Independent Technical Validation Report Completed On Brillouin Energy’s LENR HHT™ Reactor Core Systems (Press Release)

Thanks to David Nygren for posting about this on Facebook. The following press release has been published on Brillouin Energy’s website here:

BERKELEY, CA, December 1, 2015 – Brillouin Energy Corp., developer of renewable energy technologies capable of producing commercially useful amounts of thermal energy (heat) based on controlled low energy nuclear reactions (“LENR”), announced today that its Hydrogen Hot Tube™ (HHT™) Boiler System reactor core modules, were the subject of a recently completed independent Technical Validation Report.

The 35-page Report was prepared as technical due diligence by Michael Halem, a third party technical investigator. The Technical Validation Report summarizes the investigation into Brillouin Energy’s HHT™ single tube core prototypes at Brillouin’s Berkeley laboratory and at its research partner SRI International. The results are drawn from a series of calibrated tests of both systems. Mr. Halem personally designed tests on the HHT™ systems and then directed the technical staff of Brillouin Energy and SRI to execute the test plans. The tests, in which 95 channels of data were recorded and then investigated, included multiple technical changes to validate the thermodynamic results.

In all cases, the results were consistent: the data demonstrate with very high confidence that the Brillouin Energy HHT™ prototype repeatedly produced lab-scale excess heat from LENR.

“I was given full access to the experiments,” said Mr. Halem. “I was able to confirm, with a high degree of confidence, excess energy output above chemical and likely due to a nuclear reaction.” The Technical Validation Report affirms that Brillouin Energy’s HHT™ technology “is scalable by assembling multiple HHT™ tubes” in a reactor system. The Report was peer reviewed by Mr. Halem’s technical colleague, Dr. Antoine Guillemin who holds his Masters in Nuclear Physics and Ph.D. in Building Physics. Brillouin Energy’s Technical Validation Report is available upon request to qualified interested parties under a customary non-disclosure agreement.

For further information, please contact:

Grant Draper [email protected] +1-415-745-0254

Michael Halem [email protected] +1-914-407-4520

About Brillouin Energy

Brillouin Energy is a clean-technology company based in Berkeley, California, which is developing, in collaboration with Stanford Research International (SRI), an ultra-clean, low-cost, renewable energy technology that is capable of producing commercially useful amounts of thermal energy from LENR. Brillouin Energy’s technology includes a proprietary method of electrical stimulation of nickel metal conductors using its unique Q-Pulse™ control system. The process stimulates the system to generate LENR reactions, which generates excess heat. The excess heat produced is a product of hydrogen and a nickel metal lattice. Other than the heat output, there are no (zero) toxic or CO2 emissions of any kind.

  • radvar
  • ecatworld

    A bit more on Mr. Halem from the Lenr-invest website:

    “Michael has 29 years of experience in financial markets as a manager for Salomon Brothers, Nomura Securities, Rocket Partners and Millennium Partners. Previously, Mr. Halem worked at Cape Canaveral where he designed the Space Shuttle Radar Intercept Control Console and the Range Safety Real-Time Telemetry Display System. Mr. Halem earned his BA in Physics from Harvard and his MBA in Finance and Management from Columbia. Mr. Halem enjoys old airplanes, airshows, aerobatics and spending time with his children.”

    • radvar

      Thanks Frank. Mr. Halem looks like the real deal as far as technical qualifications.

      I note that page also has Antoine Guillemin as having “founded LENR Invest SA in early 2013”

  • tobalt

    did I miss the link to the paper ?

  • GreenWin

    “…HHT™ prototype repeatedly produced lab-scale excess heat from LENR.” Presumably this is less than commercial scale excess heat. But good to see this enterprise alive and well.

  • ecatworld

    No, it’s not been made available.

  • Gerard McEk

    It is nice to have a third party verification, but I would have loved to see more details. We have to rely on Mike McKubre who says that it has a COP of about 4. If I remember well the boiler works in the kW range. How reliable is this third party group?

    • builditnow

      You can watch a detailed video tour of both Brillouin development lab and SRI’s LENR lab Jan 2014. In these video’s you can see the liquid version under test (palladium deuterium I think) and Robert Godes says they had that up to 30kW, but, were suffering from the stirrer dissolving. Without a stirrer it was limited to 800W. At the time they were also working on the HHT version (Nickel Hydrogen), you can see a version running tests at SRI and at the time there was no excess energy. All this from memory, I watched the video’s when they were released.

  • builditnow

    I called Robert Godes and discussed the meaning of “Lab-scale excess heat” stated in the “Independent Technical Validation Report”.
    Robert told that the unit tested was a very small (tiny) prototyping model used to rapidly refine the product inexpensively. As a result of the small size the power output is also small, in “the tens of watts”.
    The larger commercial version will have much more power.
    Scaling could even be done with multiple of these very small units, however the obvious approach is to make larger versions for commercial use.
    As an example, in the video tour taken in Jan 2014, Robert said that the liquid version was capable of 30kW (and needed further refinements for reliability), see my comment below.

    My opinion follows;
    My guess is Brillouin wants to improve the COP and test longevity, and reliability etc. first, using prototypes.
    The HHT version is a relatively new development for Brillouin and has the advantage of using inexpensive nickel and hydrogen and achieving higher temperatures (about 600C) than the liquid version (about 200C). There appears to be rapid progress on the HHT version so I look forward to more good news in the future.

    • ecatworld

      Thanks very much for the report!

    • Dr. Mike

      Thanks for taking the time to gather the additional information and to Robert for clarifying what was actually tested. I agree with your opinions as to what Brillouin is planning for the future. I believe the Brillioun work will help in establishing a theory for LENR, a theory that will explain both their results in a simple Ni-H system and Rossi’s results using more exotic fuels.
      Dr. Mike

    • blanco69

      Great post. This kind of detail is worth a thousand speculations by even the most qualified of us.

  • This seems like a pretty big deal to me.

    Brillouin lifted their skirt for Congress, got (semi-)independent validation available to anyone under NDA and is talking about commercial prototyping. Their confidence and openness are growing.

    This is great news on its own. But it is also great in the context of spurring Industrial Heat to the finish line. No room to say inconclusive and kick off another 1 year test of the E-Cat X.

    And also in the context of the billions suddenly available for innovative green tech. Mr. Godes, please give Mr. Gates a call if you haven’t already.

    • Sanjeev

      I agree, this could speed up the commercialization of the E-cat, there is no excuse to do more R&D and keep improving the tech without ever selling a product in open market.

      I think Rossi should disentangle his R&D from commercialization and push out the E-Cat as is, into the markets, even if its on a small scale initially. The R&D can continue in the background while a small number of partners manufacture and sell the current version. The IP protection/testing/certification work should be left to the partners.

      If he keeps waiting for approval of 100s of patents and setting up of a plant that produce millions of E-Cats, it will be too late for him, the competitors may overtake him.

  • MasterBlaster7

    I have to wonder how all of this will play out. I’m sure Brillouin is working on their patents. I know Rossi is working on his patents. And, Jet energy is definitely working on their patents. There is going to be overlap here. And, remember this is all without a true functioning theory of LENR. When all of these patents hit the fan, I really hope that all relevant companies can work things out to move things forward rather than hindering the commercial adoption of LENR. If there is a Rambus situation here…that would be bad.

  • Sanjeev

    Very good progress. This should get them some investment and manufacturing partners.

  • pg

    I know I will attract bad comments, but if I was a potential investor I would not trust any of this for one second.

    • Y2K

      And you’re probably right. But it depends on what kind of projects you invest in. If you are searching for high risk projects with huge potential profits and/or world domination then you could find this project attractive.

    • georgehants

      pg, no bad comment, your decision sounds very sensible for you.
      Allowing always that any opinions negative or positive will, as with Mr. Rossi and everything else not in any way change the Fact of the outcome.

    • If you were an investor you will ask the report, sign the NDA, and if convinced, you will pay an expert to redo the test yourself, like they did, like Darden, and like probably Woodford.

      Due diligence is … due!

  • Steve R

    Another good news/bad news press release from Brillouin. The good news, of course, is that a named person with a reputation to uphold says he personally has seen data showing the system works, and another named person is cited as reviewing the work. The bad news is both the content and the form of the release again raise doubts about whether this is a company you’d like to do business with.

    However, calling the event that prompted the release an “independent” “third party” report is strictly out of Alice in Wonderland. This is a document prepared by a connected party with an economic interest in the success of the Brillouin product (which doesn’t mean the report is false, but does mean we should view it with some measure of skepticism). That Brillouin is trying to pass it off as otherwise says either they don’t understand the difference or they’re not interested in ethics at this point.

    As reported in the release, it’s also hard to assess the credibility of the testing. Although Mr. Halem is presented as a “technical investigator,” his biography says he’s been working in finance for the last 29 years and in electronic control systems before that — there’s no indication of any special expertise in metrology, thermodynamics, or nuclear science or whether he’s done other similar evaluations. The actual testing was apparently done by Brillouin and SRI with Mr. Halem “investigating” the recorded results (perhaps he was there for the tests or perhaps not, we don’t know — maybe it was like a radiologist reading X-ray films submitted by a surgeon).

    The release says Mr. Halem’s tests were done on single HHT tubes at Brillouin and SRI — but later claims the report “affirms that Brillouin Energy’s HHT™ technology ‘is scalable by assembling multiple HHT™ tubes’ in a reactor system.” — although on what basis that can be said from tests of single prototype tubes is not clear. I suspect that’s a projection from Brillouin, not a conclusion from the data.
    Furthermore, the release only says the tests found “lab-scale” excess heat — with no indication of what that means. As regular visitors here probably know already, Mitchell Swartz of JET Energy has been able to reliably demonstrate small amounts of excess energy for years. Producing lab-scale results does not automatically mean the process can be scaled up to useful magnitudes.
    We also don’t know whether it is meaningful that Mr. Salem qualified his conclusion as “with a high degree of confidence.” Is that emphasis? Or does it mean the results were statistically convincing but not plainly evident (i.e, a COP not far above unity)?
    On the mechanics of press releases (which are important mostly because they signal editors whether to pay attention), we have an extra comma right in the (overly long) first sentence. The main conclusion is given as an unattributed paragraph rather than sourced to Mr. Halem or anyone else. Trademark symbols should only be used on the first reference. The section “About Brillouin” should say “Brillouin Energy Corp.” is a ..” (using the full company name). The second paragraph has the “investigator” conducting an “investigation” in which he “investigated” the data. “Peer review” for engineering and the sciences implies multiple outside reviewers, not review by a colleague (which may be meaningful but is not the same). We don’t know Dr. Guillemin’s relationship to Mr. Halem or Brillouin — and who paid for his efforts (almost all serious science these days requires a statement of any economic ties or conflicts by investigators or reviewers). And since it’s a BEC release, there should be a BEC contact listed.
    If Brillouin raises the money it needs and goes on to deliver a successful product, none of this matters. But to get there, it might help if they could do a better job on the business mechanics.


    • psi2u2

      I suggest you don’t invest. (and I don’t mean by that that you don’t make some very valid points).

      • Steve R

        I agree and I haven’t (and thanks for the kind words as well). I do believe Godes/Brillouin has something (whether or not their theory is right) and the world needs non-carbon energy. I’m just trying to point out that if Brillouin could get their business act together, they might be able to more easily raise the funds they apparently need to actually produce a commercially viable product — and tempt me (and perhaps you) into buying a share.

    • Agaricus

      Good critical analysis – you have highlighted a number of gaps in the press release that can’t be glossed over. IMHO the ‘take away’ is that Brillouin’s system does produce some measurable ‘excess heat’, but the language used probably indicates that their reactor is still a laboratory curiosity rather than a useful LENR heating system. In sort this is just a solicitation for investors to chuck in, rather than a report of a meaningful advance.

    • Sanjeev

      You have a balanced criticism, no doubts. Both investigators are connected to the company lenr-invest, which also lowers the confidence a bit. If BEC is well protected by patents then they should simply ask MFMP or similar truly independent, non-profit org for validations. (I guess there is some ongoing talk with MFMP about this, but I’m not sure).

      However, its good that there is some progress. Better than nothing.

    • Hhiram

      This is a superb analysis on every level. And for all of the reasons Steve R points out, THIS is why the scientific community still does not take LENR seriously. After tens of millions of dollars from investors, Brillouin still operates in a completely unprofessional fashion, making silly amateur mistakes with things as simple as press releases.

    • builditnow

      Well Steve, don’t wait too long to invest as there are potential rich fields to be had. 😉

  • pg

    Intriguing comment on JONP:

    Dr Andrea Rossi
    Brillouin has replicated your effect by means of a reactor substantially copied from your patent. The replication has been made by a third independent party, but they do not publish it and send the report only to qualified persons under NDA.
    What is remarkable is that before their agreement with Industrial Heat they were working only with electrolytic processes without real results.
    Do you want to comment?
    Weldon Millender

    • radvar

      I’m surprised Rossi left it on the site. “before their agreement with Industrial Heat they were working only with electrolytic processes without real results” is a collection of mis-information resulting in an ugly implied smear on both IH and Brillouin that IH leaked Rossi’s IP to Brillouin. “Weldon” has stained himself.

      • blanco69

        Agreed. Prior to the agrrement with IH, Brillouin did have real results. These were confirmed by McKubre. Who is going to say that Godes’ electron capture theory is incorrrect? I my view it’s just as valid as the Rossi effect until proven otherwise. I still maintain that the Brillouin business model appears to be traditional whereas camping out in a shipping container for a year at a secret location seems to be a more novel way of bringing a breakthrough energy techonology to market.

  • there is nothing hidden.

    his address was “” and it is said to be “due diligence”, thus before an investment.

    investors are dishonest only after they invested, not before…
    before they have a tendency to be cautious.