New Website, Information from Brillouin Energy

Thanks to David Nygren for posting on Facebook about the newly designed website for Brillouin Energy — you can see it at

It’s very nicely designed with some useful information regarding Brillouin’s technology, theory and business model.
Here are some examples from the site:

The WET™ Boiler illustration describes the underlying Controlled Electron Capture Reaction (CECR) process. Hydrogen is loaded onto a nickel lattice where an electronic pulse (Brillouin Q-Pulse™) is passed through the system, resulting in a compressed lattice within the highly engineered constrained environment. Mass is created and a proton is converted to a neutron, causing a tremendous loss of energy in the system. 1H Protium is converted to 2H (deuterium), 2H (deuterium) is converted to 3H (tritium) and 3H (tritium) is converted to 4H (quatrium), resulting in a net energy out as the 4H (quatrium) rapidly beta decays, at which point a large amount of heat, plus a tiny amount of 4He (helium) are released into the system in a process that releases more energy than it took to create all of the preceding steps.(


In experimental tests that began at Brillouin Energy’s Berkeley Lab in 2010, independent engineers or physicists have confirmed a substantial heat effect produced by the company’s CECR process technologies in over 50 experiments, run on an independent basis. They have tested multiple electrolyte samples generated from Brillouin Energy’s direct experimental tests and confirmed the same result in the reverse . . . Results from all of Brillouin Energy’s experimental tests run at its facilities to date, are available for review under customary NDAs to current and prospective investors, original equipment manufacturers, licensees, strategic partners and engineering representatives. (

Under ‘Milestones‘ Brillouin reports that in March 2015 the company passed the halfway point in it’s goal to raise $8 million in a series B round of funding. Also, Regarding performance of its products, in January 2015 “SRI independently reviews and confirms the accuracy of the Brillouin Hydrogen Hot Tube (HHT) System January test results that produced a 4.13X Coefficient”

There’s a lot of information on the site, and it’s an indication that Brillouin is a serious and well organized company, who seem to be making a big push at the moment to obtain further funding. There’s no indication yet that they have installed any products in the marketplace, and I would imagine it would be quite a challenge at this point, as they are operating somewhat in the shadow of Andrea Rossi and Industrial Heat who are apparently already producing heat at a customer’s plant at reportedly very high efficiencies.

It does appear that Brillouin have been able to demonstrate to various audiences that they have a valid LENR technology that consistently produces excess energy. Being able to show experimental results is of course extremely important — but moving those results into the commercial arena is an altogether different challenge, and we’ll have to see how all this plays out.

  • What I find disappointing is that they use fake pictures of a boiler on their site.
    It feels like they want to make the impression that they are near to market entry.

  • guga

    Good to see that they are still operating. Just recently I was thinking they had disappeared. BTW, does anybody know if Defkalion still exists?

  • tobalt

    So to get it right:

    they first add an electron to a proton *releasing a neutrino* (required)
    then release of an electron “and an antineutrino” from the neutron.

    In total:

    IN: proton+electron
    OUT proton + electron neutrino + antineutrino later

    they create a neutrino and an antineutrino out of thin air and want to harvest energy from that… lol

    • tobalt

      out should read:
      proton + electron + neutrino + antineutrino

    • the trick is how to do the first step (proton + electron) in an energy efficient way.

      Widom and Larsen expect that collective effects inside the metal lattice could dramatically reduce the needed energy to form the neutron by electron capture.

  • BillH

    Quite a slick site, but no mention of cost, efficiency, installation or maintenance? Looks like they have a long way to go before they have anything to sell.

    • Publius

      In all fairness to Brillouin, IH/Rossi hasn’t exactly elaborated on their “costs” either. Whether for testing or not, it’s not cheap to have several engineers and technicians in the container so to speak. One technician’s salary can buy you a lot of natural gas at these low prices. Brillouin also has ingenious patent for a high speed gate control that is obviously assisting with their reaction and is a marvel on its own

      • Daniel Maris

        Yes, this is a point I make here often as a counter-balance to talk of “free” energy. Labour cost is the key determinant.

        • Omega Z

          Daniel, You’ve repeated this a couple times. Let me enlighten you. No additional employees needed. They already exist.

          In an Industrial setting using Industrial boilers requires skilled personnel on the premises at all times. It doesn’t matter whether it’s gas, electric or LENR powered. It’s a legal requirement.

          It is this legal requirement that allows for lower certification standards of Industrial equipment. You will find many of these skilled technicians are skilled in multiple disciplines. They will be in charge of many systems related or not within a single installation. No additional personnel are required. At most, these people will need some additional technical training. This is the standard method of operation.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    Certainly this is good news and another good step forward for the LENR industry.

    Perhaps the only downside here is the COP of only 4. That is “just” commercial viable and I was hoping for a higher output. I have much hope that a higher COP can be obtained by the time they deliver such devices, but the flip side is them reveling their current COP (and to be fair, the context suggests that the COP of 4 was only during testing anyway). And such a COP is certainly high enough to pass any kind of testing/scrutiny and rule out measurement errors.

    So while I was wishing for a higher COP, all in all good great to see another player in the LENR industry.

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Sanjeev

    There is a big error there. I suggest you read the article above and also the new website. Their claim says that the energy comes from 4H decay, not from formation of He (which is a tiny amount).
    Unfortunately, such calculations are beyond me, so hopefully someone can help here.

  • oceans

    Excuse me but I was just reviewing the Sr management team link and I seen Carl Page is this the same Carl Page brother to Larry Page co-founder of Google ? have you seen these guys, Yes this is real.

    • Omega Z

      Yes, This is Carl Page, the brother of Larry Page. Note the association of- Mr. Page was a co-founder of E-Groups, which later became(Sold to) Yahoo Groups.

  • Bob Greenyer

    There are many ways to bake a cake, there is also a lot of resistance to the idea of electron capture – that is not to say it may not exist. What has been said to be verified in these pages is that a Nickel based system with Hydrogen – results in helium production from protons and a net energy yield.

    Well – if there was Nitrogen or Carbon in the reactor, so does the accepted carbon cycle – where carbon acts as a catalyst and it requires no new science. But a very different reaction matrix to the one it normally occurs in – but that is try of nearly all this kind of research.

    When I told Robert Godes about this at ICCF-19, it was news to him.

    Whilst the very high rate of change of current in the “Q-Pulse” could cause lattice structure based events – are they as described – or could this be just another tool to create proton projectiles like in the Quantum Gravity research.

    BIG improvement on their website – should expect this from such a well funded group.

    • GordonDocherty

      As Mats002 says elsewhere on this website:

      “My understanding: The antiquark in this short lived pentaquark-state
      equals LENRs concept of a heavy electron. Next state after this is that a
      new ultra-low-momentum neutron is formed. This also shows the weakness
      of the standard model; static, still pictures of a changing continuous
      event combined with one-eyed high speed particle collisions are blind to

      Now, it may also be that little green men transmute the hydrogen, but I certainly don’t rule out electron capture (or similar) as a means for capturing energy into protons to produce slow neutrons that then act as the feedstock for a Protium-Deuterium-Tritium-Quadrium-Helium4 transmutation path: unlike in Rossi’s version of LENR, Brillouin have purposefully designed and developed a system that makes use of the Brillouin Zones in charged, metallic, crystal lattices to constrain and excite hydrogen nucleii, lower the effective Coulomb barrier between hydrogen nucleii (sitting, as they are, in the much deeper Coulomb wells of the lattice), and increase the rate of tunnelling (that is, increase the ability of hydrogen nucleii to appear in locations close enough to one another so that attractive nuclear forces overcome the repulsion from the em field emanating from and surrounding each nucleus, perhaps due to field / spin synchronization)

      Whatever the mechanism, however, the independently verified fact (by SRI International and others) remains that heat far in excess of that possible from any “normal” chemical reaction is produced, together with Helium (of course, it may be that there is also a way to continually combine and split monatomic hydrogen millions of times per second in a way that produces more heat on the dissociation than the association of one hydrogen atom with another, but that would be a whole other ball-game of “free” energy, so is best left to another time when more about the reaction is really well understood)

      • Bob Greenyer

        Until there is a full isotopic analysis of the contents of a Brillouin reactor before and after, the mechanism will be in debate. That helium and energy is made is helpful to have verified, BUT there are many reactions that yield alpha particles/helium.

        note, 4H does not hang around very long!

  • wpj

    If all of the water was converted into hydrogen (and oxygen- by electrolysis which requires quite a bit of energy, though it could be done by solar) then the energy released by this amount in their reactor would do the job.

    The implication of their website is that their process, even though it involves a Ni system, is that only the hydrogen is being consumed to produce helium. In the Rossi system there appears to be a change in the isotopic composition of the Ni and Li (LiAlH4 as the hydrogen source) as well as the production of helium (he says that they have checked for He, though measurement can be difficult)

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Sounds like a lot of marketing
    babble to me

    • GordonDocherty

      or, rather, a website aimed at a general target audience. No quicker way to lose people than to sink into pure techno-speak and pages of equations, and no surer sign of something not being right than a company that only talks in techno-speak and pages of equations. As I have heard numerous times from many sources, “You always know who is really knowledgeable in a subject because they can explain things simply in a language people can understand, without the need to invoke some arcane language spoken only by the select few, the priesthood of the order”

  • wpj

    Brillouin Energy is not aware of any other group that has been able to achieve the combination of the level of reproducibility, continuity of operations, control of reactions, and a net energy output ratio significantly exceeding 1X.

    Bit naughty of them!

    • US_Citizen71

      It might be a case of tunnel vision or rectal cranial inversion. But more likely it can be attributed to no one likes to admit to the capabilities of their competitors.

      • Warthog

        Not at all. Godes has always said that Rossi “had something” but predicted (accurately), that Rossi’s problem would be control. Godes at that time offered to work with Rossi on the control problem, but Rossi chose to “go it alone” (or with other parties). I suspect that control of the EC and HC are still somewhat problematic, especially on startup and shutdown.

        • Omega Z

          “Godes has always said that Rossi had something”

          Correct. I Give Godes credit for reaching out, but I doubt his controls would apply to Rossi’s version. One wonders if Rossi has knowledge of something that would allow Godes to achieve higher COP.

    • GordonDocherty

      its the control of reactions that’s different – Brillouin can turn the reactions on and off with far greater precision and shorter delays between off and on (and off again), so their claim is not inaccurate

    • Omega Z

      Just a standard statement that they all parrot.
      When your looking for funding, you don’t want to give any credibility to your competitors. Else, at least some if not all of your hoped for funding could end up in the competitors pocket.

  • Agaricus

    “…moving those results into the commercial arena is an altogether
    different challenge, and we’ll have to see how all this plays out.”

    Public demos and third party testing seemed to do it for Rossi. Brillouin could do worse than arrange something similar if they want to bring in ‘big boy’ investors. If they are not ready for that, they are probably too far behind Rossi/IH to be in the running, at least initially.

  • oceans

    exciting informative website and really impressed with Godes leadership here, he has
    surrounded himself with a top level team to move this LENR project forward quickly. Congrats !