Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC) updates.

  • How to perform DC Magnetron Sputtering of Ni-Ti materials on silicon/ Silicon Carbide, and what to watch out for?


    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael-Lynn-8


    I need to reliably place Ni-Ti contacts, (or select some superior material if there are any) on a silicon substrate, and form a high quality ohmic contact tolerant of temperatures in excess of 1000C with silicon carbide structures also sputtered onto the silicon.

    Would any of you experts out there know any gotchas or important details of the process a newbie should look out for? I am currently considering DC magnetron sputtering of the metal materials and silicon carbide, with a 1000C post bake in nitrogen atmosphere to anneal all the components and reduce their residual stresses / promote recrystallization.

    Any brilliant advice would be greatly appreciated!

    -Michael

  • I am currently considering DC magnetron sputtering of the metal materials and silicon carbide, with a 1000C post bake in nitrogen atmosphere to anneal all the components and reduce their residual stresses / promote recrystallization.

    At that temperature you will nitride the Titanium definitely, and catalytic spillover effects from the TiN(x) possibly nitride the nickel too. Although it generally takes temperatures of over 1200C to nitride solid silicon, there might well be some degradation at 1000C


    Argon or possibly Hydrogen would be a better choice of furnace atmosphere.

  • Hello Axil,


    I would suggest there are at least three stages, if not more.


    1) Transmutation stage.

    2) Continual Energy Emission stage. (This equates to what SAFIRE, Chukanov, and others have witnessed when an excited self organized plasma continually gives off high energy photons producing a gain beyond what the input energy could allow for.)

    3) Bosenova.

  • I do believe Dr. Storms is one of the few who have openly shared what he learned. But yes, secrecy is an acknowledged flaw in the field that McKubre has frequently joked about: "we are all keeping the same secrets from each other", or something like that. But then again, without secrets, no investment. No investment, no research. Frustrating, but understandable.

    I think the secrecy needs to be about specific implementations of the technology. If company XYZ wants to keep their design for the first LENR powered car secret, that's fine. But if they've figured out a method for producing high heat or electrical output from let's say an alloy of nickel and copper, they should give out the basic information so that others can prove it actually works. The CF/LENR field is deeply flawed because unlike the battery industry (which openly publishes and patents every formulation) we want to keep every little bit of information confidential. In reality, only the promotion of the basic know how will allow success.

  • Heya axil


    there is no nuclear processes involved in the NAE

    My understanding is the first stage includes nuclear process.



    I've learned from you and many other more knowledgeable than I am..

    You and Ahlfors...

    Others as well are "BEYOND ATOMIC" physicists. As I understand your field, we are working into this observable realm, for the first time really., deeper Into the femto scale and broader spectrums of observables in the reaches of space.


    Simple put... You are really seeing things

    E equals M c squared, and

    Where All That E Is, and

    What all that E is doing... and a bunch of other things I'm fuzzy on.

    Like where does all this E come from? or Where is it stored?

    What can all that E do for us? As direct distributed scalable production of heat, electrical current, or light.


    I remember a description from a few years ago, perhaps by you or Ahlfors.

    My understanding ... rough as it is now.


    Initiating energetics (and additive energies) should not be limited in concept nor control for optimization of production.


    The first stage is nuclear -matter energy conversion- perhaps consisting of transmutation processes; isotopic shifts, nano fission and nano fusion events. This stage can be modulated in a way that prevents EVO`s full formation if so desired... Choices of metamaterials determines what types of transmutation events dominate.


    Also fuzzy on the concept of...


    The desirability of EVO's?


    It seems that it depends on what you want to produce. Direct production of Heat, Electricity or Light is all useful and can be found in various reactors being developed. Which ones do EVO's benefit?


    Meanwhile,


    Consider that competing theories become convergent theories, at times, when they each contribute improvements to each other's functionality. Theorists tend to like it when that happens.


    Theorists enjoy reading other's theories. Complex mathematicians soak them up with comparative ease, with analytical skills etc.


    Julian Swinger's advanced cold fusion theories hold relevance to embodiments of solid state CMNS energy systems. Contemporary CMNS might benefit from a quick study of his works. Commonalities may prove useful. Perhaps a missing piece found.


    For those so inclined.. This link leads to two pdf's found in my comment.

    IMHO both of them are well worth the time and study


    Pharis Edward Williams' thoughts encompasses both the chemical and the nuclear in dynamic systems.

  • I think the secrecy needs to be about specific implementations of the technology. If company XYZ wants to keep their design for the first LENR powered car secret, that's fine. But if they've figured out a method for producing high heat or electrical output from let's say an alloy of nickel and copper, they should give out the basic information so that others can prove it actually works. The CF/LENR field is deeply flawed because unlike the battery industry (which openly publishes and patents every formulation) we want to keep every little bit of information confidential. In reality, only the promotion of the basic know how will allow success.

    Cannot compare us to the battery industry. The battery industry has a mature IP prior art record and a predictable path to patent protection by the USPTO.


    For LENR researchers like us we face a hostile PTO and very low predictability in our IP protections. At MTI we work with some of the best IP people on Earth so if we have this problem, everybody has it. I think we have done a reasonable job or walking the tightrope between IP protection and transparency. This is more of an art than a science.

  • I guess the path you should take also depends on the goals of your company. Do you want to manufacture various devices that incorporate Mizuno's technology as a power source (manufacturing home heaters, hair dryers, and water heaters for sale at Walmart) or are you only interested in designing the reactors themselves? Or, after you have mastered the technology and can build a variety of high performance reactors, do you plan on selling the IP to a mega-corporation and allowing them to take over? I realize you can't answer these questions now: it depends upon what funding is acquired, what patents are granted, and a range of other issues. But I would love to see a company attempt to start building and selling a wide range of products of their own while being open with the basic know how.


    The elephant in the room is that the "know how" is already available or at least low hanging at this point in the evolution of CF/LENR. I think this is especially true for systems that utilize self organized plasmas (the ultimate future of this field in my opinion) but also for gas loading systems. A common barrier, of course, is the funding required to put together and sustain a team (not just a couple scientists/engineers in a garage lab) to conduct continual testing, experimentation, and modeling to take the existing information that's out there to the next level. If a certain level of funding isn't there then the ingredients for a recipe can't be purchased, or a kitchen rented to prepare the meal.


    I think that as time goes on all the flavors of "secret sauce" are going to be so similar parties will be less inclined to hold onto them tightly. Then I think the desired implementations of the technology will be what lures investors rather than the ability to produce the reactions themselves.






    Cannot compare us to the battery industry. The battery industry has a mature IP prior art record and a predictable path to patent protection by the USPTO.


    For LENR researchers like us we face a hostile PTO and very low predictability in our IP protections. At MTI we work with some of the best IP people on Earth so if we have this problem, everybody has it. I think we have done a reasonable job or walking the tightrope between IP protection and transparency. This is more of an art than a science.