SRI Independently Verifies Brillouin LENR Reactions (Brillouin Energy Press Release)

The following press release has been published on the Brillouin Energy Website here:

Increased COPs, Increased Power Output, Increased LENR Heat, Better Calorimetry, More Extensive Testing

BERKELEY, CA, March 13th,2018–Researchers at SRI International ( have issued a Technical Progress Report covering their review and independent validation of Brillouin Energy’s on-going testing and scaling efforts of its most advanced Isoperibolic (“IPB”) Hydrogen Hot Tube™ (HHT™) component prototypes, which generate controlled Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (“LENR”).

In their 2017 Report, SRI’s researchers confirmed that they have continued to successfully replicate“over-unity” amounts of thermal energy (heat) in Brillouin Energy’s IPB HHTs, now at materially greater output levels than was seen in their prior replication efforts that were documented in their 2016 Report. SRI conducted extensive review and third-party tests of Brillouin Energy’s technology throughout 2017. This included review of considerable test data from Brillouin’s four individual IPB HHT™LENR reactor test systems, plus 34 different HHT™ reactor cores that were designed to increase scaling of power outputs and reactor control.Dr.Francis Tanzella was again the principal investigator assigned to SRI’s testing of Brillouin Energy’s LENR systems and conducted all of the third party validation work.

“Brillouin Energy has made real progress in defining the engineering pathway forward,and in demonstrating increased potential to scale total power production in its reactors. This is reflected in SRI’s 2017 Report as compared to SRI’s 2016 Report. Their growing list of technical achievements are leading to a number of resultst hat we have not seen before. Increased COP’s, increased repeatable excess power outputs, increased LENR heat, better calorimetry, and transportability of multiple reactor systems performing independently –it’s continuing to point to a potential breakthrough.” said Dr. Tanzella, Managerof the Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Program, Energy & Environment Center, SRI International.

“The results validated in the 2017 SRI Report are the strongest proof yet that Brillouin Energy is on the path to commercialization”, said David Firshein,Chief Financial Officer of Brillouin Energy. “The company has proven with increasing scientific evidence, which SRI has independently verified, that its reactor systems can produce actual LENR heat at lab scale,which is both controllable on demand and repeatable, in multiple reactor systems and components manufactured and run the same way.

Mr. Firshein added,“this is the second ProgressReport from SRI International that verified Brillouin Energy’s technical claims. The results validated in this year’s Report are up to three times greater than those validated in the previous year’s Report. The company’s current growth capital raise will fund the next stage of scaling heat outputs to industrially useful levels.”

The 2017 Technical Progress Report summarizes all of the data and conclusions from SRI International’s year-long validation test review of Brillouin Energy’s IPB HHT™LENR reactor systems. To view the 2017 Report, click here:

For further information about this News Release, please contact:
Grant Draper           [email protected]      +1-415-745-0254

About Brillouin Energy Corp.:

Brillouin Energy is a clean-technology company based in Berkeley, CA, which is developing an ultra-clean, low-cost, renewable energy technology that is capable of producing commercially useful amounts of thermal energy from LENR. Brillouin’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.Other than the heat output, there are no (zero) toxic or CO2 bi-product emissions of any kind.

For further information about Brillouin Energy Corp., please contact:

David Firshein,          [email protected]      +1-415-419-6429

  • Frank Acland

    From the Technical Report that is linked in the press release:

    “In our extensive review of the test data generated from all four of Brillouin’s IPB HHTtmsystems, from test runs made at both SRI’s laboratory and Brillouin’s laboratory during the past year, the test data showed and continues to show that LENR heat outputs of several watts were repeatedly produced from positive coefficients in the range of 1.2X to 1.6X, depending on various factors, including the dynamic analysis method, and the legacy-type analysis method. We feel that the calorimetry was studied exhaustively and validated to an extremely high level of accuracy (see further discussion and test data review below).”

    • roseland67


      We’re the test results the same?

      • Frank Acland

        Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean — the same as what?

        • roseland67


          Did the tests run by different labs
          get the SAME results,

          • Frank Acland

            This report only provides results from SRI’s testing of 34 reactor cores provided by Brillouin, no other labs are mentioned in the report.

  • georgehants

    Two Wonderful scientific reports today, one confirming Cold Fusion and another confirming transmutation.
    With ECW we are kept miles in front.

    • Mylan

      I might have missed this, which report shows transmutation?

      • georgehants

        Sorry Mylan if I am wrong, is this not suggesting transmutation?
        “We did not detect Boron in our diamonds, perhaps limitation of the analysis – however, the study does state that its diamonds contain Boron.”

        • Bob Greenyer

          The transmutation is not related to the Boron – but you are referring to the right report.

          The transmutation is related to Carbon, Oxygen and Deuterium leading to Ca, Al, Si and potentially Ti in LION 2.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Great News!

  • Ophelia Rump

    So they have not been able to reach industrial heat output levels yet. I suspect that this is a matter of scaling the reactors. I wonder if their reactors will have scaling difficulties as Dottore Rossi’s did or if their design is more scalable.

    Can someone please explain what “transportability of multiple reactor systems performing independently” means?

    • Buck

      ?? “if we move them, they stop working.”

    • causal observer

      That seemed to be summarized later in the text as “built others the same way from the same type of parts and it worked the same.”

      • Ophelia Rump

        My take on that was as a statement on reproducibility. But I suppose the modularity and reproducibility are bound together by necessity.

    • greggoble

      pg 5 Side note: The above positive COP results were primarily produced at operating temperatures of between 300°C to 340°C. The ultimate operating temperature of an HHT commercial system is primarily related to the COP produced, and other engineering factors, and is not in itself a limiting factor per se. In fact Brillouin has had success using similar reactors and cores operating at up to 700°C, which is a much more desirable operating range for the commercial HHT systems that Brillouin anticipates building as it continues to scale its development.

      pg 4 As documented in last year’s Report, Brillouin has invented and built LENR reactor systems that have been shown to be transportable from its own laboratory while showing the same positive results in a new laboratory. In 2017, a second Brillouin IPB HHTtm prototype unit was transported from the Brillouin laboratory to SRI, for purposes of independent operation, verification, and validation. Both reactor units at SRI produced excess power as did the other two reactor units in Berkeley.

      • Bob Greenyer

        For this system – 300-340 may be optimal.

      • Ophelia Rump

        Thank you very much, I thought transportability was some kind of technical term. So it seems that Brillouin is moving away from huge reactors and toward Dottore Rossi’s modular transportable architecture. That gives a sense of credibility to Dottore Rossi from their perspective.

    • Sarnac

      Other possibility : a “transportable” test article (tested NOT at its maker’s facility) cannot be faked by creatively hooked up sneaky power cords

    • Axil Axil

      Thieu LENR reaction type has an upper limit of COP = 3. That COP is what Defkalion could produce. Where is Defkalion now?

  • Frank Acland

    Any LENR system that can be demonstrated to clearly show net positive energy (COP >1) is far ahead of all hot fusion teams. I think Brillion should be heartily congratulated.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      If Robert Godes’ electron capture theory is correct, there is no nuclear fusion (neither ‘hot’ nor ‘cold’) involved in Brillouin’s process. So it would seem problematic to compare it with hot fusion (which is ‘genuine’ fusion, at least).

      • Axil Axil

        LENR is quark fission.

  • bfast

    Brillouin has clearly created a scientifically amazing phenomenon (as has Rossi, and others.) However, a COP of 1.3 has virtually no commercial value.

    • Axil Axil

      True wisdom!

  • Rene

    This is independent verification, the beginning of it. Nice to see cooperation from the inventors.

    • Bob Greenyer

      One needs to see if SRI had a paid contract to conduct the testing. They are a private research organisation – they are a long time removed from being a university research body AFAIK.

      That being said, they have their reputation to maintain and so they would not put out data with their name on it lightly.

      • Rene

        SRI was divested from the university in 1970 because of the growing DARPA funding, but they were from the late 1940s an outward directed contract based research firm. They have a long productive history of basic and applied research as well as being an IP incubator and technology spinoff institution. Apple’s Siri is one of them.

  • interstellar hobo

    excellent news.I hope there is more press on this. thanks for keeping us updated.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Unlikely, this is a paid news release – more like a press release that lazy journalists can pick up – reword and then it becomes ‘news’ – it is what is called ‘putting something on the news wires’ and is a bit like an advertorial by proxy – that does not take away from the content.

      It is unfortunately the way a lot of so-called ‘news’ originates these days – and if you cannot get on the ‘newswires’ your story may not be picked up and run as ‘news’

      • Steve R

        I think you’re conflating the Business Wire — which is a pay-to-play press release distribution system with the “news wires” (traditionally AP, UPI, Reuters, AFP and now their non-western equivalents) that have editors who determined what they think is newsworthy and where the content is written by reporters. Getting your story on the first only requires writing a check — but there’s no assurance anybody will republish it. If you get your story on the AP wire or equivalent, it probably will be reprinted, as smaller operations often rely on newswire editorial judgement.

        But as someone who once received hundreds of press releases a year and turned some of them into stories, I think it’s unfair to say the process is due mainly to laziness. Often, the story only needs a single source — especially if the story is that a particular company released a particular product. The time that isn’t spent on that story usually goes to one of more significance — few people who read press releases get to go home early.

        However, I do think that a well-written press release does make a reporter’s job easier, and thus is more likely to turned into a story (with or without additional reporting). Especially, if prior releases from that company have proven to be accurate and appropriate for the audience.

        Unfortunately, Brillouin’s releases generally do not fall in that category — and this one is particularly unfocused and awkwardly written. It’s certainly no news that SRI issued a report — that’s what they do for a living, and what Brillouin paid them to do. The possible news is what is in the report.

        Furthermore, it would be fine if Brillouin had said they had received a favorable report from SRI — but only SRI should be saying they issued a report. And as various comments have already pointed out, SRI is not independent in this case — by claiming it to be so, Brillouin lost the opportunity to invoke SRI’s prestige in their paid work.

        If I’d written the lede (first sentence–or two), it might have been something more like “Brillouin Energy says it has received definitive confirmation that test models of the firm’s revolutionary table-top power system produce 60% more energy than had been put in. The Berkeley, CA, firm says it has received a new report detailing this conclusion from SRI, the prestigeous research organization in Palo Alto, CA.

        That might not be exactly what Brillouin wants to say to possible investors — but it is no small achievement if it turns out to be true.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Firstly, as I have noted before, the data is the important part.

          Secondly, where ‘news’ comes from is completely lost on most people and paid news as you recognised bleeds into editorials.

          I started my career at Tequila Payne Stracy (now just Tequila) one of the biggest ad agencies in the world, I then went on to work in the Investor relations / public relations departments of a major international bank – I saw ‘news’ being generated and edited/audited and massaged. Big publications often took their copy or put their stories past the advertisers (product / service producers that paid for large format ads in the publications) before running them.

          I also saw competitions / awards where the awards went not necessarily on merit – exposure to the above was part of my motivation to leave these fields (mostly because I simply don’t agree with the way banks ‘make’ money). If people think that it is just third world countries are corrupt, they are living in la la land.

          Often good journalists find themselves hoodwinked or pressured into releasing nothing more than publicity. Job security trumps integrity for many.

          At least in this case, there is data that can be proven to be true.

          • georgehants

            Morning Bob, good to find somebody who is willing to recognise that corruption in our sham democracy, the few rich and powerful have full control and under no circumstances are they going to let Cold Fusion or any other humanitarian technology get in the way of their uncaring dictatorship.

          • Bob Greenyer

            What you say is more true than many people could possibly realise, even when presented with incontrovertible facts.

  • Gerard McEk

    Some years in the past, Brillouin published papers mentioning COP values of 3-5 and that they were aiming for 8. I wonder why those figures have not been found by the third party SRI. Were Brillouin so bad in measuring their own data?
    Nevertheless, as Frank says, any COP value over 1 is amazing. I congratulate Brillouin with this achievement and the positive replication result.

    • Mylan

      It’s not the first time in the history of LENR, actually it was always like that unfortunately. I just hope that Rossi has what he believes he does.

    • causal observer

      Not sharing higher performance setups? Only what is reliable and whets investor appetites?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Sometimes truth is better than fiction – and in this case the truth is WAY better than any published ‘Hot fusion’ claim which are all a very long way of achieving unity.

      Given the options, I’d favour LENR with BEC being a good starter.

    • Axil Axil

      COP values of 3-5 will never happen for Brillouin.

  • Dr. Mike

    Although it is good to see Brillouin is achieving a COP > 1 with independent confirmation, one might have thought they would have made more progress in the past year, perhaps by evaluating modifications to the fuel. Brillouin needs a major technological break-through to have a commercially viable product.

    • Axil Axil

      They should start using diadisks.

      • gerold.s

        Hi Axil Axil,

        Would diadisks (LION) principally work with such a design?
        It is a first draft version, which for sure needs refinement.


        • Axil Axil

          Usually, Hydrogen (protium) and deuterium cannot be mixed in a design, but using hydrogen still might work as a fuel. The deuterium would have already formed ultra-sense deuterium inside the diadisks and therefore would have been “LENR reaction” stabilized so there might not be any Hydrogen/protium reaction interference.

          Ultra-dense deutrerium (UDD) needs fuel. In the LION reactor, UDD uses the structure of the reactor as fuel and the structure got heavily eroded to such an extent that is broke into pieces. Yet hydrogen might work as a fuel.

          As an experiment, I would try packing the diadisk in graphite powder as fuel. Form the MFMP video showing what happens to diamond in used diadisks from the LION reactor, the UDD eats carbon vigorously. Also, the SEM of ME356 fuel showed carbon SEM sample tape was readily transmuted into heaver elements.

          From the LION reactor melt downs, It also looks like the UDD likes quartz as fuel. Therefore, I would also try sand as fuel.

          I suggest that you run experiments with various types of fuel to see which one produces the most heat and avoid reactor meltdown the longest.

          Also as an experiment, I would try to pack the diadisks and fuel into a boron nitride tube or crucible.

          • Martijn

            The LENR process seems quite happy to sink its destructive teeth into matter in general. That’s going to be an issue in any reactor based on confinement of this fuel using matter. I’m not saying a design using fancy magnetic fields to suspend the fuel in air is better, some out of the box thinking for the reactor is needed if this is going to a commercial application.

  • greggoble

    pg 3 Table E.1 Coefficients of performance (COP) from recent runs using legacy analysis method
    Cop between 1.37 and 1.62

    • Axil Axil


  • LilyLover

    Is it softening the blow strategy by SRI? Surely they know of ECW, E-Cats, and Dr. Rossi.
    May be the Cat’s out of the bag, they’ve got to admit stuff!! Nice beginning, almost without fanfare, as if thye had always professed this outcome.
    Is this their acceptance of new reality?

    • Bob Greenyer

      IMPO they know what causes LENR, or had it within their grasp to realise, but it was classified in 1990.

      • causal observer

        Or as Hagelstein has written, it has always been poorly understood and difficult to replicate, as well as having been made taboo. Although if you have evidence that the secret sauce was made classified, that would be interesting to examine.

  • Richard Hill

    Is or were Industrial Heat involved with Brillouin?
    If so, there might be a link to Rossi’s work.

    • Bob Greenyer

      They are an investor

      • LION

        Hi BOB,
        I think Brillouin’s finance guy is a friend of Richard Branson, and was going to try and start an X Prize for LENR a year or two back. Any further developments you might of heard of ?.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I was invited to author the terms of that x-prize between 1st April and 31st October last year – for a LOT of money – however, I politely declined as it would have prevented me working on ECCO, NOVA, LION and other LENR research last year.

          This was one of the worst financial decisions I have made, but one of the best actual decisions I have made.

          This needs to be open otherwise it will never happen. In addition, America can classify anything not made public first if it is significantly developed in its boarders and is of strategic interest. It can then restrict trading partners from developing the same.

          An x-prize would close openness and at the same time – if the review conditions would be to present to the review panel first – it could carry a very real risk of being killed before reaching the public.

          The public have the power to do this for themselves, and given the implications and history of false starts, this is the only way it will happen IMPO.

          If it happens another way – then that is great too.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Thanks to Jed Rothwell from LENR forum:

    I am not sure if this is a ‘paid’ news release – but anyway, since Business Wire belongs to Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway it might be suitable to arouse the interest of some influential people.

    • Bob Greenyer

      It is paid news.

      • Axil Axil

        See the SAFIRE video above. It shows some of the things that you are seeing.

        • Bob Greenyer

          They are seeing the same effect – but they seemingly don’t know what it is.

          They have structural changes inside the bulk of material of the survived probe – clear formation of spheres – transmutation (exact same transmutations as we have observed in multiple systems) – vaporisation of material at WELL BELOW theoretical melting point.

          But it is a very expensive and complicated way to create the same effect.

  • sam

    March 13, 2018 at 7:49 PM
    Dear Andrea,
    Brilouin has made a replication of your effect with a reactor that reproduces your Hot Cat of 2012. The report is published on EW. Are you glad or worried?

    Andrea Rossi
    March 14, 2018 at 1:17 AM
    Replications are always welcome.
    Warm Regards,

  • Alan DeAngelis

    Brillouin is about protons capturing electrons, a few weeks after the F&P announcement Larry A Hull (in a letter to Chemical and Engineering News, May 15, 1989, page3) proposed the mechanism of a deuteron capturing an electron to become nn, “dineutronium”.

  • Apart from the working temperature, and with reservation for unknown details since the information in the report on used materials etc is scarce, to me it seems a lot like a basic HotCat replication, Lugano-style, with similar COPs. Good news, I’d say (yes, sure—it’s not a news report but a press release—but anyway…). But we all know, more or less, that LENR effects are real and that this COP can be achieved, so I guess it will not change much.

    • Axil Axil

      The Brillouin system and the hot cat are two different LENR systems.

      Brillouin will never get to a COP of 3,

      • Anon2012_2014


        At least Brillouin will document and allow replications. Rossi does not. That makes Brillouin’s research more valuable to the LENR community not withstanding the claimed COP.

        Maybe LION will also have a documented COP>>1.5. At this stage, these documented “LENR” reactions are the confirmation that we need that there is new science. (I say “LENR” as a place holder for the new physics devices producing excess energy at temperatures (particle interaction kinetic energies) far below what is needed for conventional hot fusion. I don’t know what the real underlying physics model is.) What exactly the model is, is as you point out elsewhere, still open for hypothesis testing.

        But your saying that Brillouin will never get to COP of 3 is besides the point, even if true. (We honestly don’t have an experimentally tested model that can accurately predict where Brillouin or any other LENR company will get — only untested hypothetical models.)

        No need to indicate on this blog that Brillouin’s test is of any less value that any others (including Rossi). We need validated and free for additional validation experimental results so that we can move forward with building new physics models and get some R&D money into this research.

        We should support Brillouin, as we should support the 3 LION replicators and MFMP. We should support Rossi to the extend he should eventually release a machine with a confirming COP to all replicators rather than a select few. (Please Mr. Rossi — release several working devices to several labs so we can prove the veracity of your claims.) Same with BLP — release so we can prove out. That is what we should care about — getting a working set of machines with >>> beyond measurement error in the university labs so we can blow away the hot fusion establishment with new science that they cannot refute.

  • georgehants

    Sound familiar ——-
    These hexagonal shaped nanostructures would allow to exploit
    quantum effects to modulate the current flow.
    Tiny and very promising for possible applications in the field of
    nanoelectronics: they are the graphene nanoflakes studied by a SISSA’s
    team and protagonists of a study recently published in the Nano Letters
    journal. These hexagonal shaped nanostructures would allow to exploit
    quantum effects to modulate the current flow. Thanks to their intrinsic
    magnetic properties, they could also represent a significant step
    forward in the field of spintronics, which is based on the electron
    spin. The study, conducted by a theoretical analysis and simulations at
    the computer, was led by Massimo Capone, recently appointed Outstanding
    Referee by Physical Review Letters, the prestigious journal of the American Physical Society.

    • Axil Axil

      The spin filter will also select for spin handedness. This is what LENR requires…chiral polarization. With a chiral polarized current, an electromagnet that has a chiral polarized current running through it could generate the LENR reaction via chiral polarized magnetic field lines.

  • Axil Axil

    Brillouin Energy tech involves passing a high voltage pulses through a metal nanopowder in a envelope of hydrogen gas. The tech is almost identical to the glow tube experiment that Alan Smith will be demonstrating at the New Energy World Symposium. That’s Mats Lewan’s event happening next June 18-19th in Stockholm Sweden.

    The high voltage pulse is designed to avoid destroying the nano powder.

    It seems that LENR experiments are repeated over and over again with only slight changes in configuration, but demonstrating the same basic LENR mechanisms.

    The Brillouin Energy theory is malarkey.

    Here is my post covering this glow tube system.

    The key to producing SPPs is matching the electron’s energy level with the photons energy level. Alan is most likely using an alternating current high voltage source. There will be a ideal voltage in that voltage source cycle where the electron energy will match the energy of the photons.

    It should be possible to adjust the voltage of the HV source to a critical point where SPPs are no longer produced. It also shoud be possible to adjust the frequency of the light entering the tube so that the critical voltage is changed.

    It might be that the foil is generating its own photons and thus be independent of externally produced photons since it was stated that the foil glowed brightly. If the reaction occurs without the need for external photons, then the foil is self stimulated with respect to photon production. The foil might first produce heat photons due to electron impact then move up the photon frequency scale to the visible light range as the SPPs Bose condensate store energy from the incoming electrons.

    The light coming of the foil is coherent and the energy gap will show the Mollow-type triplet, which becomes a signature of coherence of the photons with the e-h system and direct evidence of strong coupling.

    This experiment is similar to the exploding titanium foil experiments that was shown to change the mix pf U238 to U235 through the fission of U238.

    Low-energy nuclear reactions and the leptonic monopole
    Georges Lochak*, Leonid Urutskoev**

    It might be possible to show the stabilization of a radioactive isotope using the chiral muons/electrons coming off this reaction.

    Ultra dense hydrogen (UDH) may not be a primary source for muon production. The Surface Plasmon Polariton may be the primary source of proton annihilation. The UDH by be a helpful host that provides a secondary support structure for the viability and maintenance of the SPPs. The SPP can use other ways and means to produce muons such as micro and nanoparticles, excited rough metal surfaces, collapsing cavitation bubbles, dirty plasma, photonic crystals, and thin films.

    Let me better explain the possible relationship between these SPPs and UDH.

    To start out, Alan Smith is going to be demonstrating a live glow discharge experiment at the New Energy World Symposium. That’s Mats Lewan’s event happening next June 18-19th in Stockholm Sweden.

    The experiment will pass a glow charge through a tube containing low pressure gas, almost like a neon tube but without a phosphor. Probably running at something like 5 or 10 thousands volts. In the middle there will be a piece of metal foil. When the glow discharge begins then two things should happen. One of them: the metal foil should glow very very brightly, and sparkle in fact. You get sparkles on the surface. The other thing is, it produces what might be described as “anomalous radiation”, what’s, I think it was Edward Teller who coined the term, “Meshugganons”.

    One of the characteristics of this radiation is that it does not do much to a Geiger counter. The Geiger… almost as if it weren’t… was neutron radiation. The Geiger is very sluggish, but as you begin to pile shielding between the Geiger counter and the source – the glowing foil – so the radiation count goes up, and up and up.

    You can saturate a Geiger counter and set all the alarms off, but it does not appear to be harmful. It’s sure sounds like muons are coming from the foil.

    This glow discharge experiment shows how a metal surface can form SPPs and how those SPPs can catalyze muons. But when the power going through the tube is cut, the muons stop. This shows that the SPP are not self sustaining in themselves.

    Muons don’t interact with light elements well. For example, the interaction cross section for lead is 1,000,000 times greater than that for hydrogen. So piling heavy element shielding around the glowing foil produces muon catalyzed fusion and fission because of the high interaction cross section of muons with the heavy element shielding.

    Next, here is another example of where the SPP shows itself as a primary source of LENR activity.


    Experimental observation of anomalous thermal radiation from a three-dimensional metallic photonic crystal


    We report some striking results on thermal radiation properties of a resonantly coupled cavity photonic crystal (PhC) at elevated temperatures (T = 400–900 K). We experimentally found that at resonant wavelengths, λ = 1.1, 1.64, 2.85 μm, the PhC emission is spectrally selective, quasi-coherent, directional, and shows significant deviation from Planck’s blackbody law at equilibrium. The presence of non-equilibrium effects, driven by strong thermal excitation and cavity resonance, may be the major cause for our experimental observation.

    Sooner or later, science would stumble over some sort of LENR reaction.

    Thermal radiation coming off this photonic crystal (PhC) is up to 50 times stronger than blackbody radiation at certain frequencies. That radiation is coherent, directional, and focused.

    This finding has the researchers puzzled.

    I speculated that SPPs formed inside the coupled cavities in this crystal form a polariton Bose condensate that emits hawking radiation at specific thermal frequencies. There also may be some overunity here: more energy out than in…

    Now finally, when it comes to UDH, the SPP may ride on the outside electron spin wave that covers the outside of UDH. The SPP may use the UDH as a host, the way a rider uses a horse. The UDH is superconductive, almost lossless, self sustaining and meta-stable. It produces its own power and can store it. The UDH is the ideal host for the SPP. The SPP may be a beneficial parasite that can feed energy into the UDH, and the SPP keeps the UDH going.

  • sam

    Cold Fusion Now! podcast with ISCMNS Chief Exec William Collis

  • Bob Greenyer

    Oh how you would love that.

    I never specified a date. I will publish when ready. In the meantime I am publishing things that will be part of O Day and will help those get it when the overview is made public.

    What are your contributions to the field?

    You need to ready your ammo and put downs – you’ll have plenty of opportunities for attack – but you have to remember – It makes no difference to me or the truth what you throw – it will be wasted effort on your part. Either what ‘O Day’ is will be testable, or not – and as I have said many times – I don’t care if I am wrong, I only care if I am right.

    • georgehants

      Bob, take no notice, just part of our sad society.

    • Bruce__H

      Your response seems rather unfair to PhysicsForDummies. He/she seems to want to see your O Day material, not to wish it never be published.

      You have quite purposefully created a huge expectation for what you have to say. You have pitched it as one of the most important presentations in humandkind’s history. You dribble out hints and have even adopted the ridiculous question and answer format favoured by Mr Rossi. You justify this all by saying that people are not ready for the enormity of what your intellect will soon put before us.

      Why blame people like PhysicsForDummies? Why complain about the reality that you have so carefully constructed?

      • Bob Greenyer

        I put out a few presentations / videos this week. My output could hardly be equated to yes/no answers.

        Today I had a long review / planning call with Suhas Ralkar and have, amongst family duties, been working on the next analysis presentation of LION 1 / 2 transmutation data for open dissemination and sent our RF meter to LION for experimental use- again, I am not sure this could be classed as equivalent.

        I did not set out to be unfair to PFD – I did want to set the record straight. PFD has great potential to apply critical thinking to the data and concepts that will be presented in ‘O Day’. People will make what they will of ‘O Day’ – I think that they will not be disappointed, they may disagree – but that will not change any potential truth realised.

        I understand his position, however, I did not specify a date – I am waiting on important data from a physical trip and the time to complete 1 After-effects animation and about 3 3D animations that I feel are needed, a bunch of video/audio recordings and some editing. I am also keen to do one more SEM/EDS session on a number of samples.

        • John Williamson

          I understood MFMP to be all about *openness* and *real time* (live). The O day tease and previous Greenyer teases seem inconsistent with these concepts.

          • Bob Greenyer

            MFMP does live experiments where possible. We pioneered it and developed tools and approaches to doing it. It would be very hard for a big organisation let alone a volunteer one.

            We are open about our other work. Some of ‘O Day’ is based on data and SEMs already shared that others dismissed as having no value. That is the great thing about publishing as you go, the data is already there and the interpretation and correlation comes later.

            My personal work I am committed to share, short of you having a camera on me 24/7 – I don’t know how I could more open.

            The nature of the content of ‘O Day’ is that it absolutely should not be released in a way that others could patent and lock up or block obvious implications – so it is an all or nothing scenario. This means a lot of work. I don’t want to inadvertently give the fruits of my volunteering to some multi-national that can prevent all from using it.

            In the mean time, I have been releasing key aspects as I have been preparing materials – and this has allowed the likes of Axil, Musical Hemispheres, Artefact etc. to start understanding the inherent coherence in what will be shared. Many have sought answers to the questions posed and in so doing so, will have a much broader framework to get the central concept when ‘O Day’ is here.

            I am also human and have been ill (still got nasty cold) and doing a lot of childcare and helping my partner with what she wants to do.

            Bob Higgins has had family issues and is waiting on EDS attachment for his SEM.

            Alan Goldwater has been diligently preparing for LION protocol independent replication which will be live.

            Other contributors are working as they can.

            In the past when we have just dumped something that is of high value – it has almost been absorbed by no-one. When something might have a lot of value, it makes sense to take the effort to promote it. What is the worth of being open if only 100 people ever see it?

            ‘O day’ cannot be ‘opened’ yet because it is not finished, but it will be and it will be open – would you want to fly on a plane without control surfaces, landing gear or cabin pressure control?

      • Anon2012_2014

        Bruce — PFD was just being “on-line rude” calling it “which is now nO day”. I wish that Physics for Dummies would take that part down and change it to “I appreciate the documented news, whether paid or not. I await similar from the 3 teams working on LION. Can you give us an update as to when you expect to either release data or provide us with a feed to a new live experiment.” I believe that people like PFD respond in frustration because Bob’s pre-announcement was too cryptic (i.e. a puzzle, not an announcement) for the readers here to understand. I would have preferred that Bob said that he, and the two Alan’s were studying the effect and expect to make an announcement by [put the first estimated date here]. Then if they don’t hit the date, they say “We are postponing the announcement while we prepare the [data or the live open source science experiment] which is now expected to be [subsequent estimated date]. No over or under promising, no hype, just the facts when the LION experiments are expected be ready. If the dates slip due to lack of progress, then just an update. Even if the experiment failed, just an update. That’s the scientific method of experimental trial followed by failure or success. Then we can follow along at home.

        • Bruce__H

          Yes, I think that PhysicsForDummies was rude, but I didn’t understand Bob Greenyer’s take. I don’t think that PFD would love to see Bob’s material never come out. I think the reality is just the opposite.

          As far as I know, O Day is a solo act with Bob Greenyer as the star. Bob is going way beyond his data here and I think that other members of the MFMP and people like Alan Smith would prefer to more or less ignore it. Personally, I am waiting for the replications and some sort of assurance that everything that Bob has seen is not just the completely explainable effects of high heat with no LENR involvement.

          • Anon2012_2014

            O-Day is a bad marketing term for the release of a positive LION replication by Bob/MFMP. I think it is a mistake to use such hype for science. It demeans his otherwise good work.

  • Jimr

    On Rossi,s blog. Frank asked what was consuming most of Rossi,s time. The THREE main things were, industrialization in U.S., in Sweden, his theory and the Ecat SK (hi power modules) . Since that is four things I wondered which three he was refering to. At first I thought he was eliminating Sweden The more I thought about it possibly the Ecat SK may be in the hands of Rossi,s partner for development. Rossi provided the ” wifches brew ” to place in the Ecats and the partner developes them.

    • Omega Z

      You misunderstood his post. He did not say ->”The THREE main things”

      He stated they have “3 main teams” working in 4 primary areas.

      We have now three teams I am working with:
      1- industrialization in the USA
      2- industrialization in Sweden
      3- theory elaboration
      4- Ecat SK (high power modules)

  • Albert D. Kallal

    I don’t see any real progress here?

    The claimed COP for these new tests and new reactors is only 1.5.
    I can thus ONLY say that Brillouin energy gets HUGE HUGE HUGE marks for
    being honest, and not making a wild claims!

    In fact his new paper by them does not show any increase in COP from their tests + papers of 5
    years ago.

    So I don’t see an increase in COP from several years ago (and several years ago they had SRI labs verify
    their LENR devices with a COP of about 1.8).

    As many in LENR are finding, they can get above unity, but by not much. The only person that achieved
    a COP of over 3 seems to be Rossi.

    So LENR is a hard nut to crack. Brillouin been at this for YEARS and they are still stuck below a
    COP of 2.

    Quite sure a COP of 8-10 is required to really make LENR commercial viable. However, any news for
    LENR is a good thing.

    Brillouin is “still stuck” at this low COP – and not able to make any gains in this regards for the last 5+ years.
    However, at least Brillouin allowed independent testing of their devices – they just need a breakthrough in terms of COP.

    Albert D. Kallal
    Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • causal observer

      I’m wondering if over five years they improved control at the low COP, and have higher COP gadgets that are not fully controllable.

      • sam

        I was wondering if this is a taste of something bigger to come.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        I think it certainly does show they can repeat this process. So while I pointed out the low COP, it still shows Brillouin has and is making progress. And their ability to replicate, repeat and create devices clearly shows progress.

        The fact of them taking an approach of credible verification of their reactors is VERY much an
        example that Rossi should be taking. So I don’t or did not want to throw cold water on this progress.

        In fact, this just shows that the LENR nut is hard to crack, but high COP is even more elusive. So I still give Brillouin MAJOR Points in HOW they are approaching this.

        In other words, Brillouin is very much “normal” as to how such a company should progress. You do some research, you get something working, and you have independent
        verification. This is ALL PERFECT normal approach and the “pattern” of how
        technology progresses.

        In fact, the above is good for say popular science and other publications – Brillouin may WELL get some traction in some press as result of their press release. Hard to claim
        LENR don’t work with what Brillouin just presented. (This “used” to be what
        everyone on this forum was waiting for – but you see it not creating the splash
        we thought – is it?)

        For Rossi – his approach is quite much the opposite (far too much obfuscation). Too much obfuscation is usually a bad sign.

        As always, Rossi may feel no need for verification, and moving ahead with a product DOES make sense if Rossi has what he claims.

        So we much in a waiting game. I would like to see “some” break-through on Brillouin’s reactors,
        but at least they are serious payer in the game, and one with credible 3rd
        party verifications.

        As pointed out here, some verifications are not the HUGE splash we been waiting for, but that
        of something close to a working product is what we all are waiting for.

        I think that Rossi is close to the make it or break it point! (He has to deliver).

        This fork in the road for Rossi is a good!

        Left fork: – no real product – further delays

        Right fork: – we see a great working product!

        So Rossi has placed himself in a great public position so to speak!

        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

  • Axil Axil

    Low COP is a big problem for LENR. Most of the energy produced by LENR comes in the form of sub atomic particles which includes huge numbers of neutrinos. In the LENR reaction, the heat is provided by a minor energy channel involving hawking radiation. The Brillouin reactor is most likely pumping out a ton of sub atomic particles. Those particles need to be converted to heat. Therefore, the heat rich LENR reactor should be surrounded by a blanket of molten lead or thorium salt to capture muons that will catalyze muon fission. But this type of fission will produce a ton of neutrons similar to a hot fusion reactor. The dream of a LENR reactor in your basement might well be impossible unless Rossi has found a way to increase the proportion of the reaction energy to be radiated in the form of heat.

    To verify if this opinion is well founded, LION should surround his reactor in lead up to a foot thick. LION should see a large flux of neutrons produced by the lead.

    • LION

      Hi Axil,
      the SmCo magnets are on order and should arrive soon. The reactor you suggest I actually showed to ALAN in part construction when we met. It contains copper inside and Lead outside, not much just seeing effects on Thermalisation.
      Before I run it I will post some pictures of its construction, within 14 days.
      All the best.

      • gerold.s

        Hi LION,

        Awaiting your input regarding your new design setup.
        Maybe we can use synergies.

        Do you use the magnets to create a magnetic effect inside copper wire?
        How do you handle high temperatures without loosing the magnetic effect?
        Do you still use an Alumina tube containg the fuel (diadisks)?


  • Roger Barker

    A rather timely demo and validation from SRI. I’m happy to see this. This is something that has been lacking i.e. independent testing. So a
    big win here for Brilliouin. Rossi has some work to do here. He’s claiming higher COP but his tests have not been independently tested. Time to say
    hello and smell the coffee! As Rossi says “replications are always welcome”. He is not scared of competition, this is obvious to see but
    to truly give the eCat, and its many flavors, due credit proper independent testing is required. SRI used proper calorimetry which skeptics like
    Mary Yugo and co, will be happy to see. What are their retorts on these tests? Undoubtedly they’ll claim measurement errors. Margins of errors. I’d
    love to see if they can come up with any other excuses!

    Roger out!

    As usual please read down what I write to fully understand what I’m saying. Peace! 🙂

    • Anon2012_2014

      If it can be replicated under 3 months for under say $20K, we are in business.

  • causal observer

    Lasers fired at nano wires of deuteratedpolyethylene produce helium and neutrons, pubished in Nature Communications.

  • Axil Axil

    The SAFIRE project got kicked in the teeth with LENR. These professional scientists really don’t know what is going on. Just like in the SunCell tungsten gets vaporize in nanoseconds. Like in the Hutchison effect, tungsten turns into powder. This video is long but if you are interested in LENR, it is worth the time. If you are interested in the weird stuff that Bob is finding, you will find more in this video,

    • Gerard McEk

      This is very interesting Axil, finally a indication that LENR happens on stars and can build heavy elements. Thanks for sharing this!

      • Carl Wilson

        A major reason that I came to believe in LENR is that the standard ideas about building heavy elements seemed so dubious.

      • Omega Z

        This strongly validates many of the observations of Rossi that many have claimed to rebuke.

      • Albert D. Kallal

        There is growing evidence that the fusion in stars works like LENR and not classical fusion.

        In other words, the sun involves a metal hydrogen lattice. I think that this discovery will spur HUGE research into LENR and the process of loading gas into metals.

        There are a number of VERY credible papers now suggesting that the sun is not just a ball of gas – but involves a LENR like process for its nuclar process.

        I lost the book mark, but a great video on you-tube exists explaining some observations that support the metal lattice theory of the sun.

        Albert D. Kallal
        Edmonton, Alberta Canada

        • Gerard McEk

          I agree Albert, as most on this forum. We all feel that LENR is also at the basis of heavy elements found on earth and in space, quite a few years. Common theory is that they were sole the result of super novae, unlikely! Now we need to convince the rest of the science community. SAFIRE is really quite convincing and a big step to bring them on other thoughts!

          • Valeriy Tarasov

            Time is the best judge.
            I just would like to remind that according to the h-space theory, not a fusion but a fission process is the source of stars energy, and stars are composed by electrons-positrons, similar like atomic nuclei. This structure of the atomic nuclei provides a simple explanation for LENR and, for instance, for superconductivity.
            Again, the theory was published in 2013 at amazon and in 2014 at Rossi’s site. The updated (in 2017) version can be found here:

    • John Oman

      Wonderful! I think the kick may have landed at a much more sensitive spot than the teeth… Here’s a written report.
      Axil – Where did you get the info about 20 MW and He3?

      • Brent Buckner

        Page 40: “Unanticipated excess heat remains a problem.”

      • Axil Axil
        • Omega Z

          Unanticipated excess heat
          plasma fusion without radiation and neutrons.

          This sounds much like Rossi’s Hot Cat when it vaporized the hole through ceramic and stainless steel in a few seconds. The guessed it produced 2 million watts.

    • John Oman

      Do you think it’s P+P fusion? In the 270V drop, 3MdegK, 0.05mm wide double layer area? (Page 57 of pdf)

      • Axil Axil

        P+P fusion is impossible on earth, yet it looks like it may be happening. I have found that all reference to this energy burst has been removed. The data tables that show the megawatt energy bursts are all gone. Why? Is it possible that this energy spike is so politically disruptive in the plasma profession that these researchers risk their livelihoods?

        I got the feeling that these researchers are affected by the LENR mania that we often see in Bob when he sees the wild stuff that LENR can do. But they suppress any expression of that euphoria to maintain their professional attitude.

        I beleive that the double layer is a LENR reaction mechanism. The chiral separation of electrons and protons is like the charge separation that happens in ultra dense hydrogen. But the handedness polarization of electrons and protons is more powerful than charge attraction, and this spin chiral force generates charge separation in the double layer.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          „P+P fusion is impossible on earth”

          Well, in particle accelerators it is possible, albeit at GeV levels.

          • Axil Axil

            When two protons collide, they produce mesons. Is that not proton fission?

          • Andreas Moraitis

            It is correct that even in an accelerator p-p fusion is still unlikely to happen. But it is certainly not ‘impossible’. Typically, one gets indeed a number of subatomic particles (which must not necessarily be ‘fission’ products, but can be newly created from the high initial energies).

  • Frank Acland

    Thanks for the interesting comment, gerold, I have actually put it a separate post in order to give it more visibility. You might find some useful responses from readers here.

    • gerold.s

      Hello Frank,
      Thanks for your help. I have already received a few interesting comments.

  • bkrharold

    A COP of 1.5 could save 30% of input energy, which would be useful if scaled up.

    • Bob Greenyer

      We replicated Celani a good number of times live and saw apparent excess heat and other emissions and events in *GlowStick* systems in line with the adjusted for correct emissivity Lugano data. We could never call it because there was not repeatable secondary data.

      In the case of LION – there is Strange radiation and signatures seen across multiple systems. There is IMPO definitely LENR going on – and repeatably. The claimant states that it self sustained – the reactor certainly looks like something happened out of the ordinary.

  • Bob Greenyer

    The ‘spheres’ (and likely one other structure) are where the transmutation occurs. It is what makes them that gives the clean energy source.

    ‘spheres’ are in quotes for a reason.

  • Jonas Matuzas
    • Leroy Essek

      “India Warms to Cold Fusion” published by the Hindu and written by Kalyanaraman M is worth reading that Jonas Matuzas shared above. Do you think this story or the one above will ever appear on main stream media here in the USA? Even the recent credible story about Stefan Sjostrom who was the global leader for all of Asia & Europe representing Microsoft, just joined Joi Scientific. This mature energy start-up company he joined is called Joi Scientific that is located at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center at the Space Life Sciences Lab. They have also discovered a self sustaining hydrogen source worth investigating. The first US newspaper that broke the story about Joi Scientific back in October of 2015 was the Orlando Sentinel in Florida. It was the website called Revolution Green Alternative Energy that led me to this 21st century energy company back in October of 2015. Plus there is recent news on January 8, 2018 by a Canadian media group called CBC News-New Brunwick that also reports: “Turning Seawater into Electricity” about the $7 million dollar partnership between a major Canadian electric utility called New Brunswick Power & Joi Scientific is a great way to start 2018 with revolutionary-green energy technologies.

  • Anon2012_2014

    I think that Bob hears us and will change towards a more professional approach.

    I am aware and thankful that both Alan Smith and the other Alan (who’s last name slips me) are running a LION experiment, I wish all three of them luck.

    P.S. Alan Smith sells all the parts needed for a replication, so if one of them gets good results, you know where to get more equipment and supplies to validate.

  • Bob Greenyer

    John, Pons and Fleischmann were forced to release their findings before they wanted to. I will not be pressured to make the same mistake.

  • Bob Greenyer

    O Day will be open. I have never said otherwise. It might not fit your timeline expectations, but I cannot help people that think they deserve something because they say so.

    Live Open Science is what we do when we conduct an act (like splitting open the LION 2 cell and performing tests live on camera) or conduct a live experiment like Celani Cells, *GlowStick* experiments etc. with direct data feeds.

    If something involves interpretation and hard work rather than just a data feed, being open about that something can only come when that work is done even more so when it is a personal realisation. There is a whole army of people ready to tear you down if one thing is wrong and use that to say all of the rest is by inference wrong. I am trying to do the best intermediary by sharing packets of work as I do them – have you looked into that work? Have you tried to interpret it? have you tried to answer the questions posed or deployed your own critical thinking?

    The visual data I have shared is self-evident. People have dismissed excess heat and transmutations – but Strange radiation tracks like the LION track in Cu2O and on photographic plates and in Polymer and ont photographic plates and CCDs in ECCO stand on their own whilst supporting the other data. The ‘spheres’ in cracks / fissures, the ‘Ear-shaped’ super structure and rings of ‘spheres’ in rings around a ‘sphere’, with each sphere in a cavity/crater and surrounded by modified material in combination with apparent new elements across multiple technologies by independent parties who each replicated multiple times over nearly forty years is very compelling evidence.

    Moreover – MUCH LESS than this evidence led me to my realisation that is central to O Day. What O Day will say was deduced before LION 2, looking at Hutchison samples, the recent video by SAFIRE, the publication by NASA on Venus etc.etc. You already have much more than I had to go on.

    I may well be wrong on many areas even when I do publish ‘O Day’ – I do not care about what I am wrong about only what is of value and can be used for the common good – but I will want to know where things can be improved, constructive criticism with verifiable cited data is the key to taking the discussion forward.

    If you have nothing more useful to do than criticise how I volunteer my time, then I shall consider you trolling in order to waste it and will not respond again to you. I have very limited time at the moment – if you can offer any shred of value, I am up for listening but your current track is only damaging to my effectiveness.

  • Anon2012_2014

    Without reading all of Bob’s blog output, I think he or someone else at MFMP is planning to run a LION replication. Maybe it is Alan Goldwater. In the past, Bob doesn’t build the rig, but instead participates with other MFMP members in observing the running experiment and provides narration. I think that overall he does a good job with the exception of the riddle of O-Day. I have enough puzzles to solve.

  • Bob Greenyer


  • Bob Greenyer

    trolly trolly troll

  • Bob Greenyer

    Patent Application noted by Ahlfors on LENR FORUM noting carbon rich (diamond like) inclusions in hydrogen isotope storage material (2006) determined to be non patentable due to lack of novelty with reference to prior art, including art from 1992.