Posts by Henry


    Nope, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. From where are you getting such an ideas?


    You got, I wrote: nothing was as claimed. Better read mine before writing a comment.

    Philosophy on wording not means Science. Any scientific proof can't be substituted by your wordplay.

    Zephir_AWT

    Quote

    The absence of attempts for proof isn't negative evidence - just the manifestation of pathoskeptic ignorance.


    Do you know scientific method and the peer review? Do you know existing of international scientific nuclear experimental database?

    The absence of any attempts and absence of any working prototype is proof that nothing was as claimed.


    Quote

    At the case of gravitational waves no independent scientific replications still exists


    Bad example, we are talking of something that you claim it works, existing and reproducible on Earth and that produces excess of heat, a physical dimention well measurable from anyone. Try again, next you could be more lucky.

    Gravitational waves existence was predicted by Einstein in his theory and the effects are measurable.

    Zephir_AWT


    Quote

    This is what the experimental data means for me.


    Exactly just for you, this is an old fusionists claim of 2005, after twelwe years where are the independent proofs under scientific control?
    If I will read these coming from an experimental database recognized by the scientific community I could take it as real data.
    Show a demo where something has worked in public under independent scientific control.

    Zephir_AWT


    I follow the Science data and this is the first fact.

    Yours fact? Boh... again show a demo where something has worked in public under independent scientific control.

    Are you able to prove this or still write useless words?

    Zephir_AWT

    Quote

    You wrote only words, just show a demo that Me356 technology cannot work.

    ROTFL. Really funny :-D :-D :-D

    Now I should demo that something not works?

    Probably you (being a fan) ignore that the Science requires that the claimer (YOU) DEMOs that something works, not me not works.

    Are you able to do?

    Quote

    what the people who are hoping in cold fusion failure have to do in just cold fusion forum?


    Zephir_AWT  

    Because a lot of chatter are sold as Science and I like to defend Science from chatterers. You wrote only words, show a demo where something has worked in public under independent scientific control.

    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.


    If it doesn't work at 100% it means that it doesn't produce any excess heat or energy and the COP is 1.

    Data showed ... even a non-functioning reactor shows COP 10 (at time?), what? it's just your fantasy of believer, show a proof not another claim.

    It seems that you miss at all of any knowledge about thermal inertia of bodies.


    This post and the next 7 all moved from the Aura thread- too far off topic. Alan.

    Speaking again of the actual test, I thought it would be interesting to plot the calculated power factor, defined as [True power (W)] ÷ [Apparent power (Volt⋅Amperes)]. I'm far from being an electrical engineer but I think the waveform measured with the PCE-830 power analyzer suggested that input power was regulated with a TRIAC, so the waveform would have been choppier at a lower power. The rolling energy COP also spiked during lower power periods, but that was probably coincidental.





    I can confirm that PCE-830 calculates these parameters, it measures:

    Active Power

    Reactive Power

    Apparent Power

    and it gives the Power Factor (PF) that is the ratio similar you required [Active power (W)] / [Apparent power (VA)].


    It's just matter to download these data and to plot.

    Spikes repetition due to "TRIAC chopping" happens each 10 or 20ms (50 Hz cycle), I'm not so sure that they could be the spikes on rolling COP you see on graph.


    I'm just looking for something that works and to be proved in public.


    I saw a lot of people that said:


    I tested my reactor, it works... I'm going to start my production... it's quite ready... but at the end none has really a success in public tests.


    The "reasons" that I red after are quite the same:


    Because I changed something... I tried different solution... I improved this function... and elapsed long time, the "claim" vanishes without any good result, so I again ask:


    Does already exist something working like claimed?

    Do you have in hand something that produces XE (a reactor old version, any reactor not a new design), but (as minimum) XH measured by you following a scientific method? (you tested it, so it's not impossible to repeate measures, same run time test you already did, no longer runs)


    The answer is simply a "Yes" or a "No".


    if "Yes", DO NOT TOUCH or CHANGE ANY PART of this reactor/controller prototype that produces the presumed XH, test it in public (that version as is) in order to demonstate the XH production but not to convince me (it does not matter at all), but with the aim to proof that it works to the the world.


    This is my suggest, you do what you want.


    (obviously If the answer to the question is "No" , the problem does not exist).

    One year ago reactors work and verified many time, even ready for production:


    Quote

    I am working at least on a three very different reactors while one is ready for production. I have verified it many times and it works for half year.


    Now (a year after) it does not work even half minute.

    If really worked, it's not requested a "time machine" to go back to get something working, simply test and measure the same reactor of one year ago.

    me356

    ...accounting for other output heats that were lost (but not measured) could have tipped the scale over a COP of 1 for the electrical input to heat output COP of the reactor itself.


    It's the second time you wrote comments presuming a COP>1. Counting all heat you could achieve the value of 1.
    Any hypothesis about positive value of COP (or value over 1) still remains a pure speculation and you should take into account also all contributions including any sources of "heat added" to the system that reduces COP, and the measurement accuracy.

    I would like to remember that "may" "might" "could" are not proofs.


    Quote

    Please do not waste your time pursuing or celebrating a result such as ~1.01 with this system. It is meaningless.


    I fully agree with JR. You give me the impression that are looking for a positive results at any cost.

    The energy balance fails to account for is the energy that is presently stored in the reactor and the reactor heat not registered. You could turn the power off now and the stored energy would come out of the reactor for a while after it is turned off.


    When I say not measured, consider this. Let's say that the inlet water temperature is 14°C and the outlet water temperature is 18°C. What is the outlet temperature for the reactor water that is cooled by the heat exchanger? Let's say it exits at 16°C to pick a number. The inlet to the reactor was 14°C also, so there would be 2°C of reactor heat that is missed by not cooling the water all the way to 14°C. This goes unaccounted in the present system and shorts the accounting of the reactor heat. The instantaneous power missed may be small, but it is lost over the course of the whole experiment time. It would be nice if we could get the temperature of the reactor outlet after the heat exchanger measured.


    Presently the energy balance is about -4%. Given the nature of the heat not measured by the integrated energy metric, the real balance may be above 1.



    Bob, the last recored value of Total Excess Heat Estimate is -0.2852 MJ corresponding to -79.2 watt-hour.


    You wrote "Given the nature of the heat not measured by the integrated energy metric, the real balance may be above 1."


    Looking the Can's graph around the beginning of test you can see a difference between Cumulative Energy IN and Cumulative Energy OUT that represents the "heat/energy lag" due to the energy storing into the system before to reach a "steady-state condition" (the initial thermal transient).

    This difference can be estimated (on this plot) less than 50 watt-hour therefore the overall energy balance still remains negative even if we count this "heat not measured".

    Do you agree?






    Edit: We are still talking omitting measures uncertainty discussion.

    We show people how to calibrate the reactors themselves. I know the error bars of ones I use myself. What we cannot (and have no wish to) control is exactly what instrumentation people use as back up and what temperature zones people are working in. However, since our reactors are effectively differential calorimeters if used correctly the error bars are accounted for rather precisely.


    Also the differential calorimeter can show residual errors.
    As seller of this kit (if people perform your suggested calibration correctly, using only hw parts included in the kit) which is residual uncertainty that users of your system still get under operative conditions ? (numbers, example absolute and relative errors)


    Quote

    I know the error bars of ones I use myself.


    What about yours?

    can it loks like approaching 1, but imo conflicts with pce830 vs energy out curve (lowest blue/green graph) in second screenshot. Anyway it's clear that we are not seeing anything remarkable energy gain. This small changes can aswell be measurement errors. Lets hope new fuel is dryer tomorrow.


    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%).

    In most cases it is not that, and instead is a ratio of measures of power in/power out of some kind. "COP" is no doubt a misnomer in this case, but the word has a long history of use in LENR experiments.


    To avoid mistakes can we consider XH only when(if) exists a real energy gain ?

    If results were supposed to be in the 1.10-1.20x ballpark then other methods would have been chosen, not water flow calorimetry with crudely insulated heat exchangers, open water buckets and 50 Kg scales.


    You can make a choose of a method when you know the overall measurement error of the system you are going to use, taking into account the heat flow to be measured.
    +/- 20% or +/- 10% are not the best of a good mass flow calorimetry system.

    It all depends on the error bars. As every fule do know.


    Obviously but you must know the error bars, before anything. Do you know and declare the overall measurement error of test kit you/LENR Ltd sell on web?


    This post and the 3 below it moved from the Me356/Aura thread- off topic. Alan.

    can


    I appreciate your effort but like I say all time to my students these are still graphs of instruments readings (indicated values), not measures.

    To get measures it should be considered also the uncertainty of the system that somebody (a good experimenter) should provide by calculation/demonstration or by test, therefore any data of graph should be referred and considered in conjunction with the overall system error to give sense to results.

    I asked many time this but it seems that nobody care.

    I did not read anywhere (But can have missed it) that the reactor under test is triggered by a resistive heating element.


    Few data are available but I red the Q.A. number 21 from the document: AURA Plans - me356 verification:

    Q. Would you be able to add a resistive heat source to your device to simulate the active heat output as a control so we can demonstrate the suitability of the calorimetry system(s) we will install?

    A. The source is already there, but is used for operation. So it can't be decoupled from the rest.

    So I understand that me356, replying to the interviewer, states that this heat source (the resistive heat source requested by the Q.) is already installed inside his device and used for operation.

    For more info you should ask details directly to me356.

    If it is a an electronic controller you can't really tell. If resistive a bit strange since don't expect much reactance at 50/60Hz. Maybe this is output waveform from a controller at some higher freq where significant phase difference might be expected (P=VAcos phi?)? These V and A will normally be RMS.


    Or maybe this is before a decent LPF (my suggestion) that would introduce a phase difference even on pure resistive load.


    I well know but until data are only these (give me any proof, not "maybe") cos(phi) is still 1. The second power meter becomes stuck, broken or what?


    Anyway few simple questions:

    1) what about the final result of this new test ?

    2) this device works ? (Y or N)


    3) an XE has been measured and demonstrated beyond any doubt ? (Y or N)

    COP doesn't seem to have reached 10


    The overall COP is not 10, neither 5, neither 2, neither 1.5, ...

    If you see still a negative value as Total Excess Energy the device does not produce any energy gain (and no XH exists, energy loss is due the leak of calorimeter), data are valid obviously if measures are well done.

    Reminds me somehow on Bob G's Parkhomov visit...


    Also in term of clamour and padding... followed by usual null result.


    Quote
    Quote

    We have discussed the possibility of live blogging without video so we can allow him to sit at the controls for the pump and see if he can finesse it to full functionality.


    It seems that it would work only if the "involved folks" keeps hidden his identity.
    Where did I already heard this last time? :-D