me356: Photos of AURA control unit

  • Quote
    I have seen many cold fusion researchers and others waste years or even decades on machines that do not work. They thought the machines were working, but they were wrong. They wasted their lives. This will happen to you if you are wrong and you refuse to face reality.


    The crowds of high-tech scientists managed to pursue for example string theory for forty years, they issued books and BBC shows - and we can be even sure, they had absolute no practical/usefull applications on their mind with it. So I think, me356 would handle his wasting our lives quite easily.


    BTW Why the mainstream science proponents fear the negative results so much? The unsureness about results is the very basis of really inquisitive research - all the rest is just collection of stamps.

  • Thank you. It was only 25C max, 11C diffrence, ~1.1kw max, so memory fault.


    From your plots, test run was ~260min and flow was ~1.4L/min so about 364L was used. Sensus report 128L so correction factor 2.844 -> 2kw average..

    Flow plot show some spikes down to 1.2L/s so fits bucket fill if it happened just in spike down.

  • Henry

    Luckily, they can be easily calculated from True Watts, Volts and Amps, which are available.


    About calculation (and definition) it could be some difference due to harmonics in case of signal distortion (total PF).

    I think PCE calculates the correct values.

    JoNP means Journal of Null-Physics (the house of hoax,trickery, junk and psychopathological science).

  • Dear me356,

    Let me join others in thanking you for allowing MFMP to test your device. I have been impressed with your technical skills as you have demonstrated since you started working on LENR.


    I would also like to encourage you to be objective, and don't let your hope cause you to waste more time and money than need be. Hope will keep you working, but it won't make LENR work. Before you go further down this road, please do everything possible to demonstrate whether your technology is working or not. It will be worth the time and effort. You should be able to step back for a month and determine conclusively whether any of your reactors work. Please make use of MFMP's equipment for the determination. Personally, I'm not concerned if you share the results so long as you can be objective. Like others, I would prefer you share negative results, which are as important as positive results.

  • [...] I would prefer you share negative results, which are as important as positive results.


    He actually did, although forced by the circumstances. If you measure a heater a hundred times you may well make a mistake a couple of times and get COP once 0.5 and once 2.0. I recommend not to get excited for the cop=2 since it is no more miracle than 0.5 (where did the energy go?), and be cautious in justifying the 98 nulls as "lack of repeatibility": 98/100 is pretty good actually.

    Now, one may have experienced instead excess heat ten times in a row.. maybe this is closer to what me356 experienced given his self-assuredness. Even then, were the ten times tested with more than one method? I fear not. The second method was likely applied last week and we all saw the results.


    I respect this person's dedication but he really should challenge his previous results and test methods before falling into the spiral of COP optimization, which often coincides with maximizng a systematic error.

  • axil: I am afraid, but in this case the problem is very simple as I have described before. The reactor was just completely untested including the heating element. The element was manufactured by external company and without prior testing it was unable to me to determine that it will work differently (incorrectly) than previous elements.

    So without a proper control anything like this will melt (in both cases with or without excess heat).

    The system should be stable and able to perform for very long time if all the components will be flawless.

    You can't be angry for a car just because it has broken tires. Thus also you can't conclude from this that other cars will be broken in the same way too.


    Me356 states that a flaw in the heating element burned through the containment tube and destroyed the reactors hydrogen containment.

    I am concerned about ANY possibility that the containment of the ME356 reactor can be breached.


    We know that when the LENR reaction really gets going without control in a meltdown situation, it can vaporize concrete, rebar, stainless steel, and alumina. This observation implies that the LENR reaction can reach a temperature of 3000C and can bring in and feed on the matter that surrounds it.


    The electromagnetic nature of the LENR reaction requires that the material used to contain the LENR reaction must be an insulator like alumina. Ceramics that can contain the LENR reaction exist but these high temperature insulators are both hard to fabricate and expensive.


    It would be prudent to invest in the extra expense involved in the use of best available containment material to minimize any possibility of an uncontrolled breach of the LENR reactors containment no matter what the cause.


    I for one would not put a LENR reactor in my basement without the assuredly of absolute containment. If the LENR reaction gets out and invades my basement floor and begins a 3000C+ uncontrolled China syndrome type conflagration, I would think twice about recommending that reactor to my neighbors or in general supporting it publicly.

  • many thanks, me356 and mfmp.

    The test procedure is very good.


    During development it is completely normal that something doesnt work properly or refuses to work in a moment you dont need.


    I am curious on the next visit of mfmp to your site.


    Best regards, f.

  • The crowds of high-tech scientists managed to pursue for example string theory for forty years, they issued books and BBC shows - and we can be even sure, they had absolute no practical/usefull applications on their mind with it. So I think, me356 would handle his wasting our lives quite easily.


    BTW Why the mainstream science proponents fear the negative results so much? The unsureness about results is the very basis of really inquisitive research - all the rest is just collection of stamps.


    Scientists much of the time (and ideally all the time) are driven by a wish to understand. Which means that results are neither positive nor negative. One of aspects of LENR work that can be inherently pathological is when results are divided into positive and negative. Good work requires a curiosity about what the result means independent of what you might be looking for.


  • I agree in this point. Instead of reaching whatever level of Sigma and/or manufacturing prototypes that are close to an industrial product - seriuos researchers should dig as deep as possible to understand in the first place why there are these meltdowns of LENR reactors (are there really confirmed events, documented, even if not yet understood?). Unless this LENR process and its experienced meltdowns is not fully understood, no authority in the world would be willing to clear any product for sale and use, that is driven by LENR. All what e.g. Rossi is claiming about being close to a product or let's say close to a CE certification, is therefore pure fiction. Not many posters here and esp. on ECW seem to have an idea what it requires to develop, test and verify and then clear a product for use. I am working since many years in the medical industry, where we have very strong requirements when approving products for human use. On the other side there is no big difference with products in other areas, as long as there is is interaction with humans. Same story - they have to be safe and efficient. A long way to go....

  • me356 (and others): I am not sure what the phrase "it changed completely due to complications of longer runs" means, especially since MFMP did not carry out any long runs. Are you referring to the hydrogen leaking towards the end of the run? Perhaps you could explain?


    On a related point, I note that MFMP posted on the night of May 29th (as they were leaving me356's place) a nice video on their Facebook page thanking me356 for his graciousness, and discussing the fuel preparation process and the fact that (according to me356) fuel is also further processed (but less efficiently) during the run, but unfortunately it died due to a hydrogen leak. The impression I got from this video was that you (me356) had switched technologies to the current one which you are working on now, and that at the time of the test (perhaps just because you didn't have any "covered" reactors, but perhaps also because of other concerns [such as safety or length of run?] ) and time-issues, you did not want to test the older technology, nor have available a version of the new "covered" reactor in which the fuel had been adequately processed. Is this correct?

  • As I mentioned in ECW; if hydrogen leaked as a result of loss of containment due to melting, how did the hydrogen not autoignite? Even a small volume of hydrogen, once confined and ignited, makes itself known in a very up-close and personal manner,

  • As I mentioned in ECW; if hydrogen leaked as a result of loss of containment due to melting, how did the hydrogen not autoignite? Even a small volume of hydrogen, once confined and ignited, makes itself known in a very up-close and personal manner,


    Maybe not. I have had a lot of experience working with pure hydrogen, and with some burning hydrogen leaks. Safer than gasoline any day. Hydrogen disperses so quickly that it is not regarded as an explosion hazard in the same way that methane or heavy gases are. I know which I would sooner work with. On the other hand, oxy-hydrogen is the devil incarnate - stay away.

  • Hydrogen disperses so quickly

    Completely agree with that, but this hydrogen was confined within the encasing.

    I think you mean a stoichometric mix.

    Hydrogen will ignite over a wide range of lean/rich mixtures - 4% up to 75% (vol).

    In any case, hydrogen being in proximity to any surface with a temperature over 585oC and within those flammability limits is asking for trouble.

  • Hydrogen will ignite over a wide range of lean/rich mixtures - 4% up to 75% (vol).


    So it will. But there is a huge difference between igniting and exploding - and anywhere short of (or over) the perfect ratio it is pretty much a non-event in small volumes. And those hot surface you mention will ensure that it pretty much 'burns as it leaks'. I have a video clip somewhere of me deliberately igniting a hydrogen/air mix in a 1 litre beaker. Not nearly as exciting as the video makes it look btw. I'll find it and post a link here.


    This one- from around 2 minutes on. The big flare was caused by me deliberately trapping hydrogen in the beaker for a minute and then igniting it.