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

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

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

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

https://www.rt.com/shows/watching-the-hawks/367347-life-affirming-purposes-technology/

  • Christina

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

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

    Christina

  • Christina

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

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

    Christina

    • roseland67

      Christina,

      You have much to learn my young padawan

  • radvar

    Anyone find a link without the RT newsfeed?

  • sam
    • Alain Samoun

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

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

      • sam

        Thanks for information Alain.
        If interested here is another article.

        http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/molten-salt-reactors.aspx

        • Warthog

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

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

          • roseland67

            Wart,

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

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

          • Omega Z

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

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

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

          • Warthog

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

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

          • roseland67

            Steer corrosion cracking like stainless? putting?

          • Warthog

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

        • Alain Samoun

          Thanks Sam, here is the source of my information:
          http://www.fairewinds.org/demystify/thorium-reactors
          Fairewinds site is in my opinion the best site for information on fission.

          • sam

            Interesting the number crunching in theUniversity of Vermont graduates interview.

      • That is false. Is the script that big oil want we believe to continue the slaving.

        But now the true is out !!
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyqYP6f66Mw&t=35s

        • Alain Samoun

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

      • Jon B

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

  • sam
    • Alain Samoun

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

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

      • sam

        Thanks for information Alain.
        If interested here is another article.

        http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/molten-salt-reactors.aspx

        • Warthog

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

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

          • roseland67

            Wart,

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

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

          • Omega Z

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

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

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

          • Warthog

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

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

          • roseland67

            Stress corrosion cracking like stainless? putting?

          • Warthog

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

        • Alain Samoun

          Thanks Sam, here is the source of my information:
          http://www.fairewinds.org/demystify/thorium-reactors
          Fairewinds site is in my opinion the best site for information on fission.

          • sam

            Interesting the number crunching in theUniversity of Vermont graduates interview.

      • That is false. Is the script that big oil want we believe to continue the slaving.

        But now the true is out !!
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyqYP6f66Mw&t=35s

        • Alain Samoun

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

          • “at the core of a Thorium reactor,there is an Uranium reactor that produces the necessary neutrons to make thorium fissile” yes to start the reaction, thorium can use the nuclear waste that we already have, another win win situation.
            “Thorium produces radioactive waste that last thousand years” this minimal waste are radioactive isotopes, very expensive, and useful in medical equipment. another win win.
            “has all the problems of the current fission reactors” here is were you need to understand the difference is use water at hi pressure hi temperature, and molten salts in very hi temperature WITHOUT PRESSURE. Also the difference of use thorium instead of enriched uranium. no weapons production, small size, lower cost.
            “we do not know how to clean up the salts from its radioactivity after its use” yes we know it, the awarded physics professor Frank Shu, do it in taiwan, in his small size, test, reactor. open your mind to the true.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTnBdleS98Y

      • Jon B

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

    • roseland67

      Sam,
      Exceptional discussion and presentation, many thanks for posting.
      I was under the impression that the temp range Thorium reactors operated was significantly lower than uranium and thus less efficient.
      Sorensen mentioned that one of the challenges of Thorium reactor was
      “high temp”?

  • Unified Gravity has updated their website and it looks pretty nice.
    http://unifiedgravity.com/

    They state the following on their website.

    “We are fully aware our work cannot be explained by the current state of mainstream physics. Despite this, we were able to reproduce positive results in labs at the University of Louisiana, Lafayette and the University of North Texas with further experiments at our Morgan Hill laboratory. Because our fusion technology is patent pending, we are open for peer-review of our experimental tests. We encourage universities, institutions, and companies to explore and reproduce our results as we believe our technology holds the key to unlocking a paradigm shift in the way we create energy.”

    “We are happy to setup meetings with those who are serious about replication assistance of our fusion process.”

    • HS61AF91

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

      • Not from me.

        They seem to suggest that small reactors could be fitted into automobiles, but then they talk about transferring the energy from alpha particles into direct electric currents. That sounds more like hot fusion and dangerous for cars. I do not want to be bombarded with alpha particles. I don’t have a clue what they are doing, but the staff has very good credentials. Try reading their patent application. I have sent them questions, but have not gotten a reply as yet.

  • Gerard McEk

    This is very nice! I look forward seeing a good test and specifications of the HotTube soon.

  • Gerard McEk

    This is very nice! I look forward seeing a good test and specifications of the HotTube soon.

  • HS61AF91

    Very well done, and if the Doctore was in it, it would have been superb.

  • I suspect that the force is coming from the engine itself being the ‘propellant’ by ejecting light or other particles.