ICCF20 Presentation: Validation Experiment of Brillouin Hydrogen Hot Tube by Michael Halem [Updated]

A video from the ICCF20 conference in Sendai, Japan has been uploaded to YouTube of a presentation Michael Halem of LENR-Invest, LLC, reporting on his experience trying to validate the Brillouin Hydrogen Hot Tube (HHT) in an experiment carried out at SRI headquarters in Berkeley, California.

Michael Halem has commented below, and has made this correction: “The experiments were carried out at two locations: 1) Brillouin’s HQ labs in Berkeley and 2) SRI’s lab in Menlo Park. The rigs were substantially the same, but environmentally, SRI’s lab was better temperature controlled.”

His goal was to find out if the HHT was indeed producing excess energy as claimed.

His presentation gives details about the design of the reactor, the calibration he carried out (using helium instead of hydrogen in the reactor core), and the results with a fueled reactor.

He says that he is “90 per cent sure” experiment was producing about three times as much energy as was being input into the system (12 to 20 Watts of excess power.)

Halem does disclose that he says that he invested in Brillouin Energy for his company, LENR-Invest.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/lw6dSRbH8Nc

UPDATE: (Oct 18, 2016) Michael Halem has provided some additional detail on the experiment:

The ICCF20 talk is a synoptic version of the paper which will be published around the end of December in JCMNS:

https://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/CMNS.htm

The heat produced by the experiment is calculated from a calibration fit of temperature vs. power output using a two coefficient model (k_c, the conduction+convection “Newtonian” coefficient, and k_r, the radiation “Stefan/Boltzmann” coefficient). The heat is supplied by either a resistor, or by a reaction, hypothesized to be LENR. The flow rates of the Ar cooling gas on the experiment are so low that almost all of the heat is dissipated before the gas gets to the heat exchanger. The calibration does not rely on a measured quantity of heat removed by the heat exchanger, but rather by the total heat removed by the experiment from conduction+convection, and from radiation at different temperatures.

A future experiment, to commence shortly, will work to remove the irregularities that I noted in the previously experiment.

  • sam
  • sam
  • No, he still answers to (serious) question via email.

    He temporarily left public forums and blogs to reduce public awareness and to have more time for his work.

  • sam

    Does anyone have an opinion about this
    guestion and answer from Rossi Blog.

    D.T.
    October 19, 2016 at 1:24 PM
    Dear Andrea:
    As you probably have seen, Brillouin has published their demo at the ICCF of Japan: congratulations, you have got another replication of your effect: their reactor is a true copy of your old Hot Cat. After their agreement with Cherokee-IH, they have got from Darden your technology and replicated it. Probably you noticed that since their agreement with IH, Brillouin has just repeated as a parrot every move of you…even the reactor that resambles a pencil.
    You must really be ready to invade the world with a strongly competitive, economy scale based product before disclosing your QuarkX. Cherokee-IH-Brillouin will try to copy the QuarkX immediately and will say that their is “original”. Darden has to make his investors bite the toilet papers he filled with IH, that remained an empty box after your departure from Cherokee-IH. They made the money disappear and substituted it with the toilet papers of things that never worked and never will work. Now they, together with Woodford, must convince all the investors of Cherokee and Woodford that IH has a value of IP worth the money that disappeared from IH. They know that they can replicate you in laboratory, but cannot violate your patents in the real market…Beware, Andrea and remember here you have big friends.
    From Russia, with love,
    D.T.

    Andrea Rossi
    October 19, 2016 at 4:20 PM
    D.T.:
    Thank you for the information, very interesting. As you know, I never comment the actions of our competitors, nor talk in the blogs of issues to be discussed of in Court.
    Thank you for your sustain.
    Warm Regards,
    A.R.

    • Warthog

      “After their agreement with Cherokee-IH, they have got from Darden your
      technology and replicated it. Probably you noticed that since their
      agreement with IH, Brillouin has just repeated as a parrot every move of
      you…even the reactor that resambles a pencil.”

      And IH is perfectly free to do precisely that. As licensees of both Rossi’s tech and Brillouin’s tech they are entirely free to combine to two ideas and do research on them to see if they yield a better result. This is completely legal AND completely ethical.

      What they CANNOT do legally or ethically is sell units based on the tech without an agreement with and payment to Leonardo Corporation (titular owner of Rossi’s tech).

      But IMO, there was more than sufficient info floating around publicly for a company as learned in LENR as Brillouin to develop their own similar design. Again, this is both legal and ethical. Brillouin has been aware of Rossi’s work since the very first demonstration, and publicly offered to share technology with Rossi (who it was obvious was having difficulties starting and controlling his reactors).

      If Rossi (or Leonardo) think their patent has been infringed, the issue will be resolved in court. Exactly and precisely as it should be.

      But I am tired of hearing aspersions cast on IH and/or Brillouin when they have done only what the law allows.

      • Publius

        It’s not even that complicated. Brillouin’s technology is independent of Rossi and IH and has been in development for years. Darden (not IH) made a personal investment in Brillouin. Darden has no contact with Brillouin as a common shareholder. IH has not shared anything with Brillouin. IH has stated under oath Rossi’s technology does not work. Meanwhile, Brillouin has confirmation of excess heat from among other, SRI and Mr. Halem. Why would Brillouin need or even want Rossi’s technology?

        • Warthog

          Well, the first Brillouin approach to hi-temp LENR was the equivalent of a “pressurized water reactor”….still liquid/electrochemical, but in a pressure vessel. The timeline seems to indicate that their work on gas-phase hi-temp occurred “AR” (After Rossi). Which is, of course, perfectly legitimate, whether based of publicly available information about the Rossi work, or an extension of other gas-phase LENR research (which certainly existed at the time).

          But thanks for the info re Darden/IH investment status. I, like others here, thought that IH had licensed from Brillouin as well as Rossi.

    • Obvious

      distorted Dialogue where the audience presumably is Semplicio

  • Axil Axil

    There is a dream that LENR supporters have that may not come about. This dream is the “off the grid” independence that is rooted in rugged individualism and the frontier spirit.

    There are two characteristics of the Rossi fuel cycle that will force Rossi type LENR toward government control, regulation and use in large scale utility based power plants.

    The first is the production of hard to shield intense muon fluxes that disrupt electrical equipment out over a long distance away from the home based reactor. For example, the Defkalion reactor produced electrical interference so intense, that two Faraday shields plus mu metal was unable to keep the phone system that serviced their lab operating.

    This is a common observation for LENR developers as follows:

    ME356 states: “Emissions (RF, electrons and UV) during the test were so strong that my control circuit was absolutely crazy even that it was 3 meters away – it is unusable.

    I am very sure that this behavior is real as it happened to me too. I use analog pressure meter which cannot be damaged.

    I am sure that the noise is extremely high as it affects computers and USB peripherals 2 meters away.
    Everything is contactless.

    Also I have checked that SiC element is producing so intense EM field, that my IR meter (that is reading data from TC) was unstable at 800W and more.”

    The second issue is the production of nearly pure Lithium 6 as a ash product. This will place every Rossi reactor under the licensed control of the NRC and the IAEA. The people who control proliferation and the regulation of bomb capable materials will not allow Lithium 6 generation out into general public use.

    So both Rossi and ME356 are behaving under a false predicate. Their logic and assumptions are way off. The Rossi type rector will never be used in the home. The Rossi type of reactor will be used on economies of scale nuclear reactor sites like any other fusion or fission reactor.

    • US_Citizen71

      The Lithium 6 production doesn’t really matter. If you are going to build an illicit nuke the extra neutrons release from naturally occurring Lithium wouldn’t be an issue. The reason Lithium 6 is used is to make a smaller boom.

      • Axil Axil

        You meant to say that the Lithium 6 is used to produce a bigger boom, an enhancement in the supercritical reaction that enhanced neutron production brings.

        Rossi and his partners will walk into a regulatory cul-de-sac, a dead end, no exit; a blind alley in which by decades long tradition, the Rossi technology will be controlled by the nuclear authorities through licencing.

        • US_Citizen71

          No Lithium 7 does just fine due to tritium and neutron production like in Castle Bravo.

          “High yield[edit]
          The yield of 15 megatons was three times the yield of 5 Mt predicted by its designers.[1][5]:541 The cause of the higher yield was a theoretical error made by designers of the device at Los Alamos National Laboratory. They considered only the lithium-6 isotope in the lithium deuteride secondary to be reactive; the lithium-7 isotope, accounting for 60% of the lithium content, was assumed to be inert.[5]:541 It was expected that the lithium-6 isotope would absorb a neutron from the fissioning plutonium and emit an alpha particle and tritium in the process, of which the latter would then fuse with the deuterium and increase the yield in a predicted manner. Lithium-6 indeed reacted in this manner.[citation needed]
          It was assumed that the lithium-7 would absorb one neutron, producing lithium-8 which decays (via beryllium-8) to a pair of alpha particles on a timescale of seconds—vastly longer than the timescale of nuclear detonation. However, when lithium-7 is bombarded with energetic neutrons, rather than simply absorbing a neutron, it captures the neutron and decays almost instantly into an alpha particle, a tritium nucleus, and another neutron. As a result, much more tritium was produced than expected, the extra tritium fusing with deuterium and producing an extra neutron. The extra neutron produced by fusion and the extra neutron released directly by lithium-7 decay produced a much larger neutron flux. The result was greatly increased fissioning of the uranium tamper and increased yield.[citation needed]
          This resultant extra fuel (both lithium-6 and lithium-7) contributed greatly to the fusion reactions and neutron production and in this manner greatly increased the device’s explosive output. The test used lithium with a high percentage of lithium-7 only because lithium-6 was then scarce and expensive; the later Castle Union test used almost pure lithium-6. Had sufficient lithium-6 been available, the usability of the common lithium-7 might not have been discovered.[citation needed]” – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo

          • Axil Axil

            Lithium 7 is not the issue. Enhancement of Lithium 6 is because it is a controlled nuclear material.

            EXPORT AND IMPORT OF NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL

            Li-6 is used in thermonuclear weapons and the export and use of Li-6 is therefore strictly controlled. Rossi’s patent requires the use of lithium as fuel with the conversion of Lithium 7 to Lithium 6. Rossi’s LENR reaction enhances Lithium 6 over natural isotopic concentrations. The Nuclear Retaliatory Commission(NRC) will place any device that uses lithium as fuel where lithium 6 isotopic ratio is enhanced over nature levels is in violation of NRC regulations and will be restricted as a thermonuclear weapons proliferation risk. The NRC will not permit a commercial product that produces nearly pure Lithium 6 to be freely available for use in the marketplace were Lithium 6 can be extracted from it.

            LENR developers must stay away from any LENR reaction that uses lithium as a fuel.

            http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part110/full-text.html

            PART 110—EXPORT AND IMPORT OF NUCLEAR EQUIPMENT AND MATERIAL

            Appendix N to Part 110—Illustrative List of Lithium Isotope Separation Facilities, Plants and Equipment Under NRC’s Export Licensing Authority

            a. Facilities or plants for the separation of lithium isotopes.

            b. Equipment for the separation of lithium isotopes, such as:

            (1) Packed liquid-liquid exchange columns especially designed for lithium amalgams;

            (2) Mercury and/or lithium amalgam pumps;

            (3) Lithium amalgam electrolysis cells;

            (4) Evaporators for concentrated lithium hydroxide solution.

            c. Any other components especially designed or prepared for use in a reprocessing plant or in any of the components described in this appendix.

            [65 FR 70292, Nov. 22, 2000; 79 FR 39299, Jul. 10, 2014]

            Appendix N to Part 110—Illustrative List of Lithium Isotope Separation Facilities, Plants and Equipment Under NRC’s Export Licensing Authority

            a. Facilities or plants for the separation of lithium isotopes.

            b. Equipment for the separation of lithium isotopes, such as:

            (1) Packed liquid-liquid exchange columns especially designed for lithium amalgams;

            (2) Mercury and/or lithium amalgam pumps;

            (3) Lithium amalgam electrolysis cells;

            (4) Evaporators for concentrated lithium hydroxide solution.

            c. Any other components especially designed or prepared for use in a reprocessing plant or in any of the components described in this appendix.

            [65 FR 70292, Nov. 22, 2000; 79 FR 39299, Jul. 10, 2014]

  • Anyone know if Bob Greenyer is going to see me356?

    That was tentatively planned for late October if I remember correctly.

  • Michael Halem

    The slides to my talk are at the below link:
    https://sites.google.com/a/lenr-invest.co/lenr-invest-downloads/

    • Ged

      Thank you for sharing!

    • Frank Acland

      Thanks, Michael. I’ve added the link to the post above.

    • Wishful Thinking Energy

      Michael, could you please verify the estimated COP from the experiment? In reviewing your slides it looks like the maximum COP was estimated to be about 1.2, but Frank mentions above a COP of 3. A COP of 1.2 is closer to what others (including myself) have achieved with this type of system.
      Also, is my understanding correct that the Q-pulse was not used for this testing? Thank you for the excellent report.

  • Eyedoc

    Well it looks like Brillouin has the “mouse” now, so can someone please work on the ‘cat’ 😉

    • Mats002

      “Mouse” is COP a little over 1 – MFMP and others also have it. Brillouin do have the “Cat” too I think. Similar to Rossi back in 2011.

  • pg

    From a believer since Jan 2011. Yaaawwwnnn. Like MFMP this will not give anything. Reason? IH is still fighting AR as their life depended on it. If they really had the holy grail (made by their scientists with no input by Rossi’s tech) they would be making arrangements with the biggest players in the world (GE, Siemens, the Chinese government etc.) and not presenting at ICCF20.

  • Ciaranjay

    So if Industrial Heat invested in Brillouin as part of their pay masters grand plan to stop LENR then this is a major leak.
    Be interesting to see how their propaganda machine works with this one!

    Alternatively, my theory is that IH are just investors looking for a great investment and they have faith in LENR.

    • COP 3 is not a threat to the existing order.

      • Ciaranjay

        Maybe not but it is a significant announcement that LENR works.
        Not what the existing order wants.
        Brillouin, on their site mention a COP of 4 so I suspect Halem was being conservative.
        I would not be surprised if the COP gets raised significantly in the next year or two.

        • Perhaps if they send it out to multiple Universities for unlimited testing and publication, but they continue to hold it too close for public or scientific community acceptance.

          • Ciaranjay

            Yes that would be nice.
            The old order is founded on money.
            Looks like the new order will be too.

        • Albert D. Kallal

          Brillouin had reports from SRI on their site for some time now. So I don’t see these new reports as a surprise, or something as a result of IH or Rossi.

          However, another player with some high quality tests from SRI is a good thing for the industry. So this is welcome boost for the LENR community.

          And I agree that a COP in the 3 range is not commercial viable from a marketplace point of view, but it sure is the heck a good start for Brillouin. As noted, I sure the next step is increased COP – we have to see what they cook up. While “most” here accept LENR, many outsiders do not – so no matter how one slices this, it is a good turn of events for LENR.

          Regards,
          Albert D. Kallal
          Edmonton, Alberta Canada

          • Ciaranjay

            Exactly.

  • Michael Halem

    Hi Frank,

    Slight correction.

    The experiments were carried out at two locations: 1) Brillouin’s HQ labs in Berkeley and 2) SRI’s lab in Menlo Park. The rigs were substantially the same, but environmentally, SRI’s lab was better temperature controlled.

    • Frank Acland

      Thank you Michael, nice to hear from you.

      I will make those corrections. I did not realize you worked at two locations.

    • Obvious

      Mr. Halem, thank you for joining us.

      Could you quickly summarize how the excess power is calculated? (The slides are a bit tricky to read in the video).
      Is the heat exchanger connected to the argon gas used for measuring power?
      It seemed to me that the excess heat was being calculated from the difference in power required to heat the device to certain temperature levels compared to a calibration (using He instead of H gas, and/or heat from a resistor for calibration).

      • Michael Halem

        Give me 24 hours and I will put my slides up and will post a link back here.

        The ICCF20 talk is a synoptic version of the paper which will be published around the end of December in JCMNS: https://www.iscmns.org/CMNS/CMNS.htm

        The heat produced by the experiment is calculated from a calibration fit of temperature vs. power output using a two coefficient model (k_c, the conduction+convection “Newtonian” coefficient, and k_r, the radiation “Stefan/Boltzmann” coefficient). The heat is supplied by either a resistor, or by a reaction, hypothesized to be LENR. The flow rates of the Ar cooling gas on the experiment are so low that almost all of the heat is dissipated before the gas gets to the heat exchanger. The calibration does not rely on a measured quantity of heat removed by the heat exchanger, but rather by the total heat removed by the experiment from conduction+convection, and from radiation at different temperatures.

        A future experiment, to commence shortly, will work to remove the irregularities that I noted in the previously experiment.

        • Ged

          Thank you for the details, and for joining our dicussion. Seems a lot of interesting papers are coming out this December–looking forward to yours!

        • Obvious

          Thank you for reply. I look forward to the slides.

          Have the differences in the specific heat of hydrogen vs that of helium been considered in regards to the effect on the steady state temperature?

          • TVulgaris

            I’ll bet that difference vanishes below the noise floor in the excess heat and CoP calcs- even nearly 3 X the cp of He will only make a small difference

            in the elapsed time to reach maximum temperature, and that WILL affect (and is affected by surrounding conditions) the rate and amount of radiated heat from the box in the photo to the lab environment- but the entire setup is a differential study with the control running simultaneously right next to it.

  • TVulgaris

    He’s 90% sure because of the non-calibrated nature of the

    H2 run- which is much more complicated than the He calibration run, but I don’t know why he didn’t just report it as being interesting and extremely suggestive of excess heat, because 90% is 2 sigma (not 1 sigma, that’s much lower confidence). Brokeeper suggests that puts him behind Rossi by 5 years, but all Halem is doing is verification, and he didn’t talk at all about the pulse characteristics, assuming Brillouin has released any of that- I strongly suspect he could put together a comprehensive operational test very quickly to take this to MUCH higher reliability, and on a reactor that might be a manufacturing or commercial prototype, if he has access to the signal train.

    • TVulgaris

      2 sigma is actually 95%, but you get the idea. And his data DID look really consistent, so here’s hoping he gets to work on a more advanced test where he CAN actually calibrate for H2.

      • Brokeeper

        My quess was a half a sigma guess. 🙂

  • radvar

    Nit: SRI is in Menlo Park, Brillouin is in Berkeley.

  • Brokeeper

    At one Sigma it appears at this rate they are 5 years behind Rossi with near 5 Sigma. If AR starts production by the end of the year with his proclaimed business model there may be no catching-up.

    • Mats002

      One NiH sigma at hand is better than 5 sigma in the woods.

    • Omega Z

      There is no question that there would be those who catch up.
      It would merely be a matter of time.

      Note if you have a 4 year head start, it may only take me 2 years to catch up.

      • Brokeeper

        Note: if I have 4 years head start, there is no doubt it would take you 4 weeks to catch up. 😀

  • I am 90% sure that it beats my heat pump,
    By at least 10%.

  • Ophelia Rump

    90% sure?

    Sounds almost scientifical.

  • Gerard McEk

    Very promissing! I hope he will soon publish a test where he is 100% sure of a COP>1.
    Would this process also be enhanced if also litium is used? I would expect that Brillouin has already tested that.

  • Zephir

    /* “90 per cent sure” experiment was producing about three times as much energy as was being input into */

    Not quite the 99.9999% reliability of Quark-X of A.Rossi recently anounced, but it looks realistic the more. After all, the energy yield could be multiplied rather easily by chaining of multiple reactors into layers (i.e. with cat & mouse approach already used by A.Rossi).

    Brillouin reportedly utilizes Controlled Electron Capture Reaction (CECR) process at temperatures between 500 °C to 700 °C. Hydrogen is loaded onto a nickel lattice where an electronic pulse (Brillouin Q-Pulse™) is passed through the system, resulting in a “compressed lattice”. During it the 1H (normal hydrogen) is converted into 4He (helium) under release of heat. http://brillouinenergy.com/technology/products/

  • COP 3 with high probability. Nice.

    I must say that all these LENR+ reactor companies put a great deal of engineering effort into their scams and are very brave handing them out for testing. They certainly inject a great deal of confidence into their long cons.

    Or maybe they’re real.

    Yeah, they’re real.

    • roseland67

      G

      Certainly have to consider both possibilities

      • So Brillouin conned this guy out of major money and then gave him a hot tube to test?

        And then got super lucky he found COP 3?

        Or what, he’s part of the con now?

        I demand the skeptics declare the maximum number of people feasible in a multi-million dollar multi-year long con. I guess it must be more than 5 because that’s what we have in both Leonardo and Brillouin. But there must be a limit. A common-sense limit would be 2, maybe 3, I think. But what is the asymptotic limit? Let’s get it on record so we know we’ll have your grudging support if and when we reach that number.

        • Ciaranjay

          Well apparently there are hundreds of climate scientists running a multi-million dollar, multi-year long con.
          So I guess it can be more than 5.

          • roseland67

            jay,

            Good example

            • Not really.

              A single team with products in development. What’s the limit?

              • Ciaranjay

                Yes LENR G it is nonsense.
                Because the idea that a multi-million dollar, multi-year long con could involve hundreds of people is nonsense.

                So for a serious opinion I would say that judging from Orbo and other examples the co-conspirators would likely be one or two with various employees who just keep their heads down and get paid.
                However there are examples of companies set up to suck in shareholder money which then disappear. The Chinese have been noteworthy in this kind ot scam. These can have perhaps half a dozen people at the top who know exactly what is happening but hide it from everyone else.

                The larger the number of conspirators the more likely someone will spill the beans. So 5 or 6 is probably an upper limit for an effective scam.

                • Thank you for an honest and cogent answer.

      • cashmemorz

        As long as cons/scams are being looked into what would ITER be considered? Consider that ITER type tokomaks and all other variations, spherical tokomaks, laser implosion, half century long time frames, hugely over budget, continuous operation times of under one second, never any COP of even 1. Probably based on wrong model of how solar fusion actually works. What do we make of that? But they are scientific to the nth degree. So they are in basic research point as far as I understand the scientific method. Government sanctioned because of lack of understanding of the physics by those holding the purse strings. But a scam after all that? Oh, no-oooo!

        • roseland67

          Cash,

          I would catagorize ITER as a long con,

          • cashmemorz

            Also a great number of persons, including scientists of high caliber have been duped into it, not just getting them to agree with what is happening, but are actually deeply involved in those hot fusion experiments. Delusion covered by inability or unwillingness to recognize it for what it is. A huge ongoing mistake, a white elephant that is close to the front of that herd. It might still work if enough brute force is applied. But what amount of force, time and cost in money and effort will it take? I see a possible saving grace in shoots in new materials methods etc are developed. LENR or cold fusion is also little understood which may produce results in other areas just as much as hot fusion. So I shouldn’t bad mouth either hot or cold fusion at this time.

            • Brokeeper

              Agreed much understanding about our physical world and its limitations for better uses. Failure is another term for success turning another direction.

            • TVulgaris

              It can’t be considered a con, or even pure pork product in the funding appropriations, as too much basic research and much valuable spinoff tech has come from it, and its science is quite sound. It’s likely LENR can make interplanetary travel reasonable- but most likely not interstellar. Hot fusion CAN, just from a brute-force application.

              The real problem is the staggering stupidity of not soft-peddling HF the slightest bit to pursue the fiscally lower-hanging fruit (at least since ’95 when enough confirmatory work was getting results) of LENR, can you imagine the benefits HF research might have obtained from undeniable demonstrations of LENR in 2000, say? Let alone the complete derailment of the history of the time…

              • Warthog

                “……….much valuable spinoff tech has come from it…”

                And what might that valuable spinoff tech be?? I have certainly never seen anything alluding to that (or at least anything commercial…..there may well have been valuable info for improved nuclear weapons).

    • Robert Dorr

      Maybe they’re working on a Sigma 5 con.

    • sam

      The people with the technology and investors start out with every
      intention of being successful.
      But problems that come getting
      it to work and the longer it takes
      to get it to work and
      the scam theory sets in.