Brillouin seem to be doing very well - except I can't see why they haven't sent out their 'tech packs' already. I just hope their transparency continues and it doesn't end up like Leonardo Corp.!!!
I think they have not yet reached the consistent and controllable COP that would make the HHTs commercially viable and will only send tech-packs then. They are confident that they will reach it (they were on their way to that when they ran into the melting caps problem).
But surely they only need a running temperature of 100 degrees C?
But surely they only need a running temperature of 100 degrees C?
I assume it is not just a question of temperature but also of COP, otherwise there are a lot of 100° heaters on the market.
What exactly is meant by ‘tech packs’?
That is a good question. In the semiconductor 'industrial' world it would mean that working samples in limited quantities for engineering purposes are available, allowing said engineering departments to get an early start on new product development ...
Upon request, we retroactively added this to our January newsletter (sent out yesterday) RE: The Newsletter Posting Thread (please no comments). :
Brillouin Energy Corp has informed us directly that they have continued to advance the technical status of their Hydrogen Hot Tube (HHT) primary product design, such that they have begun to achieve their first true net positive, controlled COPs “out-of-the-wall” in the 1.3X range. Brillouin indicates that using their already perfected control system, they were able to repeat these results two dozen times. Also as a result of continuing advancements of their materials science manufacturing, they soon began to make too much heat in their HHT reactors (more than they could handle). The company said it is close to finish solving this issue now with an advanced re-design of multiple system components and manufacturing techniques in order to significantly upgrade the HHT’s capacity. In the near future the project their HHT will be able to handle several Kilowatts of controlled thermal energy output per tube steady state and ultimately up to 10KW. Upon completion of their current redesign process soon in 2022, Brillouin anticipates being able to raise its repeatable COPs above 2X out-of-the-wall for demonstration purposes, and then continue to increase the rated COP level from there. The company is in the middle of closing out its Series C Preferred Stock Round and welcomes final investment interest at this time. They can be reached through the contact page on their website.
Great news to see real advancement in LENR companies
For me, selling energy is not an issue. The energy market is universal and global. The struggle for LENR startups is to find sufficient risk capital to further develop and scale-up. Whether you are making bitcoins or fertilizer or smelting aluminum or growing fish or cleaning waste water the economics of energy are the same. If we can produce it cheaper and better (without intermittency) than competing technologies as I believe we can, then selling it is not the bottleneck. Make it and they will come.
For me, selling energy is not an issue. The energy market is universal and global. The struggle for LENR startups is to find sufficient risk capital to further develop and scale-up. Whether you are making bitcoins or fertilizer or smelting aluminum or growing fish or cleaning waste water the economics of energy are the same. If we can produce it cheaper and better (without intermittency) than competing technologies as I believe we can, then selling it is not the bottleneck. Make it and they will come.
I agree. I think this video/interview is, from Godes' point of view, really an oblique attempt to raise capital.
Does someone could explain the real performances of Brillouin technologies ?
A friend from a French major company visited them in the past to evaluate their performances.
He said me 4 years ago, that performances weren't so high as announced.
Personally i have no special idea because was focused a long time on another topics.
Maybe members from the LF staff could say what they know ?
Or here great members ( spies 
) as Ahlfors for example ?
Display MoreDoes someone could explain the real performances of Brillouin technologies ?
A friend from a French major company visited them in the past to evaluate their performances.
He said me 4 years ago, that performances weren't so high as announced.
Personally i have no special idea because was focused a long time on another topics.
Maybe members from the LF staff could say what they know ?
Or here great members ( spies
I do not think any of us can answer that question satisfactorily. Most of what I know about Brillouin comes from Brillouin themselves, and they might be exaggerating their own results or fooling themselves. My small investment with them was only made only after I was sure they were not conmen and really believed what they said. Whether or not their claims will be vindicated is quite another matter.
What I would say is that, if you believe them, a lot of progress was made over the past few years (since your friend visited them). They confirmed their results using system identification calorimetry and have now moved on to producing out-of-the-wall mass flow calorimetry with the goal to produce so much excess heat that the results cannot be doubted.
The one thing that I find hopeful is that they are announcing the closing of the Series C round. This means that, once they have raised around 4 million dollars, they are confident that money will be sufficient to produce results that will warrant a much higher valuation in the next round. That is the most concrete element we have at our disposal at that time.
I do not think any of us can answer that question satisfactorily. Most of what I know about Brillouin comes from Brillouin themselves, and they might be exaggerating their own results or fooling themselves.
The only thing I can say is : Their results are real but not yet there where a reasonable net energy production can be seen. The process COP is around 2.8 and net it is about 1.3 - from SRI, and Brillouin.
The more crucial question is: Does the used method really allow scaling and why/where ?
The crucial question I have is why Roberts mind is going to waste and
Governments and Companies not
investing.Where are all the end of the World Greens.
He does not look to be getting any younger to me.
Greens are busy on the farm.
For the record I am a bit concerned about nearly everyone's focus on COP. Both Mizuno and I are in total agreement that the number is almost irrelevant. The term COP has different meanings in different contexts. Heat pumps for example move "heat" from colder areas to warmer with COPs (electric input vs. heat output of 3-5) but that is a completely different concept than LENR COPs. We are doing PHYSICS now not ENGINEERING. Our goal is to prove excess heat in an amount that is so far above the uncertainty, and also outside the any possible chemical reaction so that we can prove a nuclear or more precisely a non-chemical source.
COPs can be hacked with LENR reactors. It seems that most (perhaps all?) companies look at our early stage physics experiments and try to use that number to judge whether the device is practical or not. For me, the only number that counts is excess heat/cm2. Our lab has been able to get 1W/cm2, but outside validators get about 1/5th of that. Either way, I can write down on a napkin how to scale that to 10kW, 100kW, 1MW using my iPhone calculator, or perhaps my brain if I have sufficient sleep the night before...;-)
Even at 0.2W/cm2, I assure you, that such a device is easily within a practical limit physically and economically.
A simple thought experiment can illustrate my case. An adiabatic calorimeter with Design A has normal insulation and it requires about 500W to reach an equilibrium temperature of 500C. A second calorimeter with far superior insulation and smaller surface area can reach 500C with only 50W input. Which one will give you the higher COP? If you agree that this is possible then it follows that you must agree that the COP figure is meaningless in this context. There is a factor 10 difference between the two!
We are moving on to a type of adiabatic calorimeter which is much more precise, simpler and easier to replicate. We use electric joule heating as the "starter motor" to raise the temperature simply because electric power is so easy to measure accurately. I could easily use waste heat from a combustion engine or myriad of other sources and I could easily design a system that harvests only the excess heat so that continuous external power will not be required (COP infinity). I guess the future energy market will belong to those open minded enough to follow what I am writing here. Mizuno and I are in the process of writing a white paper on this phenomena with the hope that more companies/investors will be willing to take a risk upon seeing our current results.
In my humble opinion, the ability to teach potential investors exactly about this issue will be a critical key to future success and its a top priority for myself at this moment.
For the record I am a bit concerned about nearly everyone's focus on COP. Both Mizuno and I are in total agreement that the number is almost irrelevant.
This is nonsense. For research any COP > 1 is good enough. For making money you need 5 at least or a direct conversion to electric energy.
Reality is hard learn to accept it!
Our most recent validator produced about 100W of excess heat for ~72h. 7200 Wh of energy (25.9MJ) with a COP of 1.164. That is clearly above any possible uncertainty and no chemical reaction can account for this excess heat. The heat was produced at about 0.2W/cm2. A major household name company looked at this data and said well if you can make a couple kW at COP or 3 or above then we can talk more. I plan to meet their requirements but I should not have to do that if there was better understanding of this issue.
In contrast ITER goes around raising billions of dollars by telling funders that they are going to produce 10x more output than input. Sounds great but wait, that 50MW vs. 500MW they claim is plasma energy only. ITER's total power overhead is 440MW. So they are going to produce 500MW of plasma heat for 440MW input. Now to convert that heat to electricity well understood thermodynamics requires that 30-50% of that can be converted into electricity. Using the higher number, EVEN IF ITER REACHES ALL ITS STATED GOALS, it will create 250MW of electricity for 440MW input a COP of 0.57. MTI is already far far ahead on equal Q-total terms.
This is nonsense. For research any COP > 1 is good enough. For making money you need 5 at least or a direct conversion to electric energy.
Reality is hard learn to accept it!
No I totally disagree. Reread my post. If you don't understand then I accept I need to explain it better but your claim that you need COP>5 to make money is complete nonsense.
Let me give you another example. Coal or biomass powered power plants burn carbon based fuels to produce steam at a certain energy level and temperature. If I run this steam through one of our reactors and my COP is only 2 (or even 1.5 but I use two for simplicity (much less than 5!) and I double the energy in this steam so that now I can burn half the fuel that I was using before, you think I cannot make money from such a device? As I said, complete nonsense.
Wyttenbach, thanks for proving my point for me. Even a researcher with your skill and experience can't see what we see as plain as day. If such experienced LENR experts can't understand this issue, then how can we expect investors to understand?
I stand by all my claims and am willing to discuss. LENR needs many more people to understand this point. COP 5 is totally unnecessary. I guarantee you I can sell a steam energy amplifier with a COP of 1.2. Its really sad that more people don't see this...
For the record I am a bit concerned about nearly everyone's focus on COP. Both Mizuno and I are in total agreement that the number is almost irrelevant.
One can low or high re-define words to mean whatever, but most people know what is meant by COP.
If a LENR reactor ultimately acts as a heat pump somehow, nobody will care about the definition, just the end result.
A real, repeatable COP greater than 1 will be Nobel worthy. Real means not a delusion and not a result of a miscomparison between hydrogen and atmosphere conductivity, etc. Real means more Joules out than in.
Baloney about it needing to be COP 5 or better to be commercially viable is silly. It just needs to be made into something affordable and manageable by the average human. A simple baseboard heater with COP 1.2 efficiency (normally they are merely 100% efficient), for example, would ultimately replace almost all baseboard heaters in the world. They might even become mandated over standard COP 1 heaters in some places.
99% (estimate) of these COP sour grapes come from groups that have fooled themselves and can’t seem to get the final output they think they should have.
As I said, complete nonsense.
You fail in calculation. To maintain your reaction you need input 2 you can only serve what you add = 1 ... But burning carbon of any kind cannot need more heat as it already burns at top heat.
Your efficiency never changes. What you hope to see is n+2 -1 > n. But for what n ? And which process?
Do you know that this only works for heat? best Carnot cycle today is 60.x% - x < 1 so your 2 is 1.2 for electricity at generation then transformation happens etc. so 1.2 --> 1.1x... just a no issue.
