ENG8 - new plasma energy system

    News | ENG8


    About 6 months ago, we were told by a long time LENR insider with impeccable credentials, that he was working with a new LENR based company in Singapore. He would not give us the name, but out of curiosity we privately searched for such a company but found none. This is from the above ENG8 Corporate Update:


    "On the Corporate side, a key decision was made to relocate ENG8’s legal domicile and headquarters from its current base in Gibraltar to Singapore during 2025. This move aligns with the company’s broader internation growth strategy and aims to position ENG8 in a jurisdiction more favourable for its future operations."


    Interesting if ENG8 was the company he was talking about. If so, it would certainly be good news, as he is such a trusted name in the field and was very confident with their accomplishments. If no connection, that is probably even better, as it would mean we have another new LENR company vying to be the first to market.

    I don't know if anyone actually looked at Haslen's "results" from his video. I do worry about this group, as the actual CoP he is claiming, if you do the sums on the screen yourself it is less than 1. He confuses the issue by using incorrect units of measure. But my question is does he realise he is promoting an electric kettle?


    His scientific method is almost impossible to be accurate and he has taken the best case probability of error. This is not sensible, he has refused to provide his results for independent peer review.


    His complete lack of any scientific education, see his LinkedIn profile, may excuse this mistake. His CTO Michael Peters is a fairly junior controls engineer, he is no thermodynamic expert.


    Dr Jean-Paul Biberian said: “We can consider that the device can operate indefinitely without any external input power.” He didn't say it did...after Biberian has spent a life time of looking for the holy grail of LENR, if ENG8 had the recipe, I think the statement would have been clearer.


    Let's look at the facts, UL have denied all knowledge of ENG8, Cambridge University have done so privately. Prof Morgan who has been quoted previously has denied ever doing any work for ENG8.


    I have spent some time trying to talk to him and his colleagues. I see nothing to persuade anyone applying any scientific rigour that this is anything other than a mistake at best.


    When his record of pleading guilty to wire fraud and being banned as a director or person of control for 7 years, which takes some doing. This is not controversial it's all public domain, I would have thought a little extra rigour would have been applied to Mr Back's claims bearing in mind his public record.


    His Singapore contact as far as I can discern is Christian Leuchtenberg of Naga Singh Korporat. He has said that his is going to be Haslen's big new investor. His main business website doesn't appear to be that of someone with significant cash to invest in a "high risk" investment. He did say that 6 months ago and nothing has happened.


    Enduralink does not pay its bills!
    Enduralink does not pay its bills!
    enduralink.com


    I have tried to stick to the scientific method and ENG8's public claims.


    I haven't gone anywhere the Biaco court case.



    Hi Trev. Thank you for your observations, I couldn't even read the figures. Worth pointing out that Professor Biberian was looking at the George Egely reactor- not the large tornado vortex reactor seen in the video. George has been working with the ENG8 Aviero group for some time..

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Christian Leuchtenberg? lol end of story.

    Quote from Daniel_G

    Christian Leuchtenberg? lol end of story.

    I have never heard of this person, but this website gives a bad impression of him:


    Enduralink does not pay its bills!
    Enduralink does not pay its bills!
    enduralink.com



    Note the tab heading: "Enduralink does not pay its bills!" Evidently, Leuchtenberg let this website go defunct, and someone felt strongly enough to buy it and post this message. Normally, when a website goes defunct, the ISP displays a neutral message saying it is available. Or the site is not found at all.

    Christian does not pay his bills. He owes money to people I know and makes promises and then gets angry with you if you remind him about his dozens of broken promises. He's a fraud. Even small consulting fees he promised two people I know well and never paid after more than a year. Not a good guy

    PT. Naga Singa Korporat Pte Ltd Incorporation & Shareholding Details
    Incorporation and financial overview for PT. Naga Singa Korporat Pte Ltd. Explore shareholder data and key financials.
    companiesfacts.com


    EQUITY TOWER, LANTAI 37 UNIT D&H, KAWASAN SCBD, JL. JEND. SUDIRMAN KAV. 52-53


    When you search this address only two businesses show up. The one with a website is defunct:


    https://www.luxuvere.com/lander


    It's all a big nothing burger. Caveat Emptor

    Nicholas Dimmock who is apparently head of investor relations has confirmed to me that “Christian” is ENG8s mysterious investor from Singapore. When I got in touch to ask Christian if he was investing in ENG8 and whether he has completed rigorous due diligence, he confirmed 6 months ago he was investing. This was shortly followed by a very unpleasant email from Nick Dimmock. It is not unusual for companies struggling to gain investment to claim they have a “big investor” just round the corner.


    My point of contacting Christian was to ask if he has received any credible information or validated data. Unsurprisingly he didn’t comment. But Nick Dimmock did his best impression of an attack dog.

    Christian is an open fraud. Not hiding. In Mizuno’s past it’s a common tactic we see to be promised funds and then they get you on a conveyer belt of delays in perpetuity.


    I’m an entrepreneur and inventor scientist and have been through similar situations in the past. I suggest ENG8 to swallow their pride and do the hard work and start raising money from real investors. There are plenty of resources for startups these days. Use them. Use your common sense. 9; someone breaks a promise once, cut them some slack. Twice, huge red flag. Three times. Cut cut cut all communication and move on.

    I should state that the fact that Christian is a fraud shouldn’t necessarily reflect on ENG8. Even after raising tens of millions of dollars in my lifetime I still fall for these things once in a while.


    After several experiences you learn to sniff these types of people out. ENG8 seems to have made several mistakes strategically. The bogus UL claim for example.


    Get some scientists together from credible institutions, lend them some devices and devise an experiment that supports your claims. It’s not rocket science.


    As for fundraising. Hair some fun facts:


    Raising initial funding for deep tech energy startups, especially those with breakthrough technologies, typically requires a significant effort due to the high capital requirements, long development timelines, and technical risks involved. Here’s a summary based on industry norms and anecdotal evidence:


    1. Average Number of Investor Pitches

    • Range: Founders usually pitch to 50–200 investors on average before successfully raising initial funding.

    • High Success Rate (Warm Introductions): If the founders have strong networks or previous successes, they may pitch to 30–50 investors.

    • Cold Outreach: For startups without prior connections, this can climb to 100–200+ investors, depending on the strength of the technology and team.


    2. Timeframe for Initial Funding

    • Typical Duration: Raising initial funding for deep tech energy startups generally takes 6–18 months, depending on:

    • The stage of the company (e.g., pre-seed, seed, Series A).

    • The readiness of the technology (TRL - Technology Readiness Level).

    • Market conditions (e.g., investor appetite for clean energy and climate tech).

    • Team credibility and experience.


    3. Why Deep Tech Energy Startups Face Unique Challenges

    • Longer Development Cycles: Deep tech solutions (e.g., nuclear fusion, advanced batteries, renewable power breakthroughs) often require years of R&D before commercialization.

    • High Capital Requirements: Energy technologies often need millions of dollars just for proof-of-concept, far more than typical software startups.

    • Risk Aversion: Investors are wary of high technical and market risks, especially when regulatory hurdles are involved.


    4. Factors That Influence Fundraising Success

    1. Founders’ Network:

    • Access to industry experts, accelerators, or VCs specializing in climate tech or energy can significantly reduce the number of pitches needed.

    2. Quality of Technology and Team:

    • Teams with experienced founders or ties to prestigious institutions (e.g., MIT, Stanford) often secure funding faster.

    3. Market Alignment:

    • Timing matters; a strong alignment with investor priorities, such as decarbonization or grid resilience, can accelerate the process.

    4. Investor Type:

    • Specialized Investors (climate tech or deep tech funds): More likely to fund early-stage energy startups.

    • Corporate VC (e.g., energy giants like Shell, BP): Often provide funding alongside strategic partnerships.

    • Government Grants: Programs like ARPA-E (U.S.), Horizon Europe (EU), and ARENA (Australia) are critical for early funding.


    5. Case Studies

    • Common Patterns in Deep Tech Energy Fundraising:

    • Nuclear Fusion Startups: Companies like Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Helion Energy pitched to over 100 investors before raising significant funding.

    • Battery Startups: QuantumScape reportedly spent several years courting investors before its breakthrough Series A.

    • Clean Tech Boom: Startups in the clean energy sector (e.g., solar, hydrogen) typically see increased interest during periods of government policy support or ESG-driven investment waves.


    6. Tips to Accelerate Fundraising

    • Start with Specialized Investors: Focus on investors with a track record in energy or climate tech.

    • Leverage Ecosystems: Join deep tech accelerators (e.g., Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Cyclotron Road, Clean Energy Ventures).

    • Use Non-Dilutive Funding: Secure grants or government funding to de-risk the technology before pitching to VCs.

    • Show Market Validation: Demonstrate interest from potential customers or partners, even at the proof-of-concept stage.

    • Communicate Scalability: Highlight how the technology can address large markets and achieve competitive cost structures over time.


    Conclusion


    Raising initial funding for deep tech energy startups requires substantial effort, often pitching to 50–200 investors over 6–18 months. Success depends on targeting the right investors, leveraging networks, and demonstrating a clear path to commercialization and market impact.

    Daniel_G interesting what you said, but you killed my eyes 8o

    So i copied pasted in a better scale your interesting words :


    • As for fundraising. Hair some fun facts:


      Raising initial funding for deep tech energy startups, especially those with breakthrough technologies, typically requires a significant effort due to the high capital requirements, long development timelines, and technical risks involved. Here’s a summary based on industry norms and anecdotal evidence:


      1. Average Number of Investor Pitches

      • Range: Founders usually pitch to 50–200 investors on average before successfully raising initial funding.

      • High Success Rate (Warm Introductions): If the founders have strong networks or previous successes, they may pitch to 30–50 investors.

      • Cold Outreach: For startups without prior connections, this can climb to 100–200+ investors, depending on the strength of the technology and team.


      2. Timeframe for Initial Funding

      • Typical Duration: Raising initial funding for deep tech energy startups generally takes 6–18 months, depending on:

      • The stage of the company (e.g., pre-seed, seed, Series A).

      • The readiness of the technology (TRL - Technology Readiness Level).

      • Market conditions (e.g., investor appetite for clean energy and climate tech).

      • Team credibility and experience.


      3. Why Deep Tech Energy Startups Face Unique Challenges

      • Longer Development Cycles: Deep tech solutions (e.g., nuclear fusion, advanced batteries, renewable power breakthroughs) often require years of R&D before commercialization.

      • High Capital Requirements: Energy technologies often need millions of dollars just for proof-of-concept, far more than typical software startups.

      • Risk Aversion: Investors are wary of high technical and market risks, especially when regulatory hurdles are involved.


      4. Factors That Influence Fundraising Success

      1. Founders’ Network:

      • Access to industry experts, accelerators, or VCs specializing in climate tech or energy can significantly reduce the number of pitches needed.

      2. Quality of Technology and Team:

      • Teams with experienced founders or ties to prestigious institutions (e.g., MIT, Stanford) often secure funding faster.

      3. Market Alignment:

      • Timing matters; a strong alignment with investor priorities, such as decarbonization or grid resilience, can accelerate the process.

      4. Investor Type:

      • Specialized Investors (climate tech or deep tech funds): More likely to fund early-stage energy startups.

      • Corporate VC (e.g., energy giants like Shell, BP): Often provide funding alongside strategic partnerships.

      • Government Grants: Programs like ARPA-E (U.S.), Horizon Europe (EU), and ARENA (Australia) are critical for early funding.


      5. Case Studies

      • Common Patterns in Deep Tech Energy Fundraising:

      • Nuclear Fusion Startups: Companies like Commonwealth Fusion Systems and Helion Energy pitched to over 100 investors before raising significant funding.

      • Battery Startups: QuantumScape reportedly spent several years courting investors before its breakthrough Series A.

      • Clean Tech Boom: Startups in the clean energy sector (e.g., solar, hydrogen) typically see increased interest during periods of government policy support or ESG-driven investment waves.


      6. Tips to Accelerate Fundraising

      • Start with Specialized Investors: Focus on investors with a track record in energy or climate tech.

      • Leverage Ecosystems: Join deep tech accelerators (e.g., Breakthrough Energy Ventures, Cyclotron Road, Clean Energy Ventures).

      • Use Non-Dilutive Funding: Secure grants or government funding to de-risk the technology before pitching to VCs.

      • Show Market Validation: Demonstrate interest from potential customers or partners, even at the proof-of-concept stage.

      • Communicate Scalability: Highlight how the technology can address large markets and achieve competitive cost structures over time.


      Conclusion


      Raising initial funding for deep tech energy startups requires substantial effort, often pitching to 50–200 investors over 6–18 months. Success depends on targeting the right investors, leveraging networks, and demonstrating a clear path to commercialization and market impact.

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