me356: Photos of AURA control unit
-
-
Alan Goldwater's GCA was modified to use a LND pancake detector.
Correct. It is a GMC-320+ coupled to a LND7317 pancake tube. This combination is sensitive down to ~20 keV, with peak sensitivity at 80-150 keV. Typical background count has been around 40-50 CPM at a variety of locations. At the me356 site it was a bit higher, maybe 50-60 CPM. Some periods of 80+ CPM were seen during the test, as shown in the Dashboard screen capture above. A second GMC with a smaller cylindrical tube was also used, and its output count averaging 25-30 CPM is also available in the main (Labjack) data file.
The He3 neutron detectors were found to be quite sensitive to the RF apparently emitted by the reactor. Neutron bubble detectors were also used throughout the testing, and showed nothing above background of ~1 count per 8 hours. Both microwave and ultrasonic spectrometers were also used, and showed some detectable activity above background. That data is or will be included in the experiment archive.
-
The He3 neutron detectors were found to be quite sensitive to the RF apparently emitted by the reactor.
Would a faraday cage mitigate this?
-
Saying they [me356's claims] are false is not technically correct and a good approximation
In cases where there is nontrivial evidence to contraindicate such a conclusion, I think it's a logical shortcut and a habit of lazy thinking to jump to it. In me356's case, it seems fairly safe, given what we know so far.
-
@David Fojt
I think you mean Suhas. I think that would belong in a different thread.
-
Any message which insinuates that such instant COP values are meaningful is quite telling about the reputability and the credibility of the messenger.
@42: The only one who thinks that instant COP values are meaningful are You! Because you comment about them. MFP recorded the total imput power as the overall COP.
No, it's wrong because (up to now) the nuclear science not recognized and rejected any of your claim as real, so I can't remain in silence.
This is not a stalemate, you MUST prove all and until the due scientific evidences will exist I believe only to already proved facts.
Isn't it that simple?
@Henry : As a regular reader of JOMP your comments are way to colored... The whole me356 story was a chain of misunderstandings and I would even call part of it was intention... I personally can only recommend Me356 to stay silent again and to invite anybody of mfp under an NDA, that explicitly excludes any communications about his works to others until agreed.
True: even a non-functioning reactor (for example a normal electric heater) will show short-term average COP equal to 10 at some time, as here
False: this must be investigated. Since the existing investigation has shown me356 device behaving exactly as an electric heater with no mystery.
@THH : Heaters are normally of Ohmic nature (Strict linear COP) ... May be you use inductive ones.. or the wrong tools...
-
MFP recorded the total imput power as the overall COP.
The context of Forty-Two's statement was a claim by Rends of a COP of 10 during the Aura test. Can you point to a place where the overall COP was nominally 10 during the test? It will have had to be the "instantaneous" COP, rather than the overall COP. As most of us know, dividing power-out by power-in is not a reliable measure.
-
The context of Forty-Two's statement was a claim by Rends of a COP of 10. Can you point to a place where the overall COP was nominally 10 during the Aura test? It will have had to be the "instantaneous" COP, which, as most of us know, is not a reliable measure.
Eric Walker : 42 intentionally misunderstood Rends post. Rends pointed to Me's earlier communication not related to mfp. Me's recator was broken ==> COP =1 nothing else has been claimed by anybody, except by weird posters.
-
Eric Walker: 42 intentionally misunderstood Rends post. Rends pointed to Me's earlier communication not related to mfp. Me's recator was broken ==> COP =1 nothing else has been claimed by anybody, except by weird posters.
I do not think Forty-Two misunderstood Rends's post, let alone intentionally misunderstanding it. This is what Rends wrote:
Unfortunately, it did not work 100%, but this does not mean that you can not repeat this experiment, because what the data showed is that even a non-functioning reactor shows COP at a time equal to 10 and this MUST be investigated.
Here Rends is talking about a "non-functioning reactor" and "the data." This is not obviously referring to an experiment other than the Aura experiment, and it is presumably referring to the Aura experiment, where there was a non-functioning reactor, and where we obtained data. Rends appears to be saying that in the Aura experiment with a non-functioning reactor there was a COP of 10 at times. He seems to be referring to power-out over power-in, which is not a reliable measure. Or can you substantiate your assertion that Rends is referring to data from an experiment other than the Aura experiment?
Forty-Two is pretty much correct, assuming Rends is referring to the Aura experiment. We can let Rends clarify whether he had a different experiment in mind.
-
Not a chance. Detailed examinations of the data and equipment ruled out any excess.
That is not justified.
It is justified. Some of the details have not been discussed here.
-
@THH : Heaters are normally of Ohmic nature (Strict linear COP) ... May be you use inductive ones.. or the wrong tools...
"Linear COP" makes no sense. Heaters operated in a burst mode can show bursts of COP, even to infinity, due to the delay between input power burst and output heat pulse. By the time the output heat is measured, the input power has been changed to low, causing an apparent "instantaneous COP" to be >1. That is why the instantaneous COP is meaningless. This behavior was evident in the Me356 test data because of his pulsed heating of the reactor. Also, it appears that the running average COP, a last minute calculated addition to the graphs, was computed wrong as well (see the follow-up calculated running average COP that I posted).
Me356 has said that the reactor that was tested was a first prototype of a boxed up reactor - one that he could allow for a black box test because it was enclosed. He said this first prototype reactor had not been previously tested, and it turned out not to be prepared for MFMP testing.
I worked for many years in a research department in a large corporation. Every year we had to present our research status to the senior leadership of the company. There was a colleague that prepared wonderful demonstrations for every year's meeting. Then at the last minute, when the presentation was live, the demonstration invariably failed. He had the worst luck. It seemed that even if the demo was a success 100% of the time in rehearsals before the meeting, it was still likely to fail live for the CEO. None of us had any doubt that the technology being demonstrated worked. It was simply not ready for production, and not even ready for reliable demo. Such is the nature of research and high technology. Such gremlins are particularly prevalent in LENR.
-
Rends appears to be saying that in the Aura experiment with a non-functioning reactor there was a COP of 10 at times.
Eric Walker : If he saw a 10 (I never noticed it - do you have a print out- ref? ..) then the mfp sofware urgently needs a correction! They have to measure and correctly apply the thermic signal delay!! If it takes e.g. 2 minutes to ramp up a heater, then any averaging period shorter than 2 minutes is useless. If they count in the exponnetial sink time, then an useful averaging period must even be much longer.
-
maybe you missed a key-point.
the reactor for MFMP test was a new and untested design.
It means nothing about his previous reactors that he claimed had COP=10 or more.
The old reactors were not ready for a black box test, it was impossible to hide their design.That makes no sense. It is always possible to hide a design. I still think that if the reactor stopped working, he should have brought out an old one.
Honestly, I have difficulty believing it "stopped working." The reasons me356 gave for this failure sound like excuses to me. I doubt it ever worked, and if this one did not work, the others probably did not work either. I assume the calorimetry is the same for all, and I suppose it is wrong.
The same applies to your wordplay. You still didn't provide any scientific proof, that Me356 device doesn't work.
MFMP provided scientific proof that the device does not work.
-
@Henry : As a regular reader of JOMP your comments are way to colored...As regular reader if you like you can continue reading of that blog and to believe to that hoax (it's a your choice). It's not forbidden.
-
As regular reader if you like you can continue reading of that blog and to believe to that hoax. It's not forbidd
@Henry : Because you are so familiar with JOMP (You mention it in every post!) can you give, for us dummy's, a link to it? So we too will be able check your news source!
-
@42: The only one who thinks that instant COP values are meaningful are You! Because you comment about them. MFP recorded the total imput power as the overall COP.
You probably think that I blame MFMP about displaying an "instant COP" on the dashboard.
However, I don't do that, because MFMP did not pitch this COP value - when temporary above 1 - as very meaningful.
But I complain about the fuss others made of this "instant COP" (and also about the "rolling average COP")
Before educating others how they should calculate a COP value (#739), you should at least be able to distinguish between "energy", "power" and "ratio"-numbers. - Or what do you want to say by "MFMP recorded the total input power as the overall COP"?
-
@Henry : Because you are so familiar with JOMP (You mention it in every post!) can you give, for us dummy's, a link to it? So we too will be able check your news source!
Am I familiar with JUMP? ... not exactly ... I read sometimes just to see new stories and trickeries invented by him (he's an "inventor").
Really do you (a dummy, your words) need a link to JUMP? Oh, I will add very soon.
-
Eric Walker: If he saw a 10 (I never noticed it - do you have a print out- ref? ..) then the mfp sofware urgently needs a correction! They have to measure and correctly apply the thermic signal delay!! If it takes e.g. 2 minutes to ramp up a heater, then any averaging period shorter than 2 minutes is useless. If they count in the exponnetial sink time, then an useful averaging period must even be much longer.
My memory is that the MFMP dashboard was initially using an attempted spot COP consisting of power-out/power-in. Once I heard that people elsewhere were talking about a high COP, I was prompted to write this comment as a caution. The post from Can to which I was replying mentioned COP's of 10+ in the context of a talk given by Bob Greenyer, reporting on claims of me356 prior to the Aura experiment. So there may have been some mixing up in the posts of Rends and Forty-Two of the claim of COP 10+ from me356 with what was happening in the Aura experiment, where there was a non-functioning reactor and where we have access to the data (unlike in earlier tests by me356). I did not watch the full Aura live stream and do not know what the maximum (artifactual) "instantaneous" COP was for the test. We can gather that there was a faulty spot COP in the Aura dashboard from Bob Higgins's post above, where he explains how a faulty averaged COP was added towards the end of the test which merely averaged the flawed power-out/power-in calculation.
-
However, I don't do that [blame MFMP about displaying an "instant COP" on the dashboard], because MFMP did not pitch this COP value - when temporary above 1 - as very meaningful.
Personally, I think the measure is misleading and not useful and that it is confusing for people who haven't thought about this stuff for a long time. I hope that MFMP do not use such an "instantaneous COP" on their dashboards in the future, just to avoid giving people false starts and having to rehash this stuff again.
-
(And also because I'm not 100 percent sure Bob Greenyer or the person making the dashboard understand the subtleties and so might hype a high "instantaneous COP.")
I'm pretty sure that wise heads would prevail over hype on the current collective mission by the men in grey. The COP, it's meaning and the artifactuality was discussed through the message boards during the test. There were no illusions about what it meant. Rolling average COP with a suitably large time-constant is obviously a much better method of presentation.
