Biaco, a fairly new UK based LENR company that may be close to market. You decide.

Well, as always such claims are as interesting as the way that they are supported on the public eye is meaningless. I wish they would give more details as how the process happens, from what one can read it seems to be based on some sort of cavitation produced by electricity. Will try to read the granted patent, but it often happens to be of little help when so few technical details are presented.

Here is the patent. It’s a plasma arc system, Santilli would be amused.

ETA:

I thought I had been able to download it but my phone refuses to save the file. Let’s see if the link works for you.

https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum/Document/ApplicationNumber/GB2102818.8/eb2e72a0-fe9d-4af2-a3f2-682a172a46b3/GB2604853-20230405-Publication%20document.pdf

Link seems to work fine.

I am visiting ENG8's lab - and another test site- at the end of this month, and will report in due course. 'The game's afoot' (Sherlock Holmes)

By reading the patent, written in the necessary opaque way that most patents are written, I can see the electricity is applied to the water with electrodes that probably create arcing and thus “plasma bubbles” or more colloquially sparks, as widely known. This is why I say it’s a plasma arc reactor. As the water is consumed, it can only be that it is transformed into gas. Not much is said about it, one has to infer about. The patent doesn’t make any claims of efficiency at all, and proposes several ways to position the electrodes, which are more or less the obvious thing to do to cover all the bases and doesn’t tell much about which is the best. Is not hard to see how this could have been patented, knowing how patent process works, as this device must certainly get hot, so a heater it is, but also it doesn’t support at all the claims that are put forward about the COP.

Santilli and Richardson patented broadly similar things but they focused in the energy that could be gained by burning the gas obtained as the source of the high COP.

Thanks for that, Alan Smith

BTW, this is the Biaco GB patent application...

[Edit] I can't see any claim of over-unity in the patent (it is just an electric water heater, according to the patent category), but this is was (in May 2023) on their website.

This was the Biaco FAQ. (in June 2023, via the wayback machine, it is no longer accessible via the website)

They are very scathing of CF, and suggest their energy is coming from "flipping water isomers" (but then later claim they have no real idea of where the energy comes from).

They also can't make up their mind over what CoP to quote. It seems the supposed "independent validation" produced a CoP of 1.7 - but, as you can see above, they are claiming a CoP of up to thirteen, when nobody else is looking.

Biaco are ImHO very sensible to stay away from theory and overunity in their patent.

Quote from Alan Smith

Biaco are ImHO very sensible to stay away from theory and overunity in their patent.

Yes, the only successfully granted (and retained) "water heater" patents have avoided OU claims. But I suspect if the Patent Office found out that they were using the patent to back-up the sale of an "anomalous heat gain" device, it could land them in trouble.

But there must surely have been lots of simple "water arc heater" patents over the decades. There seems to be nothing unique about this one.

No- this is basically a 'method and materiel; patent. The mcguffin here is the 'balancing electrode/resistive heater system which is I think fairly unique. But ask yourself this- do they care if it is granted 'as is'? I think 'probably not'. This stuff is for the comfort of investors

Quote from Frogfall

But I suspect if the Patent Office found out that they were using the patent to back-up the sale of an "anomalous heat gain" device, it could land them in trouble.

A patent must describe a working device and how to construct it. But this are just pages full of wishi washi...

Quote from Wyttenbach

A patent must describe a working device and how to construct it. But this are just pages full of wishi washi...

I read the patents and I agree they got granted because they avoided any fancy discussion of efficiency or energy gain. The device is a heater and has enough differences with other heaters to be considered of “inventive character”. I have written patent applications as a service to third parties in projects I have been involved, so am very aware of what is required to get a patent, the most difficult part is, generally speaking, to prove the “inventive character” of the patent. Novelty and industrial application are piece of cake, but inventive character is more subjective, and there’s been the struggle with the applications I have written (all of them on the biotech industry, nothing to do with LENR).

So, getting back to Biaco’s granted patent, they were written well enough and, as Alan Smith correctly points out, for investor’s peace of mind. Just by looking at the patent one can tell that this heater must heat, if it has a greater than one COP, is an entirely different matter.

Quote from Wyttenbach

A patent must describe a working device and how to construct it

“by anyone skilled in the art” is the part that you are not paying attention to. Patents have never been required to be an instruction manual. And “skilled in the art” is vague enough to get away with the degree of vagueness that patents show.

Quote from Shane D.

Fortunately, the majority of water found in normal conditions is of the higher energy state so there is a lot of potential energy for us to unlock.

If you read such garbage then all alarm bells should ring. In nature there are no high energy states that are stable...

There also is no ortho/para state as flipping a tetrad just produces a mirror that you then can rotate back to the original....

Quote from Shane D.

Then maybe they could sell it as a sports energy drink.

Would be the last resort...

May be it works but these folks obviously have no clue why.

A little story...

In the UK, in the 1970s, there was a rather mad-looking TV science presenter named Magnus Pyke. He was renowned for his presenting style - which involved him being very enthusiastic, and waving his arms around a lot. He appeared in a Popular Science show called “Don’t Ask Me”, which ran from 1974 to 1978. The show consisted of various regular panel members answering “scientific” questions from the public – either in the studio, or out on location.

I can still clearly remember one episode where some chap had written to the show about a device he had developed, which he said produced surplus energy from water and electricity. Magnus Pyke was duly dispatched to this guy’s house, with a film crew, to “investigate”.

We were subsequently shown this old bloke, in his shed, with a Heath Robinson (US translation: Rube Goldberg) contraption consisting of glass jars, tubes, wires, and electrodes. A water filled “cell” was sparking away, and the water was boiling. There was even hot water turning a small paddle wheel. It all looked rather crude, and the paddle wheel wasn’t a serious attempt at extracting power - it was really just an indicator to show that something was happening – with the main product being heat.

Magnus Pyke proceeded to explain to this guy, in a rather condescending manner, that the device could not possibly produce any more energy than was going into it in the form of electricity. As far as I could see, there was no attempt made to measure anything, or assess the energy flows in any way. This old guy, in his shed, was made out to be some poor ignorant deluded soul – who was clearly just too dumb to know any real science.

The scenes from that TV show have always stuck with me. The guy who built the device will have done his own measurements, and had clearly decided that it was producing anomalous heat. He was probably naive in contacting the TV show, possibly thinking they would carry out a proper assessment, but I thought his treatment was a disgrace.

All of this happened nearly half a century ago. It is highly unlikely that this chap was the first to notice anomalies involving water and electric arcs – and (as we know) there have been numerous similar claims ever since.

But if a simple arc in water is able to produce excess energy – how come we are still waiting for someone to release an actual marketable device?

Quote from Shane D.

But is it a "simple arc"?

No- Pulsed Corona Discharge.