done is to operate their e-cell at very high pressures (and thus higher temps). With all the successful replications showing up, sometimes it's hard to keep straight who used what approach.
Enough to buy myself a nice shiny R&D-100 Award plaque.
It's amazing what can be found in a pawn shop these days.
There's also reams of data saying ghosts exist, yet the patent office won't look at applications for ghosts or cold fusion.
That excludes muon cold fusion which really does exist, yet hucksters like yourself never mention.
Yup, but I got mine direct from the source. The banquet at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago was a lot of fun.
"That excludes muon cold fusion which really does exist, yet hucksters like yourself never mention."
The only "hucksters" on this thread are you and Nifster, proclaiming that "non-muon" LANR doesn't exist because it contradicts existing theory. THAT is nothing more than pseudo-science. REAL science is about finding and explaining "anomalies" (as you are so fond of putting it) based on replicable experimental data. EVERY approach to cold fusion that I know of has been replicated...some of them multiple times. The Pons/Fleischmann electrochemical approach has been verified MANY times. Arata's gas-loaded approach has likewise been verified multiple times. And in many different variations (Piantelli, Ahearn, Miley, Celani, McKubre and more).
Heck, one NASA study replicated Palladium-deuterium gas loading excess heat with an off-the-shelf COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE DEVICE (palladium membrane hydrogen purifier) by Fralick, et al, at NASA's Glenn Research Center IN 1989!!. The experiment is so simple and direct that it is virtually impossible that it was "wrong" somehow.
And yet, that data was buried because of the fraudulent suppression of LANR by physicists incapable of doing electrochemistry correctly, and the continuing attacks on any funding and new research by certain parties like Parks and his coven.
Independent repeatability with an open flow of data is not what Rossi has provided. Nice try though.
Still waiting for the deliverables he promised for March 2012
And by the by Feynman would have laughed at you... He is no doubt spinning in his grave
“In 1928, George Gamow, the great Russian-American theoretical physicist, derived a quantum-mechanical formula that gave a non-zero probability of two charged particles overcoming their mutual electrostatic repulsion and coming very close together. This quantum mechanical probability is now universally known as the “Gamow factor.’’ It is widely used to explain the measured rates of certain radioactive decays.
In the decade that followed Gamow’s epochal work, Atkinson and Houtermans and later Gamow and Teller used the Gamow factor to derive the rate at which nuclear reactions would proceed at the high temperatures believed to exist in the interiors of stars. The Gamow factor was needed in order to estimate how often two nuclei with the same sign of electrical charge would get close enough together to fuse and thereby generate energy according to Einstein’s relation between excess mass and energy release.”
I quote this directly because apparently you are not familiar enough with fusion to know that Gamow’s work has been predictive over and over again. But hey don’t let facts bother you.
I am not a huckster...You have misstated my comments completely. What I have suggested is that the folks making grand claims of low temp low pressure fusion have yet to produce data was can be independently verified (including such things as reproducibility of the actual set up).
There have been continuous claims of “deliverables” on various dates which have come and gone.
And again I suggest simply that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That has not been resented. Will it ever be? who knows time will tell
It's still weird that you had to pay for an award.
And yet after 20+ years, NASA isn't using this incredibly simple setup as an energy source.
that data was buried because of the fraudulent suppression of LANR by physicists incapable of doing electrochemistry correctly, and the continuing attacks on any funding and new research by certain parties like Parks and his coven.
Oh that's right, an agency of the most powerful government in the world is being blocked by a conspiracy of incompetents. No wonder you had to pay for your award.
I mentioned Rossi not at all. I was referring to LANR as a technology area. "Nice try, though".
"And by the by Feynman would have laughed at you... He is no doubt spinning in his grave"
LOL, and he'd probably whack YOU "upside the head". I'm advocating science, you're advocating pseudoscience.
"Atkinson and Houtermans and later Gamow and Teller used the Gamow factor to derive the rate at which nuclear reactions would proceed at the high temperatures believed to exist in the interiors of stars. The Gamow factor was needed in order to estimate how often two nuclei with the same sign of electrical charge would get close enough together to fuse and thereby generate energy according to Einstein’s relation between excess mass and energy release.”
Note bolding. In LANR, the situation is totally different. "Nice try, though". Try actually quoting experimental data...not theory.
I'll ask the simple question once again.....where are the LANR experiments incorrectly done and why is the data from same wrong. This is THE ONLY THING that counts. You can quote Gamow's THEORIES (who, like Feynmann, would likely join in with the head-slap) all you like.
"I am not a huckster...You have misstated my comments completely."
IMO, you are. I "mis-stated" nothing.
"What I have suggested is that the folks making grand claims of low temp low pressure fusion have yet to produce data was can be independently verified (including such things as reproducibility of the actual set up)."
Sorry, bubba....wrong. See Arata, Ahearn, and McKubre. But you're "read every report on cold fusion".......SUUURRRREE you have.
"There have been continuous claims of “deliverables” on various dates which have come and gone."
Irrelevant to the question of the scientific validity of LANR.
"And again I suggest simply that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. That has not been resented. Will it ever be? who knows time will tell."
You can "suggest" all you like. The statement is bullshit. Real science requires no such thing. ONE well-documented study validating an experiment is sufficient. But every statement you have made proves you are NOT in any way familiar with the research in LANR, and especially the recent work.
Oh, the plaque and banquet were free. I "did" have to pay for travel and hotel, though.
Well, the "simple setup" is not itself suitable as a power source....but it is MORE than sufficient to test whether LANR as a physical phenomenon exists or not. The key question is why was the data buried/ignored "for 20+ years". Note that in the study, the authors suggest a VERY innovative and simple approach to using their discovery to generate power. Yet that was not followed up on.
"Oh that's right, an agency of the most powerful government in the world is being blocked by a conspiracy of incompetents."
Hardly incompetents. Quite powerful people in the "hot physics" community were and are behind it. Denial of finding, denial of academic tenure, denial of publication by control of peer review. Well documented by Steve Krivit (since you appear to like his investigative reporting).
But, of course, you will continue in your state of willful ignorance, and not check any of this out for yourself.
At this point, what I want to see is for a cold fusion rig to operate for a week (hell, at this point I'll settle for 24 hours), at an independent location, monitored by an independent team who certifies substantial net energy output that exceeds any possible hidden internal fuel source.
Well, what does that tell any reasonably sane person who doesn't resort to conspiracy theories? It says there's nothing there.
Fusion as a phenomenon by itself is no big deal. High school students have achieved it in their garages. Hot fusion gets attention because it's useful in addition to being supported by accepted theory. Hot fusion is used for weapons, and it's a natural process relevant to astrophysics and cosmology. So it should be no surprise to a rational person that hot fusion gets the most attention.
Then there is muon catalyzed cold fusion. It was predicted by theory before it was observed in nature and reproduced by experiments. However, muon fusion doesn't come close to producing as much energy as what goes into it. It's not as useful to physics as hot fusion, so once again, a rational person isn't surprised that it gets little attention.
Then there is all other claimed types of cold fusion (or LENR, or LANR, which are no more than the Shakespearean renamings of a stink bug). Cold fusion has no accepted theory that can withstand scrutiny. Even if the claimed anomalies are real, they are unpredictable, and thus not useful for commerce or any significant portion of science. We should see very few mentions of cold fusion compared to hot fusion. Yet on FR, thanks to the nutbag section (you and Kevmo) we see hundreds if not thousands of such postings. It makes conservatives look out of touch with reality and untrustworthy.
If there is one use for cold fusion, it is to provide a core for a mutual admiration society of washed up scientists, scammers, and crackpot wannabe victims who like to blame a conspiracies for their failures.
Interestingly enough you still cannot admit that perhaps you have been sold some snake oil.
Gamow’s work is currently used today for successful predictive work. It is based on real data and real science. Your initial comments were about how Gamo’s work was nothing but theory. When I show you otherwise then you say but but but.. Seems to me you are the only one inconsistent
You claim to have done work at and for LLNL. I seriously doubt it. Nothing in anything you have said would lead me to believe that they would consult with you on anything-—unless of course you are one of the GSE types.
Look fusion happens in nature... not at room temps but at high temps and high pressures. Most of all science is spent trying to understand these natural processes well enough to be make the predictions useable in everyday ways.
When you say quote experimental data I am not interested in calorimeter measurements since those may or may not be meaningful. What I would like the low energy fusion folks to do is show me where they have produced the gamma radiation that is a characteristic by product. There has been none.
You can suggest all you want to that the low energy folks have a new form of fusion... it has yet to be proven ( sorry you saying it has is not sufficient nor are articles showing up in reviews started by the very people claiming cold fusion.)
Where are the raw data from any of these experiments so they may be evaluated (as all good science is)? Where is the information about experimental set up which is sufficient to allow another to replicate the experiment?
Experiments which are temperamental and do not reliable happen even for the advocates of low energy fusion are not convincing.
Continue to post your stories. I am still waiting for deliverables
I say again. Theory is irrelevant to the scientific validity of cold fusion. The ONLY necessary criterion is replicable data, which despite your assertions, IS available.
"We should see very few mentions of cold fusion compared to hot fusion. Yet on FR, thanks to the nutbag section (you and Kevmo) we see hundreds if not thousands of such postings. It makes conservatives look out of touch with reality and untrustworthy.
Perhaps there are so few mentions of hot fusion because it has been promising results for fifty years and not delivered. Kevmo and I happen to be interest in cold fusion. I'm also interested in and follow hot fusion as well....Bussard's legacy Polywell and Focus Fusion have some very promising possibilities. If you want articles on hot fusion...post'em. I suggest in future you simply ignore threads on cold fusion. We'd all be a lot happier.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.