Brillouin Energy Presentation on Electron Capture Reaction (ECR) Model

This is a Brillouin Energy presentation which was prepared for dissemination at the ICCF19 conference in Padua, Italy in April 2015.

Some of the key areas covered in this presentation:

  • They reports positive experimental result, producing more power generated than input.Brillioun explains that the theoretical basis of their reaction (and all other LENR/CF reactions) is the Electron Capture Reaction (ECR) hypothesis, and that understanding the physics allows for effective control of the reaction.
  • The presentation reports that multiple tests run by Tom Claytor, formerly of Los Alamos National Laboratory, detected the production of tritium which matches their ECR hypothesis.
  • Brillouin is starting to talk with companies regarding developing contracts to start commercializing their technology.

  • Zack Iszard

    And now I think, what if each chemically distinct LENR-active system involves a different mechanism (sequence of transition states), and the whole community’s focus on the magic bullet mechanism, which doesn’t actually exist, is hampering progress? It reminds me of the parable of the blind men and the elephant, where several blind men describe the elephant differently based on that part they touch.

    • Axil Axil

      There is one one mechanism…the magic bullet mechanism. The whole community is right and true to look for that magic solution. I have grappled with that elephant… I have felt all his parts and he has revealed himself wholly and completely to me… and he is truly great.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    The first person to propose an electron capture mechanism was Larry A Hull.

    Chemical & Engineering News, May 15, 1989, page 3.
    http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/03/05/allan-widom-on-working-for-clean-nuclear-power-llc-video/#comment-1889631912

  • Axil Axil

    The uncertainty principle has a feature called a squeezed vacuum. When the energy density between two or more particles is saturated, a condition called a Squeezed coherent state exists.

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

    When the vacuum that encloses two or more particles becomes saturated, These particles share their waveforms through the 5th dimension without the 4 dimensional world knowing anything about it so that the particles become entangled and equal in energy

    Saying this in another way, if two or more particles are enclosed in a strong enough magnetic field, they will share energy and become entangled because the vacuum is saturated with energy. These multiple particles become essentially one particle while the vacuum is saturated.

    The energetic vacuum suppresses quantum fluctuations and decoherence is disabled. The system becomes entangled with total energy sharing

    see

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zD1U1sIPQ4

    In more detail, Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously.

    When the energy of the vacuum is high enough, the position of the multiple particles become irrelevant in that space, and the particles become the same particle. This is when this set of particles share energy.

    Why LENR produces stable isotopes and positive energy feedback most of the time but sometimes produces radioactive isotopes and gamma rays when the lattice is cold.

    In the Surface Plasmon Polariton (SPP) model of LENR, heat driven dipole motion of electrons on the surface of micro particles produce a anapole magnetic pulse that in turn induces nuclear reconfiguration.

    This dipole motion of the electron on the surface of the micro particles induces a very rapid alternating current. That has a start that precedes to a maximum amplitude then false to zero strength. This cycle happens hundreds of trillions of times per second.

    When the heat level is low, the amplitude of the magnetic field that is produced by the SPP is correspondingly low and also its duration. The low powered magnetic field hits the target nuclei many times and builds up mass in the pile of nuclei until a subatomic particle is created through the conversion of energy to matter. That meson produces a fusion event were a number of separate nuclei are combined into a new single nucleus. But the magnetic connection to the source of magnetic generation is to weak to carry the nuclear binding energy released by the fusion back to its source. So the nucleus remains excited and will eventually either produce a gamma ray or stay excited as a radioactive isotope.

    When the heat level that is driving the dipole vibration of electrons exceeds a critical level, the amplitude of the magnetic field that is produced by the SPP is strong enough and lasts long enough to hit the pile of nearby nuclei in one shot where the magnetic field can produce a fusion event and still be of sufficient amplitude to carry the released binding energy back to the source of the magnetic field. That nuclear energy is then digested by the soliton and fed back to the dipole motion that created the soliton.

    The key concepts to enable this transfer mechanism is that the fusion event takes a finite period of time to occur, the magnetic field produce by the SPP is variable in both duration and intensity but can grow large enough and long enough to complete a fusion event and energy transfer in one dipole cycle. The SPP can exist for as short as a few femtoseconds to as long as hundreds of picoseconds.

    The production of gamma rays and unstable isotopes will occur before the positive feedback loop is established between the fusion event and the soliton. Once this connection is made, the dipole motion of the micro particle will always have enough power to produce fusion in one cycle. Also when the dipole vibrations of all the micro particles are synced up under a BEC condition, a weak soliton will get enough energy from a strong soliton so that no gammas will be produced.

  • Axil Axil

    IMHO, the way electron capture came to be is as follows:

    The theoriest needed a way to get through the coulomb barrier. So they picked the neutron as the guy to do it. Then they needed a way to produce the neutron, so they used inverse beta decay or electron capture.

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

    But this only happens when an unstable isotope has too many protons. Electron capture is a process in which a proton-rich nucleus absorbs an inner atomic electron, thereby changing a nuclear proton to a neutron and simultaneously causing the emission of an electron neutrino.

    Protons just do not go around absorbing electrons. The nucleus absorbs the electron. But when you have Ni62, there are no lack of neutrons, on the contrary, there are more than enough, almost too many. There is no need for the nucleus to absorb any electrons.

    But if a proton enters the nucleus, and a 400 KeV magnetic field gets through the coulomb barrier as if it wasn’t even there, than the EMF can convert a proton to a neutron without that neutron seeing any open space outside of the nucleus.

  • Axil Axil

    There are more theories than you can shake a stick at. I am not interested in the palladium systems because most are WET and are more expensive to make. A cold system is radioactive; a wet system is a cold system. The only nickel systems are from Piantilli (theory disliked), Rossi (no theory), Mizono (?). Electron capture (wrong).

  • SG

    But Parkhomov and Albiston have independently shown on / off capability, so this feature in itself doesn’t really set Brillouin apart anymore. I sense that Brillouin has an inferior approach and is likely to fade away, or perhaps, begin Rossi/Parkhomov replications of their own.

  • Axil Axil

    Any non helium transmutation found in the Brillouin Energy system will disprove the electron capture theory.

    • Ophelia Rump

      Why are they mutually exclusive to a certainty?

      • Axil Axil

        The reaction stops at helium that escapes the NAE. A higher Z level of element cannot form from helium using electron capture.

    • Matt Sevrens

      There is more than one electron capture theory. Electron capture simply explains neutron production. Where there be neutrons there be nuclear reactions. Finding other transmutations doesn’t disprove electron capture taking place at all. It just disproves the CECR theory specifically.

      Electron capture is common in Nickel to begin with with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture#Common_examples

      So electron capture is most certainly occurring in these reactions. Whether or not it’s the only effect or whether it is specifically driving the LENR process is up to question.

      • Axil Axil

        If the electron capture theory was valid, there would be neutrons detected in the system. Because of the uncertainty principle, there is no way to keep the energy of the neutron or the electron at the required level to ensure non detection of the neutron.

        • Matt Sevrens

          I’m not claiming CECR is valid. I’m claiming that electron capture as a process does occur commonly in Nickel. And by definition, during electron capture, a neutron is formed.

          Seriously, electron capture is a well known process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture

          • Axil Axil

            See my post above. Electron capture is something that the nucleus does when there is too many protons in the nucleus to be stable.

            • Matt Sevrens

              Hmm. Note in the lugano report the amount of 58Ni before and after and 62Ni before and after.

              “The unused fuel shows the natural isotope composition from both SIMS and ICP-MS, i.e.
              58Ni (68.1%), 60Ni (26.2%), 61Ni (1.1%), 62Ni (3.6%), and 64Ni (0.9%), whereas the ash composition from
              SIMS is: 58Ni (0.8.%), 60Ni (0.5%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (98.7%), 64Ni (0%), and from ICP-MS: 58Ni (0.8%), 60Ni
              (0.3%), 61Ni (0%), 62Ni (99.3%), 64Ni (0%)”

              Assuming that 58Ni isn’t absorbing two protons simultaneously, and can’t magically skip the 59Ni, at some point during this reaction 59Ni occurs in the fuel AND it would then subsequently decay to 59Cu and go through further nuclear decay since no 59Ni is found in the ash.

              Essentially since 58Ni is found in the fuel and is depleted the ash while 62Ni is found in small quantities in the fuel but greater quantities in the ash, it guarantees that during the reaction 59Ni is in the fuel.

              The authors of the Lugano report even speculate similarly: “p + 58Ni -> 59Cu + gamma and 59Cu decaying back to 59Ni”.

              • Axil Axil

                No gammas are produced. see my post below for an explanation to Mark.

                p + 58Ni + 400 KeV magnetic energy -> 59Ni.

                • Matt Sevrens

                  OK… But Rossi’s new paper on the mossbauer effect explains the lack of gamma. And you haven’t explained how Ni58 could be depleted and Ni62 increased without stopping at 59Ni along the way.

                • Axil Axil

                  As in Piantelli’s reaction, two protons are added to the nickel. But one is expelled if stability is required. In the Piantilli reaction, the 6 MeV binding energy is carried out of the reaction by the second proton, because that reaction is cold, If two protons are needed for stability than the two protons become two neutrons and both remain inside the nucleus. In a hot system, the binding energy goes back to the soliton.

                • Matt Sevrens

                  Didn’t you say in another part of the thread that Piantelli’s theory was disliked though?

                • Axil Axil

                  His theory involves a negative hydrogen ion as the coulomb barrier penetrator. This ion does not conform with the data out of the ash assay from the Lagano test . But his cloud chamber experiments with activity after death showing high energy protons are true.

                • Matt Sevrens

                  I guess my point is, why are you so resistive to the idea of electron capture occurring at all? You’re even going as far as to suggest that 2 protons being absorbed simultaneously is more likely than one. And honestly, if there is any mechanism by which 2 protons can be absorbed, I would imagine that same mechanism would allow 1 proton to be absorbed. I feel like you’re just outright denying my argument arbitrarily without reason. I’m not even making a large claim. My only claim is that electron capture is likely to occur in these reactions but you are passionately denying it.

                  NO ONE has a full explanation that explains all experimental LENR results. You denying that electron capture could be occurring at all despite me providing evidence that it should or at least could be occurring makes you sound just like the pathological skeptics that deny LENR in the first place.

                • Axil Axil

                  Particle physicists have shot high energy electrons into protons to see what makes the proton tick. These elections have always come out of the proton. Capture is a nuclear thing and not a particle thing.

                  1) Elastic electron-proton scattering: the electron and proton just “bounce” off each other under some angle theta. By observing the cross section of the scattering versus the theta angle it was shown that proton is not a point particle, but an extended object.

                  2) Deep inelastic scattering: the incoming high energy electron “destroys” the proton into a bunch of outgoing hadrons (mostly pions). By observing the cross section of this interaction it can be shown that proton is composed of pointlike particles. The electrons collide elastically with a parton.

                  Some details are here.

                  http://www.phys.spbu.ru/content/File/Library/studentlectures/schlippe/pp05-08.pdf

                • Axil Axil

                  If found another explanation from an expert as follows:

                  See below for a “borrowed” explanation from Jim Swenson at the Argonne National Labs (from their Ask A Scientist program):

                  “If an electron with enough energy collides with a proton, then what happens?
                  They just form a hydrogen atom?
                  Or they form a neutron?
                  If both are possible, then which factor controls the process?
                  I am asking because I heard that a neutron can decay to a proton and an electron and the reverse is possible.
                  —————–
                  To form a hydrogen atom, it is required that the electron and proton have almost no energy, almost no velocity relative to each other. A hydrogen atom ionizes at less than 20 electron-volts of energy, so reverse ionization requires energy less than about 20 electron-volts (eV) AND freedom and luck to radiate a photon of the right energy to render the electron “captured”. It happens all the time in every electrified gas lamp (fluorescents, neons, mercury-arc, etc), and in the surface layers of the sun.

                  When a neutron decays into a proton, electron, and neutrino, it also releases energy, 780,000 eV, as the sum of the kinetic energy of the 3 particles.It is unreasonably difficult to get 3 separate particles to collide simultaneously, so the exact reverse of this never happens to a significant extent. It is particularly difficult to get the ghost-like neutrino to react on command with an electron and proton. Neutrinos are the particles that sail all the way through the earth, almost never bumping anything.

                  However, it is not so difficult for a balanced neutrino / anti-neutrino pair to be accidentally made out of pure excess energy, from the collision between an electron and a proton. Then you have the situation of the electron and proton and neutrino in the same place, merging to form a neutron, and an anti-neutrino flying away free carrying any excess energy (beyond the 780 keV that was needed to make up the neutron). I think this is one of the processes which together make sun-sized masses of neutrons when a neutron star is formed in a supernova explosion. Actually, in that situation the electron and proton are steadily squeezed together by pressure of others around them. Increasing pressure and temperature can smoothly change the energy of repeated collisions until the best energy is found, and the conversion becomes quite rapid and energy-efficient.

                  If the excess energy of collision is over 1,000 keV, other random particles might be made from the energy too. It only takes 1,020 keV to make an electron-positron pair, for example. I’m not sure what it takes to start emitting excess energy as gamma-ray photons. That might happen too.

                  Jim Swenson”

                  From this answer, we need a neutrino to be around and in the party when the electron and the proton combine. That is not likely to happen unless the neutrino is made out of energy. The chance of that neutrino production from energy is the chance that the reaction will work. .

                • Matt Sevrens

                  We’re done here. You’re just clearly not getting it. Your reply has nothing to do with what I was trying to communicate to you.

                • Axil Axil

                  The energy of a collision between an election and a proton must be real close to 780,000 eV to happen. The chance of that energy being just right is very low. If the energy is not perfect, other particles will form instead..

    • Stephen

      Thanks Axil Axil and Matt Severens. I have only been following LENR a couple of months but I really enjoy your discussions and I learn more about some modern atomic Physics concepts from your discussions than i have learnt since I finished studying Astro Physics some nearly 30 years ago. I still struggle a bit to understand everything but you do good jobs at explaining them.

      I love open science the open experimental work done by MFMP. It is brilliant. They are my current heroes.

      Wouldn’t it be amazing if the explanation for the energetics of LENR was also finally explained by and attributed to the Open Science community. When some one writes a science paper the references are often recognised but rarely the people and the environment that influence and inspire the work. What previously took 30years in an unconnected world Open science discussions on the internet forums makes possible tin 30 months or maybe even 30 weeks! There are no good or bad ideas since they all contribute to the right environment. That can also be said of both supporters and critics of particular ideas and approaches. It all contributes something

      Someone elsewhere on this forum said the amazing thing about open science is that you don’t know who is contributing it can be a well established scientist, but it can equally be a Nobel prize winner or an inspired High school student … or perhaps just an ordinary bloke who likes to read about physics like me.

      Perhaps someone can collect the various concepts out there and find a way to review and discuss them to see how they can contribute to LENR. Ed Storms approach in his book “The explanation of LENR” does this very well for the ideas around at the time.

      I understand Rossi Cook paper explains something about the Isotope abundances but not the energetics involved. For example he does not explain how the Li 7 is at a higher energy level. And he attributes the lack of gamma to the 2 Alpha emission of BE 8. On the other hand the Ni to Cu to Ni reaction absorbs a proton with again the energetics not explained and emits a Beta +. This would in fact still result in gamma radiation since the beta + twould normally react with a k shell electron and produce 2 511KeV gamma.

      From the various discussions on these forums and some thoughts I had my self I have formed a kind of collective idea about the energetics of LENR by relatively simple physics (I have to say I’m not at your level of understanding more complex models yet). I think it may explain a lot of the observations with both Pd based systems and Li Ni systems. I think it maybe a self contained idea but it could be the energetics are still a bit low, if not it may also play some role in the more complex physics concepts you discuss here and discussed elsewhere by others.

      I don’t want to disturb the already good energy on this site by raising ideas that have already been considered and discussed also its possible Rossi already has something like it in mind although he didn’t mention it in the last paper, so I don’t want to pre-empt that either. Maybe I should wait to see what comes up or post to Frank and let him decide if it is worth considering.

      To help me decide. Do you know if rather than having no gamma, if gamma absorption by nuclei has been considered? possibly along with gamma photon diffraction on surfaces and the effect of locally energised and accelerated nuclei? Note if i understand correctly both Pd 105 and 106 and Li 7 have low energy levels above base level below 511 keV. The idea is somewhat more than that but its part of what I’m thinking about.

      • Axil Axil

        Fortunately I have LENR all worked out. I just hope I can explain it to somebody before I get dementia. LENR is very difficult and I must not have the teaching talent to put things across so that the subject is understandable. There is big LENR like Rossi and there is small LENR like the golden ball which has 1 watt of output. There is WET LENR and there is DRY LENR. There is radiation free LENR and there is LENR with radiation. This bewildering range of behavior must be explained by one theory. Not easy.

        • Stephen

          Amazing I had exactly the same thought yesterday about loosing my marbles before I get to see LENR explained and accepted. It was like you said my thoughts! I hope my eyesight lasts until i get to see it too :o) I like your theory its all based on good physics as far as I can see. We’ve been lucky seeing the moon landings, the probes to the outer solar system, the discovery of planets around other stars, the arrival of the personal computer and the internet. Still it would be great to see LENR used in the and fully explained in the world view as well.

          Have you ever tried to get your idea published or to write a book? Your physics knowledge is very good and you have a good way of explaining advanced physics concepts. If you do write a book I will definitely buy it.

          I wonder if Frank Acland has thought about compiling a book of the best of ecat- world? It could the best ideas and postings and comment threads over the years. I’m relatively new here so it would be a good way to find out what has been discussed before. Just an idea, I can see he is already very busy at the moment.

        • Josh G

          Axil, you should take some time to write down in one place your theory, starting from first principles and then discuss how it can take into account all observations of LENR. Ideally with the math. As it stands, your theory seems to be spread across innumerable web postings…

          I think I might have a new hobby horse for you with respect to LENR. You saw that Klee Irwin of Quantum Gravity Research (quantumgravityresearch.org) is offering to do X-ray diffraction on successful LENR materials. X-ray diffraction, as you’re no doubt aware, is used to determine the crystalline structure of materials (and was used in the discovery of quasi-crystals). Anyway, I went over to their website to check them out, and they’re interested in developing a “first principles microscopic theory of everything.” And it turns out their theory is based on mathematics derived from geometry. Way, way, way above my ability to comprehend. But they touch on some of the issues that you do and they have some interesting ideas about LENR drawing on the work of Akito Takahashi’s Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate model of cold fusion. Their work only seems to speak directly to D+D fusion, but it might be extendable to other reactions — I don’t know. Here is a link to a document laying out much of their theory. The stuff on cold fusion can be found beginning on approximately on page 109 with ‘Jitterbug Fusion.’ The theory suggests that cold fusion depends on the spontaneous formation of nano-clusters of 55 or 147 atoms. Clusters of those sizes have particular geometric properties that makes them good candidates for fusion, as described in the paper. I know this doesn’t really have anything to do with SPP’s or resonances between phonons and photons, but thought it would be interesting. It also shows that Klee’s offer is win-win, since x-ray diffraction of LENR fuel will provide his team with data for their theory.

          http://www.tony5m17h.net/TetraJJDECF.pdf

          • Axil Axil

            On the contrary, the theory of Rydberg matter is central to the SPP theory.

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

            The nanoparticles that I talk about incessantly are Rydberg matter. They form based on magic numbers that like like the nanoclusters that you mention.

            Rossi’s secret sauce is rydberg matter of alkli metal.

            http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1002/1002.1570.pdf

            The Quantum Gravity group is using a name that they have invented rather than the scientifically accepted name of Rydberg matter.

            The airbus patent looks like the theory I gave to DGT. Airbus must have been a customer of DGT at one time a somehow got their technology which is based on SPP theory. Read that patent and you will see a digest of the SPP theory.

  • Axil Axil

    In 2012, Widom-Larsen theory moved on to surface plasmon poloriton (SPP) producton to justify the 700 KeV excess power needed to produce electron capture. Brillouin Energy has yet to follow this lead.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      W&L mention surface plasmon polaritons already in their patent application, filed in 2006 ( http://www.google.com/patents/US7893414 ).

      • Axil Axil

        Thank you, I did not know that. For my education, can you please supply a reference?

        • Axil Axil

          Sorry I missed the reference in your post.

      • Axil Axil

        An SPP is not an electron, it is a dipole excited by heat photons which is oscillating far way from the hole. The waveform of the electron has combined with the infrared photon. The SPP never gets back to the hole in the excited state.

  • Axil Axil

    So sorry, No power generation system… LENR of not… that has the remotest possibility of producing tritium will be permitted to be licensed and commercialized. The NRC has shut down fission reactors that have emitted nanoscopic amounts of tritium. The NRC would need to control such a system as a nuclear reactor.

  • pg

    Rossi must be laughing hard right now. There is nothing being presented that poses a threat to him

    • Axil Axil

      Rossi has ridiculed the electron capture theory.

      • Matt Sevrens

        I have reason to believe he may be detracting intentionally. I made a personal request to Rossi to simultaneously release information while detracting such that MFMP could make progress but not give away his IP.

        The next day the Norman cook paper came out confirming the presence of LAH while he also discredited the electron capture theory.

        Considering electron capture is common in nickel, this made me very suspicious that he made those comments unprompted.

        All in all I think there is electron capture involved as well as the mossbauer effect. I think electron capture initiates the production of neurons, the mossbauer effect inhibits release of radiation and traditional nuclear reactions are involved in the actual energy production.

    • Publius

      Don’t be silly, you have to keep an open mind that Brillouin could be light years ahead of AR in terms of sophisticated control and theory. As evidenced by Godes’ presentation, he seems to have a better than average understanding of the physics.

      • Axil Axil

        To get a valid theory that deals with subatomic processes, you need to connect a million experimental dots. I don’t see that Billouin has done all that yet.

      • pg

        if you say so

  • Axil Axil

    The production of tritium indicates that the LENR reaction is sputtering and running cold. In a proper LENR reaction(a hot reaction) no radiation or radioactive isotopes are formed. The same is true for the Piantilli reaction where energetic protons are seen.

  • Dr. Mike

    The generation of slow (cold) neutrons by the ECR model seems to be a better explanation for converting all of the Ni to Ni62 in the Lugano reactor than the recently published Cook-Rossi theory. At the high temperatures of the Lugano reactor, it seems plausible that neutrons created by ECR would have enough additional kinetic energy to leave interstitial sites where they could be captured by the Ni nucleus (and any Li atoms on the surface of the Ni). This would be a secondary energy producing mechanism to those described in the Brillouin paper, and would continue until all of the Ni converted to the most stable Ni62. Still unexplained would be that there wasn’t enough LiAlH4 in the Lugano reactor to supply hydrogen to convert all of the Ni to Ni62.
    Dr. Mike

  • pelgrim108

    Do I understand correctly, that, when a company comes along, Brillouin can develop a commercial reactor for them by 2016 ?

    • Mats002

      I understood them so also. About Brillouin COP; last year McKubre reported Brillouin to have a COP of around 2, I read somewhere recently that they now have increased that x4 – anyone know more about this?

      • Fyodor

        From the thread here:

        http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/PostAdd/1274/

        1. Wet electrolytic cell seems to be stuck around 2.

        2. 4 COP is for dry HHT cell.

        3. 4 COP is based on only counting supplemental “Q-pulse”. Overall COP is more like fifteen percent.

        4. They are supposedly seeing 10 COP now in HHT (probably based on similar basis).

        5. Excess power seems pretty low in absolute terms (tens of watts).

        • Mats002

          That is another reason Rossi is the star! (Other than being on the scene by books, blogs and other media)

      • LuFong

        Second to last slide (Accomplished, 13:33) says 2.25x for the WET system and 4x for the HHT system. This does not seem competitive to Rossi’s E-Cat if true.

        • Agaricus

          Perhaps not, but almost any degree of ‘overunity’ can be developed, given the resources and some time (plus all the clues that AR leaves lying around…).

  • Josh G

    Being able to reliably start and stop a LENR reaction at will is the name of the game for commercialization. And other than Rossi, Godes is the only I know of who can do that. Anybody have any ideas why Rossi and the e-cat get so much more attention that Godes? Is it PR and marketing? Rossi’s claims of very high COPs aside, is there something that the e-cat can do that Brillouin can’t that makes it special? I am not being sarcastic, genuinely curious about this. Shouldn’t Godes be as much of a rockstar as Rossi?

    • pelgrim108

      You have to be on the stage to be a rockstar. 🙂

    • SG

      With the Parkhomov development and the open source effort, I suspect that most companies are going to try and go it alone unless you have something compelling that will make you stand out.

    • Warthog

      George Miley (Leneuco) and Mitchell Schwartz (Nanor) can both also do so. Miley’s fuel/substrate generates a “nuclear reactive environment” in which the heat producing reaction starts spontaneously at room temperature as soon as hydrogen is introduced. He was last quoting power figures in the “10’s of kilowatts”, apparently ALL “ssm”. That would put Miley well ahead of everybody else from a control standpoint, including Rossi

      • Josh G

        OK, good points. I think Miley’s problem is they are having trouble keeping the reaction sustained. But he is presenting For Schwartz, I think the problem is the amount of power is very small. But still it’s a good point — you would think that the nanor should have a useful application. I think his COP is not that high…

      • ecatworld

        I think Miley’s group is still in development stage. They said the are “working on development of small 10’s of kW units.” I don’t think they have them ready yet.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      I not really sure this start/stop ability shows any real advantage. The presentation shows a COP of 2 and 4. Such COP numbers are NOT practical commercial numbers.

      And even Parkamov can start and stop his reactor. So Parkamov after a month of reading a paper can start and stop his reactor. (just cut the power and it stops). So 1 month vs 5+ years does not bode well for some start/stop ability.

      So some “claim” that they can turn off and on their reactor when everyone else is claiming the same thing does not hint or suggest they have some strategic advantage here. In fact I NOT aware of any replication in which turning off the “drive” power does not stop and turn off the reactor.

      The simple matter is Brillouin needs to demonstrate a better working prototype and one that doing useful work. 3-4 years ago it certainly did seem that Brillouin was a leader in LENR. Now, they not progressed much in that timeframe unless their have some commercial like products being readied or tested at this point in time. (so progress may be occurring – but we sure not seeing it!!).

      While Rossi “cobbled” together that first 1MW plant (it was rather crude looking), the pictures of the second plant are astounding and show a WELL designed and rather polished looking product. Of course the progression took money!

      I am rooting for Brillouin, but with Rossi showing so much progress, and folks like Parkamov coming along – Brillouin needs to focus on a particular reactor design and work 24/7 to commercialize that design.

      The other MOST perplexing issue is that Parkomov did NOT use some type of EM stimulation – something that most others are claiming is required for decent power outputs. Why is this?

      It is important to note that in technology we have what is called a “real estate” grab. Apple jumped into the tablet marketplace and thus resulted in what we call “first mover” advantage, or what many call the real estate grab. Now that “most” have a tablet, then Microsoft or Google can come out with a BETTER tablet (and they have!), but that DOES NOT matter. Everyone already has a tablet that is good enough, and for Goggle/Microsoft to grow their tablet market means existing users have to SWITCH!

      It is possible to make users switch, but often VERY challenging. For example WordPerfect and Lotus 123 both had over 80% of their respective markets, and the story of how Microsoft took that market away is MOST interesting (ONLY means to grow was to have existing users switch – few realize how this was done). You can bundle or even give your software away for free – but that will NOT make users switch. You see “discount” bins full of software no one wants by the checkout counter at many big office “box” supply retailers.

      So right now, Apple tablet users have ZERO reasons to switch, and even if better products exist, users have no reason to switch. As a result, better tablets in the marketplace are FAILING due to the “real estate” or so call customer base already have been taking up and grabbed by Apple. Forcing or “enticing” people to “move” off of their existing choice is VERY hard.

      Above also explains why the Linux desktop never really grew much in the last 10 years. People are happy with windows – and effort exists for such users to switch despite Linux desktops being free. And besides, if a user going to drop windows, they likely to jump on to Apple desktops (since their phone and tablet is apple).

      So growth after people have “settled” on their real estate choice means customers now require EFFORT to move – it thus becomes VERY hard to move such customers.

      The same goes for LENR. There will be MANY real estate grabs – whoever gets and grabs large parts of the market will have that first mover advantage. Better products may well come out later, but that’s too late!

      Brillouin has got to get things moving faster else they risk loosing large parts of this marketplace. We are much like the dawn of the Apple, Tandy, Commodore, Atari race right now.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Josh G

        Agreed that first mover is definitely important, though the energy market is huge it will take IH/Rossi awhile to capture enough of the market to claim definitive first mover advantage. The iPhone had a HUGE headstart (relatively speaking), but the smartphone market is so large that android/samsung are now market leaders.

        I guess it’s not really ability to start/stop but really the ability to start ‘at will’ (which Parkhomov cannot, at least yet) and the ability to control the reaction, for example to avoid thermal runaway and keep the reaction going and steady. An analogy would be trying to commercialize a lightbulb where you weren’t sure how long it would take to turn on after you turn on the switch and also had a good chance of burning out at any moment and melting your light fixture.

        Godes says (informally) that Brillouin now has a 10 COP (see Fyodor’s post above). If true, that is definitely good enough for commercialization.

      • Agaricus

        Parkomov did NOT use some type of EM stimulation

        Parkomov’s heater coil was quite tightly wound, and of a reasonable diameter, and would have produced an alternating longitudinal field within the coil when AC voltage was applied. Perhaps that’s all that is needed for a basic reactor. Rossi appears to have used an external coil (the redundant external toroidal ‘heater’) in his plumbing fittings prototypes that may have been used to produce an AC magnetic field.

      • Mytakeis

        with an energy hungry world populace, however many competitors produce LENR machines, would there be, even then, enough to go around? I think an new kind of market will absorb any and all over unity models, and look for more. Could be wrong, but I do not think so. Other considerations, like making money, and holding back productions to do so, may be more hindering than a market for the products.

  • Gerrit

    what’s wrong with the audio ?

    • pelgrim108

      I guess to much compression. It gets better around 10 minutes in.