Brillouin Energy Corporation (BEC) updates.

    • Official Post
    Quote from orsova

    With all due respect to Mizuno, BEC seem to have far more control over their reactors than Mizuno does his. They also seem to have a better understanding of how to reliably manufacture the key components.

    Of course, but need to remember Mizuno did it with less that 1 percent of the USD 17,6 millions raised by BEC.


    This is not a contest, however, and I praise BEC for having captured at least in part the interest of Team Google.


    My comment about the COP was solely to highlight that the comment of Robert Godes was posted within the context of a Hot Fusion news item.


    Here’s the article to which Godes was responding. He is obviously in a campaign to rise awareness and funding.

    https://spectrum.ieee.org/ener…eality#comment-4777146334


    I don't disagree at all. I only meant to push back on Dr. Richard's suggestion that BEC's reactor is somehow disappointing. Not my intention to besmirch Mizuno in any way.

    • Official Post

    the COP of 2, and what we imagine of the nature of the process, make it clear COP can be huge, once we understand, and thus can control and predict.

    Brillouin have better control, but still not enough... Anyway it is better than Mizuno. But Mizuno if replicated, like Brillouin, can be the labrat of real understanding. The ex-NEDO colaboration is great too.


    I've been enthusiastic about Brillouin work with Anice Rahman&al on THz spectroscopy.

    I've been enthusiastic on JCF papers because there were experiments around the ex-NEDO experiments, with microscopy, dynamic analysis...


    Today we don't need something that produce energy for real application (maybe one goal could be running a toy for a month to convince engineers) but a good labrat to be studied with best microscopes, best spectrometers, best analysis, best detectors, and to afterward, try with best nanostructured material inspired by what was observed...


    If you just have heat, but huge COP, best plan may be to plug it on a Stirling engine, and let it run for month on the bench of an industry lab.


    If you have a very simple and predictable, unquestionable COP of 1.1, best is to find a way to put it under the best microscopes, spectrometers, in the best university labs.


    Anyway all is slow, I know many people work hard to make the experiment reliable, the measurement unquestionable, and trigger the reaction. Brillouin is there. It is great.

    But success is far away, I've understood now. Anyway, it will work... COP1.1, at high sigma, have proven it.

    Puzzling that they can't reach a higher COP. I suppose it is a uniform and non-specific way to elicit lattice changes through CECR. If they could localize or focus the input into a smaller surface area, they would likely get higher COP's. But, then scalability kind of flies out the window in my view.

    As with the Mizuno reactor, maybe BEC would benefit from strategies to promote UDH synthesis in their not tubes. Maybe your suggestion to pass H2 over a tungsten filament to atomize it then use some of the Holmlid catalysts? Maybe Robert Godes has tried these out already since he must be aware of Norront Fusion and Holmlid's work.:)v

    A call for (new) investors placed on their LinkedIn profile page (requires member login):

    "Sometimes things get worse before they get better. We tried for years to find a way to use existing commercially available materials to make catalyst rods that meat meet commercial requirements. The best results of that search were still not upto commercial requirements. We know that the technology can be made commercially useful. Years ago we had made a catalyst rod with leftovers of a sample of material that was more than a decade old and was never produced in volume. We know what the properties of the applied material are and why it produced the extremely powerful results that it did. It also meshes with the underlying physics as we understand it. We are now working on developing our own material in house. We are making good progress but extremely slowly due to a lack of funds. I invite you and or anyone you know to invest in Brillouin Energy. This will allow you to both reap the financial benefits as the technology takes off as well as to clean up our environment for yourself and positerity. Thanks for your curiosity and best regards

    Robert Godes."


    Sounds kind of worrysome.

    If they're referring to the design described here: https://brillouinenergy.com/ne…/SRI_Technical_Report.pdf


    Quote

    DESIGN

    The cores consist of a substrate, which in some configurations includes a heater and thermocouple, with several spray-coated layers. Generally, these coatings alternate between a hydrogen-absorbing metal and an insulating ceramic. One example is shown in Figure 1. Other designs may have more or less layers. All of the layers are porous, allowing the gas(es) in the reactor chamber access to all coatings


    Sometimes they used Ni-Alumina layers, sometimes they used Pd or Rh in some form, but details aren't entirely clear on this regard. In any case, I didn't previously get the impression that results were dependent on rare, perhaps accidentally introduced impurities.

    Brillouin Energy report


    From a link posted to this forum in September 2019 Warren Walborn said;

    "Now the company is raising a $15 million round for the final 18-24 months of development to get them to commercialization, and we are evaluating investor candidates to lead and follow in this round."

    and

    "I believe this will be the greatest investment event of the century."

    and that Brillouin was Carl Page's favourite project.


    Concerning to have a final investment round and then only a few months later have to pass the bowl around again. Especially if they have influential friends like Carl Page who has friends and relatives who "have a few bob".


    I sincerely wish Brillouin well and hope they are successful.


    But from an investment perspective it seems like someone is over-promising and under-delivering.










    This is not surprising. I have thought it unlikely for several years that Godes has anything except a lot of confidence in his engineering and physics skills. Unfortunately, confidence does nothing to breech the Coulomb barrier. He sunk millions of dollars into silly engineering for a commercial system rather than actually nailing down the research. He's getting closer to the truth, but may not be able to get there now. He is looking back trying to figure out why he is not getting anything now. His current interpretation is that there was some special material he was using in the past (which he perfectly understands why it worked), rather than the likely reality (they finally did a proper experiment and his past results were false).

    Quote from Jack Cole

    This is not surprising. I have thought it unlikely for several years that Godes has anything except a lot of confidence in his engineering and physics skills. Unfortunately, confidence does nothing to breech the Coulomb barrier. He sunk millions of dollars into silly engineering for a commercial system rather than actually nailing down the research. He's getting closer to the truth, but may not be able to get there now. He is looking back trying to figure out why he is not getting anything now. His current interpretation is that there was some special material he was using in the past (which he perfectly understands why it worked), rather than the likely reality (they finally did a proper experiment and his past results were false).

    The goal shouldn't be to break the coulomb barrier or splinter the nucleus if you want a compact energy dense clean source. A key is to see how much good an atom can do splitting the line between fusion/proton capture and valence surface chemistry. I would guess pico-chemistry and dense hydrides are the highest explanation we have. That's what I would presume Godes is dealing with in heat positive experiments. Work with the atoms and plasma/electromagnetic effects don't brute force and smash atoms expecting a rosey sun in a bottle. He got something right

    • Official Post
    Quote from Rob Woudenberg

    Summer 2020 update as published on LinkedIn (requires login), see attached 16 page newsletter.
    Not much clearity on their catalyst development situation.


    A little heavy on the fund raising plea, but understandable considering they are on a shoe-string budget, and "90%" confident they are only $2 million away from commercial viability. That benchmark they now define as "2X's Net COP", or "twice as many watts of heat output vs. each watt of electric energy input". Sounds strange, as they have been advertising attaining a COP of 2.7 for well over a year now. This is how they explain it:

    "This overall system requirement of 2X Net COP for beginning commercialization is nearly a

    doubling of the COPs generated in the above referenced “System ID” test results. In System ID

    terms, to achieve the first commercially viable designs we project that the System ID COP would

    initially need to be approximately 4X (versus the recently achieved maximum System ID COP

    of 2.7X) in order to produce a 2X Net COP out-of-the-wall. As the engineering of our technology

    matures over time, the internal Q-Power will not need to be as high to make the same amount of

    net thermal output from the wall (because our output to input ratio will continue to improve).

    Thus, this will continue to increase our Net COP and overall heat output (because our ratios will

    continue to improve as we scale)."


    So the old COP2.7 from their early testing is now called "System ID COP of 2.7", which I interpret to mean it was not a true "net" COP, as it partially excluded the power being consumed by the Q-pulse. Anyone have a different take on that? As I recall, there was some discussion about how the Q-pulse was factored into the Pout>Pin calculations when Tanzella wrote up his 2 reports, but am too lazy to look it up.


    Nonetheless, for those who did not read it; some heavy weight physicist did some extensive testing for a European investment group, and wrote a "positive technical report on the outcome of their testing". The group he represented made a small investment, and entered into deeper discussions that did not pan out. He is apparently happy with what he saw, and if he is happy, then so am I.


    Overall, a solid update with a lot of very promising news. There are often complaints that LENR lacks transparency, but no one could accuse Godes of that after this. He has put all his cards, and heart on the table for all to see. By the sounds of it, they should not have much trouble getting the $2 million. That is chump-change in silicon Valley, and he is right in the heart of it.


    Good luck BEC.

    Quote

    Our situation is akin to that of companies such as Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook and Amazon in their very early days. Those companies each identified, created and ultimately dominated huge markets that were not even conceived of by most people before they came to be. Each of their successes is so obvious in retrospect. But almost no one saw what they would ultimately become when they were first starting out.

    With all due respect, someday in the not-too-distant future, people will look back at Brillouin and our position in LENR the same way, and say “If only I had invested then...” Having read this Update, you are among the fortunate few to have the opportunity to avoid that fate if you choose to invest now. We would be doing you a disservice if we did not state it this clearly! This is a very rare opportunity to invest in a company that is about to change the world. We know these are very bold statements, but from a purely financial perspective, you don’t want to miss this opportunity.


    e11b547848c6ab334a5b54a3d3890558.gif

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.