Posts by Argon

Jed, that is not absurd. I was not referring history, but your activity in this very thread. I think you have beaten me356 enough here. You can be right or wrong. Only future will tell.
I think all readers and me356 knows by now that you are frustrated on me356:s behavior when he allowed MFMP make travel arrangement knowing(?) what real situation was. Continuing 'campaign' does not going to fix past, and I don't see that would do anything positive to future either.

MFMP last video in their FB page was not as pessimistic as your view, when they drove back on Monday night. Let's not try to judge me356 before all facts are on table. Meanwhile lets allow some trust on him while he tries fix and test the redesigned new reactor.

Jed, while I respect the valuable effort you have put on this field, you give an impression that don't accept any possibilities that are out of IH:s reach.

me356 was maybe mistaken, or over optimistic about his own calorimetry, or too self confident about how well he master the technology, or just unlucky with the leak. Knowingly inviting MFP to test reactor that is electric heater simply does not make sense. MFP simply cannot make COP 10 error by accident and he must have known that before inviting them.

Why don't we lean back and wait for Suhas reactor get tested, me356 do his own adjustments in new design and test by himself first before calling MFP representative back to confirm.

Meanwhile we can relax and follow Rossi vs IH to unfold and that story in to completion.

If none of these 3 give any positive clarity in LENR-filed during this summer, then I will start to agree that LENR and its reputation is again in big trouble.

Yes, there is not much more, thats why in this thread. But I think the message was 'Paris agreement will come to an effect 2021 so we still have time.' 'Don't worry be happy'.
There is lots of headlines drawn on todays announcement by Mr Trump, while real effects of it might be smaller than may think at first look. Industry is anyway going down with Co2 emissions (especially California) and at 2021US could even have other thoughts. Some could think that they are already counting on LENR (I'm personally not that optimistic.)

In a spirit of thread, one could speculate that both US and Russia leaders are aware of coming LENR revolution.

Listen carefully:

I don't want to be smart ass, but testing of interference from Smart phone is bit tricky topic. It depends on what mobile is doing.
- When display is locked, it communicates with base station only periodically for signalling (registering) into base station which offers best reception.
- If there are background apps that needs periodical internet access (like email) they all are typically synchronised to closest matching internet connection window (to save battery)

- Depending on distance and 'radio visibility' between mobile and base station transmit power can vary between 500mW and 5microW, (if I recall lowest power of pico-cell correctly)

- While transmitting, reception quality is constantly communicated from base-station to mobile in packet header of physical layer protocol (5000 times /second with UMTS AFICR)

So if you really want to reproduce conditions in me356 test, you need to go far enough from closest base station, or to your basement at home to make sure phone transmit close to maximum power (there are lots of apps you can use to check reception conditions. I use 'Network Cell Info Lite for Android') .

To make sure mobile is transmitting something you should use app like Video streaming (upliknk) or skype video call, mobile chat etc. Watching youtube video using mobile, does not send data back to uplink as much as live video streaming. I think Geiger went bizzak when Bob was streaming live video close to it.

Quote from BobHiggins

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.

Quote from THHuxleynew

OK - from that I guess they are measuring heat given to secondary circuit via heat exchanger. Primary circuit water will be thrown away containing the excess heat. But I'm not sure because the test data does not directly reference a test schematic for this specific test (with the heater).

I'm sure somone following this more closely can comment. I thought the main testing was done direct, measuring water flow and temps in and out.

THHuxleynew I asked this as first question in dashboard chat on Friday before test started, and as I understood, someone from MFMP team on site commented that amount of water flow in primary circuit is so much smaller than in secondary (because of steam thermal capacity is more important factor) that it makes not much difference to log it. Also considering returning water (to another bucket) is quite close to reactor intake water in another bucket. I think BobHiggins earlier in this thread already commented that temp diff is few C. Actually by reading backward this thread you see many references to this question already.

I haven't made any calculations to check, but I was happy with answer. Maybe if someone is interested, can recalculate from reactor feed pump parameters and assuming say 4 C difference between reactor intake, and returning water from condenser primary circuit.

me356 OK thank you for correcting. It was just my speculation. Whatever the situation was it is not so important (at leas t for me). What I care most is that real inventors can continue their important work and not let all kind of trolls and other commenters fog their minds to think that those would represent common opinion. We are here big group of people who wish someone would find correct recipe.

Thank you for you efforts and honesty me356. Good luck on weeks to come and let the success be in your path!

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.

Sherlock. No, science does not work that way. If you are disappointed after high hopes, it does not mean that also MFMP should stop looking.

Relax man you have not lost money, maybe just bit of your precious time (unless you shorted oil futures? Or are from 'their' camp?)) .

Me356 has not asked money from us, and MFMP was keen to go testing now before their India tour. Truth will come out sooner or later, either positive or negative, but it requires that we don't stop looking.

Big oilies has lost this campaign long ago, so don't even try to start again.

BobHiggins This is exactly what I have tried to explain 3 days, but stopped when did not get any responses
Then I started to question myself, and without doing proper calculations, estimated that amount of condensed water is so small, that 'forgetting' few degrees diff between bucket temps does not make big difference. Thank you, im not garzy after all

Is todays flowmeter calibration curves still available somewhere? I think they were way off from expected. Did they find reason for that?

Or was accepted theory that heat exchanger was not meant tfor water, but steam only (so efficiency poor when used with water)?

Noticed that there is a way to re-scale Plotly cop curves to something more meaningful. Move mouse over Cop axis numbers and in top and bottom you can stretch axis (so it shows smaller range) and you can also drag scale up and down.

Jack, From test log: "COP average worked. We updated the Plot.ly and the freeboard.io pages with it" So fingers crossed

Jack, I don't disagree about over excitement of some followers on false positives, my main point was that with so limited time frame, this is unnecessary step risking actual testing. We already saw one change on SW on friday which had to be rolled back since it didn't work properly. I suggested 2 weeks ago Bob to run calorimetry test with Nibe heater before the trip, that would have saved from some of this hassle we have been wittnessing here.
Probably they did not do that due lack of time/hands to run the dry run test of new calorimetry at home.

I would not recommend MFMP start playing with rolling average stuff, if never done it before. Next 6 hours is so important that it should not be risked to fail because modifications to dashboard. Most of readers should understand that instantaneous COP sometimes gives false positives/negatives because of heat energy stored and released from mass.

Average graphs can be plotted from data afterwards as seen in this thread. Thank you can for your efforts on that!

Pavel as far I noticed, it was Bobs smartphone causing interference to electronics. not to sensor, and when he moved back from counter, the readings went back to normal. Same effect you experience while using mobile internet connection transmitting data while you are close to FM-radio. So it is not enough to have passive smartphone close by, but Bob was streaming with his phone.

Lets not jump into conclusions yet. Let me356 and MFMP team to try their best shot today. What can change this day is that we see lots of excess heat coming out from the device or not, but neither case is final proof to any direction before proper independent test is made. So no final conclusions cannot be made today in either case (in psiitive case rule out chemical or other source of energy due travel schedule).

Lean back and just enjoy the ride. Today we will see either nothing this time or something promising, then in positive case we collect funds for MFMP to return after one month or when me356 says his new design is ready. I think pressure was so high that test was organized even new design was not properly tested by inventor (maybe also because he was so sure that design change does not affect on COP. We all who have arranged demos of new product know this demo effect). He is not asking money from us so I'm fine waiting.

can yes I see them deviating more and more over time as expected. Sorry I mixed colors. I switched from tablet to computer screen, an noticed that I had mixed line colors while reading under bright sunlight (I had read as blue thick line was 15 min rolling average) . Sorry about caused confusion.

After second look, I still have to rephrase my question. Why blue line (Calorimetry energy out/PCE-830 energy in) approaches towards 1 while basically same thing seen to be opposite in bottom graph in this (blue and green line are deviating). Something does not match between them in my opinion.

Any way not a biggie, but in my opinion those 2 graphs conflicts in my mind for some reason.

Quote from Henry

If an energy loss of the system exists is quite normal that at the end of the test the cumulative electric energy input is more of cumulative energy out from calorimeter.

Looking Can graph you can see about 200 watt-hour of energy lost referred to 2450 watt-hour of input energy (based on readings the loss seems about 8%).

That is what I expect to see also, and that is shown (correctly) in bottom of can 's lower graph (blue and green line). BUT it conflicts with his cumulative COP graph (where cop is approaching 1), so I think there is something wrong with latter one. Maybe simply measurement error or average calculation maybe?.