Interview With McKubre of SSRI Int. Regarding Brillioune

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
61,590
Reaction score
13,489
Points
2,220
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYrv-4Yl_v0&feature=player_embedded]Interview with Mike McKubre about Brillouin at SRI International -- Sterling's Visit (5 of 5) - YouTube[/ame]

PESN interviewed Mike McKubre of SRI International about Brillouin Energy's "Controlled Electron Capture Reaction. After all his years of experience and knowledge he has accumulated in the field of LENR, he speak both with a high degree of confidence and humorous candor. He is not at all bashful about tackling some of the most controversial subjects in the industry.
Brillouin has achieved complete control over their LENR reactions, on/off and increase/decrease power x6 over input.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
7,232
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
OK. Been hearing that song and dance for over a decade now from various people. Still no LENR generator on the market.
 
OP
JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
61,590
Reaction score
13,489
Points
2,220
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
OK. Been hearing that song and dance for over a decade now from various people. Still no LENR generator on the market.
Wasn't it just a year ago or so you said that you couldn't accept LENR because there was no experimental evidence?

Now there is plenty of that and you move the goal posts, which is fine. That is definitely your prerogative.

But the drought on LENR funding has sure slowed things down for the last 30 years, wouldn't you agree?

And we have gone from a bunch of eccentric old men doing unrecognized, unfunded research 3 years ago to the dawn of commercialization as about 5 different companies claim they will have a product on the market by the end of 2015, if not sooner.

Compare that to fission nuclear power. Nuclear radiation was discovered and confirmed in 1932 in the form of neutron radiation. The first nuclear reactor was made in 1942, and was not converted to power an electrical grid until 1954. The first commercial nuclear power generation station was not till two years after that.

So it took twenty years from proof of concept to actually harnessing that energy, and twelve more years to put it to commercial use.

The record of LENR to survive this long without any government or university funding until about 4 years ago, to todays patented running power generators to eventual commercialization in two more years (assuming the various groups deliver on promises made) that is all rather impressive to me, if it pans out.
 

Old Rocks

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2008
Messages
59,352
Reaction score
7,232
Points
1,840
Location
Portland, Ore.
Seems that there was an Italian and also a Greek firm that were going to be on the market a couple of years ago. They have just kind of disappeared. Never said that I did not accept LENR. Stated pretty much what I have just said. When I see it on the market, then I will believe that it is a commercial process. Too many pie in the sky promises already.
 
OP
JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
61,590
Reaction score
13,489
Points
2,220
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
Seems that there was an Italian and also a Greek firm that were going to be on the market a couple of years ago. They have just kind of disappeared.
Rossi is still in the game with his veiled partners. Rumors abound, the latest that he is working with a company called Cherokee Investment Partners.

Strong Confirmation that Cherokee Investment Partners is Working with Rossi and his Super-Controversial Energy Catalyzer and they are meeting with Chinese officials

Report: Darden & Chinese Officials Held ?Signing Ceremony? for Technology Park With ?Nickel Reactor New Energy Project? |

General over view of the LENR industry: How Long will be before we have Commercial LENR? | E-Cat = Rossi Cold Fusion

My guess and it’s only an estimate is that commercial LENR is about five years away around year 2018. I have based this on all the reports I’ve seen about Andrea Rossi, Brillouin, Defkalion, Celani, Jet Energy, the Fleischmann Project etc. A lot of people around the world have produced low energy nuclear reactions and they have some control over them.

The problem is that none of them seems to have achieved the kind of control necessary for commercially viable power source. They can create low energy nuclear reactions but they cannot control them on the level they need. My guess is that it’ll take several years of hard work a lot of failures to get a working LENR device. What we have now are a number of LENR devices that sort of work...
Rossi admits Ecat didn?t obtain safety certification | E-Cat = Rossi Cold Fusion

There seems to be quite a bit going on behind the scenes at Andrea Rossi’s Leonardo Corporation. The most interestingly revelation was made by Rossi himself at his blog on Nov. 7.

“The domestic E-cats did not obtain the safety certification, which is necessary to put them for sale,” Rossi wrote. That indicates two important points about Rossi’s Ecat low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) device:
•Rossi had enough confident in it to try and commercialize it for domestic purposes.


•Regulators and certifiers don’t think the device is safe enough for domestic use. The reason for this isn’t stated but it might be the danger of explosion. Several LENR researchers including Michael McKubre and Francessco Celani have commented on this in the past.
As to Defkalion..

Untitled Document

We are pleased to announce that our timetable for 2014 is as follows:

Currently we are developing our R 6 technology in our three laboratories. We are doing this using robust calorimetric methods, without the use of water coolant, based on both positive and negative experiences we have gained.

Concurrently we are finalizing the heat management and control electronic subsystems for the final pre-industrial prototype.

Several third party independent tests from international organizations, universities and teams are expected to present their results thus verifying our recent technological and scientific breakthroughs.

Accordingly we expect the commercialization of our technologies in the 3rd quarter of 2014. For further inquiries please contact us through our offices

Never said that I did not accept LENR. Stated pretty much what I have just said. When I see it on the market, then I will believe that it is a commercial process. Too many pie in the sky promises already.
Well, more and more physicists are moving to the view that LENR is real, like this guy.....

Physics Professor Comes Out of Closet Admits LENR is For Real | E-Cat = Rossi Cold Fusion

“The tests of E-cat HT reactors of Andrea Rossi provided in Uppsala University, Sweden (2012-2013) and the live test of Defkalion (DGT) Hyperion reactor broadcast on July 22-23, 2013 are reliable demonstrations that cold fusion energy is real,” Dr. Stoyan Sarg wrote in an article for a website called Foreign Policy Journal.
By 2020 all physicists will insist that they all had complete confidence in LENR being real and that they even considered working in the field but for various reasons decided to not.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
59,287
Reaction score
13,862
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
OK. Been hearing that song and dance for over a decade now from various people. Still no LENR generator on the market.
?

And we have gone from a bunch of eccentric old men doing unrecognized, unfunded research 3 years ago to the dawn of commercialization as about 5 different companies claim they will have a product on the market by the end of 2015, if not sooner.

Compare that to fission nuclear power. Nuclear radiation was discovered and confirmed in 1932 in the form of neutron radiation. The first nuclear reactor was made in 1942, and was not converted to power an electrical grid until 1954. The first commercial nuclear power generation station was not till two years after that.

So it took twenty years from proof of concept to actually harnessing that energy, and twelve more years to put it to commercial use.
Here's my prob.. We had physicists who could DESCRIBE nuclear fission as soon as it appeared 1932. It's a very specific event with describable constrainsts. What LENR appears to be is a repository of any unexplained electro-chemical process phenomenon that creates more energy that is calculable from first principles.. That includes stuff like not accounting for sub-surface secondary chemical reactions. Which is what the interest of SRI and other researchers currently are. They are there to EXPLAIN gaps in the modeling of STANDARD electro-chem reactions --- NOT to confirm any new form of NUCLEAR physics..

Best I can tell the VALID scientific interest is in utilizing more advanced modeling of STANDARD reactions leading to MARGINAL improvements in batteries, heat pumps, and rather MUNDANE devices. There is no comprehensive new "power source" identified in any of this. Likely to be USEFUL once the "charging" and "pumping" and "material composition" issues are better understood --- but NOT a new source of energy for the planet..

You just continue to produced baffled physicists and chemists doing their best to explain the X-Files at the frontier of electro-chem and pretending that they are hiding the keys to virtually unlimited power from the public.. Trust me -- if there was a breakthru of that sort, the number of principled folks now involved would have taken the time to introduce it to the world..
 
OP
JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
61,590
Reaction score
13,489
Points
2,220
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
OK. Been hearing that song and dance for over a decade now from various people. Still no LENR generator on the market.
?

And we have gone from a bunch of eccentric old men doing unrecognized, unfunded research 3 years ago to the dawn of commercialization as about 5 different companies claim they will have a product on the market by the end of 2015, if not sooner.

Compare that to fission nuclear power. Nuclear radiation was discovered and confirmed in 1932 in the form of neutron radiation. The first nuclear reactor was made in 1942, and was not converted to power an electrical grid until 1954. The first commercial nuclear power generation station was not till two years after that.

So it took twenty years from proof of concept to actually harnessing that energy, and twelve more years to put it to commercial use.
Here's my prob.. We had physicists who could DESCRIBE nuclear fission as soon as it appeared 1932. It's a very specific event with describable constrainsts. What LENR appears to be is a repository of any unexplained electro-chemical process phenomenon that creates more energy that is calculable from first principles.. That includes stuff like not accounting for sub-surface secondary chemical reactions. Which is what the interest of SRI and other researchers currently are. They are there to EXPLAIN gaps in the modeling of STANDARD electro-chem reactions --- NOT to confirm any new form of NUCLEAR physics..

Best I can tell the VALID scientific interest is in utilizing more advanced modeling of STANDARD reactions leading to MARGINAL improvements in batteries, heat pumps, and rather MUNDANE devices. There is no comprehensive new "power source" identified in any of this. Likely to be USEFUL once the "charging" and "pumping" and "material composition" issues are better understood --- but NOT a new source of energy for the planet..

You just continue to produced baffled physicists and chemists doing their best to explain the X-Files at the frontier of electro-chem and pretending that they are hiding the keys to virtually unlimited power from the public.. Trust me -- if there was a breakthru of that sort, the number of principled folks now involved would have taken the time to introduce it to the world..
Do you know what the energy density is of the LENR processes as measured by NASA? Do you know the energy density of gasoline or nitro glycerine?

Do you know what Muon Catalyzed Fusion is?

Do you know what Brillouine's energy generation does? What they think it may still do further?

I highly doubt you know any of this, but you are an authority to say it is all a bunch of bullshit because it is 'too good to be true'?

Yeah, you and Scientific American knew the Wright brothers were faking it all too.

roflmao
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
59,287
Reaction score
13,862
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
?

And we have gone from a bunch of eccentric old men doing unrecognized, unfunded research 3 years ago to the dawn of commercialization as about 5 different companies claim they will have a product on the market by the end of 2015, if not sooner.

Compare that to fission nuclear power. Nuclear radiation was discovered and confirmed in 1932 in the form of neutron radiation. The first nuclear reactor was made in 1942, and was not converted to power an electrical grid until 1954. The first commercial nuclear power generation station was not till two years after that.

So it took twenty years from proof of concept to actually harnessing that energy, and twelve more years to put it to commercial use.
Here's my prob.. We had physicists who could DESCRIBE nuclear fission as soon as it appeared 1932. It's a very specific event with describable constrainsts. What LENR appears to be is a repository of any unexplained electro-chemical process phenomenon that creates more energy that is calculable from first principles.. That includes stuff like not accounting for sub-surface secondary chemical reactions. Which is what the interest of SRI and other researchers currently are. They are there to EXPLAIN gaps in the modeling of STANDARD electro-chem reactions --- NOT to confirm any new form of NUCLEAR physics..

Best I can tell the VALID scientific interest is in utilizing more advanced modeling of STANDARD reactions leading to MARGINAL improvements in batteries, heat pumps, and rather MUNDANE devices. There is no comprehensive new "power source" identified in any of this. Likely to be USEFUL once the "charging" and "pumping" and "material composition" issues are better understood --- but NOT a new source of energy for the planet..

You just continue to produced baffled physicists and chemists doing their best to explain the X-Files at the frontier of electro-chem and pretending that they are hiding the keys to virtually unlimited power from the public.. Trust me -- if there was a breakthru of that sort, the number of principled folks now involved would have taken the time to introduce it to the world..
Do you know what the energy density is of the LENR processes as measured by NASA? Do you know the energy density of gasoline or nitro glycerine?

Do you know what Muon Catalyzed Fusion is?

Do you know what Brillouine's energy generation does? What they think it may still do further?

I highly doubt you know any of this, but you are an authority to say it is all a bunch of bullshit because it is 'too good to be true'?

Yeah, you and Scientific American knew the Wright brothers were faking it all too.

roflmao
Don't know the RELEVENCE of energy density to LENR processes.. Is it a FUEL? Why does it require multiple catalysts and input energy if it's a fuel? And why are there MULTIPLE LENR processes? Is it because (as i said) a collection of unexplained electro chem reactions that may or may not have the SAME physical explanation?

You're right -- I know more about the engineering of the StarShip Enterprise than I do about anything SPECIFICALLY LENR.. So --- my bud ---- WHY is that?
 
OP
JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
61,590
Reaction score
13,489
Points
2,220
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
Here's my prob.. We had physicists who could DESCRIBE nuclear fission as soon as it appeared 1932. It's a very specific event with describable constrainsts. What LENR appears to be is a repository of any unexplained electro-chemical process phenomenon that creates more energy that is calculable from first principles.. That includes stuff like not accounting for sub-surface secondary chemical reactions. Which is what the interest of SRI and other researchers currently are. They are there to EXPLAIN gaps in the modeling of STANDARD electro-chem reactions --- NOT to confirm any new form of NUCLEAR physics..

Best I can tell the VALID scientific interest is in utilizing more advanced modeling of STANDARD reactions leading to MARGINAL improvements in batteries, heat pumps, and rather MUNDANE devices. There is no comprehensive new "power source" identified in any of this. Likely to be USEFUL once the "charging" and "pumping" and "material composition" issues are better understood --- but NOT a new source of energy for the planet..

You just continue to produced baffled physicists and chemists doing their best to explain the X-Files at the frontier of electro-chem and pretending that they are hiding the keys to virtually unlimited power from the public.. Trust me -- if there was a breakthru of that sort, the number of principled folks now involved would have taken the time to introduce it to the world..
Do you know what the energy density is of the LENR processes as measured by NASA? Do you know the energy density of gasoline or nitro glycerine?

Do you know what Muon Catalyzed Fusion is?

Do you know what Brillouine's energy generation does? What they think it may still do further?

I highly doubt you know any of this, but you are an authority to say it is all a bunch of bullshit because it is 'too good to be true'?

Yeah, you and Scientific American knew the Wright brothers were faking it all too.

roflmao
Don't know the RELEVENCE of energy density to LENR processes.. Is it a FUEL? Why does it require multiple catalysts and input energy if it's a fuel? And why are there MULTIPLE LENR processes? Is it because (as i said) a collection of unexplained electro chem reactions that may or may not have the SAME physical explanation?

You're right -- I know more about the engineering of the StarShip Enterprise than I do about anything SPECIFICALLY LENR.. So --- my bud ---- WHY is that?
Because you have read little about it? Just a guess.

NASA scientists have verified that LENR is real, and the energy density is relevant because no chemical process is capable of that much density, not gasoline or anything else.

It is some kind of nuclear process that involves quantum nuclear processes that are still little understood at nano scales.

But it doesn't matter if it is some kind of neutron decay, electron capture, etc, because it WORKS and the only problem now is an engineering issue trying to harness that power and put it to use.

And this kind of disruptive technology is going to truly change our world and lots of people do not like that at all.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
59,287
Reaction score
13,862
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Do you know what the energy density is of the LENR processes as measured by NASA? Do you know the energy density of gasoline or nitro glycerine?

Do you know what Muon Catalyzed Fusion is?

Do you know what Brillouine's energy generation does? What they think it may still do further?

I highly doubt you know any of this, but you are an authority to say it is all a bunch of bullshit because it is 'too good to be true'?

Yeah, you and Scientific American knew the Wright brothers were faking it all too.

roflmao
Don't know the RELEVENCE of energy density to LENR processes.. Is it a FUEL? Why does it require multiple catalysts and input energy if it's a fuel? And why are there MULTIPLE LENR processes? Is it because (as i said) a collection of unexplained electro chem reactions that may or may not have the SAME physical explanation?

You're right -- I know more about the engineering of the StarShip Enterprise than I do about anything SPECIFICALLY LENR.. So --- my bud ---- WHY is that?
Because you have read little about it? Just a guess.

NASA scientists have verified that LENR is real, and the energy density is relevant because no chemical process is capable of that much density, not gasoline or anything else.

It is some kind of nuclear process that involves quantum nuclear processes that are still little understood at nano scales.

But it doesn't matter if it is some kind of neutron decay, electron capture, etc, because it WORKS and the only problem now is an engineering issue trying to harness that power and put it to use.

And this kind of disruptive technology is going to truly change our world and lots of people do not like that at all.
Now I KNOW you like this science thingy and you should know how it works..

It DOES MATTER GREATLY "if it's some kind of neutron decay, electron capture, etc." because if you DON'T KNOW what it is --- it COULD BE (as i said) just a new 2ndary level of electro-chem phenomenon.. Disruptive technology no matter how EXPLOSIVE it might be -- needs a physical basis and an adequate explanation..

There may be more smoke brewing in the LENR labs.. But it's the smoke from folks trying to explain EXPERIMENTAL results. You dont get products out of UNexplained experimental results.

And LENR is misusing terminology left and right. Like this "energy density" canard.. A FUEL has an energy density. A Battery has an energy density. If you have a LENR battery with more energy out than you put in --- perhaps you're just eating up material to get that energy. Or you're not assessing the start and end energy budget correctly.

Important point is --- a BATTERY can have an amazing "energy density" but always has a negative energy gain.
"higher than any known chemical energy density"???? ---- who says??
 
Last edited:
OP
JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
61,590
Reaction score
13,489
Points
2,220
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
Now I KNOW you like this science thingy and you should know how it works..
This process observed among LENR developers is not a scientific process.

OOOPPPSSS!!! I said it, it is not a science process any more than Edison experiments with the light bulb was a science process. He was experimenting with massive numbers of possibilities for a filament and why the carbon filament was best, he had no idea, it just was. It was better than the platinum and various other filaments others had developed and patented, why he had no idea. Eventually he settled on tungsten as has the rest of the world, to my knowledge anyway.

But these were not science processes, they were trial and error and record and more trial and error. A distinctly engineering approach to a problem when you have no solid idea why what is working is working. You just go with it to see where you end up.

The commercial interests also make this NOT a science process. In science everything is done for review and published somewhere. Few LENR people are publishing their experiments or results and the mainstream academic journals have been very reluctant to publish anything anyway.

This is how it is with disruptive technologies; the vast majority refuse to believe it because they have no clue what can be causing it and so their theoretical models prevent them from looking at the results, until they do then almost all of them jump on board.


It DOES MATTER GREATLY "if it's some kind of neutron decay, electron capture, etc." because if you DON'T KNOW what it is --- it COULD BE (as i said) just a new 2ndary level of electro-chem phenomenon.. Disruptive technology no matter how EXPLOSIVE it might be -- needs a physical basis and an adequate explanation..
No, it is not chemical. Independent testers have shown this. And no, in engineering theory is not first, results are first. You go with what you have happening and adjust to it as needed.

There may be more smoke brewing in the LENR labs.. But it's the smoke from folks trying to explain EXPERIMENTAL results. You dont get products out of UNexplained experimental results.
Sure you do, from time to time.

Just like Edison often did, but this is one reason why Tesla had little respect for Edison's work. For Tesla it was theory first then experiment. Edison seemed to not give a flip about theory as long as what he had worked.

And LENR is misusing terminology left and right. Like this "energy density" canard.. A FUEL has an energy density. A Battery has an energy density. If you have a LENR battery with more energy out than you put in --- perhaps you're just eating up material to get that energy. Or you're not assessing the start and end energy budget correctly.
Yes, material is being consumed, that is obvious. Whether it is from the nickel or platinum or water itself, no one knows yet for certain. And that is exciting.

But that it is happening is beyond informed reasonable doubt.


Important point is --- a BATTERY can have an amazing "energy density" but always has a negative energy gain.
But this is not a battery, it is fuel being consumed.

"higher than any known chemical energy density"???? ---- who says??
The scientists and engineers that have looked into the subject, like Bushnell at NASA or McKubre have found very positive results, if only their bosses would leave them alone to do their work!

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-02/27/rossi-roundup


But that is what bosses do, pull in the reigns till everyone succeeds anyway, then claim it was their idea all along when it finally works, lol.
 
Last edited:

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
59,287
Reaction score
13,862
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
So if science isn't required and the value of the technology makes it subject to proprietary restrictions --- then that explains the bulk of the available discussion being heresay, 2nd hand reports, and pure speculation..

Look Jim -- I've TRIED to follow with respectable sources, but it's too hard to find them. And there are already misconceptions in this thread.. Like the concept that "it's not a battery".. Anything with multi-metal electrodes and chemical electrolytes looks like a battery. In a primary battery -- "fuel is also consumed"..

Gonna try to be generous here.. We toyed with electricity for a CENTURY before we discovered that we could do more than switch it on/off and heat things with it. Then the TUBE amplifier and field effect amplifier/diodes were invented and VOILA --- we got gain and control of the electricity to do a million new things.. Electro-chem is STILL in the "pre-tube" days when it comes to plating and batteries and such. It LOOKS TO ME --- that folks who couldn't explain the science have stumbled upon new clues for CONTROLLING electro-chem reactions and are trying to figure out how to capitalize on the knowledge without revealing their hand..

Could BE a MASSIVE leap in chemistry and materials in there somewhere.. But I HIGHLY DOUBT that this is a true ENERGY source to power the planet.. There is no real evidence or PROFESSIONAL speculation on that guess..
 
Last edited:
OP
JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
61,590
Reaction score
13,489
Points
2,220
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
So if science isn't required and the value of the technology makes it subject to proprietary restrictions --- then that explains the bulk of the available discussion being heresay, 2nd hand reports, and pure speculation..
Yep. There is an awful lot of shyte, but there's gotta be a pony somewhere.

Look Jim -- I've TRIED to follow with respectable sources, but it's too hard to find them. And there are already misconceptions in this thread.. Like the concept that "it's not a battery".. Anything with multi-metal electrodes and chemical electrolytes looks like a battery. In a primary battery -- "fuel is also consumed"..
The fuel is once again, either the nickel or the water, but no one is certain, but that is not a battery as the amount of energy that comes out is far more than what goes in.

Gonna try to be generous here.. We toyed with electricity for a CENTURY before we discovered that we could do more than switch it on/off and heat things with it. Then the TUBE amplifier and field effect amplifier/diodes were invented and VOILA --- we got gain and control of the electricity to do a million new things.. Electro-chem is STILL in the "pre-tube" days when it comes to plating and batteries and such. It LOOKS TO ME --- that folks who couldn't explain the science have stumbled upon new clues for CONTROLLING electro-chem reactions and are trying to figure out how to capitalize on the knowledge without revealing their hand..
I think that is fair to say, but some few are pursuing the issue from a purely science perspective, like a fellow at MIT (Cold Fusion Demo at MIT ? Cold Fusion & LENR - Canada) and the University of Missouri (LENR Champion to leave Post at University of Missouri | LENR & Cold Fusion News) who is now going to Texas Tech.


Could BE a MASSIVE leap in chemistry and materials in there somewhere.. But I HIGHLY DOUBT that this is a true ENERGY source to power the planet.. There is no real evidence or PROFESSIONAL speculation on that guess..
Well I am the opposite view; I think it extremely unlikely that this is chemical and is almost certainly some kind of nuclear decay similar to Muon-Catalyzed fusion, but I DONT KNOW. Muon-catalyzed fusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I do feel 99.99999% certain that something is happening that will be revolutionary or LENR research would have died off in the 1990's when most of the funding was pulled. The pioneers who kept going despite the lack of funding, the ridicule and damage to their careers, they saw SOMETHING worth going after that would be revolutionary.

And that is why the subject is not dead and money flowing back into it, like that DOE funding that was announced recently and the European Parliament announcement that they would also provide funding for LENR.
 
Last edited:

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
59,287
Reaction score
13,862
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
THere's the problem in a nutshell. You have 60 minutes quoting McCubre on "nuclear batteries" and ASSUMING he's talking about LENR potential.. That's fraud --- and the current state of awful science journalism in America.

But I feel the most sorry for Fleischmann hearing that the University PUSHED him to a public relations exposure before his work was ready for primetime. They effectively took out a brilliant mind by HYPING something that wasn't complete.

So Bro --- Buy Palladium.. Check today's price and invest HEAVILY.. But even that "theory" by Mucabre looks more like electro-chem effects than "nuclear fusion".. Especially if it depends so heavily on surface preparation and the quality of the metal. It's not exactly crackpot, it's not just busywork --- but it's also nothing but speculation and too much hype at this point..

"Something like Muon catalyzed fusion... " isnt what you need to go mainstream... BTW -- I'm guessing that your "energy density" claims comes from the Heavy Water itself.. Not impressed with that either unless you tell me HOW it's consumed (and controlled).
 
OP
JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
61,590
Reaction score
13,489
Points
2,220
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
THere's the problem in a nutshell. You have 60 minutes quoting McCubre on "nuclear batteries" and ASSUMING he's talking about LENR potential.. That's fraud --- and the current state of awful science journalism in America.
And yet McKubre is today heavily involved in LENR research now, so maybe in context it was close enough for a journalist.

But I feel the most sorry for Fleischmann hearing that the University PUSHED him to a public relations exposure before his work was ready for primetime. They effectively took out a brilliant mind by HYPING something that wasn't complete.
Agreed. Why Utah did that I cannot understand.

So Bro --- Buy Palladium.. Check today's price and invest HEAVILY.. But even that "theory" by Mucabre looks more like electro-chem effects than "nuclear fusion".. Especially if it depends so heavily on surface preparation and the quality of the metal. It's not exactly crackpot, it's not just busywork --- but it's also nothing but speculation and too much hype at this point..
Mmmm, I am going to buy Brillouine stock when it is available. Tin and other metals can also be used, not just Palladium. One of them might be the more optimal solution when all is done than todays Palladium.

"Something like Muon catalyzed fusion... " isnt what you need to go mainstream... BTW -- I'm guessing that your "energy density" claims comes from the Heavy Water itself.. Not impressed with that either unless you tell me HOW it's consumed (and controlled).
I'm not going main stream, lol, with anything. :D

The consensus seems inclined toward Widom Larsen theory but that isn't how science works. The best theory I doubt has even been written yet.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
59,287
Reaction score
13,862
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
So if Robert Duncan (former MizzoU prof) LEFT an LENR legacy there and he's such a hero --- WHERE THE HELL is it?? No class notes, no published papers, no seminars, no LENR for Dummies, not even a trace of a YouTube video of a LENR lecture? THAT's not a proprietary issue is it? Is MizzoU in on the suppression conspiracy? Does he have a TextBook on LENR in the works?

Can't do this if there's no trail of evidence that HE is even convinced...
 
Last edited:
OP
JimBowie1958

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
61,590
Reaction score
13,489
Points
2,220
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
So if Robert Duncan (former MizzoU prof) LEFT an LENR legacy there and he's such a hero --- WHERE THE HELL is it?? No class notes, no published papers, no seminars, no LENR for Dummies, not even a trace of a YouTube video of a LENR lecture? THAT's not a proprietary issue is it? Is MizzoU in on the suppression conspiracy? Does he have a TextBook on LENR in the works?

Can't do this if there's no trail of evidence that HE is even convinced...
You're reading way too much into the move, in fact that he went to being vice-chancellor for research at Texas TECH, should be plenty enough to suggest he is not wandering lost in the wilderness of LENR scamdom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Duncan_(physicist)

I am sure he will publish when he thinks he has something to add to the discussion, unlike the Soros bots here, lol.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
59,287
Reaction score
13,862
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
Dont care about his move (promotion).. I ASSUME he's got abilities... I'M ASKING --- where the fuck is the trail of work he left on LENR at MizzoU??? All those things I mentioned -- if he is an ICON of LENR --- would be there to peruse.. Academic research heroes BURY themselves in teaching products and reports and research papers.. NOTHING??? Not a footprint on science???

You guys need more productive Icons....
 

mamooth

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
22,441
Reaction score
4,567
Points
290
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
I'll be more of a believer when the researchers start dying from radiation sickness, due to the serious gamma radiation that even a low power cold fusion system would have to create.

Oh, you mean they've overturned physics to such a degree that nuclear fusion no longer releases gamma radiation? How convenient.
 

flacaltenn

Diamond Member
Staff member
Senior USMB Moderator
Moderator
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
59,287
Reaction score
13,862
Points
2,180
Location
Hillbilly Hollywood, Tenn
I'll be more of a believer when the researchers start dying from radiation sickness, due to the serious gamma radiation that even a low power cold fusion system would have to create.

Oh, you mean they've overturned physics to such a degree that nuclear fusion no longer releases gamma radiation? How convenient.
They don't free the gamma particles --- they just agitate them a little...

Give 'em a break.. I heard Fleishmann say in an interview as an old man that he regrets
choosing the name..
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top