Didn't SKINR try to replicate (and fail with) the "MFMP signal"?
From what we were told and shown, SKINR did not use any radiation detection, nor did they replicate our protocol, despite my sharing my lab notes and all details of the experiment.
My impression is that it was a poorly designed and run test, with many important details ignored, and no data published.
Well done Bob! Your design is really showing its promise now, payback for all the hard work.
I am not as subject to Fukishima fallout and radon as Alan in Santa Cruz
I'm about 1 km from the Santa Cruz seafront, and under my topsoil is about 10 meters of sea floor mud and then sandstone. I have never detected a Radon signature in any of my long background spectra. But a few miles inland, up in the hills near the fault lines it is a real problem. One experimenter up there found high concentrations in his furnace filter.
This is not necessary. Forget flow rate. Just measure the electric power to produce identical heat rise to an identical volume of water. The pump might only be half fill and the flow rate may be off. There might be air in the water lines.
The flow rate is necessary because, as I pointed out, a long test is required (several days contemplated). There is no pump, because the cooling water will be supplied from a domestic tap. There will be a sight glass in the supply line to watch for entrapped air. The output of the heat exchanger will be collected in buckets on a digital scale, and the flow meter data will be periodically checked against level marks on the bucket with a stop watch.
By using a heat exchanger, any questions about the steam quality in the primary circuit are made moot. The single-phase power will be measured simultaneously with two instruments, a PCE830 and a Tektronix PA1000. All the data, including the scale readings will be streamed in real time, with live video if bandwidth permits.
Much of what you see as complexity has been adopted in direct response to criticisms here and elsewhere of other validation tests. All these details are included in our published test plan, which I encourage you to read and think about in the context of possible objections that could arise if they were not included. We intend to establish an incontrovertible minimum COP for the system, to the best of our abilities and resources.
Yes Axil, that is what we are planning to do. In addition, we will be recording and publishing the temperature data in real time, including a COP moving average and cumulative energy based on flow rate and temperature rise through the heat exchanger. Because this is a black box test, that degree of diligence is necessary in order to test the possible origin of heat from internal batteries or chemical reactions
What is your suggested change to improve what is shown in our document?
There is value in reducing the equipment used to an absolute minimum so that the experiment is as simple as possible. A simple experiment is an experiment that is the most comprehensible. and an experiment that is the easiest to explain.
Your Theory works in
theory but not in practice.
Belt and suspenders!
You can use the same thermometer with no need to calibrate if you had two buckets. If you used the same scale on the two buckets, then there is no need to back up the measurement made by that scale.
Two thermometers are needed for flow calorimetry. There is always value in backing up measurements.
The advantages of differential measurement.
Yes, the differential approach dictated the GlowStick design, and also pointed out weaknesses in the concept.
. For AURA, we don't have the luxury of duplicating everything in the test system, but we will incorporate a separate (not simultaneous) null test using a domestic water heater for comparison. All instrumentation including the heat exchanger will be identical to the live AURA test. We're also using multiple methods for measuring each data parameter, including calibrated thermometers and a bucket with scale to back up the flow meter and RTDs for the primary calorimetry.
Does anyone have the link to where Bob explains the procedure for the test, saw the link but can not find it again now.
Sorry I neglected to include it. The test document:
But, but, how does that protect the purity of proper LENR research? You mean it is not better to stamp on any new fragile green shoot before it has time to flower?
I remind everyone that MFMP's test plan is published and we are open to ideas for improving it, within the limits of time and resources available.
Perhaps if we focus on that, rather than speculating about the black box system under test, we will have a more positive and productive discussion.
Our thanks to those who have already made useful suggestions and generous contributions to our project.
There's an important piece of text missing from Parkhomov's paper, at the bottom of pg. 37.
I found the missing section in the Russian original at the same site. Here's the corrected text, thanks to Google Translate:
The images received on the electronic scanning
microscope show that nickel in initial fuel mix have an
appearance of porous spherical clusters about 10 microns
in size. Lithium aluminum hydride has an appearance of
flakes with the size from units to hundreds of microns (fig 13).
In the fuel extracted from the reactor (after operation)
we can identify two components: alloyed mass, consisting
mainly ofNickel, and flakes, consisting mainly of aluminum
and oxygen (Figure 14).
Investigation of elemental and isotopic compositions
Fuel mixture is currently continuing.
The analyzes did not reveal any significant changes in the
Isotopic composition of fuel. It is possible
To live, that it is connected with insufficiently long
Liveness of the experiment.
That is one way to look at it, but the "high-energy helium-4" is usually not shown in path 1. The more conventional notation has the neutron (2.45 MeV) ejected as part of the reaction, which is generally seen in hot plasma fusion but not in LENR.
I understand your thinking differs from the usual approach to the nuclear process(es) in LENR (cf. Storms). Can you explain why you think your path 1 above is the correct one? If it is in fact the dominant path, there would be lots of neutrons and thus secondary radiation (and dead experimenters).
This helium-4 atom has a lot of energy—so much energy that itis unstable.
Huh? 4He is 99.99+ % of all naturally occurring Helium and is quite stable. Perhaps there's a detail you omitted here.
I propose that we give the (possible) magnetic monopole particle a name: the Axilon.
Whether it is a virtual particle or a physical one isn't clear, but at least by naming it, we instantiate it in the thought universe.
Besides N_Axilons and S_Axilons, I suppose there could be a neutral version with internal flux but no external B-field, as well as
other short-lived variants like Grave and Silly Axilons.
April 1 is long past, and I make this proposal not as a joke, but rather in recognition of the thought and research Axil has given to the concept.
For simple differential thermometry, consider wiring two thermocouples in series, with the polarity reversed. The output of the series string will then be proportional to the temperature difference between the two junctions. It is necessary to use a pair of thermocouples that are closely matched across the entire expected temperature range. as an alternative, the system can be calibrated with the two junctions at the same temperature, so the output vs temperature will give a calibration curve for post-correction of the data.
For details, see http://www.nutechengineers.com/dtmwt.html
I have already asked Spectrum Techniques why they think the number formatting as candescribed wouldn't work on my XP system.
The new File call for multi-run is in MultiRunThread.class. This uses two functions the Java system library - File() and String()
The call to String() appears near B46BEh in the binary. It might be possible to reformat the call in the binary code, but some further detective work into the bytecode structure is needed.
The problem with WinXP is probably an incompatibility with the current Java system library calls.
I can't really test it until it gets to 1:00 pm (13:00) where the difference would show.
The code picks up the time stamp from the OS, so for test purposes you can just temporarily change your time zone in the Windows clock.
I have heard back from Spectrum Techniques regarding a fix for the time stamp issue:
Interesting that they changed one instance of the format string to "HH:mm" but not the second (only two appear in this binary). The version string is "1.2.00 USB" and "Released: June 14th, 2013"
I haven't tried running it yet, my UCS30 is on a different computer.
Well, looking at the tree of possible outcomes, who wins in each of them?
I'm curious about the relationship between Ampenergo and IH.
I pointed out some time ago (soon after the license agreement was published) that an obscure paragraph seemed to say that in the event the agreement is found to be invalid, or is abandoned by either party, the license rights revert to AEG at no cost. No one here seemed to think it significant at the time, but to me it looked like an invitation for scheming.
The correct (and less intrusive) way would be making them two capital 'h' i.e. "HH".
EDIT: I just noticed after checking again that this is indeed what magicsound did; maybe I previously read the wrong file or overlooked it because I thought he would change the date to a more standard format. Sorry.
Yes, I used XVI32 to change all five occurrences of "hh:mm" to "HH:mm". Then I changed all occurrences of the version string to "1.2.24H". I've used this kind of binary hack in the past, and it usually works if the binary doesn't use a checksum or similar ECC mechanism. There is something tricky in the USX launcher, probably a file path detail. But if the hack is done in the same directory as the USX launcher, it seems to work.
As far as the 32bit/64bit issue, I can't say - I only tested it with the version I have installed.
