Posts by LCC

Quote from Shane D.

Now, months later....?

Unfortunately, they would probably have been revealed if the ARPA-E grants had gone Brillouin's way, but now it won't be made public until who knows when...

There have been other developments on the business in the last month, but they're not public yet either. There will be probably be an announcement at some point, but I'm not sure when.

As a shareholder, the news I have been getting from the last 12 months have been the best since my initial investment. Unfortunately, I can't share much with you yet.

Quote from JedRothwell

You mean Brillouin's work will be done and reported later. Right? Not these 8 projects.

100%

Quote from JedRothwell

I hope these researchers know what they are doing. If this program goes badly, it will make cold fusion look even worse than ever. That's hard to do! It would be an accomplishment of sorts. A suspicious person might wonder whether that is the DoE's goal. To bury cold fusion once and for all. I am not a suspicious person. I am naive; trusting; uncritical. So I suppose the DoE has our best interests at heart.

Having knowledge of what the Brillouin proposition was, I can tell you it was orders of magnitude more interesting than what's on that list. I think the work will be done in any case but it won't be made public until much later.

I am quite amazed that a discussion about a promising press release has turned into video analysis. I am not saying it has no relevance but it does look like missing the forest for the trees.

Quote from JedRothwell

I disagree. I wish they would focus on demonstrating the effect to scientists and engineers, to persuade a large number of people that the effect is real. That would be much far cheaper and faster than commercialization.

There are other things ongoing regarding the demonstration of the effect. They've not been made public yet but they should be in a matter of weeks.

https://brillouinenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Brillouin-Press-Release-EIN-Greg-Knight-and-Chester-Aldridge-Lead-Commercialization-2-13-23.pdf

https://brillouinenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Brillouin-Press-Release-EIN-Greg-Knight-and-Chester-Aldridge-Lead-Commercialization-2-13-23.pdf

Quote from David Nygren

James Martinez claims that about a major news is to be presented from Arpa-E in the middle of February 2023.

Around 17 minutes into this pod. (Yes, we've heard this before)

I will not spoil anything as I am not allowed to, but I can tell with a comfortable degree of certainty that that will happen.

Quote from PhysicsForDummies

I am not sure this is how NDA's work, allowing someone to say "I know something big but I can't tell you what it is." Seems like you already broke the NDA, so you might as well spill the beans now 😏

Nice try but you won't get anything more out of me!

Quote from Shane D.

Any idea how long before this goes public?

I would say January/February... 2023 should be a big year for BEC.

I got some very good news from David Firshein yesterday... It is still under NDA but I think all of you will be quite excited when it comes out.

Brillouin still needs to get funding out of these results, however good they are. I know David Firshein is hard at work trying to pitch this to investors.

Quote from Daniel_G

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.

Quote from LCC

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.

Quote from Rob Woudenberg

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 ».

Quote from Cydonia

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 More

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.

Quote from Dr Richard*

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.

Quote from Dr Richard*

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).