@Henry, You are slightly confused on your COP calculations. You've accidentally calculated COP as Current Power Output / Total Energy Input. The calculation should be COP = Power Output / Power Input = 1024.11 W / 1011.2 W = 1.012
Right, as wrote was a my mistake. Sorry.
Is todays flowmeter calibration curves still available somewhere? I think they were way off from expected. Did they find reason for that?
Or was accepted theory that heat exchanger was not meant tfor water, but steam only (so efficiency poor when used with water)?
The energy balance fails to account for is the energy that is presently stored in the reactor and the reactor heat not registered. You could turn the power off now and the stored energy would come out of the reactor for a while after it is turned off.
When I say not measured, consider this. Let's say that the inlet water temperature is 14°C and the outlet water temperature is 18°C. What is the outlet temperature for the reactor water that is cooled by the heat exchanger? Let's say it exits at 16°C to pick a number. The inlet to the reactor was 14°C also, so there would be 2°C of reactor heat that is missed by not cooling the water all the way to 14°C. This goes unaccounted in the present system and shorts the accounting of the reactor heat. The instantaneous power missed may be small, but it is lost over the course of the whole experiment time. It would be nice if we could get the temperature of the reactor outlet after the heat exchanger measured.
Presently the energy balance is about -4%. Given the nature of the heat not measured by the integrated energy metric, the real balance may be above 1.
BobHiggins This is exactly what I have tried to explain 3 days, but stopped when did not get any responses 
Then I started to question myself, and without doing proper calculations, estimated that amount of condensed water is so small, that 'forgetting' few degrees diff between bucket temps does not make big difference. Thank you, im not garzy after all 
Does anybody know, is there an actual schematic drawing of this test setup?
Is the water, which is fed into the reactor, backfeed to the reactor (after the condensation in the heat exchanger).
I wouldn't be suprised if this is not a closed loop, and those guys don't take in account the delta T between feed water, and condensate temperature after the heat exchanger (and mass flow).
Edit: Just seen the comment from Bob Higgins - that seems to answer my question 
About the COP graph: MFMP Average (red line) goes over 1 while your blue calculation goes just below 1. Would you like to comment that please.
For some reason the rolling average (both 5-minute - provided by MFMP - and 15-minute, but I also tried 30-minute with similar results) of the "instant" power out/in COP is giving ~10% higher values than the COP calculated using cumulative energy out/in, even after starting the calculation at a later time in the test. Since my excess energy calculation matches that also provided by MFMP, I think there could be something off with the instant COP values.
Wytte - whats with the quick rush to conclusions along with such a judgmental statement? Is MFMP using any of your time or nickels, pence or euros?
While everyone obviously has many more questions than answers that are available right now - I think this effort is pretty cool and that we should all be grateful
for the chance to watch this unfold. It is going to go where it is going to go.
Top marks Dewey. And quite right too., we should indeed be grateful.
Here's some more data. I took screen captures of the dashboard approximately every 10 minutes and computed 10' COP using Total Energy from the power meters and Total Excess Energy Estimates. I used the maximum of the two power meters. Basically COP is very steady and 1.000.
Basically a null test to me unless loss and errors can be characterized.
On the Plot.ly graph, you can select the export button and export the raw data to Excel instead of having to try to manually capture the data.
On the Plot.ly graph, you can select the export button and export the raw data to Excel instead of having to try to manually capture the data.
Thanks, I know. This is quick and dirty for discussion purposes only. Clearly averaging instant COP is no good. If someone doesn't do it this way later I will do this with all the raw data when it's over.
Unless I made a mistake I think this is a good summary of the COP.
For some reason the rolling average (both 5-minute - provided by MFMP - and 15-minute, but I also tried 30-minute with similar results) of the "instant" power in/out COP is giving ~10% higher values than the COP calculated using cumulative energy in/out, even after starting the calculation at a later time in the test. Since my excess energy calculation matches that also provided by MFMP, I think there could be something off with the instant COP values.
Man, you need to educate yourself about weighted average.
To give you a hint: Just think that for 1s the reactor runs with 1W Input and 10 W output - that means 9 Ws excess heat, and for that periode of time a COP of 10.
The next second, the reactor runs with 100W Input and 91 W output. That gives you -9Ws excess heat, and for that 1 second a COP of 0.91.
For the total run you get 0 Wh excess heat, but what will calculated average COP (of COP 10 and COP 0.91) be?
All test data directly logged by the test software is available at:
Display MoreMan, you need to educate yourself about weighted average.
To give you a hint: Just think that for 1s the reactor runs with 1W Input and 10 W output - that means 9 Ws excess heat, and for that periode of time a COP of 10.
The next second, the reactor runs with 100W Input and 91 W output. That gives you -9Ws excess heat, and for that 1 second a COP of 0.91.
For the total run you get 0 Wh excess heat, but what will calculated average COP (of COP 10 and COP 0.91) be?
Good point. Clearly total energy out/in is best measure.
All test data directly logged by the test software is available at:
Link takes me to a PNG file....
Presently the energy balance is about -4%. Given the nature of the heat not measured by the integrated energy metric, the real balance may be above 1.
As long as we don't know the temperature of the water into the reactor (does it come from a bucket with warm water?), and the "condensate temperature" leaving the heat exchanger (could be almost as low as the cooling water temperature in, which is according to the dashboard about 14.3°C), it could also be that the real total energy balance is worse than -4%.
Presently the energy balance is about -4%. Given the nature of the heat not measured by the integrated energy metric, the real balance may be above 1.
Surely it is within the margin of error. Although I would expect it to be slightly below 1.0, not slightly above.
The calorimetry is impressive, but it can't be all that good, with these instruments and conditions. The margin of error must be several percent.
The machine is not doing what me356 claimed it does. Perhaps it is not working. The people from the MFMP told me they will leave their flow calorimeter equipment. If me356 reports positive results from their equipment, they can go back to confirm it. This seems like a sensible plan to me.
Surely it is within the margin of error. Although I would expect it to be slightly below 1.0, not slightly above.
The calorimetry is impressive, but it can't be all that good, with these instruments and conditions. The margin of error must be several percent.
The machine is not doing what me356 claimed it does. Perhaps it is not working. The people from the MFMP told me they will leave their flow calorimeter equipment. If me356 reports positive results from their equipment, they can go back to confirm it. This seems like a sensible plan to me.
Sounds very good
https://plot.ly/~QuantumHeat/3…-detection-counters/#plot
GCA-geiger show double count rates in last ~30min.
