Successful attempts in university of Bengaluru / India

1st Official Post
    • Official Post

    Dear friends!!

    We have Intressting news from Centre for Energy Research research. (Mizuno replication setup)



    Quote

    We in this bulletin are reporting and we are happy to inform that we have designed, developed and tried out a practical reactor over the last two years and now we are sharing the results with 50 W of electrical energy given as an input, the reactor is able to generate additional 50 Watts of excess heat for long durations consistently. At the time of release of this bulletin, this reactor has already completed more than 40 days of continuous generation of excess heat on a 24 X 7 basis and the total energy that has been generated so far is more than 60 Mega Joules.


    Thanks to JedRothwell for finding


    More info



    Regularly, there are big announcements, last time was the Mizuno R20 if I remember correctly..

    Also barty did a great job very colorful, but insufficient to compete with the main LF thread about Rossi's bashing .. also news will come from India this time.

    While this is great, the real question is, can you build more of them? How difficult is it to reproduce? Brillouin Energy has produced another catalyst rod that produces similar results and now have dozens of catalyst rods that produce clear evidence of 1.3 to 1.7. As we refine our manufacturing the technology we are developing moves steadily closer to production ready.

    • Official Post

    Welcome Robert, nice to see you here. It's fantastic news that a major university is going out with this information.

    It seems like they've been running this for two years. Would you say that Brillouin are closer to the market with a ready product?


    Do we have any of these researchers as members of the forum? Maybe this is a good opportunity to invite one of them, would be interesting with a response and som Q & A.

    • Official Post

    I recall having read it already when you posted it in the Media/News thread, that’s why I moved your last post here.

    • Official Post

    Anyway, this group says it has achieved it but their report is very scant in details in order to make a proper assessment. I really hope they publish something more substantial, at this point what we need is many others to be able to replicate, no more stand alone successes that then fade due to lack of replication.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Curbina

    I recall having read it already when you posted it in the Media/News thread, that’s why I moved your last post here.

    I just checked and JedRothwell had posted this in the Mizuno Replication thread, around mid September.


    MIZUNO REPLICATION AND MATERIALS ONLY


    I really hope they publish more details.

    Quote from Curbina

    Anyway, this group says it has achieved it but their report is very scant in details in order to make a proper assessment. I really hope they publish something more substantial, at this point what we need is many others to be able to replicate, no more stand alone successes that then fade due to lack of replication.

    The problem is that this is potentially a very valuable technology so i can understand that people are hesitant to share details. Brillouin for example has burned through a couple of million already so they want to see a return on that investment. It would be great if there was more publicly funded research to reduce the need to keep investors happy. Sadly we all know the bad reputation LENR has in academia but maybe the new EU program could push this in a better direction. Hopefully they are willing to share and invite people to replicate, 1 result is worthless, the whole idea of science is to repeat and replicate results.


    So the team replicated Prof. Mizuno results? They state that their reactor and possibly the catalyst are based on this research. The energy outputs are not super high but it is impressive that they were able to keep it stable for that long.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Bertuswonkel

    The problem is that this is potentially a very valuable technology so i can understand that people are hesitant to share details. Brillouin for example has burned through a couple of million already so they want to see a return on that investment. It would be great if there was more publicly funded research to reduce the need to keep investors happy. Sadly we all know the bad reputation LENR has in academia but maybe the new EU program could push this in a better direction. Hopefully they are willing to share and invite people to replicate, 1 result is worthless, the whole idea of science is to repeat and replicate results.


    So the team replicated Prof. Mizuno results? They state that their reactor and possibly the catalyst are based on this research. The energy outputs are not super high but it is impressive that they were able to keep it stable for that long.

    I sent an email inviting Dr. Ramarao to the forum. I hope he feels so inclined. A repeatable result is what we need more, regardless of the excess heat per se.


    I recall seeing Celani’s experiment replicated by the MFMP but slightly above the experimental error margin. In this case a repeatable COP of 2 would be really interesting to replicate.


    Unfortunately there’s no such a thing as a simple LENR experiment, and replication requires a level of detail in explanation that is what I look forward to know about this particular experiment.

    C'mon people! Don't any of you check the math of these claims? The Bulletin claims 50 watts input, for 40 days, 24/7. That is an input of 172.8 MJ. (50 Joules per second, times 86,400 seconds per day, times 40 days)


    The Bulletin claims a total energy output of 60 MJ. Therefore the COP is 0.347. Not a COP of 2 as the 50 watts input vs 100 watts output that is claimed.


    So either these researchers cannot do simple math, or something is fishy...


    This field gets enough derision by mainstream, only to have idiotic statements by morons making things worse with false claims or stupidity like this!


    Back in 2012 I did a replication of Celani, albeit without the specialized materials work they used. We used Monel metal as substrate, media blasted with silicon carbide to etch the monel strip, and then flame sprayed Raney Nickel onto this substrate, and subsequently etched out the Al from the Raney nickel.


    This combination yielded a COP of 143% (1.43) using very good calorimetry, cross checked and verified several ways.


    We abandoned the project as this "poor man's" method did not yield enough gain to warrant going further. This result was after 6 months of trying various core materials and methods. And we only used plain bottled H2 not D2.


    It was privately funded, so I doubt I can reveal details. My only point is I know what I am talking about regards experimental diligence and these buffoons have none based on the nonsensical 50 watts in, 100 watts out for 40 days and then stating 60 MJ was the total output.

    • Official Post

    Well, for a first post after 6 years of silence that's pretty clear. Thanks for pointing out the error in the Arithmetic, lets hope it's just that. As the experiment leader has been invited to comment here (by Curbina) it may be that he can clarify things to everybody's satisfaction.


    BTW- Welcome! we are always happy to hear from people getting their hands dirty in the lab. Are you still working in the LENR field?

    • Official Post

    DMBoss1021 , thanks for sharing with us your point of view, you are always entitled to your opinion, and we at LENR-forum constantly strive for getting as much background for experimental results as possible, and highly value opinion of people with lab experience. However, we also strive for respectful communication, and calling some researchers “buffoons” just because you don’t like the way they have reported a result is not the way we like communication here.


    Regarding the report, I understood that the 60MJ is the excess energy generated (COP 1.347), and I agree the wording is imprecise, and that’s why I reached out to the researchers in order to gain more insight.


    You have made a bold statement yourself claiming a COP of 1.43 on a experiment that was replicated independently by a very committed group and found to have a COP of 1.2 at their best runs, 1.12 as an average.


    I wish you could give more details because 1.43 is outstanding and close to Celani’s original claim.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.