Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy press release

[David Roberson]

Any time you employ a short pulse based ignition source you are going to have a 
tough time proving the input power is accurately measured.  As you guys 
discuss, this might be the source of serious errors and must be carefully 
discounted.  If the pulse rate is sufficiently fast they might be able to 
filter the DC input lines leading to the pulse drive system to the point that 
the fluctuations are tiny enough to neglect.  After proper filtering, the input 
supply current would be essentially constant while the DC supply voltage also 
remains constant.  This would allow a very accurate accounting of the supply 
input power contribution.

I hope that this report holds up under careful skeptical analysis.

 

 Dave

 

-Original Message-
From: Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sat, Jan 7, 2017 8:22 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy press release



Yes, they would be wise to assume the results are false, and make every effort 
to disprove the results.  Start with the thought process of, "Assuming this is 
an artifact, what can explain it?"  The input power being mis-measured is one 
possibility that has not been discussed in sufficient detail to know if they 
have ruled this out.  Since Godes is an EE, it might be presumed (falsely), 
that the electrical power measurement is bullet-proof.




On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:22 PM Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

  Jed Rothwell wrote:

> I think Brian wants them to measure power going into the power
> supplies. That sounds like a good idea to me. Probably a lot is lost
> between the power supply input and the reactor core, but you could
> still compare a null run to an excess heat run. You could confirm that
> the apparent excess is not coming through the power supply that
> produces the fancy waveform.

Yes. That is the heart of the problem.

If you need a complex waveform to show gain and it entails losses to
produce that waveform, then that those losses are  part of the input
requirement and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise.

Thus a gain of say 150% is reduced to almost no gain... if the waveform
is lossy... and the result is what Brillouin does not want to admit:
almost no net gain.

RE: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy press release

[Russ George]

There is ALWAYS room for error is tiny signals, a few watts IS nothing more 
than a tiny signal!  SRI is simply milking consulting fees as they have always 
done, that is exclusively what they do!

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, January 7, 2017 9:10 AM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy press release

 

Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com <mailto:jcol...@gmail.com> > wrote:

 

The input power being mis-measured is one possibility that has not been 
discussed in sufficient detail to know if they have ruled this out.

 

This is not a detailed report. I expect they have ruled it out, by methods not 
described here.

 

 

  Since Godes is an EE, it might be presumed (falsely), that the electrical 
power measurement is bullet-proof.

 

This report describes work done at SRI, mainly by Francis Tanzella, I think. He 
knows what he is doing. I am not saying he couldn't have made a mistake, but he 
is knowledgeable and careful, so I would not worry too much that he measured 
input power incorrectly.

 

- Jed

 

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy press release

[Jed Rothwell]

Jack Cole  wrote:


> The input power being mis-measured is one possibility that has not been
> discussed in sufficient detail to know if they have ruled this out.
>

This is not a detailed report. I expect they have ruled it out, by methods
not described here.



>   Since Godes is an EE, it might be presumed (falsely), that the
> electrical power measurement is bullet-proof.
>

This report describes work done at SRI, mainly by Francis Tanzella, I
think. He knows what he is doing. I am not saying he couldn't have made a
mistake, but he is knowledgeable and careful, so I would not worry too much
that he measured input power incorrectly.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy press release

[Jack Cole]

Yes, they would be wise to assume the results are false, and make every
effort to disprove the results.  Start with the thought process of,
"Assuming this is an artifact, what can explain it?"  The input power being
mis-measured is one possibility that has not been discussed in sufficient
detail to know if they have ruled this out.  Since Godes is an EE, it might
be presumed (falsely), that the electrical power measurement is
bullet-proof.


On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:22 PM Jones Beene  wrote:

>   Jed Rothwell wrote:
>
> > I think Brian wants them to measure power going into the power
> > supplies. That sounds like a good idea to me. Probably a lot is lost
> > between the power supply input and the reactor core, but you could
> > still compare a null run to an excess heat run. You could confirm that
> > the apparent excess is not coming through the power supply that
> > produces the fancy waveform.
>
> Yes. That is the heart of the problem.
>
> If you need a complex waveform to show gain and it entails losses to
> produce that waveform, then that those losses are  part of the input
> requirement and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise.
>
> Thus a gain of say 150% is reduced to almost no gain... if the waveform
> is lossy... and the result is what Brillouin does not want to admit:
> almost no net gain.
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy press release

[Jones Beene]

 Jed Rothwell wrote:

I think Brian wants them to measure power going into the power 
supplies. That sounds like a good idea to me. Probably a lot is lost 
between the power supply input and the reactor core, but you could 
still compare a null run to an excess heat run. You could confirm that 
the apparent excess is not coming through the power supply that 
produces the fancy waveform.


Yes. That is the heart of the problem.

If you need a complex waveform to show gain and it entails losses to 
produce that waveform, then that those losses are  part of the input 
requirement and it is disingenuous to claim otherwise.


Thus a gain of say 150% is reduced to almost no gain... if the waveform 
is lossy... and the result is what Brillouin does not want to admit: 
almost no net gain.

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy press release

[Jed Rothwell]

Okay, I have read this SRI report a few times. I have a good impression. I
need to think about it more, but so far, so good.

People at lenr-forum complained there is not much about errors or the
margin of error. That's true, but there is some discussion. They say the
errors are less than 5%. That sounds likely to me. It sounds conservative.
The only concern I have heard here is from Brian Ahern, who worries that
they may not be measuring the input power correctly. I don't know about
that.

I think Brian wants them to measure power going into the power supplies.
That sounds like a good idea to me. Probably a lot is lost between the
power supply input and the reactor core, but you could still compare a null
run to an excess heat run. You could confirm that the apparent excess is
not coming through the power supply that produces the fancy waveform. I
assume that is what Brian fears.

The method of using a flowing water envelope to ensure a stable background
is very good. The kind of lab cooler they are using will maintain the water
temperature to within a hundredth of a degree. There will be no noise from
temperature fluctuations in the room. That and the rest of the isoperibolic
calorimetry looks good to me. I also like the blank experiments and
calibrations.

I like that the results vary from one test to the next under similar
conditions. That looks like a real effect, rather than an instrument
artifact.

As pointed out in the paper, this is probably the first time in history
anyone has been able to test a cold fusion device in one lab, get a
positive result, disassemble the reactor, move it to another lab, and have
people in the other lab observe the same result. That does not sound like
much of an accomplishment, but I think it is tremendous.

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

The method of using a compensation heater and backing off the power as
excess heat develops is conventional, conservative, and well established.
This is how the SRI flow calorimeters work. The problem with the flow
calorimeters was that they held the temperature too low for Pd-D cold
fusion, according to Martin Fleischmann. This one holds it at 300 to 600
deg C, which is where it should be.

People should read this report carefully several times before jumping to
conclusions.

- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy press release

[bobcook39923]

I wonder if Ni Nano particles are involved?  Is there a patent in the USA for 
the IPB HHT?  

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Jed Rothwell
Sent: Thursday, January 5, 2017 1:29 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy press release

See:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Thread/4795-Press-Release-BERKELEY-CLEAN-TECHNOLOGY-COMPANY-ANNOUNCES-BREAKTHROUGH-FOR-LENR-/

The press release begins:
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 IPB HHT™ LENR Reactor

BERKELEY, CA, January 5, 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 . . .

(See the rest at the link.)

The report is here:

https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/1139-SRI-ProgressReport-pdf/

Isoperibolic Hydrogen Hot Tube Reactor Studies

SRI International Project P21429

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy press release

[Axil Axil]

It is alway wise to tell the truth.


On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> November 18, 2015
>
> CONGRESS VIEWS BRILLOUIN ENERGY’S LENR WET™ AND HHT™ BOILER REACTOR
> SYSTEMS FOR GENERATING THERMAL ENERGY
>
>
> http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/456-Brillouin-Energy-Meets-Congress-News-Release-18-11-15-1-pdf/
>
> Among other things this says:
>
> The LENR process is neither fission nor fusion, but like fusion, it does
> convert hydrogen into helium releasing the tiny mass difference as large
> amounts of heat.
>
> If it converts hydrogen into helium, that makes it fusion, by definition.
>
> This is probably not a wise thing to say.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Brillouin Energy press release

[Esa J. Ruoho]

Axil, is there some context to this rather short sentence in light of that 
Brillouin press-release?

Sent from some iDevice. Written by Esa.

> On 18 Nov 2015, at 23:59, Axil Axil  wrote:
> 
> It is alway wise to tell the truth.
> 
> 
>> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
>> November 18, 2015
>> 
>> CONGRESS VIEWS BRILLOUIN ENERGY’S LENR WET™ AND HHT™ BOILER REACTOR SYSTEMS 
>> FOR GENERATING THERMAL ENERGY
>> 
>> http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/Attachment/456-Brillouin-Energy-Meets-Congress-News-Release-18-11-15-1-pdf/
>> 
>> Among other things this says:
>> 
>> The LENR process is neither fission nor fusion, but like fusion, it does 
>> convert hydrogen into helium releasing the tiny mass difference as large 
>> amounts of heat.
>> 
>> If it converts hydrogen into helium, that makes it fusion, by definition.
>> 
>> This is probably not a wise thing to say.
>> 
>> - Jed
>