People here are more qualified than at the ECW forums - but also older in average and more rigid and biased in their opinions. Which is typical for every forum of specialists the more, the more they feel being an experts in area given. At highly moderated forums like Quora or Physics forum such a bias gets tragicomically bigot trait of North Korea regime. To be honest, I don't care what the people here are thinking or saying (no original sources of relevant information are here anyway) - I'm just collecting the links from outside. This is the true value of forums like this one.
me356: Photos of AURA control unit
-
-
Should that grounding issue have been found much earlier?
-
"Should that ...have been found much earlier?" Post hoc. wisdom
The best laid plans of mus and homo gang oft agley.. Robbie B.
-
Oh dear "if", on resistive load cos(phi) is equal to 1 so this is the consumed power.
I did not read anywhere (But can have missed it) that the reactor under test is triggered by a resistive heating element.
-
I did not read anywhere (But can have missed it) that the reactor under test is triggered by a resistive heating element.
Reactor is drived with control box. In aura doc have some osciloscope shot from control box waveform. Looks like it take mains energy in every wave top.. It is maybe posible to derive reactor stimulus energy profile from that osciloscope shoot.
But it dosn't show cop > 1 so maybe useless trigger..
-
Probably me356 comments on ECW: http://disq.us/p/1j1d4il
-
In the watching the data from this test (or any other test), you should be aware that there is a time delay between putting in power in the input and seeing it register in the output. Then when you have burst heating at the input, and you measure the output, you may heat on high and go to low heat before the heat generated on high registers in the output. It causes the heat coming out to be apparently high when the burst heating input is low and you can see the apparent COP swing above 1.0. Imagine a system where the input power goes from 1000W in a pulse to 50W for half of the time. If the delay is right, the heat coming out from when the 1000W was applied is measured in the output heat measuring system when the input power is in the 50W portion of the cycle. You may see an apparent COP=10-20 for the short term.
To be able to claim excess heat, you must measure the total energy input from the beginning (turn-ON) until a while after the input heat has been completely turned OFF and look at the ratio of the energy. In a well settled system that is burst driven, you may be able to use a long term average (many cycles) of input power against the long term average of the COP to see if there is some excess heat.
The moral of the story is, don't get excited about short term COP>1, because short term COP is meaningless. You could have this even in a resistive on-demand heater.
-
guys at mfmp are phylantropic and therefore put too much trust into people. They need help of some ex used car salesman to deal with human factor. Wouldn't hurt to ask the anonym for his own measurement protocol especially after he decided to go solo.
-
Reactor is drived with control box. In aura doc have some osciloscope shot from control box waveform. Looks like it take mains energy in every wave top.
If the energy is taken from the top, then I doubt if the control box will pass the Europen harmonics regulations.
-
I did not read anywhere (But can have missed it) that the reactor under test is triggered by a resistive heating element.
Few data are available but I red the Q.A. number 21 from the document: AURA Plans - me356 verification:
Q. Would you be able to add a resistive heat source to your device to simulate the active heat output as a control so we can demonstrate the suitability of the calorimetry system(s) we will install?
A. The source is already there, but is used for operation. So it can't be decoupled from the rest.
So I understand that me356, replying to the interviewer, states that this heat source (the resistive heat source requested by the Q.) is already installed inside his device and used for operation.
For more info you should ask details directly to me356.
-
@Henry you are propably right. There is resistive heater according to Q/A, but it is too early say is that used only for heating reactor to working temp, and actual triggering of reaction can be caused by other means. Wave form looks like they cut current from top of the wave to get maximum harmonics and amplitude (there you get max pulse rising time, so max number of strong harmonics). To minimize rise time of the pulse, you should try to minimise inductance of the coil.
And yes that kind of drive is propably not allowed to be connected to grid directly, especilly if high power or big amounts, but it is possible to generate harmonics from dc stored in super capacitor or using inverter, whic would add the costs.
-
There was a problem in my previous graph (in short I thought the data sample rate was lower, without checking first). Here is one which (hopefully) truly shows a 15 minutes non-centered rolling average of the instant COP values produced during yesterday's me356 test, and that others have requested elsewhere.
-
Can someone clarify, or estimate roughly (I have no numbers and formula at hand). If they yesterday took water in from one bucket (say 15C) and it returned through the whole system to another bucket (say at 28C), shouldn't that possible temp difference be taken into account while calculating COP, or is possible error so small that it is meaningles?
Now they measured only coolant intake and outlet temp, which would be accurate if both buckets would end up to same temp.
-
can that looks like avg cop stayed positive quite a while, but to be reaction based I think that lower avgs should also stay equal 1 to make cop meaningful, unless that is calc error i tried to explain above. (Returning temp to another bucket fluctuates both in temp and flow rate, which was not graphed yesterday)
Major diff. I see between Fri and Sat test is that on Fri controller was aware that reaction was not started, and it tried to trigger it. Whereas on Sat test controller SW assumed reaction being started pretty early and tried to keep it going. (compare power curves from test log).
It is pretty hard to develop controlling algorithm in SW without knowing the process or without proper realtime calorimetry. Luckily I have understood the first being true with me356 and that keeps my hope high for monday.
-
-
-
Below is attached a more complete graph. More than input power, the water temperature peaks seemed dependent on water flow, which wasn't constant.
-
Below is attached a more complete graph. More than input power, the water temperature peaks seemed dependent on water flow, which wasn't constant.
That is exactly what you would expect for a thermal mass with constant power in and power out dependent on both flow rate and temperature (itself dependent on historic flowrate).
-
I appreciate your effort but like I say all time to my students these are still graphs of instruments readings (indicated values), not measures.
To get measures it should be considered also the uncertainty of the system that somebody (a good experimenter) should provide by calculation/demonstration or by test, therefore any data of graph should be referred and considered in conjunction with the overall system error to give sense to results.
I asked many time this but it seems that nobody care.
-
@Henry
The expected result was something quite large like for example a COP greater 2, and possibly >10 with peaks of 40 as previously suggested by Bob Greenyer. I don't think anybody - except perhaps people on ECW - is looking at +/- 10% fluctuations as a possible sign of excess heat occurred during the test.
