me356: Photos of AURA control unit

• The power monitor directly reports cumulative energy input. I calculated the cumulative energy output. Then, centered on the data sample in question, I went forward in time 5 minutes worth of samples, and backwards in time 5 minutes worth of samples. I subtracted the cumulative energy forward - the cumulative energy backward for the input and output cumulative energy data. The 10 minute running average COP was then the OUT(forward5-backward5)/IN(forward5-backward5). At no point in this calculation was the "instantaneous COP" part of the calculation.

• My impression from this discussion is that the calorimeter constant is a lot less than 10 minutes. In that case I find it interesting that the COP ever undergoes significant excursions, including above 1 on two or so occasions. What is the mundane explanation for that? (I assume there is one.)

• I can add a plot, but it is likely where the power input is being controlled into one of its recovery modes where the period of the power input cycle is greater than 10 minutes.

• Is this approach correct?

- Subtract cumulative energy in (PCE-830) and out (calorimetry) in watt-hours by themselves shifted by 1 sample to obtain the energy Out and In per sample

- Compute the rolling sum for both energy out and in (300 samples = approx. 10 minutes)

- Divide the Out/In rollling sums to obtain the rolling energy COP

• First, the sample period is about 5.01 seconds, so there are 600/5 = 120 samples per 10 minutes. To maintain best accuracy, don't do anything with the PCE800 cumulative energy column for the input - it is integrated most accurately inside the meter. Next you want to construct the per-sample energy in the output based on the average temperature difference between 2 samples, the average flow between two samples, the time between samples (subtract the time stamps), and the 4.184 J/g/C. Then accumulate the per-sample energy to get the cumulative energy output curve. Now you have the cumulative input energy (provided by the PCE800) and the calculated output energy curve. For each 10 minutes of time (120 samples) centered on a sample, compute the energy change during that period in the output and in the input. Then the 10 minute rolling average COP is Delta-E_out/Delta-E_In.

Also note that when the Omega flow meter had no flow for about the first 21 samples, it registered an output of approximately 0.0212. This appeared to be an offset in the measurement, so I subtracted this from all samples so that with no flow, the signal would read 0.000. The water should actually have been flowed through the heat exchanger for a while until the inlet and the outlet temperatures were the same before turning on the reactor.

Your curve doesn't look quite the same, probably mostly from the different number of samples in the average, and from not correcting the flow meter signal (which I didn't mention before).

• @Sherlock Holmes

What I took from his message was that his heater coil burned out and that is what stopped the experiment.

• I will try to apply your suggestions next time, but I wanted to note now that during the 2017-05-27 test the sample period was about 2 seconds - I assumed it remained the same.

• I want to thank you for letting MFMP be involved in your project. Though our "Men in Various Albedo" did not document excess heat from your system this time, it seemed to be on the verge of doing so. As you suggest, removing the water pump from the measurement, and accounting for other output heats that were lost (but not measured) could have tipped the scale over a COP of 1 for the electrical input to heat output COP of the reactor itself. Please don't let those that criticized the reactor or the experiment undermine your resolve to succeed. Also, please allow MFMP to return again when you have something you wish to share with the world.

• I like to work with an "elapsed time" variable in seconds. So, one of the first things I do is add a column that is created from subtraction of date stamps. That way I get a good idea of the sample period naturally.

• me356 Bůh ti žehnej

For this LENR forum and for the MFMP team this was good learning experience.

It is the journey that is important as much as the destination.

Next time there will be more music along the way

Content 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.

• As you suggest, removing the water pump from the measurement, and accounting for other output heats that were lost (but not measured) could have tipped the scale over a COP of 1 for the electrical input to heat output COP of the reactor itself.

As I said, with these instrument in this configuration, the power of the pump will not be significant. If it tips the scale into a COP slightly above 1, that only means the error is slightly positive. The error will either be positive or negative; no instrument will get 1.0000. The pump may have added some heat but I am sure some other factor can be found that should have subtracted it. There are always losses unaccounted for. Please do not waste your time pursuing or celebrating a result such as ~1.01 with this system. It is meaningless. Even with top grade laboratory equipment and months of calibration, this would be meaningless.

This system reportedly produced far higher input to output ratios. Either it was not working these past four days, or those reports were in error. There is no middle ground here, and no way there could have been significant excess heat in these tests. Perhaps there will be in future tests, but these tests failed to back up the claims.

• ...accounting for other output heats that were lost (but not measured) could have tipped the scale over a COP of 1 for the electrical input to heat output COP of the reactor itself.

It's the second time you wrote comments presuming a COP>1. Counting all heat you could achieve the value of 1.
Any hypothesis about positive value of COP (or value over 1) still remains a pure speculation and you should take into account also all contributions including any sources of "heat added" to the system that reduces COP, and the measurement accuracy.

I would like to remember that "may" "might" "could" are not proofs.

Quote

Please do not waste your time pursuing or celebrating a result such as ~1.01 with this system. It is meaningless.

I fully agree with JR. You give me the impression that are looking for a positive results at any cost.

Edited 6 times, last by Henry ().

• Jed wrote:

" Please do not waste your time pursuing or celebrating 1.01 "

I don't think Bob is really pursuing 1.01.

The discussion has been about finding the best way to calculate the COP given that there

is no instantaneous COP 'speedometer'.

This COP methodology will be used for other MFMP tests,

and its good to have some discussion of this while the iron is hot ,... or should I say warm.

• Official Post

he said that his reactor has heated his home for a year.

Where did he say that?

Bob Greenyer said that he (me356) WILL use one to heat a family house.

[...]One of these devices will be connected to a large family house heating system[...]

That sounds more like a plan for the future instead of something already done.

You said something about "the final nail in the LENR coffin". So why are you still participating here?

• Official Post

Five posts from this thread were just moved to the Playground thread. Please do keep it civil.

• This was a perfectly straightforward test. Conducted properly. With a proper result.

me356 says that the reactor was broken. He also says that he knew this and there was not enough time to prepare it.

So: I think between MFMP and me356 it would be helpful to have a Test Readiness Protocol set up. Thus - BEFORE MFMP buy tickets - me356 signs off as being ready. After setup, BEFORE test start - me356 signs off as having what he thinks is a working reactor.

That way it would be easier to distinguish between a known equipment failure (when there should never be a test, given the time and cost) and a post hoc rationalisation of a non-working device.

My view here is that me356 believes 100% that his stuff works and therefore will likely view any negative test as broken equipment. Also, that no-one else has any evidence to believe me356's stuff works, although many have strong hopes that it does. But, should people feel in their judgement that me356 device might indeed work, it would be straightforward to repeat this good test with another identical except with the Test Readiness Protocol addition.

As for: the final nail in the LENR coffin. I can't accept that. I had (and was on record as having) zero expectations of this test. It is not following a method that has any credible previous record of generating anomalous results. And me356's previous stated reasons for believing he actually had something unusual were very unconvincing.

So whatever your previous expectations of LENR existing this test result should not change them. Though I realise there were quite a few who believed the whole Rossi/Parkhomov/Sun/BG signal sequence of events represented positive evidence, who might now be disappointed.

• THHuxleynew: Indeed it is very important for the future to very clearly state when it is ready from both sides.

I give full permission to MFMP to share details or better cite me what I have written in advance about the problems.

But I have given my best to make it work even with these issues.

In any way MFMP members were very helpfull and tried to help with them/investigate to allow the operation.

Specially I have to thank to Mr. Alan.

• I don't think it was just about missing protocol or dishonesty etc, but simply me356 was pretty confident about his technology, despite modifications, and couldn't resist to use his once in history chance to get confirmed positive result before Suhas device gets tested. I can imagine the pressure he must have been pondering with.

If that would be the case, it would be great news still, because there is also explanation that BobHiggins brought in that inventors calorimetry has been somehow flawed and he has mistaken about COP all the time. That would be also understandable, but sad news. Luckily it is pretty difficult to get false positive COP of 10....50 as he has reported before.

For me all inventors are the 'first ones' whose own technology finally gets positively verified within 1 year of first positive (COP >5) verification. So let me356 complete and check his technology in peace without jumping final conclusions.

• To minimize surprises and make people more familiar with the setup a more sensible approach might have been to first post/stream data and information from me356's side on a working reactor (like he used to), and then once it's established that according to the data it appears to produce excess heat, allowing others like MFMP to validate it with their own equipment.

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

* indicates required

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years