me356: Photos of AURA control unit

  • Well, I just discovered that the export function did not work. Does anyone have the Google drive link to the raw data?

    The raw data must be analyzed as can has done and double checked. However it looks like the energy balance says that the experiment was null regardless of what the rolling average COP appeared on average. The rolling average COP was added at the last minute. I am not sure it was calculated correctly. If you look at the rolling average COP and its area above 1.0 and its area below 1.0, it looks like the energy balance should have been positive.

  • 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.

    Bob, the last recored value of Total Excess Heat Estimate is -0.2852 MJ corresponding to -79.2 watt-hour.

    You wrote "Given the nature of the heat not measured by the integrated energy metric, the real balance may be above 1."

    Looking the Can's graph around the beginning of test you can see a difference between Cumulative Energy IN and Cumulative Energy OUT that represents the "heat/energy lag" due to the energy storing into the system before to reach a "steady-state condition" (the initial thermal transient).

    This difference can be estimated (on this plot) less than 50 watt-hour therefore the overall energy balance still remains negative even if we count this "heat not measured".

    Do you agree?

    Edit: We are still talking omitting measures uncertainty discussion.

  • Regarding the data counts... If BobG or any of the others had a GSM phone present, it would be very bad for the radiation detection. The high power pulsing of the GSM transmissions (which go on autonomously) are a terrible noise source to filter out of the equipment. The pancake tubes would be a perfect antenna for this RF interference.

  • Man, you need to educate yourself about weighted average. [...]

    Thanks for educating me.

    I didn't give the reply to Mats002 too much thought, but you're right. I think a clearer explanation would have been that transient low input power periods would tend to throw off the average calculation quite a bit, with the worst case being power off (apparent COP=infinite -- it wouldn't get averaged out).

    This makes me wonder if it's possible (and if it's been already happened in the past) to fool oneself into having produced a working LENR device by computing the COP this way.

  • Regarding the data counts... If BobG or any of the others had a GSM phone present, it would be very bad for the radiation detection. The high power pulsing of the GSM transmissions (which go on autonomously) are a terrible noise source to filter out of the equipment. The pancake tubes would be a perfect antenna for this RF interference.

    I can't see pancake detector

  • I am willing to get Me356 another chance. If there is another 'fail' of claims I think the lesson is how very skilled people can misinterpret COP measurements.

    Interesting to see what ECCO can deliver.

    Anyway MFMP are making a super job shining light into this field.

  • Thanks can - got the data.

    I hope that Me356 has not fooled himself. It happens to the best of us at some time or another - and it doesn't play favorites based on what degree you hold. It is the most disappointing when we discover it was our own mistake. Let's still hold out hope that he has something. MFMP is leaving the measuring equipment with him for a couple of weeks. Perhaps he can discover what has happened in these experiments and tell us.

    Good job MFMP men in various albedo!

  • BobHiggins

    What's funny is that I was already aware of the issue (I even joked about it briefly in the past few pages) but it didn't occur to me that besides blatantly throwing off the rolling average calculation with infinite values when input power is zero, it could also be more subtle.

    I think this might be a seriously overlooked issue in cases where input power isn't constant.

  • It looks like (and I will have to check with our Men of Various Albedo) that the PA1000 and the PCE800 measuring instruments were connected in cascade. This caused one of them to measure the power that the other instrument draws to operate. In this case, it looks like the PA1000 was measuring the operating power of the PCE800 (about 0.8 watts continuous). So, calculations should be based on the PCE800 measured power data, and/or subtract the 0.8 watts from the power the PA1000 measured.

  • Thank you for the comments. It was another great day.

    As I have written in other place, the reactor was very far from ready condition and had a serious issues due to very new build and completely untested components. Today it looked like it will be unable to work anymore due to the heater shortage.

    Then the leak that was present from the beginning was even significantly worsened due to the partially melted core.

    There were also other issues that were identified before the test was started, but not that major.

    So for me it is small miracle that it was possible to run the reactor today. If it will be confirmed that the core has a breach it is useless completely.

    Our heaters are made by a company specifically for the purpose, but it looks like it must be improved in several areas and especially to be really identical with same parameters.

    The first one not allowed to do a proper power regulation at all thus it melted.

    Regarding testing I have only one question mark - the consumed power is including pump for water input too, which in my opinion is not correct if you want to know the real COP. This is because you can replace the pump with free water fall or just a grid that can do the same job for 0 watts. While "dummy reactor" not used any of such pump.

    So you have to substract the power consumption of the pump to get really correct results in my opinion.

    In any way I have to thank to MFMP once again!

  • ME356 - It appears to be unfortunate timing, which happens in life sometimes. Can you confirm if you will be inviting MFMP back to test a more prepared/completed/advanced device at some point in the future? I'm sure we would all be just as keen (if not more so) to see the results of this test setup on a fully working Aura.

  • With prototypes when something breaks it's more like a setback. James Dyson had 5127 "failures" before his bag-less vacuum cleaner worked properly. ME356 invited strangers into his home to test his invention, you have to be pretty confident about it's performance to do that. To us it was four guys doing a test, but to him must have been like...


    • Official Post

    The only positive thing about it is that mfmp setup showed 0 gain on a dummy run. Next time we can put more confidence in a positive outcome.

    For the rest it is very sad. Standard human errors starting from being too shy saying NO when everything was leading to half baked test.

    Even when having a party at home one never bets on a single main dish which can always go sideways.

    Was nice though to see plenty of optimism in the closing remarks of both sides.

  • I have downloaded the data and have re-calculated a couple of the curves. As I expected, something was wrong with the COP calculation - OR - I re-calculated it wrong (someone please check what I got). Here are the curves I calculated:

    As Me356 suggests, perhaps it would be better to subtract the power for the pump. This would bump up the COP curve a little bit, but not very much. When he gets the reactor working like he previously described, the power for this pump will be insignificant.

  • BobHiggins, I take it that "10 Minute Running Average COP" is an average of the "instantaneous" COP? That doesn't seem like a safe calculation to base further analysis on. It seems to me that any COP calculations should be over the individual power-in and power-out readings rather than an aggregation of the unreliable derivative calculation.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Want To Advertise or Sponsor Us?
CLICK HERE to contact us.