Brillouin e-cat latest video

Shows what changes when they turn on the pulser for sweeping in the nuetrons , creating new isotopes along the way.
This is the original model, not the newer, higher pressure model.

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/05/video-of-brillouins-phase-1-reactor-in-action/

How does it work, and why does each of the companies have a different theoretical model, and yet they all function (sort of) ?

Students guide to cold fusion.

http://coldfusionnow.org/?p=15901


and one other way this changes the way we think of particle physics and materials science.
Gonna be fabulous for 3D printing too, easy and cheap rare earths, with much lower environmental costs.

http://coldfusionnow.org/?p=18432

this university figured out the reaction, but couldnt figure out how to speed it up.
they aren't seeing the helium production, maybe they weren't looking for it.

http://phys.org/news/2012-02-metal-catalyst-hydrogen-fuel-reaction.html

and if you change the catalyst from pure nickle to NiMo.....

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120511122232.htm

and here is the latest peltier chip to put on the steam output radiator.

http://www.powerchips.gi/

looks like you can up the efficiency higher than the Ni/Moly by ammonia bath. Ni/Moly/Nitride.
another hint from the hydrogen catalyst guys.

http://phys.org/news/2012-05-nanosheet-catalyst-sustainably-hydrogen.html

this is the same formation we find in almost every asteroid/meteorite/interstellar dust particle. there it is a nanodiamond, and is usually the highest single component in them. averages 10%. hmmm......

and a link from a link
i can't watch video, and this guy is still on the belief that it is hydrogen deuterium/fusion, but other info is good for homework.

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/05/26/spawar-space-and-naval-warfare-lenr-proof/

Latest report from a conference.
Gives some more details.

click the second red title for the PDF

http://energycatalyzer3.com/news/brilliouin-publishes-test-results

Just got 2 mil in funding , and 20 mil if shippable product produced.

Also got patent in China. This may force the US to issue one that they have denied previously

http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/09/brillouin-energy-has-conditional.html#more

Just found this again, Gode, the guy that did this, gives some explanations.
goes on to the next page too..

http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?166-10-questions-to-the-Brillouin!/page2

oops, new site wanted login, so here you go
will try and edit out some of the headers

10 questions to the Brillouin!


32 posts • Page 2 of 4 • 1234

Posts: 135

Re: 10 questions to the Brillouin!

PostSun 29 Apr 2012, 15:24
If David and Alain would select the 10, I'll try and translate them into English that even an American might understand

Posts: 314
Joined: Fri 02 Mar 2012, 09:16
Location: VILLEJUIF, FRANCE

note that as a defense I could pretend not to speak english, but globish, with a French accent (and we french love accents).
“Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of the atom is talking moonshine” Ernest Rutherford



I first gather them all here:

what is the COP you expect to reach with each of your domestic and industrial versions of your invention.
You said that it is the same reaction that Rossi and DGT are exploiting, Their reactions produce transmutation which you state is due to poor control, but their's don't produce Helium, yours does. Please explain
Have you tested gas loading reactors like your planned industrial reactor.
How does your theory explain Iwamura transmutation results? it it compatible, or do you feel it is experimental mistakes.
When you talk of classic old-TV electronics used to implement your devices, do you mean you use cathodic screen Very High Voltage supply to excite the hydride ?
When you talk of diving bottle use to implement your devices, do you mean as reactor itself, or as hydrogen bottle ?
what are you approximative cost of the different reactors models (just the scale of price), for buying , and maintaining
what is the approximative (just the scale) weight of your different reactors model (observed or planned), facing their power
how small and light, per kW, do you think that your technology could go
do you think that it will be possible, one day, to make city cars or planes with your technology
do you think it could be miniaturized one day to supply hand held devices
If this is a technology that can literally 'save lives' right now (clean water, food due to irrigation, sanitation, etc), why are all the LENR companies hoarding their 'one secret' that makes their tech feasible - including Brillouin with the 'Q wave' generation secret? Isn't this the same as basically letting people die out of greed? Would it really be so bad if someone else took the 'secret' information and utilized it better, improving it even, and beating the 'originator' to market? If that happens, that is more lives potentially saved, the sooner, at a small cost of diminished compensation to a few. Also if the Q-Wave is really just a refined method and explanation of pons and Fleischman method, it would be difficult to prove truly novel, and much of Brillouin's claims (as well as all LENR) would not be patentable, due to pre-existing 'art'.
Is the "Q" pulse electrodes (on the hydrogen side of the separation wall) made of palladium ?
Have you get temperature data of the added heat produced when you turn on the pulses. And approximately how much more heat is then produced compared whit the "Q" pulse energy input.
Is it absolute sure that there is not any combustion of hydrogen at the where the pulse electrodes are located (no oxygen produced of the "Q" pulse electrodes) ?
Is there any dangerous radiation outside the electrolysis glass bottle?
Please could You exactly describe procedures and method used to measure and estimate the "Electrical energy or Power in Input" to this Your system?


Not yet sorted. I will try to sort by thematic, trying to merge some question.
“Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of the atom is talking moonshine” Ernest Rutherford

I propose this sorting, merging:

Have you tested gas loading reactors like your planned industrial reactor.
Have you get temperature data of the added heat produced when you turn on the "Q" pulses. And approximately how much more heat is then produced compared whit the "Q" pulse energy input.
Is it absolute sure that there is not any combustion of hydrogen at the where the "Q" pulse electrodes are located (no oxygen produced of the "Q" pulse electrodes) ?
Please could You exactly describe procedures and method used to measure and estimate the "Electrical energy or Power in Input" to this Your system?
Is there any dangerous radiation outside the electrolysis glass bottle?
what is the COP you expect to reach with each of your domestic and industrial versions of your invention. the price, the power, the temperature, the weight, observed or expected...
how small and light, per kW, do you think that your technology could go ? do you think that it will be possible, one day, to make city cars or planes with your technology? do you think it could be miniaturized one day to supply hand held devices
You said that it is the same reaction that Rossi and DGT are exploiting. Their reactions produce transmutation which you state is due to poor control, but they don't claim Helium production
unlike you. Can you explain Iwamura transmutation results?
Is the "Q" pulse electrodes (on the hydrogen side of the separation wall) made of palladium ?
If this is a technology that can literally 'save lives' right now (clean water, food due to irrigation, sanitation, etc), why are all the LENR companies hoarding their 'one secret' that makes their tech feasible - including Brillouin with the 'Q wave' generation secret? Isn't this the same as basically letting people die out of greed? Would it really be so bad if someone else took the 'secret' information and utilized it better, improving it even, and beating the 'originator' to market? If that happens, that is more lives potentially saved, the sooner, at a small cost of diminished compensation to a few. Also if the Q-Wave is really just a refined method and explanation of pons and Fleischman method, it would be difficult to prove truly novel, and much of Brillouin's claims (as well as all LENR) would not be patentable, due to pre-existing 'art'.

“Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of the atom is talking moonshine” Ernest Rutherford
Top
Offline

drew

Posts: 135
Joined: Fri 02 Mar 2012, 20:36

Re: 10 questions to the Brillouin!

PostSun 29 Apr 2012, 19:39
Noticed I think that yesterday(?) on jon rossi declined to answer if his reaction produced He!
Anyway additional question .. What happens to the He produced?
'Everything you can imagine is real' (Pablo Picasso) We hope so.


Re: 10 questions to the Brillouin!

PostSun 29 Apr 2012, 20:30

drew wrote:Noticed I think that yesterday(?) on jonp rossi declined to answer if his reaction produced He!
Anyway additional question .. What happens to the He produced?

my 2cent quess is that they don't measure it, since it is normally in few quantity, and hard to measure.

so nobody know if there is He4, or not, in Rossi reactor.
maybe could DGT measure it with their expensive tools. but we will learn in the theoretical report they promissed for later.
“Anyone who expects a source of power from the transformation of the atom is talking moonshine” Ernest Rutherford
Top
Offline

drew

Posts: 135
Joined: Fri 02 Mar 2012, 20:36


PostSun 06 May 2012, 02:57

drew wrote:what is the COP you expect to reach with each of your domestic and industrial versions of your invention.

We expect the domestic version to achieve a COP of at least 3 but we expect to do substantially better. It is based on the electrolytic system. It will not be able to generate electricity. The industrial version should be able to obtain significantly higher COP. We will not know until we are working at SRI. The industrial version will operate at a significant higher temperature > 400C. At this temperature water is super critical and can not be a liquid.

You said that it is the same reaction that Rossi and DGT are exploiting, Their reactions produce transmutation which you state is due to poor control, but their's don't produce Helium, yours does. Please explain


Who says there units don't produce Helium? Have they looked for Helium? We know they have looked for Cu. What were the specific isotopes of Cu that they found and what were the exact ratios of those isotopes. I would like to see the report on that. Just off the cuff I am guessing that they are seeing significantly more 65Cu than 63Cu. The most abundant isotope of Ni is 58Ni. If they must isolate 62Ni and 64Ni to get 63Cu and 65Cu no one would be able to afford the reactors.
Top
Offline

qfman

Posts: 7
Joined: Sun 25 Mar 2012, 17:10

Re: 10 questions to the Brillouin!

PostSun 06 May 2012, 03:14

AlainCo wrote:

Have you tested gas loading reactors like your planned industrial reactor. Not yet.
How does your theory explain Iwamura transmutation results? is it compatible, or do you feel it is experimental mistakes.
This is explainable through neutron accumulation. If you don't have enough H flowing through the system you will have transmutation of the lattice. If you are using D not H you will tend to add neutrons 2 at a time.
When you talk of classic old-TV electronics used to implement your devices, do you mean you use cathodic screen Very High Voltage supply to excite the hydride ?
Think more the horizontal retrace circuitry.
When you talk of diving bottle use to implement your devices, do you mean as reactor itself, or as hydrogen bottle ?

For the electrolytic systems it is the pressure vessel.

Top
Offline

qfman

Posts: 7
Joined: Sun 25 Mar 2012, 17:10

Re: 10 questions to the Brillouin!

PostSun 06 May 2012, 05:24

AlainCo wrote:In absence of courageous lurker, I'll add question I missed, less theoretical:

what are you approximative cost of the different reactors models (just the scale of price), for buying , and maintaining
Probably 50 to 100% more than a natural gas equivalent. (electrolytic) ~par to +25% for industrial systems.
what is the approximative (just the scale) weight of your different reactors model (observed or planned), facing their power Electrolytic system will be same to 100% larger than Natural gas equivalent in size. The comercial will be nearly the same size.
how small and light, per kW, do you think that your technology could go For the foreseeable future the target is industrial to repower coal plants and industrial heat with commercial units and replace building heat with electrolytic systems
do you think that it will be possible, one day, to make city cars or planes with your technology
do you think it could be miniaturized one day to supply hand held devices

pg 3




Quote Originally Posted by 3chansen
If this is a technology that can literally 'save lives' right now (clean water, food due to irrigation, sanitation, etc), why are all the LENR companies hoarding their 'one secret' that makes their tech feasible - including Brillouin with the 'Q wave' generation secret?
Any one can pull our patent application down from the USPTO or the PTC. Just search for inventor name Robert E Godes. Actually Tom Claytor at LANL was able to build a system together from the stuff they have laying around there lab at LANL. His experment was based on BE25Tec.PPS http://www.brillouinenergy.com/Docs/BE25Tec.PPS

Isn't this the same as basically letting people die out of greed? I have published all that is required to build devices and am doing every thing possible to get the technology to market. Brillouin does expect to be compensated for the IP but we can't force companies to work with us or start work on products. It is not trivial to implement but then again if it was some one else would have done it already. That is why the Brillouin Energy IP is so valuable, but we are not stopping any one from using the technology at this point in time.

Would it really be so bad if someone else took the 'secret' information and utilized it better, improving it even, and beating the 'originator' to market?
Go for it. I quit my day job in 2005 and have only received about 1 year of pay, at a substandard rate to get it to this point in 2012. I have put over $200K USD of my own money in to the project. If you think it is OK to not take license of BEC IP that is your karma not ours.

If that happens, that is more lives potentially saved, the sooner, at a small cost of diminished compensation to a few. Also if the Q-Wave is really just a refined method and explanation of pons and fleischmann method, it would be difficult to prove truly novel,
What is novel about the Brillouin IP is the ability to control the reaction. Obviously if our IP tells you how to control the reaction then it is novel and patentable. That is why we will bring a useful product to marked and others will have to infringe our IP to get a product to market. I heard defkalion mention a hydrogen circuit. That would infringe our IP and also allow them to manufacture a product. They may be the first to market but they will infringe our IP to do it.
and much of Brillouin's claims (as well as all LENR) would not be patentable, due to pre-existing 'art'.

Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
05-06-2012, 12:10 AM #22
qfman
qfman is offline
Junior Member

Join Date
Mar 2012
Posts
7

Re: 10 questions to the Brillouin!

Quote Originally Posted by Olle Welin
Quote Originally Posted by 3chansen
If this is a technology that can literally 'save lives' right now (clean water, food due to irrigation, sanitation, etc), why are all the LENR companies hoarding their 'one secret' that makes their tech feasible - including Brillouin with the 'Q wave' generation secret? Isn't this the same as basically letting people die out of greed? Would it really be so bad if someone else took the 'secret' information and utilized it better, improving it even, and beating the 'originator' to market? If that happens, that is more lives potentially saved, the sooner, at a small cost of diminished compensation to a few. Also if the Q-Wave is really just a refined method and explanation of pons and fleischmann method, it would be difficult to prove truly novel, and much of Brillouin's claims (as well as all LENR) would not be patentable, due to pre-existing 'art'.
I saw a oscilloscop plot of the "Q" pulse in the youtube presentation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B63_I616 ... re=related , so regarding the "Q" pulse it's not look's like any secret there from my point of view.
However using such a thing is covered in the patent. I strongly encourage people to use the IP to build product NOW!!! the world need them. Brillouin Energy is happy to set up licensing with any one and help you implement the technology.
Olle Welin (I want to replicate this experiment)

Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Multi-Quote This Message
05-06-2012, 12:20 AM #23
qfman
qfman is offline
Junior Member

Join Date
Mar 2012
Posts
7

Re: 10 questions to the Brillouin!

Quote Originally Posted by Olle Welin
1. Wonder about the Extra heat production at the Phase1Demo. I have read that Palladium release the bounded Hydrogen when it heats up. What if the palladium also release the accumulated hydrogen quickly when the "Q" pulse occure and that make the popping sound, and it maybee release accumulated energy from the electrolysis input power instead of LENR process (my hypotesis a termodynamic process by a pressure peek when hydrogen release from the palladium). Could that senario be ruled out. Please explain.
"Q" helps to prevent what we call "Gross Loading". Gross Loading will cause destruction of the core material by releasing enough energy to break the lattice. That is why devices that allow gross loading have such erratic heat output. By preventing the H from penetrating too deep into the lattice and running the reaction only near the surface, the electrolyte can remove the heat and prevent lattice degradation.

2. Do you phase1demo expriment work also with Nicel wire as well or was the result negative with Nicel ?
Nickel worked. Not as well as Pd and it requires a different control algorithm than Pd.

3. Is it needed to heat up the palladium to some temperature to get the LENR process start?
I believe Q takes care of that.

4. Do you "preheat" the palladium wire with DC power of 22Watt "baking" power showed in your diagram. Or was it only a compere referens heater?
referens heater

Best Regards Olle Welin Sweden. I rely like your pressentation and Phase1Demo on youtube. Want to try replicate this experiment. Look's like you have overcome the long start up time problem with Fleshman Pond reactor.
That is correct. It also allows control, steady output, the ability to turn it off and back on.




Quote Originally Posted by RNBE
Question n.XIV:
Please could You exactly describe procedures and method used to measure and estimate the "Electrical energy or Power" in Input to this Your system?
Thanks.
Read http://www.brillouinenergy.com/Docs/...Hypothesis.pdf



To Brillouin Corp:

From your answers I understand that your control method use high energy electric pulse, that I guess might (?) cause plasma like. It seems based on nano powder in aqueous phase.
The Athanor reactor seems based on similar nano particle, and plasma electrolysis.

Do you think that Athanor and Brillouin aqueous reactor are similar, even if you seems to better control the triggering, to avoid destructive evolution of the reaction. What are the key similarity and differences

NANOR seems also based on aqueous nanoparticle, but seems more different. How similar and different do you think NANOR and your reactor are ?

“No belief necessary. Its now fact.” (The Believers trailer)



1. Any news on the COP question?
2. Another good question is how the COP is calculated.

I did a calculation on the device of Rossi, based on Rossi's information (1 MW, 1 million EUR, etc.)
If the COP is lower than 1 on 15, maybe even 1 on 10, it's not economically interesting...

If the 'LENR-boiler' works and you extract heat, imho it affects the operation of the boiler.
3. Is the proces stable when heat is extracted?

4. How fast does the boiler start-up and how much time does it take to stop again?
Eg. from zero-operation to let's say 80% maximum and back.
In order to use it for home-use you need to take this into acount or take care through an extra heat-buffer, which makes it more complex and expensive again.

Regards,
Mg



Qfman please get together with these guys http://www.powerchips.gi/
These chips can generate electricity directly from heat (temperature gradient) and from what I read should happily work with temperatures of 400 C. Efficienly is much higher than solar cells, quoted as above 50%!

It looks like all the technology is there for a reactor with no moving parts to generate electricity directly. I just hope there are enough visionary people to put these technologies together.

and with a SPICE diagram of the pulse wave circuit....

http://pdxlenr.blogspot.com/2012/10/thoughts-about-godes-brillouin-patent.html


Thoughts about the Godes / Brillouin patent
Introduction

I've spent some time reading the Robert E. Godes / Brillouin Energy patent application. The patent covers a number of possible implementations. I will be concentrating on the "first embodiment" of the invention, which uses current pulses (the "Q pulses") to stimulate the reaction core. My description includes an LTSpice simulation of a circuit similar to Mr. Godes that you can download and use as a basis for further experimentation or design.

I have some hands-on experience with circuit design and debugging, but I am not trained as an electronic engineer. I am self-taught in the realm of signal processing and analysis. Please don't take any of the assertions I make below as facts; rather, use them as food for thought. And I couldn't have written this without help from several others along the way. Acknowledgements appear at the end.

The circuit I'm describing here is shown in figure 3C of the patent application, supported by figures 3A and 3B. Useful references to this circuit appear throughout the text. It is sometimes difficult to tell whether a particular textual comment refers to the exact design shown in the figures. This sort of thing is common with patents.

Background

The Godes patent asserts that under proper chemical conditions, Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (LENRs) can be triggered in a "reaction core" by one or more of several mechanisms. Pulses of electrical current. ("Q pulses") are one of the given mechanisms. The "reaction core", in this embodiment, consists of a mesh of fine wires submerged in an electrolytic solution. The "reactant" (hydrogen) is loaded in the core by electrolysis.

The circuit can be thought of as a relatively low-voltage, low-current DC circuit (the load circuit) with a relatively high-voltage, high-current AC circuit (the Q-pulses) layered on top of it. In fact, Godes' design allows the load circuit to be modulated; but the text notes that prototypes available at the time of the patent application required a loading duty cycle of 80% or higher. With such a high duty cycle, the load voltage and current can be thought of as DC and must both be kept relatively low in order to avoid unsustainable amounts of resistive heating in the core.

The Q-pulses, by contrast, are tremendously energetic, both high-voltage and high-current. The duty cycle must be kept low in order to avoid vaporizing the core. The patent mentions an example (fourth row of Table 1) of approximately 90,000 pulses each second with each pulse exceeding 50% amplitude for 166 nanoseconds. That is 90 * 10^3 * 166 * 10^-9 = 14.940 * 10^-3 seconds of "on" time per second or 1.5%.

Circuit Simulation

I simulated a circuit similar to the Q-pulse generation circuit found in figure 3C of the patent using the wonderful LTSpice program written by Mike Englehardt and available from Linear Technology. The image below shows my simplified circuit design in action. The simulation file can be downloaded using the link near the end of this posting.

Figure 1. Simplified Circuit and Q-pulses

The 3.3v pulse train shown in blue is the input. In a real application, this input would come from a computer or microcontroller and would not be a simple 50% duty cycle ("square") wave. The green spikes are the Q-pulses.

My circuit does not include the reactant loading (electrolysis) circuit, nor does it include the isolation transformer ("T8") from Mr. Godes' design. The primary of T8 in Mr. Godes' design plays two key roles. First, isolation allows the Q-pulses on the secondary side (electrolysis cell) to be symmetrical about ground. Second, the primary of T8, acting as an inductor, cooperates with capacitor C5 to create a "spike" each time the output of the driver circuit switches. These spikes are the Q-pulses.

In my simplified circuit design, this role of the primary side of Mr. Godes' T8 is played by inductor L1. The role of Mr. Godes' C5 is played by my C2. My design also uses a different half bridge driver IC, an LT1158 from Linear Technology, in contrast to the IR2184 shown in the patent, and different power FETs.

The components in my example were selected purely for simplicity (they are found in the LT1158 example circuit that ships with LTSpice and which served as my starting point). A comparison of the component specifications shows that Mr. Godes' circuit is superior to my simplified teaching example in every way.

My circuit contains no remedy for the lack of symmetry about ground in the electrolysis cell. According to the text of the patent application, this is a "show stopper" that would need to be remedied before my design could be used in a real cell, even for experimentation. The patent contains a description of transformer T8 and even a supplier for obtaining it. If you go down this road and perform some hands-on experiments, I hope you'll contact me.

Fourier decomposition

All continuous signals can be decomposed into (equivalently, formed from) a summation of sine waves of various frequencies. You can play with the phenomena here. Try summing a fundamental frequency, plus 1/3 (0.33) of the third harmonic, plus 1/5 (0.2) of the fifth harmonic, and so on. The more harmonics you sum, the more "square" the resulting sum becomes. In particular, the more "steep" (vertical) the leading edges become.

If we zoom in on a Q-pulse, we find something like this:

Figure 2. Q-pulse, expanded.

Note the time scale - that leading edge (a falling edge, in this case) is very steep indeed. We can zoom until it fills the entire window, and then use LTSpice to perform a Fourier transform on the zoom region - the edge, taken by itself. Suppose we do this and then perform a Fourier analysis (FFT). What do we find?

Figure 3. Leading (falling) edge of Q-pulse (top frame), FFT (bottom frame).

Answer: the rapid slew decomposes to sine waves with very high frequencies. There is still substantial energy up above 100Mhz, maybe up to a GHz, just for the tiny moment of time when the signal is changing rapidly. (Note that the vertical scale is in dB, which is to say it's logarithmic - the energy is falling off dramatically as we move out to the right on the graph.)

This is not just a mathematical abstraction; during that very short period of rapid voltage slew, it turns out that edges really do behave like very high frequency sine waves.

Skin Effect

Mr. Godes mentions the "skin effect" in a couple of places in the patent text. The term refers to the propensity for AC currents to flow near the surface of a conductor. There's a pretty good Wikipedia article about it. The higher the frequency of a signal, the more strongly it tends to flow near the surface ("in the skin") of the conductor. And we just got through establishing that during the short period of rapid voltage slew, the equivalent frequency of the Q-pulse is very high indeed.

So we have pulses of electricity, peaking as high as perhaps 400 volts, carrying several amps, all compressed into the first few microns of the surface of the conductor by the skin effect. The analogy of hitting the atomic bonds in this region with a really big hammer seems apt.

I think this is the reasoning behind Godes' assertion that the pulsing can prevent "bulk loading" of the core; he's asserting that the pulses can cause the LENR to occur just at the surface, leaving the core of the conductors to maintain the physical integrity of the wires.

Simulation File

If you have problems with this, please contact me by posting a follow-up to the blog. I hate Google Drive and always wonder if I've screwed something up.

Simulation File

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank Abd ul-Rahman Lomax and others on the vortex-l mailing list for help in understanding a couple of sticky points about Mr. Godes' design, an anonymous friend for putting me on to LTSpice, and the other members of our small LENR group for many useful discussions.