me356: Photos of AURA control unit

Quote from LLTL

And for the people who are desperately waiting for some real facts, a reminder -> The lugano report has never been retracted. The whole team still stands with the results of their test.

The Lugano report bears upon Rossi's various claims and has no relation to me356. It does provide a suitable (if contested) basis of fact for discussion in this forum, but in another thread. You would have to squint your eyes and speculate pretty wildly to assume that the Lugano report validates me356's claims, which it does not. That would be like drawing the conclusion that a specific Mitsubishi model is fuel efficient because a Toyota model was found to be fuel efficient several years ago.

Quote from Eric Walker

The Lugano report bears upon Rossi's various claims and has no relation to me356. It does provide a suitable basis of fact for discussion in this forum, but in another thread. You would have to squint your eyes and speculate pretty wildly to assume that the Lugano report validates me356's claims, which it does not. (And its conclusions have been challenged by several authors, including MFMP's own Bob Higgins.)

George Santayana: ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’

To my best memory, no LENR system has been successfully tested. It might be advisable to allow a discussion of unsuccessful LENR tests so that the mistakes made in the past will not be repeated. I await a ruling from the moderator on this issue which includes appropriate guidelines. If the ruling is negative, I respectfully request an explanation of the rejection.

Lugano is relevant. M356 first reactor was built based on the schematics of the Lugano reactor. I was going to quote you, but you deleted your message(one of the first messages in this thread)

Ad hominem? I am just stating facts.

Asserting that there are trolls on this forum wanting to undermine LENR research is both ad hominem and speculation on your part. Please stop.

What was the gist of the message? I don't recall writing and deleting a post of mine in this thread. (Except for the next one, which just had this question.) You are probably recalling someone else's post.

Eric

JedRothwell

Do you have a link or reference to the applicable section of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code you are referring to? I'm assuming it's somewhere in section IV, but it is a very long document and it would be helpful to have a link to the relevant section.

It's been 18 years since I was an HVAC engineer, but most HVAC engineers I knew used the ASHRAE standards for measurement, as an example. The ASME standards are likely more applicable to boiler manufacturers and certifiers.

@JedRothwell

How do we handle the formulas, tables, and the like used in these Boiler specs that assume a boiler efficiency less that 1? How can these formulas be used in a LENR system that has a COP over 1?

Also, the references to combustion where chemical processes are assumed confuse me. How does this information translate to a nuclear based system where there is no combustion.

Quote from axil

Since 1880, the ASME has published textbooks on how to measure boiler performance.

How do we translate combustion efficiency from a chemical based system to a LENR based system.

The ASME textbooks cover every type of boiler, including electric ones and nuclear ones. Not just combustion. They describe the calorimetry used to measure input power and output heat.

ASME standards are applied in all state regulations for boilers. They cover hot water and steam boilers of every type and configuration. To get a sense of their scope, here is part of the abstract from an ASME publication:

Power Boilers: A Guide to Section I of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code

Section I applies to several types of boilers and components of boilers, such as economizers, superheaters, reheaters, and, in some circumstances, feedwater heaters. Although its title is Rules for Construction of Power Boilers, its scope is somewhat broader. The Preamble to Section I explains that it covers electric boilers, miniature boilers, high-temperature water boilers, heat recovery steam generators, certain fired pressure vessels, and organic fluid vaporizers . . .

Quote from wishfulThinking

Do you have a link or reference to the applicable section of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code you are referring to?

(By the way, I see what you mean about forced air HVAC equipment being covered by the ASHRAE.)

The whole of Florida regs used to be on line, but the links have been dead lately. At one point I found the specific steps to measure hot water boiler performance, first with the instruments, and then with a reality check which boiled down to (ha, ha, sorry!): "dump hot water into a bucket and measure the flow rate and temperature." That only applies to small boilers, needless to say. You can't do that with a huge boiler.

Here is what I mean about ASME codes adapted by states:

http://www.myfloridacfo.com/Di…BoilerSafetyRules2016.pdf

CHAPTER 69A-51
BOILER SAFETY
PART I GENERAL PROVISIONS
FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE CHAPTER 69A-51 BOILER SAFETY . .

69A-51.010 Codes Adopted.
The Department of Financial Services hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the following national codes as the State Boiler Code for the safe construction, installation, inspection, maintenance and repair of boilers.

(1) The A.S.M.E. Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Sections I; II, Parts A, B, C and D; IV; V; VI; VII; IX, and the ANSI/ASME CSD-1, 1998 edition and all 1999 amendments, addenda and interpretations thereto. Copies may be obtained from the American Society of Mechanical Engineers International, 22 Law Drive, Box 2900, Fairfield, New Jersey 07007-2900; Phone: 1(800)THE-ASME. The Code may be consulted at the offices of the Boiler Safety Program, Bureau of Fire Prevention, Division of State Fire Marshal . . .

(2) The National Board Inspection Code (NBIC) – 1998 edition and all 1999 amendments, addenda, and interpretations thereto. Copies may be obtained from the National Board of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Inspectors, 1055 Crupper Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43229 . . .

Quote from axil

How do we handle the formulas, tables, and the like used in these Boiler specs that assume a boiler efficiency less that 1? How can these formulas be used in a LENR system that has a COP over 1?

Obviously they can. It is simple arithmetic. The efficiency would come oout greater than 100%. Input is measured separately from output with an electrically fired boiler. In this case, instead of coming out at ~95% efficiency, which is the best an electric boiler can do, the numbers would be, let us say, ~1000%.

The exact same instruments and procedures would be used.

(It isn't actually called a "COP" in boiler jargon, as Smith pointed out. That term only applies to heat pumps. It would be boiler efficiency.)

Quote from axil

To my best memory, no LENR system has been successfully tested.

No large scale system of the type Peter Gluck calls "LENR+" has been successfully tested. Laboratory scale small ones have been successfully tested at over 180 laboratories. (See Storms' first book, Table 2.)

Aw that's way too sensible.

Far better that we all expound on our pseudo-communist ideals with a load of unhinged provocations and ridiculous guesswork about subjects well outside of our professional remits.

On second thoughts, maybe we should just wait and see.

The idea of managing expectations, both in regards to MFMP and Me356, sounds like a terrific idea.
As most others i welcome the idea of MFMP to perform measurements, I welcome the idea of them doing so, acting professional and objective.

Personally I do not longer see Me356 as a MFMP researcher, because he is (no longer) working openly. He does not have as much credibility capital as he would have if we was (as any company who stands to profit), so this is where objective testing comes in.

As for the tests, if they are performed and the results seem positive or inconclusive, it makes sense to wait for the onslaught of the test performance and method, then based on that constructive criticism and feedback run a similar series of test where the criticism is taken into account.

It seems already the reactor type is less than optimal for the most simplistic measurements, so there might be room for criticism. At the end of the tests, if the result should still be inconclusive, it's not the end of the world, it will still make for a great exercise in open science methodology. The concept of open science holds great value, should it turn out the reactor is not as great as the hype, at least the concept of open science can still advance and MFMP can continue strengthened building and improving their concept.

MFMP needs to prove they can do their job just as professional, or actually better adding more value, than any other typical 3rd party validator / observer. I believe they have it in them to stretch and do just that.
In regards to MFMP moving forward and their methodology, while balancing the need and adding a value for the researcher they're working with, it's still in their best interest to act sceptically.

Also, some expresses concern that only a black box test without telling what's inside is bad bad bad. But I think not so bad. The thing is that if MFMP is allowed to test it openly. If it works well with say 10X and 1KW, will be so strong that nothing can stop it. There are maybe millions of really clever people out there and significant part of that crowed would search for the formula. I would say that keeping it secret is plain stupidity though. People will find out. The best way to protect such a huge result is to file good patents. There is another possibility than patent though. I think that one can put a document in place, at a notary public, so that in case someone else patents the formula after the date of that document, one is at least able to use the idea. I'm not sure how international that possibility is, but I know that in Sweden we do have that option. To comment on Axil's post of the procedure that MFMP is planing - look good to me. Also note that if there is a mistake or something unclear, one can redo the test. I'm therefore sure that possible an iterating of the test will prove the case if it is working to a very significant degree.

Quote from Sherlock Holmes

I don´t understand why Me356 chose to spend seven figures replicating Rossi, when low six figures could have reproduced old reliable Pons & Fleischmann.

Old reliable Pons & Fleischmann. is not price competitive with nickel hydrogen.

Gerard:BOB Disqustion https://disqus.com/by/bobgreenyer/

Gerard:Very interesting times ahead, Bob!
Just some questions about the AURA:
1. Black box: Does it mean that you will not be able to inspect the outside of the reactor? Will you be able to take pictures?

BOB We will be able to take pictures, of basically a box
2. ME356 seems to deliver the box with the reactor and the heat exchanger. Will you be allowed to look inside that box? Will you measure the weight of that box or of the reactor?
BOB No we cannot look inside. We can weigh it though.

3. I assume you will only be allowed to measure voltages, powers, currents and their shapes to the mains side of the controller?
BOB Yes

4. Will you also measure out of the normal performances like the situation at a COP of 40?
BOB I doubt we will see 40 - me356 did claim in communications that a previous iteration was capable of that in very short bursts, but we do not know how that was determined or if this reactor will be able to handle it. I feel that it is more imporant that we a) see if it is over unity. b) see if we can run it long enough to discount chemical.

5. Will you be able to detect muons, neutrons and other radiation also near the reactor?

BOB We will have a range of analogue and digital radiation monitoring devices. This is only possible because of the crowds support and the willingness of a claimant

Gerard:What you are going to do may change the world. I wish the four of you all the brains to do this perfectly and that it does not leave any doubt in the results. Good luck!

Paul of Tarsus:Thessalonians: Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing.                           

I don't understand all this Jed Rothwell boiler stuff and everybody who will look at and be interested in the ME356 demo will not understand it either. It is better to use the simplest demo possible so that it is easy to understand. The people who know always say "keep it simple".

Axil said re AURA

"It is better to use the simplest demo possible so that it is easy to understand."

I agree with that

I have a few expectations

I expect answers for two questions

1. A COP value greater than unity? Yes / No.( >7x would be nice since electricity is high value energy compared to heat).

2. There is/isn't harmful radiation? ( Ref; Me356 scary neutrons coming out of the woodwork moment)

High COP appears from Me356 accounts to cause harmful radiation, so from safety/viability POV I expect COP will not be high as 40x.

3. Proof of transmutation ( the ash) would be nice but is not necessary. It is possible that the ash

contains too much info: about the black box for this stage of the development.

So it may not be possible to test everything at this stage.

Paul of Tarsus: Philippians: "test everything; hold fast what is good