me356: Photos of AURA control unit

  • I was not referring to excess heat.

    The purpose of the test was to confirm excess heat. Do not lose sight of that fact.

    I was referring to the things that we were able to manage in such short time and altough it was uneasy it was at least possible to perform the test in given timeframe. If nothing was done, then this is really fail.

    Unless you conduct the test again in near future, the trip and all of the work will be wasted.


    I do not think the timeframe was long enough. I hope you can operate the equipment by yourself, and communicate the results to MFMP.


    If you adjust your equipment and your instruments show excess heat but the MFMP instruments do not, you will need to face the fact that your device does not work.

  • Sometimes it is not good if all the important things are told by other persons, but if you get full response directly from the source. Unfortunately I am extremely busy and it was unusefull to answer the questions. But if there are doubts about my credibility I gladly describe everything and prove what is right.


    It was honor that MFMP was here and I have enjoyed it very much, especially because they are really great team. Each member have unique skills that they are really mastering. We have found what must be sorted and where the things are not strong and must be updated. So I am sure usefull for both.


    me356 :

    Thanks for sharing your work with mfp. We all (except some ..$$..) know that you do serious work/research and are aware that just the circumstances were wrong. Single item tests always stay/fall with one defect of the single item... Thus next time you should prepare at least three reactors, also for the purpose of getting an impression how they perform/deviate as a collective.

    Usually it takes at least 2 years from the first running prototype to a production unit, but only if the engineering version is close to the prototype.


    Heads on!

  • He measured the temperature with a glass thermometer and posted that there was about a 1°C difference in temperature. So, for the actual experiment, the efficiency of the heat exchanger was good.


    So heat exchanger is good. It's rated some 12kw+(?) operation. So 2.9kw (25% rated) power should do fine and with high COP. Or what I miss?

    Then how explain 2.9kw input at 45C give COP=0.4 graph? Somewhere is error. Things should check or atleast do 3kw dummy test again with primary output temp measurement. Currently there is no (measured) explanation where 1.8kw disappeared in dummy test.

    Dummy test should show that all readings are ok and calorimetry is working. Monday dummy test show that things are not ok.

  • One year ago reactors work and verified many time, even ready for production:


    Quote

    I am working at least on a three very different reactors while one is ready for production. I have verified it many times and it works for half year.


    Now (a year after) it does not work even half minute.

    If really worked, it's not requested a "time machine" to go back to get something working, simply test and measure the same reactor of one year ago.

    JoNP means Journal of Null-Physics (the house of hoax,trickery, junk and psychopathological science).

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Henry ().

  • Henry: If you are really very busy year will pass very quickly.

    How do you think your work will look like, if you know that for doing it you need few months but you have time only few weeks? Maybe if you will be in the same situation, you will know.


    Yes, it was quite ready, but it changed completely due to complications of longer runs. I do not feel need to convince people for all costs.

    I am fine with if you will think I have no real device and just spending money because of long days :)


    From tommorow I will be very likely unable to respond for long time. So I wish you will find what you are searching for.

  • There is also sensus readings at start 49,060Mwh 7390,975m³ and after test 49,063Mwh 7391,103m³ so 3kwh and 128L. Its is also know that sensus should install vertical, horizontal installation leave air in its turbine and it show too low flow. Test last some 3.5hrs 128L/210min=0.61L/min and aura.log tell sensus show 0.6L/min flow. Bucket fill 3min data give 1.197L/min so sensus have flow error 50% (0.51). If it is corrected then 3kwh go 6kwh. Right?

    6kwh/3.5h=~1.71kw

    But mfmp output data was less than 1kw that 3.5h period..

    (if sensus is corrected with omega 1.43L/min then it show 7.15kwh and mean 2.04kw)

    So flow corrected sensus show cop ~2.

  • I do not feel need to convince people for all costs.

    I am fine with if you will think I have no real device

    You should not feel any need to convince people. That's not the problem. The problem is, you may have convinced yourself that the machine is working, but it is not. You may be wasting your time.


    Are you fine with yourself if you have no real device? Are you going to continue spending money and time on this?


    I advise you to fix whatever you think the problem is, and then test the machine carefully with the MFMP instruments. If you see no heat, you are wrong.


    I have seen many cold fusion researchers and others waste years or even decades on machines that do not work. They thought the machines were working, but they were wrong. They wasted their lives. This will happen to you if you are wrong and you refuse to face reality.


  • Hi me356,


    Before you go can you comment on a) when the next test with MFMP might be possible b) when the larger scoped test with trusted third parties might be possible? Any indication, e.g., 'months', 'next year' etc would be fine.


    I realize that you would be speculating and that any sensible person would take this as a goal and not an absolute commitment on your part.


    Thanks.

  • Rossi has had this problem for many years and it has only been resolved in the last year

    Rossi has not resolved any problems. He has no excess heat. His claims are fraud. Your speculation about his claims are hot air, based on nothing. You have a bad habit of drawing conclusions and citing as fact nonsense that exists only in your imagination.


    Here is a quote from one of history's great scientists for you to ponder:


    "Perhaps the history of the errors of mankind, all things considered, is more valuable and interesting than that of their discoveries. Truth is uniform and narrow; it constantly exists, and does not seem to require so much an active energy, as a passive aptitude of soul in order to encounter it. But error is endlessly diversified; it has no reality, but is the pure and simple creation of the mind that invents it. In this field, the soul has room enough to expand herself, to display all her boundless faculties, and all her beautiful and interesting extravagancies and absurdities."


    —Benjamin Franklin, Report of Dr. Benjamin Franklin, and Other Commissioners, Charged by the King of France, with the Examination of the Animal Magnetism, as Now Practiced in Paris (1784)

  • Speaking again of the actual test, I thought it would be interesting to plot the calculated power factor, defined as [True power (W)] ÷ [Apparent power (Volt⋅Amperes)]. I'm far from being an electrical engineer but I think the waveform measured with the PCE-830 power analyzer suggested that input power was regulated with a TRIAC, so the waveform would have been choppier at a lower power. The rolling energy COP also spiked during lower power periods, but that was probably coincidental.





  • I'm just looking for something that works and to be proved in public.


    I saw a lot of people that said:


    I tested my reactor, it works... I'm going to start my production... it's quite ready... but at the end none has really a success in public tests.


    The "reasons" that I red after are quite the same:


    Because I changed something... I tried different solution... I improved this function... and elapsed long time, the "claim" vanishes without any good result, so I again ask:


    Does already exist something working like claimed?

    Do you have in hand something that produces XE (a reactor old version, any reactor not a new design), but (as minimum) XH measured by you following a scientific method? (you tested it, so it's not impossible to repeate measures, same run time test you already did, no longer runs)


    The answer is simply a "Yes" or a "No".


    if "Yes", DO NOT TOUCH or CHANGE ANY PART of this reactor/controller prototype that produces the presumed XH, test it in public (that version as is) in order to demonstate the XH production but not to convince me (it does not matter at all), but with the aim to proof that it works to the the world.


    This is my suggest, you do what you want.


    (obviously If the answer to the question is "No" , the problem does not exist).

    JoNP means Journal of Null-Physics (the house of hoax,trickery, junk and psychopathological science).

    The post was edited 10 times, last by Henry ().

  • The LENR reaction should never be allowed to melt through the tube that is containing it. Any LENR reactor design that permits such a melt through to occur is not ready for the marketplace. Any loss of control of the LENR reactor cannot result in the failure in the containment of the tube, IMHO. We have seen melt through events in MFMP tests and in many tests by Parkhomov. Alumina is not up to the LENR reaction containment job where melt through of the containment cannot be allowed to occur..

  • axil: I am afraid, but in this case the problem is very simple as I have described before. The reactor was just completely untested including the heating element. The element was manufactured by external company and without prior testing it was unable to me to determine that it will work differently (incorrectly) than previous elements.

    So without a proper control anything like this will melt (in both cases with or without excess heat).

    The system should be stable and able to perform for very long time if all the components will be flawless.

    You can't be angry for a car just because it has broken tires. Thus also you can't conclude from this that other cars will be broken in the same way too.


    PeterMetz: a) b) When it is ready from my side.

    For months I am not doing any estimations because it always lead to a problems. So for some time I am always saying that when it will be ready, I will tell you.


    David Nygren: The equipment is the calorimetry. It is needed to interface it with my system so I can readout required values. I dont know how fast I will be able to use it since the focus will be on the sorting issues of the control box primarily (and then of the reactor) but it is very good and will be used in next MFMP tests for sure.

    Otherwise we have same power analyser and optris so this will be practically unchanged.


    No, I dont intend to connect it online nor I have the DAQ that was used for this.

    For this and few gifted things I have to express again big thanks to MFMP.

  • This is based only memory maybe errorenous, I remember (plot.ly data disappeared?? why???) that output temp rise up to 27C. Water input maybe 10C (?) makes 17C diffrence. Omega show 1.43L/min flow so 1.43/60s=0.02383kg/s -> *4.19kJ/kg*17C=1.70kw but mfmp plots showed only ~1kw.


    Where is monday data, plot.ly data disappeared google drive have test6 (saturday) data only

    https://drive.google.com/drive…7lTfqkED9WUHA5MC1GMFNtZkU


    Edit:

    saturday data show water input ~13C and omega based power seems correlate temp diffrence and flow. So maybe only memory error?

  • This is based only memory maybe errorenous, I remember (plot.ly data disappeared?? why???) that output temp rise up to 27C. Water input maybe 10C (?) makes 17C diffrence. Omega show 1.43L/min flow so 1.43/60s=0.02383kg/s -> *4.19kJ/kg*17C=1.70kw but mfmp plots showed only ~1kw.


    Where is monday data, plot.ly data disappeared google drive have test6 (saturday) data only

    https://drive.google.com/drive…7lTfqkED9WUHA5MC1GMFNtZkU


    The data is in the files:


    Calorimeter_Test_6_Run_2.log

    Calorimeter_Test_6_Run_2_header.log


    I have plotted some of the data for you, see diagram below. The water temperature difference never got that high.

  • Speaking again of the actual test, I thought it would be interesting to plot the calculated power factor, defined as [True power (W)] ÷ [Apparent power (Volt⋅Amperes)]. I'm far from being an electrical engineer but I think the waveform measured with the PCE-830 power analyzer suggested that input power was regulated with a TRIAC, so the waveform would have been choppier at a lower power. The rolling energy COP also spiked during lower power periods, but that was probably coincidental.





    I can confirm that PCE-830 calculates these parameters, it measures:

    Active Power

    Reactive Power

    Apparent Power

    and it gives the Power Factor (PF) that is the ratio similar you required [Active power (W)] / [Apparent power (VA)].


    It's just matter to download these data and to plot.

    Spikes repetition due to "TRIAC chopping" happens each 10 or 20ms (50 Hz cycle), I'm not so sure that they could be the spikes on rolling COP you see on graph.

    JoNP means Journal of Null-Physics (the house of hoax,trickery, junk and psychopathological science).

    The post was edited 3 times, last by Henry ().

  • Time in BRNO 12.00 pm ,Time in Sydney 8.00 am

    Michael Faraday said

    I have far more confidence in the one man who works mentally and bodily at a matter

    than in the six who merely talk about it.”

    God Bless you in your work and life , Me356.

    Blahoslavení tiší, nebo oni dědictví obdrží na zemi.

  • Henry

    I'm aware too that the PCE-830 power analyzer already calculates these parameters, but they are not available in the data provided by MFMP. Luckily, they can be easily calculated from True Watts, Volts and Amps, which are available.


    As for the correlation with COP spikes I wasn't exactly referring to the 50Hz cycle, but rather to the general impression that the rolling COP increased when input power was lower and thus choppier. I thought of this because there have been speculations in the past that a choppy waveform might somehow be able to trigger the reaction. However, in this case it's probably a coincidental artifact due to the the various time constants of the calorimetric setup.