me356: Photos of AURA control unit

can it loks like approaching 1, but imo conflicts with pce830 vs energy out curve (lowest blue/green graph) in second screenshot. Anyway it's clear that we are not seeing anything remarkable energy gain. This small changes can aswell be measurement errors. Lets hope new fuel is dryer tomorrow.

Quote from BobHiggins

Since the experimenters own the measuring equipment, and the setup is well documented

Is there a schematic drawing about the setup, in particular about the power supply and how they have hooked up the power meter?

The 50V which they noticed on a notebook case are very strange/fishy. - They better check for current in the grounding wire also.

Quote from Henry

If an energy loss of the system exists is quite normal that at the end of the test the cumulative electric energy input is more of cumulative energy out from calorimeter.

Looking Can graph you can see about 200 watt-hour of energy lost referred to 2450 watt-hour of input energy (based on readings the loss seems about 8%).

That is what I expect to see also, and that is shown (correctly) in bottom of can 's lower graph (blue and green line). BUT it conflicts with his cumulative COP graph (where cop is approaching 1), so I think there is something wrong with latter one. Maybe simply measurement error or average calculation maybe?.

Coming back to the claim that me356 operates an installation of his reactor as part of a home heating system.

It seems, that this has not been showed to the "men in grey" up to now.

Why?

One should expect that the heating system will provide data like the total consumption over time and the amount of heat reported by the usual (may be primitive) Electronic heat cost allocators.

I will not be surprised if after another failed test day me356 and MFMP will sound like "there was not time left to do anything that simple", so we still have not a minimum of proof after all the efforts and time and cost.

Quote from Argon

That is what I expect to see also, and that is shown (correctly) in bottom of Can's lower graph (blue and green line). BUT it conflicts with his cumulative COP graph (where cop is approaching 1), so I think there is something wrong with latter one. Maybe simply measurement error or average calculation maybe?.

Here are the last 10 rows of data from those columns. The COP calculation (out/in) seems consistent with what the graph is showing.

can yes I see them deviating more and more over time as expected. Sorry I mixed colors. I switched from tablet to computer screen, an noticed that I had mixed line colors while reading under bright sunlight (I had read as blue thick line was 15 min rolling average) . Sorry about caused confusion.

After second look, I still have to rephrase my question. Why blue line (Calorimetry energy out/PCE-830 energy in) approaches towards 1 while basically same thing seen to be opposite in bottom graph in this (blue and green line are deviating). Something does not match between them in my opinion.

Any way not a biggie, but in my opinion those 2 graphs conflicts in my mind for some reason.

Quote from barty

We still don't know whether this is the real me356

The MFMP people should ask him if that's really him. They are still there. Also, if this is not him, he would be well advised to speak up.

Quote from barty

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.

Oh give me a break.

Guess: a "COP" of power-out/power-in that uses a rolling average should use a window larger than the time constant of the calorimeter in order to avoid misleading excursions (both positive and negative).

Maybe a 5 minute rolling average would be satisfactory for yesterday's setup

Quote from Argon

After second look, I still have to rephrase my question. Why blue line (Calorimetry energy out/PCE-830 energy in) approaches towards 1 while basically same thing seen to be opposite in bottom graph in this (blue and green line are deviating). Something does not match between them in my opinion.

Any way not a biggie, but in my opinion those 2 graphs conflicts in my mind for some reason.

They appear to be deviating because the values themselves are constantly growing larger over time, while their ratio is only very slowly tending towards 1.

Simply put: the 92% of 250 is 10 times smaller than the 92% of 2500.

Quote from JedRothwell

The MFMP people should ask him if that's really him. They are still there. Also, if this is not him, he would be well advised to speak up.

Bob Greenyer has a fairly long relationship with Me356 online and in person. He knows who he is dealing with and is committed, as part of his relationship, to keeping Me356's identity confidential as Me356 has requested.

Regarding the various discussions about measuring another apparatus that Me356 has ... Apparently Me356 created a version of his reactor that was closed up in a housing that would help keep secret the things he wished not to show - this was a black box test offer. His other apparatus does not have the box for obscuring the confidential details and likely will not be shown to the MFMP team.

Quote from Forty-Two

Is there a schematic drawing about the setup, in particular about the power supply and how they have hooked up the power meter?

The 50V which they noticed on a notebook case are very strange/fishy. - They better check for current in the grounding wire also.

They could if they start to get positive results Monday, but otherwise it doesn't matter. No need to look for tricks when it is not working.

Quote from THHuxleynew

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.

Agreed, and also provides a nice baseline, so if me356 manages to get it working on Monday, we can refer back to this if needed.

Quote from Jack Cole

They could if they start to get positive results Monday, but otherwise it doesn't matter. No need to look for tricks when it is not working.

If they wanna to a serious job, then they need to rule out tricks - as much as possible - from the start of the test, and during the entire run of test.

Otherwise it could happen that the reactors shows "signs" of "Excess Heat" for a (short) periode of time, and then suddenly "fails" (and can't be quickly fixed), which wouldn't allow for checking for "tricks" later anymore - but would trigger even more controversy about me356 claims.

I only followed the Friday/Saturday test only occassionally, and what I have seen (just as an example), they checked for DC in the lines only before the test, not during the test.

(They better should use an isolation transformer between the mains supply and the reactor/control box).

The problem I see now is that they will be in hurry in case excess heat appears tomorrow. I doubt that all previously planned tests will be able to be made, and the reactor won't be able to run long enough to rule out other energy sources or problems. They are supposed to "pack up by Monday night" (source).

To be honest I don't think that them taking a day off was appropriate either. If the time tomorrow will be very limited they should have taken the time to carefully plan what to do, also together with me356.

Quote from Can

The problem I see now is that they will be in hurry in case excess heat appears tomorrow. I doubt that all previously planned tests will be able to be made, and the reactor won't be able to run long enough to rule out other energy sources or problems. They are supposed to "pack up by Monday night" (source).

To be honest I don't think that them taking a day off today was appropriate either. If the time tomorrow will be very limited they should have taken the time to carefully plan what to do, also together with me356.

So what, if there is good evidences of an effect I doubt that MFMP will have difficulties to raise a funds to continue the tests in a month or two. Me365 seam to welcome tests and verification on a level that is very satisfying. If there is a mistake done and the effect is not there, well then things can get harder. Me365 might have optimized away the effect and but then he will learn, if he is honest - and he seam to be, and he can continue trying to find a solution with better tools then before and in a year or so he might find true gold. Let's see.

stefan

I shall remind you that me356 was supposed (and promoted) to have a pre-production unit ready to be used for house heating purposes - not something that might have been expected to work properly in a year or so - and that about one week of testing on a working device was supposed to take place.

https://docs.google.com/docume…rePDsaIUf1xWE1NIQzPI/edit

Quote from stefan

So what, if there is good evidences of an effect I doubt that MFMP will have difficulties to raise a funds to continue the tests in a month or two.

It sure would be easier for one person to stay a few extra days now. That's my guess. But then, I hate airplanes.

"Bob Greenyer has a fairly long relationship with Me356 online and in person. He knows who he is dealing with and is committed, as part of his relationship, to keeping Me356's identity confidential as Me356 has requested.

Regarding the various discussions about measuring another apparatus that Me356 has ... Apparently Me356 created a version of his reactor that was closed up in a housing that would help keep secret the things he wished not to show - this was a black box test offer. His other apparatus does not have the box for obscuring the confidential details and likely will not be shown to the MFMP team."

That's why i only would ask for a look at the ocation and the in and out of the home heating system, just to have any small proof that me356 is not a bluff...