me356: Photos of AURA control unit
-
-
It all depends on the error bars. As every fule do know.
-
If results were supposed to be in the 1.10-1.20x ballpark then other methods would have been chosen, not water flow calorimetry with crudely insulated heat exchangers, open water buckets and 50 Kg scales.
EDIT: the opening post of this thread by David Nygren did suggest that the reactor was supposed to be a 10-12 kW output unit, by the way. There were supposed to be two of them, one of which connected to an existing home heating system: me356: Photos of AURA control unit
From the MFMP Aura Plans document:
QuoteWe are planning to test the AURA device this is the MFMPs internal name for the as yet officially un-named technology from ‘me356’. me356 is a researcher/inventor somewhere in eastern Europe that claims to have prepared 2 copies of his most recent device that he has developed over the last several years. He is claiming around 12 kW output with a stable coefficient of performance (COP) as high as 10 based on the current generation of his technology. In certain circumstances for short periods, me356 says this COP can be increased to as high as 40. One of these devices will be connected to a large family house heating system, the other is understood to be in a separate building where we will have greater freedom to move around it, mount it, and configure the test. We know almost nothing about how his recent technology is configured internally. We know he has observed radiation in the past. The MFMP has been invited to validate his performance claims in private communications with Bob Greenyer.
-
If results were supposed to be in the 1.10-1.20x ballpark then other methods would have been chosen, not water flow calorimetry with crudely insulated heat exchangers, open water buckets and 50 Kg scales.
You can make a choose of a method when you know the overall measurement error of the system you are going to use, taking into account the heat flow to be measured.
+/- 20% or +/- 10% are not the best of a good mass flow calorimetry system. -
You can make a choose of a method when you know the overall measurement error of the system you are going to use, taking into account the heat flow to be measured.
+/- 20% or +/- 10% are not the best of a good mass flow calorimetry system.Well I think that simplicity and robustness beats precision at COP 10, 10kW in order to prove that effect.
-
Well I think that simplicity and robustness beats precision at COP 10, 10kW in order to prove that effect.
As said I can agree with you IF really the device COP (over all test time) is so high, but did you see this?
-
@Henry
Discovering the error bars of the system would be a valuable contribution to the experiment. However, obtaining error bars requires significant effort; much more than the experimental raw data gathering. Since the experimenters own the measuring equipment, and the setup is well documented, the equipment can be setup post-experiment in a more controlled environment for evaluation of error bars (for example using the on-demand water heater they bought). Collecting the experimental data first allows the evaluation after the test of whether the investment in apparatus characterization is worth the effort. If there were hints of real excess heat, the investment would be worth the effort. So far, the team has not seen those hints of excess heat even though Me356 set the expectation for what would have been unmistakable sustained excess heat.
If Me356 repairs his reactor and the next test shows real evidence of excess heat, I am sure there will be a lot of post-experiment evaluation of the data acquisition system.
-
Display More
The core is almost identical to the previous version (little bit shorter which results in less volume for the fuel).
There are just differences in input/output pipes and their positioning.
There are very different sensors and their connection.
Tested reactor was supposed to be installed in the house and this was reason why the cover was produced first. Also it has modifications that should bring improvements in the cooling of the core. But from yesterdays tests it looks that it is not optimal change - but still does not present the issue why it was not performing..The most important difference between working reactors is that the fuel was processed only for approx. 1/14 time from what is done normally because in other way it was absolutely not possible to perform the test in given timeframe.
Also it was not possible to process the fuel in advance so I have no supply of processed fuel.Fuel from the previous reactors can't be taken out so this is not possibility too.
The biggest change is the control box as all the previous reactors were controlled by dedicated units for particular things. Now everything is designed from scratch in the control box. These (old) units can't be used now, because they are compatible with the older reactors only. To interface it we will need to replace the control unit and do a new connectors and some circuits for the reactor.
For this we will need at least week.There is possibility to take another reactor and old control units that are proven to work, but after investigation it looks like not real solution. For me it is more important to leave all confident information as planned. It is not possible to not see what is used and wrapping in the card boxes is really solution not worth such science.
So in my opinion there is no better solution than process the fuel in the current reactor as it will lead for the success with almost perfect certainty.
We still don't know whether this is the real me356
Thanks to the people who attacked and insulted him last time, so that he has now no passion to write here in the Forum anymore.
-
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.
Just to add to this, Can (as I'm sure you're aware too), (1) it is the integrated energy over time that is important for showing an excess heat effect, and (2) I gather that the 10+ COP excursions were simply an artifact of the manner in which the COP is being calculated. Brief periods of "XP" are not interesting. It is any excess energy obtained from integrating power over the time domain that is interesting at this point.
-
Quote from me356Soin my opinion there is no better solution than process the fuel in the current reactor as it will lead for the success with almost perfect certainty.
looks extremely optimistic to me..
-
No, I thought that you could get infinite COP by turning power off. /s
-
Just to understand... what you called "COP" is the ratio between (Overall Energy OUT)/(Overall Energy IN) of the system at the end of test or not?
-
Jus to understand... what you called "COP" is the ratio between (Overall Energy OUT)/(Overall Energy IN) of the system at the end of test or not?
Often it is not that, and instead is a ratio of measures of power out/power in of some kind. "COP" is no doubt a misnomer in this case, but the word has a long history of use in LENR experiments. I think "COP" is sometimes used for the calculation you describe as well.
-
In most cases it is not that, and instead is a ratio of measures of power in/power out of some kind. "COP" is no doubt a misnomer in this case, but the word has a long history of use in LENR experiments.
To avoid mistakes can we consider XH only when(if) exists a real energy gain ?
-
"Expected" but never seen, so people talk and become excited by any small fluctuation above 1.
If you read 1.10 1.15 or 1.20 do you consider it a proof of XH or not?
People got excited in the chat when instant COP reached 1.2, but most realized this was just due to system latency when that COP didn't last.
So the answer is no in yesterday's experiment. If we did have 1.1 or 1.2 for an extended time, then the answer would be "maybe".
Note that the system probably has >10% losses
-
If I calculated everything correctly, the blue line in the graph below is the cumulative energy out/in COP using the PCE-830 power analyzer reported cumulative watt-hours and computing the cumulative energy out from the temperature rise at the heat exchanger and the provided water flow:
EDIT: I've also added another graph with more data, hopefully correct.
-
-
Long-term trend probably 0.93 or so, indicating about 7% losses. Which, given this experimental setup, sounds about right and is entirely as expected. Also entirely appropriate for measuring what me356 sort-of claimed.
Every sign here of proper work well done.
You could maybe argue that the instantaneous COP values, while crowd-pleasing, have no real utility.
-
Maybe rolling average COP over a longer time frame would be useful to have on display
-
The long term trend goes towards 1, maybe something interesting going on there after all.
Hard to say, that increasing trend covariates with an increase of noise in the signal.
