McKubre Slides From Norway Presentation Chronicle SRI’s LENR Replications — Brillouin Featured

Cold Fusion Now has found some interesting details from Michael McKubre.

The slides that were presented by Michael McKubre at the symposium on LENR held in Oslo, Norway on November 5th have been uploaded to the LENR-CANR.org site here.

There’s a lot of interesting detail in these slides, including a list of nine replications that McKubre reports that SRI has made over the years:

1. 1989-1991 Fleischmann Pons Heat Effect.
2. 1992 Kevin Wolf Gamma activation.
3. 1993 Ni – Natural Water Heat Effect.
4. 1993-1996 Mel Miles Heat-4He correlation.
5. 1995 Patterson “Light” Water Excess Heat.
6. 1996-1998 Les Case Heat and 4He.
7. 1997-1998 Arata-Zhang “DS” Cathodes Heat and 3He.
8. 2003-2011 Energetics “SuperWave” Excess Heat and 3H.
9. 2012-2014 Brillouin Excess Heat

Regarding Brillouin — there has been quite a bit of discussion lately about them as they have been visiting government and business leaders in Norway, Finland and the United States. Here are a couple of slides from McKubre’s presentation which provide some notes about what SRI has measured in Brillouin’s systems. These two slides represent both the ‘wet'(electolytic) and ‘dry’ (all gas) cell approaches of Brillouin.

brillouinslide1Brillouinslide2

  • Oystein Lande

    The question from Mats below was interesting,

    First of all, the definition of “Excess Power” in my opinion should be Pxs= Power out – Power in.

    Then the percentage excess power would be Pxs(%) = 100* (Power out – Power in) / Power in = 100*Pxs/Pin

    In the Mckubre graph he says “presentage Excess” both in the vertical axis and in the text below.

    SO: What did he mean by [Pxs/Pin] ?

    This may be evaluated also by reading the ENEA report “Cold Fusion – The History of research in Italy” which was issued in 2009. Page 91 Fig.2 in the report shows the L17 experiment where they also state “500% excess power”. Power out at the MAX point was approximately 0,625 WATT, while the input was approximately 0,125 WATT. Using my definiton we get 400% “excess power”. So it seems ENEA just use 500% to mean “of the input”, i.e. 100*Power out/Power in = 500%

    “Clear as ink” 😉 ?

    Conclusion: If we consider the ENEA L17 experiment (500 value in Mckubres graph) it seems Mckubres graph is actually given as the relationship between output power and input power. So Mckubre graph would rather be 100*Pout/Pin for this point. Is it the same definition for the other points in the graph?

    In that case the line 100 in Mckubres graph is Power out = Power in….

    BUT, I think rather it is the 500 value that should read 400, and that it’s my definition that is used for other points.

    BECAUSE: It would be VERY strange to measure heat power out at only 12% of power in for the lowest values. Where would then the rest of the energy “disappear” to if not heat? (and I expect closed cells with recombination where used)

    Somebody should ask Mckubre . Most likely the 500 value actually was meant to be 400, and the lowest values 12% means 12% more power out than in.

    Regards
    Lande

    • Mats002

      Yes I think you are right. Robert Godes, of Brillouin Energy Corporation discusses the reasons why they have so far achieved only 2x the output as is used at the input, and what multiple is required for commercial success in each of their two technologies”. With McKubre definition of excess power in the Norwegian presentation COP 2.1 is >100% Pxs. That makes sense. Link: http://vimeo.com/groups/250451/videos/95828140

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Patent application by Brillouin, „Control of low energy nuclear reaction hydrides, and autonomously controlled heat“ (filed Feb. 25, 2014, published Nov. 13, 2014):

    http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20141113ptan20140332087.php

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Presumably the same as the application that has recently been discussed here, but a PDF with images can be downloaded.

  • pg

    Pekka what do you think?

    • Pekka Janhunen

      They are summary slides. As such, they are not meant to change the world, in the sense that a sceptical person cannot hope to be convinced by reading them because the devils of the details are left to imagination.
      His list of five parties on page 17 is interesting (BLP, Piantelli, Rossi, Defkalion, Brillouin) in its inclusions and omissions. However the blue texts and their question marks explain the motivations. BLP is there because they raised 80 million, Piantelli because he confirmed them, Rossi because of the report, and Brillouin because of the SRI working relationship. For Defkalion, it looks like copied from some 2-3 years old slides. In theory it might of course be that despite going silent Defkalion would still be in the game, but I doubt it. Overall it looks to me that the list shouldn’t be taken too seriously, it necessarily reflects the connections that SRI has had, rather than aiming to be some kind of true global picture.

      • pg

        Thank you

      • tlp

        New analysis of BLP by a vortex-l writer:

        http://personalpen.orionworks.com/blacklight-power.htm

        What is your opinion of GUT-CP?

        • Pekka Janhunen

          Most likely it’s quite wrong. There are many reasons. If the world is classical, how does one explain quantum interference effects. If hydrinos exist and if dark matter is made of them, why don’t x-ray telescopes see any characteristic x-ray spectral lines from them. Because it consists of charged particles, hydrino dark matter would not be very sterile, it would interact with ordinary matter to some extent. For example it would scatter elastically off nuclei at some probability which would have been seen in underground detectors such as Super Kamiokande.

          • tlp

            From GUT-CP Chapter 5:
            A
            broad X-ray peak with a 3.48 keV cutoff was recently observed in the Perseus Cluster by NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory and by the
            XMM-Newton [32-33] that has no match to any known atomic transition.

            http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/Chapter-5_3.5_keV_feature.pdf

            http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Mills claims that EUV/X-ray signatures which could be related to hydrino transitions have been found in astrophysical observations (see tlp’s comment below).

            He has further given a classical explanation for the results of Young’s double-slit experiment, here is a summary with some nice animations:

            http://www.blacklightpower.com/theory-2/theory/double-slit/

            • Pekka Janhunen

              I now read his Young experiment explanation. He seems to say that electron is particle and goes only through one slit, but that it interacts with slit boundaries by photons which are true waves and show interference.

              It remains unclear whether such model can work quantitatively, in particular how would the photon field “know” that another slit is open and how its form would change so drastically. Also, such photons are not observed. And diffraction is also observed for neutrons which have no charge and thus cannot interact with slits by photons.

  • NT

    Links all work fine on my Mac…

  • Mats002

    I would like to understand McKubres numbers of excess power (excess heat). Slide 24, last slide in the presentation, says Percentage Excess Power = Pxs/Pin. COP=1 would then be equal to Pxs=Pin.

    Slide 18 about Brillouin wet system has excess power >100%. With the same definition that would be COP > 1,

    Some information here on ECW says that Brillouin somewhere claimed a COP near 100 (might be wrong, just a mem). If so could that be a misunderstanding because of mixing up the COP and Percentage Excess Power representations? Anyone here know better about Brillouin’s latest COP numbers?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Maybe the “%” sign on slide 18 is a typo?

  • http://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/ barty

    Don’t think so. It’s neither independent as it statest, nor bullet proof. Too many questions.

    • Daniel Maris

      Whereas all other science papers published in science journals are independent and bullet proof. You must think we were born yesterday.