From: Jed Rothwell
The article says they are getting $750,000 for a license.
That's a small amount, but you have to start somewhere. Once they gain
credibility by doing this they can charge much more to other customers.
I hope these Korean people really have done due diligence
correctly, and the effect is real.
The article says:
"What Bob is most keen to secure by contract is a "stranded
asset" power plant in the range of 5-10 MW willing to beta test their HHT
system as a retrofit solution to replace their coal-, or biomass-, or other
polluting source that has had to be shut down due to environmental
regulations."
In my opinion that is an idiotic use of this technology.
That is inventing an automobile engine and using it exclusively to augment
teams of horses pulling stage coaches, instead of making automobiles without
horses. Once people realize this technology is real, stranded asset power
plants will be worth nothing. No one will want to spend any money preserving
them or upgrading them.
This Korean retrofit venture may not be a bad strategy for a start, if they
truly have a working proof-of-concept. Did you get the impression that it
was more than an entry-level tactic to get a prototype device into operation
ASAP ... one where the risks for all parties are minimal?What appears to have been a poor choice here ... for Brillouin, if they really have what they say they have and wish to attract other funding - was to promote the technology next to dozens of nutty-and-nuttier free energy scams. That choice makes Godes' story look more like an act of desperation than a breakthrough. If the tests at SRI were successful, which is the implication - then test data alone would be invaluable - worthy of at least getting coverage in a respectable journal. DoE would jump on this development, if it were true. Something smells funny here, no? Why not simply release the summary SRI test data to the public? Even if they choose to filter out early failures, there must be reliable data - to get this kind of additional funding, no? The fact that relevant information from a top-flight R&D concern is NOT being shared - is suspicious in itself. After all this was reportedly $2 million for testing which went to SRI - and if that work was not successful, how could the Korean company be using due diligence?
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
