New Brillouin Patent Application for ‘Phonon Energy’ Published

Thanks to Sanjeev for sharing this link to a new patent filed by Brillouin Energy.

The title is “Energy Generation Apparatus and Method”

Here’s the abstract:

A practical technique for inducing and controlling the fusion of nuclei within a solid lattice. A reactor includes a loading source to provide the light nuclei which are to be fused, a lattice which can absorb the light nuclei, a source of phonon energy, and a control mechanism to start and stop stimulation of phonon energy and/or the loading of reactants. The lattice transmits phonon energy sufficient to affect electron-nucleus collapse. By controlling the stimulation of phonon energy and controlling the loading of light nuclei into the lattice, energy released by the fusion reactions is allowed to dissipate before it builds to the point that it causes destruction of the reaction lattice.

The full patent can be read here:

  • gdaigle

    Interesting that the patent does not shy away from mention of “cold fusion” in the background description. The patent application’s focus is primarily on providing a method of control, stating, “Embodiments of the present invention provide a practical, controllable, source of fusion energy based on the mechanisms outlined below. This source is scalable from the Micro Electronic Mechanical System (MEMS) scale at the milliwatt/watt level to the 100-kilowatt level and possibility beyond in a single core device. In short, embodiments of the invention contemplate inducing and controlling phonon-moderated nuclear reactions.”

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Yes, and I was under the impression that anything with cold-fusion in the wording would be rejected. However, once cold fusion is accepted, then it becomes VERY important to have filed this patent.

      I have a less then ideal feeling we going to see some serious patient fights over LENR.

      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Mike Henderson

    Hasn’t this information been available in the public domain for more than 1 year?

  • Mats002

    Good point. Should someone from the Live Open Science community oppose such patent applications? Or just do nothing about it because the commersial community have more incentives to act on competition?

    • Mats002

      Addressed to Mike below.

  • Daniel Maris

    Why is Brillouin’s website so poor and out of date?

    • Sanjeev

      This seems to be a general trend in lenr world. Websites and info is rare and top secret. Godes usually informs via Twitter.

    • I like Brillouin’s website. It is simple, straightforward, and tells you what you want to know. Overly complex websites are too gimmicky. Their technical explanation of how their form of LENR works, however, is subject to debate.

    • mcloki

      They have nothing to sel. They have no brand to portray. They have no job openings to worry about. Literally a website is the last things on their minds.

  • GreenWin

    Only the U.S. Navy/JWK patent for energetic particles (Boss et al, SPAWAR) has received an easy path through USPTO. Which points to the sorry state of affairs at USPTO. This and the hundreds of future LENR patents set the stage for the Department of Commerce to completely overhaul the USPTO.

    i.e… Throw the bums out.

  • Albert D. Kallal

    I saw little in the Airbus patent that gave one enough information to build their LENR power unit device. The diagrams seemed rather ambiguous.

    And the statements they used were vaguer.

    The part of the patent that allows or suggests one could build such a device based on the drawings involved is a rather “open” concept. The problem here is the patent office has ZERO idea if such device is possible UNLESS they attempted to build such a device based on the provided information! (no one has the resources to do as such).

    So while in “theory” the provided information should suffice for the devices to be replicated on the provided information, in practice this is a cruel joke since said patent office has zero idea if the application is in fact possible.

    And I don’t believe the issue of providing parameters is much relevant UNLESS it is stated as such. So if we patent a light bulb and note the device runs on 120V standard power, we all know that many places the power output is 110v, such patents will still easy stand up. I mean a patent for a 12v powered coffee maker for your car is fine, despite the fact that few if any cars actually provide 12 volts of power (in fact cars don’t).

    I mean take this paragraph from the AirBus:

    (57) A heat generation apparatus utilizing a Pons-Fleischmann effect and its method.

    Golly gee – we barely have a working theory. And zero details as to the “mix” of chemicals airbus is using. Heck we don’t even know if they are using nickel or palladium?

    And speaking of Airbus and aircraft in general? There was little if any grasp as to how a wing worked. There was TONS of companies that attempted to build Airplanes based on detailed pictures of such planes – and most failed. The problem was few realized that a flat wing made of material is a terrible way to produce lift (the curve on the top side of the wing was the “secret sauce” so to speak).

    And said patents on aircraft wing in most cases “left out” this amazing and important detail as to how lift is produced. The result old pictures of planes (that failed to work) with “many” wings, but ones that failed to fly such as this one:

    In fact many planes with 5 times or more the power of the Wright brothers did not and could not take off – they simply did not realize how a wing produced lift.

    So while in “theory” a patent should provide information to build said device, in practice, it is often not the case.

    And I am VERY skeptical of blacklight because their story keeps changing (but that is for another day and another post).

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada