me356: Photos of AURA control unit

  • Personally, I think the measure is misleading and not useful and that it is confusing for people who haven't thought about this stuff for a long time. I hope that MFMP do not use such an "instantaneous COP" on their dashboards in the future, just to avoid giving people false starts and having to rehash this stuff again.



    To avoid misleading and confusion I think that it's better to talk only of the ratio between "Overall Energy OUT"/"Overall Energy IN" of the system at the end of test, avoiding any partial conclusion. Excess heat or excess energy is this and any significant chemical reaction producing heat should be taken into account.

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

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

  • Rolling average COP with a suitably large time-constant is obviously a much better method of presentation


    I tend to disagree. Me thinks the only dependable key indicator would be total energy out / total energy in from the beginning of the testrun.


    You can then still discuss e.g. how much energy was used to heat up the reactor itself or "sneaked out" somewhere, but any moving average COP is subject to distortion due to all kind of artefacts during the test run.


    Edit: Henry just came up with the same argument just while I was typing.

  • Personally, I think the measure is misleading and not useful and that it is confusing for people who haven't thought about this stuff for a long time. I hope that MFMP do not use such an "instantaneous COP" on their dashboards in the future, just to avoid giving people false starts and having to rehash this stuff again.

    I agree.

    What wonders me, why didn't MFMP display the total energy measured by the calorimeter which they installed (The "Wh" from "Omega" instrument)?

    That one - in relation to the "Wh" measured by the electrical meter - would have been much more meaningful and helpful.

  • I tend to disagree. Me thinks the only dependable key indicator would be total energy out / total energy in from the beginning of the testrun.


    Nothing to disagree with. We are talking about the presentation of a meaningful COP. Well I was, anyway. ;)From memory the MFMP dashboard also showed energy balance.

  • Alan Smith

    Alan, you are correct that the MFMP running display did have the continuous integrated energy from the start - both input and output. It was from examining those and looking at the calculated running average COP graph that I determined the the COP graph looked wrong. I downloaded the raw data and calculated the average COP myself, and the MFMP graph was wrong.

  • If you run an experiment for e.g. an hour at COP<1 and then at t=1 hour do something that triggers excess heat, it is useful to have a display of COP over a shorter time frame than the entire experiment.


    Obviously the rolling COP displayed shouldn't be an unweighted average over time of the instant COP, but an actual ratio of energy out/in over a sufficiently long time frame.

  • Alan, you are correct that the MFMP running display did have the continuous integrated energy from the start - both input and output.

    If you mean by the display this one...

    https://freeboard.io/board/MwMhlL

    ... then you are right about the integrated energy for the input part (this are the Wh from the PCE830 / PA1000), but not for the integrated energy output - which was not displayed.


    However, the display showed the "Total Excess Energy Estimate (Omega)" - which certainly is also a meaningful value, in particular if one would know how they calculated ("estimated") this value.


    Unfortunately MFMP displayed that "Total Excess Energy" value in "MJ" units, and not in the same "Wh" as they did for the "Total Energy In" numbers. - That made it more challenging for some people to put this values in a proper relation.

    Obviously the rolling COP displayed shouldn't be an unweighted average over time of the instant COP, but an actual ratio of energy out/in over a sufficiently long time frame.

    Obviously Correct - but obviously this wasn't so obvious as it obviously should had been to everyone.;)

  • Correct. It is a GMC-320+ coupled to a LND7317 pancake tube. This combination is sensitive down to ~20 keV, with peak sensitivity at 80-150 keV. Typical background count has been around 40-50 CPM at a variety of locations. At the me356 site it was a bit higher, maybe 50-60 CPM. Some periods of 80+ CPM were seen during the test, as shown in the Dashboard screen capture above. A second GMC with a smaller cylindrical tube was also used, and its output count averaging 25-30 CPM is also available in the main (Labjack) data file.

    In data file header reads

    Code
    1. GCA-01C_Geiger,GMC-320+_LN7317

    So I think there was one pancake modified geiger sensitive to down 20kev (it dosn't show count rise). And second geiger GCA-01C that show count rise.

    http://www.imagesco.com/geiger/geiger-counter.html

    Spec says sensitive to down 7kev.

    Is that correct?

  • I (unfortunately) do not have a screenshot of me's reactor showing cop 10, but there was COP 1,49 and Barty reported 2,0 and 10 in the chat, this is of course not much reliable, but worth to be investigated!

  • I (unfortunately) do not have a screenshot of me's reactor showing cop 10, but there was COP 1,49 and Barty reported 2,0 and 10 in the chat, this is of course not much reliable, but worth to be investigated!

    I wouldn't doubt that there was an instant COP of 10 or even more.

    It is not at all difficult to get a COP of 10 for a couple of seconds, and nothing extraordinary to be investigated.


    Just visualize that the reactor/el.heater is operating with 1000W el. input power and the output also has stabilized at 1000W.

    Then you drop (instantly) the el. input down to 100W. - Because of thermal inertia, the by the calorimeter reported output will still remain 1000W for some time - which will be calculated as a COP of 10 (but - of course - is total meaningless).

  • Spec says sensitive to down 7kev.

    Is that correct?


    The one we used did not have the external probe. The spec may claim "sensitive down to 7 keV" but in my experience a GMC with such a small internal tube won't respond to anything below around 50 keV, and the peak response will be above 100 keV. The stock GMC320+ is a similar unit, and its lack of response to low energy gamma is what prompted me to upgrade it with the LND pancake tube.

  • Thank you for the comments.


    Unfortunately it looks like the people that are writing here are absolutely ignoring what I have written (Especially JedRothwell). Please stop speculating about something that is not true for sure. I highly recommend to read all my posts in this thread.


    It is also good to note, that I have never claimed COP of 10 for this particular reactor. Basically everything you are talking about was already responded and is perfectly clear from the beginning.


    Thank you Alan for the support!

  • Unfortunately it looks like the people that are writing here are absolutely ignoring what I have written (Especially JedRothwell). Please stop speculating about something that is not true for sure.

    I am not speculating. I am not talking about your claims. I am talking about what the MFMP people concluded. They said the test failed. That is true for sure. You should run the test again with a working reactor. If you will not do this, I will conclude you cannot make anything work.

    It is also good to note, that I have never claimed COP of 10 for this particular reactor.

    Why didn't you make arrangements to test the reactor that produces a COP of 10? The MFMP spent thousands of dollars and weeks of their time. They traveled all the way to Europe. Why didn't you make an effort to show them a working reactor? You were very rude. You wasted their time. You should apologize instead of making excuses.


    If you did not intend to show a working reactor you should have cancelled the trip. Why did you even tell anyone about the reactor that produces a COP of 10 if you will not allow the MFMP to test it?

  • Your questions are already answered in my previous posts.

    Your answers are not credible. They are not believable. It is easy to hide a device and test it as a black box. You are making excuses and blaming other people for this failure. It is your fault. You should apologize to the MFMP instead of attacking me. You should test your best device with the MFMP instruments, and tell us what the results are.


    At present you are acting like a typical over-unity energy scammer such as Rossi. You are destroying your own credibility.


    Your other assertion about not using nickel to avoid patent conflicts is damned nonsense. There are no valid patents, and even if there were, if you have a system that works the way you claim, you can easily get add-on patents for improvements. These add-on patents would be worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

  • First from all, I am not attacking absolutely anyone. I am stating how it was and it was clear at least weeks before that testing conditions will be not optimal, since it was not ready. If you want to make sure how it was, ask all involved people. I believe that there is no problem with that.

    There were and are serious issues that we are investigating and will be resolved in the following weeks.

  • I am stating how it was and it was clear at least weeks before that testing conditions will be not optimal, since it was not ready.

    Why did you invite the MFMP people to come if it was not ready? Why didn't you wait? They told me that you said it was ready weeks ago. Or, if you have a machine that works, you should have tested that one instead.


    What you say, and what they say, are totally different.


    You say "conditions were not optimal." That is not true. Conditions were as bad as they can be. The machine did not work. "Not optimal" is no way to describe a total failure.


    I suggest you stop making excuses and do a proper test with the instruments they left at your house.

  • Why did you invite the MFMP people to come if it was not ready? Why didn't you wait? They told me that you said it was ready weeks ago. Or, if you have a machine that works, you should have tested that one instead.


    @JED: Isn't it obvious what happened? Me356 didn't want to show his reactor to people (at least some of them) that seemed to have a relation with IH. Thus he had to build up a blackboxed device.


    May be you should ask some questions, about your relation to IH and the role you seem to play in the LENR field.


    I can only gratulate Me356, that he at least tried not to disappoint the members of mfp, that are not related to IH...

  • Isn't it obvious what happened? Me356 didn't want to show his reactor to people (at least some of them) that seemed to have a relation with IH. Thus he had to build up a blackboxed device.

    This is not obvious to me, but if this what happened, he damn well should have cancelled the trip.


    What makes you so sure me356 has it in for I.H. anyway? Not everyone is paranoid. No everyone believes Rossi's horseshit.

    May be you should ask some questions, about your relation to IH and the role you seem to play in the LENR field.


    I have no relation to I.H., but if I did it would be none of your business. I play practically no role in LENR, except as librarian. No one plays any role. Most researchers are dead, and the field is moribund. You can thank Rossi for that, more than anyone else.