Robert George, CEO of Brillouin Energy Interview on Infowars

Some readers have already commented that Robert George, CEO of Brillouin Energy has done an interview on the Infowars show. I’m not sure the name of the interviewer, but it’s not Alex Jones who runs the Infowars network.

The video can be seen here — Robert George comes on at about the 23 minute mark

For those who want to get an idea of what the conversation is about, AlainCo has posted a transcript on the LENR Forum here:

  • Zavod

    Too vague. No substance. Where is the product?

  • jimbo92107

    Infowars? WTF?? Man, if you ever want to annihilate your public credibility, go on Infowars.

  • bkrharold

    If Brillouin have a working product and it is a good as they claim, I don’t understand why people are not lining up to buy it. The interviewer came close to asking this critical question, and then switched to a break. when they came back he didn’t follow up. Robert George did not elaborate on the cost of ownership, and the return on investment, perhaps they are not quite attractive enough yet.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Where in the world did people get the silly idea that powerful people conspire to protect their own interests.,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,g_face,h_300,q_80,w_300/MTE5NDg0MDU1MDQ5MzA3NjYz.jpg

    • kdk

      Lots and lots of experience, and history.

    • Alan DeAngelis


    • Zephir

      The people don’t have to conspire so much.

      …”..a very famous physicist at MIT, who is involved in the energy program, found out what we were trying to do, and he cancelled the program. And he called up the vice president of the company and said some things that weren’t very polite about the research. And not only did the funding not come and the experiments didn’t happen, but my colleagues at the company were very worried about where they’re going to work next. As you know, there are unemployment issues currently in our bad economy, so there’s a fundamental difficulty with respect to getting support for the experiments, and what that means is that the science can be expected to go very slowly for these reasons, until a solution is found to this problem…”

      This “very famous physicist” was Ernest Moniz, now the head of energetic politics of the USA, most powerful country in the world. He at one time was one of the designated survivors for the US. In line to be the president he had a duplicate nuclear football, and had Secret Service protection equaling the presidents. Not surprisingly the situation with cold fusion research by now is as it is…

      Other than that, at most forums the supporters of mainstream physics sh*t bricks, once the cold fusion gets mentioned. And these forums aren’t visited by scientists only, but by “normal” layman people, who hate the cold fusion research heartily with no apparent reason. This is what the pluralistic ignorance is called.

      Marshall McLuhan: “Only puny secrets need keeping. The biggest secrets are kept by public incredulity.”

  • Mats002

    I noted that Los Alomos which Brillouin say replicated the effect actually is a national laboratory. Not all try to censor?

  • kdk

    It seems like a good interview. The scope of the coverups really goes far beyond hushing up cold fusion which would save the lives of millions of people across the world, and make the planet a much healthier place in general, not to mention stewardship entrusted by God… To that end, InfoWars seems like a good medium for people who are clued in to many of the other things that have been going on.

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Just wondering if there are any isotopic shifts in nickel? Nickel would have the largest thermal neutron cross sections (and no Coulomb barrier) if neutrons are formed.

  • Barbierir

    I quickly read the counterclaim, it goes all-in against Rossi, Penon and Fabiani. Penon is basically accused of having produced a fraudulent report. Here are some relevant excerpts:

    “The Validation test did not follow the Validation protocol as set forth in the License Agreement and the First Amendment (the “Validation Protocol”). For example, the Validation Protocol required 30 E-Cat reactors to be operated as a unit (“Unit A”) for twenty-four consecutive hours. However, only 18 E-Cat reactors were operated as Unit A during the testing period. In addition, the Validation Protocol required the flow of heated fluid from the E-Cat reactors to be measured during the Validation test. However, these measurements were not taken during the Validation test. Furthermore, the Validati on Protocol required that twenty-four consecutive hours of testing be done on Unit A. However, less than twenty-four consecutive hours of testing was done on Unit A. There are various other examples of the Validation Protocol not being followed during the Validation test”

    “Defendants note that there were many flaws in how the purported Guaranteed Performance test referenced in Paragraph 71 was performed. Several, but by no means all, of those flaws were identified in a document provided to Penon on March 25, 2016. A copy of this document is attached here to as Exhibit 5”

    “Leonardo and Rossi manipulated the testing process by, among other things, 1) insisting that the Plant be relocated to Miami, far away from Industrial Heat’s offices, to provide steam to a purported manufacturing “customer” that did not actually exist; 2) manipulating, along with Fabiani, the operation of the Plant and the reports of the Plant’s purported operations, to make it appear that the Plant was producing a COP far greater than 10.0; and 3) enlisting Penon to produce a false report stating that Guaranteed Performance was achieved.”

    “Eventually Counter-Plaintiffs discovered that the test that Leonardo and Rossi were conducting, in conjunction with the supposed “customer” in Miami, was not a real test at all, but a carefully scripted effort to deceive Counter-Plaintiffs into 1) providing Leonardo and Rossi with credibility in their efforts to license and promote the E-Cat IP to others and/or obtain investments from others in their business ventures, 2) making the third payment under the License Agreement to Leonardo, 3) paying a multitude of expenses of Leonardo and Rossi including in connection with their operations in Florida, and 4) paying Penon and Fabiani for services not rendered and reimbursing them for unnecessary expenses. ”

    “Rossi further manipulated the Validation process by ensuring that his friend and colleague, Penon, served as the ERV for the Validation testing. Industrial Heat requested that “one of the big testing companies” work alongside Penon in the measurement and validation of the test. Rossi vehemently objected, insisting that having one of the big testing companies involved would “create big problems” for him.”

    “Penon primarily contributed to the scheme in a variety of ways relating to the purported measurement of the Plant’s operations in Florida during the purported Guaranteed Performance test.”

    “To start, his initial plan and design for measuring the power coming into and out of the Plant was, as he well knew, fundamentally flawed – including using improper equipment to measure the flow of fluid into the Plant and no equipment to measure the flow of heated fluid out of the Plant. Moreover, when the purported Guaranteed Performance test departed from Penon’s plan and design almost immediately after the testing began – including that the number of reactors being operated was
    far less than the number of reactors specified in Penon’s plan and design – Penon simply disregarded the massive deviation. ”

    “Penon further knowingly relied on flawed or fabricated data collections in his supposed evaluation of the Plant’s performance.”

    • Ged

      A lot that we expected, though that Unit A thing is technical squabling. The rest is where the real meat is.

      • Mats002

        Hi Ged, the main document is available from Sifferkoll, link:

        • Ged

          They were one day late, I see, amusingly.

          • Mats002

            I read it (fast) – could not see any reference to ERV report.

            I noticed a conclusion though, see page 50, paragraph 93 and 94.

            • Ged

              “93. Only one of three conclusions can be drawn from the foregoing facts: 1) Leonardo and Rossi did not transfer and deliver all E-Cat IP to Counter-Plaintiffs; 2) Validation was never achieved and Penon’s reported COP calculations were false; or 3) both.
              94. Each of these scenarios leads to only one conclusion: Leonardo and Rossi breached the terms of the License Agreement, either by not achieving Validation, not transferring or delivering all of the E-Cat IP to Counter-Plaintiffs, or both.”

              That about sums up all the speculation posts on this site about the reasonings.

              • Mats002

                Yep. IH/Darden claim COP was lower than agreed upon and also question the 350 of 400 days but note that they never tell their findings if COP. Only that the agreement was not fulfilled.
                Fraud is used in connection to the secret customer.

                • Ged

                  Indeed, that is odd. The most they say is on page 25-26, with the only fully solid claim they make being that Rossi and Fabiani worked to make the COP appear greater than 10, suggesting 10 was the floor. Though, really, a COP greater than 6 was all that was needed for full payment, all the way down to 2.7, and nowhere here do I see IH arguing that the COP was less than 2.7 (they make an allusion in parentheses about a COP of 4, but that’s still above 2.7). Will have to look closely at what they show as evidence for their counter-claims.

                  The secret customer wasn’t really part of the main issue, oddly enough. And what about the payments by the customer to IH? I don’t see them denying that, but I may have missed it as I am still reading.

                • Mats002

                  Glad you see the same 🙂

                  Maybe Rossi have the same mouse effect as Parkhomov and MFMP see, but the Cat – the Rossi effect – is unique for – ehum – Rossi?

                • Ged

                  Also, I see that IH admits to some of “the allegations”, particularly paragraphs 7 and 8… but I am unsure exactly what paragraphs 7 and 8 are referencing at the moment, and don’t want to make a mistake in which things they are pointing at with these admits and denies. We might need a diagram at this rate.

                • Obvious

                  “92. However, after numerous attempts, both with and without Rossi’s involvement, Counter-Plaintiffs have been unable, using the transferred E-Cat IP, to replicate the results included in the Evaluation Report purportedly certifying that Validation was achieved from April 30 to May 1, 2013, or otherwise generate measureable excess energy.”

                • Ged

                  That is a separate from the COP of the plant in the 1 year test, though. But it is an interesting argument, as the patent with the COP 11 seems to run counter it. We’ll have to see what evidence is dug up about this.

      • Jimr

        In the beginning I was sure Rossi was in the clear, but I am having some second thoughts. My primary concern is when we were told niether IH nor Rossi (per Rossi) was allowed behind rhe wall ( in the plant) where the heat was used. Very unusual.

        • Ged

          That is irrelevant to the operation of the plant itself, however, and the validation of if the plant itself works or not. It is an interesting point in its own right for other reasonings, but not the main issue of the original complaint.

          What is also interesting is paragraph 103 on page 51. IH is angry there that Rossi talked about or did anything with the E-cat outside of strict IH approval, such as writing that paper on the theory of operation and the fuel sample analysis and so forth. Seems IH wanted complete and strict control of all communications about the E-cat technology in total.

          • Mats002

            Not only wants, the agreement says so according to the document, the agreement is part of the exhebitions – all of the agreement is not out in the light yet?

            • Ged

              If the agreement really does say Rossi can’t communicate in any way about anything involving his technology, without IH consent, that is one horribly bad deal for Rossi to sign. That alone would be madness.

              • Gerard McEk

                If needed I would leak it to MFMP! 😉

                • Ged

                  You would be one heck of a hero ;).

                  I also like this part of the Counter document, page 6:
                  “32. Defendants lack sufficient knowledge to admit or deny that the design and construction of the E-Cat device, as well as the process by which it operates, constitute the intellectual property of Plaintiffs; see response to Paragraph 1 supra.”


        • Rene

          That is the point of counterclaims. You go for the throat, make heavy pejorative statements to stain the character of the plaintiff. Then through discovery and trial, the claims get sorted out, some remain others are neutralized by evidence. Remaining claims are adjudicated or jury examined.
          So, second thoughts should wait until after mediation or trial.

    • Gerard McEk

      Remember that in the beginning of the test AR had huge problems with the plant. Some time later he suddenly said that only four ‘Tigers’ were used. I think the major problem was the control and stability due those 30 or more Ecats in parallel. Having only four greatly simplifies that as well as the probability of component failure.
      If only COP>6 was to be achieved the number of Ecats are not really important.
      Measuring the water flow and temperature input and temperature and pressure output is sufficient for determining the COP if no water flow is drained to the sewer. However the latter cannot be checked by IH because it may be drained at the customers side. Penon must have ensured that it was a closed system.

      • Ged

        Hm, would it matter if there was some drainage to the sewers post output? What comes in, must go out, so the steady state flow in should be the one that matters. Please correct me if I am wrong, as it is an interesting argument.

        • Mats002

          IH/Darden states that they measured only the ‘in’-flow. Not also measure the ‘out’-flow would validate Gerards suspision. (Might remember wrong from the reading).

          • Ged

            If the outflow is steam, all you need is temp and pressure. As long as there is only one pipe for outflow, that is. What comes in in the in-flow must come out in the out-flow at the same rate at steady state, or they’ll soon make a lake. More than one outflow pipe would change that however.

            • Mats002

              Pipe in a pipe with opposite direction of flow is not visible in any picture…

              • Ged

                I see what you and Gerard mean now. Only thing is the inner pipe would be affected by the temperature of the outer pipe and vice versa. Thankfully we have all those images of the inside too, as both pipes would have to start in different locations, and you’d need a separate pump for the inner pipe’s water. It seems kinda farfetched, but it should be pretty easy to verify if it was occurring–maybe one of the Exhibitions elaborates.

        • Gerard McEk

          In the case I have drawn it is possible that a large liquid flow of water runs through the steam pipe in a separate pipe to the sewers at the customers side. In that case you do not convert all the water mass into steam, but only a small part.
          If it was a fully closed system, so no water supply was needed from the public water supply on either side side (customer and Ecad side) than COP can be determined with only the water flow in (plus temperatures and pressures).

          • Ged

            Temperature and pressure of the outflow pipe should address that though? Unless there was a separate pipe compared to the steam one, but we don’t see that in the images as far as I have noticed.

            • Gerard McEk

              Yes, that is indeed the issue. Penon must have checked that it is truly a closed system to exclude fraud.

              • Ged

                Indeed. I don’t yet have the actual Exhibitions on hand, so there could be more useful details in those.

      • Obvious

        Check out Exhibit 5

  • Ophelia Rump

    That sounds like a dreadful choice of places to interview if you have credibility.

    I take that as a measure of how little even the most credible LENR researchers have.

    • Ged

      They do have a large viewership of people who generally seem to detest the “mainstream” media and want to live off the grid (target audiance), so it is a good way to get a significant number of people aware of Brillouin’s soon-to-be products. If that is the goal, marketting, then it seems a rather clever move given the ignoring of Brillouin by the MSM and standard passive marketing outlets.

    • Mats002

      If Darden et al win the court battle against Rossi et al, will Brillouin be the next business to be attacked?

  • Barbierir

    Lomax posted on lenr-forum link to yahoo group with last files: IH counterclaims are against Rossi, Penon, Johnson and Fabiani.

    • Ged

      Johnson, too? Interesting. So, alleging conspiracy for fraud, it sounds like. This should liven matters! The wider they cast the net, the more testimonies and info we get to hear.

      • Barbierir

        At least it sounds rational, a counterclaim against Rossi alone would not make sense. I wonder why not Barry West too? It seems him and Fabiani are good buddies. I have not access to the group so I’m waiting to read the files

        • Ged

          Same. And you make a very interesting point, why not West? I wonder if he will be pulled in as a witness. He was there and said great things about the plant and stuff, so it is a curious omission to ignore him.

          • Robert Dorr

            If all of what I.H. says in their counterclaim were to be true it would mean that Rossi would have to be completely delusional to think that filing a lawsuit against I.H. was a good idea. That’s why I think that most if not all of what is expressed in I.H.’s counterclaim is B.S. It will be interesting to see the exhibits. If Rossi can show his customer is real, it’s pretty much all over although I agree in what was said already that an actual customer is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is, did Rossi’s plant make 1 MW of heat at a COP > 50, or not.

            • Ged

              As others and I said at the start of this, if Rossi (and Johnson, Penon, Fabiani, and West(?)) did indeed commit fraud, it was utter and complete suicide to sue IH. As we see, IH could counter with charges of fraud, and now Rossi (and others) and IH are under the full scrutiny of the Court.

              But now begins the battle of evidence, so we’ll see what’s the truth once and for all.

    • sam

      Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax
      User Avatar
      Verified User
      44 minutes ago+1
      On this topic, we now have the agreement with JM Products; Industrial Heat has formally claimed now that JM Products was a sham, and Johnson has been named as a counter-defendant as a party to a fraudulent scheme, together with Fabiani and Penon.

      It appears that it was represented to IH that the customer was actually Johnson-Matthey. The Answer is 66 pages, and with the 25 factual Exhibits, it was more than 10 MB of data, so it could not be downloaded collectively.

      (There are also subpoenas to Johnson, Penon, Fabiani, JM Products, and Fabiani’s company. I am not downloading them.)

      It is going to take substantial time to study these documents.

      I am preparing to upload all the Exhibits filed with the IH Answer to newvortex, and I will annotate them so you can see what each exhibit it.

      • Ged

        Fabiani’s company? Well, this just keeps getting better and better. This will force out all the info we have wanted and even more; no more hidding the truth. IH has just effectively increased the number of folks standing against them, though, so they will have to thoroughly prove conspiracy to commit fraud.

        Though, is the ERV report still not part of this release of data? Why is no one releasing that?

        • Barbierir

          I suppose they will say the report is completely fake and fraudulent, otherwise I agree it wouldn’t make sense to point exclusively to the customer issue.

  • sam
  • Private Citizen

    Wonder if Robert George would be willing to do an “Ask Me Anything” type interview in E-Cat World messaging system?

  • artefact

    Shouldn’t the name be Robert E. Godes?

    Edit: Ah, I see. There are two Roberts at brillouin 🙂

    • Private Citizen


  • Mats002

    I am very surprised ” (big eyes)

    This is a guy who represent:
    – A technology that is verified by serious phys labs (SRI and others)
    – Those people where welcomed to Norway Energy Council openly (the leaders of an oil country)
    – They where welcomed to Capitol Hill to show what they have
    – A serious business, got the patents and open at an expected level for a ‘normal’ business

    What on earth are stopping them now???

    • They should move to another country.
      China, Sweden or Russia would welcome them.

      • Mats002

        No we don’t want’em in Sweden. Russia maybe. Sibiria.

  • J Storrs Hall

    The interviewer is David Knight.