Press Release: SRI Successfully Replicated Brillouin’s LENR Technology

Quote from Alan Smith

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…”?

Quote from magicsound

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?

Quote from kirkshanahan

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.

Hasn't Godes been claiming a COP around 4, meaning excess heat 3 times input.

This result is more like excess heat 0.3 times input.

Is a result 10 times smaller accurately called a replication?

What I would have liked to see:

- different pulse lengths applied at the same pulse power (rather than ending up with a different pulse power each time)
- effect of constant power stimulation applied through the same system as the pulses at the same power as above

Quote from Mary Yugo

It's hardly a scientific paper.

It doesn't claim to be a scientific paper. It's an interim progress report on an engineering contract.

Quote

Who even knows who wrote it

Prepared by: Francis Tanzella, Principal Investigator,Manager
Here, let me google him for you : https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Francis_Tanzella

Quote

and why?

It's part of SRI International Project P21429
That's how SRI works.

Quote from Norris Roark

Is a result 10 times smaller accurately called a replication?

The title "SRI Successfully Replicated Brillouin’s LENR Technology" is misleading: the Brillouin Energy Corp. enabled the SRI to measure the thermal effects in their reactor - but the SRI didn't organize independent experiments, created this reactor on its very own the less... All measurements did actually run at the place of Brillouin Energy Corp under supervision and assistance of its employees and SRI probably even didn't get all details of the technology tested.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

All measurements did actually run at the place of Brillouin Energy Corp under supervision and assistance of its employees and SRI probably even didn't get all details of the technology tested.

No, they also brought a gadget from Bruillouin to SRI, and the SRI people ran it themselves with no one from Brillouin around. They got the same results as Brillouin did. As the report says, this is the first time in the history of cold fusion anyone has been able to do that.

If this result is real it is a Big Deal. The fact that it is low power and a low COP has no significance. Cold fusion needs control and reproducibility. Once it has those, higher power and a large COP are bound to follow. We know this because high power and an infinitely large COP (with zero input power) have been achieved already, more or less by accident. There is no question they are possible.

I do not know why Brillouin claimed larger results in the past. Perhaps they were mistaken. Or, perhaps they sent SRI one of their older, low performance devices. That's mere speculation on my part.

Quote

No, they also brought a gadget from Bruillouin to SRI, and the SRI people ran it themselves with no one from Brillouin around.

I reflected the above info:

From the preliminary report, it appears most of the testing was done at Brillouin's facility with Brillioun's employee's involved. Not ideal.

I'm aware that "at least one reactor has been tested physically at SRI and apparently without Brillouin's involvement" - and in this regard it would be interesting to compare its result with the rest of tests done a Bruillouin Corp. under their supervision. That is to say, I do believe their results, but it's always good to be informed completely.

Quote

They got the same results as Brillouin did.. As the report says, this is the first time in the history of cold fusion anyone has been able to do that.

IMO this is the same modus operandi like for example the Lugano test of ECat. The Cellani's or Defkalion's demos were also presented outside their labs, the Crawen spheres were also demonstrated outside the facillity, where they were manufactured and so on...

At any case, the simple relocation of reactor is still quite far from actual replication of technology.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

They got the same results as Brillouin did.. As the report says, this is the first time in the history of cold fusion anyone has been able to do that.

IMO this is the same modus operandi like for example the Lugano test of ECat. The Cellani's or Defkalion's demos were also presented outside their labs,

There is a big difference! The Lugano test of the ECat did not work, and neither did Celani's or Defkalion's demos. Whereas the tests at SRI apparently did work. So far, that is what is indicated. You can't compare failed tests to successful ones and say they are the same.

Also, the tests at SRI were not "demos." They were not 1-time, limited duration tests for audiences. They were conducted for months with the best instruments available. The SRI tests were not done "outside their labs" -- they were done in another lab. Again, the demos you refer to were not conducted in a laboratory, and not repeated many times over many months. The SRI tests were.

Quote

The Lugano test of the ECat did not work, and neither did Celani's or Defkalion's demos.

From where did you get such an impression? For example the reports of magnetic field around Defkalion's demo is pretty interesting indicia, that something did happen there. Cellani is serious researcher - after all, he merely repeats classical experiments of Piantelli. And Lugano tests were not single-pass demo as well.

IMO you're way too biased against industrial research of fusion on behalf of academic research up to level, you don't trust Rossi in blind Krivit style. But the reality of cold fusion is, the industrial research will be always a quite a bit ahead of academic opened research from apparent reasons. After all, the similar situation applies to Shawyer/Fetta's private research of EMDrive, development of overunity technologies and so on. The thoroughness of academical research also implies, it will be always delayed with its replications behind private research, because academics have nowhere to hurry until their money are going.

SRI has a very good reputation and is hardly likely to issue "fake" reports. A reproducible LENR effect is bedrock for technological development - it would be very helpful toward expanding knowledge if a "lab kit" based on this would be developed.

SRI does industrial R&D.

Quote from Zephir_AWT

From where did you get such an impression? For example the reports of magnetic field around Defkalion's demo is pretty interesting indicia, that something did happen there. And Lugano tests were not single-pass demo as well.

Defkalion was a fraud. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/GamberaleLfinaltechn.pdf

Quote from Zephir_AWT

IMO you're way too biased against industrial research of fusion on behalf of academic research and you don't trust Rossi in blind Krivit style.

I do not believe Rossi because I reviewed a sample of his data, and it is obviously impossible and fraudulent, for the reasons described in Exhibit 5:

https://drive.google.com/file/…MAp9HMEQyeHZlX256U1E/view

Krivit had no technical basis for his doubts about Rossi. When he visited Rossi he made practically no observations, and took no notes. He did not even know what the supposed flow rate was, or what instruments Rossi used. His judgement was based on Rossi's personality. I realize that Rossi's personality is strange and he has a dicey past, but I do not believe him because his own data proves he is lying.

Rossi's lies are stark. Do you seriously believe his machine produced a 1 MW of steady heat on days when Rossi reported it was turned off? Does that seem likely to you? Remotely possible? It is nonsense, and anyone who makes such claims is a flagrant liar. You have seen photos of the warehouse. You see there is no ventilation equipment. Even an 80 kW heater would kill everyone in an enclosed space like that. 1 MW would kill everyone in the whole building.