me356: Photos of AURA control unit

  • Nothing wrong is there, except that 14th may is of course typo (4th is correct).

    If Bob said I am ready, then he meant I am ready to accept them for testing as I have described above.

    For sure you can get confirmation for everything I have written from other side too.

  • Argon

    I tried to communicate with Bob Greenyer during the test, and had some difficulty (this needs to be better resolved in the future); but my message did reach him. I asked him to measure the temperature of the reactor side water outlet to compare it to the secondary side inlet water temperature to get an idea of how much heat was exiting the primary side of the heat exchanger. He measured the temperature with a glass thermometer and posted that there was about a 1°C difference in temperature. So, for the actual experiment, the efficiency of the heat exchanger was good. In future experiments, such quantities as reactor water input flow rate, reactor input temperature, and heat exchanger outlet temperature all need to be recorded as part of the raw data. One would compare the reactor inlet temperature and the heat exchanger primary outlet temperature to understand, and the inlet flow to estimate how much heat was not measured by the heat exchanger. All temperature measurements in that case would relatively low temperature water (no attempt to measure steam).


    It would be useful to measure the power input to the pump as well, for use in detailed follow-up analysis. However, it was pointed out to me (Cravens) that since the inlet water goes through the pump, it will turn some or most of the electrical energy that went into the pump into pre-heating of the inlet water. If the water temperature is measured before the pump, then the energy input from the pump is at least partly accounted in the calorimetry.

  • 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.

    Perhaps that would have been a good idea, but it is water under the bridge now. I think the present plan will serve the purpose just as well. They left some equipment there. me356 will continue testing and adjusting his equipment. If he finds a problem he will fix it. Sometime in the coming weeks, he may find the MFMP equipment shows excess heat. He will send the data back to them. I hope at that point one of them will return to confirm the numbers. If they don't have the money to do that, I will fund another trip.


    If it does not work in the next few months, I will conclude that it never did work, and me356 was mistaken.


    It would have been better if me356 had put his ducks in a row before the trip, and MFMP had been able to confirm the heat. It would even have been better if me356 thought it was working and his own instruments showing that it is working but the MFMP showed an error. However, starting where we are now, the present plan looks good to me.

  • The expectation was that that the test would be of a working reactor. Someone obviously dropped the ball. This was not unnoticed by the crowd as the issue of expectations was raised numerous times leading up to the test. There was a lot of pressure to perform this test which may have contributed to this situation. Many people including myself are disappointed that the test did not confirm excess heat.


    At this point, however, it doesn't matter. It is what it is. The positives are that MFMP produced a credible test system, that me356 appears to be well on the way to production (where have we heard this before?), and that there appears to be no hard feelings between the two groups. I'm looking forward to hopefully a near term next test of me356's technology if he allows it and if MFMP is able to perform the test.

  • me356

    Do you have any recollection of the photos and information posted here on 2017-04-30?

    https://steemit.com/science/@m…of-his-reactor-controller


    Quote

    me356 has been hard at work preparing his reactor, that we call AURA for the purposes of verification.


    Below, we present some photos he shared with us showing the prototype of the controller/monitor. [...]


    Steemit might be a kind of obscure information outlet, but they've also been linked on E-CatWorld.

    • Official Post

    too much time must have been wasted on discussions of what can be seen, touched and what can be not, how to protect me's identity etc. True open science has a benefit of not spending previous time on the issues like that.

    Hope me is not frustrated with the people grieving about that. That is how you feel when your favourite team draws in away game.

  • can


    Lets wait what Bob writes about this. In the days and weeks before their trip there were some comments by Bob which made me wonder how good the communication between me356 and MFMP is. I am not going to look these statements up because I think Bob is going to clarify things. After sharing pastries the communication between them might be better in the future :)

  • For sure there will be new reactor very soon, actually much more of them. There were many plans from my side what should be done before the test will happen.

    Especially I was insisting on carefull cooperation before any test will happen to prevent any speculations like these and to provide only facts and verified data - this plan was expressed by me maybe months ago. But at the end timing does not allowed it.


    There is and was another reactor that should be running and available for the tests, but we were unfortunately unable to finish it soon enough as the concentration was given to finishing the prototypes of the control box (which is needed for the second reactor as well) and the cover and parts for the wide production. The second reactor has also some incompatible that must be changed too.

    Now we know that some parts are not good and must be replaced for others in any way. This is how it works and is not unexpected for me.


    I am not frustrated at all, I just like to give missing data how the things are in reality, which in my point is important. Because people are constructing lies on such imprecisions which is understandable.

    Sometimes it is not good if all the important things are told by other persons, but if you get full response directly from the source. Unfortunately I am extremely busy and it was unusefull to answer the questions. But if there are doubts about my credibility I gladly describe everything and prove what is right.


    It was honor that MFMP was here and I have enjoyed it very much, especially because they are really great team. Each member have unique skills that they are really mastering. We have found what must be sorted and where the things are not strong and must be updated. So I am sure usefull for both.


    Regarding positive or negative result of the test - personally for me it was positive in many ways. What appeared that can't work worked at the end. There were many obstacles that were bypassed in nearly notime and worked for the test.

    Still there are lot of data to process so lets make MFMP their work without guess work.


    Can: Overally it is OK, there are some things that were based on unkown things by writer so only guesses which is also mentioned there. But there are also some false data that I was pointing out, because were not mentioned by me. So they are also guesses. But it is not that important. The problem is, when others are using these data and offend that it was told by me.

    For this reason I wished that anything that is related to me is consulted with me to prevent some wrong interpretation. It is maybe hard to work with me, because I can't give full response for obvious reasons and sometime it takes too long. But I still think that only facts should be provided in all cases whatever it is. Information without a proper context can be completely false.

  • 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.

    I think you should keep the pump power in the equations. Pump power goes to adding energy to the water; energy that eventually shows up as heat. There's friction on the tubing walls, and internal eddy currents that are friction damped.

  • Argon

    I tried to communicate with Bob Greenyer during the test, and had some difficulty (this needs to be better resolved in the future); but my message did reach him. I asked him to measure the temperature of the reactor side water outlet to compare it to the secondary side inlet water temperature to get an idea of how much heat was exiting the primary side of the heat exchanger. He measured the temperature with a glass thermometer and posted that there was about a 1°C difference in temperature. So, for the actual experiment, the efficiency of the heat exchanger was good. In future experiments, such quantities as reactor water input flow rate, reactor input temperature, and heat exchanger outlet temperature all need to be recorded as part of the raw data. One would compare the reactor inlet temperature and the heat exchanger primary outlet temperature to understand, and the inlet flow to estimate how much heat was not measured by the heat exchanger. All temperature measurements in that case would relatively low temperature water (no attempt to measure steam).


    It would be useful to measure the power input to the pump as well, for use in detailed follow-up analysis. However, it was pointed out to me (Cravens) that since the inlet water goes through the pump, it will turn some or most of the electrical energy that went into the pump into pre-heating of the inlet water. If the water temperature is measured before the pump, then the energy input from the pump is at least partly accounted in the calorimetry.


    Great that we have experienced researchers like you here. OK I missed that Bob already reported 1C difference. So efficiency (and uncertainty) was good. Your Idea sounds good. Not to add too many more readings to dashboard, but record them for post-analysis. Part of the pump energy contributes to water heating yes, and part goes to environment if pump is not isolated. Latest test showed that luckily even current setup is accurate enough for COP > 2-10 measurements especially when both buckets temp was checked.

  • me356 wrote

    For sure there will be new reactor very soon, actually  much more of them. There were many plans from my side what should be done before the test will happen.

    Thank you for the test and comments. I regret the equipment failure but those things happen. Contrary to what some write it it necessary to plan ahead or waiting for perfection will cause delays due to personnel scheduling, travel arrangements, etc.


    In order to follow your progress it would be helpful to know where you will publish updates. Like on which forum.

    I wish you all the best.

  • Regarding positive or negative result of the test - personally for me it was positive in many ways. What appeared that can't work worked at the end.

    I really don't know what/which part of the test you might consider a "positive result".


    My take from this test is, that it showed that your "reactor" just performed exactly like any ordinary electrical heater, and you were not able to provide any evidence that anyone of your extraordinary claims (excess heat from a LENR reactor) is true.

  • Excess heat from an LENR reaction is a temperate and evasive anomaly that presently only comes out when an unrealized combination of

    factors occasionally manifest and cross into the sweet spot zone. T


    No, Dewey. It is not. A "temperate and evasive anomaly" does not heat your house for a year. Again, MFMP could save a lot of time and money asking to check his house heating system. Unless they are afraid to confirm its inexistence.

  • @Sherlock Holmes, the point has been made that there was a misunderstanding about the heating of me356's home, namely that this was something that he wanted to do in the future. If you disagree that there was such a misunderstanding, please explain why. Otherwise perhaps we can let that one go.

  • I don't remember where the heating home for one year tidbit was mentioned (but it reminds me of one of Rossi's claims, perhaps there has been some confusion here), but in a video which I transcribed in the past it's been mentioned than one reactor ran for three and a half months. This was from a meeting in Copenhagen held on April 24, 2017:


  • Regarding positive or negative result of the test - personally for me it was positive in many ways. What appeared that can't work worked at the end.

    What are you talking about? There was no excess heat. The device did not work in the end.


    This test was a failure. I hope you can do it again in the near future and produce excess heat. But, for you to describe this as a success is disingenuous. If that was a success, what would failure look like?

  • JedRothwell: I was not referring to excess heat. I was referring to the things that we were able to manage in such short time and altough it was uneasy it was at least possible to perform the test in given timeframe. If nothing was done, then this is really fail. But even with some delay of few days it happened. In my experience each failure is leading to a great success.

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.