Brillouin Energy/Cold Fusion Covered in ‘Century of War’ Video

Thanks to Stefenski for providing a link to part 3 of a documentary film titled ‘A Century of War’ directed by Sean Stone (son of Oliver Stone), which has been published on the “Watching the Hawks” program which is posted on the RT website.

The film includes a discussion of Hot Fusion (mentioning TriAlpha, General Fusion and Lockheed Martin) and Cold Fusion/LENR, with a focus on Brillouin Energy. There are short interviews with Michael McKubre, Robert Godes, Carl Page, and Peter Hagelstein, and a demonstration of Brillouin’s ‘Wet Boiler.’

You can see the segment at about the 17 minute mark of this video:

20 Replies to “Brillouin Energy/Cold Fusion Covered in ‘Century of War’ Video”

  1. Looks like LENR will be hopping into our economy next year.

    I hope that the restructuring of schools brings high school graduates the knowledge they need to work in the LENR economy.


    1. Why didn’t this happen…
      On the question of safety, here is how the Union of Concerned Scientists in its Statement on Thorium Fueled Reactors, answers:

      Some people believe that liquid fluoride thorium reactors, which would use a high-temperature liquid fuel made of molten salt, would be significantly safer than current-generation reactors. However, such reactors have major flaws. There are serious safety issues associated with the retention of fission products in the fuel, and it is not clear these problems can be effectively resolved. Such reactors also present proliferation and nuclear terrorism risks because they involve the continuous separation, or “reprocessing,” of the fuel to remove fission products and to efficiently produce U-233, which is a nuclear weapon-usable material. Moreover, disposal of the used fuel has turned out to be a major challenge. Stabilization and disposal of the remains of the very small “Molten Salt Reactor Experiment” that operated at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s has turned into the most technically challenging cleanup problem that Oak Ridge has faced, and the site has still not been cleaned up.

        1. Good survey article, but as a chemist I am hugely skeptical that the corrosivity problems can be solved.

          And, of course, all of these involve fission, which yields radwaste which must be processed and disposed of…a problem which has never been satisfactorily solved (largely due to politics).

          1. Wart,

            No chemical background, but, if the only problem holding back Thorium reactor tech is one of material environment, (and I don’t know this as a fact), I would believe that this could be overcome in time
            With nickels, ceramics, and other specialty engineered materials.

            Makes me wonder if there are other problems with the physical Thorium environment that is holding his tech back, or is it simply no weapons grade plutonium?

          2. The U.S. and Russia have more weapons grade plutonium then either will ever need. Even if Russia doesn’t know it yet. As of 6 years ago, the U.S. developed the technology that makes launched Nuclear weapons obsolete and even a liabilty to have. At any point after 500 foot of launch, the U.S. can neutralize or detonate a nuclear missile.

            Also, they have the technology to detect very small quantities of nuclear materials at close proximity and can be stopped at point of entry. Of coarse points of entry are large cities and there are the vast borders. Current R&D is focused on technology to detect very small quantities at a distance(satellites). In 20/25 years when these technologies are deployed, everyone will be scrambling to get rid of such weapons.

            The U.S. isn’t spending a Trillion$ to scale it’s warheads down from 200 times the size of Hiroshima bomb to 1/10th the Hiroshima bomb because they are more precision. They just don’t want them very large should someone else develop the same technology.

          3. The chemical company I worked for produced chlorine and many products derived from it. Those “material environments” required a LOT of very expensive and exotic materials. Fluorides are FAR worse (I’ve worked with those, too, but only on a lab scale….not process…so I could use materials not practical on a process scale).

            I think it will require far more years of research than has been done thus far to reach the necessary safety and reliability.

          4. Stainless would have lasted a few days in those streams. Iron would literally catch fire and burn. Hastelloy C and titanium for much of it. In some places tantalum (soft, but it was the only metal that would work). And some others which I should probably treat as proprietary knowledge.

        1. What is not false is that fission of Thorium produces radioactive waste that last thousand years. Additionally at the core of a Thorium reactor,there is an Uranium reactor that produces the necessary neutrons to make thorium fissile, so it has all the problems of the current fission reactors. And last but not the least, we do not know how to clean up the salts from its radioactivity after its use. Whatever these gentlemen said the future energy is not fission and we all hope it will be cold fusion.

      1. I don’t think you are right here. Sorenson clearly states that the LFTR is passively safe. Yes U-233 is produced but it is very, very difficult to make nuclear weapons from this production process. There are many easier ways of making nuclear weapons. Please note that the Oakridge MSR != LFTR.

  2. Is there a grade-school explanation of what unified gravity energy production is; or how it works? Maybe I could get my head around that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *