He makes absurd assertions such as: he must produce a finished product, and he has to reach a manufacturing level where fewer than 1% of the production line output fails and must be scrapped.
He says he is having trouble getting funded. Assuming the reactors work as claimed, if he would put five of them in the right hands, the skies would open up and billions of dollars would fall into his lap. This would happen even if the excess heat was only 10%. It would happen even if 99% of the reactors fail. For some types of transistors in the 1950s, the failure rate was above 90%. That did not slow down the development of transistors. It just meant they were expensive for a while. The present practicality of this device, and the engineering details that must be ironed out before it can be mass produced, are completely irrelevant.
I inferred from his answer to my question that the failure threshold was told to him by those who would fund manufacturing. But that would be a good follow-up question because I don't know the origin of that directive.
Also, the recent results of 100+ Watts at over 2x COP is only in the last couple weeks, and we recorded the interview mid-December. Things are changing quickly for the Brillouin and I imagine this new data would generate some interest and cashflow. But that is speculation on my part.
BTW, I learned how to say it: Brillo - (like a Brillo pad) , then "in" (like "go in-side!"). so it's Brillo-in (say it fast), and not "Brill-yoon", the way I had been saying it since 2011!