Press Release: SRI Successfully Replicated Brillouin’s LENR Technology


  • Official Press Release: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2017/01/prweb13961529.htm
    Brillouin's own Report: http://brillouinenergy.com/science/experimental-results/

  • Hum, I rather see the violent square very rich in harmonics, but their focus on "dead time" rather looks like the phenomenon exploit the step and some delays; rather than harmonics and phase...HHT is playing tennis, not music.

  • Just to compare with others, some quote of the report by SRI


    https://www.lenr-forum.com/for…9-SRI-ProgressReport-pdf/


    Quote


    Since its reconstruction and calibration, I have been able to corroborate that the IPB HHT system moved
    to SRI continues to produce similar LENR Reaction Heat
    that it produced up in its Berkeley laboratory at
    Brillouin.


    COP is not fantastic, but scientifically it is invaluable




    As shows the "improved version" based on new material, the breakthrough expected will probably be in material science.

  • Also no powder here, but instead layers of micron-thick sprayed (deposited?) nickel alternated with alumina. There is a heater in the center, but the apparatus according to the description is also arranged so that electrical pulses (if I understand correctly from Table 4, 300V) are directly applied to the active nickel-alumina coating.


    This makes me recall that a similar situation may occur in the usual Lugano Dog Bone replications at high enough temperature, where the ceramic tube becomes conductive and currents may start flowing through the so-called fuel.



    ETA: but it is also stated that at high temperature > 600°C they get no excess heat so it is not clear how much or if this can be applied to those replications...

  • Preliminary report :


    http://brillouinenergy.com/wp-…01/SRI_ProgressReport.pdf


    My first preliminary review of the report had both "thumbs up" and a few "?????" .


    SRI is a respected organization. They add a lot of credibility. The report does appear to be from SRI. Not just someone who works there.
    Unlike the Lugano test, where there was no organizational backing, this does seem to have it.


    From the preliminary report, it appears most of the testing was done at Brillouin's facility with Brillioun's employee's involved. Not ideal.
    However, at least one reactor has been tested physically at SRI and apparently without Brillouin's involvement. This is good!


    The report states that the reaction is repeatable and controllable. Thumbs up! However, the higher COP tests were not as robust. Bummer!


    The power is low, but that is not necessarily bad. It makes accurate testing somewhat easier. (Much more so that mega watts!) However,
    can it be scaled up?


    Not much was given on the calorimetric setup, but I would hope it was well designed.


    Over all a positive report. I am curious to see the official, in-depth report.


    If this reaction is as repeatable as stated, even at low power, I would think it a major break through. Gasoline engines started out with fractional
    horse power and it did not take long to have v8's! If the reaction can be studied at will, I would think the underlying reaction will soon be understood
    and high power not far off.


    Keeping my fingers crossed!

  • Hum, I rather see the violent square very rich in harmonics, but their focus on "dead time" rather looks like the phenomenon exploit the step and some delays; rather than harmonics and phase...HHT is playing tennis, not music.

    Yes Alan, have always said frequency content of control power steps drives LENR reaction! As well as with Rossi at least until self sustaining mode kicked in!

  • Hum, I rather see the violent square very rich in harmonics, but their focus on "dead time" rather looks like the phenomenon exploit the step and some delays; rather than harmonics and phase.


    The waveform image in the report is illustrative, not descriptive.I think the "Q-Pulse" waveform is actually a series of very narrow pulses, 100-300 nsec, separated by relatively longer off periods. Definitely not "square waves". If you read Godes' earlier papers, the goal is very large current transients (high di/dt), resulting in enough localised electron density to generate lattice phonons.


    Much of this is disclosed in the Patent granted on the process a year or two back.

  • This was a press release. SRI is under contract to Brillouin (BEC). I have been watching Godes for years as he comes off creditable. At low temps some reactors had a COP of 2. But the COP drops off as temp increased to at 600°C it just becomes noise. So this is not earth shattering to me. It's is still too close to call here. They are along way off, from anything other than early prototypes as they say in the report. On the plus side they are earnest. So wait and see, not a breakthrough.

  • Here are my observations after reading their paper.


    - The total output and COP are very poor. I get the impression they are making a mountain over a mole hill. If I were them, I would have continued testing until I could have reliably produced a higher COP, a higher total output, and a higher power density. To be blunt, this setup is too large and bulky for a few single digit watts of excess heat to be impressive.


    - The fact they stop producing excess heat above 600C due to what they feel is the Pd releasing stored hydrogen tells me that very few nickel-hydrogen reactions are probably occurring. In these tests, I expect that this is predominantly a Pd system with the nickel doing almost nothing. I could be wrong, and in other tests with only nickel films they may have produced excess heat.


    - I expect their choice of spray on nickel has ensured that hydrogen absorption and the creation of internal high pressure "bubbles" (clusters of exotic hydrogen species) is minimal. If these clusters did exist and were producing LENR, the excess heat would have likely continued to climb above 600C. I doubt they were able to perform any processes on the nickel powder before placing it into the reactor. Actually, we don't know much about the structure of the nickel and palladium films.


    - They are using fast square wave rise times. Probably, these impulses (very fast square waves produce exotic effects in many different systems) stimulate the hydrogen clusters in the palladium. The problem might be that hydrogen diffuses far, far more quickly in palladium than nickel. So they might be accelerating it's exit out of the reactor at higher temperatures. Although nickel is far more challenging to hydrogenate, the lower hydrogen permeability would mean the trapped, embedded, or absorbed hydrogen might not migrate out as quickly.


    My advice to them would be to forget the palladium and focus on how to maximize the hydrogenation of nickel POWDER of a decent particle size that can resist sintering. This could take some time and effort, but the result would be potentially be a hundred times or more the output.

  • We should not forget: This report is based on a lab test of a replication made by SRI(!!), with laboratory conditions etc.


    They may have control issues which BEC already solved.
    Maybe the small COP is related to that.


    Just the fact that it is replicated by such a credible institution (SRI) and works reliable is a very very good news in these dark LENR days. Just read the highlighted words.


    This is what we all were looking and hoping for since the beginning.


    Rossi should hurry up now, if he has anything.

  • Barty,



    He does indeed have something. And, importantly, it is magnitudes more powerful than this SRI experiment that produced a few single digit watts. The issue is that he's smart in a lot of ways and very intuitive, but he also senses perceived threats extremely easily. If he feels his technology could be threatened by espionage, an overall bad contract, unwelcome visitors, or a competitor he jumps into action regardless of the consequences. The problem is that while in many cases rightly defending himself and his technology, he does some less than honest and perhaps even downright sneaky things.


    As I've said before, I think the Rossi Effect is fundamentally simple once you understand the potentially significant extents you must go to prepare your nickel to absorb hydrogen and create the bubbles/clusters/species of hydrogen we all discuss on this board. Me356 realized the simplicity and power of the technology and went underground -- in fear of the consequences of opening Pandora's Box. But that's exactly what I'm hoping will happen and soon. But I want more. I want the instructions to make the box written down, video taped, and spread across the internet. When thousands of people start replicating and posting videos -- or even before then -- it will create an uproar. Literally, the high powered Rossi Effect is indeed like a "new" form of fire. What SRI replicated is like sitting in the woods spinning a stick into a board and bragging, "It's getting warm! Do you see how that little spot is turning brown. Any time now I'll get it started." This is happening while across the campsite Andrea Rossi is enjoying his roaring fire and roasting a hot dog.

  • I think the "Q-Pulse" waveform is actually a series of very narrow pulses, 100-300 nsec, separated by relatively longer off periods. Definitely not "square waves".


    Well said.
    It is not the good old square but something well tuned to "brutalize" the material with pulses.
    It is more of boxing the NAE than dancing with it with harmonics.


    Anyway the point here is that it is confirmed working even in someone-else lab and and someone else hands.
    This is something to note.

  • Norris Roark : SRI is confirming the Press Release on their official Twitter account:


    twitter.com/SRI_Intl/status/817091297785815041


    People don't realize how committing today is this kind of tweet... even PEOTUS use it as PR channel today. :D

  • You can recreate the 'Superwave' (superficially at least) with an ordinary PWM (Pulse Width Modulator) - see attached scope shot taken in LFH's lab. We tried doing this over many tests. But this of course is only a superficial similarity since the output is DC, not AC and also there is no easy way to control the mark/space ratio, that I know of at least.


    Right now we are busy sonicating nickel and learning the secrets of particle microphotography (not always successfully, it is much harder than I imagined!) Last night the US system died, happily after giving me a rather painful electric shock (ha! not so easy to kill!) so this morning I am investigating the problem- fortunately I have a spare US system, so even if I have killed the transducer or the board I can pick up the pieces and carry on.

  • I remember of a way to generate ultra-short pulses (used for laser too) :

    • generate a super steep wide pulse (in my example they were using mosfet driven brutaly)
    • inject it into a coaxial line shorted at the end
    • result is that the pulse will bounce back reverted and cancel the initial step, creating a very short pulse whose length is defined by the coax line

    Probably some creativity and engineering will be required to apply it to a LENR reactor, especially to prevent the MOFSFET to be killed...
    PS: it seems today people prefers IGBT for that business...

  • He does indeed have something.


    How do you know?


    Everything we have is a lot of "blabla" from Rossi and even more disappointing statements coming from the former big partner of Rossi (IH). It doesn't look good for Rossi.
    Additional to that: All (known) replications made on base of the Lugano-report-data were either negative (COP < 1) or well within error margin if measured precisely (COP slightly above 1).
    Even Parkhomov's replication, which first looked very promising, decreased in COP on the second view with better equipment.


    And regarding me356 we don't know what's going on. He just escaped.

  • I think signal injection into a coax stub is ok to create a signal -but of course, no use for running a heater - and PWM's are fixed frequency - we need another trick.


    BUT...you got me thinking about the problem of using a simple PWM to give a controllable mark/space ratio. Using a simple variable LC circuit and fast Mosfet switching it might be possible to clip off part of the output pulse from a PWM as it exceeds your chosen trigger point and divert it into a dummy load. Effectively this would enable very short pulses into the 'real' heater coil thus widening the space between pulses - but at the expense of what I think of as the 'skyscraper' shape of the 'Superwave'. But cheap and easy, as the Bishop said to the Actress.

  • Quote from SRI: “
    <b>Berkeley Clean Technology Company Announces Breakthrough for LENR Power Devices</b>


    Controllable-on-Demand, Reproducible, Transportable, Scalable LENR Validated in Third-Party Tests of Brillouin Energy IPB HHT™ LENR Reactor


    BERKELEY,…


    Quote

    Dr. Francis Tanzella, principal investigator and Manager of the Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Program, was assigned to SRI’s testing of Brillouin Energy’s LENR systems and conducted all of the third-party validation work.



    ... backing up his own investment seems logically to me... and therefore not reliable...

  • I think signal injection into a coax stub is ok to create a signal -but of course, no use for running a heater - and PWM's are fixed frequency - we need another trick.


    BUT...you got me thinking about the problem of using a simple PWM to give a…


    So what is the target (resonance) frequency roughly ? And related to which physical phenomena ?
    There was earlier mentioned around 100ns-level minimum pulse-width but this corresponds only to 10 MHz. Even the highest order harmonics could reach then a few 100 MHz at best.
    If i understand correctly everything interesting known today would require THz-frequencies and all the techniques mentioned here and earlier stay far away from those.

  • Thanks to David for linking to the SRI report. I have liked a couple of posts related to this because they caution us not to get too excited over this. I’ve now spent a little time looking the report over and I have a few pointed comments to reinforce that.


    (1) There is *NO* error discussion. Therefore we must default to the lowest level of this, the use of ‘significant figures’. The ‘b’ coefficients presented in Tables 2, 3, and 4 are only listed to 1 significant figure. Using standard sig fig thinking, this means that all (but 1) COPs listed in the tables are equivalent and have the value of 1. There is a 1.58 listed in Table 6 that would properly round to ‘2’, but I place no special significance on that number, it’s probably just ‘luck of the draw’ that it rounded up.


    (2) If you take the values in Tables 2 and 3 and plot the correlation coefficients as a function of temp, you will find the ‘b’ values to be reasonably well scattered for the small number of points, but the ‘m’ and ‘M’ values show a definite trend. They increase with T but seem to saturate at the higher T’s. This suggests that simplistic considerations, which seem to drive the methods described, may fall apart when comparing low T and high T results. Perhaps this is why the get ~0 XP at 600C vs. ‘a little over 1’ at lower Ts???


    (3) The m values used in Table 4 seem to show the opposite trend from what we see in Tables 2 and 3. Also, the values seem to be blocked into 3 sets of 2 vs. a smooth change like we would get if we did the plotting suggested in (2) above. This definitely means we need more information so that the impact of this can be evaluated.


    (4) In Figs. 8 and 9, at the beginning and end, is the QPulseLen 100 or 0? There is an interesting relationship between change in heater power vs. QPulseLen (using representative values, i.e. 1 point per pulse length level). The amount of data is extremely limited so I have no idea if the trends observed are real.


    (5) In Figure 8, at the end of the run, the CoreQPow value drops to zero for no apparent reason. It should have been explained.


    So, we have all but 1 COP value being indistinguishable from 1. That means 0 excess heat should be the conclusion of this report. Presumably, the authors have the information to refute me on this, but their failure to put it in the report is exactly why if this report was undergoing technical review for publication it would be rejected. Was it the Charles Dickens character that said in a pitiful voice, “More data please sir…”?

  • The waveform image in the report is illustrative, not descriptive.I think the "Q-Pulse" waveform is actually a series of very narrow pulses, 100-300 nsec, separated by relatively longer off periods. Definitely not "square waves". If you read Godes' earlier papers, the goal is very large current transients (high di/dt), resulting in enough localised electron density to generate lattice phonons.


    Much of this is disclosed in the Patent granted on the process a year or two back.



    Indeed in the report they also mention a pulse width of 150 ns. A quick browse of the report seems to indicate that 150 is better than 100 or 300.


    I hope that MFMP can obtain the equipment to experiment with this kind of stimulation in the next GS experiment. I know it's been talked about last time, do you know what you would need to acquire and the costs?

  • Thanks to David for linking to the SRI report. I have liked a couple of posts related to this because they caution us not to get too excited over this. I’ve now spent a little time looking the report over and I have a few pointed comments to reinforce that.


    (1) There is *NO* error discussion. Therefore we must default to the lowest level of this, the use of ‘significant figures’. The ‘b’ coefficients presented in Tables 2, 3, and 4 are only listed to 1 significant figure. Using standard sig fig thinking, this means that all (but 1) COPs listed in the tables are equivalent and have the value of 1. There is a 1.58 listed in Table 6 that would properly round to ‘2’, but I place no special significance on that number, it’s probably just ‘luck of the draw’ that it rounded up.


    I am not sure what level of error discussion you expect, but they do mention:


    Quote

    By this compensation calorimetry method, the measurements of net input and output power are carefully measured to within 5% accuracy to assure an exact calculation of the LENR coefficient.



    Also results such as 1.01, 1.03 are deemed to be "within experimental error"

  • If you look at their formula for COP (table 4)


    COP= (deltaQheater + m*Qpulse+b ) / Qpulse


    COP = deltaQheater/Qpulse + m + b/ Qpulse

    @300 C:


    COP = deltaQheater/Qpulse + 0.49 + 0.03/Qpulse


    We have 0.03/Qpulse < 0.01, so approximately:


    COP = deltaQheater/Qpulse + 0.49



    I did some calculations based on figure 9, using their formula. Results:


    COP = 1.23 (QPulseLen = 300ns)
    COP = 1.27 (QPulseLen = 150ns)
    COP = 1.30 (QPulseLen = 100ns)



    So not really much difference in COP between the 3 pulse lengths. Would have been more reassuring to see a varying COP peak within the same run dependent on the pulse length.



    Edit to add: I find it strange that the m coefficient increases with temperature in table 2 but decreases with T in table 4.