me356: Photos of AURA control unit

THHuxleynew

All details of the me365 AURA testplans can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/docume…M84-geOCF38pw/mobilebasic

Quote from THHuxleynew

Such an error could be that the output TC is measuring pipe temperature not water temperature, and the pipe temperature, in thermal contact with the steam circuit piping and lagged, could be much higher than the water temperature.

That error is easy to detect, or rule out. You collect a sample of the water from tap in a bucket, stir it, and measure the temperature. That will not vary significantly during the day. (It will vary with the season of the year.) This temperature should agree with the inlet TC. Then you collect a bucket full of the hot water coming out of the heat exchanger, stir it, and measure the temperature. It should agree with the outlet TC. This procedure is mandated by state regulations for hot water boiler tests. I suppose everyone who has done this kind of test will know that, but I will tell the people at MFMP.

I doubt you will see much of a lag, but you should wait for the temperatures to stabilize. If the gadget does not produce a stable temperature, that makes it a little more difficult to confirm. The 30-minute sparge test I recommend will obviate this problem.

So, looking at the above link:

I can't be very hopeful here, because me356 appears to have no evidence his device actually produces excess heat. No change there from when he was posting here:

Power in: Less than 9 Amps at 230VAC => less than 2070W

Output power: Steam from a flow of 16L/hr of water

This will depend entirely on the entrained water in the steam.

If it was full steam, 16 kg of steam/hr @ 2257 kJ/kg

=> 36,112 kJ/hour => 10kJ/s =10kW

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/saturated-steam-properties-d_101.html

The entrained water is a serious unknown here. If the steam bubbles and pushes out 4 times as much water as the actual steam, then we could be at parity. That is not unreasonable since steam expands to 0.590 kg/m^3. or 1700 times the volume of liquid water at 1 bar. 20% vaporization would still be a 340X volume increase, so the entrained liquid only represent less than ⅓ of 1% of the volume.

But, what it produces can be nailed to within 20% or so pretty easily with the suggested techniques, and much better if you are willing to make assumptions (I'd say that is unwise).

I'd prefer sparging of the steam without a heat exchanger because of the extreme simplicity. Simpler => less assumptions, less things to go wrong. At the claimed power level I'd think you should be able to get 30% accuracy even from sparging, or 10% if the reactor input water temperature can be tied down enough.

Since I have no hands on experience on steam systems, I have been trying to understand Backup setup shown in first video and still can't get it right in my head...

If you connect all these pipes, or mainly steam input, and condensated water output directly to reactor heating circuit (=closed loop), what will happen in startup step? Contained water starts to boil at some point finally generating steam into reactor output. Steamed water volume expands 1700 fold?. As a result pressure release valve will spit out hot water and later hot steam around the room until system balances itself when overpressure (volume) is released by PR-valve and underpressure filled, by 'crack' after heat exchanger.

1) To make balance to be reached quicker, I would consider using proper vacuum bleed. So instead of using 'crack' Bob mentioned why not attach transparent stiff silicone tube in t-joint after condenser. I would hang it on 'U' shape and make sure open end is raised higher than heat exchanger. Filled partly with water at start.

2) Here comes the hard part to estimate without experience. Pressure differential before and after condenser in my understanding depends on flow impedance of condenser 'seen' by incoming steam. Bigger the flow impedance, bigger the pressure differential. If impedance is big enough you end up into situation where pressure release valve is leaking during whole test duration until your water in circuit runs low. Or is it by design that heat exchanger impedance is so low that pressure differential is always low enough when used within specifications? Heat exchanger internals must be quite open, since condensing steam causes it to flow quite fast through condenser?

If I calculated correctly using THHuxleynw and Test plan numbers, Condensing ratio in atmospheric pressure is 1672 (roughly depending on bleed valve and condensation level).

Steam production 16l/h water produces 26764l steam/h,

This means steam flow something between 0.2 and 446 l/min through condenser where upper limit is way more than specification limit of condenser. Or is steam so much easier flowing that you can calculate it almost as water volume (which is 0.2l/min)? Would it be wise to run test run with Nibe heater before packing up for the test.

Specification linked in test plan http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Stai…m:mGnzrpXN6FhindMVxA9isAw

Just asking, since I like test to succeed on first try and getting spare parts can sometimes be difficult in field conditions and considering location of me356 lab.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I'd prefer sparging of the steam without a heat exchanger because of the extreme simplicity. Simpler => less assumptions, less things to go wrong. At the claimed power level I'd think you should be able to get 30% accuracy even from sparging, or 10% if the reactor input water temperature can be tied down enough.

I think 10% is reasonable, even with crude instruments. I did sparge tests many times at Hydrodynamics. I agree this is a lot simpler. I prefer simple methods.

The input water is tap water. This comes from a reservoir -- a giant body of water. After you let it run for 10 minutes the temperature is very stable over the course of a day. It varies measurably by the season but not during one day.

The flow rate is also remarkably stable in my experience, because the water usually comes from a water tower. It is not being pumped directly into the pipes. However, the flow rate does not matter with sparging. You measured the total amount that flowed through by weighing the bucket. You would not even know if the rate varied, and it would not affect the result.

I believe the MFMP people intend to do both a sparge test and the test they described.

Argon,

I believe those "28/185 l/min" manufacturer's figures are for water-water heat exchange.

Zeus46 Yes, I believe also so, but how it translates to steam flow numbers. And also flow impedance which contributes to pressure differential between steam input and condensed water output. Wish here would be real Steam engineers here in the forum.

Springtime in the Upper Room somewhere...in Eastern Europe

Sneak preview of the AURA test setup

MFMP gotta show summat for crowd funders.

Even with no data.

Its the journey that counts.

Who is the man in the mirror?

Timemark 0.14.

Is it me356?

Mystery Mystery.

I also like this documenting style. Just a simple report after finishing the tests would be pretty boring. Following the ups and downs of their trip more or less live has something of reality tv

The crowd funding also paid for the journey.

Perhaps there could be more

"something of reality tv"

Instead of "The Apprentice"

"The Evaluator"

Instead of "You're fired!"

"It fired !"?

Quote from bocijn

Who is the man in the mirror?

Timemark 0.14.

Is it me356?

Mystery Mystery.

I think he's Emanuele Ruggiero (Kinovision), filmmaker. Not me356.

Emanuele Ruggiero's stuff looks quite competent.

If Mumbai is included the cast of characters will be very varied

LENR evaluators bag trouble en route to AURA test.

https://soundcloud.com/user-554048314 from MFMP site.

Bags found.

Huge peak of gallium provisionally found in Parkhomov KV3 fuel.

Corroborates his findings.

"Note that the most characteristic is the result of an increase in the content of a large number of elements isotopes from baseline. An exception is lithium (a reduction of about 100-fold) and aluminum (reduction greater than 10 times). The metal ball 80 Isotopes increased their content compared to the original fuel by more than 2 times. I note particularly strong increase in the presence of boron isotopes, iron, gallium, cerium, zirconium, strontium, bismuth. The most significant anomalies were found in the powder fraction. For example, the gallium content increased to 0.1 atomic percent (0.007% of the original fuel). Especially many appeared cerium: 6.3% (in the original fuel <0.0001%)."

https://soundcloud.com/user-554048314

Project Aura

Friendly local electrician and free lettuce for MFMP team during setup..

Official test run?

May 25-27?

I had the same questions. It would bee nice to get also other updates beyond the sound cloud recordings which are nice also. Or am I missing some link?
I hope guys understand to take enough pics and videos, since if successful, they are the ones posted in many magazines and history books to come.

Historical bucket test.

MFMP grounded in reality

Right now the two methods of updates appear to be MFMP youtube and https://soundcloud.com/user-554048314.

Bob Greenyer is keeping updating simple.. to concentrate on the main action.

Quote from bocijn

Huge peak of gallium provisionally found in Parkhomov KV3 fuel.

Also some Rossi ash did show a huge peak at mass 69. This might happen if copper is produced or availlable in the fuel. Whether it also works with carbon is a different story.