Brillouin Energy Makes Presentation on LENR at US Capitol

Cold Fusion Now has published a press release from Brillouin Energy Corporation which reports that the company held an information session at the US Capitol building in Washington DC.

The full press release is posted here:

http://coldfusionnow.org/brillouin-energy-corp-hosts-information-session-on-lenr-thermal-energy-technology-at-u-s-capitol/

Here’s an excerpt:

Brillouin Energy Corp. presented its groundbreaking thermal energy technology on Capitol Hill last week. Attendees included Members of Congress, congressional aides, federal government officials, industry representatives, and citizens’ groups concerned with the federal government’s progress on developing clean energy solutions.

“It was great to see that much interest in DC for a true safe green nuclear power technology,” commented Brillouin’s President and Chief Technology Officer, Robert Godes.

Attendees were able to learn about Brillouin’s prototype LENR reactors and hear from a number of speakers, including Dr. Michael McKubre of Stanford Research International (SRI). Brillouin and SRI have entered into a technology research agreement under which SRI is engaged in calibration testing and independent analysis of the Brillouin technology.

As Dr. McKubre noted in a report distributed at the event, “it is very clear that something on the order of four times (4x) and potentially more gain in power (and therefore ultimately energy) was achieved at an impressive and industrially significant operating temperature of around 640°C. To my knowledge this had not been achieved before in the LENR field. The fact that the Q pulse input is capable of triggering the excess power on and off is also highly significant.”

Brillouin has been involved in quite a bit of outreach lately in an effort to secure more funding for their operations; earlier this year they were making presentations in Europe and now have gone to Congress in the US. It would be interesting to know who attended the session and what they thought.

One website, Conservative Base, has picked up on the Brillouin story and is enthusiastic about LENR as a source of energy:

“Conservatives will actually like LENR because of the strong implications for America’s national security, while liberals should like its clean energy aspects. This may be one of those rare cases in American politics today where both sides can come together to do what is right for America.

So where is the US Department of Energy? The military has a name for it – Absent Without Leave (AWOL). It’s time now for the DOE to get involved with LENR, do whatever testing is required, and evaluate and validate the recent breakthrough observed by SRI and others.”

I have always thought that LENR is a technology that would have an appeal to people across the political spectrum. LENR has an obvious appeal to environmentalists and those concerned about energy independence. If LENR is a clean, safe and inexpensive energy source, I can’t think of too many voters who would not prefer it to the current options out there. 2016 is an election year in the United States, both for the presidency and Congress and it will be interesting to see if important news about LENR will be picked as an issue up by candidates.

  • pg

    cool!!!

  • pg

    cool!!!

  • BadgerWI

    Nice, nothing like a little competition to heat up cold fusion 🙂

  • BadgerWI

    Nice, nothing like a little competition to heat up cold fusion 🙂

  • Warthog

    “I have always thought that LENR is a technology that would have an appeal
    to people across the political spectrum. LENR has an obvious appeal to
    environmentalists and those concerned about energy independence. If
    LENR is a clean, safe and inexpensive energy source, I can’t think of
    too many voters who would not prefer it to the current options out
    there.”

    Not so. The “deep green” faction of the environmental movement (those who wish to reduce the global human population to around 250MM total) consider any such energy source (including successful hot fusion) to be the equivalent of “…giving a machine gun to a chimpanzee…” (and similar memes). Here is one:

    “Giving society cheap, abundant energy … would be the equivalent
    of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
    – Paul Ehrlich, “An Ecologist’s Perspective on Nuclear Power”, May/June 1978 issue of Federation of American Scientists Public Issue Report

    • BadgerWI

      You can’t fix crazy. They should embrace this tech. It will allow us to eventually get off this rock and colonize our solar system and hopefully beyond. No more terrestrial mining, Abundant power leading to better living conditions to Women and Girls leading to education and lower reproduction rates. People leaving to colonize Mars, Both of which will relieve population pressures. But you’re right they won’t because well…You can’t fix crazy.

    • Bob

      If these people would only look at the facts! (At least as what I have been able to find). Unless otherwise corrected, nations that have achieved a higher standard of living have seen their native populations decline. Education and social security (not depending on kids for support at old age) among other factors actually cause populations to decrease.
      .
      Only in areas where education is restricted, standard of living is minimal, governments are totalarian and the future is bleak, does the population explode. Even China has started curbing their population and while some would say it was due to laws allowing only one child, in reality it is that the standard of living for the general population has improved..
      .
      So as with LENR/Cold fusion, misinformation is often the tool used to discredit. My personal belief is that certain political mindsets believe that only a large government knows what is best for everyone. That all monies should be collected by the government and then redistributed as they see fit. That morality and social coconscious can only be legislated instead of taught at home.
      .
      No, an energy source that could provide clean drinking water, provide energy to allow one to create value, to reduce dependence, will not cause the population to explode. It will help decrease it!
      .
      Oh well….. we wait.

      • HS61AF91

        What world are you living in? Ever hear of the reproduction urge?

        • US_Citizen71

          World fertility rate data seems to support what he is saying.

          http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN

          • HS61AF91

            Last time I relied on statistics, I learned a life-long lesson. A desire for wealth and luxury is external. A desire to copulate is internal. See the difference? There is also the internal urge to influence posterity. What would you mom and dad say if you told them you are the last of their prodigy, by choice?

          • US_Citizen71

            Even if you claim a 20% error rate in the data and reduce the high rates by 20% and increase the low rates by 20% the numbers are not going to converge. A reduction in the urge to copulate is not what is happening in the low fertility rate countries, but instead it is exactly what is driving the fertility rate down. But it is an urge to copulate without consequence of pregnancy. The richer more industrialized countries have better cheaper (measured by work hours needed to obtain) and easier access to contraception.

          • Omega Z

            By the year 2100, The population is expected to be somewhat over 6 Billion and still dropping. All thanks to higher standards of living…

          • HS61AF91

            I carry the hope that near free energy will ignite the imaginations of the recipients to develop ways and means of fruitful living in a more populous planet. Those who feel crowded, will soon have the opportunity to colonize others.

          • HS61AF91

            ‘to copulate without consequence of pregnancy’ that presents a diminished valuation of Love and responsibility. I guess that is sadly true, as I now see your point. Humans from time immemorial, have made choices, and it’s hard for me to get my head around this one made by so many for so little consequence.

          • Omega Z

            HS
            China just dropped the 30 year old 1 child law.
            What’s the Chinese people’s response.
            Even tho their standard of living is at record highs, they can not afford more then 1 and even less more then 2 children.

            1 or 2 children fulfills the prodigy issue. More requires giving up what that higher standard of living has given them. Modern conveniences & a life beyond just raising children until death. Freedom….
            Population growth has declined so much that about a dozen countries are publicly trying to induce people to have more children including subsidies. Few are taking them up on it. They don’t want to give up their freedom to do other things in life.

          • HS61AF91

            There seems to be a two-way pull… countries who want more bodies in the future to assure their continuing existence; while near-free energy allows for living without such a compulsion to breed for the state. The thinking of a world tied to the current paradigm is not going to be the same when these technologies, such as E-Cat, dissolve the chains now compelling people to think only one way.

          • radvar

            Ask any South Korean woman how she feels about her 1.4 kids.

  • Warthog

    “I have always thought that LENR is a technology that would have an appeal
    to people across the political spectrum. LENR has an obvious appeal to
    environmentalists and those concerned about energy independence. If
    LENR is a clean, safe and inexpensive energy source, I can’t think of
    too many voters who would not prefer it to the current options out
    there.”

    Not so. The “deep green” faction of the environmental movement (those who wish to reduce the global human population to around 250MM total) consider any such energy source (including successful hot fusion) to be the equivalent of “…giving a machine gun to a chimpanzee…” (and similar memes). Here is one:

    “Giving society cheap, abundant energy … would be the equivalent
    of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
    – Paul Ehrlich, “An Ecologist’s Perspective on Nuclear Power”, May/June 1978 issue of Federation of American Scientists Public Issue Report

    • BadgerWI

      You can’t fix crazy. They should embrace this tech. It will allow us to eventually get off this rock and colonize our solar system and hopefully beyond. No more terrestrial mining, Abundant power leading to better living conditions to Women and Girls leading to education and lower reproduction rates. People leaving to colonize Mars, Both of which will relieve population pressures. But you’re right they won’t because well…You can’t fix crazy.

      • Observer

        And you eat it up as a given fact and follow-on.

    • Bob

      If these people would only look at the facts! (At least as what I have been able to find). Unless otherwise corrected, nations that have achieved a higher standard of living have seen their native populations decline. Education and social security (not depending on kids for support at old age) among other factors actually cause populations to decrease.
      .
      Only in areas where education is restricted, standard of living is minimal, governments are totalarian and the future is bleak, does the population explode. Even China has started curbing their population and while some would say it was due to laws allowing only one child, in reality it is that the standard of living for the general population has improved..
      .
      So as with LENR/Cold fusion, misinformation is often the tool used to discredit. My personal belief is that certain political mindsets believe that only a large government knows what is best for everyone. That all monies should be collected by the government and then redistributed as they see fit. That morality and social coconscious can only be legislated instead of taught at home.
      .
      No, an energy source that could provide clean drinking water, provide energy to allow one to create value, to reduce dependence, will not cause the population to explode. It will help decrease it!
      .
      Oh well….. we wait.

      • HS61AF91

        What world are you living in? Ever hear of the reproduction urge?

        • US_Citizen71

          World fertility rate data seems to support what he is saying.

          http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN

          • HS61AF91

            Last time I relied on statistics, I learned a life-long lesson. A desire for wealth and luxury is external. A desire to copulate is internal. See the difference? There is also the internal urge to influence posterity. What would you mom and dad say if you told them you are the last of their prodigy, by choice?

          • US_Citizen71

            Even if you claim a 20% error rate in the data and reduce the high rates by 20% and increase the low rates by 20% the numbers are not going to converge. A reduction in the urge to copulate is not what is happening in the low fertility rate countries, but instead it is exactly what is driving the fertility rate down. But it is an urge to copulate without consequence of pregnancy. The richer more industrialized countries have better cheaper (measured by work hours needed to obtain) and easier access to contraception.

          • Omega Z

            By the year 2100, The population is expected to be somewhat over 6 Billion and still dropping. All thanks to higher standards of living…

          • HS61AF91

            I carry the hope that near free energy will ignite the imaginations of the recipients to develop ways and means of fruitful living in a more populous planet. Those who feel crowded, will soon have the opportunity to colonize others.

          • HS61AF91

            ‘to copulate without consequence of pregnancy’ that presents a diminished valuation of Love and responsibility. I guess that is sadly true, as I now see your point. Humans from time immemorial, have made choices, and it’s hard for me to get my head around this one made by so many for so little consequence.

          • Omega Z

            HS
            China just dropped the 30 year old 1 child law.
            What’s the Chinese people’s response.
            Even tho their standard of living is at record highs, they can not afford more then 1 and even less more then 2 children.

            1 or 2 children fulfills the prodigy issue. More requires giving up what that higher standard of living has given them. Modern conveniences & a life beyond just raising children until death. Freedom….
            Population growth has declined so much that about a dozen countries are publicly trying to induce people to have more children including subsidies. Few are taking them up on it. They don’t want to give up their freedom to do other things in life.

          • HS61AF91

            There seems to be a two-way pull… countries who want more bodies in the future to assure their continuing existence; while near-free energy allows for living without such a compulsion to breed for the state. The thinking of a world tied to the current paradigm is not going to be the same when these technologies, such as E-Cat, dissolve the chains now compelling people to think only one way.

    • Frank is right. the vast majority of environmentalists/liberals will see LENR as a great thing. i bet the same is true for right wing individualists/libertarians.

      for the most part only bought and paid for shills for big fossil fuel will be publicly against LENR commercialization, although there will always be a few exceptions.

      having said all that, limitless, cheap energy will have its dark side if not used wisely. that’s of course true for all technology. i think most people recognize this. no need to condemn whole segments of society (environmentalists) for their cautious and reasoned approach to technology.

      • Warthog

        I’m not sure about a majority. I hope that is so. But you can easily tell a real ecologist from a “green weenie”…..real ecologists favor nuclear power (including fission…when implemented safely)…….”green weenies” are opposed. With them, “nuclear” ranks as another “N-word”, and anathema.

        • Nuclear power, whether safe or not, is an economic joke. Smart environmentalists should attack nuclear on economics alone. It’s all they need to completely disembowel the nuclear fission industry’s factless propaganda.

          Because of their complexity and expense, nuclear plants are unable to address climate issues in any meaningful way.

          Lastly nobody can build a nuclear power plant without enormous government assistance (corporate welfare) – never mind the fact that the private sector won’t insure any nuclear power plants. Tax payers are on the hook if something goes wrong.

          Nuclear is a loser all around and can’t compete with wind and solar on cost, climate change mitigation or scalability.

          Here is some background for these conclusions:

          “Today [2009] most dispassionate analysts think new nuclear power plants’ deepest flaw is their economics. They cost too much to build and incur too much financial risk. My writings show why nuclear expansion therefore can’t deliver on its claims: it would reduce and retard climate protection, because it saves between two and 20 times less carbon per dollar, 20 to 40 times slower, than investing in efficiency and micropower.” – Amory Lovins.

          More of Lovins’ “Nuclear Nonsense” analysis can be found here:

          https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/65193431/2009-10_NuclearNonsense.pdf

          “Nuclear Nonsense

          AUTHOR: Lovins, Amory

          DOCUMENT ID: E09-10

          YEAR: 2009

          DOCUMENT TYPE: Journal or Magazine Article

          PUBLISHER: Grist.org

          Stewart Brand’s book, Whole Earth Discipline, features a
          chapter claiming that new nuclear power plants are essential and
          desirable, and that a global “nuclear renaissance” is booming. Amory
          Lovins reviews the book and finds fatal flaws in the chapter’s facts and
          logic. Lovins explains why each of Brand’s claims are unsupportable.”

          from http://www.rmi.org/Knowledge-Center/Library/2009-10_NuclearNonsense

          • Warthog

            Uh, no. The reason fission power is expensive is because of the gigantic legal costs and the cost of borrowing money in the face of delays caused by totally frivolous lawsuits brought by any nutcase that can think up a reason to sue. One of the last fission plants licensed and built in the US was the River Bend unit which was built about 30 miles from my home town. I was working on my PhD (chemistry) at LSU at the time. Lawsuit after lawsuit filed including one charging that the builders of the plant “had not ascertained the effect of the plant on the local sweet potato crop”.

            And quoting Lovins as a knowledgeable sources gets you zero points. I am quite familiar with him, and he is a nutcase on a par with Paul Ehrlich.

          • hmmm… frivolous environmental lawsuits make nuclear expensive (despite the fact that nuclear is massively subsidized by government/taxpayers)? that’s a great talking point (often used by proponents) but you need to provide concrete evidence of this if you expect people to really believe you on that. let’s see some studies showing how lawsuits are the cause of the Hinkley Point C boondoogle for example.

            lawsuits against the nuclear industry certainly exist but nuclear industry malfeasance also exists and such lawsuits can be useful checks on corporate negligence and fraud.

            I believe the only reason any nuclear power plants are still being built today is because of corruption and/or stupidity. Hinkley Point C is a clearly a great example of said corruption.

            http://www.energypost.eu/hinkley-point-c-boondoggle-dangerous-waste-money/

            lastly, your slagging of Amory Lovins says a lot. anyone can see from his bio that he is a well respected energy consultant to scores of corporations and governments.

            “Mr. Lovins’s clients have also included Accenture, Allstate, AMD, Anglo American, Anheuser-Busch, Bank of America, Baxter, Borg-Warner, BP, HP Bulmer, Carrier, Chevron, Ciba-Geigy, CLSA, ConocoPhillips, Corning, Dow, EDS, Equitable, Ford, GM, HP, Invensys, Lockheed Martin, Mitsubishi, Monsanto, Motorola, Norsk Hydro, Petrobras, Prudential, Rio Tinto, Royal Dutch/Shell, Shearson Lehman Amex, STMicroelectronics, Sun Oil, Suncor, Texas Instruments, UBS, Unilever, Westinghouse, Xerox, major developers, and over 100 energy utilities. His public-sector clients have included OECD, UN, RFF, the Australian, Canadian, Dutch, German, and Italian governments, 13 states, Congress, and the U.S. Energy and Defense Departments. He has been profiled in The Wall Street Journal (twice),Fortune, Harvard, The New Yorker, and The Economist. His latest book, with 60 RMI coauthors, is Reinventing Fire(2011).”

            http://www.rmi.org/Amory+B.+Lovins

          • Warthog

            I can only say that I watched the lawsuit deluge happen in the case of River Bend with my own two eyes.

            Hinkley Point C isn’t in the US. I can’t speak to corruption in Britain.

            And all the long list of Lovins clients does is show that he is good at slinging BS. Steve Krivit also has a bunch of clients, and he is probably the least knowledgeable commentator on LENR out there

        • Winebuff67

          Your confidence in nuclear is a joke! No insurance co will insure it and maybe u should house all the waste at your place that seems to be no problem in your mind. I’m curious why do people need or want automatic weapons? Is it like a fast car or a monster truck so people with an inferiority complex or the length and girth of their manhood can be made whole again. Don’t tell me u have a tricked out monster truck and a house full of assault weapons. After all the war is not over.

          • Omega Z

            “why do people need or want automatic weapons?”
            Automatic weapons are Illegal in the U.S. and I know none that want them.
            The proper term is “Semi” automatic
            All weapons sold in the U.S. are single shot weapons.

            A Semi automatic is merely a single shot weapon that when fired, ejects the cartridge and chambers another from a clip. I pull the trigger & it fires a single round & I must pull the trigger for every shot. They do NOT spray rounds as seen on TV fantasy land. Someone skilled & proficient(Such as I once was) can fire nearly as quick hand loading as with a Semi automatic.

            You’ve apparently never used one. There are several reasons for use of Semi automatic in target shooting or hunting. You would need to experience it personally to really understand. It has nothing to do with manhood. Most Women who are taught how to handle & shoot guns tend to be more enthusiastic towards guns then men. They tend to be excellent hunters Gun or Bow. Note: A single shot weapon is more dangerous then a semi automatic. Everyone fears the sniper.
            There are many high schools in the U.S. that have both archery & gun competition teams.

            All semi automatic rifles, assault or not or hand gun aside from barrel length is mostly cosmetic. They all function basically the same. An assault rifle merely has a fancy stock & outer housing(cosmetic appearance). Semi automatic’s have been in public use for over 100 years.

            There’s 1000’s of gun regulations & laws. They do little good if not enforced(Government Fail). The bulk of problems in the U.S. is gang related. Previously it was Knives, ball bats etc & guns haven’t changed the numbers much. Until of late, the numbers had been in steady decline for decades even as the number of guns greatly increased.
            ——————–
            Guns are not complex. I knew a guy who built his own scaled down desk top “22-long rifle” Gatling gun. He had an 8th grade education.
            Gun powder-sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate.
            Most Munitions use potassium nitrate extracted from urine…
            Legal or not, Those who want them will have them.

          • Warthog

            “Automatic weapons are Illegal in the U.S. and I know none that want them.”

            Not quite accurate. It is illegal in the US to MAKE MORE (or import) automatic weapons (other than for sale to the government or military). It is perfectly legal to own them, as long as you pay the tax to the Treasury, and get the Class 3 firearms owners license. There are MANY privately-owned automatic weapons owned legally in the USA.

          • Winebuff67

            Hunting four legged animals is illegal with automatic weapons but 2 legged animals are in play so when hunting your friends or family becomes legal the n they should legalize automatic weapons

          • Warthog

            A secure facility for storing waste already exists (Yucca Mountain). The nuclear industry is prevented from using it due to the machinations of Harry Reid.

            And the so-called “assault weapon” to be banned is NOT “an automatic weapon”….it just looks like one (which is why the California law focuses ONLY on cosmetic details to determine what to ban). I see Omega Z has summarized the differences quite nicely.

          • Winebuff67

            Obviously you have been watching too much Fox news yucca mountain was halted at the state level not the federal.if that were true then when Harry is gone (none too soon) then guffaw will be in play if your theory is correct in the meantime in the real world there are fuel rods scattered all over the US waiting for misuse. Assault rifles are legal the ban was never renewed when it came up. No surprise!

          • Warthog

            It’s a federal repository, on federal land. Exactly HOW does the state halt it. Of course, the whole idea is ludicrous from the state level, as Yucca Mountain is next door to Yucca Flats, where (I think) all underground nuclear weapons testing was done. Horse, barn, already left???

            And yes, unfortunately, the halting of Yucca Mountain and any research or implementation into long-term waste storage HAS necessitated that spent fuel rods “are” scattered around the country stored at reactor sites….but you can’t blame THAT on the nuclear industry…..that comes directly from the knee-jerk anti-nuke “environmentalists”. I guess they thought that halting the storage would cause the existing nuclear plants to be shut down. Didn’t work out well for them, did it.

            And no, assault RIFLES are not legal unless one has a Class 3 firearms owners license and pays the $200 tax to the BATF. Semi-automatic rifles with black plastic stocks “are” legal (unless you happen to be in a state where fools have actually tried to or succeeded in pass(ing) an “assault WEAPONS ban”. As are the identical rifles with wooden stocks legal in (I believe) all states, even California.

            And yes, you are correct that the ban was not renewed (thank goodness that Congress included the “sunset clause”), as it did precisely nothing that affected crime levels. This has not stopped the gun-grabbers from continuing to try to get it implemented at both the federal and state level.

    • Observer

      So, exactly ONE person says something 37 years ago and you use that as the basis for a partisan accusation? Wow, just wow.

      • Warthog

        Oh, there are many more. That is just the first reference I could find with a guick Google check. I’ve followed the “environmental movement” for almost fifty years, and this is a standard meme that pops up when the deep greens are talking to each other. It’s kind of like “gun control”….the gun-grabbers use the phrase “common sense gun laws”, which is shorthand for “….only the police and the military shoud have guns….” Same deal.

        • “common sense guns laws” does not equate to “only the police and the military should have guns”

          • Warthog

            Actually, it does. Once upon a time there was an organization that called itself “Handgun Control, Inc.” (the “gun control” movement got started about the same time as the “environmental movement”). Back then, I studied the statistics, and “handgun control” actually made a slight bit of sense, as the main sort of gun used in crime WAS (and still is) a handgun, and the statistics were there to back it up. Long guns were (and still are) not used in crime to any significant extent.

            And then HCI came up with the idea of the “assault weapons ban”, which guns had virtually nothing to do with either crime or suicides. It was at that point that I realized that the REAL point of “gun control” was “gun elimination”. And the gun banners admit such if you can catch them offguard. All else are viewed as “steps along the way” to complete civilian gun elimination.

          • Omega Z

            Questions to a gun control group wanting to eliminate what was called the Saturday night special.
            What will you do if you get the SNS outlawed.
            Eventually outlaw all guns.
            What will you do once all guns are outlawed.
            Outlaw knives.

            Followed by sticks & stones I presume…

          • pardon me. I should have put some modifiers in there.

            for most Americans, “common sense guns laws” does not (necessarily) equate to “only the police and the military should have guns”

            most people are rational and commonsensical about it and understand that farmers need the odd long gun, hunters sometimes need to help with deer culls, and some people like to shoot at targets competitively, etc.

            there is a huge chasm of room between a civilization where young punks can legally walk into a taco bell with loaded assault rifles hanging around their necks and and a civilization where “only the police and the military should have guns”.

          • Warthog

            …unfortunately, “most people” are what the Communists used to call “useful idiots” who can be propagandized sufficiently by the mass media to believe almost anything.

            And I’d like to know exactly where any young punks “walked into a taco bell with loaded assault rifles hanging around their necks”. Not that that SHOULD be a problem. The fact that some folks think it is points up the accuracy of my sentence above about “useful idiots”.

            Personal story. I grew up on a farm surrounded by guns, all the neighbors had guns, nobody owned a gun safe. Loaded long guns were immediately to hand by the most frequently used door. As a teen, I would often be required to “bush hog” (i.e. mow) rented pasturage located a couple of miles away from the home farm. When doing this job, I always carried a .22 revolver loaded with shot shells for snakes, openly, in a holster on my belt. To get the tractor from home to rented place I “motored” it on the local roads.

            I would often stop at the local grocery store on the way back from a mowing job to grab an ice-cold Coke ™. With gun. Openly displayed. Nobody ever turned a hair about it. I guess I first started doing this when I was 15 or so, and continued until I left for college.

            Accidents with firearms were essentially non-existent, because people TRAINED their kids about guns, safe gun handling. and the ethics of gun use. In a fifty year span, I am aware of TWO hunting accidents.

      • bachcole

        I have often found that one side of the political spectrum understands the opposite side of the political spectrum better than they understand themselves, which ever side. I guess it is because people rationalize their motives and are so caught up in their own little daily minutia that they can’t see themselves very well. So if you want to understand a conservative, ask a liberal; and if you want to understand liberals, ask conservatives. Funny how that works. (:->)

        • Carl Wilson

          I have a similar but different observation. One side definitely does not understand the other side but does pick out cogent weaknesses in the other side. And generally speaking these weaknesses in side A spotted by side B will not be addressed (in meaningful way) by side A. I do not have a good guess as to why this is so.

        • HS61AF91

          If you want to understand both as two sides of the same coin, ask a libertarian. Or me!

  • Can only imagine what Ernie Moniz, science advisor to the president, will have to say about it. He’s been a giant CF obstacle at MIT.

  • Can only imagine what Ernie Moniz, science advisor to the president, will have to say about it. He’s been a giant CF obstacle at MIT.

    • clovis ray

      If he was with the president, and they saw the E-CAT they may have had to sign a nda, until after the first, any time allotment, would give people time to make ready, because this is going to be big, no douth .

  • peacelovewoodstock

    Very interesting but does anyone know how exactly “Brillouin” is pronounced?

    Is it “Brill-o-win” (like bedouin)?

    Well I just answered my own question … from the brillouinenergy.com Web site:

    Brillouin Energy is named after a French physicist, Léon Brillouin (1889–1969), who invented an important scientific concept several decades ago called the “Brillouin Zone”. In French, the word would be pronounced in two syllables as “Brie-ohnn”. In English, the word is pronounced in three syllables as “Brill-oo-in”.

    • I would pronounce it

      Br[i]-L[u][in=ɛ̃]

      (Bree-loo-en(g) may not be bad eng like some say bang in Rap, without the ‘g)

      about the ɛ̃
      it is French, so not very clear, and as a French it seems I don’t respect the law, it seems again Swiss made it simpler.
      http://french.stackexchange.com/questions/8339/pronunciation-of-%C9%9B%CC%83-as-a-back-vowel

      8/

      • Warthog

        Heh! I’m from South Louisiana, and grew up surrounded by Cajuns, so learned at least some Francophone pronunciation. In Baton Rouge, a Cajun gentleman opened a (quite successful) store. His name was Hebert, and his store was surmounted by a tall pole with a neon sign. It consisted of a picture of a bear with an “A” hyphenated in front of the bear, and the word “stores” below. The sign time-synced “A”…”bear outline”…..”stores”.

        Which has zero to do with LENR, but points out that English isn’t the only language with a lot of foibles.

    • Andreas Moraitis
      • clovis ray

        Andreas, why did you think this piece was credible, it is either very old or goodes has no idea what he is talking about, didn’t listen to george, didn’t think it worth my time, this group just don’t fit in some how, they seem not to know about the on going test, or for that matter the 3rd party Lugano test.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          This video is indeed old stuff, but it demonstrates how to pronounce “Godes” and “Brillouin” correctly.

  • peacelovewoodstock

    Very interesting but does anyone know how exactly “Brillouin” is pronounced?

    Is it “Brill-o-win” (like bedouin)?

    Well I just answered my own question … from the brillouinenergy.com Web site:

    Brillouin Energy is named after a French physicist, Léon Brillouin (1889–1969), who invented an important scientific concept several decades ago called the “Brillouin Zone”. In French, the word would be pronounced in two syllables as “Brie-ohnn”. In English, the word is pronounced in three syllables as “Brill-oo-in”.

    • I would pronounce it
      EDIT, made a mistake (what a F****ng language)

      Br[i]-y[u][in=ɛ̃]

      ill is pronounced like i-y like be-you

      (Bree-you-en(g) may not be bad eng like some say bang in Rap, without the ‘g)

      about the ɛ̃
      it is French, so not very clear, and as a French it seems I don’t respect the law, it seems again Swiss made it simpler.
      http://french.stackexchange.com/questions/8339/pronunciation-of-%C9%9B%CC%83-as-a-back-vowel

      the u-eng maye also be prounounced like weng

      The worst is this kind of mistake in french is a social marker.

      Avoid C++ and French (and bahasa Jawa), or use a good debugger.

      8/

      • Warthog

        Heh! I’m from South Louisiana, and grew up surrounded by Cajuns, so learned at least some Francophone pronunciation. In Baton Rouge, a Cajun gentleman opened a (quite successful) store. His name was Hebert, and his store was surmounted by a tall pole with a neon sign. It consisted of a picture of a bear with an “A” hyphenated in front of the bear, and the word “stores” below. The sign time-synced “A”…”bear outline”…..”stores”.

        Which has zero to do with LENR, but points out that English isn’t the only language with a lot of foibles.

    • Andreas Moraitis
      • clovis ray

        Andreas, why did you think this piece was credible, it is either very old or godes has no idea what he is talking about, didn’t listen to george, didn’t think it worth my time, this group just don’t fit in some how, they seem not to know about the on going test, or for that matter the 3rd party Lugano test.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          This video is indeed old stuff, but it demonstrates how to pronounce “Godes” and “Brillouin” correctly.

          • clovis ray

            Oh, OK, then, because their statements did not impress .

      • Carl Wilson

        So, two years ago Brillouin was just a year from having a product they could show? I’m a little turned off by Brillouin after having bet (not money) on them until I was jolted by the Lugano test to take a thorough look at the E-Cat possibility. Brillouin touts their advantage as having a theory behind what they are doing. A good theory helps, a bad theory hinders. Does this latest Brillouin presentation give us any reason to think that they know what they are doing?

        • Omega Z

          Brillouin has a device that works at 650`C and can be powered on/off very quickly. However, at just COP=4, it isn’t really any better then natural gas. Even less so if the N-gas is used in a co-generation system. They need to break out the COP to at least COP=8. At that point, They go game.

  • Zephir

    /* It’s time now for the DOE to get involved with LENR */

    The head of DOE has been involved in the cold fusion suppression at MIT already. The conservatives should find a better leader of cold fusion research…

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2884679/posts

  • Zephir

    /* It’s time now for the DOE to get involved with LENR */

    The head of DOE has been involved in the cold fusion suppression at MIT already. The conservatives should find a better leader of cold fusion research…

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2884679/posts

  • gdaigle

    Yes, but Conservative Base? Included on its front page is an article directly comparing Obama to Hitler and progressives in the U.S. and Canada (“pro-Islamic, Leftist, New World Order, utterly amoral narcissists”) to Nazis. Not where I would like breakthrough technology to appear.

    • ecatworld

      This is what I meant when I said I think LENR will appeal to people across the political spectrum. I can see it being championed by people of all political persuasions, since almost everyone would prefer to have a cheaper, safer form of energy that allows for more independence.

      • psi2u2

        It would be amusing in view of the rhetoric of the site if Obama was the one to break the news to the American public about LENR.

        • clovis ray

          Hey, buddy i think you could be right, i personally think Dr. Rossi has meet with the president, at sometime, and laid plans on how to break the news. he too is waiting for the go ahead by Dr. Rossi. after the first of the year.

          • psi2u2

            I sort of expected it before now, but you may be right that it will not be until the new year or the spring, or even until next fall. In any case, I put a high probability on it happening sometime before Obama leaves office, and I bet Frank will be one of the first to get the scoop.

          • US_Citizen71

            An announcement that the US is rolling out LENR power-plants on US military bases might make a huge ‘October Surprise’ if the Republican candidate is anti-renewables and a huge big oil supporter. Don’t you think?

          • HS61AF91

            What republican is anti renewable power? No one publicly. Candidates bought and sold by status quo are. But if you delve into the libertarian slant, that sphere not propelled by establishment donations, you may find a candidate who is not anti-renewables and a huge big oil supporter. Check it out, might be a thinking revelation.

          • US_Citizen71

            It all depends on who gets the nominations, but a sitting President can cause all kinds of fun for the campaign of the opposite side. Energy has been a decent hot button issue for a long time, so it might be a good gotcha to use against the right candidate. Just as likely we might see a rescheduling of cannabis before the election if the republican candidate is anti-cannabis. My comment was not meant to be an attempt to push one party or candidate over another but ‘what if…’ a possibility.

          • HS61AF91

            OK, I see now where you are coming from!

          • Omega Z

            Big Oil is not a one party issue. Behind the scenes you will find equal support & investments by those of both parties. It is the public view that is twisted by propaganda from the news media.

            One needs to understand we will need fossil energy for many years to come. Even should LENR come to market, it will take decades to transition & without them, a transition could take far longer.

        • HS61AF91

          If he really does want to have it all, he’s the one to make the call. His legacy to be all it can be, he needs to be the first to see. Give him just a line or two, on TV about what LENR can do, Then watch the people cough and lumber, out of energy-starved slumber. Stopping war, and ending Guantanamo, is a tepid power show; when compared to getting behind the push, for serious LENR promotion; and no beating around the bush!

      • We need the presidential candidates to start talking about LENR. Maybe if there is a big news story about Rossi in March after the end of the reactor test that might happen. I sent the story to Forbes and Wired and a number of the candidates and some politicians. Logic suggests at some point LENR will become popular with the media, but when that occurs is the question.

    • clovis ray

      idiocy,

  • gdaigle

    Yes, but Conservative Base? Included on its front page is an article directly comparing Obama to Hitler and progressives in the U.S. and Canada (“pro-Islamic, Leftist, New World Order, utterly amoral narcissists”) to Nazis. Not where I would like breakthrough technology to appear.

    • Frank Acland

      This is what I meant when I said I think LENR will appeal to people across the political spectrum. I can see it being championed by people of all political persuasions, since almost everyone would prefer to have a cheaper, safer form of energy that allows for more independence.

      • roseland67

        Frank
        But only after the event can be properly exploited financially.
        Not allowed “until” appropriate stocks can be shorted, stranded assets can be sold off, new companies can be formed, limited stock sold etc

        • bachcole

          Feeling powerless there?

          • roseland67

            No,
            Looking very much forward to this event,
            The disruption of status quo will be fun to watch,
            I just have zero faith that I will see it happen or be able to participate in it during my career.
            Lawsuits, countersuits, corrupted politicians, bags of money trading hands under tables etc all to stop this event from happening until the “in crowd” has a chance to profit.

        • Mats002

          Yes. Everything is already in place for that according to sifferkoll.se

          Big oil and stranded assets are since long shortened and sold. At $46 a barrel it is a done deal and the message can be sent to the world, at least so I interpret this analysis:

          http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/blackswanascending3.pdf

          • Carl Wilson

            I have my doubts about sifferkoll’s understanding of energy technology/economics. Here is an alternative view:

            (1) LENR, as a proximate technological threat, is not on the radar screen yet because it still has not been prototyped. Once it is prototyped
            (E-Cat soon?, Brillouin ??), it will enter into development phase,
            then a deployment phase. The first part of the deployment phase will
            target coal, not oil.
            (2) Energy storage is the visible technological threat to the old energy regime. Solar and wind are low cost intermittents. If allowed market access during their productive times they disrupt the market for old regime energy.
            As solar and wind are scaled up to lengthen their productive times
            they increase their “unusable” surpluses during their highly
            productive times. Energy storage systems have an immediate and
            growing market and their technologies are on high and somewhat
            predictable investment and innovation curves.

            (3) Solar and wind are renewables but their expansion, at some points, will become increasingly more costly as “sweet spots” are occupied.
            What is already installed will continue to produce because capital
            costs are sunk and operating costs low. We can hope & expect that
            LENR will then become increasingly dominant.

            (4) LENR is not a direct threat to oil. Energy storage will be the major threat to oil though solutions to mobility applications only overlap somewhat with those of surplus storage. LENR direct penetration into the transportation sector will be limited (at first?) to very long
            distance and/or very high demand applications. Any doubt as to the
            “why” of Naval & NASA interest?

            (5) To me the greatest unknown is the centralization/decentralization balance. Both government (the Left) and large corporations (the Right) will prefer centralization. LENR probably has great potential for
            decentralization.

          • Mats002

            Good analysis. Sifferkoll is extreme, yours is more down to earth I think.
            But who knows, LENR bring a lot of surprises.

      • psi2u2

        It would be amusing in view of the rhetoric of the site if Obama was the one to break the news to the American public about LENR.

        • clovis ray

          Hey, buddy i think you could be right, i personally think Dr. Rossi has meet with the president, at sometime, and laid plans on how to break the news. he too is waiting for the go ahead by Dr. Rossi. after the first of the year.

          • psi2u2

            I sort of expected it before now, but you may be right that it will not be until the new year or the spring, or even until next fall. In any case, I put a high probability on it happening sometime before Obama leaves office, and I bet Frank will be one of the first to get the scoop.

          • US_Citizen71

            An announcement that the US is rolling out LENR power-plants on US military bases might make a huge ‘October Surprise’ if the Republican candidate is anti-renewables and a huge big oil supporter. Don’t you think?

          • HS61AF91

            What republican is anti renewable power? No one publicly. Candidates bought and sold by status quo are. But if you delve into the libertarian slant, that sphere not propelled by establishment donations, you may find a candidate who is not anti-renewables and a huge big oil supporter. Check it out, might be a thinking revelation.

          • US_Citizen71

            It all depends on who gets the nominations, but a sitting President can cause all kinds of fun for the campaign of the opposite side. Energy has been a decent hot button issue for a long time, so it might be a good gotcha to use against the right candidate. Just as likely we might see a rescheduling of cannabis before the election if the republican candidate is anti-cannabis. My comment was not meant to be an attempt to push one party or candidate over another but ‘what if…’ a possibility.

          • HS61AF91

            OK, I see now where you are coming from!

          • Omega Z

            Big Oil is not a one party issue. Behind the scenes you will find equal support & investments by those of both parties. It is the public view that is twisted by propaganda from the news media.

            One needs to understand we will need fossil energy for many years to come. Even should LENR come to market, it will take decades to transition & without them, a transition could take far longer.

          • Many years perhaps… but only a couple more decades. I think oil demand will fall a tonne through the 2020s and 2030s. Take a look at the EV space again as it is right now AND especially what’s coming before 2020. Big changes are afoot. And especially look at the trend in traction battery costs.

            Coal is already on its dead bed. Oil is next and then gas. Full decarbonization of the global economy is a slam dunk by 2050 imo. Fossil fuels cant compete with clean tech. LENR, if successfully commercialized, will only speed up the death of coal imo. Renewables and storage technologies will do all the heavy lifting. The won’t be beat on cost.

          • clovis ray

            Yep, and yep like always hurry up and wait. Huh.

        • HS61AF91

          If he really does want to have it all, he’s the one to make the call. His legacy to be all it can be, he needs to be the first to see. Give him just a line or two, on TV about what LENR can do, Then watch the people cough and lumber, out of energy-starved slumber. Stopping war, and ending Guantanamo, is a tepid power show; when he’s getting behind the push, for serious LENR promotion; and no beating around the bush!

      • We need the presidential candidates to start talking about LENR. Maybe if there is a big news story about Rossi in March after the end of the reactor test that might happen. I sent the story to Forbes and Wired and a number of the candidates and some politicians. Logic suggests at some point LENR will become popular with the media, but when that occurs is the question.

    • clovis ray

      hi g daigle.
      it is sheer idiocy, or hate speak not sure which.

  • bachcole

    But what does it mean to demo at the Capitol building? Were they on the steps? Were they in a room in the Capitol building? Were they in the rotunda room? How many people attended? Who attended? Inquiring minds want to know just how much of this is substance and how much of it is PR?

    • pg

      Heating the hot dog stand?

    • clovis ray

      Bachcole, hi,
      Have you ever seen or heard of anyone wittiness too, an actual event where brillouin,
      demonstrating, their tech, because i have not, end of story.

      • bachcole

        I am pretty sure that other people have, but this is not the end of the story. With Mike McKubre on point with these guys, I tend to think they have the goods.

    • HS61AF91

      This is a case where public notice serves as a diversion from the serious preps for e-Cat roll out.

  • bachcole

    But what does it mean to demo at the Capitol building? Were they on the steps? Were they in a room in the Capitol building? Were they in the rotunda room? How many people attended? Who attended? Inquiring minds want to know just how much of this is substance and how much of it is PR?

    • pg

      Heating the hot dog stand?

    • clovis ray

      Bachcole, hi,
      Have you ever seen or heard of anyone wittiness too, an actual event where brillouin,
      demonstrating, their tech, because i have not, end of story.

      • bachcole

        I am pretty sure that other people have, but this is not the end of the story. With Mike McKubre on point with these guys, I tend to think they have the goods.

    • HS61AF91

      This is a case where public notice serves as a diversion from the serious preps for e-Cat roll out.

  • georgehants

    It must be self-evident that any politician that cared about the electorate would have made a speech championing the advances in Cold Fusion, to the congress, senate, parliament long before now.
    Any of them jumping on the bandwagon at this late stage are clearly just acting for their own personal and party benefit.
    This means that no politician, president or prime-minister serving is worthy of their job.
    May be time to introduce Democracy into much of the West.

    • clovis ray

      George,
      Try keeping your political crap out of this forum, i don’t like it nether does anyone else so either, shutt it off or i’m going to take a vote to ban your …

      • georgehants

        Clovis are you suggesting that the non-financing of Cold Fusion is in any way able to avoid corruption in politics.
        I would like to here your reasoning?

    • HS61AF91

      One must bear in mind the contributors to congressional campaigns do so with the express understanding that the donors’ pet profit-producing schemes will be left alone to continue rolling in the doe. This effectively ties the hands of officials subject to the franchise, where getting reelected and satisfying their lobby rein supreme. Singing the praises of a free energy that will make donor entities atrophy is something not to do, totally taboo.

      • georgehants

        HS61AF91, now that number must mean something special to you?
        Again, what can be done to change what you have described?

        • HS61AF91

          hs61 year I graduated from HS, af91 year I retired from AF

          • georgehants

            Ha, mystery solved. 🙂

          • radvar

            Congratulations on the AF career!

          • HS61AF91

            Thanks, appreciate that.

    • Omega Z

      Politicians are not going to come forward until an indisputable working device becomes available. At present, neither Rossi/IH or Brillouin can provide that. Note at COP=4, Brillouin’s device is no better then natural gas & as it uses grid electricity, isn’t even environmentally better. Brillouin needs to demonstrate at least a provable COP>6 and of somewhat usable scale.

      Mainstream academia doesn’t except this technology & will not research it even if Government provides funding & the Government comes under extreme criticism should they fund outsider research. Tho many here wouldn’t take issue with an exception, there are many others in the world that would. They would argue that money could be better spent elsewhere on something they consider real. Not what is considered impossible.

      Thus, Until an indisputable working device is shown research dollars will not be provided by Government. Of course, when funding is eventually provided, it will be after the fact when it really wont be that useful.

      • georgehants

        Thanks Omega, I like your comments.
        Agreed but you describe the situation as it is, I work continually to change things so that they work properly and not as in the present system and control freaks dictate.
        Many put up complaints and reasons why things are so, but very few put up solutions to the problems that cause Cold Fusion to still be, in most cases ignored.
        We seem to have very few people on page, that have lived a practical life of when something is broken then fix it.
        Best

        • Omega Z

          George, When I was young, I played strategy games with my so-called friends.

          These friends would cheat & connive against me every chance they got behind my back. Changing to a different game made no difference & this conniving eventually extended into the real world.

          Things didn’t change until I found/replaced them with new friends.
          My point is, it is not our system that is the problem. It is the people all around us. Friends, family, acquaintances & all. They are everywhere.
          Obviously changing people is nearly impossible, but that is what needs to change.

          On an Up Note. I was very good at those games. I wasted them 90%+ of the time even with odds of 5 to 1: Graciously. 🙂

          • bachcole

            “it is not our system that is the problem. It is the people all around us.”

            Close, but no cigar.

            The problem is our own egos, our own characters, our own out-of-control desires, anger, lust, and selfishness.

          • georgehants

            Who is it that gives us the system if not people?

          • georgehants

            🙂

  • georgehants

    It must be self-evident that any politician that cared about the electorate would have made a speech championing the advances in Cold Fusion, to the congress, senate, parliament long before now, recommending financing further Research.
    Any of them jumping on the bandwagon at this late stage are clearly just acting for their own personal and party benefit.
    This means that no politician, president or prime-minister serving is worthy of their job.
    May be time to introduce Democracy into much of the West.

    • HS61AF91

      One must bear in mind the contributors to congressional campaigns do so with the express understanding that the donors’ pet profit-producing schemes will be left alone to continue rolling in the doe. This effectively ties the hands of officials subject to the franchise, where getting reelected and satisfying their lobby rein supreme. Singing the praises of a free energy that will make donor entities atrophy is something not to do, totally taboo.

      • georgehants

        HS61AF91, now that number must mean something special to you?
        Again, what can be done to change what you have described?
        More riots and protests or is the establishment ever going to change itself into something that we can respect.

        • HS61AF91

          hs61 year I graduated from HS, af91 year I retired from AF

          • georgehants

            Ha, mystery solved. 🙂

    • Omega Z

      Politicians are not going to come forward until an indisputable working device becomes available. At present, neither Rossi/IH or Brillouin can provide that. Note at COP=4, Brillouin’s device is no better then natural gas & as it uses grid electricity, isn’t even environmentally better. Brillouin needs to demonstrate at least a provable COP>6 and of somewhat usable scale.

      Mainstream academia doesn’t except this technology & will not research it even if Government provides funding & the Government comes under extreme criticism should they fund outsider research. Tho many here wouldn’t take issue with an exception, there are many others in the world that would. They would argue that money could be better spent elsewhere on something they consider real. Not what is considered impossible.

      Thus, Until an indisputable working device is shown research dollars will not be provided by Government. Of course, when funding is eventually provided, it will be after the fact when it really wont be that useful.

      • georgehants

        Thanks Omega, I like your comments.
        Agreed, but you describe the situation as it is, I work continually to change things so that they work properly and not as in the present system where corrupt and incompetent control freaks dictate.
        Many put up complaints and reasons why things are so, but very few put up solutions to the problems that cause Cold Fusion to still be, in most cases ignored.
        We seem to have very few people on page, that have lived a practical life of when something is broken then fix it.
        Best

        • Omega Z

          George, When I was young, I played strategy games with my so-called friends.

          These friends would cheat & connive against me every chance they got behind my back. Changing to a different game made no difference & this conniving eventually extended into the real world.

          Things didn’t change until I found/replaced them with new friends.
          My point is, it is not our system that is the problem. It is the people all around us. Friends, family, acquaintances & all. They are everywhere.
          Obviously changing people is nearly impossible, but that is what needs to change.

          On an Up Note. I was very good at those games. I wasted them 90%+ of the time even with odds of 5 to 1: Graciously. 🙂

          • bachcole

            “it is not our system that is the problem. It is the people all around us.”

            Close, but no cigar.

            The problem is our own egos, our own characters, our own out-of-control desires, anger, lust, and selfishness.

          • georgehants

            Who is it that gives us the system if not people?

          • bachcole

            I don’t get your point.

            I live with me 24/7. I can’t do anything about “the system”. The system is a collective expression of the people. I can do something about “me”. Even if I lived completely alone on a desert island, if I had contentment and peace of mind, I would be very happy. Even if I lived in an ideal society, if I had allowed myself to be driven crazy with lust and anger, say, I would be miserable.

            Recently there was that bloke in Norway who killed all of those people. He was miserable, and he is still miserable, assuming that he hasn’t turn the corner on his dreadful hatred. Norway and Sweden strike me as the top societies on Earth, yet here was a guy so freaking miserable that he found it necessary to kill 87 people.

          • He did it to save the (Norwegian) world from an awful change.

            I don’t see him so differently from those who consider that Mother Earth is sick of Homo-Sapiens disease.

            I don’t remember who said that, but some say that as soon as an ideology pretend to protect one virtual entity (God, Earth, Nation, Genetic,Social Class), and not many individuals, it finish in a pool of blood.

          • georgehants

            Yes all us people are a problem but we must keep trying to improve, I think 🙂

  • Warthog

    Oh, there are many more. That is just the first reference I could find with a guick Google check. I’ve followed the “environmental movement” for almost fifty years, and this is a standard meme that pops up when the deep greens are talking to each other. It’s kind of like “gun control”….the gun-grabbers use the phrase “common sense gun laws”, which is shorthand for “….only the police and the military shoud have guns….” Same deal.

  • This is big news. It is ironic that it came just after Forbes Magazine and Wired took verbal dumps on LENR research.

    • mcloki

      no surprise really. there are PR spin masters all over the place. If congress thinks that there is a clean energy source just around the corner they will be more likely to vote for Higher EPA standards and huge fines for corporations. Corporation pay lobbyists in the US to protect their corporate interests. LENR is a black swan that disrupts a huge amount of industries.

      • Omega Z

        “more likely to vote for Higher EPA standards and huge fines for corporations.”

        This is all business costs & if you understand business, All costs are ultimately passed on to the consumer.

        Corporation pay lobbyists in the US to protect their corporate interests.
        Yeah, Kind of like the local business man pays the local gangs protection money. In layman’s terms this is blackmail.

        Corporations contribute to both parties. Sometimes this is with expected favors in return, but most of the time it is really just protection. Paid to the Government gang.

  • This is big news. It is ironic that it came just after Forbes Magazine and Wired took verbal dumps on LENR research.

    • mcloki

      no surprise really. there are PR spin masters all over the place. If congress thinks that there is a clean energy source just around the corner they will be more likely to vote for Higher EPA standards and huge fines for corporations. Corporation pay lobbyists in the US to protect their corporate interests. LENR is a black swan that disrupts a huge amount of industries.

      • Omega Z

        “more likely to vote for Higher EPA standards and huge fines for corporations.”

        This is all business costs & if you understand business, All costs are ultimately passed on to the consumer.

        Corporation pay lobbyists in the US to protect their corporate interests.
        Yeah, Kind of like the local business man pays the local gangs protection money. In layman’s terms this is blackmail.

        Corporations contribute to both parties. Sometimes this is with expected favors in return, but most of the time it is really just protection. Paid to the Government gang.

    • Omega Z

      Probably the Forbes Magazine and Wired took verbal dumps on LENR because of this.
      A tit for tat.

  • Mats002

    Yes. Everything is already in place for that according to sifferkoll.se

    Big oil and stranded assets are since long shortened and sold. At $46 a barrel it is a done deal and the message can be sent to the world, at least so I interpret this analysis:

    http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/blackswanascending3.pdf

  • Warthog

    I’m not sure about a majority. I hope that is so. But you can easily tell a real ecologist from a “green weenie”…..real ecologists favor nuclear power (including fission…when implemented safely)…….”green weenies” are opposed. With them, “nuclear” ranks as another “N-word”, and anathema.

    • Winebuff67

      Your confidence in nuclear is a joke! No insurance co will insure it and maybe u should house all the waste at your place that seems to be no problem in your mind. I’m curious why do people need or want automatic weapons? Is it like a fast car or a monster truck so people with an inferiority complex or the length and girth of their manhood can be made whole again. Don’t tell me u have a tricked out monster truck and a house full of assault weapons. After all the war is not over.

      • Omega Z

        “why do people need or want automatic weapons?”
        Automatic weapons are Illegal in the U.S. and I know none that want them.
        The proper term is “Semi” automatic
        All weapons sold in the U.S. are single shot weapons.

        A Semi automatic is merely a single shot weapon that when fired, ejects the cartridge and chambers another from a clip. I pull the trigger & it fires a single round & I must pull the trigger for every shot. They do NOT spray rounds as seen on TV fantasy land. Someone skilled & proficient(Such as I once was) can fire nearly as quick hand loading as with a Semi automatic.

        You’ve apparently never used one. There are several reasons for use of Semi automatic in target shooting or hunting. You would need to experience it personally to really understand. It has nothing to do with manhood. Most Women who are taught how to handle & shoot guns tend to be more enthusiastic towards guns then men. They tend to be excellent hunters Gun or Bow. Note: A single shot weapon is more dangerous then a semi automatic. Everyone fears the sniper.
        There are many high schools in the U.S. that have both archery & gun competition teams.

        All semi automatic rifles, assault or not or hand gun aside from barrel length is mostly cosmetic. They all function basically the same. An assault rifle merely has a fancy stock & outer housing(cosmetic appearance). Semi automatic’s have been in public use for over 100 years.

        There’s 1000’s of gun regulations & laws. They do little good if not enforced(Government Fail). The bulk of problems in the U.S. is gang related. Previously it was Knives, ball bats etc & guns haven’t changed the numbers much. Until of late, the numbers had been in steady decline for decades even as the number of guns greatly increased.
        ——————–
        Guns are not complex. I knew a guy who built his own scaled down desk top “22-long rifle” Gatling gun. He had an 8th grade education.
        Gun powder-sulfur, charcoal, and potassium nitrate.
        Most Munitions use potassium nitrate extracted from urine…
        Legal or not, Those who want them will have them.

        • Warthog

          “Automatic weapons are Illegal in the U.S. and I know none that want them.”

          Not quite accurate. It is illegal in the US to MAKE MORE (or import) automatic weapons (other than for sale to the government or military). It is perfectly legal to own them, as long as you pay the tax to the Treasury, and get the Class 3 firearms owners license. There are MANY privately-owned automatic weapons owned legally in the USA.

        • Winebuff67

          Hunting four legged animals is illegal with automatic weapons but 2 legged animals are in play so when hunting your friends or family becomes legal the n they should legalize automatic weapons

      • Warthog

        A secure facility for storing waste already exists (Yucca Mountain). The nuclear industry is prevented from using it due to the machinations of Harry Reid.

        And the so-called “assault weapon” to be banned is NOT “an automatic weapon”….it just looks like one (which is why the California law focuses ONLY on cosmetic details to determine what to ban). I see Omega Z has summarized the differences quite nicely.

        • Winebuff67

          Obviously you have been watching too much Fox news yucca mountain was halted at the state level not the federal.if that were true then when Harry is gone (none too soon) then guffaw will be in play if your theory is correct in the meantime in the real world there are fuel rods scattered all over the US waiting for misuse. Assault rifles are legal the ban was never renewed when it came up. No surprise!

          • Warthog

            It’s a federal repository, on federal land. Exactly HOW does the state halt it. Of course, the whole idea is ludicrous from the state level, as Yucca Mountain is next door to Yucca Flats, where (I think) all underground nuclear weapons testing was done. Horse, barn, already left???

            And yes, unfortunately, the halting of Yucca Mountain and any research or implementation into long-term waste storage HAS necessitated that spent fuel rods “are” scattered around the country stored at reactor sites….but you can’t blame THAT on the nuclear industry…..that comes directly from the knee-jerk anti-nuke “environmentalists”. I guess they thought that halting the storage would cause the existing nuclear plants to be shut down. Didn’t work out well for them, did it.

            And no, assault RIFLES are not legal unless one has a Class 3 firearms owners license and pays the $200 tax to the BATF. Semi-automatic rifles with black plastic stocks “are” legal (unless you happen to be in a state where fools have actually tried to or succeeded in pass(ing) an “assault WEAPONS ban”. As are the identical rifles with wooden stocks legal in (I believe) all states, even California.

            And yes, you are correct that the ban was not renewed (thank goodness that Congress included the “sunset clause”), as it did precisely nothing that affected crime levels. This has not stopped the gun-grabbers from continuing to try to get in implemented at both the federal and state level.

  • bachcole

    I have often found that one side of the political spectrum understands the opposite side of the political spectrum better than they understand themselves, which ever side. I guess it is because people rationalize their motives and are so caught up in their own little daily minutia that they can’t see themselves very well. So if you want to understand a conservative, ask a liberal; and if you want to understand liberals, ask conservatives. Funny how that works. (:->)

    • Carl Wilson

      I have a similar but different observation. One side definitely does not understand the other side but does pick out cogent weaknesses in the other side. And generally speaking these weaknesses in side A spotted by side B will not be addressed (in meaningful way) by side A. I do not have a good guess as to why this is so.

    • HS61AF91

      If you want to understand both as two sides of the same coin, ask a libertarian. Or me!

  • georgehants

    Clovis are you suggesting that the non-financing of Cold Fusion is in any way able to avoid corruption in politics.
    I would like to hear your reasoning?
    Interesting how you have the ability to know that “nether does anyone else” that sounds a little arrogant, I think.
    You sound like somebody trying to get Cold Fusion posts banned on a science Blog.
    Edit, I notice you have gone round the whole site putting up “rubbish” and swearing on every comment trying to discuss why Cold Fusion has been delayed for 30 years.
    Maybe you should ask Admin to make you chief moderator, then you can ban everybody that does not agree with you.

  • mcloki

    Cats out of the bag now.

    • HS61AF91

      lota cats outta the bags now.

  • mcloki

    Cats out of the bag now.

    • HS61AF91

      lota cats outta the bags now.

    • clovis ray

      where is that darn cat, he seem to be lost.

  • LuFong

    This is a very important development but it is also probably typical of
    advanced technology companies which are looking for money from the
    government. Having Dr McKubre from SRI speak on behalf of Brillouin also
    is important. The wheels are turning.

    My understanding of Brillouin Energy Corp technology is that hey have yet to scale up to useful levels, but I could be wrong. Would be interested in finding out more about this. Having a LENR technology that can be turned on and off, even with a COP of 4, may have advantages over Rossi even if the E-Cat has a higher COP.

    • Omega Z

      A COP of 4 is roughly the equivalent of using natural gas for heat. Conversion to electricity is the equivalent of about 1 to 1. Immediate on/off doesn’t matter much in this situation.

      • COP4 is useful in 2 contect.
        for WET it is interesting for heating where there is no cheap nat-gas, or oil, but cheap electricity…. like in Japan.
        in France it may even be interesting because electricity is just 2x price of gaz.

        COP4 is also useful for self-looped reactor with a stirling (efficiency ~25-30%. remember the Airbus prototype for their “Challenge” is around 35-38%).
        this reactor will not produce much electricity, but much more heat.
        this is a fair CHP.

  • Zephir

    Nice catch!

  • LuFong

    Why do you say that? Dr McKubre from SRI just testified that it works. I have no doubt that it works (just like the E-Cat)–the question is how well does it work.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Good

  • Bob Greenyer

    Good

  • Warthog

    Actually, it does. Once upon a time there was an organization that called itself “Handgun Control, Inc.” (the “gun control” movement got started about the same time as the “environmental movement”). Back then, I studied the statistics, and “handgun control” actually made a slight bit of sense, as the main sort of gun used in crime WAS (and still is) a handgun, and the statistics were there to back it up. Long guns were (and still are) not used in crime to any significant extent.

    And then HCI came up with the idea of the “assault weapons ban”, which guns had virtually nothing to do with either crime or suicides. It was at that point that I realized that the REAL point of “gun control” was “gun elimination”. And the gun banners admit such if you can catch them offguard. All else are viewed as “steps along the way” to complete civilian gun elimination.

    • Omega Z

      Questions to a gun control group wanting to eliminate what was called the Saturday night special.
      What will you do if you get the SNS outlawed.
      Eventually outlaw all guns.
      What will you do once all guns are outlawed.
      Outlaw knives.

      Followed by sticks & stones I presume…

  • Warthog

    Uh, no. The reason fission power is expensive is because of the gigantic legal costs and the cost of borrowing money in the face of delays caused by totally frivolous lawsuits brought by any nutcase that can think up a reason to sue. One of the last fission plants licensed and built in the US was the River Bend unit which was built about 30 miles from my home town. I was working on my PhD (chemistry) at LSU at the time. Lawsuit after lawsuit filed including one charging that the builders of the plant “had not ascertained the effect of the plant on the local sweet potato crop”.

    And quoting Lovins as a knowledgeable sources gets you zero points. I am quite familiar with, and he is a nutcase on a par with Paul Ehrlich.

    • EEStorFanFibb

      hmmm… frivolous environmental lawsuits make nuclear expensive (despite the fact that nuclear is massively subsidized by government/taxpayers)? that’s a great talking point (often used by proponents) but you need to provide concrete evidence of this if you expect people to really believe you on that. let’s see some studies showing how lawsuits are the cause of the Hinkley Point C boondoogle for example.

      lawsuits against the nuclear industry certainly exist but nuclear industry malfeasance also exists and such lawsuits can be useful checks on corporate negligence and fraud.

      I believe the only reason any nuclear power plants are still being built today is because of corruption and/or stupidity. Hinkley Point C is a clearly a great example of said corruption.

      http://www.energypost.eu/hinkley-point-c-boondoggle-dangerous-waste-money/

      lastly, your slagging of Amory Lovins says a lot. anyone can see from his bio that he is a well respected energy consultant to scores of corporations and governments.

      “Mr. Lovins’s clients have also included Accenture, Allstate, AMD, Anglo American, Anheuser-Busch, Bank of America, Baxter, Borg-Warner, BP, HP Bulmer, Carrier, Chevron, Ciba-Geigy, CLSA, ConocoPhillips, Corning, Dow, EDS, Equitable, Ford, GM, HP, Invensys, Lockheed Martin, Mitsubishi, Monsanto, Motorola, Norsk Hydro, Petrobras, Prudential, Rio Tinto, Royal Dutch/Shell, Shearson Lehman Amex, STMicroelectronics, Sun Oil, Suncor, Texas Instruments, UBS, Unilever, Westinghouse, Xerox, major developers, and over 100 energy utilities. His public-sector clients have included OECD, UN, RFF, the Australian, Canadian, Dutch, German, and Italian governments, 13 states, Congress, and the U.S. Energy and Defense Departments. He has been profiled in The Wall Street Journal (twice),Fortune, Harvard, The New Yorker, and The Economist. His latest book, with 60 RMI coauthors, is Reinventing Fire(2011).”

      http://www.rmi.org/Amory+B.+Lovins

      • Warthog

        I can only say that I watched the lawsuit deluge happen in the case of River Bend with my own two eyes.

        Hinkley Point C isn’t in the US. I can’t speak to corruption in Britain.

        And all the long list of Lovins clients does is show that he is good at slinging BS. Steve Krivit also has a bunch of clients, and he is probably the least knowledgeable commentator on LENR out there

  • Curbina

    Clovis, Industrial Heat is also financing Brillouin, that was said by Vaughn in his ICCF speech at some point.

  • Roger Barker

    I don’t know about this. Brililouin have been at this for a while also. Their work is good but
    will it lead to more concrete information coming from them? I know they have been trying to
    pull investors but one would think if they had something working it would be easy to get money
    out of investors, like Rossi has with IH. Why are they still seeking money if they have the goods?
    Your guess is as good as mine. Having said that perhaps they’re being careful? You need
    guts, like Rossi has, to publicly blog your operations on a daily basis, opening yourself to ridicule
    with the pseudos going nuts over all his posts. Now there’s a brave man! So perhaps one can be
    a little forgiving of Brilliouin’s methods to date. They’ve absolutely no reason to provide a sugar
    coat on their reports. Conclusive results are so very close! We know the truth resides in Rossi’s
    hangar.

    • Omega Z

      Roger,
      The issue with Brillouin is that they have been stuck at COP=4.
      Consider the average conversion of 3kW N-gas to 1kW electric plus additional costs & COP=4 probably isn’t even break even.

      COP=4 gets people’s attention, but you need at least COP>6 to get people to loosen up the purse strings.

      Another issue for Brillouin and Robert Godes. He has little left in the way of bargaining for funds. From 1 of his statements, he only holds 5% of the rights. He done bargained off the rest(95%) to get to where he is at.

      This is the problem with VC capital. I understand them wanting as much as they can get of the IP. They take a lot of risk & shell out Millions. But when they try & squeeze the originator out completely, It leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

      Perhaps they need a Legal addendum added to Patents. Even should one bargain off 100% of the rights, they still have rights to 5% of gross profits. I say gross profits for the simple reason that with Net profits, there are schemes that can be utilized to result in zero net profit thus cheating one out of his fair share.

      Maybe it should be like Oil. I sell 100% of the rights to an Oil concern to drill for oil on my land. I get 12.5% of gross sales even should the Oil company lose money. Clear & free of any and all costs encountered in it’s extraction. Even the Federal Government gets 15% & are talking about increasing that to 20% or more.

  • roseland67

    No,
    Looking very much forward to this event,
    The disruption of status quo will be fun to watch,
    I just have zero faith that I will see it happen or be able to participate in it during my career.
    Lawsuits, countersuits, corrupted politicians, bags of money trading hands under tables etc all to stop this event from happening until the “in crowd” has a chance to profit.

  • Andrew

    Can’t help but wonder if the cold fusion snowball has gotten big enough to cause an avalanche.

    • Omega Z

      Not quite yet, But getting there…

  • Andrew

    Can’t help but wonder if the cold fusion snowball has gotten big enough to cause an avalanche.

    • bachcole

      Not yet. But soon.

    • Omega Z

      Not quite yet, But getting there…

  • Omega Z

    LENR has an obvious appeal to environmentalists?

    It will to the TRUE environmentalists. Most environmental groups have been taken over by those who are in it for the money. They are no different then well intentioned charities that are taken over & spend 10 cents on the dollar for the cause & 90 cents into the pockets in high wages for their management. These people will NOT be happy.

    • Winebuff67

      The argument for both parties is a no brainer only politicians in coal or oil producing states will not be excited. Even people in the NW will be excited even though they will bear the brunt of a BPA collapse that will be expensive. Only to add to that is dam removal and the restoration of salmon and a free flowing river

      • Omega Z

        Not all dams are for producing electrical power. Most are for water containment to get through the dry months. However, those dams should all be modified or replaced with systems that allow the fish to return to spawning grounds.

        Just understand that most of those that don’t were built before we understood the consequences to the fishes. I’m also a proponent of fish hatcheries even if that requires a tax of some type on the fish harvested. It’s not just good for the fish. It’s just good practices to replace what you take. else, there may be non to take in the future.

        • Winebuff67

          The debt on the system is non supportable with just irrigation, tranportation and flood control. Most of the income supporting the debt is from cheap grid electricity which unfortunately will not be cheap enough.

    • clovis ray

      yep, what sorry low life , crud, they are. and you know who you are.

  • Omega Z

    LENR has an obvious appeal to environmentalists?

    It will to the TRUE environmentalists. Most environmental groups have been taken over by those who are in it for the money. They are no different then well intentioned charities that are taken over & spend 10 cents on the dollar for the cause & 90 cents into the pockets in high wages for their management. These people will NOT be happy.

    • Winebuff67

      The argument for both parties is a no brainer only politicians in coal or oil producing states will not be excited. Even people in the NW will be excited even though they will bear the brunt of a BPA collapse that will be expensive. Only to add to that is dam removal and the restoration of salmon and a free flowing river

      • Omega Z

        Not all dams are for producing electrical power. Most are for water containment to get through the dry months. However, those dams should all be modified or replaced with systems that allow the fish to return to spawning grounds.

        Just understand that most of those that don’t were built before we understood the consequences to the fishes. I’m also a proponent of fish hatcheries even if that requires a tax of some type on the fish harvested. It’s not just good for the fish. It’s just good practices to replace what you take. else, there may be non to take in the future.

        • Winebuff67

          The debt on the system is non supportable with just irrigation, tranportation and flood control. Most of the income supporting the debt is from cheap grid electricity which unfortunately will not be cheap enough.

    • bachcole

      People can have mixed motives. The people that you are disparaging (and I will be disparaging them when it happens 🙂 are now utterly unaware of their motive to continue to collect pay checks. Fortunately, the over-whelming majority of human beings, rich or poor, are “environmentalists”; the differences are where they prioritize their environmentalism in their to-do list, or to-vote list. So, when it becomes obvious to the vast majority of people what a benefit LENR is, those trying to hold on to their pay checks will be washed away in a tsunami of support for LENR.

    • clovis ray

      yep, what sorry low life , crud, they are. and you know who you are.

  • Omega Z

    Roger,
    The issue with Brillouin is that they have been stuck at COP=4.
    Consider the average conversion of 3kW N-gas to 1kW electric plus additional costs & COP=4 probably isn’t even break even.

    COP=4 gets people’s attention, but you need at least COP>6 to get people to loosen up the purse strings.

    Another issue for Brillouin and Robert Godes. He has little left in the way of bargaining for funds. From 1 of his statements, he only holds 5% of the rights. He done bargained off the rest(95%) to get to where he is at.

    This is the problem with VC capital. I understand them wanting as much as they can get of the IP. They take a lot of risk & shell out Millions. But when they try & squeeze the originator out completely, It leaves a very bad taste in my mouth.

    Perhaps they need a Legal addendum added to Patents. Even should one bargain off 100% of the rights, they still have rights to 5% of gross profits. I say gross profits for the simple reason that with Net profits, there are schemes that can be utilized to result in zero net profit thus cheating one out of his fair share.

    Maybe it should be like Oil. I sell 100% of the rights to an Oil concern to drill for oil on my land. I get 12.5% of gross sales even should the Oil company lose money. Clear & free of any and all costs encountered in it’s extraction. Even the Federal Government gets 15% & are talking about increasing that to 20% or more.

  • Mats002

    Good analysis. Sifferkoll is extreme, yours is more down to earth I think.
    But who knows, LENR bring a lot of surprises.

  • Omega Z

    Brillouin has a device that works at 650`C and can be powered on/off very quickly. However, at just COP=4, it isn’t really any better then natural gas. Even less so if the N-gas is used in a co-generation system. They need to break out the COP to at least COP=8. At that point, They go game.

  • Sanjeev

    Tom Whipple at FCNP has written a good article on it:
    http://fcnp.com/2015/11/10/the-peak-oil-crisis-the-next-keystone-debate/

    He thinks, China is the place where LENR will get hold first.

  • Sanjeev

    Tom Whipple at FCNP has written a good article on it:
    http://fcnp.com/2015/11/10/the-peak-oil-crisis-the-next-keystone-debate/

    He thinks, China is the place where LENR will get hold first.

    • looks like he screwed this part up:

      “Last month some sort of an agreement to set up an R&D establishment
      in China was signed between Industrial Heat and the Chinese government.”

  • Warthog

    …unfortunately, “most people” are what the Communists used to call “useful idiots” who can be propagandized sufficiently by the mass media to believe almost anything.

    And I’d like to know exactly where any young punks “walked into a taco bell with loaded assault rifles hanging around their necks”. Not that that SHOULD be a problem. The fact that some folks think it is points up the accuracy of my sentence above about “useful idiots”.

    Personal story. I grew up on a farm surrounded by guns, all the neighbors had guns, nobody owned a gun safe. Loaded long guns were immediately to hand by the most frequently used door. As a teen, I would often be required to “bush hog” (i.e. mow) rented pasturage located a couple of miles away from the home farm. When doing this job, I always carried a .22 revolver loaded with shot shells for snakes, openly, in a holster on my belt. To get the tractor from home to rented place I “motored” it on the local roads.

    I would often stop at the local grocery store on the way back from a mowing job to grab an ice-cold Coke ™. With gun. Openly displayed. Nobody ever turned a hair about it. I guess I first started doing this when I was 15 or so, and continued until I left for college.

    Accidents with firearms were essentially non-existent, because people TRAINED their kids about guns, safe gun handling. and the ethics of gun use. In a fifty year span, I am aware of TWO hunting accidents.

  • Steve R

    Assuming Ruby’s rendition of the press release is accurate (and I couldn’t find a full version anywhere else — notably it’s not even on the updated and much-improved Brillouin website) — then it looks like Brillouin is once again claiming some good results while exhibiting a glaringly amateurish level of business capability. The release fails to say where the presentation was held or exactly when (though a web search past the first Google page turns up the Gold Room in the Rayburn House Office Building on Nov. 2nd) , who sponsored it (which apparently must be a Member of Congress — or at least their office in order to get the room), nor the names of anybody who attended (except two presenters) nor how they came to be there (invited, delegated, wandered in, etc).

    Brillouin doesn’t respect their own trademarks (“Q pulse”) nor those of others (i.e, it’s a PowerPoint presentation, not a PowerPoint). The description of how the process works is at odds with what’s specified on the website (creating the neutrons is exothermic in the release, endothermic on the website). And if you’re not preaching to the choir, (and as much as readers of E-Cat World might respect Dr. McKubre), if the best you can show is the word of a paid consultant and partner plus a luke-warm endorsement by a Ph.D. in political science, that doesn’t indicate a very strong hand.

    A web search fails to show any indication so far that the presentation was covered by any member of the press — though it was apparently an open meeting listed on the official room schedule. Some of that could be the usual skittishness of saying anything about “cold fusion,” but it also could be in part that the meeting notice (a shorter form of the press release) didn’t indicate to editors and assignment desks that this was a credible group.

    As I’ve said before, none of this would matter if Brillouin had all the investment they needed to roll out their technology — but since they apparently don’t, I would think it would be worth showing they can run a business at a professional level as well as do good science.

    • gregha

      Good points. I have chided Brilouin about the lack of progress indicated on their web site. I have also asked Dr. Garrett to see a copy of his “impressive” LENR report as mentioned in the Conservative Base article about the meeting.

  • gregha

    Good points. I have chided Brilouin about the lack of progress indicated on their web site. I have also asked Dr. Garrett to see a copy of his “impressive” LENR report as mentioned in the Conservative Base article about the meeting.

  • He did it to save the (Norwegian) world from an awful change.

    I don’t see him so differently from those who consider that Mother Earth is sick of Homo-Sapiens disease.

    I don’t remember who said that, but some say that as soon as an ideology pretend to protect one virtual entity (God, Earth, Nation, Genetic,Social Class), and not many individuals, it finish in a pool of blood.

  • Warthog

    Uh, no. Godes has never “trashed Dr. R’s E-cat”. He has always said that Rossi’s technology was the real deal, but that he thought (and I agree) that Rossi had control problems. The Q-Pulse overcomes those control problems, especially on startup. He has offered to collaborate with Rossi, but was refused.

    • clovis ray

      Hi,
      so do you know if brillouin, has sold out to I/H, , as i recall there was always friction between the two, Dr. Rossi and brillouin,

      • Warthog

        I don’t think they have. I think IH may be evaluating their control tech. That would just be the “smart thing to do”, as it would offer the possibility of merging Rossi’s proven (at least to IH) energy output capability with faster startup, and (perhaps) better control.

        And I wouldn’t term the difference between Rossi and Godes “friction”. More like a technical disagreement.