Press Release: “Berkeley Clean Technology Company Announces Breakthrough for LENR Power Devices” (SRI Replicates Brillouin’s ‘Overunity’ Technology)

The following press release has been published today by Brillouin Energy, via PRWeb here

Berkeley Clean Technology Company Announces Breakthrough for LENR Power Devices

Controllable-on-Demand, Reproducible, Transportable, Scalable LENR Validated in Third-Party Tests of Brillouin Energy’s most advanced Isoperibolic Hydrogen Hot Tube™ LENR Reactor

BERKELEY, CA (PRWEB) JANUARY 05, 2017
Researchers at SRI International are reporting that they have successfully replicated “over unity” amounts of thermal energy (heat) for Brillouin Energy Corporation’s most advanced Isoperibolic (“IPB”) Hydrogen Hot Tube™ (HHT™) reactor test systems based on controlled low energy nuclear reactions (“LENR”). Researchers at SRI conducted a series of third-party tests of Brillouin Energy’s IPB HHT™ LENR reactor test systems from March to December 2016. 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.

In its Interim Progress Report, SRI summarizes its extensive testing of five identical Brillouin Energy metallic reactor cores, which produced the same over-unity controlled heat outputs, turning the reaction heat on and off repeatedly. “Brillouin Energy appears to have achieved its most groundbreaking test results to-date,” the Report states.
Data from the SRI International test runs show LENR heat outputs up to several watts were repeatedly produced from positive coefficients of performance (COPs) in the range of 1.2X to 1.45X. The Report continues that LENR heat being independently validated with positive COPs is significant: “The LENR coefficients of performance (COPs) may be considered low and small scale however, it would be a mistake to discount them, in light of the accuracy of their calorimetry, the consistent repeatability of their production, their controllability, and the reproducibility and refinement of their manufacturing techniques, specifications, and components, all leading to the same repeated results. Moreover, the transportability of the system is another remarkable achievement”.

“By using standard industrial manufacturing processes for our reactor test systems, we have identified an engineering pathway for manufacturing Brillouin Energy’s IPB HHT™ reactor prototypes,” said Robert Godes, Chief Technology Officer and Co-Founder of Brillouin Energy Corp.

In 2017, Brillouin Energy will continue to work with SRI International in the testing process to help it to engineer and develop its IPB HHT™ reactor test systems, with the goal of evolving them towards LENR prototype equipment systems, which potentially may generate commercial scale LENR Heat on demand for industrially useful applications.
“We are on the cusp of a new era of cheap, abundant and reliable power from LENR technologies, at a time when the United States and many other countries are re-defining their commitments to mitigate the impacts from climate change,” said Robert W. George, Chief Executive Officer, Brillouin Energy.

Brillouin Energy’s LENR technology includes a proprietary method of electrical stimulation of nickel-metal conductors using its Q-Pulse™ control system. The process stimulates the system to produce LENR reactions, which generate excess heat and helium. The excess heat produced is a product of hydrogen and a nickel-metal catalyst. The Q-Pulse™ control system stimulation is the key to maintaining the reaction. Other than the heat output, there are no (zero) toxic or CO2 emissions of any kind.

The SRI Interim Progress Report summarizes all of the data and conclusions from SRI International’s nine months of testing of Brillouin Energy’s IPB HHT™ LENR reactor systems. To view the Report, visit http://brillouinenergy.com/science/experimental-results/.

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. For more on Brillouin Energy, please visit http://www.brillouinenergy.com.

About SRI International
SRI International (http://www.sri.com) creates world-changing solutions making people safer, healthier, and more productive. SRI, a research center headquartered in Menlo Park, California, works primarily in advanced technology and systems, biosciences, computing, and education. SRI brings its innovations to the marketplace through technology licensing, spin-off ventures and new product solutions.

  • Several watts??? That’s a mighty small signal. And it is McKubre’s lab, as in the McKubre’s who has long been in Brillioun’s stable, listed as being on the technical advisory board, hardly a 3rd. party test.

    • Mats002

      I bet! COP of 1.n where n is less than .5 is the most common result in LENR-land. But still – it is a HUGE leap forward for mankind.

      Think about it – many small devices in parallell (and possibly in series also) will get KW and MW.

      Then what is COP 1.n – is it useful? At high temperature (HT) yes! Steam = high pressure which is a useful product for generating electricity. I know the discussion that for electricity a COP >= 3 is needed but hey – we are actually talking overunity here! And brand new physics!

      Yet again Godes have reported COP > 3 so there is probably more to come.

      2017 is here with wonderful news!

      • Richard Hill

        An off-the-shelf commercial heat pump has a COP around 3. For commercial interest COP>6 would be enough

        • Mats002

          Yes – and radioactive waste from traditional nuclear plants can be used in 4th and 5th generation plants. LENR power still have a long way to go. Still – it has a potential that breaks competition.

    • Mats002

      McCubre is in the advisery board – he is retired from SRI I recall.

    • Warthog

      Except that McKubre didn’t do the experiments and is retired and living in New Zealand. So yes, this “is” a real “third party test”.

  • Several watts??? That’s a mighty small signal. And it is McKubre’s lab, as in the McKubre’s who has long been in Brillioun’s stable, listed as being on the technical advisory board, hardly a 3rd. party test.

    • Mats002

      I bet! COP of 1.n where n is less than .5 is the most common result in LENR-land. But still – it is a HUGE leap forward for mankind.

      Think about it – many small devices in parallell (and possibly in series also) will get KW and MW.

      Then what is COP 1.n – is it useful? At high temperature (HT) yes! Steam = high pressure which is a useful product for generating electricity. I know the discussion that for electricity a COP >= 3 is needed but hey – we are actually talking overunity here! And brand new physics!

      Yet again Godes have reported COP > 3 so there is probably more to come.

      2017 is here with wonderful news!

      • Richard Hill

        An off-the-shelf commercial heat pump has a COP around 3. For commercial interest COP>6 would be enough

        • Mats002

          Yes – and radioactive waste from traditional nuclear plants can be used in 4th and 5th generation plants. LENR power still have a long way to go. Still – it has a potential that breaks competition.

    • Mats002

      McCubre is in the advisery board – he is retired from SRI I recall.

    • Warthog

      Except that McKubre didn’t do the experiments and is retired and living in New Zealand. So yes, this “is” a real “third party test”.

  • Gerard McEk

    The low COP confuses me as Brillouin states in their publications COP’s up to 6.
    Nevertheless this is a breakthrough. An independent lab has confirmed overunity due to LENR! Will 2017 really be the year of LENR?

    • Omega Z

      Godes has claimed COP>4 in the past.

      I get the feeling that if you had a proven COP>100, we would still be presented with validated claims of a mere COP>1.2. It’s like TPTB are in control and they require this to come out in decades. Not years.

      TPTB have their process. I-Phone 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Nothing before it’s time…

      • Godes did not claim COP of 4 but gain of 4

        this is (energy out-heat in)/(excitation)

        this is meaningful if you assume that the engineer make a reactor that is warmed by itself and cooled as required , instead of warmed as it is today.
        since HHT is excitation controlled, this is clearly possible (unlike E-cat who is heat/temp controlled)

        Results are not fantastic today, but shows it works, it is controlled, .
        This mean there is work to do, not final product.

        For me this add to their credibility.
        Much work to do, but great perspective.

  • Gerard McEk

    The low COP confuses me as Brillouin states in their publications COP’s up to 6.
    Nevertheless this is a breakthrough. An independent lab has confirmed overunity due to LENR! Will 2017 really be the year of LENR?

    • Omega Z

      Godes has claimed COP>4 in the past.

      I get the feeling that if you had a proven COP>100, we would still be presented with validated claims of a mere COP>1.2. It’s like TPTB are in control and they require this to come out in decades. Not years.

      TPTB have their process. I-Phone 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. Nothing before it’s time…

      • Godes did not claim COP of 4 but gain of 4

        this is (energy out-heat in)/(excitation)

        this is meaningful if you assume that the engineer make a reactor that is warmed by itself and cooled as required , instead of warmed as it is today.
        since HHT is excitation controlled, this is clearly possible (unlike E-cat who is heat/temp controlled)

        Results are not fantastic today, but shows it works, it is controlled, .
        This mean there is work to do, not final product.

        For me this add to their credibility.
        Much work to do, but great perspective.

  • Mats002

    I look forward to how mainstream media answer on this – they gave attention to Mills, why not to Godes/Brillouin?

  • sam
  • sam
  • This is bad news. The COP is worthless, so I think that simplified hot fusion technology and molten salt reactor fission technology are far ahead of LENR. We should not assume that LENR efficiency will ever get any better. We should support the other nuclear technologies, not just LENR research. Rossi’s credibility is in the basement, and Mill’s track record for producing usable products is terrible. We know hot fusion and nuclear fission are real. LENR is still a question mark despite all the early optimism, which seems now to be unfounded. We should hope for a clear LENR breakthrough, but not count on LENR success.

    • Alain Samoun

      “LENR is still a question mark”
      How can you say that after reading this article that shows reproductible results of cold fusion effect,even with a low COP? The results also shows control OFF and ON of the effect in a small dimension system, that can;t be ignored and announce future developments.

    • Warthog

      By no means. A successful SCIENTIFIC replication is hugely important. Compare the effort expended in research for LENR against that for your suggested alternatives, and look at the stage of research implied.

      The only realistic comparison to Brillouin’s work is the original “Chicago pile” that first demonstrated controlled fission. I think the heat output from that original fission experiment was less than 100 watts. And now fission reactors produce hundreds of megawatts.

      I see no inherent reason that LENR should not be equally scalable.

      • Brillouin was claiming a COP of between 4 to 6. Defkalion was claiming a COP above 30, and now Defkalion is dead. Rossi claimed a COP of 50. Are any of those claims believable now? I don’t think that LENR is dead, but it is on life support. Too many claims and not enough proof does not add up to trust.

        • Warthog

          At this very early stage (and technologically, it “is” very much in its infancy, despite the passage of absolute time), absolute COP is pretty much irrelevant. What is needed is credible scientific replication. The only organization I can think of that is more credible than SRI is NIST.

          I can’t agree that LENR is on life support. Rossi’s efforts may be, but given the many over unity reports coming to light, I think things are just getting started.

    • James Thomas

      The Wright Brothers first flight lasted 12 seconds. Pretty miserable COP; but enough to blast the hinges of the doors of what many said was impossible. Don’t events like this qualify to be viewed in the same light?

    • Frechette

      What’s the COP for the latest hot fusion experiment? Last I checked it was less than 1 after spending billions of dollars and 50 years of experimentation.

      As someone once said prosperity is just around the corner.

      • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

        This is a common trope. Unless there is energy storage, and if all heat is measured, COP is always greater than 1. Hot fusion, if the reaction is set up, always releases heat. The problem is maintaining the reaction; most approaches require confining a ridiculously hot plasma that doesn’t like being confined. I will agree that much more investment in LENR is appropriate, though it should not be scattershot, focus is necessary. I’ve been proposing basic research for years, calling it Plan B, Plan A being that a commercial product appears. Plan B is not in opposition to Plan A, but Plan A could host a hundred times as much as Plan B. Plan B will open the funding floodgates, just in case that Plan A doesn’t work out.

        As my trainer would say, “How’s it workin’ for ya?”

        The basic research, the next step I proposed, is happening. I’m happy.

    • Rene

      A modest COP well above noise, replicated more than once by a goldmark team. That is excellent news that verifies LENR is real. There are multiple COP issues. The low numbers are detuned reactions. The right conditions are still hidden for the high COP systems. The second problem is the tendency of high COP systems to fizzle or pop or bang. This is the area needing a lot of work before LENR becomes commercially practical.

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Frank, do you know if SRI confirmed this?

  • See SRI’s Twitter Feed: https://twitter.com/SRI_Intl

  • Bernie Koppenhofer

    Starting to understand why Rossi needs a February “demonstration”, he had knowledge of this SRI report?

    • Vinney

      I think he is holding his cards till last, he wants to see how much mainstream media all the other contenders get (hot fusion, LENR competitors and BLP) and wants to completely stun them to silence.

  • wonderboy

    Well, glad someone is actually getting replicated. After the circus of the last couple of years, looks like someone is going to beat Rossi to the punch!

  • Veblin

    I thought I had seen some of this before.
    The press release today January 5, 2017

    Brillouin SRI Interim Progress Report December 27, 2016
    Isoperibolic!Hydrogen!Hot!Tube!Reactor!Studies
    http://brillouinenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/SRI_ProgressReport.pdf

    Controlled Electron Capture: Enhanced Stimulation and Calorimetry Methods
    ICCF20 Sendai, Japan October 3, 2016
    http://brillouinenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Tanzella-ICCF20-SessionII_3Oct16.pdf

  • Veblin

    I thought I had seen some of this before.
    The press release today January 5, 2017

    Brillouin SRI Interim Progress Report December 27, 2016
    Isoperibolic Hydrogen Hot Tube Reactor Studies
    http://brillouinenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/SRI_ProgressReport.pdf

    ICCF20 Sendai, Japan October 3, 2016
    Controlled Electron Capture: Enhanced Stimulation and Calorimetry Methods
    http://brillouinenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Tanzella-ICCF20-SessionII_3Oct16.pdf

  • Alain Samoun

    “LENR is still a question mark”
    How can you say that after reading this article that shows reproductible results of cold fusion effect,even with a low COP? The results also shows control OFF and ON of the effect in a small dimension system, that can;t be ignored and announce future developments.

  • Alain Samoun

    Does anybody know how the COP has been computed? Against the electrical energy or against the heat corresponding to the electrical energy used for ignition and control?

  • Alain Samoun

    Does anybody know how the COP has been computed? Against the electrical energy or against the heat corresponding to the electrical energy used for ignition and control?

  • bfast

    1.2 to 1.45, hmmm, scientifically this should be well sufficient to shut up the nay sayers. Commercially? Well, not so much.

    • Right, but keep in mind that this COP was measured on the replication SRI built on their own, not on Brillouin’s own device. Brillouin’s developments could be far ahead of what SRI replicated in their Lab.

      It’s very possible that SRI has some control issues or just didn’t focus on high COP but on proper measurement instead.

  • bfast

    1.2 to 1.45, hmmm, scientifically this should be well sufficient to shut up the nay sayers. Commercially? Well, not so much.

    • Right, but keep in mind that this COP was measured on the replication built by SRI on their own, not on Brillouin’s device! That is a striking difference!
      Brillouin’s own developments could be far ahead of what SRI replicated in their Lab.

      It’s very possible that SRI has some control issues or just didn’t focus on high COP but on proper measurement instead.

      For me a low but credible and properly measured positive COP of a reliable experiment is the real breakthrough!
      All the rest is engineering.

  • SG

    Intriguing given that it is in the Parkhomov COP range, but somewhat disappointing given past statements by Brillouin.

  • Rossi should hurry up or get some equally credible people (== not his friends or acquaintances) to confirm that his devices works. Otherwise he and his “invention” will lose even the rest of the little remaining relevancy.

    • Pekka Janhunen

      “Equally credible”, equal to whom? Not Rossi I suppose?

    • Albert D. Kallal

      A quality replication from a quality LAB = Good news!

      For those here that long accepted LENR, then this announcement not really big news. However, for Popular Science, and other mainstream publications, this is terrific news for LENR skeptics. Many more publications will be able to stick their necks out with such reports.

      However, (and I stated this before), what is holding back LENR is higher COP’s. This good news, but that LOW COP is still a stumbling block for the commercial road. It not clear if SRI replicated the device, or simple tested a Brillouin device they provided. (It seems like the latter). However, it really does not mater – a quality LAB with a good reputation is reporting working LENR devices – what more could you ask for?

      Brillouin not made much progress in terms of COP’s over the years. They seem to have hit a wall here. And Brillouin don’t seem to hint or suggest how close they are to achieving higher COP’s.

      Regardless, from a LENR awareness point of view this is welcome news.

      My past spider sense that lower COP’s is the “main” reason for what is holding back LENR – and this announcement supports my position on LENR.

      So good news here, and this should help investment into LENR – especially larger firms that been sitting on the fence in regards to LENR. More $$$$ into LENR will give it a shot in the arm.

      We still have a ways to go, but any research, efforts and reports of solid COP’s > 1 is a great way to start out the New Year.

      So for “new” LENR people this is great – for us here? Well, it means Brillouin not quite yet ready for prime time.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

      • Gerard McEk

        As Bob Greenyer mentioned below: Brillouin doesn’t use lithium in their HotTube yet. Maybe if they start doing that the COP will explode. I obviously do not know if their process allows for adding lithium.

  • Rossi should hurry up or get some equally credible people (== not his friends or acquaintances) to confirm that his device works. Otherwise he and his “invention” will lose even the rest of the little remaining relevancy.
    (For the record: The credibility is already lost!)

    • Pekka Janhunen

      “Equally credible”, equal to whom? Not Rossi I suppose?

  • rusolf

    On Brillouin’s website they say that this is an “independent validation”. In my career, I have worked in many sensitive projects with external reviewers and I would be very careful and thinking twice before calling a party “independent”. Especially if you have cooperated with them for more than 4 years and even have a joint publication with their principal investigator (Tanzella) and one of their ex-directors (McKubre) three years before the so-called “independent” validation.

  • Bob Greenyer

    SRI puts the Coefficient of Performance (COP) of Brillouin technology in the same range as

    1. Dr. Francesco Piantelli’s historical data,
    2. Dr. Francesco Celani recent sheathed wires,
    3. Dr. Randall Mills historical Ni + H data,
    4. Dr. Alexander Parkhomov’s most recent published mass flow data
    and
    5. not too far from the MFMP’s own applied power (Power dissipated on ‘active’ side not whole system power) calculated apparent excess in both GS5.2 and 5.3 experiments.

    Note, Brillouin & 1,2,3 included no Lithium in their reactor ( though Celani does have some lithium in his type of Mica ).

    If people move on from acceptance to fast cycle testing like the Russians / Chinese / me356 – these apparently low levels may be rapidly exceeded.

    As I have said in the past, there are several key directions to move in

    1. Morphology of the nickel ( which may be derived from initial structure, heat / pressure / Hydrogen processing )
    2. Volume to surface ratio of fuel pellet (can be improved by pre-compressing or core shape / scale)
    3. Fuel isotopic and elemental changes
    4. Ability to have controllable electrostatic acceleration field
    5. Resonant cavity enhanced RF/MW stimulation
    6. Dielectric barrier discharge
    7. Dusty plasma state

    • Pekka Janhunen

      It is a mystery to me why morphology of nickel seems to have an effect, although the high temperature of the reactor destroys any such fine structure (sintering etc). Maybe the LENR reaction itself, if it starts, creates vacancies or whatever which help maintain the reaction further. In this scenario, microstructure would be needed only for bootstrapping, and it might be possible to take seeds of fuel from a previously worked LENR reactor to initiate new cores.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Pekka, I agree.

        • Stephen

          Could it be that the morphology is important at the beginning to get the nickel into a required state to allow LENR. But once in this state its state can be retained and perhaps still evolve or breed but its morphology is less important?

          Or has morphology been shown to be important even if pre processed fuel is used?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Could be. Pekka is taking it one stage further and staying that whatever changes is baked in – that is something that has been postulated before with the Russians for instance, placing some of their ash in their new reactors.

          • Stephen

            Yup it’s a very interesting observation maybe almost as interesting scientifically as LENR itself. Will be interesting seeing what comes up and what it all means.

          • LION

            Memory-the Retention of an experienced CONDITION, repetition reinforces it, and strengthens the field.

          • sam

            C.
            January 6, 2017 at 7:39 AM
            Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
            Brillouin has again replicated your effect, substantially copying your patent. They did it after the agreement they made with IH: what a coincidence! Before that Brillouin made only electrolysis…
            It is important that many replications have been made so far of your patent: this fact adds value to it!
            Godspeed,
            C.

            Andrea Rossi
            January 6, 2017 at 8:48 AM
            C.:
            Replications in scientific contexts are useful and permitted.
            I am always delighted to read about them.
            Warm Regards,
            A.R.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes – good analogy

          • Rene

            A modest COP well above noise, replicated more than once by a goldmark team. That is excellent news that verifies LENR is real. There are multiple COP issues. The low numbers are detuned reactions. The right conditions are still hidden for the high COP systems. The second problem is the tendency of high COP systems to fizzle or pop or bang. This is the area needing a lot of work before LENR becomes commercially practical.

          • Warthog

            LOL..the “sourdough bread” effect, only nuclear.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            It’s in principle possible that no one has yet learned to start LENR reliably from scratch, but some (AR?) have learned to produce new working cores with high success rate by the sourdough bread method.

            Powder-based fuels (AR’s choice) would be more amenable to such technique than e.g. Celani wire.

            If it would be so (which is of course just one logical possibility, nowhere proven), people might be wasting their time trying to get repeatability using a procedure where each core is built from scratch.

      • LION

        Success BREEDS SUCCESS. This has hampered COLD FUSION from the beginning, the need for that first success, and the wit to VALUE it.

        • roseland67

          Lion,

          And the absolute necessity to painstakingly replicate the experiment multiple times by multiple global users and get the exact SAME results.

          • LION

            That innocent little word (exact) is slightly Problematic, because of Quantum and sub quantum effects produced by the stellar environment on the Etheric FLUX, but in essence I agree with you. With threshold experiments these stellar effects can be huge, but once an experiment is powerful, it itself conditions its immediate environment and organises the flux. The Russians have studied this, and it is well known to Esoteric Scientists since time immemorial.
            The Russian scientist Dr Nikolai Kozyrev, work is of great interest.

          • cashmemorz

            Further to Warthogs comparison between chemical and nuclear differences. Chemical bonds use what can be considered as residual or temporarily stored energy stored during formation of the chemical. This is very small compared to nuclear. Nuclear uses the E=mc^2 which is millions of times greater than chemical. That is what all of the hoopla is about. The potential for providing energy stored in the nucleus of atoms of matter is so much greater than chemical that everyone who understands this difference and has money to invest or otherwise make money on this is starting to open their ears and minds. Even the skeptics.

            If this works out, in the long run, mankind everywhere will have their standard of living increased by a similar amount. Thousand times more things can be powered that are thousands of times more powerful or thousands of times of greater duration then can only be done currently, a few times in big laboratories. Imagine all those things being done the way we do now with, by comparison, very weak chemical methods. That difference is thousands of times greater than what people could do before fire and now, with all our high tech and the energy required for those things.

        • LION
      • Mats002

        It is probably structures at the nanoscale that is the foundation for LENR reactions – we still lack good tools for control at that small and fast scale.

      • Warthog

        “Maybe the LENR reaction itself, if it starts, creates vacancies or whatever which help maintain the reaction further.”

        I think this has already been shown for electrolysis systems. IIRC, once loaded sufficiently and shown to have “started”, a Pd electrode can be shut down and will “re-start” immediately.

  • Bob Greenyer

    SRI puts the Coefficient of Performance (COP) of Brillouin technology in the same range as

    1. Dr. Francesco Piantelli’s historical data,
    2. Dr. Francesco Celani recent sheathed wires,
    3. Dr. Randall Mills historical Ni + H data,
    4. Dr. Alexander Parkhomov’s most recent published mass flow data
    and
    5. not too far from the MFMP’s own applied power (Power dissipated on ‘active’ side not whole system power) calculated apparent excess in both GS5.2 and 5.3 experiments.

    Note, Brillouin & 1,2,3 included no Lithium in their reactor ( though Celani does have some lithium in his type of Mica ).

    If people move on from acceptance to fast cycle testing like the Russians / Chinese / me356 – these apparently low levels may be rapidly exceeded.

    As I have said in the past, there are several key directions to move in

    1. Morphology of the nickel ( which may be derived from initial structure, heat / pressure / Hydrogen processing )
    2. Volume to surface ratio of fuel pellet (can be improved by pre-compressing or core shape / scale)
    3. Fuel isotopic and elemental changes
    4. Ability to have controllable electrostatic acceleration field
    5. Resonant cavity enhanced RF/MW stimulation
    6. Dielectric barrier discharge
    7. Dusty plasma state
    8. Energetic feedback (either photon or phonon) to facilitate self sustain

    • Pekka Janhunen

      It is a mystery to me why morphology of nickel seems to have an effect, although the high temperature of the reactor destroys any such fine structure (sintering etc). Maybe the LENR reaction itself, if it starts, creates vacancies or whatever which help maintain the reaction further. In this scenario, microstructure would be needed only for bootstrapping, and it might be possible to take seeds of fuel from a previously worked LENR reactor to initiate new cores.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Pekka, I agree.

        • Stephen

          Could it be that the morphology is important at the beginning to get the nickel into a required state to allow LENR. But once in this state its state can be retained and perhaps still evolve or breed but its morphology is less important?

          Or has morphology been shown to be important even if pre processed fuel is used?

          (I wonder if it would be interesting to do a normal spectral analysis of processed nickel to see if we get normal spectra from “Lyman series like” transitions to n1 shells or S1 orbitals or not?)

          Edit: Thinking about it though I think Axil could well be right about his observation in his other post that nano particles are important and the material needs to be kept below boiling point.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Could be. Pekka is taking it one stage further and staying that whatever changes is baked in – that is something that has been postulated before with the Russians for instance, placing some of their ash in their new reactors.

          • Stephen

            Yup it’s a very interesting observation maybe almost as interesting scientifically as LENR itself. Will be interesting seeing what comes up and what it all means.

          • LION

            Memory-the Retention of an experienced CONDITION, repetition reinforces it, and strengthens the field.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes – good analogy

          • Warthog

            LOL..the “sourdough bread” effect, only nuclear.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            It’s in principle possible that no one has yet learned to start LENR reliably from scratch, but some (AR?) have learned to produce new working cores with high success rate by the sourdough bread method.

            Powder-based fuels (AR’s choice) would be more amenable to such technique than e.g. Celani wire.

            If it would be so (which is of course just one logical possibility, nowhere proven), people might be wasting their time trying to get repeatability using a procedure where each core is built from scratch.

      • LION

        Success BREEDS SUCCESS. This has hampered COLD FUSION from the beginning, the need for that first success, and the wit to VALUE it.

        • roseland67

          Lion,

          And the absolute necessity to painstakingly replicate the experiment multiple times by multiple global users and get the exact SAME results.

          • LION

            That innocent little word (exact) is slightly Problematic, because of Quantum and sub quantum effects produced by the stellar environment on the Etheric FLUX, but in essence I agree with you. With threshold experiments these stellar effects can be huge, but once an experiment is powerful, it itself conditions its immediate environment and organises the flux. The Russians have studied this, and it is well known to Esoteric Scientists since time immemorial.
            The Russian scientist Dr Nikolai Kozyrev, work is of great interest.

        • LION
      • Mats002

        It is probably structures at the nanoscale that is the foundation for LENR reactions – we still lack good tools for control at that small and fast scale.

      • Warthog

        “Maybe the LENR reaction itself, if it starts, creates vacancies or whatever which help maintain the reaction further.”

        I think this has already been shown for electrolysis systems. IIRC, once loaded sufficiently and shown to have “started”, a Pd electrode can be shut down and will “re-start” immediately.

  • Warthog

    By no means. A successful SCIENTIFIC replication is hugely important. Compare the effort expended in research for LENR against that for your suggested alternatives, and look at the stage of research implied.

    The only realistic comparison to Brillouin’s work is the original “Chicago pile” that first demonstrated controlled fission. I think the heat output from that original fission experiment was less than 100 watts. And now fission reactors produce hundreds of megawatts.

    I see no inherent reason that LENR should not be equally scalable.

    • Brillouin was claiming a COP of between 4 to 6. Defkalion was claiming a COP above 30, and now Defkalion is dead. Rossi claimed a COP of 50. Are any of those claims believable now? I don’t think that LENR is dead, but it is on life support. Too many claims and not enough proof does not add up to trust.

      • Warthog

        At this very early stage (and technologically, it “is” very much in its infancy, despite the passage of absolute time), absolute COP is pretty much irrelevant. What is needed is credible scientific replication. The only organization I can think of that is more credible than SRI is NIST.

        I can’t agree that LENR is on life support. Rossi’s efforts may be, but given the many over unity reports coming to light, I think things are just getting started.

  • SRI publicly verifying Brillouin’s claim of over-unity after 9+ months of testing is an important milestone.

    A press release. A tweet. People and organizations putting their names and reputations on the line. 2017 is the year LENR comes out of the shadows.

    • John WIlliamson

      McKubre, while at SRI, published overunity claims to endorse P&F in 1994, and in a refereed journal, together with the same Tanzella who has his “reputation on the line” now.

      But 1994 was not the year LENR came out of the shadows…

    • As far as I heard lately, there will be another big player back on stage with a functioning, reliable, controlable high COP LENR reaction, different from Rossi’s NiLiH approach.
      We may hear from that player soon, maybe within the next 2 – 3 months.

      The next months could rule out Rossi completely. He had his chance.

      • It seems to be time for everyone to show their cards.

        Brillouin has two pair. Probably not enough to win but who can beat it? Rossi has been bluffing like he has a royal flush; will he fold or take the pot? BLP is showing one card short of a straight flush. Do they have the missing card in the hole?

        Then there’s all the other players holding their cards close to their vests. What do they have? And why are they in this game anyway when everyone says there is no real game? Shouldn’t they be out shopping instead or something?

  • James Thomas

    The Wright Brothers first flight lasted 12 seconds. Pretty miserable COP; but enough to blast the hinges of the doors of what many said was impossible. Don’t events like this qualify to be viewed in the same light?

  • What do they mean by: “overunity?” Could this be made into a perpetual motion machine, or do they mean something different. (I ain’t no expert…)

    • Warthog

      Think igniting a puddle of gasoline with a match. Major “over unity” process. But it is just releasing the stored energy in chemical bonds. LENR is similar, but the bonds are nuclear rather than chemical.

    • cashmemorz

      Further to Warthogs comparison between chemical and nuclear differences. Chemical bonds use what can be considered as residual or temporarily stored energy stored during formation of the chemical. This is very small compared to nuclear. Nuclear uses the E=mc^2 which is millions of times greater than chemical.

      COP used in this context descibes how much eneergy is produced with respect to how much is put in. Every quantity over unity or 1 makes for an energy source that is a multiple that many times the maximum energy available from any source that boast a COP of a maximum of 1. Most processes can usually deliver a COP of less than 1. So a COP of 2 produces twice as much energy as is put in. That is what all of the hoopla is about. Nuclear processes have the potential to deliver energy with a COP in the millions as compared to the paltry best COP of 1 available from any purely chemical processes.

      The potential for providing energy stored in the nucleus of atoms of matter is so much greater than chemical that everyone who understands this difference and has money to invest or otherwise make money on this is starting to open their ears and minds. Even the skeptics.

      If this works out, in the long run, mankind everywhere will have their standard of living increased by a similar amount. Thousands of times more things can be powered that are thousands of times more powerful or thousands of times of greater duration then can only be done currently, a few times in big laboratories. Imagine all those things being done the way we do now, by comparison, very weak chemical methods. That difference is thousands of times greater than what people could do before fire and now, with all our high tech and the energy required for those things.

    • roseland67

      Mark,
      I infer “overunity” to mean that
      Energy out > Energy in

  • sam

    C.
    January 6, 2017 at 7:39 AM
    Dear Dr Andrea Rossi:
    Brillouin has again replicated your effect, substantially copying your patent. They did it after the agreement they made with IH: what a coincidence! Before that Brillouin made only electrolysis…
    It is important that many replications have been made so far of your patent: this fact adds value to it!
    Godspeed,
    C.

    Andrea Rossi
    January 6, 2017 at 8:48 AM
    C.:
    Replications in scientific contexts are useful and permitted.
    I am always delighted to read about them.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

  • radvar

    It’s not that the world is small, it’s that there is no room at the top. How much separation would satisfy you? How much money would it take to realistically obtain that separation? Who will pay for that? How can innovation progress if people are unwilling to make assertions?

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      I am studying the SRI Brillouin report, which I imported to WordPress as my first step. http://coldfusioncommunity.net/sri-brillouin-hht-report/
      My opinion is that SRI is a hired consultant, not “fully independent,” but with a reputation to maintain. It is not clear that this Report was SRI approved. It’s preliminary and “client private.” I have only begun to study the Report, and will be reviewing all the commentary I can find on it. There are experts commenting. My actual review will itself need to pass a peer review before I publish it openly. Known persons who wish to help review this report or vet my own comments on it are invited to contact me. NDA will be required until it is published. This is *politically sensitive.*

  • Albert D. Kallal

    A quality replication from a quality LAB = Good news!

    For those here that long accepted LENR, then this announcement not really big news. However, for Popular Science, and other mainstream publications, this is terrific news for LENR skeptics. Many more publications will be able to stick their necks out with such reports.

    However, (and I stated this before), what is holding back LENR is higher COP’s. This good news, but that LOW COP is still a stumbling block for the commercial road. It not clear if SRI replicated the device, or simple tested a Brillouin device they provided. (It seems like the latter). However, it really does not mater – a quality LAB with a good reputation is reporting working LENR devices – what more could you ask for?

    Brillouin not made much progress in terms of COP’s over the years. They seem to have hit a wall here. And Brillouin don’t seem to hint or suggest how close they are to achieving higher COP’s.

    Regardless, from a LENR awareness point of view this is welcome news.

    My past spider sense that lower COP’s is the “main” reason for what is holding back LENR – and this announcement supports my position on LENR.

    So good news here, and this should help investment into LENR – especially larger firms that been sitting on the fence in regards to LENR. More $$$$ into LENR will give it a shot in the arm.

    We still have a ways to go, but any research, efforts and reports of solid COP’s > 1 is a great way to start out the New Year.

    So for “new” LENR people this is great – for us here? Well, it means Brillouin not quite yet ready for prime time.

    Regards,
    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • Gerard McEk

      As Bob Greenyer mentioned below: Brillouin doesn’t use lithium in their HotTube yet. Maybe if they start doing that the COP will explode. I obviously do not know if their process allows for adding lithium.

  • Warthog

    Think igniting a puddle of gasoline with a match. Major “over unity” process. But it is just releasing the stored energy in chemical bonds. LENR is similar, but the bonds are nuclear rather than chemical.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Now looked at the report. I don’t understand everything, and consequently the report fails to really convince me at this stage. They mention helium, but I don’t see a comparison between hydrogen and helium (i.e. dummy) runs. The excess heat looks small. In Table 4, if one picks up the highest COP (1.25), the corresponding Q_pulse is 5.66W so the excess heat is 0.25*5.66W=1.4W.
    Also, I didn’t see it mentioned how long the runs lasted. They write
    nine months, but that was the duration of the whole effort as I
    understand.
    On the other hand, they write that input power (Q_pulse) is calculated in a conservative way, i.e. overestimated. If so, that would increase the COP as well as excess heat values. But without calculations, we don’t know.
    My criticism above might be considered unfair in the sense that I’m not really an expert of this kind of things. But simply: at this stage, I have these concerns, and therefore the report, as written now, failed to convince me. One data point.

    • The main data point is that SRI is convinced after months of observation and testing.

      SRI has scientific credibility.

      It’d be nice if scientific papers followed that allowed others to replicate. But while the IP war is still being fought that kind of information never seems to spread very far.

      • Mats002

        Agree LENRG – None of Godes, Mills, Rossi is open science – investment in time and money must be protected.

        All have been verified with a small COP by a 3rd party so there must be something there.

        MFMP on the other hand is open but has a lot of catching up to do. Hope they can be well funded.

    • SD

      I also have some concerns and questions and feel like the report could be more complete and robust.

      I have to correct you in that overestimating Qpulse actually decreases COP. You can actually redo some of their calculations based on data in table 4, or even extract data from figure 9 as I have done.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I mean that they measured the Qpulse energy, but assume that only part of it actually reached the core. I still think that we then get underestimation of the COP (the denominator, the input, is in reality less than the value used in the calculation).

        • SD

          Right, you are wondering if the m and b values are legitimate, or if dissipated energy has been overestimated.

          I would have liked to see more sanity checks during the experiment (other than showing that 600C experiments had COP=1). For example, they could have run the same power as the pulses but at constant power. And maybe kept the different pulse lengths at the same power level.

          There’s also some strange stuff with the m value, such as it increases with temperaturein table 2 but decreases in table 4.

          Also, when extracting values from figure 9, COP for 300ns/150ns/100ns pulses is around 1.23/1.27/1.30. Not much of a difference. It actually seems positively correlated more with Qpulse rather than dependent on pulse length. It is a bit concerning to me that COP increases when input increases, as it could imply that power dissipated has been underestimated.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    Now looked at the report. I don’t understand everything, and consequently the report fails to really convince me at this stage. They mention helium, but I don’t see a comparison between hydrogen and helium (i.e. dummy) runs. The excess heat looks small. In Table 4, if one picks up the highest COP (1.25), the corresponding Q_pulse is 5.66W so the excess heat is 0.25*5.66W=1.4W.
    Also, I didn’t see it mentioned how long the runs lasted. They write
    nine months, but that was the duration of the whole effort as I
    understand.
    On the other hand, they write that input power (Q_pulse) is calculated in a conservative way, i.e. overestimated. If so, that would increase the COP as well as excess heat values. But without calculations, we don’t know.
    My criticism above might be considered unfair in the sense that I’m not really an expert of this kind of things. But simply: at this stage, I have these concerns, and therefore the report, as written now, failed to convince me. One data point.

    • The main data point is that SRI is convinced after months of observation and testing.

      SRI has scientific credibility.

      It’d be nice if scientific papers followed that allowed others to replicate. But while the IP war is still being fought that kind of information never seems to spread very far.

      • Mats002

        Agree LENRG – None of Godes, Mills, Rossi is open science – investment in time and money must be protected.

        All have been verified with a small COP by a 3rd party so there must be something there.

        MFMP on the other hand is open but has a lot of catching up to do. Hope they can be well funded.

    • SD

      I also have some concerns and questions and feel like the report could be more complete and robust.

      I have to correct you in that overestimating Qpulse actually decreases COP. You can actually redo some of their calculations based on data in table 4, or even extract data from figure 9 as I have done.

      • Pekka Janhunen

        I mean that they measured the Qpulse energy, but assume that only part of it actually reached the core. I still think that we then get underestimation of the COP (the denominator, the input, is in reality less than the value used in the calculation).

        • SD

          Right, you are wondering if the m and b values are legitimate, or if dissipated energy has been overestimated.

          I would have liked to see more sanity checks during the experiment (other than showing that 600C experiments had COP=1). For example, they could have run the same power as the pulses but at constant power. And maybe kept the different pulse lengths at the same power level.

          There’s also some strange stuff with the m value, such as it increases with temperaturein table 2 but decreases in table 4.

          Also, when extracting values from figure 9, COP for 300ns/150ns/100ns pulses is around 1.23/1.27/1.30. Not much of a difference. It actually seems positively correlated more with Qpulse rather than dependent on pulse length. It is a bit concerning to me that COP increases when input increases, as it could imply that power dissipated has been underestimated.

  • Michael W Wolf

    Ghodes and company are too far behind it seems to me. Sure, they may have independent validation, but what does that mean to us?. Rossi and mills have pushed cops way up without said validation in many peoples’ minds. But most of us know better. Let ghodes and the establishment run with their little cop, while others bring the world real power. This is what IH gave Rossi up for? Please. Meanwhile not one credible debunking of Mills’ GUTCP, he has the theory that will give us the suncell. Ghodes? too little to late, the train has already left the station.

  • Bob

    Not sure where to post this, so I will do so here… (I do not do facebook so I cannot check the MFMP page)
    .
    Any followup from the following MFMP projects Mr. Greenyer?
    .

    I believe in late November you posted that a proposed test which would not take long, have almost a 100% confidence level and could be repeatable would take place. It’s core was a biological LENR reaction. What is the status of this?

    .

    Has there been any progress in the tests measuring the neutron release? My understanding was this was going to be replicated as well and that this also was going to be an extremely high confidence indicator.

    .

    I believe you stated you have had direct communications with ME356. At one time, a replication test was proposed. Are you still in contact with him? Can you reveal any information about his progress?

    .

    I appreciate any updates you can give on all the above. With Brillouin making these announcements, it would be a good time to update us on these other very interesting projects.

    A sincere thank you!

    • Bob Greenyer

      Hi Bob,

      On the “Life Changing” biological transmutation research with Vladimir Vysotskii and Alla Kornilova, the core experiment will only take a few weeks, the set up is very detailed though. We have 3 major hurdles

      1. Need single isotopic salt of Cesium, specifically a salt of 137Cs such as chloride.
      2. High funding requirement given the extreme importance of the experiment and the need for many specific scientists (already identified) (and I mean a lot of money)
      3. Lab willing to host and conduct experiments with 137Cs – including potentially sacrificial testing apparatus. (we have a number of potential locations for this)

      http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/535-life-changing

      On the 18O isotopic tracer experiment, this was supposed to be conducted first by Mathieu Valat in France with myself and another known LENR researcher in assistance, but it has taken longer than expected for Mathieu to get his new lab operational – so it is most likely that this will occur first at the end of the month / early Feb in California hosted by Alan Goldwater. I need to produce materials for that (explain it) and we need to work with the crowd on the fine details. We have had some issues with our home-brew neutron detection and given the importance of the test, we are considering a $3000 Ludlam detector in addition to fresh $600 bubble detectors – we may not have the funds for that and so are trying to lease the equipment for the run if possible.

      In addition, Bob Higgins is well advanced with his experiment targetted at excess heat.

      I have again offered to me356 some of my time to visit him before I go to US this month. He is settling his reactor design and will entertain me when he sees fit – given past experience, I am not counting on seeing him in this period. He is confident, but I would need to witness and verify the veracity of his technology before I could support his confidence.

      In addition, I am working with Dr Egely on dusty fusion and expect to put out a second video today. With access to a SEM with EDX – if his previous observations are valid, in theory we should be able to demonstrate LENR transmutation with his last generation reactors in a live 1 hour presentation. We have a $5000 funding requirement for this experiment thread, which we need to raise, importantly, we have the support of all the key researchers. Of course, we need someone with an SEM / EDX to hand – if not – there is an expensive hurdle right there.

      https://www.phenom-world.com/microscopes

      I hope this helps.

      • Bob

        Thank you for the updates. Hopefully all goes as hoped.

        As far as funding, has any contact been made with the Gates foundation, the Texas University initiative, or the SKINNER project in Missouri ? I do not know if they are open to joint projects. The Gates foundation might be best. I have contributed a couple of times, but it would take many people contributing small amounts to make up the funds you need.

        Again, thanks and good luck.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Will keep trying!

          The Gates foundation does not support this kind of thing. You would have thought that the seperate ‘Breakthrough Energy Coalition” might – but as I understand it, it is a for profit thing that is trying to leverage big name money to gain access to government money also. Our work doesn’t easily fit those criteria.

          As for SKINR, well, they are not able to fund outside operations – though they have in the past conducted analysis on our behalf for which we are thankful.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            You did not answer about Texas Tech (I assume Bob meant that, not what he wrote). They have money and may support some independent work if it is related to what they are doing. Certainly it’s worth getting in touch with them, if you aren’t. If you need assistance with that, write to me.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Dear Abd,

            Thankyou for your kind offer. I have always got on well with Robert Duncan, but nothing more than meeting and chatting at ICCF conferences, so yes please!

            Our threads are

            – 1. Isotopic tracer in the attempt to find out if high energy protons or thermal neutrons are in play. The aim being to provide evidence to settle theoretical debates (Live experiment)
            – 2. 62Ni enrichment
            – 3. Leveraging the apparent low level excess apparently seen in our GS series with insulation calculated to support thermal feedback with the aim to see if a) the excess is real b) it can become clear and unambiguous
            – 4. Biological transmutation with AK and VV (Intended live experiment)
            – 5. Dusty plasma transmutation with Dr. G. Egely (all details to be made open, live experiments)

            1, 2 are funded and will likely be run together
            3 is funded
            4 has a VERY high funding requirement and the difficulty to get single isotope 137Cs
            5 has moderate funding requirement of $5000

      • Rene

        Bob, I do not do Facebook either and I noticed the quantumheat WEB site seems to get little maintenance these days. Has MFMP shifted its reporting to Facebook? Is the QH site in need of staffing?

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Also I do no FB. Why not use the google blogspot facility. Anyone can read it. I’m not expert with internet things, but have used that one and been satisfied.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I don’t do FB! (out of bitterness, I created a demo for something called “Staying Close” in 2000, basically FB, but the dot com crash happened)

            Many of the standards and the Joomla version of the old site makes it difficult moving forward to maintain. I have a radical plan for the projects messaging, as I am sure you would expect and it does not involve FB – and will enable fast data mining and be robust and free from censorship (which is a real risk on current platforms)

            The main goal is to keep the material advertising free and of course free to access and persistent. The secondary goal is to enable fast, in project and experiment communication.

            We do need staff on this, I’d like to find a way to move full time into supporting the projects research/researchers and reporting on our activities and that of others in the field. I am making progress and will report on that soon.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Neutron detection system update

        Bob Higgins has updated his paper on the developing system

        https://goo.gl/hLJele

        Meanwhile Alan Goldwater shares a few challenges in getting his corona discharge tubes to play nice and steady with the electronics.

        https://youtu.be/GIehot7d2bY

        • Rene

          I read the v1.20 paper on the clever inexpensive neutron detector using old Russian 3He tubes and modern electronics. Very nice work there.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Bob Higgins has and continues to work hard on this. To have his skill and expertise in the project is wonderful.

      • Ciaranjay

        Thanks Bob.

        This is a good reminder to laymen like myself of how hard it is to do good science. If any one of these elements is not done properly then that is the link in the chain that the critics will jump on.
        These experiments take so much effort, money and time to set up and run just to get that first result, which, if positive, then needs replicating.
        Those of us who are impatient for LENR are grateful for your efforts.
        I remain confident that 2017 will be the breakthrough year.

        You are like the James Bond of LENR, jetting around the world, working with scientists and engineers in USA, Russia and Europe. When the inevitable movie is produced on the LENR story have you considered which actor should play you? [Smiley Face].

        • Bob Greenyer

          It is punishing sometimes, and don’t really get to see where you are – see more of the back of a plane seat! If only it would pay the bills, it would be easier to keep my family on board!

          Today I have a little video I made to share. Hope you like it.

          https://youtu.be/_iS44Y3dbPA

  • Bob Greenyer

    Hi Bob,

    On the “Life Changing” biological transmutation research with Vladimir Vysotskii and Alla Kornilova, the core experiment will only take a few weeks, the set up is very detailed though. We have 3 major hurdles

    1. Need single isotopic salt of Cesium, specifically a salt of 137Cs such as chloride.
    2. High funding requirement given the extreme importance of the experiment and the need for many specific scientists (already identified) (and I mean a lot of money)
    3. Lab willing to host and conduct experiments with 137Cs – including potentially sacrificial testing apparatus. (we have a number of potential locations for this)

    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/535-life-changing

    On the 18O isotopic tracer experiment, this was supposed to be conducted first by Mathieu Valat in France with myself and another known LENR researcher in assistance, but it has taken longer than expected for Mathieu to get his new lab operational – so it is most likely that this will occur first at the end of the month / early Feb in California hosted by Alan Goldwater. I need to produce materials for that (explain it) and we need to work with the crowd on the fine details. We have had some issues with our home-brew neutron detection and given the importance of the test, we are considering a $3000 Ludlam detector in addition to fresh $600 bubble detectors – we may not have the funds for that and so are trying to lease the equipment for the run if possible.

    In addition, Bob Higgins is well advanced with his experiment targetted at excess heat.

    I have again offered to me356 some of my time to visit him before I go to US this month. He is settling his reactor design and will entertain me when he sees fit – given past experience, I am not counting on seeing him in this period. He is confident, but I would need to witness and verify the veracity of his technology before I could support his confidence.

    In addition, I am working with Dr Egely on dusty fusion and expect to put out a second video today. With access to a SEM with EDX – if his previous observations are valid, in theory we should be able to demonstrate LENR transmutation with his last generation reactors in a live 1 hour presentation. We have a $5000 funding requirement for this experiment thread, which we need to raise, importantly, we have the support of all the key researchers. Of course, we need someone with an SEM / EDX to hand – if not – there is an expensive hurdle right there.

    https://www.phenom-world.com/microscopes

    I hope this helps.

    • Rene

      Bob, I do not do Facebook either and I noticed the quantumheat WEB site seems to get little maintenance these days. Has MFMP shifted its reporting to Facebook? Is the QH site in need of staffing?

      • Pekka Janhunen

        Also I do no FB. Why not use the google blogspot facility. Anyone can read it. I’m not expert with internet things, but have used that one and been satisfied.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I don’t do FB! (out of bitterness, I created a demo for something called “Staying Close” in 2000, basically FB, but the dot com crash happened)

          Many of the standards and the Joomla version of the old site makes it difficult moving forward to maintain. I have a radical plan for the projects messaging, as I am sure you would expect and it does not involve FB – and will enable fast data mining and be robust and free from censorship (which is a real risk on current platforms)

          The main goal is to keep the material advertising free and of course free to access and persistent. The secondary goal is to enable fast, in project and experiment communication.

          We do need staff on this, I’d like to find a way to move full time into supporting the projects research/researchers and reporting on our activities and that of others in the field. I am making progress and will report on that soon.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Neutron detection system update

      Bob Higgins has updated his paper on the developing system

      https://goo.gl/hLJele

      Meanwhile Alan Goldwater shares a few challenges in getting his corona discharge tubes to play nice and steady with the electronics.

      https://youtu.be/GIehot7d2bY

      • Rene

        I read the v1.20 paper on the clever inexpensive neutron detector using old Russian 3He tubes and modern electronics. Very nice work there.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Bob Higgins has and continues to work hard on this. To have his skill and expertise in the project is wonderful.

          • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

            This is a common trope. Unless there is energy storage, and if all heat is measured, COP is always greater than 1. Hot fusion, if the reaction is set up, always releases heat. The problem is maintaining the reaction; most approaches require confining a ridiculously hot plasma that doesn’t like being confined. I will agree that much more investment in LENR is appropriate, though it should not be scattershot, focus is necessary. I’ve been proposing basic research for years, calling it Plan B, Plan A being that a commercial product appears. Plan B is not in opposition to Plan A, but Plan A could host a hundred times as much as Plan B. Plan B will open the funding floodgates, just in case that Plan A doesn’t work out.

            As my trainer would say, “How’s it workin’ for ya?”

            The basic research, the next step I proposed, is happening. I’m happy.

    • Ciaranjay

      Thanks Bob.

      This is a good reminder to laymen like myself of how hard it is to do good science. If any one of these elements is not done properly then that is the link in the chain that the critics will jump on.
      These experiments take so much effort, money and time to set up and run just to get that first result, which, if positive, then needs replicating.
      Those of us who are impatient for LENR are grateful for your efforts.
      I remain confident that 2017 will be the breakthrough year.

      You are like the James Bond of LENR, jetting around the world, working with scientists and engineers in USA, Russia and Europe. When the inevitable movie is produced on the LENR story have you considered which actor should play you? [Smiley Face].

      • Bob Greenyer

        It is punishing sometimes, and don’t really get to see where you are – see more of the back of a plane seat! If only it would pay the bills, it would be easier to keep my family on board!

        Today I have a little video I made to share. Hope you like it.

        https://youtu.be/_iS44Y3dbPA

  • Bob Greenyer

    Will keep trying!

    The Gates foundation does not support this kind of thing. You would have thought that the seperate ‘Breakthrough Energy Coalition” might – but as I understand it, it is a for profit thing that is trying to leverage big name money to gain access to government money also. Our work doesn’t easily fit those criteria.

    As for SKINR, well, they are not able to fund outside operations – though they have in the past conducted analysis on our behalf for which we are thankful.

    • Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

      You did not answer about Texas Tech (I assume Bob meant that, not what he wrote). They have money and may support some independent work if it is related to what they are doing. Certainly it’s worth getting in touch with them, if you aren’t. If you need assistance with that, write to me.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Dear Abd,

        Thankyou for your kind offer. I have always got on well with Robert Duncan, but nothing more than meeting and chatting at ICCF conferences, so yes please!

        Our threads are

        – 1. Isotopic tracer in the attempt to find out if high energy protons or thermal neutrons are in play. The aim being to provide evidence to settle theoretical debates (Live experiment)
        – 2. 62Ni enrichment
        – 3. Leveraging the apparent low level excess apparently seen in our GS series with insulation calculated to support thermal feedback with the aim to see if a) the excess is real b) it can become clear and unambiguous
        – 4. Biological transmutation with AK and VV (Intended live experiment)
        – 5. Dusty plasma transmutation with Dr. G. Egely (all details to be made open, live experiments)

        1, 2 are funded and will likely be run together
        3 is funded
        4 has a VERY high funding requirement and the difficulty to get single isotope 137Cs
        5 has moderate funding requirement of $5000

  • Cordon

    I suppose they’ll have all sorts of evidence and peer review too

  • CWatters

    A COP of 1.4 is less than the COP of a heat pump so perhaps not yet ready for commercialization?

  • CWatters

    A COP of 1.4 is less than the COP of a heat pump so perhaps not yet ready for commercialization?