me356: Photos of AURA control unit

  • It's really sad how the overall tone here in this forum has changed from optimistic enthusiasm to relentless scepticism. I can understand where it's coming from but me356 has not kept us waiting for years and years. If the test turns out to be successfull he in fact delivered way faster than anybody else of the "big" players and will finally resolve the question if this technology is real or not.


    In addition to that, he is really young (he is in his early 20s) and doesn't have much experience at all (that is even more remarkable if his claims turn out to be true). Anyway the test is just a few weeks in the future so we don't have to wait very long anymore. I am counting the days and every day reveals more exciting details about the upcoming tests, that leads me to believe we are on to something really really huge:


    • possible transmutations in the fuel that are visible under EDX
    • similar "structures" in the aparatus that are considered to be the key to success in both suhas and me356's device (visible under SEM) [small "domes/bubbles" on the foil]
    • and so on ...

    In addition me356 has not started to replicate recently but had many many failed attempts before seeing excess heat. I highly doubt, that he is misjudging his results regarding excess heat since he is most probably using the same techniques to decide if he sees XH or not as he used in the beginning. The fact that he failed so many times before being successfull gives the claimed results way more credibility since he obiously sees a difference to the results he had before.

    And just by applying common sense: What would he get out of his claims (apart from momentary fame) if they were all totally made up? He didn't even show up the last months anymore to harvest the fruits of his deception (if it would be one). I am working as a hacker and I am very used to wannabe's who claim to be able to do fantastic things but those people usually stay around to "enjoy" the attention they get (until people get suspicious). The behaviour of me356 is totally not the behaviour of a normal "troll"!


    Firstly, the statements here from others about me356's plans look entirely reasonable to me, and the proper thing for me356 to do. I will believe them when they happen, which I hope they do, me356 has not here in the past been a beacon of reliable information.


    Secondly me356 has in the past, and continues now, to generate a lot of speculation here that is unhelpful. There is as yet no evidence of his claims. In that position it would be IMHO better for all if he just got on with doing what he wants to do till he has such evidence.


    Thirdly, the claimed COP=10, 10kW out is in the range of easily testable results. You have to be a Rossi to spoof a positive result of that order. Unfortunately it is spoofable, in several different ways, but MFMP are transparent and there is no way any spoof could survive their checking procedures, assuming they operate as in the past. So that me356 would like initially an MFMP test is very positive and indeed i think he would have been advised to seek this a long time ago since it will inform him about whether his current ideas are real or not.


    As for the rest of the world. MFMP have not yet had any positive replicable results. In fact no positive results that survive scrutiny (the signal was never such). Should they do so, the world would start to take notice and things would snowball quickly.


    Regards, THH

  • me356 has not here in the past been a beacon of reliable information.

    I was glad to see his running commentary. No surprise things changed as he got more data.

    me356 didn't "generate a lot of speculation here that is unhelpful," the speculators did that.

    "You have to be a Rossi to spoof a positive result of that order." Not a helpful comment. You think "he would have been advised to seek this a long time ago."

    What makes you think you know better than him when his reactor is ready for a third party verification? Have you made dozens of reactors and done hundreds of tests?


    I see you are rated as "professional" while I am just a "beginner," although I have been around 83 years. I haven't spent a lot of time on this forum but I associate your name with what Hans Moog describes as "relentless skepticism."

  • I was glad to see his running commentary. No surprise things changed as he got more data.

    me356 didn't "generate a lot of speculation here that is unhelpful," the speculators did that.


    Both me356 and the speculators together resulted in a lot of speculation being generated. It had all the indications of being a collaborative effort.


    THHuxley is polite and is very welcome here, in spite of, or in fact because of, his genuine skepticism. It keeps us all honest if we have to answer difficult questions. Anyone who is polite is welcome here.

  • From my point of view the best right now is to plainly stop speculating and wait with the discussion till more facts are on the table.

    There is a test coming up and as soon as this test brings comprehensible results and the methodology of the test is presented we can start to speculate again.

    But then at least on some more or less firm basis.

  • But, but, how does that protect the purity of proper LENR research? You mean it is not better to stamp on any new fragile green shoot before it has time to flower?


    I remind everyone that MFMP's test plan is published and we are open to ideas for improving it, within the limits of time and resources available.

    Perhaps if we focus on that, rather than speculating about the black box system under test, we will have a more positive and productive discussion.


    Our thanks to those who have already made useful suggestions and generous contributions to our project.

  • The advantages of differential measurement.


    It is well known that differential measurement washes out error in the measurement process.


    In my suggested method, there is little or no calibration required because all the measurements are done by a single item of equipment and the comparison between the system and the dummy is differential.


    In the two large tank method, the volume of water that these two tanks contain is equal because the same flow meter is used to assure these two tanks contain the same volume of water. The water comes from the same source, therefore the temperatures of the two tanks are initially the same. The power used to measure the input power supplies between the system and the dummy is done using the same power meter. The COP of the system is calculated based on the difference in the water temperatures between the two tanks.


    The amount of heat heat produced by the system is large enough to insure there is no way that heat could have been produced by a chemical source.


    My suggestion uses one thermometer, one flow meter, and one power meter each of which need not be calibrated. Because the COP is determined by differential measurement by the same equipment, error inherent to that equipment does not matter.

  • The advantages of differential measurement.


    Yes, the differential approach dictated the GlowStick design, and also pointed out weaknesses in the concept.


    . For AURA, we don't have the luxury of duplicating everything in the test system, but we will incorporate a separate (not simultaneous) null test using a domestic water heater for comparison. All instrumentation including the heat exchanger will be identical to the live AURA test. We're also using multiple methods for measuring each data parameter, including calibrated thermometers and a bucket with scale to back up the flow meter and RTDs for the primary calorimetry.

  • Yes, the differential approach dictated the GlowStick design, and also pointed out weaknesses in the concept.


    . For AURA, we don't have the luxury of duplicating everything in the test system, but we will incorporate a separate (not simultaneous) null test using a domestic water heater for comparison. All instrumentation including the heat exchanger will be identical to the live AURA test. We're also using multiple methods for measuring each data parameter, including calibrated thermometers and a bucket with scale to back up the flow meter and RTDs for the primary calorimetry.



    You can use the same thermometer with no need to calibrate if you had two buckets. If you used the same scale on the two buckets, then there is no need to back up the measurement made by that scale.

  • Two thermometers are needed for flow calorimetry. There is always value in backing up measurements.


    There is value in reducing the equipment used to an absolute minimum so that the experiment is as simple as possible. A simple experiment is an experiment that is the most comprehensible. and an experiment that is the easiest to explain.

  • There is value in reducing the equipment used to an absolute minimum so that the experiment is as simple as possible. A simple experiment is an experiment that is the most comprehensible. and an experiment that is the easiest to explain.


    Your Theory works in

    theory but not in practice.
    Belt and suspenders!

  • Your Theory works in

    theory but not in practice.
    Belt and suspenders!

    http://digitalfirst.bfwpub.com…sections/impact_12_1.html

    Its called differential calorimetry


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_thermal_analysis


    Quote

    Differential thermal analysis (or DTA) is a thermoanalytic technique. Similar to differential scanning calorimetry. In DTA, the material under study and an inert reference are made to undergo identical thermal cycles, while recording any temperature difference between sample and reference


    thermal-analysis-for-preformulation-trials-new-7-638.jpg?cb=1365213785



    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTxfLBwCOB9IaWlhbZMu1r8Mxu0Bp6-TVL9ktqcnnAtlqhPBcpn_Q


    The COP is defined by the delta temperature.

  • MFMP has purchased a 3.5kw flow heater (no tank) to use as a test of the calorimetry and a comparison to the reactor under test.



    ce3804836090e9e5cb3d662980de0c7f7bf201567d3ced8245e07560651d1447.jpg?w=320&h=238


    Cycle water through the AUAR tank using AUAR until the temperature in the AUAR tank gets to a pre-defined reference temperature. Measure the electric power input to AUAR required to produce that temperature increase.


    Cycle water through the reference tank using the 3.5kw flow heater until the temperature in the reference tank gets to a pre-defined reference temperature. Measure the electric power used by the 3.5kw flow heater required to produce that temperature increase.


    The COP is the difference between the electric power needed by each heat source to produce the same temperature between the AUAR tank and the reference tank.


    This differential measurement method is so simple and idiot proof that not even Jed Rothwell can find a possible flaw in this comparison.


    MFMP might be able to use two 55 gallon drums as the tanks or use one drum filled from the same water source to the same height in a serial test.

  • Yes Axil, that is what we are planning to do. In addition, we will be recording and publishing the temperature data in real time, including a COP moving average and cumulative energy based on flow rate and temperature rise through the heat exchanger. Because this is a black box test, that degree of diligence is necessary in order to test the possible origin of heat from internal batteries or chemical reactions


    What is your suggested change to improve what is shown in our document?

  • Belt and suspenders!

    That's what I said! That's what I recommended in a discussion about this upcoming test. The "suspenders" I recommend would be to sparge the steam into a 55 gallon trashcan full of water. Here are the numbers:


    Input 1 kW = 14.34 kCal/minute

    Reported output 8 kW = 115 kCal/minute


    With 200 L of water (55 gallons), if there is no excess heat the temperature will rise 0.07°C per minute, or 2.1° after 30 minutes. If you have 8 kW, the temperature goes up 0.6°C per minute and after 30 minutes it should be about 18°C hotter. That is a dramatic difference, one that you cannot miss.


    I recommend this test in addition to the heat exchanger test.


    By the way, people who say that heat exchangers are simple probably have not had much experience with heat exchangers. There are all kinds of interesting aspects of them, such as the fact that they are hotter at one end than the other, and they work best thermodynamically when you run the two fluids in opposite directions. I am not saying you should not use one, but they are not simple.

  • Quote

    MFMP will then measure the rate of cooling water going into the heat exchanger and the temperatures of the water in and out in order to determine heat output. If the steam does not fully condense, then the power output will read low.


    This is not necessary. Forget flow rate. Just measure the electric power to produce identical heat rise to an identical volume of water. The pump might only be half fill and the flow rate may be off. There might be air in the water lines. Don't your remember what Jed R taught us in the Rossi/IH test?

  • This is not necessary. Forget flow rate. Just measure the electric power to produce identical heat rise to an identical volume of water. The pump might only be half fill and the flow rate may be off. There might be air in the water lines.


    The flow rate is necessary because, as I pointed out, a long test is required (several days contemplated). There is no pump, because the cooling water will be supplied from a domestic tap. There will be a sight glass in the supply line to watch for entrapped air. The output of the heat exchanger will be collected in buckets on a digital scale, and the flow meter data will be periodically checked against level marks on the bucket with a stop watch.


    By using a heat exchanger, any questions about the steam quality in the primary circuit are made moot. The single-phase power will be measured simultaneously with two instruments, a PCE830 and a Tektronix PA1000. All the data, including the scale readings will be streamed in real time, with live video if bandwidth permits.


    Much of what you see as complexity has been adopted in direct response to criticisms here and elsewhere of other validation tests. All these details are included in our published test plan, which I encourage you to read and think about in the context of possible objections that could arise if they were not included. We intend to establish an incontrovertible minimum COP for the system, to the best of our abilities and resources.