LCC Member
  • Member since Mar 25th 2019
  • Last Activity:

Posts by LCC

    External Content twitter.com
    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.

    Some have speculated that Carl is angling for a beneficial position for brillouin. I don’t agree. Anyone who has any experience with the VC business model they don’t back one horse and then try to throw the race. They diversify their risk. For every $100 they invest $70 will be lost $20 will be so so and one will will be a unicorn. The 70% loss is built in to the business model. Carl is doing the right thing for humanity and as a good VC. You don’t understand how billionaires think. There is a lot of green capital that are looking for investing risk capital to buy some lottery tickets with.

    The fact that Clean Planet is a co-sponsor clearly shows that this is not a pro-Brillouin event.

    Most recent cases I can find are still iffy at best. If you have a look at US13/089,986, the examiner somewhat takes into account the NASA article but refuses to apply it to the case at hand. Granted that that position is much better than what often comes out of the USPTO, but that’s far from a « recognition ».

    Was on my phone yesterday but the below passage is the most hopeful I can get out of the current appeal case in 13/089,986.



    Note that the NASA study is not said to be "pathological science" by the Examiner who just notes that it has no bearing on the case at hand. This may open the possibility to use the NASA study where the to-be-patented invention is closer to what NASA demonstrated.

    Please provide a link where this is stated by USPTO.

    Most recent cases I can find are still iffy at best. If you have a look at US13/089,986, the examiner somewhat takes into account the NASA article but refuses to apply it to the case at hand. Granted that that position is much better than what often comes out of the USPTO, but that’s far from a « recognition ».

    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.

    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).

    That’s from my exchanges with their CFO but it is information he will provide (and more) to anyone expressing an interest in investing (though as the funding round is closing I assume that openness might be curtailed in the future).

    Another update from Brillouin:


    - They had a problem with the seals of the HHTs melting because of the heat generated. Problem has been solved (along with a few others such as electro-magnetic interference) and they are now going back to improving COP. The goal is to send tech-packs to manufacturers once 2X COP out-of-the-wall has been reached.


    - Their ongoing funding round is about to be closed.

    A COP of 221/152 is pretty low and won't be sufficient to obtain commercial interest.

    Looks like their current harvesting technology is not the best solution.

    I would tend to think they need a different technology with higher yield.

    From what I gather from the Brillouin release, anything that would produce more than 4,000 Watts with a COP over 1 would be of great interest to boiler makers. If that's the case and we assume scaling is possible, it's mostly an engineering problem that needs to be solved.

    Firshein sent an update to all stakeholders today.


    All in all, a pretty hopeful one from where I stand. They're moving to a commercial model of their heater showing more than 1 COP "out of the wall" with water flow calorimetry (their best test shows 152 Watts in and 221 Watts out) and seem hopeful that they will be able to showcase it to third parties pretty soon.


    Interest from a well-known defence contractor is disclosed for the first time.


    What is most interesting is that the usual pleading for more money is very much tuned down. I take it as a sign of confidence that things may be about to pan out.

    Robert Godes doing some teasing, I assume.


    External Content m.youtube.com
    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.


    The video explanation from the very same video description:


    “Published on Jul 20, 2021

    Just a power supply that does not work and the supplier wants a video on youtube showing the problem.” (Added by Curbina)

    Presentation by David Niebauer from Brillouin Energy:

    External Content www.youtube.com
    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.