Interview With Robert Godes of Brillouin Energy (Ruby Carat)

Ruby Carat of Cold Fusion Now has just posted a podcast in which she interviews Robert Godes, President and Chief Technical Officer of Brillouin Energy Corporation. The podcast (along with other interviews Ruby has conducted can be heard here:

A few points that Robert Godes makes in the interview:

– Brillouin plans to follow an ‘Intel Inside’ business model where they make Brillouin LENR units that can be placed inside products of manufacturers.
– Brillouin has sold and negotiated license agreements to three manufacturers and industrialists who will have the rights to use Brillouin products.
– To have a profitable cost-effective LENR power station 10x [COP of 10, electricity in, thermal energy out] is necessary. Once you reach 20x you can use LENR for transportation and other portable power products.
– New developments. They have been working to improve the Q-pulse technology and finished at the end of August. Since then they have been able to dramatically improve control over the reaction and they can reliably get over 2x now with it.
– They use a sharp ‘impulse function’ in which a proton captures an electron. Reaction is driven and dissipated by phonons.
– They have four test systems in their lab at Berkeley. They need funds to engineer develop catalyst rods and approach manufacturers and start production.

There is an opportunity for people to participate in a Brillouin profit-sharing system at a new website:

Minimum investment is 24,750 EUR

Natural Plasma Balls and LENR — Hesseldan Norway Phenomena Examined (Bob Greenyer)

Bob Greenyer has made a series of videos regarding ‘fire ball’ phenomena that have been observed in the Hesseldalen valley in central Norway. Starting in 198 residents of this valley observed many unusual lights in the area, some of which were filmed and photographed and have been documented on this website:

Bob’s videos explore this phenomenon and examine the possible link between ‘natural plasma balls’ and LENR. He examines research from an Italian research team which studied the area in 2002. Researchers took powder samples from the vicinity of where local witnesses had seen fireballs, who found radiation readings many times above background.

His videos are here:

He has also a written a blog post on the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project’s Steemit account here:

Here is Bob’s conclusion from that post:

Apparently natural atmospheric plasmatic ball observations yield data that is in line with multiple low energy nuclear reaction systems observed by the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project, suggesting that there is a link between the two.

The possible relationship of mineral deposits local to daytime, non lightning related fire ball phenomena should be investigated. Ball lightning observations not due to lightning may become a method of discovering mineral deposits.

An attempt to see if there is any correlation between the observation rate and solar, magnetosphere or cosmic phenomena should be considered.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Mats Lewan Previews the Jan 31st E-Cat Presentation

Mats Lewan sent me this morning a link to a new article that he has written and published on his site, An Impossible Invention here:

Mats outlines some of the things that he has been told about the E-Cat SK, and comments on them. Here are a few excerpts:

– The actual device, containing one reactor, has a maximum thermal power output of 35 kW. It measures 93x40x47 cm, and it consumes a small amount of electricity for the control system.

– The customer pays for the output thermal energy minus the input electric energy which is fed from an outlet in the customer’s premises, with the electric measurement controlled by the customer.

– The core temperature inside the reactor reportedly reaches a temperature about 10,000°C, heating a coolant through an in-built heat exchanger. The standard version of the E-Cat can heat water or steam up to 500-600°C. Using a different heat exchanger and other coolants, significantly higher temperatures can be reached, essentially limited only by the material properties of the heat exchanger.


– The reaction emits very low levels of electromagnetic radiation—the same kind as e.g. light, radio waves, and microwaves. The wavelength is essentially between 300 and 330 nanometers, slightly shorter than UV-light from the sun. No other kind of radiation from the E-Cat has ever been detected.

– Inside the device casing but outside the reactor, at a distance of 1 cm from the reactor wall, the radiation level is reportedly between 0.06 and 0.16 µSv/h—slightly above background level which is 0.05-0.07 µSv/h—in a day adding up to approximately one arm X-ray. Outside the device, however, the radiation level from the process is zero, due to shielding.

Mats writes that while he concedes nothing concrete will be confirmed at the January 31st event, since the current customer will not be revealed, and no third party testing will be reported, all he has learned and experienced over the last eight years, including taking his own measurements of an early E-Cat, “indicates that the E-Cat is a working device, although many would call it An Impossible Invention.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Major Advances in Science are not Recognized for Decades (Axil Axil)

Thanks to Axil for sharing this comment today in this thread.

In 1839 a young Frenchman, Alexandre Edmond Becquerel, experimented with electricity in his father’s lab. He was passionate about phenomena of magnetism, electricity and optics, which scientists had only started to understand. He noticed a strange occurrence: an electrolytic cell generated more energy when it was exposed to sunlight. He called it the photovoltaic effect.

Forty years had to pass for another two scientists, William Grylls Adams and Richard Evans Day, to discover the photovoltaic effect in a solid substance. Then, in 1905, Albert Einstein explained the fundamental physics of it, which ultimately led to the quantum revolution in physics. Yet even eight years later, great physicists such as Max Planck considered this explanation foolish. With an apparent lack of practical applications, all these breakthroughs had not been taken forward until a US company, Bell Labs, made the world’s first useful solar cell in the 1950s. The rest is history.

Science is a passion driven by curiosity. It is not a job, it is an obsession driven by the need to know.

Alfred Lothar Wegener was a German polar researcher, geophysicist and meteorologist.

During his lifetime he was primarily known for his achievements in meteorology and as a pioneer of polar research, but today he is most remembered as the originator of the theory of continental drift by hypothesizing in 1912 that the continents are slowly drifting around the Earth. His hypothesis was controversial and not widely accepted until the 1950s.

Ludwig Boltzmann faced massive ridicule for his work on thermodynamics, eventually committing suicide in 1906. His work was largely carried on and extended by Paul Ehrenfest, who faced similar ridicule, committing suicide in 1933. Their work laid the foundation for modern statistical mechanics.

In 1927, Georges Lemaître put together data about the redshift and distance measurements of galaxies to infer the expanding Universe, writing to Einstein about his findings. Einstein responded, “Your calculations are correct, but your physics are abominable.” Yet Lemaître was correct, with his conclusions predating Hubble’s identical ones by two years.

Fritz Zwicky, who first inferred the existence of dark matter in the 1930s, had his results dismissed based on the absurdity that such a significant fraction of the Universe could be hitherto undetected. The work of Vera Rubin and Kent Ford in the 1970s led to dark matter being seriously considered, but the work of Zwicky could have given us a 40 year head-start on the puzzle.

The really major advances in science are not recognized for decades after they have been made by those obsessed with knowing and discovery. These discoveries are just too hard to accept by the current paradigm of the day. As it has been, it remains so today. There are great advances in science that have been made but are currently being ridiculed. It just takes decades for these advances to pass the test of time and to come of age.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Rossi: Customer to Pay E-Cat Electricity Bills

There was a time when Andrea Rossi was saying that Leonardo Corporation would be paying the electricity bills for customers who use the E-Cat, but that seems to have changed now. In the following comment on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, he indicates that is not possible because power companies won’t sell electricity to a customer that doesn’t rent or own a premises:

Andrea Rossi
January 13, 2019 at 2:35 PM
We will draw the electricity needed from the Ecats from the outlet of the Clients, since we cannot make contracts with the providers to sell us electricity in a place that is not ours or rented by us.
Our billing system will be very simple and clear: we and the Customer will put a wattmeter along the line that supplies electric energy to the control system, to read the Wh per month consumed by the whole Ecat System ( control panels plus Ecats ), so that we will have the worth of the electricity consumed by the Ecats; the bill will compute the price of the thermal Wh generated by the Ecats and the price of the electric Wh consumed by the same Ecats: the Customer will obviously pay the difference between the price of the thermal energy generated by the Ecats and the price of the electric energy consumed from the same Ecats.
Note: we will bill also the thermal energy recovered from the cooling system of the control panel: such energy is recovered with a COP close to 1.
Warm Regards,

If I understand Rossi correctly here, it seems that the customer would pay the electricity bill as normal, but have the cost of electricity consumed by the E-Cats deducted from the final bill from Leonardo, and would be paying an agreed-upon price for the energy delivered by the E-Cats. If this is actually the case it will be easy for the customers to see overall the COP for E-Cat systems (they will know how much energy is consumed, and how much they use), and have a good idea about Leonardo’s profit margins.

Of course we don’t have any identified customers yet to report on their experience with the E-Cat, and from what Rossi has stated I don’t expect we will be given that information at the event on January 31st. Gerard McEk asked this in a question on the JONP yesterday: “Have you already found a customer willing to openly publish the performance of the E-Cat SK during the first year?” Rossi’s response was, “not yet, but in time this is expected to be possible”.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Who Can Be an E-Cat Customer?

Today on the Journal of Nuclear Physics, Andrea Rossi responded to the question, “Which are the characteristics that a potential customer must have to be fit for the Ecat?”

His response:

Andrea Rossi
January 11, 2019 at 9:14 AM
1- must be an industrial concern or a centralized heat distribution facility
2- must give evidence that really already consumes the thermal energy he claims to need
3- must give financial references to guarantee to be able to pay the bills
4- must be in a geographic area where we are organized to serve
5- must be a well consolidated activity
6- must have all the necessary authorizations, certifications and permits necessary to make their activity
This is the preliminar screening, after which specific situations must be analyzed.
Warm Regards,

Obviously if Leonardo is taking all the financial risk involved in setting up and operating the E-Cat, they will want to be confident that the customer will actually be able to pay the heat bills, so it is understandable that they want to make sure that the customer is well established.

The conditions do seem to set quite a high bar which may rule out many small companies and startups that might form around the idea of developing an industrial process to make use of E-Cat heat.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Multeity of Nuclides Arising in the Process of Cold Nuclear Transmutations Involving Electrons (New Parkhomov Paper)

Thanks to Bob Greenyer for posting the following.

Dr. Alexander Parkhomov’s gives another gift to the LENR community

Happy 2019! The Year of the ‘New Fire’

“Multeity of Nuclides Arising in the Process of Cold Nuclear Transmutations Involving Electrons”

He has brought his decades long, world leading expertise on the behaviour of neutrinos and antineutrinos to LENR ‘Black Box’ thinking.

The paper is here

The raw dataset is here

The previous web applications excluding electrons and neutrinos / antineutrinos are (Denis Lamotte)

and (Phillip Power)

Proposed Mechanism for the E-Cat SK (TheFutureIsNow)

The following comment was posted on the Journal of Nuclear Physics by TheFutureIsNow, and the poster subsequently made contact with me and gave me permission to repost it here. I was able to ask some follow-up questions to which he provided responses.

For a little context, TheFutureIsNow had previously asked Andrea Rossi if he had observed plasma balls in the E-Cat, and Rossi responded “yes”.

January 9, 2019 at 1:10 PM
Dear Andrea,

Through my online research I’ve discovered that the existence of a fire ball (plasma ball) with a double layer on the surface (protons in the interior and electrons on the outside) is critical for the negative resistance phenomena to take place. The plasma ball acts almost as a capacitor or a source of energy to sustain the negative resistance. During this same time period, the plasma ball sustains itself by absorbing radiant energy (mostly heat) from the general plasma environment and begins to produce a self-generating oscillation. This oscillation is basically the conversion of heat into electrical current by the plasma ball.

Due to the production of anomalous energy (in various forms) allegedly generated by a number of different devices producing plasma balls, it is logical to assume that in addition to zero point energy extraction LENR reactions are taking place near the double layers where positive ions and electrons can interact. If this is the case, this amazing self organizing plasma structure in the QX would take the heat generated, convert it to electrical current, and project this electricity through the discharge. A portion of this electrical current (perhaps a significant amount) is converted in the general plasma into heat and light! What remains can be collected as electricity.

No steam boilers, no thermo-electric panels, no photothermalvotaic devices with tiny gaps: the plasma ball ON IT’S OWN converts the heat generated by LENR into electricity. The light and heat are primarily massive losses, but future versions of the QX could be designed to minimize the production of heat/light and boost direct electrical output.

So fundamentally to maximize the energy produced by the plasma ball (if LENR produces a significant portion of the heat) the proper fuel mixture should be utilized. The first step seems to be choosing one or more noble gases. Argon is obvious the FIRST choice. However, additions of other gases like neon could also optimize the formation of the plasmoid.

Next, once the noble gases have been selected, we need to look at the fuels that would be undergoing nuclear reactions. The two most obvious that come to mind are hydrogen (protium with no neutrons) and deuterium (with a neutron). My understanding is that deuterium has a higher cross section for nuclear reactions than hydrogen. Moreover, in spinning up the plasmoid, adding some quantity of deuterium would allow for another layer of positive ions to form with a different mass.

Finally, we need to think about what the hydrogen and deuterium would interact with, in addition to possibly themselves. My guess is that lithium is an ideal fuel for a number of reasons. Basically, in a large number of experiments by different parties, it seems to be susceptible to nuclear reactions with hydrogen/deuterium at very low energies (a few hundred eV) far below what is predicted by traditional nuclear physics (hundreds of KeV minimum). Another fuel that should not be totally ignored are the NANO-PARTICLES produced via sputtering from the electrodes. These metal particles of nickel, manganese, or potentially even other metals such as platinum could also undergo nuclear reactions, although at a lower rate than lithium.

Everything else is basically about helping sustain resonance (design of the power supply so it acts like a tank circuit), possibly applying low powered frequencies to the plasma ball after the initial pulse to help sustain it, and to keeping the plasmoid free floating and away from the electrode surfaces which would produce massive erosion.

Q: Where is documented the existence of a fire/plasma ball with a double layer?

A: There are an abundance of mainstream scientific papers that describe the production of “fireballs” or “plasma balls” in DC plasma discharges during the transition to a negative resistance zone in which a reduction in voltage can lead to an increase in current. These papers also describe how the fireballs (basically macroscopic plasmoids) have a double layer consisting of interior positive ions and exterior electrons. The various conditions by which these fireballs can be produced and how they can be manipulated is also discussed.

Here are some selected links:

“Comparative studies performed on “fireballs” formed in direct current and high frequency discharges”
by M.Sanduloviciu, C.Borciat, V.Melnig and C.Gherman (see p. 172 of this document)

“Mechanism behind self-sustained oscillations in direct current glow discharges and dusty plasmas”
by Sung Nae Cho

“Negative Differential Resistance of the Discharge Plasma through Fractal Space-Time Theory” by Maricel Agop, Dan G. Dimitriu, Silviu Gurlui

Q: What do you think causes negative resistance?

Negative resistance is caused by the creation of a plasmoid or fireball in the creation of an arc discharge. The double layer becomes a source of ions that can feed the plasma and allow for the negative resistance to take place. If it were not for the plasma ball, there would be no negative resistance.

Q: What is a meant by a “double layer” and why do you think it is significant?

Any transition from a glow discharge to a true arc discharge (with positive resistance) will require the discharge going through a negative resistance zone. Mainstream scientists are now able to explain how the double layer of a fireball or column of plasma is what provides the energy that powers the negative resistance. Without such a fireball, the negative resistance would not take place. Basically, the fireball is constantly absorbing radiant energy (such as heat from the plasma) and storing it up like a capacitor and then discharging it to allow for the negative resistance effect. The double layer is the portion of the fireball that interacts with the overall plasma in the tube. When it comes to LENR, the double layer of such a plasmoid is where nuclear reactions can take place. The heat from the reaction is then absorbed by the fireball which then transforms it into electrical current. These “self sustaining oscillations” can then produce electricity, heat, and light.

Q: What do you think is the difference between zero point energy and LENR?

3) Zero Point Energy and LENR are two different phenomena but they may possibly both take place in reactors like Andrea Rossi’s SK. Zero Point Energy could be defined as energy extracted from the vacuum of space which is filled with limitless energy. Some calculations have been made by cutting edge scientists like Harold Puthoff that a tiny area of empty space (for example the space in a coffee cup) contains enough energy to boil away all the world’s oceans. LENR energy could be defined as energy collected after matter is made to undergo nuclear reactions. However, in the conditions present in the SK, both types of energy could plausibly be produced. For example, some researchers in the field of zero point energy claim that sudden non-equilibrium and non-linear motions of electrically charged particles (ions) can cohere the active vacuum which results in electron-positrons pairs being extracted. The positrons could then annihilate with electrons in the environment to produce energy. However, this is only one mechanism by which it’s plausible that energy could be extracted from the vacuum.

Q: Where do you think the excess energy in LENR comes from?

I think the excess energy comes from both nuclear reactions (probably the bulk of the energy) and potentially the extraction of electron-positron pairs from the active vacuum. In the E-Cat SK, the non-linear and non-equilibrium conditions involve sudden accelerations of ions that may allow for the vacuum to be manipulated. My guess is that in the future we will be able to design LENR systems to control the ratio of power extracted from LENR reactions vs. the vacuum.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

IEEE-Madison (Wisconsin) to hold Meeting on LENR on Jan 31st to View E-Cat Presentation

Thanks to Thomas Kaminski for letting me know about a meeting to be held by the IEEE-Madison (Wisconsin) Entrepreneurs and Consultants Network on January 31st 2019 about LENR. The meeting will coincide with Leonardo Corporation’s online presentation of the E-Cat SK, and attendees will watch the event and discuss it afterwards.

The meeting will be held at the Sector67 Community Workspace / Hackerspace / Makerspace at 56 Corry St
Madison, Wisconsin, and will start at 7:45 am local time. The meeting is free and open to the public.

More details are available at this link:

New E-Cat Demonstration Page Published

A new web page has been published for the E-Cat SK presentation on January 31st:

So far there’s not much information there: just a countdown clock and an image of ‘something’ covered up by a dark cloth with the caption:

“On January 31, 2019 at 9am the Ecat SK will be unveiled. Come back to this location to see the demonstration, and to learn how your company can benefit from the clean, cost-efficient heat produced by this revolutionary industrial heating system.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged