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.
And will continue to be, as I find interesting results.
You finally say something interesting and then ruin it by mentioning conspiracy and Rossi in the same paragraph.
So what's the source for this latest experiment? It's too bad you can't use your award winning talent to summarize it here.
Do you begin to realize how stupid that statement is. You seem to think that the word "Rossi" possesses some magical power to discredit any and all other items among which it might occur.
"So what's the source for this latest experiment? It's too bad you can't use your award winning talent to summarize it here."
Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, I see. Note the phrase "NASA Glenn Research Center" in my post. I would think that pretty much anybody could do a search with terms "cold fusion" and "NASA Glenn Research Center".
But since you are either incapable or terminally lazy, here is the url:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/sensors/PhySen/docs/LENR_at_GRC_2011.pdf
Note that I have already provided the link above in the CF thread I posted just before this one.
Once again, you choose to insult rather than make the case for cold fusion in your own words. What does that tell us about your confidence?
How could this tiny and brief temperature increase possibly be used to power a spacecraft or anything else? (It's not continuous, but only when deuterium is first pumped out.) I guarantee this experiment wasn't suppressed by a conspiracy. The hot fusion guys were probably laughing too hard to care.
ROFLMAO. Look in a mirror, buddy. I'm just returning the "favor" you've given for the last year.
What do you think the hydrogen runs are???
"How could this tiny and brief temperature increase possibly be used to power a spacecraft or anything else? (It's not continuous, but only when deuterium is first pumped out.) I guarantee this experiment wasn't suppressed by a conspiracy. The hot fusion guys were probably laughing too hard to care."
The question at this point is "does cold fusion exist at all". This very simply and easily replicable experiment answers that question once and for all, and in the affirmative. Next question....can it be scaled up. This is currently being answered. Celani's latest data is showing 1800 watts/gram for Ni/H and 400 watts/gram for Pd/D. But I'm sure you didn't bother to watch his presentation, since it was only for janitors and other cleaning personnel.
As to how, I thought the "Stirling engine" design proposed in the same set of slides was a very elegant approach to doing precisely what was needed to harness the effect.
And I expect the "hot physicists" are filling their underwear as the data mounts. I wondered why Obama was planning to cancel the "hot physics" fusion effort at MIT.
What do you think the hydrogen runs are???
A possible source of contamination. At the very least they should have run the deuterium through a pristine purifier. Likewise they should have captured the purified deuterium and run it through the purifier again for several runs to see if the effect was maintained. Analysis of the gas before and after, likewise would have been helpful.
But not doing any of those checks and controls is why looking for nothing more than an anomalous effect and then running off to report it to an eager audience of crackpots is bad science. It's too bad NASA promotes and funds such activity in order to get some cheap attention.
Wonder Warthog regurgitates what Celani said to an audience of janitors and secretaries during their lunch break. Why don't you explain in your own words why Celani's claims are true and significant?
What's going to be used to heat the palladium to 360C? What will power the Stirling engine during the majority of the time when there is no effect?
Lordy, but you're getting desperate. Any reasonably experienced scientist, working with such a system, would do a series of runs, starting with hydrogen (or deuterium), and cycling through a time series of compressions and extractions as the gas changes from one state to the other, until the system re-equilibrates under the new conditions.
"But not doing any of those checks and controls is why looking for nothing more than an anomalous effect and then running off to report it to an eager audience of crackpots is bad science. It's too bad NASA promotes and funds such activity in order to get some cheap attention.
More desperation. These are slides from a talk, which, as with any such, hits the high points, and leaves out much of the gory detail. There "is" a NASA report, which I assume can be gotten from NASA. I'm not sure if that only covers the 1989 work, or if it includes both the 1989 and the 2009 work, and very likely includes those gory details. I am probably going to see if I can get a copy.
Having watched the video presentations (have you.....I doubt it), I didn't see any janitors and secretaries. Most of the folks visible on camera looked like a typical mix of technical people who would attend such a talk. Been there, done that, from both sides of the podium.
As to "explaining in my own words why Celani's claims are true and significant", that would be because it is 1) a summary of experimental data, 2) by a highly respected physicist, 3) who is not trying to "make a killing" by starting a cold fusion business. Does it need to be replicated.....yes......and I am sure that Celani will see that it is.
But I see you have re-descended to your typical insulting behavior. Just can't stay out of the gutter for more than 30 seconds, can you?
A storage battery, of course.....just like your car (or, more precisely, like a Diesel truck). And you are ASSUMING that "during the majority of the time...there is no effect".
I suspect that during a "startup cycle" that they will run the Stirling generator "backwards" giving alternating pressure waves from the driven piston, while simultaneously heating the active fuel area with a resistance element.
I guess you "failed to see" the slide that indicates the groups plans to actually RUN a Stirling engine test bed with the CF power source.
But this is cold fusion. All they have to do is get a tiny, brief unexplainable effect and then run off to do a press release for the cold fusion fan boys.
More desperation. These are slides from a talk, which, as with any such, hits the high points, and leaves out much of the gory detail.
So good science to you is gory details, which in this case are absent. Is it any wonder you are having trouble convincing anyone who isn't gullible?
And while this isn't a real scientific paper, it's the reference you provided.
"Celani says" and "I trust Celani" summarizes your entire argument in your own words. I thought you could do better with your award winning talent. I have to admit that I'm wrong again.
I thought maybe you could explain why the data is valid. Just having data and making a claim isn't enough.
“Oh that’s right, an agency of the most powerful government in the world is being blocked by a conspiracy of incompetents.”
There’s nothing about our government and it’s agencies that’s not incompetent...
Science absolutely is the "gory details". What, you think it's "all about theory"??
Yes, it "is" the reference I provided, which is a summary (equivalent to an abstract of a full paper). You apparently choose to ignore the OTHER reference (to the full report on the work), which I am currently trying to locate. The number of that report is appended to the slides.
I think the burden is on you to show that your promotion of cold fusion is more than hype. You're the one who is leaving out the "gory details" (your words), or any convincing logical case for cold fusion based on them. Repeating claims of people you trust because they are claiming what you want to hear, and putting the burden of research on those you are trying to convince is nothing more than hype.
You apparently choose to ignore the OTHER reference (to the full report on the work), which I am currently trying to locate. The number of that report is appended to the slides.
How can I not help but "ignore" it when even you are having a hard time locating it?
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.