I find it very interesting that the fuel processing needs so much time (seemingly weeks to months?), according to me356's "1/14" of usual processing time.
Have any ideas what "processing" is? I think it is ultrasound. Mr. Suhas do 200hrs ultrasound. 1/14 maybe mean two weeks? 14 is 2 * 7 days?
I would not recommend MFMP start playing with rolling average stuff, if never done it before. Next 6 hours is so important that it should not be risked to fail because modifications to dashboard. Most of readers should understand that instantaneous COP sometimes gives false positives/negatives because of heat energy stored and released from mass.
Average graphs can be plotted from data afterwards as seen in this thread. Thank you can for your efforts on that!
Quote from MFMPDisplay More11:00 on site, me356 has just got reactor into and operational state and also removed a pump that was identified in the water supply system, which was likely largely responsible for the saw-tooth variation in pressure that we saw during Run 1.
First pre-test today will be to see if the supply water is far more regular or if we have to install the pressure regulator we purchased this morning.
He has also got a new grounding point installed in the lab, which appears to have resolved stray voltages, see in this video:
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
Have any ideas what "processing" is? I think it is ultrasound. Mr. Suhas do 200hrs ultrasound. 1/14 maybe mean two weeks? 14 is 2 * 7 days?
I believe too that it's supposed to mean two weeks as Alan Smith previously suggested. However given the lack of information the processing could be anything, depending on what the actual "fuel" is.
The example I was previously referring about was Leif Holmlid's iron-potassium oxide catalysts. They need an activation procedure comprising heating in a residual light hydrocarbon atmosphere (a vacuum essentially) for weeks before the catalysts are active enough to show anomalous effects. The rationale behind it seems to be reproducing in part the actual activation process occurring in real world operating conditions in industrial reactors, while at the same time depleting most (but not all) of the alkali content which is counterproductive to its operation in these experiments. In practice this means that the preparation takes weeks to complete because while the alkali content is more easily depleted in a vacuum, the actual activation by reaction with the hydrocarbons would normally use higher pressures to complete in a short amount of time. At the same time, excessive carbon build-up (coking) and sintering due to too high temperatures, which are irreversible, have to be avoided, so some deal of attention is needed as well.
Is MFMP really in east Europe ? Why do they drive in the wrong side of road then (Left) ?
Quote from MFMP11:23 UTC - starting a water flow test to see if it is smoother now after Me356 made a change to turn off a pressure pump.
You can tell from the MFMP logos on their shirts.
You can tell from the MFMP logos on their shirts.
I really need vacation. I read the logo without noticing that it was right to left.
Geiger & neutron counters have some more activity than saturday ~50counts/min?
Quote from MFMPDisplay More12:00 UTC - me356 has agreed to give some ash samples from previous reactors for us to test, say with EDX or ICP MS
12:01 UTC - Water heater installed to test the effectiveness of the heat exchanger in the calorimetry. Our goal is to test the losses through the insulation. It will be a rather incomplete test because the water heater only outputs 45C water instead of 100C steam like the reactor, so our losses estimation will be low. The losses would increase if there there were several KW of steam going into the heat exchanger and pushing the heat exchange limit.
The data is already streaming.
Cooling water set to about 1.5 L/min
Water heater has a minimum flow required to start.
The voltage on the water heater is 213V, so it is dragging down the voltage on what must be a long length of wire to get to the “lab” . The water heater is running lower power at about 2900W
Had to switch the PCE current probe to 100A setting. The software is still reading it wrong. Brian is working on it. Fixed it!
Once we see all the temperatures coming to steady state we can get a good COP reading that will tell us the efficiency of the heat recovery. Then we can compare that to some relatively steady state from Test 6 -Run 1 on Saturday.
Then we can turn off the water heater power and see the cooling response.
Sensys meter reading
0.452 KW vs 1.112 KW from ours - large difference
11.02C temp diff vs 11.2 on our system
Input 13.9, output is 25
Flow reading 0.036 m^3/h
It is only reading 0.6 L/m vs 1.43 from the Omega flow meter
Check with bucket and scale shows 1.35, or so, so the Sensys has a flow meter problem right now.
Bucket fill for 3 minutes to measure the flow through the water heater. We got 3592 g, or roughly 1.2L/min
That is way more mass flow rate than the steam. That will make this characterization very different than working with a low mass flow rate of steam that drops 99% of its heat at 100C.
We measure under these conditions 0.41 COP, or heat recovery. We could improve that by increasing the flow of cooling water so the temp difference between the two was significantly different. That means the heat exchanger is only useful for working with steam (which is why we got it).
Bob wants to capture a little video of this, now, and we can be done with this step and move onto the main test.
Quote from MFMPBrian is installing the update with the long average on the COP calculation to avoid over excitement when the COP rises sharply because the input power drops. We will test the function on the water heater first.
Quick live stream of dummy heater as hot source for the heat exchanger.
I would not recommend MFMP start playing with rolling average stuff, if never done it before. Next 6 hours is so important that it should not be risked to fail because modifications to dashboard. Most of readers should understand that instantaneous COP sometimes gives false positives/negatives because of heat energy stored and released from mass.
Everyone who understands the instantaneous false positive/negative qualities of COP, will also understand a rolling average. Conversely, people who get excited over instantaneous and erroneous COP values will have less to make false conclusions about with a rolling average (e.g., some folks on ECW). All the raw data is saved and you could calculate your own instantaneous COP if you wish (but it has no purpose in this case).
Jack, I don't disagree about over excitement of some followers on false positives, my main point was that with so limited time frame, this is unnecessary step risking actual testing. We already saw one change on SW on friday which had to be rolled back since it didn't work properly. I suggested 2 weeks ago Bob to run calorimetry test with Nibe heater before the trip, that would have saved from some of this hassle we have been wittnessing here.
Probably they did not do that due lack of time/hands to run the dry run test of new calorimetry at home.
Quote from MFMPDisplay MoreCOP average worked. We updated the Plot.ly and the freeboard.io pages with it
We are nearly ready, again. Bob is making a mask for his photographic film.
Me356 is setting up the reactor and the control computer.
Dead battery on the GCA geiger counter… sourcing a new one
Bubble detector check - no bubbles
Sensys currently says 49.060 MWH
Total volume on meter 7390.975 m^3
Cleared the PA1000 total kWh
Me356 brought in a fire extinguisher
I understand your point Argon. Perhaps he could add the rolling average COP in addition to instantaneous.
Jack, From test log: "COP average worked. We updated the Plot.ly and the freeboard.io pages with it" So fingers crossed 
Quote from MFMPStart button pressed 14:40 UTC
Hopefully they got the rolling average COP formula right, ie not just a rolling average of the instant COP
