Brillouin Energy of Berkeley, California has been granted a patent for their hot-water boiler technology in China.
Patents had been submitted in countries around the world with Japan “not rejecting” the patent and “some back and forth” on the patent in the European Union, but as with virtually all submissions referencing this new energy technology in North America, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected the application. Cold Fusion Now’s David J. French reviewed the rejection in this article from last May.
Further, though no product is currently slated for public release and the company is still prototyping their commercial design, an Original Equipment Manufacturing (OEM) company has contacted Brillouin with interest in licensing the technology.
The Chinese patent is a huge breakthrough for commercial development of this ultra-clean energy technology. Any duplicate technologies released in the United States would force the USPTO to grant the Brillouin patent, and compel the other company to negotiate with the Brillouin Energy Corporation. This would necessitate a break in the long-standing Department of Energy (DoE) policy that refuses to acknowledge the existence of cold fusion, also called low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR), lattice-assisted nuclear reactions (LANR), and quantum fusion, and which influences USPTO policy.
Brillouin Energy has just recently begun a partnership with SRI International of Menlo Park, California to test both the science and technology developed under the guidance of Robert E. Godes, the Founder, President and Chief Technical Officer at Brillouin Energy. It was in this capacity that Brillouin was able to garner funding for their hot-water boiler design that used a nickel cathode and regular water (H2O) to create the energy-producing excess heat.
That funding allowed Brillouin to expand their team, adding seven additional engineers and physicists, along with the handful of non-technical support staff and three law firms helping the corporation in various aspects to move this revolutionary energy technology forward.
The Brillouin lab is currently engineering a new gas-loaded design that will run at much higher temperatures, thereby increasing the power output. The Brillouin Hydrogen Hot Tube (HHT)™ is the core reactor of the new design.
Essentially, it is a tube containing the catalytic material with the metal nickel that allows for control over the flow of hydrogen gas as well the Q-pulses, the electromagnetic pulses that start and drive the reaction.
The company has been successful with the nickel environment, but is also working on a new architecture that uses titanium and tungsten in the core generator.
Godes says the new dry-cell designs require Brillouin to raise more capital funding to expand the pace of work.
“We’re not saying we’ll have a product right away, but we have a technology that we know can be developed, and we’re working with all possible speed to get it to market.”
More News on Brillouin Energy Corp patent filing by David French May 25, 2012
New kid on the block? – Brillouin Energy Corporation by David French April 23, 2012
Brillouin Energy interview on Ca$h Flow: “We can re-power coal plants with LENR” by Ruby Carat March 28, 2012
Brillouin Energy Quantum Fusion animations by Ruby Carat March 21, 2012
Funding dam almost breaks for Brillouin Boiler that uses – water! by Ruby Carat July 7, 2011
Brillouin Energy Home
SRI International Home
33 Replies to “Brillouin Energy patent granted in China”
First images of heavy electrons in action (w/ Video) June 2, 2010 http://phys.org/news194702102.html
Using a microscope designed to image the arrangement and interactions of electrons in crystals, scientists have captured the first images of electrons that appear to take on extraordinary mass under certain extreme conditions. The technique reveals the origin of an unusual electronic phase transition in one particular material, and opens the door to further explorations of the properties and functions of so-called heavy fermions. Scientists from the Brookhaven National Laboratory, McMaster University, and Los Alamos National Laboratory describe the results in the June 3, 2010, issue of Nature. Read more at: http://phys.org/news194702102.html#jCp
Absorption of Nuclear Gamma Radiation by Heavy Electrons on Metallic Hydride Surfaces
Low energy nuclear reactions in the neighborhood of metallic hydride surfaces may be induced by ultra-low momentum neutrons. Heavy electrons are absorbed by protons or deuterons producing ultra low momentum neutrons and neutrinos. The required electron mass renormalization is provided by the interaction between surface electron plasma oscillations and surface proton oscillations. The resulting neutron catalyzed low energy nuclear reactions emit copious prompt gamma radiation. The heavy electrons which induce the initially produced neutrons also strongly absorb the prompt nuclear gamma radiation, re-emitting soft photons. Nuclear hard photon radiation away from the metallic hydride surfaces is thereby strongly suppressed. PACS numbers: 24.60.-k, 23.20.Nx I. INTRODUCTION Low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) may take place in the neighborhood of metallic hydride surfaces[1, 2]. The combined action of surface electron density plasma oscillations and surface proton oscillations allow for the production of heavy mass renormalized electrons. A heavy electron, here denoted by ˜e−, may produce ultralow momentum neutrons via the reaction Once the ultra low momentum neutrons are created, other more complex low energy nuclear reactions may be catalyzed. Typically, neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions release energy in large part by the emission of prompt hard gamma radiation. However, the copious gamma radiation and neutrons have not been observed away from the metallic hydride surface. Our purpose is
to theoretically explain this experimental state of affairs. In particular, we wish to explore the theoretical reasons why copious prompt hard gamma radiation has not been observed for LENR on metallic hydride surfaces. The experimental fact that a known product particle is not observed far from the metallic hydride surface is related to the fact that the mean free path of the product particle to be converted to other particles is short. As an example of such arguments, we review in Sec. II, why the mean free path of an ultra low momentum neutron is so short. A short mean free path implies that the product particle never appears very far from the surface in which it was first created.
Got mass? Princeton scientists observe electrons become both heavy and speedy. Posted June 13, 2012; 02:00 p.m.http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S33/94/41S36/index.xml?section=topstories
Once the ultra low momentum neutrons are created, other more complex low energy nuclear reactions may be catalyzed. Typically, neutron catalyzed nuclear reactions release energy in large part by the emission of prompt hard gamma radiation. However, the copious gamma radiation and neutrons have not been observed away from the metallic hydride surface. Our purpose is to theoretically explain this experimental state of affairs. In particular, we wish to explore the theoretical reasons why copious prompt hard gamma radiation has not been observed for LENR on metallic hydride surfaces. The experimental fact that a known product particle is not observed far from the metallic hydride surface is related to the fact that the mean free path of the product particle to be converted to other particles is short. As an example of such arguments, we review in Sec. II, why the mean free path of an ultra low momentum neutron is so short. A short mean free path implies that the product particle never appears very far from the surface in which it was first created.
Thanks for the interesting links Greg.
In the 1980s, Fleischmann and Pons thought heavy electrons in the conduction band of the palladium cathode might be reducing Coulomb barriers between nuclei the way muons do in muon catalyzed fusion (i.e. they thought that the heavy electron doesn’t necessarily have to react with a proton to become a neutron to initiate a nuclear reaction).
They were pondering the role of heavy electrons. I did not know that. Well, it figures that the world’s leading electrochemist would be scratching his head in such a manner. Thanks for the “limited” insight of Fleischmann and Pons. It has given us all something to chew on, digest, and nurture with.
Yes, the “incompetent boobs” were thinking about heavy electrons. See Richard K. Lyon’s May 15, 1989 letter to C&E News: http://newenergytimes.com/v2/inthenews/1989/1989May15CEN-Letters.pdf
Yes, the “incompetent boobs” were thinking about heavy electrons. Richard K. Lyon mentioned that in a May 15, 1989 letter to C&E News (if you can find it).
I found two sentences that I saved from Lyon’s letter:
“From the media accounts, the Pons and Fleischmann experiment appeared to have been motivated by the speculation that since electrons in a conduction band move collectively, it is possible for a conduction-band electron to act as if it were much more massive than a free electron. Thus, if there is a dislocation in the matrix of palladium ions, a site at which occupancy by two deuterium ions is marginally possible, an electron between these two deuterium ions might, by virtue of is effectively greater mass, bring them close enough for fusion to occur.”
Richard K. Lyon’s May 15, 1989 letter to C&E News
“Dynamics of Heavy Electrons” Yoshio Kuramoto and Yoshio Kitaoka – July, 1999
(Draft of a monograph to be published by Oxford University Press)
The present book has twofold purposes. First, the book is intended to be a monograph on heavy
electrons which have been the focus of very active experimental and theoretical studies in the last two decades. Heavy electrons are found among a number of lanthanide and actinide compounds, and are characterized by a large effective mass which becomes comparable to the mass of a muon. The heavy electrons exhibit rich phenomena such as smooth crossover to local moment behavior with increasing temperature, unconventional superconductivity, weak antiferromagnetism and pseudo-metamagnetism. Although some mysteries still remain, the authors feel that a reasonably coherent understanding is available of heavy electrons as a whole. Therefore the time is ripe to survey the properties of heavy electrons from a global and unified point of view.
Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 1779–1782 (1975) 4f-Virtual-Bound-State Formation in CeAl3 at Low Temperatures
K. Andres and J. E. Graebner Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974
H. R. Ott Laboratorium für Festkörperphysik, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, Hönggerberg, Zürich, Switzerland
Received 25 August 1975; published in the issue dated 29 December 1975
Specific-heat and electrical-resistivity measurements in CeAl3 below 0.2 K reveal enormous magnitudes of the linear specific-heat term C=γT (γ=1620 mJ mole/K2) and the T2 term in ρ=AT2 (A=35 μΩ cm/K2). We conclude that the 4f electrons obey Fermi statistics at low temperatures because of the formation of virtual bound 4f states.
© 1975 The American Physical Society
It appears that first generation LENR will be boilers connected to existing infrastructure. We’ll have to wait for 2nd (or 3rd) generation for portable LENR generators. Brillouin’s breakthrough Chinese patient no doubt signals the Chinese leadership’s nod toward Brillouin, which is of incalculable value. Be sure to thank Dr Kissinger:)
P.S. Can you imagine the business replacing coal or natural gas boilers in power plants to LENR? Saving the businesses 95%, they’d have to be fools not to convert ASAP. As goes China, so would go the world. Brillouin suddenly became a LOT MORE VALUABLE.
According to the Chinese Patent website (SIPO), I found following info :
What kind of invention cannot be patented in China?
China Patent refuse the following categories:
According to Article 5 and Article 25 of the China Patent Law, the following items are unpatentable in China:
(1) any invention-creation that is contrary to the laws of the state or social morality or that is detrimental to public interest
(2) scientific discoveries;
(3) rules and methods for mental activities;
(4) methods for the diagnosis or for the treatment of diseases;
(5) animal and plant varieties;
(6) substances obtained by means of nuclear transformation.
For processes used in producing products referred to in items (4) of the preceding paragraph, patent right may be granted in accordance with the provisions of this Law.
Look at (6).
This seems in contradiction with a granted patent of Brillioun
Have a look
(6) substances obtained by means of nuclear transformation.
I do not know if energy is a “substance”. Perhaps it is.
Brillouin’s law firm of Kilpatrick Townsend received a letter from “the foreign associate” with an attached copy of the granted patent. They do no know if it was an original “ribbon copy” or if it has yet been formally reported.
But the law firm states the “patent has been granted”.
I think email moves at the speed of light, while bureaucracies move at a slower human speed.
You dun good, Greg. I was reading down through the comments on the Psyorg article and I noticed how certain people were of Quantum physics and yet in the next sentence they avowed that the principles are poorly understood! That is bet both ways on a two horse race.
It looks as though those naughty standing waves (electrons) are a little more complex than we give them credit for.
Anyhow I don’t understand how the Higgs field can impart mass and hence momentum to a Hadron. I guess we will just have to sweep that under the carpet too.
There are too many expensive brooms about, methinks.
Beats me how some can stand up on their hind legs and pontificate to God how he should arrange His affairs.
Has everyone forgotten the Muon? The “Who ordered that?” particle?
Good to see some awareness, everything is Quantum at base, which most of science has been hiding for 60 years after the brilliant True scientists up to the 1940’s where dispersed by WW11.
They are afraid to admit that they know nothing of what it means and anything is possible.
Instead of looking at this as a Wonderful opertunity to learn the Truth of our amazing reality, they have turned there cowardly backs and debunked and denied everything beyond reductionist Dogma
The Quantum should be taught to every child at about the age of 8, it is not complicated as the experts try to arrogantly make out, it just says, what a wonderful World, what excitement, what pleasure for our children to investigate the unknown.
Muons… so short lived. Who knows what they are up to in their meanderings.
Heavy electrons are produced… and captured. It seems these teeny tiny processes are yearning to be understood… their gratitude is shown by the gift of clean energy.
“Quantum fusion” sounds pretty exotic. What does it mean, and how does it differ from conventional nuclear fusion?
“Quantum Fusion” comes from Robert Godes’ paper The Quantum Fusion Hypothesis published in IE in 2008 I believe, which is Godes’ theory on cold fusion and what drives his successful experimental work.
You can find the paper on the Brillouin website.
Thanks. I was able to find a copy of the paper, though it no longer seems to be on the Brillouin website. I think I understand, to some extent, what “quantum fusion” is now. Godes is fortunate that it was not a term in wide use before his paper. However, as a term used to distinguish cold fusion/LENR/LANR/CANR from high-energy or thermonuclear fusion, I’m not convinced as to its usefulness. George Gamow might have something to say about that. Or, as George Hants is wont to say, “everything is quantum”. With respect to nuclear reactions, at least, he is certainly correct.
As “quantum fusion” does not use the world ‘nuclear’, it is easier for people to swallow. Quantum is ‘sexier’, due to Discovery channel mental imprints as well.
I’ve mentioned before, whatever scientists end up calling it will last about a minute in the public sphere. A consumer product will have a life of its own, and new names will come from the user and those who market to users, not scientific discussion.
Quantum fusion has gained in that James Truchard of National Instruments said he preferred the name in the video of his opening presentation. I can only surmise it was from contact with Robert Godes.
Quantum Fusion is not awful, better than satanic Nuclear LENR/LANR/CANR…
however I’ve been advised by a serial innovator, that Cold Fusion is a very good name.
First forget about Cold Fusion dark story, if it works, everybody will forget the dark age. Forget also about that it is maybe not fusion… which mom&pop cares .
Second Cold fusion is COLD, thus not dangerous, not burning, not explosive. It is also fusion, thus sexy and inclusive..
Third Cold Fusion is a famous name, and everybody will know what it mean… People will even remind it is cooking like experiment and forget that today it is hot gas.
Finally the dark history of Cold Fusion will let a discrete taste of rebellion against the system, against the elite…
LENR is a very good scientific name, but Cold fusion is the best commercial name.
and here is the direct thermoelectric conversion required, no moving parts !
Brillouin Energy has conditional funding for $20 million
Re: “Any duplicate technologies released in the United States would force the USPTO to grant the Brillouin patent”
– could someone please explain exactly why that necessarily follows?
A commercial product would be an obvious “working model”.
Presumably litigation would ensue to stop the copycat from selling, and force the patent office to recognize the prior Brillouin application, now granted in at least China.
– But wouldn’t this come back to a circular argument, in that the copycats could say that, since there was no US patent to violate at the time they launched in the US, that no US-based litigation could be undertaken in the first instance. Only if the copycats tried to market in China could Brillouin sue – and then only in China.
At least that’s my guess as an armchair lawyer. I’d really like to see the expert opinion of qualified patent attorney.
Don’t get me wrong – I think Brillouin are doing very well. I’d prefer to see them win the “Tour de Fusion” and not get swindled at the last minute by patent trolls or corrupt officials inside the USPTO.
This is David French. I am back and look forward to posting, somewhat belatedly, on the ICCF-17. But I can comment on this posting.
The US Brillouin – Robert Godes US patent application is still pending; it has been appealed to the Board of Appeals on August 17, 2012. On appeal, the applicant must show that the Examiner was wrong in refusing to recognize that adequate evidence had been filed to demonstrate that the promised invention worked and that the disclosure was adequate to allow others to duplicate it.
This application was filed October 25, 2010 claiming the benefit of the disclosures made, in part, as early as December 29, 2005. It has twice received a final rejection from a US examiner for failure to file sufficient evidence. If this matter goes forward on appeal, then the evidence last filed April 23, 2012 will be the focus of review. The applicant will have to show that this evidence was sufficient to demonstrate utility and the sufficiency of the disclosure to enable others to duplicate the invention.
This is the second time that an appeal has been filed in respect of this application. Sometimes an appeal is filed simply to buy more time. The last time an appeal was filed, the applicant immediately reopened examination by filing the fresh evidence, canceling the appeal. This could happen again. Alternately the appeal could go forward and will take several years to reach a resolution. At any time during the period of appeal the applicant can reopen examination and file fresh evidence.
Without having reviewed the evidence, if this appeal does go forward this might be the case where the US Board of Appeals finally acknowledges that Cold Fusion is a reality.
What happens in China is irrelevant to this appeal. The appeal is on the record as already established at the US Patent Office. It is only by re-opening examination that new evidence can be filed. The treatment of an application before another patent office elsewhere in the world has little value or meaning to the US Patent Office. Each country operates according to its own standards. Some countries are quite frivolous in granting patents without any substantive review.
On the hypothetical that this patent might get infringed in a foreign country, that could provide some evidence that the invention actually works. But establishing that the so-called infringer is using the invention as stipulated in the US application could be a challenge. It might be several years in foreign litigation before the foreign infringer actually fully discloses what they are doing.
The best way to establish utility and enablement before the US Patent Office is to pay a reputable engineering firm to follow the instructions in the patent application and report-back that they achieved the useful result as promised. Unfortunately, that might cost many tens of thousands of dollars.
Another difficulty is that the present application sets out a “story” which was frozen in October, 2010. Almost 2 years have gone by since then. It may be that the story in 2010 is not as complete as an inventor in 2012 might wish. Filing an appeal will buy-time to reconsider reopening the patenting process with perhaps the filing of an improved disclosure as well as further supporting evidence of utility and enablement.
Sorry if this is complicated. But I believe it reflects the situation accurately.
Thanks for all that, David.
I presume Brillouin’s US patent being under active appeal will be at least a partial, interim deterrent to would-be infringers in the US. But, presumably again, that still leaves Brillouin’s IP in all other countries except China, unprotected. Then again, I think I recall that most OECD countries will largely “rubber-stamp” a patent granted in the US but, as you say, not the other way around(?).
Comments are closed.