I cannot judge whether the BLP results are real or not. For sake of argument, let's assume they are. In that case, I cannot understand why they keep changing their methods and starting over from scratch. As Jones Beene said, Thermacore's results decades ago were more impressive.
I think the people at BLP have said the previous methods could not be developed into a practical source of energy, and that is why they keep coming up with new methods. That strikes me as a bad business strategy. The device does not need to be practical at this stage. It just needs to be real, and convincing. If you can demonstrate an impractical device you can use it raise funding, get patents and make progress. First generation devices are often impractical. The first Diesel engines, airplanes, transistors and computers were impractical, but they triggered a lot of excitement, investment and research that soon led to practical devices. Brillouin Energy is also trying to develop a practical device. Their statements say they "have to" reach a certain COP before they can sell devices. This is a similar misguided business strategy, in my opinion. They don't have to reach any particular performance level, and there no need to make the thing practical at this stage. They can succeed faster and make more money if they demonstrate impractical devices today, rather than wait months or years for a practical device. Waiting until it becomes practical is likely to mean they will wait forever. Or wait until they run out of money, gumption, and the patience of the investors. They should take what they have, make the best of it, and do something *now*. An impractical device today would be far better than a practical device in 5 years. The impractical device would bring in billions of dollars of R&D money, which in 5 years would result in products far better than they can develop at the present pace, with present funding levels. (I cannot judge whether Brullouin's claims are real either. I am assuming they are.) - Jed
