me356: Photos of AURA control unit

me356 OK thank you for correcting. It was just my speculation. Whatever the situation was it is not so important (at leas t for me). What I care most is that real inventors can continue their important work and not let all kind of trolls and other commenters fog their minds to think that those would represent common opinion. We are here big group of people who wish someone would find correct recipe.

Thank you for you efforts and honesty me356. Good luck on weeks to come and let the success be in your path!

Hearty thanks to me356 and the MFMP team for this effort. You're just getting started and I'd like to encourage several more "at bats"

with low expectations. Excess heat from an LENR reaction is a temperate and evasive anomaly that presently only comes out when an unrealized combination of

factors occasionally manifest and cross into the sweet spot zone. The possibility that me356 dabbles in the XH zone seems real enough to me and I hope this effort can continue.

Remember that Dennis Letts went years between excess heat manifestations and is still chasing reliable and sustainable heat in the most tenacious and determined hunt that I have ever witnessed. It takes these kind of men to make the breakthroughs happen. Lastly - Naysayers are going to nay and haters are going to hate - don't let them get you down. Stay after it!

Many thanks to everyone beeing involved in this test! Despite everyone in the me356 testing room wanted to see positive results the results were negative. That makes a strong case for the honesty/integrity of the MFMP testing team, me356 and for the used equipment.

I think everyone here has gained confidence that a high COP (>2) is observable with great certainty with this measurment setup. And in addition we have some lessons learned on the plus side regarding testorganization, measurment presentation and minor details with the test setup. THHs proposal with the readiness protocoll is a good idea in my eyes. It should involve readiness of a sufficient amount of backup reactors and/or simpler but more robust "fallback" reactors.

Can someone explain why calorimetry dummy testing with 3kw water heater showed only 1.1kw output?

(aura.log page 29)

Bucket filling give 1,2L/s (omega 1.43L/s) (if omega show too much it give false energy)

There were some points in plot.ly data where output power rise before input power, later one bring output near 1kw so core high temp?

GCA-geiger give ~double counts in last 30min.

I hope me365 full process (ultrasound?) 14/14 (two weeks?) his fuel, put everything working and give new show

Quote from eros

Can someone explain why calorimetry dummy testing with 3kw water heater showed only 1.1kw output?

Apparently that heat exchanger can only efficiently collect heat from steam, not just hot water.

Quote from Can

Apparently that heat exchanger can only efficiently collect heat from steam, not just hot water.

Yeah, but it ofcourse leave question how good it is with steam, if fails with water.. (ok. full condensation is mentioned)

But 2.nd questions is that IF heat exchanger is better than cop 0.4 with 45C water then where energy loose? (measurement error?)

Quote from eros

Can someone explain why calorimetry dummy testing with 3kw water heater showed only 1.1kw output?

(aura.log page 29)

Bucket filling give 1,2L/s (omega 1.43L/s) (if omega show too much it give false energy)

There were some points in plot.ly data where output power rise before input power, later one bring output near 1kw so core high temp?

GCA-geiger give ~double counts in last 30min.

I hope me365 full process (ultrasound?) 14/14 (two weeks?) his fuel, put everything working and give new show

Display More

If you could link the data I'd comment.

The most likely issue here, if you are correct, is thermal mass, so that during the period you consider 1.9kW of power goes into heating the reactor up.

Quote from THHuxleynew

If you could link the data I'd comment.

Data is in aura log page 29

https://docs.google.com/docume…it#heading=h.udzwnnt6lcg6

Reactor is not connected in this dummy test only 3kw water heater. And it take 2.9kw in when calorymetry output show only 1.1kw.

They dosn't give heatexchanger output temp (condensate) so lack of data to check how good heatexchanger was.

But if dummy test show cop 0.4 then it leave many questions is all ok in measurement setup/calculations. (like inch/metric 1/2.5=0.4)

Quote from eros

Can someone explain why calorimetry dummy testing with 3kw water heater showed only 1.1kw output?

I think they used some type of water heater that was limited in it's output temperature (ie. to below 100C)... And the efficiency of a heat exchanger depends on the temperature difference between the hot and cold sides.

Quote from Can

Apparently that heat exchanger can only efficiently collect heat from steam, not just hot water.

I read that here too, but I also recall that heat exchangers work similarly for wet steam and 100C water, although I can't find a good reference for that.

Quote from eros

Data is in aura log page 29

https://docs.google.com/docume…it#heading=h.udzwnnt6lcg6

Reactor is not connected in this dummy test only 3kw water heater. And it take 2.9kw in when calorymetry output show only 1.1kw.

They dosn't give heatexchanger output temp (condensate) so lack of data to check how good heatexchanger was.

But if dummy test show cop 0.4 then it leave many questions is all ok in measurement setup/calculations. (like inch/metric 1/2.5=0.4)

Display More

OK - from that I guess they are measuring heat given to secondary circuit via heat exchanger. Primary circuit water will be thrown away containing the excess heat. But I'm not sure because the test data does not directly reference a test schematic for this specific test (with the heater).

I'm sure somone following this more closely can comment. I thought the main testing was done direct, measuring water flow and temps in and out.

Quote from THHuxleynew

OK - from that I guess they are measuring heat given to secondary circuit via heat exchanger. Primary circuit water will be thrown away containing the excess heat.

Measurement was in secondary circuit and primary circuit water thrown away (without??? temp reading. They have temp meter installed, but dosn't give readings)

So if 12kw+ rated heatexchanger in 2.9kw load was in reality better than cop 0.4 then secondary circuit measurement/readings can have error.

Quote from Alan S

The mechanism of heat-transfer is identical, but for all kinds of reasons the effect is not the same. I once rented an old factory with fan-boosted low-pressure steam radiators

Hmm maybe I should rephrase that to say I recall that 'water/water heat exchangers (which I think MFMP's is) generally perform the same when fed non-superheated-steam'.

...But then I still can't find a decent reference, so don't take my word for it.

Quote from Alan Smith

Try this one...

http://www.pdhonline.com/courses/m371/m371content.pdf

It is usable, but I missing primary output temp (condensate) to do any calculations. MFMP boys done good job but that reading is not write in aura.log

Quote from Alan Smith

Try this one...

http://www.pdhonline.com/courses/m371/m371content.pdf

Didn't really see what I was looking for in that, but as the heat transfer coefficient of condensing steam is many times that of water http://www.engineeringtoolbox.…nts-exchangers-d_450.html I'd say that if a heat exchanger works with hot water, steam will be fine too. (I'm pretty sure the data sheet for MFMPs said it was a water-water jobby)

Quote from David Fojt

In the Me356 case, I don"t think his runs were conclusive and successful therefore Me356 appaers to be clever and hardworking.

He still needs time to finalize his work......... unfortunally MFMP used him to advertise themselves one more time.

I'm not certain what your point is. The me356 were conclusive and unsuccessful. Whether he has anything that can work remains to be seen. It is extremely unlikely, but he has another chance.

If MFMP got some advertising out of this, they deserve it. It's not like they are making money from this. They sacrificed a lot of time, effort, and probably money to do this test.

Quote from THHuxleynew

OK - from that I guess they are measuring heat given to secondary circuit via heat exchanger. Primary circuit water will be thrown away containing the excess heat. But I'm not sure because the test data does not directly reference a test schematic for this specific test (with the heater).

I'm sure somone following this more closely can comment. I thought the main testing was done direct, measuring water flow and temps in and out.

THHuxleynew I asked this as first question in dashboard chat on Friday before test started, and as I understood, someone from MFMP team on site commented that amount of water flow in primary circuit is so much smaller than in secondary (because of steam thermal capacity is more important factor) that it makes not much difference to log it. Also considering returning water (to another bucket) is quite close to reactor intake water in another bucket. I think BobHiggins earlier in this thread already commented that temp diff is few C. Actually by reading backward this thread you see many references to this question already.

I haven't made any calculations to check, but I was happy with answer. Maybe if someone is interested, can recalculate from reactor feed pump parameters and assuming say 4 C difference between reactor intake, and returning water from condenser primary circuit.

I recommend to not speculate without knowing how it really was.

MFMP did their work very well and everything was done with a great caution.

The only problem with this test was, that it was scheduled without me being prepared for the test. So the first time I was aware of the test was on 14th May where all bills were already bought and accomodation arranged.

To not waste the great effort that MFMP did I simply agreed for the test, but in conditions of knowing that the result can be of any result since there were serious issues due completely untested things (where some of them were still there during the testing). But nothing else was in the condition that allowed testing publicly.

So there is nothing strange and everything has good explanation.

on 2017-03-20 23:36

Quote

Bob Greenyer

me356 is nearly ready to test, so we hope to coordinate testing of both technologies to be as efficient as possible.

on 2017-03-24 11:44

Quote

Bob Greenyer

So, with a tally standing at $24,885, we can afford to verify Suhas, me356 and build and test an Egely reactor.

Also, if anyone can convince Rossi, we have a perfect and accurate mass flow calorimeter in France that would be perfect to verify Rossi's latest claims.

Teemu Soilamo

Cool! When will these be taking place?

Bob Greenyer

first and/or second half of May is the current discussed time frame.

Display More

AURA Plans document was created on April 12, 2017:

On 2017-04-30, from me356, relayed by David Nygren

Quote

Now we are designing the reactor enclosure so it can be maintained by anyone with no risk for electrical shock or burn. It could be ready in 2 - 3 weeks so then more wide tests can start.

A few days ago:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2017…age-2/#comment-3328549870

Quote

I was informed (the first time) that the test will occur on 4th may by a private message from forum - not MFMP member. The test was not planned by me and conditions when I will be ready were clear. I hope that it will be clearly explained by MFMP so you will understand it well.

Today:

me356: Photos of AURA control unit

Quote

The only problem with this test was, that it was scheduled without me being prepared for the test. So the first time I was aware of the test was on 14th May where all bills were already bought and accomodation arranged.