Seems MFMP was preparing a multi wire experiment back in June 2013:
http://www.quantumheat.org/ind…ires-can-we-fit-in-a-tube
What became of it I do not know.
MFMP New Generation Celani Wire Test Shows Possible >10% Excess Heat?
-
-
Barty, if you disagree, where is the error in my argument and calculations? They're very simple! And obvious.
QuoteWhat when the reaction process of one wire is neutralizing the reaction of the other wires?
But that's nonsense! How would that work and why? Did you just make it up out of nothing?The only valid argument against my suggestion is that the wire is hard to make and get. Hopefully after screwing with this for going on ten years, maybe it has improved by now?
Sometimes I suspect that most people who believe crooks like Defkalion and Rossi and who attend to obvious frauds like Papp and Steorn, Bedini, Dennis Lee, etc. etc., can't follow simple discussions about science and know nothing of even the most basic physics of heat transfer, the principles of nuclear physics, and the scientific method in general.
LOL... I did slightly miscompute the result and nobody caught it. If you have ten wires, each of which makes a net of 0.2W extra heat, the "output", as LENR researchers usually account for it, is 3 Watts, not 2 because they include the input power in the measurement. Their figure of merit or COP is output power/input power. In this case, output is 3 Watts and input is 1 Watt so with 10 wires, you get a COP of 3, minus accounting for any slight extra power needed to heat the extra wires and that is almost negligible due to their small mass compared to the whole volume of stuff being heated along with the wires.
-
MY, I get your point better now.
I would guess that once the one wire system is figured out to a reasonable level of reliability, then scaling up to more wires and improving the apparatus is the obvious step. I personally would move up to 2, then 4, then maybe 10 if each prior version proved to be scaling up well.Whether scaling this experiment fits the mandate of the MFMP, and is cost effective, is of course another problem. With unlimited funds I am sure they could test the possibilities and improve the calorimetry to the point of satisfying even your high standards with ease. Getting that high level of funding probably depends on lesser successes with the budget presently available.
-
If scaling up the number of wires, as I suggested, fails to greatly improve the "COP" and signal to noise ratio, then the wires are not producing excess heat. If I were doing this experiment, I'd consider it important to find this out sooner rather than later. The reliability difference between a COP of 1.2 and one of 3.0 is *HUGE*. And sure, two wires are better than one, and so on, as you said, Paradigmnoia.
-
First, one has to make a wheel that rolls, then one can move on to putting two together to make a cart, then four to make wagon... Ten wheels to start with might be unwieldy and not perform as expected...
-
Quote
First, one has to make a wheel that rolls, then one can move on to putting two together to make a cart, then four to make wagon... Ten wheels to start with might be unwieldy and not perform as expected...
Lovely excuse but invented out of nothing -- nonsense. The idea is to make an experiment which will yield credible and reproducible results. Right now, there is too little signal to do a credible experiment. If you can increase the signal to noise ratio by any reasonable means, you should do it sooner rather than later. Anyway, MFPM has been screwing around with Celani wires for what now? Going on three years? Four? This isn't making a cart. It's about getting a readable signal with low noise. Multiple wires are the OBVIOUS way.
-
Nonsense or not, a functional 4 wheel wagon needs the invention of independent bearings at some point. Try and turn a twin solid axle wagon around. And if the wheels are not equal in diameter even a two wheel cart will try and turn itself around or drag one wheel... Whether or not more is obviously better, more adds complications and new problems that might not be obvious at first glance.
The point of the MFMP is to come up with a replicable experiment that can be done anywhere, by anyone with a reasonable level of skill. (Perhaps even an experiment that you would be willing to try). Adding complexity might not be effective in that regard.
-
... Kirk Shanahan ... (A software programmer for Westinghouse Savannah River Company).
Do you have more information on this, beyond the pertinent comment below one of the E-Cat world articles? -
@Shane D.
I agree that a better signal is desirable. How one achieves that is a matter for the experimenters to solve. If a small signal is repeatable, conceivably the parameters can be adjusted to see if it can boosted by making small changes and seeing what happens, without adding more complexity. Maybe roughly 1.2 is the limit of this system. Maybe it is all just noise. Then a more sensitive and well-characterized calorimeter system could be employed so that noise is reduced. More wires is certainly another way to possibly improve the signal relative to noise. There are many variations feasible. But no one will care at if the experiment is not repeatable enough. Let's see if that can be fixed up before worrying about doing more.
The peanut gallery is full of ideas for others to try, but most just talk and don't do anything themselves. In that case, they just have to deal with what the doers are doing. Yelling at the TV screen won't affect the outcome of the show. -
Mary Yugo: Why don't you "do the experiment?" Thus far you and the usual suspects have heated exactly nothing considering that your hot air mostly falls into the noise category. I am quite confident that the people at MFMP will not rest on marginal results and will ultimately produce the experimental kit which you personally can use to your hearts content in your endless search for noise.
I regret taking this tone, but your relentless sideline haggling and naysaying serves no purpose other than to gratify your ego. The world is marching on, and if anything, we are seeing a relentless increase in the number of experimenters and researchers trying their best to do something constructive. Your sideline nagging is a pure waste. No one is stopping their research, and in the end, it is nature who will dictate the final result.
Perhaps, in the end, nothing will be found, but at least it will not be your reactionary deadness which preempts the voice of nature with the silence of those afraid to look.So, yes, Mary and Thomas et. al. why don't you spend your time "doing the experiment" instead of trying to cow others out of "doing the experiment"?
-
I think the experiment is difficult and unlikely to yield anything. It is not something I want to do. However, my initial suggestions to MFPM, early on in their work, made on their forums, were received with thanks. Far from making no contribution, asking them to increase the number of wires, though obvious, is important help if they either did not think of it or somehow failed to see how critical it is to amplifying their marginal results. As for you, Senor Gomp, you seem to be just another uninformed hapless believer. I've noticed that before.
-
It might not be simple to use the excess energy from wire 1 to power wire 2 and so on. Does anybody know?
-
Quote
my initial suggestions to MFPM, early on in their work, made on their forums, were received with thanks.
No doubt you have been a true fountain of good advice. And, as expected, you somehow think I am a true believer. What a nincompoop! For years you have shrilly tried to intimidate one and all who either did "believe" in LENR, or was truly on the fence, as I am, and have been. Your intimidation has failed, research continues, and expands, and I happily call you out. You have done ZERO to promote or forward research in this potentially revolutionary area. You have made, and continue to make, every effort to insult, demean and inhibit anyone from making progress or generating any support. You are an obfuscator, a pedantic debater and I would bet a great deal that your career was highlighted by an an endless stream of the banal and boring. Your greatest thrill has probably been on the various LENR blogs, representing "real" science, science with no curiosity, with no sense of adventure, and a dread of the forbidden. You will be as big a failure in your drive to inhibit LENR research as you surely were in any boring and static career you care to use as validation for your leaden dullness. And, truth be told, I could care less what you say henceforth to wet-blanket true scientific explorers because your critiques have no mare value than that of a third grade spelling checker. You lose no matter what becomes of LENR.
-
well, I apologise for my tone, which no doubt sounds bad.
I can see you are more moderate than many here - but I resist the middle sentence, which i quoted, quite strongly. Of course internet forums encourage partisanship. But that is no good for correct reading of experiments.
-
Now back to the topic of Celani wires. I will post some excerpts from a [lexicon]conversation[/lexicon] ongoing on the Moletrap about why more wires are needed and highly desirable. I am adding this because the individual who wrote it has a slightly different perspective and, frankly, explains it better than I do. Needless to say, I agree with everything he wrote:
QuoteDisplay More... if they [MFPM] properly insulated the reactor, they would not need to heat it at all, or only very little, except of the start before reaching the desired temperature. If there is some excess heat generated by the LENR effect, the reactor should get hotter even with no supply - and that would be the simplest and the best proof... I believe that achieving an insulation that would leak less than 13% of the generated heat within a reasonable time period, should not be too difficult, hence the self-sustained mode should be relatively easily achievable. If the reactor runs away and melts with no power input, then I start to believe that they may have something really interesting...
The MFMP tries to find out whether the Celani wire produces some excess heat or not. There are only two outcomes - either there is some excess heat (and then we need to find why), or there is none. If you measure a small piece of wire in an open system, your results will always be so low that you cannot be certain whether the excess heat is not just some systematic measuring error. If you use more wire and insulate the system to prevent heat loss, you will likely know pretty quickly whether there is the excess heat. [my emphasis]
(inbetween are some discussions about whether LENR is supposed to be "overunity" or OU-- it's not as we know here)
It is only Rossi (and other scammers) who try to make you believe that the reactor has to be plugged to the mains all the time to create some excess energy. In fact it does not make any sense at all, except of the initial heating. Since the LENR effect is supposed to be triggered by certain temperature, it is enough to bring it to that temperture, insulating enough to prevent that the heat loss is higher than the excess heat, and you do not need any source power at all (hence the OU would be infinite anyway).Regardless of it, even if you continue speaking about OU, and keep some power input, when heating the reactor, you do not heat only the actual energy generation mass (the wire), but also all the passive parts of the reactor, and in fact also the air in the lab. In other words you lose much more energy for useless heating of the environment, instead of heating just the reactive material. So you are completely wrong with your supposition that the 13% gain is simply 113% of the energy heating the wire. It is not, because close to 100% of the input energy is not used for heating the wire, but is lost to the environment. Necessarily, if you insulate the wire perfectly, you reduce the heat loss and the wire temperature will remain on the level needed for the supposed LENR reaction even without any power input. Using more wire will have similar effect. So if you keep speaking about OU, by using more wire, or/and by better thermal insulation, you would increase the OU significantly (or even get it to the infinite level). Of course, assuming there is some LENR effect at all.
The more wire you have, the more reactive mass you have, and the more excess heat you should generate. And since adding more wire does not need significantly more input energy to heat it to the same temperature (the reactor has several orders higher mass and is already heated to the needed temperature), following your own claim, you get much higher ratio. And if you insulate the reactor to prevent heat loss > excess heat, you should be able to switch off the input entirely, getting so an infinite ratio. [again, my emphasis- MY]
This is attributed to the pseudonym "xurt" at Moletrap: http://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=2212&page=734 plus a page or so before this link.
Note that the overall concept of using thermal insulation plus an increase in the heat production by more of whatever causes it, is a universal principle of evaluating LENR. Thus, you should be very suspicious of any apparatus which makes a substantial "COP" yet requires continuing power input in significant amounts from the mains. This applies to Defkalion, Rossi and Brillouin (far as I know) in particular.
-
Thus, you should be very suspicious of any apparatus which makes a substantial "COP" yet requires continuing power input in significant amounts from the mains.
This analysis is interesting, but it ignores the difficulties of working with a chaotic system, which can easily burn out. The point of mains power is that you have control over the amount of power going into the process, whatever it is. You could potentially achieve self-sustain mode by capturing some of the output power and channeling it through a heat engine, using the electrical output of the heat engine to charge a battery, and then switching the input power over to the battery. But attempting to close the loop simply with insulation seems like a recipe for burning out the heater to me. Am I mistaken?Hooking up a heat engine requires a sufficient amount of excess heat to produce enough electricity to charge a battery.
None of this is directed to the question of using more than one Celani wire.
-
You are all carefully avoiding the facts that:
This thread is about an experiment that is going on NOW, not 25 years ago.
This experiment is OPEN and any question can be put forward to Mathieu Valat or Jean Paul Biberian or Bob at MFMP.
Those of you who suggests or frankly claim having knowledge in science, please read fact and say something useful.
Facts here: http://www.quantumheat.org/ind…on-celani-wire-experiment
Thanks
-
Example of a weak spot in this experiment that Mathieu want to improve:
Franco,During calibrations, the flange was reaching about the same temperature. Yes it radiates and I should say, hopefully! Otherwise it would melt down.Using screening of aluminum or stainless steel is just making the temperature inside the chamber greater with less power input. Because it lowers the heat radiation, very effectively due to the T^4 factor of the Boltzmann equation. I have talked about that in the document.We need to have thermal loss form the reaction chamber to the water, simply because we want to have a signal, here ∆T we measure.What we don't like is the heat-loss from the water to the envelope then to the bench. That is one thing I know/want to improve.Water inlet is 30°C because the bench is thermally regulated with a heating element controlled by a PID (take a look at the document's schematics), so it needs to be above room temperature with a sufficient margin. Additionally, the flow controller is measuring the flow of water using a expansion based characterizatio n device. It means, water out of the flow-controller is hotter than water in. Hence it is simpler to set the water inlet temperature of the calorimeter higher than room temperature.
-
@MY: You are knowledgable in calorimetry, why not help Mathieu to improve so that the excess heat signal go away! Don't let the flaws of MFMP be a foundation for more fraud in the LENR business. Walk the talk!
@TC, HG and other strong minds: Help find the truth about this phenomenon. The Lugano team did not answer questions on critics but MFMP will.
-
Answer to MY about that most of electric energy IN go to heat loss in the apparatus: According to Bob at MFMP the heat loss is 22.28% determened from calibration runs.
77.72% of input electric energy go into the mass flow of water through the apparatus.
You are wrong.
