SRI Replication Report Another Interesting Addition to LENR Body of Research

It has not been uncommon to hear LENR researchers report apparent COP results from their experiments of somewhere between 1.1 – 1.5, and the recent replication interim report written by Francis Tanzella of SRI’s testing of Brillouin system has results in a similar range. Here’s a table and excerpt from the report (available here:

The LENR coefficients of performance (COPs) that have been produced in the Brillouin IPB HHTs in 2016, and the related power output levels of a couple or several Watts, especially since March of 2016, are admittedly low and small-scale. However, it would be a mistake to discount them, in light of the accuracy of their calorimetry, the consistent repeatability of their production, their controllability, and the refinement of their manufacturing techniques, specifications, and components, all leading to the same repeated results as verified independently. The transportability of the system is also a remarkable achievement from an independent review basis. While these achievements are still being produced in a test laboratory at bench scale, they are uniquely pointing to an engineering pathway to evolve an actual commercial design. I know of no other independently verified results of this kind in the field today.

Even with a small COP, and relatively low-power, if these results are accurate, this would be a scientifically significant result. For a system to produce more power than is input for a reasonable period of time has been the goal of hot fusion researchers for decades, and still it is not yet attainable. I think that results such as this from any hot fusion system would be headline news, but LENR does not garner the same amount of attention from journalists.

So I think this SRI result can be added to a growing list of results that seem to show that LENR is a viable means of producing an overunity amount of energy.

However, from the standpoint of critics, there does seem to be a problem with the low-COP, low-power results, since the apparent excess energy might be dismissed as statistical noise. The SRI report does state that higher COPs have been produced with the Brillouin system, but not as consistently. From the report:

At least one core, having undergone special material processing explained in the technical section, has produced COP’s of 1.91 and 2.08. Several other test runs were above 1.5 or 1.6. However, these higher output results have so far been not as reliably repeatable. As core construction continues to improve and more protocols and parameters are tested and refined, we expect to see more of the higher COP’s. Regardless, the test results summarized herein are the basis for the conclusions in this Interim Progress Report, because of the extensive analysis they have been put through, including their repeatability and their accuracy. Brillouin and SRI are continuing to expand these test results with additional test core materials and data outputs at this time.

We should note, then, that this is an interim report, and we might see in future updates better results. For now, I think this work helps the cause of LENR, and might raise its visibility, but higher COP and higher power results would help reduce some of the continuing doubts.



  • Fedir Mykhaylov

    Surprisingly, previous experience with this type of reactor is allowed to cop close to the 4. Is Makkubre so wrong?

  • Rossi Fan

    This smacks of poor victim me. Let’s quantify what SRI did and did not do.
    They did not say hey all you labs around the world here’s how we got cold fusion to work. Step 1. 2. 3. voila. Try it yourself. Go ahead.
    They did say we tested this one shop’s proprietary system and at first glance it kinda sorta looks like it just might work. Don’t expect to do it yourself because it’s for them (Brillo) to know and you to figure it out.
    There is a fundamental benefit as well as problem with how capitalism approaches ground breaking new innovations. A tiny skunk works operation can run circles around a much larger established scientific establishment however… A miniscule mom & pop operation can at times stifle innovation when problems arise in order to protect their competitive stance in the marketplace. These problems may very well be easily solved if a much larger team got involved.
    So what you might end up having is a fantastic system that works but is unreliable. These guys will take a few years off to figure out individually how to get the kinks out. Meanwhile we all freeze because it is winter and at times it would be nice to have all the heat you can waste without worrying about budget or climate change.

    • Omega Z

      You know, If it weren’t for the capitalist system, there probably wouldn’t be no Brillouin energy. Nor a lot of other things we take for granted today. Computers, Smart phones, etc, etc, etc…

      Of course, if it makes you feel better, I believe Industrial Heat and Tom Darden are 1 of there investors.

      • Rossi Fan

        I’m not a commie. I’m just saying the current system sucks. The way we deal with new inventions stifles progress and leads to delays. While we’re on the subject of Brillo. Where would Brillo be without the US government patent system? We’re not talking pure capitalism here.

      • Rossi Fan

        There may also be another facet at play. What if you just can’t patent LENR? Forget Brillo for a moment. How do you think BLP is able to produce light? I have a hunch and it might have nothing to do with dark matter. All these small companies are stifling progress by not revealing their secrets. It would be a laugh if they all got shafted in the end by nature.
        My guess is BLP is not making the neutrino orbit closer thus faster but rather farther thus slower. That would explain where the light is coming from. Energy is not being created or destroyed. What is happening is merely energy inflation. You can’t really patent that now can you? By inflation I mean the government prints money. You the individual are not really rich or poor in a capitalist system. You are rich or poor relative to your neighbors. You cannot see a hole you can only see the surroundings. Light exists in dimensional reality. The trigonometry that we learned in high school and early college covered the obvious. That which we can see and perceive around us. Space can be interchanged with energy. It’s not that the ancient Egyptian’s had it wrong. They focused on the obvious, not the parts of trigonometry that they were not able to perceive.

  • Pekka Janhunen

    “For a system to produce more power than is input for a reasonable
    period of time has been the goal of hot fusion researchers for decades,
    and still it is not yet attainable.”

    This kind of characterisation is indeed frequently used by hot fusion people, but it’s fundamentally ambiguous and strictly speaking meaningless, because any fusion experiment that produces even a tiny bit of fusion produces by definition more energy out than energy in. A meaningful criterion should take into account the type of energy (thermal or electric) being consumed and produced. If the customer wants electricity, then the reactor must produce more electricity out than electricity in. If the customer can also accept thermal energy, then one has to ask him what is the minimum acceptable COP. “Anything larger than unity” is not a meaningful answer because then all fusion experimenters past and present could suddenly claim success.

    Inventing such language was probably politically convenient for hot fusion people because it allows to move the goalposts without touching. Psychologically, the language may give an “exact” or “scientific” feeling to the reader and increase his/her confidence in the whole hot fusion endeavour. The human world remains in many ways a prisoner of words, and there are people and groups who do not hesitate to use this fact to their benefits.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      „because any fusion experiment that produces even a tiny bit of fusion produces by definition more energy out than energy“

      However, as long as the the number of obtained fusion events is relatively small in comparison to the total of nuclei, you will have to pump more energy into the system than you get out. This has been a problem since Cockroft & Walton’s historical experiment.

    • hhiram

      This is not my understanding, but please correct me if I am wrong.

      My understanding is that the net COP over time with hot fusion has never been shown to be >1. In other words, the timeframe of analysis cannot be so short that it conveniently cuts off earlier energy inputs and only shows the moment when there is a large energy output. Hence, there has been no over-unity achievement once you fully account for all of the energy that actually has to be committed to the process before fusion can indeed be produced.

  • Warthog

    “However, from the standpoint of critics, there does seem to be a
    problem with the low-COP, low-power results, since the apparent excess
    energy might be dismissed as statistical noise.”

    I hope Frank will excuse my profanity, but this comment is sheer crap. Science long ago figured out how to determine whether a signal is greater than statistical noise. The limit of detection and signal-to-noise ratio of ANY instrument is easily calculated, and especially for calorimeters, as virtually all of them have methods for internal calibration.

    • Gerard McEk

      I agree very much with this. I.e. Look how is dealt with the Higgs boson detection in comparison, which was so much more demanding. I am sure SRI knows how to value their level of accuracy. Only the LENR deniers will try to use that low COP argument.

  • Alain Samoun

    In these experiments, the COP is not as important as the repeatability of the results and the control ON/OFF of the system.

  • bfast

    Any COP greater than 1, greater than possible calorimetry error, is scientifically HUGE! This should excite the world. From what I can see, main reason it doesn’t is that scientists feel that they are sticking their neck out, putting their career on the line, to even look at LENR. The two reasons for this are the tarring and feathering of Pons and Fleischman, and the fact that there is no theoretical explanation.

    This fact, and this fact alone, robs this data of its transformative power. But no problem, soon after I am heating my home with LENR, the scientific world will wake up to this amazing phenomenon.

    Go Rossi! Go Dr. Mills! I will be a very early adopter. (Its -30 outside my home right now.)