Images of me356 AURA Control System Published

Thanks to Bob Greenyer for sharing some interesting images on the MFMP Steemit page of the control system for the AURA device which have been shared by me356. The control system has been custom built by me356, and apparently has all the electronics needed to stimulate the reactor (no details about that have been provided as yet), and to monitor its performance.

AURA control box

More images and information are here: https://steemit.com/science/@mfmp/aura-me356-shares-photos-of-his-reactor-controller

I hope we can get more details of how the AURA system performs from the MFMP in the near future, as they are prepared to do thorough testing on the system as soon as me356 is ready to proved them with access to his device.

  • Is there a schedule yet for the AURA verification?

    • Ged

      Also will have to make sure to have a power analyzer hooked up between this and the reactor for a proper energy accounting. Maybe it will even be able to analysis how it is stimulating the thing, like pulse shape and duration.

      • Yes. Trust but verify everything using more than one measurement technique.

  • Nixter

    I see a correlation between me356’s and other LENR experimenters like Rossi, it seems that once you have gotten a fairly robust system that can generate useful effects like heat in a repeatable manner, the inventor then runs into a major stumbling block. That choke point is that in order to get any type of support, either financial or technical, you need to be able to demonstrate the effect to skeptical classically educated investigators, and that is where the problems occur. That is where Rossi was back in 2011, he probably thought that his 2011 Ecat public demo would generate enough interest to generate ample funding, so he could progress to the next step, the industrial production phase. In order to get to phase two, you must be able to show that the process is valid and reproducible, but to do so involves disclosure of the technology, that opens you up to the risk of the IP being stolen, duplicated, and disseminated.

    It’s a kind of catch 22 scenario, where you cannot get to phase two (production), until you disclose phase one (how it works), however, the inventors do not want to reveal their IP. In the end, the inventor has to somehow get funding to manufacture the devices without fully disclosing their secrets, incredibly this is something that Rossi seems to have achieved. He should have enough resources to start an operation that can make enough units to financially jump start the process so that the next heavily industrialized stage will have adequate funding, this based upon a surge of interest when an unbelieving world will see a functioning LENR based technology being manufactured and sold on the market.Those able to discern the inner workings of the LENR process may start out with an open process for the public good, but when they realize the monetary potentials involved the plan changes to a for-profit business model, at this stage the strategy changes into a game of high risk maneuvers designed to achieve massively industrialized production on a global scale, and the inventor will now find themselves walking the same path that Dr Rossi was on. Dr Rossi seems to have the lead with regard to funding and level of technological advancement, any challengers will need to offer a superior version in order to contest Dr Rossi in the marketplace. We know that there is now solid science showing that LENR’s are real, the question now is how far is the process from being implemented into real working units, and how long until they arrive, and who will be the first to market, and who will have the safest most technically advanced versions?

    • Pekka Janhunen

      True.
      If Rossi would have gotten enough direct electric output from the reactor, he perhaps could have built up the business gradually without revealing IP, by selling electricity while keeping the reactors in his premises. In principle one could do the same by selling heat, but heat is less valuable and much harder to transport than electricity.

      At the moment Rossi seems to be trying the military route.

    • Dr. Mike

      I think Rossi’s main problem with IP disclosure was that the US Patent Office was not issuing any patents on “cold fusion”. If he had been able to get a patent back in 2011, his IP would have been fully disclosed, then he would have been able to market his IP. He was not able to put any of the details of his IP in his early patent applications until the Patent Office quit rejecting his patents on grounds that it was a cold fusion patent. (They also were rejecting the patent applications because the application did not provide full disclosure.) Once they no longer rejected the application on the basis of it being a cold fusion patent, he updated the application to include the details necessary to be granted a patent.

    • HS61AF91

      The good Doctore did what he had to do to get around the barriers, having learned by experience of getting zapped by controlling entities in Italy. He opened the box slyly and by misdirection, and he succeeded. Making it immensely easier for others to follow up in LENR diciplines.

  • Nixter

    I see a correlation between me356’s and other LENR experimenters like Rossi, it seems that once you have gotten a fairly robust system that can generate useful effects like heat in a repeatable manner, the inventor then runs into a major stumbling block. That choke point is that in order to get any type of support, either financial or technical, you need to be able to demonstrate the effect to skeptical classically educated investigators, and that is where the problems occur. That is where Rossi was back in 2011, he probably thought that his 2011 Ecat public demo would generate enough interest to generate ample funding, so he could progress to the next step, the industrial production phase. In order to get to phase two, you must be able to show that the process is valid and reproducible, but to do so involves disclosure of the technology, that opens you up to the risk of the IP being stolen, duplicated, and disseminated.

    It’s a kind of catch 22 scenario, where you cannot get to phase two (production), until you disclose phase one (how it works), however, the inventors do not want to reveal their IP. In the end, the inventor has to somehow get funding to manufacture the devices without fully disclosing their secrets, incredibly this is something that Rossi seems to have achieved. He should have enough resources to start an operation that can make enough units to financially jump start the process so that the next heavily industrialized stage will have adequate funding, this based upon a surge of interest when an unbelieving world will see a functioning LENR based technology being manufactured and sold on the market.Those able to discern the inner workings of the LENR process may start out with an open process for the public good, but when they realize the monetary potentials involved the plan changes to a for-profit business model, at this stage the strategy changes into a game of high risk maneuvers designed to achieve massively industrialized production on a global scale, and the inventor will now find themselves walking the same path that Dr Rossi was on. Dr Rossi seems to have the lead with regard to funding and level of technological advancement, any challengers will need to offer a superior version in order to contest Dr Rossi in the marketplace. We know that there is now solid science showing that LENR’s are real, the question now is how far is the process from being implemented into real working units, and how long until they arrive, and who will be the first to market, and who will have the safest most technically advanced versions?

    • Pekka Janhunen

      True.
      If Rossi would have gotten enough direct electric output from the reactor, he perhaps could have built up the business gradually without revealing IP, by selling electricity while keeping the reactors in his premises. In principle one could do the same by selling heat, but heat is less valuable and much harder to transport than electricity.

      At the moment Rossi seems to be trying the military route.

    • Dr. Mike

      I think Rossi’s main problem with IP disclosure was that the US Patent Office was not issuing any patents on “cold fusion”. If he had been able to get a patent back in 2011, his IP would have been fully disclosed, then he would have been able to market his IP. He was not able to put any of the details of his IP in his early patent applications until the Patent Office quit rejecting his patents on grounds that it was a cold fusion patent. (They also were rejecting the patent applications because the application did not provide full disclosure.) Once they no longer rejected the application on the basis of it being a cold fusion patent, he updated the application to include the details necessary to be granted a patent.

    • HS61AF91

      The good Doctore did what he had to do to get around the barriers, having learned by experience of getting zapped by controlling entities in Italy. He opened the box slyly and by misdirection, and he succeeded. Making it immensely easier for others to follow up in LENR diciplines.

  • Rene

    Nice use of a raspberry PI.
    As with Rossi’s stuff, let’s see some decent 3rd party verification.

  • Rene

    Nice use of a raspberry PI.
    As with Rossi’s stuff, let’s see some decent 3rd party verification.

  • Gerard McEk

    ME356 has obviously plans for industrial production of his reactor. It would be interesting to know for what his reactor is designed: science, domestic, industrial? What is it’s output power and the COP? Can’t wait to see verification by MFMP.

    • Hhiram

      Which qualified independent inspectors will MFMP be using for the verification?

      • Brent Buckner

        How about MFMP themselves?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Haha, very good, I see what you did there.

        And which famous IVY league university will claim they invented it once someone in their garage working on their own dime has proven it?

        The plan is – the MFMP, with all the skills of the crowd (which could include you if you have anything to offer) test it. Then a certified testing body. Then 3 way. Then 100 Way.

  • artefact

    MFMP

    The New Fire and other Matter Manipulation

    (About me356 from minute 51)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr7LtY3LmhQ

    • Rene

      BTW, this is a nice survey of LENR. Thanks, Bob

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks Rene, It was mainly focussed on some examples of high transmutation rate and high COP and what might be a way to source the energy for these observations.

    • Things me356 has relayed to BG:

      * COP 10 reactor, 10 kW heat output
      * Not using Nickel due to patents but some other transition metal (but a cheap one)
      * 6 mos power for a few cents worth of fuel
      * 7g fuel load
      * Plan:
      – verification (MFMP)
      – verification by an official body
      – 3-way replication
      – 100-way replication
      – may or may not commercialize but primary intent is to spread knowledge so that the bell cannot be un-rung.

      —–

      Well, then.

      • Dr. Mike

        My guess is that any patent that covers Ni as one of the requirements for a LENR reactor will cover all transition metals and combinations there of. I will be surprised if me356’s device does not infringe on some existing patent unless he has added something to his device that would permit him to be able to patent the technology he is using. This won’t be a problem if he does not plan on commercializing his device.

        • Zeddicus23

          A few observations:
          (1) While I am hopeful, I would wait for successful replication by MFMP before worrying about patents.
          (2) As far as I know there are very few patents in LENR. Piantelli has a few (European patents). Rossi has 1 or 2 (US and European). Perhaps Celani and a few others have applied for and may obtain some. The main issue though is that few, if any of this small number of patents provide sufficient information for replication (or at least for replication with significant COP).
          (3) According to me356 and Suhas, I believe, the fuel preparation is key. I’m not aware that these details have been patented by any of the above (although Mizuno may have some applications for his process). In any case, it seems to me that me356 should be able to patent this particular aspect. Also, broad claims by some (such as Piantelli or Rossi) that all transition metals will work do not seem to me to be defensible in terms of stopping a patent for a particular fuel + preparation method. Otherwise, why not just patent the whole periodic table for large classes of inventions?
          (4) The 2nd key element mentioned by me356 is stimulation. Again, the details for optimal or even successful (EM, electrical etc.) stimulation are not included in any of the patents as far as I know. Brillouin energy is the only one that comes to mind that has mentioned a particular method for which they might have filed a patent application.
          (5) As Bob Greenyer has noted, it appears that many of the components of this technology are “in the public domain” from a historical point of view but have been overlooked. Again, this may “block” enforcement of overly broad patents (such as “transition metals”) but still allow patents for specific methods/materials etc.

          In any case, my impression is that at least right now the patent issue is less important than the ability to replicate, understand, and further develop this technology as well as the science behind it. (It’s sad to hear however, that Blacklight Power has already threatened to sue Bob Greenyer over comments he apparently made that their process is not nuclear. I’d love to hear more about this from MFMP.)

          • Bob Greenyer

            To clarify, I was not threatened with being sued. They asked me to take down a video I hade made (Taking a look in to the SunCell (TM) with X-Ray eyes) because it was ‘confusing investors’.

          • Dr. Mike

            Good observations!
            1) I agree.
            2) I agree, but there are a lot of patent applications that have not yet been made public yet can be infringed upon after they are finally issued.
            3) A good patent will claim every element in the periodic table if every element is applicable to the patent. Rossi’s issued patents do make dome claims for fuel preparation and my guess is that pending applications also do. However, if someone comes up with a new fuel preparation that really has a definite advantage, the new fuel preparation is patentable. (hard to enforce because it would be very hard to prove that someone is using your exact technique.)
            4) A new stimulation procedure should be patentable, however, a well written patent should claim a wide range of stimulations.
            5) I agree with Bob that there actually are a number of “cold fusion” patents that slipped through the USPO’s ban. These will become important in patent disputes. I think you are correct that there will be some very important patents issued for some specific methods and materials that really enhance the LENR devices.

      • hhiram

        The MFMP “verifcation” is not meaningful if it is not open and public. Bob Greenyer burned up a great deal of his credibility with his psychological episode a few months ago.

        As for these me356 claims themselves, they’re basically no different than Rossi’s were 5+ years ago, only with even less evidence because we fewer pictures and no real name.

        If this thing actually works, then go public. Why conduct yet another secrecy circus?

        I’m hopeful that this isn’t all just BS. But what I expect is that me356 is not really interested in open science. Rather, he is interested in making billions. There is no other reason to keep everything secret for so long. Same as Rossi.

        • I think the path envisioned is actually close to perfect. Start with MFMP/open science (note that MFMP is more than just BG and the open science aspect of it minimizes the need for trust or the effect of personalities). Then have an official organization do it. Then replicate in a small group followed by a large group.

          That’s a pretty good roll out. It’s kind of the opposite of a secrecy circus. We’ll see if it actually plays out this way.

          Simultaneous publication of some top-notch scientific papers for peer review would put icing on the cake.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes LENR G, it will be very clear soon to all, the very detailed and careful work that has been done in preparation for these tests.

            Moreover, the tests are only made possible by you, the donors and a good amount of the equipment being deployed was suggested by the crowd.

            Members of the crowd have also participated in preparing the working documents. The documents are there to be scrutinised.

            This is a team effort and we are lighting the New Fire together.

          • hhiram

            Sorry Bob, I’ve been following Rossi from before the 2011 demo and I’ve heard the old “it will all be very clear soon” line every few months for almost 10 years.

            You can only cry wolf so many times before people simply stop anything you say seriously.

          • SG

            LENR calls for extreme patience. Things take time, especially in a hostile world.

          • And then eventually the LENR experimenters get old & die. Rossi is in his 70s. It’s like Patterson all over again but at least Rossi divulged some of his secrets to IH.

          • Bob Greenyer

            There is a body of knowledge building however as time marches on.

          • Rossi said “in mercato veritas”. Since then I’ve been ignoring him and adopted the same frustrated wait & see attitude that all the naysayers had. Still nothing in the market 8 years later. To be candid, I thought I would only have to wait 2 years.

          • Bob Greenyer

            No need to apologise.

            You cannot equate Rossi with Suhas Ralkar. No comparison. When I asked Suhas for specifics he said what they were, when I asked if he had some samples to test, he went round the office, picked a few up and handed them to me with no pre-conditions. When I suggested that we verify his technology, he said OK.

            What part of transmutations observed in the foil and fuel process are not clear?

            What part of the fully disclosed processes to achieve these transmutations are not clear?

            I will, when I have time, blog on all the observations I have found so far, in the past that are in the literature and some that have been shown to me since sharing the data that are consistent with the findings on Suhas foil.

          • hhiram

            I’m sorry, but I respectfully disagree. You can’t claim to be an open science project if you’re not actually open at all – good grief!

            me356 is being secretive, withholding information about both his/her identity and specifics of the replication process. This is the OPPOSITE of open.

            No other efforts of the MFMP show any signs of actually achieving over-unity results at all, let alone in a replicable fashion. So here we are, 6 years after Rossi’s original working demo, with nothing to show for open-science efforts except one (admittedly wealthy) individual’s tantalizing and unverified claims.

            So no. I don’t think this qualifies as a legitimate pathway for open science at all. It’s just more of the same cloistered, possessive, and secretive R&D that we see every day in the private sector.

          • Bob Greenyer

            And your opinion of Suhas, who has already disclosed how to make his fuel and his reactor and how it is stimulated?

            Moreover, in tests we have arranged on the reactor and fuel components, there has been found transmutations consistent with LENR which we have openly shared.

          • Transmutations would be proof of nuclear origin. If that finding were peer reviewed and replicated, LENR would break wide open.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well – it is not like we have not COMPLETELY disclosed TWO systems made by Suhas Ralkar that appear to have done it. The Nickel plating process on SS304 would seam quite easy to reproduce.

          • Axil Axil

            The Lugano fuel had all kinds of elements on the surface of the fuel particles…rare earths and up to lead. I thought that Rossi was using spark discharge to produce that transmutation in the fuel preprocessing step but he might have been using cavitation instead.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Just a electric field and RF/MW would do it, like Peery

          • Steve Savage

            has anyone done cavitation in heavy water, might be interesting?

          • There seems to be conflation of what has happened already and what is planned.

            So far me356 was initially semi-open, then went dark when the results got interesting. Agreed this is not open science to date.

            But if the planned MFMP testing does occur then that is open science. Followed in the plan by dissemination and productization, which appears to be what you are demanding. So it appears the secrecy is about to end. Of course we’ve been here before…

          • Warthog

            “me356 is being secretive, withholding information about both his/her
            identity and specifics of the replication process. This is the OPPOSITE
            of open.”

            He is withholding said information until after replication/verification. is done. If you will recall, this is exactly what the pathological skeptics excoriated Pons and Fleischmann for NOT doing.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I had no episode, I chose to create some unconventional shock in the community as it was being consumed and fragmented by legal nonsense. Many do not get my strategy, but I had to do what I had to do to both get the deserved attention and blow some cover smoke.

          As difficult as it is for many to come to terms with what I had to say, I stand by it. I do not expect others to choose to look at, or understand the evidence, but the evidence led me to the reality, and that led to Suhas and since others to reveal their knowledge or technology. The most telling thing was the corroboration of my observations made possible by those that chose to not contact me about it. The approach showed who could be trusted and who could not and this is very important at this stage.

          The MFMP is going to extraordinary lengths to make our tests completely open. Here is Ryan a few days back.

          https://youtu.be/IXWMYbKG8Ak

          You will see that the instrumentation and levels of record keeping and types of data will be the best you have seen in the field to date. In addition, you will be able to engage yourself in the process to bring your expertise to the table.

          I hope my AMA showed that I am personally prepared to be unnecessarily open – even about things that many would never choose to share.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            Ryan should insert a simple static mixer ahead of the temperature measurements to insure that the temperature measured is an accurate interpretation of the input and output fluid temperature. Static mixers break up any laminar flow and resulting temperature gradients that lead to inaccurate temperature measurements. They are fairly simple to make. An example is a clockwise twisted insert followed by a counter-clockwise twisted insert repeated about five times.

            Here is a link to one example static mixer:

            http://www.staticmixers.com/motionless-lpd.asp

            Good idea to not use plastic for the outlet side, I had an inexpensive PVC static mixer melt and deform on the outlet side. Use glass/metal parts.

    • Axil Axil

      Bob Greenyer is a great presenter, he sure can talk. But I am disappointed that Bob has not included anything in his presentation about the work of Leif Holmlid. Leif’s work is amazing and has earned a prominent place in any presentation covering LENR.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Perhaps you missed it. It was slide 49, it was at 46:40

        I had 60 minutes and the focus of this presentation was on transmutation, radioactive remediation and drawing attention to where some claimed the energy was coming from to account for a range of New Fire observations.

        Leif’s work, which I again mentioned in Celani’s slide (55:58), has not been reported to result in wide ranging transmutation or radiation reduction.

        I had travelled the entire day before and only slept 2h15m before giving this presentation.

        • Axil Axil

          I stand corrected.

        • Pekka Janhunen

          For what it’s worth, personally I’m not convinced by Holmlid. The work is interesting and it has certain professionalism because he’s a scientist by training, but the interpretation of the experiment could be right or wrong.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I added his slide because it is consistent in ways with other observations.

            1. Fe to split
            2. K is lowest ionisation energy that is easy to use that can form rydberg state
            3. Dense hydrogen of one or other type (that could be driven by ‘heavy electron’)
            4. He has observed muons in the past

            it does seam to shift

    • John Littlemist

      Hi Bob, can you please provide a link to the slide set in the video?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Hi John, I will do this later in the week when I have had time to add links to documents and document archives / videos so that it can be used as a springboard to understand many of the concepts and parties discussed.

  • Glen

    It looks like nickel and hydrogen may not required…

    Test of zero-point energy emission from gases flowing through Casimir cavities
    http://ecee.colorado.edu/~moddel/QEL/Papers/DmitriyevaModdel12.pdf as

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks for sharing that.

      • Josh G

        That paper on ZPE and Casimir forces is very interesting. Except that scientists have misunderstood the origin of both Casimir forces and ZPE. See this paper on “Zero-Point Energy and the Casimir Effect:” http://milesmathis.com/casimir.html

        From the abstract:

        “I show that, given a quantized field, the zero-point energy cannot be at a point, cannot have anything to do with zero, and cannot sum to infinity in any finite space or time. Using my previous analysis of the calculus and the point, as well as the definition of quantum, I prove that renormalization is unnecessary, and I “normalize” an equation by much quicker and more logical means. This elegantly solves the mystery of the cosmological constant, among other things. Then I analyze the math of the Casimir Effect in detail, showing that Casimir’s final equations can be improved upon simply by applying Newton’s equation to the problem. In order to use Newton’s equation on the metal plates of Casimir, I must do several simple transforms—each transform explained mechanically using my unified field. This shows unequivocally that the Casimir force is caused by both gravity and the foundational E/M field, falsifying the standard model analysis. It also provides a final equation that is vastly superior to Casimir in its ability to predict variation over all distances of separation and in its operational usefulness to experimenters.”

        The ZPE “pump” described in the paper that Glen shared is not drawing energy from the Zero-Point Energy field, but from the ambient charge field.

  • Thomas Baccei

    Concern about patent infringement is an interesting matter. If ever ME356 (or anyone) were accused of violating a patent, I’m sure that whoever holds said patent would have to demonstrate that their embodiment actually works, and can be made to work by any practitioner following the recipe in the patent. As far as I can tell none of the patents can actually meet that requirement as published or reliable replication would no longer be an issue. If a patented device simply does not work is the patent valid?

    • Bob Greenyer

      This is a good point Thomas and I agree.

    • Axil Axil

      R. Mills has patented every element and most chemicals as an element of his technology. Patent litigation is a mainstay of his business plan.

      • Thomas Baccei

        I doubt that such a shotgun approach will work here. If so, and he has been thorough he has lenr by the balls. None of his patents work and the potential patent fight will dwarf anything which came before. Throwing darts WILL be defeated if good enough lawyers and enough money is brought to bear. Otherwise everybody should stop doing research right now, and that is NOT what patent law is for. It is intended to protect anyone with an actual working device in a world of phoneys. Stop fretting about patents for goodness sake. Nobody has a device which works yet and maybe never will, so using patents as a piece on the chessboard at this point is insane. Just saying, And besides he doesn’t think his device is an example of lenr!

        • Bob Greenyer

          Very cogent and concise again Thomas!

          Much of the most important concepts are already in lapsed or expired patents or published long before 1989.

          • It is going to be one huge patent/IP war. It will make the Wright brothers’ patent problems look like tiddlywinks.

          • greggoble

            Quotes from the document…

            Towards a holistic approach to technology and climate change: what would form part of an answer?

            “Finally, an entirely new form of generating power may be developed which is so clean and economical that alternative sources of energy (including conventional energy sources), are too inefficient and cannot compete. This could provide a different, and much more effective means, of mitigating climate change. The prospects of this may seem unlikely, and one example, Cold Fusion, has long been the subject of skeptical discussion.[32] Yet it should be borne in mind that one prominent theory of innovation teaches that even if an innovation may appear unlikely to the incumbents in a field, there is always the prospect of an unexpected and radical innovation, which sweeps away established approaches.[33]”

            gbgoblenote- Patents/innovations essential for world ecological health is an important subject under consideration by the United Nations and others. LENR proponents will play an important role.

            Further reading please google this…

            “Technologies which are essential to address climate change should be made available to all”

            Also contact the United Nations committee for mutual assistance/cooperation on these important matters.

            quote

            The UNFCCC’s work on technology has been led by the Expert Group on Technology Transfer (“EGTT”) which was established in 2001. Technology acquired a more central role with the Bali Action Plan of 2007.[16] This established the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Co-operative Action under the Convention. Draft documents of this body generated prior to its meetings at Copenhagen in December 2009[17] and in Bonn in June 2010[18] address technology, intellectual property (“IP”) and approaches which could be taken to IP in seeking to achieve the Bali objectives regarding technology transfer.

            “Technologies which are essential to address climate change should be made available to all”. Copies of power-point presentations, and written summaries (together with other information relating to the project) can be found on the project website.

            gbgoblenote – Of particular interest are new concepts of reward system for innovation.

            quote

            “The review so far has focused on the view of those states that would seek to limit IP. As can be seen there are a number of difficult issues that confront these states. To the contrary, there may be states that seek exploit the flexibilities of TRIPS to strengthen IP rights, by seeking this as the best means of providing incentives for the development and dissemination of climate-related technologies. For these states, what is sought is greater clarity and workability within the existing IP regime, to deliver a system more favourable to IP owners, in order to incentivise the creation and, through licensing, the distribution of what could be essential, new technologies. As a result, states may choose to enhance IP, for example through patent term extensions, so-called “wild card” patent extensions, substantive patent law harmonization, and other means of enhancing legal certainty and new incentives to innovate.

            “LENR Cold Fusion-esque Scenario Towards a holistic approach to technology and climate change: what would form part of an answer?” http://gbgoble.kinja.com/lenr-cold-fusion-esque-scenario-towards-a-holistic-app-1684717591

          • Bob Greenyer

            interesting contribution greg, thanks

          • greggoble

            You’re welcome,
            Keep up the good works!

            My guess is the authors of this paper may be supportive and interested in what you are accomplishing.

            “Towards a holistic approach to technology and climate change: what would form part of an answer?”
            https://www.academia.edu/27602803/Towards_a_Holistic_Approach_to_Technology_and_Climate_Change_What_Would_Form_Part_of_an_Answer

            by Abbe Brown,[1] Keith Culver,[2] Anna Davies,[3] Estelle Derclaye,[4] Suzanne Kingston,[5] David McGrory,[6] Kathryn McMahon,[7] Elisa Morgera,[8] Jon Santamauro,[9] Douglas Taylor[10] and Baskut Tuncak[11]

          • Bob Greenyer

            I’d love to have the time to reach out to them – could you do that?

          • greggoble

            Prof. Celani and yourselves might each have an associate in Geneva. Perhaps UN inroads/contacts made by him could work together with your associates (a Geneva team) towards establishing a United Nations LENR technology working group.

            http://energycatalyzer3.com/lenr/celani-discussed-lenr-with-united-nations

            Quote

            Cold fusion pioneer Francesco Celani gave a presentation on low energy nuclear reactions (LENR) to a United Nations Conference in Geneva.

            Celani gave a talk on Renewable Energy: LENR Progresses and Cooperation Plans to the 25th Anniversary World Clean Energy Conference held between November 1 and November 4 at United Nations City, Geneva, a PowerPoint presentation obtained by the Martin Fleischman Memorial Project (MFMP) indicates. Celani discussed LENR work in Japan, China, India, the United States and Europe.

            also

            Celani Wants More LENR collaboration, UN Agency

            Celani put forward a cooperation plan that involves collaboration between India, China and Japan. He also recommended extension of the Live Open Science or open-sourced science model practiced by the MFMP throughout the world.

            also

            Another interesting suggestion of Celani’s is a United Nations Agency to conduct LENR research. Whether there is enough political support for such an agency is anybody’s guess but Bill Gates might want to fund it. – end quotes

            Sorry, I won’t be able to do it as well as is warranted.

            Thanks though… gbgoble

      • Bob Greenyer

        R. Mills says it is not nuclear, but chemical, however, nuclear changes seam to occur in many embodiments.

    • James Rice

      A patent is invalid if the invention can’t be reproduced with common knowledge and the information contained in the patent. This would indicate that Rossi’s patent is likely not good.

      • Dr. Mike

        I certainly agree with your first statement. However, I haven’t seen anyone try to duplicate a Rossi device for which a patent has been issued. Rossi’s mode of operation seems to be to leave the key component out of his patent applications until the patent office says that the patent application is deficit only in the one key thing that he has left out. Then he fixes the deficit item. The issued patent for the low temperature e-cat seems to have everything in it for replication, but it seems everyone wants to replicate the “Hot-cat”.

        • Eyedoc

          Thanks for bringing that up ….Do you happen to recall the LT Cat patent # or info ?

    • Excellent question, and right to the heart of the matter. I think that a lot of patents that are granted in various industries lack that fundamental aspect of replicability because competitors would simply steal the IP. So there is this little dance with the Patent office to build up patent portfolios; when there’s a patent lawsuit, each side brings their stack of patents and agrees to license eachother’s IP…. usually.

  • G

    Patents are expropriation of collective wealth

  • AdrianAshfield

    Bob Greenyer,
    I read what you wrote on the lenr forum where you said me365 had backed off his promises to share the information and also to allow MFMP to witness/validate a test run.

    What is the current situation?

    • Bob Greenyer

      I have no membership to LENR forum and have never written anything there, no sure what you mean…

      • AdrianAshfield

        My mistake on the authorship then. I thought it was you. I should have checked. Sorry.

        What is the current situation though? Any news of when you can visit.

        • Bob Greenyer

          I think both testing and claimant are nearly ready.

          • AdrianAshfield

            That is very good news.
            I wonder what the lenr forum thread is getting so excited about then.

          • Bob Greenyer

            me356 wants to do things right as do we, every effort is being made to make the verification one that the crowd can both participate and believe in.

            The MFMPs focus is on getting the job done.

          • AdrianAshfield

            I wonder whether Andrea Rossi is following this. It looks like me 356 could give him a run for his money.
            Pity that he is caught up in the court case or we might have heard more of the QuarkX about now.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I hope that AR finds the health and the courage to demonstrate his technology in a believable way before his window closes, or it is shut on him.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks for sharing that.

          • Bob Greenyer

            And your opinion of Suhas, who has already disclosed how to make his fuel and his reactor and how it is stimulated?

            Moreover, in tests we have arranged on the reactor and fuel components, there has been found transmutations consistent with LENR which we have openly shared.

          • Kevmo

            Transmutations would be proof of nuclear origin. If that finding were peer reviewed and replicated, LENR would break wide open.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well – it is not like we have not COMPLETELY disclosed TWO systems made by Suhas Ralkar that appear to have done it. The Nickel plating process on SS304 would seam quite easy to reproduce.

          • Axil Axil

            The Lugano fuel had all kinds of elements on the surface of the fuel particles…rare earths and up to lead. I thought that Rossi was using spark discharge to produce that transmutation in the fuel preprocessing step but he might have been using cavitation instead.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Just a electric field and RF/MW would do it, like Peery

          • Steve Savage

            has anyone done cavitation in heavy water, might be interesting?

          • Josh G

            That paper on ZPE and Casimir forces is very interesting. Except that scientists have misunderstood the origin of both Casimir forces and ZPE. See this paper on “Zero-Point Energy and the Casimir Effect:” http://milesmathis.com/casimir.html

            From the abstract:

            “I show that, given a quantized field, the zero-point energy cannot be at a point, cannot have anything to do with zero, and cannot sum to infinity in any finite space or time. Using my previous analysis of the calculus and the point, as well as the definition of quantum, I prove that renormalization is unnecessary, and I “normalize” an equation by much quicker and more logical means. This elegantly solves the mystery of the cosmological constant, among other things. Then I analyze the math of the Casimir Effect in detail, showing that Casimir’s final equations can be improved upon simply by applying Newton’s equation to the problem. In order to use Newton’s equation on the metal plates of Casimir, I must do several simple transforms—each transform explained mechanically using my unified field. This shows unequivocally that the Casimir force is caused by both gravity and the foundational E/M field, falsifying the standard model analysis. It also provides a final equation that is vastly superior to Casimir in its ability to predict variation over all distances of separation and in its operational usefulness to experimenters.”

            The ZPE “pump” described in the paper that Glen shared is not drawing energy from the Zero-Point Energy field, but from the ambient charge field.

  • AdrianAshfield

    Bob Greenyer,
    I read what you wrote on the lenr forum where you said me365 had backed off his promises to share the information and also to allow MFMP to witness/validate a test run.

    What is the current situation?
    If he taken the trouble to put the controls in that nifty box it looks like he is close to a commercial reactor.

  • Bob Greenyer

    I had no episode, I chose to create some unconventional shock in the community as it was being consumed and fragmented by legal nonsense.

    As difficult as it is for many to come to terms with what I had to say, I stand by it. I do not expect others to choose to look at, or understand the evidence, but the evidence led me to the reality, and that led to Suhas and since others to reveal their knowledge or technology.

    The MFMP is going to extraordinary lengths to make our tests completely open. Here is Ryan a few days back.

    https://youtu.be/IXWMYbKG8Ak

    You will see that the instrumentation and levels of record keeping and types of data will be the best you have seen in the field to date. In addition, you will be able to

    I hope my AMA showed that I am

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Ryan should insert a simple static mixer ahead of the temperature measurements to insure that the temperature measured is an accurate interpretation of the input and output fluid temperature. Static mixers break up any laminar flow and resulting temperature gradients that lead to inaccurate temperature measurements. They are fairly simple to make. An example is a clockwise twisted insert followed by a counter-clockwise twisted insert repeated about five times.

      Here is a link to one example static mixer:

      http://www.staticmixers.com/motionless-lpd.asp

      Good idea to not use plastic for the outlet side, I had an inexpensive PVC static mixer melt and deform on the outlet side. Use glass/metal parts.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Just to clarify for the record.

    me356’s reactor does not have an official name, so the name ‘AURA’ was assigned to it as a working name for the MFMP / crowd to refer to it in our verification testing.

  • LB

    In the link you can read “Whatever the capability of the AURA reactor proves to be, we think you will agree, me356 appears to have engineered the finest, neatest, New Fire reactor controller and data logger in the field!”
    What I see is a 35 dollar Raspberry PI in a box. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5f6a53991715efc981e337f6152d1126d82e05dc17d7eb77f156a694f1991fa3.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1b944fb10477099ed0a3c0c58a569e5f77115007b7e7b1c4aec52de73a851ac8.jpg

    • Rene

      That is indeed what I think he has in there. You can see the USB and Ethernet ports on the right of the box typical of a PI2 or PI3. I have the same display. Inside the box is likely some power switching logic, TRIACs, power FETs, etc. to provide the drive.
      It’s good to use something like a Raspberry PI, known and stable hardware, a decent Debian Jessie system (or the simpler variants). The only problem I see with using the PI is that it can easily glitch and crash if you connect a USB device to it that draws too much current. me356 would have to cut the USB power trace to isolate the USB power rail from the rest of the PI electronics then get a second power supply to drive the USB devices independently. Having the PI glitch while running a reactor just because you plugged in a USB measurement meter is not a good thing.
      Still, what matters and is not disclosed is the stimulation means, a slap at open science yet again.

      • GiveADogABone

        I bought my Raspberry Pi B in a kit that included an external, 4-port, powered mini-hub for the USB. Keyboard, mouse, wifi dongle and the mini-hub USB connector takes up all four USB sockets on the Pi board.

        The Pi is my always on internet browser; this post was written on it. The HDMI connector(the large socket on the left in the photo above) allows use of a high definition VDU directly attached. Extra storage memory is USB sticks or a network.

    • Steve Swatman

      It seems to be a well made and well thought out “pi in a box” if it does the intended job then it is indeed the “finest, neatest, new fire reactor controller and data logger in the field”

    • Bob Greenyer

      And the power electronics and software?

      If one is to make an affordable system – it is a very good place to start.

      I am not aware of a neater and more affordable control and monitoring system in the field.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        I suspect that there are a number low-cost industrial quality PLCs that could have been put together for a small amount of money. A number have integrated touch screen/displays that could display critical parameters. The problem is, relatively few people are aware of them and even fewer know how to program them. Still, they are the mainstay of most industrial automation systems. I suspect after you account for the labor that went to the design of ME356’s design and fabrication, the PLC would have been a lot less expensive. Also, they are proven reliable systems — something that is not yet known about the ME356 design.

    • I would use it too.
      It is a well established and stable high level embedded system which gives you all possibilities an IT developer can dream about for just 35 euros/dollars.

      The best you can chose for development prototypes.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        I agree that it is a great box for small-scale instrumentation projects. I have recently used it for an audio recorder project and a project integrating a number of other instruments (GPS, radar unit, RFID tag reader). It is a dynamite box for digital signal processing and image/video processing, too. I was surprised to see that it outperformes the Cray YMP 16-processor (circa 1990, $US20M) on the Lawrence Livermore Loops benchmark, a well-known scientific benchmark. According to a recent post, it is now the third most popular general purpose computer behind the PC and Mac. I love the availability of Open-Source software for the box, too.

        I do not think the controller needs such a high performance processor, but I do think that accurate measurements require some pretty good A-to-D and signal conditioning on sensors. That might be more important to the project.

  • LB

    In the link you can read “Whatever the capability of the AURA reactor proves to be, we think you will agree, me356 appears to have engineered the finest, neatest, New Fire reactor controller and data logger in the field!”
    What I see is a 35 dollar Raspberry PI in a box. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5f6a53991715efc981e337f6152d1126d82e05dc17d7eb77f156a694f1991fa3.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1b944fb10477099ed0a3c0c58a569e5f77115007b7e7b1c4aec52de73a851ac8.jpg

    • Rene

      That is indeed what I think he has in there. You can see the USB and Ethernet ports on the right of the box typical of a PI2 or PI3. I have the same display. Inside the box is likely some power switching logic, TRIACs, power FETs, etc. to provide the drive.
      It’s good to use something like a Raspberry PI, known and stable hardware, a decent Debian Jessie system (or the simpler variants). The only problem I see with using the PI is that it can easily glitch and crash if you connect a USB device to it that draws too much current. me356 would have to cut the USB power trace to isolate the USB power rail from the rest of the PI electronics then get a second power supply to drive the USB devices independently. Having the PI glitch while running a reactor just because you plugged in a USB measurement meter is not a good thing.
      Still, what matters and is not disclosed is the stimulation means, a slap at open science yet again.

      • GiveADogABone

        I bought my Raspberry Pi B in a kit that included an external, 4-port, powered mini-hub for the USB. Keyboard, mouse, wifi dongle and the mini-hub USB connector takes up all four USB sockets on the Pi board.

        The Pi is my always on internet browser; this post was written on it. The HDMI connector(the large socket on the left in the photo above) allows use of a high definition VDU directly attached. Extra storage memory is USB sticks or a network.

    • Steve Swatman

      It seems to be a well made and well thought out “pi in a box” if it does the intended job then it is indeed the “finest, neatest, new fire reactor controller and data logger in the field”

    • Bob Greenyer

      And the power electronics and software?

      If one is to make an affordable system – it is a very good place to start.

      I am not aware of a neater and more affordable control and monitoring system in the field.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        I suspect that there are a number low-cost industrial quality PLCs that could have been put together for a small amount of money. A number have integrated touch screen/displays that could display critical parameters. The problem is, relatively few people are aware of them and even fewer know how to program them. Still, they are the mainstay of most industrial automation systems. I suspect after you account for the labor that went to the design of ME356’s design and fabrication, the PLC would have been a lot less expensive. Also, they are proven reliable systems — something that is not yet known about the ME356 design.

    • I would use it too.
      It is a well established, electrically certified and stable high level embedded system which gives you all possibilities an IT developer can dream about for just 35 euros/dollars.

      The best you can chose for development prototypes.

      • Thomas Kaminski

        I agree that it is a great box for small-scale instrumentation projects. I have recently used it for an audio recorder project and a project integrating a number of other instruments (GPS, radar unit, RFID tag reader). It is a dynamite box for digital signal processing and image/video processing, too. I was surprised to see that it outperformes the Cray YMP 16-processor (circa 1990, $US20M) on the Lawrence Livermore Loops benchmark, a well-known scientific benchmark. According to a recent post, it is now the third most popular general purpose computer behind the PC and Mac. I love the availability of Open-Source software for the box, too.

        I do not think the controller needs such a high performance processor, but I do think that accurate measurements require some pretty good A-to-D and signal conditioning on sensors. That might be more important to the project.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Just to manage expectations for the up and coming AURA tests.

    We should be aware that the COP of the AURA device has yet to be determined by any third party and we should all understand the difficulties of assessing the power output of steam generating devices by now.



    Moreover, me356 has not made any public pronouncements of the capability of his reactor. The device we will be testing is understood to be newly engineered, but based on the same principles as the reactors he has had running for a number of months prior.

    We will do everything within the combined communities intellect to do the best job we can. We have planned several approaches to condense the water so that the complications of steam are taken out of the debate over any results.



    It takes a huge amount of courage to put ones achievements up for scrutiny and no one can be in any doubt that me356 has worked hard to get into a position to be assessed. It takes even more courage to have that testing done openly – whatever the outcome, I doff my metaphorical hat to me356.



    May the truth guide us.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      What would be the advantage of „condensing” the water (= steam)? Do you plan to use a secondary circuit?

      • Ged

        Perhaps they should use an old fashion glass bottle distillery, so the steam can be seen rising, condensing, and measured in outflow as well as inflow.

        But just normal water calorimetry is great, as long as the flow is fast enough to avoid phase transition.

        • Some way to sample the steam before it gets condensed would provide a nice double check and enable exploration of steam quality.

          If what’s found with the steam matches the calculations for the condensed flow, then you’ve made a strong case.

          • psi2u2

            Very nice idea. That is what we need, that kind of cross-checking of results with independent methods.

      • Bob Greenyer

        We may have to. That is why we have the heat exchanger options.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          Just found your diagram on p. 5 here, which explains everything:

          https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qbG-p8qKbuFnPOdkm0XgwJpUvzHSvWM84-geOCF38pw/edit

          BTW with a high enough COP some steam bubbles would be no problem as long as the enthalpy of vaporization is ignored (a provisional but safe solution).

        • GiveADogABone

          1: ‘One of these devices will be connected to a large family house heating system, the other is understood to be in a separate building where we will have greater freedom to move around it, mount it, and configure the test.’

          2: ‘The main difference is that the AURA device is made to make steam on and cannot easily produce hot water by simply increasing the feed flow rate.’

          I see these two statements as incompatible.

          • Bob Greenyer

            At first glance I would agree, but I have no idea how he has configured everything.

      • GiveADogABone

        I am not seeing how a discussion of water/steam output can be concluded without knowing the design outlet conditions of the heating device. If the device is just a hot water heater operating well below 100C, then steam is hardly an option.

        If the device is to make steam, then the steam quality and pressure becomes an issue. Would the device operate like a drum boiler and recirculate the water, whilst sending wet steam onwards to the heat sink. Superheating is a whole new ball-game that needs something complicated unless you follow Rossi’s simplified engineering.

        There are always safety issues with steam. Steam explosions are real and can be dangerous. The ideal calorimetry requirements come a long way down the list of priorities. The simplest option is to design a wet, domestic, central heating system circuit, with the usual components, boiler circulating pump, header tank and a radiator(probably fan-assisted) that operates up to 65C.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          My comment was just a comprehension question (you cannot „condense“ liquid water, therefore one would expect that there is steam) which has meanwhile been answered (see the diagram, link posted below).

          I agree that it is difficult to design a calorimeter for a device whose characteristics are partly unknown. Safety is one issue. Another one might be finding appropriate dimensions for the secondary heat exchanger. In case that it is too small you would systematically underestimate the COP, since the steam from the primary circuit could not condense completely. Anyway, underestimating is better than overestimating. This would only be a problem in case that the ‘remaining’ COP is not high enough.

          • Bob Greenyer

            The current AURA reactor outputs only steam, unlike the ECCO reactor which can output hot water by just increasing the flow rate.

            As a result, we do not want to get into discussions over steam quality / entrained water and the like – we would rather simply pass the output through a matched heat exchanger.

          • GiveADogABone

            1: Plate heat exchangers have to be orientated correctly, if they are to be used for condensing steam. It is also possible to maintain a water level in them and sub-cool the condensate outlet.

            If the plate heat exchanger starts passing steam what happens and where does the condensate and steam go? Back to the AURA? If recirculating the condensate, the plated heat exchanger could be mounted high to provide a driving head for the AURA. Also plate heat exchangers have high differential pressure losses due to constricted flow paths.

            http://www.spiraxsarco.com/Resources/Pages/Steam-Engineering-Tutorials/steam-engineering-principles-and-heat-transfer/steam-consumption-of-heat-exchangers.aspx
            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b88253c21df129013c0b2778bd4da05da0aa75dd1081efb8412ffa416bc49fea.jpg

            2: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qbG-p8qKbuFnPOdkm0XgwJpUvzHSvWM84-geOCF38pw/edit#

            To my eye, the AURA device diagram contains a fundamental error. Boilers are universally fed from low level and the steam exits from the top. It is just a diagram and I may have taken it out of context, but this setup with the condenser below the AURA looks unlikely to work properly.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks for that detail

We also have this heat exchanger at our disposal

            
https://goo.gl/bQ7XwS



            Condenser will be where we place it. We will have freedom to mount the AURA as we choose.

          • GiveADogABone

            I am getting the feeling that MFMP are designing the primary and secondary coolant circuits. If so, you need a clear statement of the design outlet pressure and temperature of the AURA. Everything has to be designed to those conditions, including the pressure circuit over-pressure test and the safety valve settings.

            Another worry, if the AURA boils, is hardness deposition. I guess we have all seen the scale that builds up inside a kettle. Line pipes with deposited scale and you have a safety problem. Demin water is one solution but then you probably want a full condensate recirculation system.

          • Bob Greenyer

            me356 has a pump capable of 15l/min.

            I think a condensate re-circulation would be good as there would be some capture of energy that would otherwise be lost.

          • GiveADogABone

            We need the AURA’s outlet steam/water design temperature/pressure as a first step.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I am afraid we may not know that until on site.

          • GiveADogABone

            Let us make this as simple as possible:
            a steam sparge pipe in a water tank.

            Electrical Power Input : 1kw or 3600kJ/h
            Heat Output : 10kw or 36,000kJ/h

            dH=m.cp.dt
            1m^3 water weighs 1000kg
            cp=4.18kJ/kg K
            dh=36,000kJ/h
            dt=8.612C per hour
            One cubic meter of water changes temperature at 8.61C per hour with an input energy of 10kw.
            A test run might take the water temperature from 20C to 70C and last 50/8.61=5.8hours. If you want an 11 hour run, then double the tank to 2m^3 in volume.

            The necessary instrumentation is a clock, a cumulative power meter and as many thermometers/thermocouples in the tank as you want.

            Start the reactor up and when running at full power divert the steam/water mix into the sparge pipe and start logging at, say, five or ten minute intervals. Each five/ten minute logging set will yield an individual CoP calculation. A minor correction for increasing water mass could be made in the calculation.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We are considering sparging into a tank as a 3rd backup.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Can you roughly estimate the expected mass of the „black box“ (see my comment above)?

          • Bob Greenyer

            He said it will be light enough for one person to lift – even when operating.

            We have a HIGHLY accurate scale – so any doubt will be short lived.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Ok, then it will probably not be possible to go beyond the limit. A 20 kg device that produces 9 kW excess power would have to run 3 days and 15 ½ hours to reach the hydrogen equivalent (about 39.4 kWh per kg). If you were allowed to weigh the fuel separately and to inspect the empty reactor it would be much easier.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            For most convincing results the experiment should produce significantly more energy than any known chemical reaction could release. That would require a tank whose storage capacity is much higher than the ‘chemical mass equivalent’ of the reactor. Unfortunately, the reactor’s mass seems to be unknown so far. With a mass of a few kilograms you would already need a fairly large tank to get over the chemical limit before the water has reached its boiling point.

          • GiveADogABone

            The point you make is well made. The response is, ‘How many 6 hour runs do you need to exceed chemical (obviously without messing with the fuel)?

            Also, you can just vent the steam and keep the AURA running, provided scaling of the internals does not cause problems.

            A third approach is to fit two tanks and a diverter valve. Fill the off-line tank with cold water. When the on-line tank is hot, change over the steam diverter valve, drain and refill the first tank ready to take more steam.

    • If me356 goes through with this plan, he is a Prince among men regardless of results.

      If the results are positive he will deserve a place alongside the world’s greatest inventors and scientific explorers. MFMP will have earned a place in history as well.

      • Bob Greenyer

        He will have immense respect regardless of the outcome. I can’t imagine how nervous he is as we come closer.

        • Rip Kirbyian

          Hey Bob! When will the test happen? In days? Weeks? Months?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Our timetable is weeks. This is thanks to the generosity of the crowd and the very hard work of team members.

          • atanguy

            They say in May I guess.

    • Axil Axil

      How does MFMP plan to protect itself from the critics of its testing methods that will be used by the opponents of LENR to undercut LENR?

      MFMP might want to look at the methods of these opponents that have been used over the years to diminish their toolkit of doubt before they can be used on Me356 and his system.

      • Bob Greenyer

        I would like to think that those critics might like to take part in the process as it happens. One would hope they want a better world – or maybe they have family members that they would like to have better lives.

        Perhaps the crowd could prepare a hit list of ‘gotchas’ and pitfalls we can avoid.

        • Axil Axil

          The goal is to remove any calorimetry malarkey from the test: pressure, pumping, bubbles in the steam and the like.

          Use two large identical insolated tanks.

          Feed the output of the system into one and measure the electric power consumed by the system at the wall plug.

          Feed that power measured at the plug of the system into a resistance heater inside the second dummy tank placed on the bottom.

          Measure the water temperature of the water in the system tank. When the temperature of the water temperature reaches a predefined temperature, (180 F) stop the test and measure the COP of the system.

          The COP of the system is determined by comparing the heat content of each tank: the system tank and the dummy tank. Measure the temperature in both tanks in the same way.

          Build or buy two large insolated heat storage tanks and fill with the same amount of water.

          https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/39/92/12/3992122e4a165bcee7ed6a21d0835ad2.jpg

          Use a heat transfer coil in the system tank placed on the bottom. Any heat loss errors are to the detriment of the system since the water in the system tank will be hotter that of the dummy tank.

          • psi2u2

            Nice.

  • There seems to be conflation of what has happened already and what is planned.

    So far me356 was initially semi-open, then went dark when the results got interesting. Agreed this is not open science to date.

    But if the planned MFMP testing does occur then that is open science. Followed in the plan by dissemination and productization, which appears to be what you are demanding. So it appears the secrecy is about to end. Of course we’ve been here before…

  • Just want to lay down a marker here.

    me356’s device is so similar to Rossi’s E-Cats that if it is shown to have a positive COP then I can see no way around the conclusion that Rossi also has working reactors.

    The coincidence of Rossi scamming for 6 years a thing that actually turns out to be possible… well, that has just a ridiculously low probability.

    So, if me356 proves out in May, then QuarkX’s should be on the market by 2018.

    • Bob Greenyer

      And… vice versa

      • Pekka Janhunen

        One of them (the one who started late) could be mimicking the other. The situation is not symmetrical in that regard.

  • Just want to lay down a marker here.

    me356’s device is so similar to Rossi’s E-Cats that if it is shown to have a positive COP then I can see no way around the conclusion that Rossi also has working reactors.

    The coincidence of Rossi scamming for 6 years a thing that actually turns out to be possible… well, that has just a ridiculously low probability.

    So, if me356 proves out in May, then QuarkX’s should be on the market by 2018.

    • Bob Greenyer

      And… vice versa

      • Pekka Janhunen

        One of them (the one who started late) could be mimicking the other. The situation is not symmetrical in that regard.

  • Brent Buckner

    How about MFMP themselves?

  • Bob Greenyer

    me356 is readying for our testing.

    It had to be tested at some point – otherwise all his effort was for nothing but a personal home heater

  • Bob Greenyer

    Haha, very good, I see what you did there.

    And which famous IVY league university will claim they invented it once someone in their garage working on their own dime has proven it?

    The plan is – the MFMP, with all the skills of the crowd (which could include you if you have anything to offer) test it. Then a certified testing body. Then 3 way. Then 100 Way.

  • Russell K

    Anyone have a guess as to what that transition metal might be?

    • Ged

      I’d put my guess in as tungstan, or titanium, based on the unit crystal type being similar to nickel.

      • Chapman

        My cash is on Titanium.

        • Warthog

          I’ll take that bet on Tungsten.

          • Chapman

            HA! Good man…
            Tungsten has much going for it, I admit, but I have long felt Titanium was being overlooked as a potential material in the LENR field given it’s thermal and magnetic properties, as well as it’s specific reaction to lithium in a hydrogen atmosphere. And, of course, It also has a compatible cubic beta phase. It is also worth noting that it is highly prone to electron capture.

            So, can we agree on the terms? How about an ECW mug from Frank’s store? 🙂 (should one of us be proven correct)

          • Warthog

            Well, I’m actually betting on Irving Langmuir, probably the premier experimental scientist of the early Twentieth Century. Given its hydride-forming capabilities, titanium is certainly a good candidate, but if tungsten works that is about the best material possible.

            Terms are acceptable.

  • Russell K

    Anyone have a guess as to what that transition metal might be?

    • Ged

      I’d put my guess in as tungstan, or titanium, based on the unit crystal type being similar to nickel.

      • Chapman

        My cash is on Titanium.

        • Warthog

          I’ll take that bet on Tungsten.

          • Chapman

            HA! Good man…
            Tungsten has much going for it, I admit, but I have long felt Titanium was being overlooked as a potential material in the LENR field given it’s thermal and magnetic properties, as well as it’s specific reaction to lithium in a hydrogen atmosphere. And, of course, It also has a compatible cubic beta phase. It is also worth noting that it is highly prone to electron capture.

            So, can we agree on the terms? How about an ECW mug from Frank’s store? 🙂 (should one of us be proven correct)

          • Warthog

            Well, I’m actually betting on Irving Langmuir, probably the premier experimental scientist of the early Twentieth Century. Given its hydride-forming capabilities, titanium is certainly a good candidate, but if tungsten works that is about the best material possible.

            Terms are acceptable.

        • Russell K

          Ether one of those is easily obtainable, the processing might be different from Nickel.

  • Anon2012_2014

    me356=Nonsense. I’m getting tired of this paper chase. Put up (open demo, open schematics) or shut-up. Same with Rossi. Why are we paying attention to people that release teasers? Are you happy with bait and switch? How about with misleading news headlines that appear at first glance to be worthy of your time but after reading the article you see it was a waste of your time. Put up or shut up me356.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Michael Faraday invented the electric generator in 1832. It was not until the 1880’s before electric generation plants started in the cities. By 1910, less than 20% of the home in the US were electrified.

      Similarly, the atom was first split in the 1930’s with the very first electric generation nuclear plant going on line in 1957, yet in 2017 (60 years later), only 19% of US electrical power is generated by nuclear plant. This is despite massive federal investment in the technology.

      What’s your rush?

      • Anon2012_2014

        Faraday didn’t hide what he was doing. He was a scientist. Neither did the early researchers in nuclear physics. They were scientists. me356 — I don’t know what to make of him (or Rossi) as they hide their science. It’s annoying. Apologize for them all you want. At least MFMP keeps it in the open. It’s better.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          I see. So ME356 and Rossi are ????? You might look at the intellectual property wars that took place during the fight for electrification. Edison and Tesla had big battles over technology. Much was done in secret.

          • psi2u2

            Thanks for keeping this real.

        • Axil Axil

          Leif Holmlid does science, Rossi and Me356 are inventors. If you are interested in LENR science, should read Holmlid’s papers. There are many of them.

          Here is his latest

          http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref007

          • Anon2012_2014

            Holmlid is a scientist. He does science and publishes. I am grateful for his efforts.

          • Axil Axil

            This brings up a burr under my saddle. Holmlid should be getting some kind of reaction for his work from many corners of the scientific community, but nothing is happening. Not even NASA is interested. His work gets no reaction let along recognition or even criticism.

            Making money is the only way for LENR to get any attention. Money always draws a reaction.

          • Bob Greenyer

            If the excess is conclusively demonstrated, then it is likely this is from LENR since me356 has a history or research into this field.

            We have offered to arrange before and after fuel/ash testing. That may or may not happen, in the short term, probably not.

      • LilyLover

        Internet enabled societies must progress faster than those of the Flinstone era.
        Can’t do; won’t do – is OK. Can do; won’t do – is not.
        Can do; but, won’t let you do – is immoral.
        Immorality upheld by “Law”, “Peer review”, “Patents”, “Banking”, “Military” and other bureaucratic parasites.
        Slowness rewards already rich (parasites); fast pace forces them to evolve in competence; and, devolves their “worthiness”; hence rush we must.
        Or, at least, hence the good must rush.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          Of course the internet progresses faster — it is a matter of the technology. Most internet “advances” are based on software systems that are based on generations (short years here) of technology. To develop something entirely new without the benefit of BIG$$ research monies takes more time. You must also realize that the whole internet thing is fueled by the advancement of computing technology.
          That is a “winner take all” approach where those with the biggest sales get to build the next multi-billion dollar production facility for the sub-sub-nano technology.

          Probably a more applicable example is the pace of the space race starting with Kennedy’s “Race to the Moon” speech. Still, with massive investment, often funding multiple competing paths, it took 10 years to get there.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            With internet, all the world’s info as at our fingertips (google+wikipedia), plus simulations and CAD tools can sometimes replace experiments. That should increase development speed significantly compared to the Apollo era. I think that was what Lily meant with ‘Internet enabled societies’.
            I also agree with Thomas, factually, but is a slightly different point.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Hot fusion was conclusively demonstrated on November 1, 1952 in the pacific ocean, and it took until XXXX before the first hot fusion reactor was

    • Ged

      ????

      Isn’t the entire point of MFMP openly testing his design this month aimed at precisely accomplishing that goal?

      • Anon2012_2014

        I will believe it when I see the test. This mystery waiting I have no interest in.

        • Bob Greenyer

          me too! And if the truth is not what we might otherwise want, at least we know.

          • Anon2012_2014

            Bob — you’re doing your best to progress the field with open science. I appreciate it. Thank you.

          • Bob Greenyer

            No probs, actually if something was conclusively proved soon, it would be a lot better for my personal finances!

            Hurry up already!

        • Ged

          But… Why are you commenting here then? The test is coming, you could either wait for it patiently, or prepare this commentary for if it is suspiciously delayed. You are just too early at the moment.

          • Anon2012_2014

            “But… Why are you commenting here then? ”

            I read ECW to see if anything new has come in LENR. I comment out of frustration with the slow pace of new information being released by Rossi and now me356.

        • psi2u2

          I think the mystery of waiting is fascinating in its own right.

          That doesn’t mean I don’t share your frustration over the elusive character of full and satisfying demonstration of LENR+. I do. But I still find the debate, discussion, and news to be highly entertaining and worth following on a regular basis.

          One reason I don’t read the comments that much on other sites is that the people posting at least some of them have already made up their minds that by not denouncing Rossi I am a dupe and an ignoramus, and I don’t care too much for loose flying ad hominems that catch a whole bunch of targets at once.

          Maybe I am an ignoramus, but if so I don’t need to be reminded by it every other posting by people who seem to prefer insults to discussion. These same people complain about being banned here, but from my observation of their verbal behaviors, they most likely brought it on themselves, and I am comfortable with the generally polite discussion that occurs here.

          Or, maybe I’m still comfortable waiting, because I see enough evidence still to think that perhaps Rossi is not the horrible man these people are making him out to be, that he has something, maybe very nearly what he says he has.

          I’ve been following this story since around 2011 and I haven’t decided yet. Some days I am more discouraged than others, because, believe me, the world needs LENR, and some days I do give up on Rossi. Just not every day.

          But meanwhile, to me, the waiting is fascinating still.

          Think of some of the things that are or have happened.

          New players step up to test, verify, and prove as best they can what they can. Nasa releases evidence of their long interest in the field. Behemoths in the corporate world file patents.

          Rossi sues for breach of contract after claimed 1 year test success. The largest and most powerful public relations agency in the world is turned on Rossi by his former partners.

          Online sleuths pour over trial documents and photos of the 1 year test site, finding trees cut down from excess heat and evidence of a second floor heat exchanger.

          Engineer48, with this exceptionally relevant training and experience, continues to speak up for Rossi and interpret the technical aspects of the evidence to show how Rossi’s design functioned.

          These events could be described in many ways, but boring they aren’t, at least to me.

          And who could ask for a more entertaining prospect than a front row seat with a direct connection to MFMP’s ongoing quest to open source the protocols for confirmation?

          With scientists like Dr. Suhas emerging in this field, you can bet something is happening, even if exactly what it is, has not exactly been made clear yet.

      • Rene

        Agreed. I am happy to see me356 letting MFMP do the 3rd party verification of his reactor. That is far better than Rossi wanting no one to see anything or having indipendent (sic) testing until grand marketing day – Waiting for Godot is boring.
        It is a bit sad that most of us placed our order intent with Rossi’s domestic e-cat (presently vaporware) six years ago, only to end up buying a me-cat. Rossi needs to let MFMP perform verification of his quarkettes.

        • Bob Greenyer

          We have offered some time back via a third party.

          • Stephen

            I would like to see that verification.

            I think when you are a person with ideas or have inventive mind it’s rarely an issue of money except where that money supports the development of your ideas. People like that are amazingly altruistic usually. But for sure you care about that idea, how it is perceived and how it will influence the world almost as much as you would do for a child. But as with all children there reaches a time when you have to let it go in to the world.

            When this technology is ready it’s important that innovation does not stop we will need many more innovators and I hope that those few today can inspire the next generation inventors by engaging them in a real and connected way.

            Perhaps in the past larger corporations were essential do develop and distribute a technology and perhaps there is still a very big need for that support even today. But in this Internet connected world LOS and open verification and sharing of knowledge in forums, blogs and special interest web sites like this one is hugely powerful and will only become more so in the future.

            Andrea Rossi has engage the connected world in his forum. I’m sure he sees it’s strength and that the world is developing in a way that embrace this approach.

            Maybe once the court case is over and any constraints regarding NDA’s are over or can be negotiated between involved parties more freely. It would be worth approaching again.

            Even a limited sharing of simple early devices could stimulate the field and an inspire a whole new future generation of world needed inventors.

          • psi2u2

            “in this internet connected world LOS and open verification…..etc. is hugely powerful and will only become more so in the future.”

            Well said.

          • Warthog

            “When this technology is ready it’s important that innovation does not
            stop we will need many more innovators….

            Why would innovation stop?? An even remotely believable verification and replication and innovation will explode.

          • Stephen

            You are probably right. Actually I’m very sure you are right. The technology is inspiring enough in itself.

            But the more that can be shared replicated and veirified safely openly and fairly in the internet and media especially by the main innovators of today the greater that inspiration for future inventors. They may not be able to share everything for what ever reason but what they can share and allow to be verified openly will certainly help.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Preview of Digital Acquisition interface for AURA test

            Thankyou to Brian Albiston for all his hard work!

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e117f699f46f5bef4cf1f10c6a3aacd8710a4cfb29df121be96c520b1fe06b86.png

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Nice. I would only use MJ or kWh for the “Total Excess” field. Otherwise, you might exceed the displayable maximum after a few hours.

          • GiveADogABone

            I am not entirely sure what I am looking at in respect of instantaneous or averaged/cumulative values :
            CoP = Energy Out/Energy In = m*cp*(Tout-Tin)/E
            The CoP can be instantaneous or averaged over varying periods of time.
            Cumulative power, cumulative mass flow and average temperature difference are needed to form an average CoP over a defined time period.

            1: Power Input (E) : PA1000
            The panel reports rate(Watt) and cumulative (Watt Hours)

            2: Mass Flow (m) :
            The Arlyn +Dymo are scaled in (g)
            Are the Arlyn and Dymo weighing measuring tank(s)?

            3: Temperature Difference : (Tout – Tin)
            Is that on the secondary circuit of the plate heat exchanger?

            4: Calorimetry :
            CoP : Instantaneous or averaged?
            Should Total Excess kJ be kJ/s? (Cumulative or rate)

          • Bob Greenyer

            We will make things clear in a video when things are set up.

            Bob

          • Axil Axil

            Quote from the MFMP test plan
            “MFMP will then measure the rate of cooling water going into the heat exchanger and the temperatures of the water in and out in order to determine heat output. If the steam does not fully condense, then the power output will read low.”

            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. Don’t your remember what Jed R taught us in the Rossi/IH test?

          • Ged

            Both methods can be done at once. What they are doing is correct, and it is easy to make sure flow is right (correct sized pipe and meter for the pump). This method will properly measure the heat lost in the exchanger, so steam issues are solved.

            The other advantage to flowing coolant is long term stability of the experiment. A static bath will quickly heat up and cooling potential will plumment, which means only a short experimental time is available, and potential for overheat damage is high. There are plenty of way around that too, but it can be done any time during the experiment only for a short burst, while constant flow means constant monitoring over long time periods.

            Their way is superior in the long run, and they have the heater for doing differential thermal analysis with a cooling flow.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            As far as I understood, they plan to collect the water in buckets which are eventually weighed. That would not require a flow meter. I guess they want to use the meter mainly for collecting live data. Weighing the water will allow corrections if necessary. The differential method would give no advantage since the heat capacity of water is well known.

          • Axil Axil

            For example, error is introduced if the scale is bad. The difference measurement system washes out error in all measuring devices where the error mechanism does not change.

            We could use salt water and the measurement would be insensitive to that change in heat capacity.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I doubt that their scale is „bad“, and even if so, this would be easy to determine by a simple test. And in which country one might expect that something else than water comes out of the tap?

          • Axil Axil

            I was illustrating a principle.

            The Lugano test would have worked with great accuracy if two identical alumina tubes would have been used: a dummy tube and a live system. When the same optical thermometer read the same temperature on both tubes, the difference in input power between the two tubes would define a valid COP no matter how inaccurate that single optical temperature sensor was.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I tend to agree regarding Lugano, although I think that a proper calibration of the used reactor would have been sufficient. But that was a completely different setup, not comparable to the current one.

          • Bob Greenyer

            The scale is seriously good!

          • Axil Axil

            How are you intending to prove that the scale has not been willfully modified to support scam and trickery that will be alleged after the test? Or will you just say “trust me”.

          • Ged

            Have a control bucket measured before and after, and that proves it–problem solved!

            Come on now, don’t feed into neurosis. People can claim anything they want with no support, and that does not make their claims valid. If trolls want to troll, they will always find a way, and absolutely nothing will stop them from making bs claims.

          • Axil Axil

            In Rossi’s last validation test with IH, Rossi cluttered up the test up with a boatload of irrelevant complications that are being used in the trial to undercut his credibility. The same goes from the Lugano test. The lesson to be drawn from this Rossi situation is to keep the test as simple as possible to protect the credibility of the testers.

          • Ged

            And what you are starting to do is demand the same, rolling too far and demanding prohibitively overly complex crud that detracts from instead of adds to the experiment. You keep bringing up Rossi, but you neglect to point out that the 1 year test was not designed like a scientific experiment, and neither was Lugano. Both did not follow the scientific method. All MFMP has to do is follow the method. You create boogiemen right now, but don’t then offer any useful solutions–but I crush your complaints with a simple response: just measure a control bucket! From what philosophy does that response come? The scientific method. Wowzers, who would have thought!

            Don’t focus on the specter of trolls or what people could bs about or not, focus on designing a proper scientific experiment taht can stand on its own in accordance with the scientific method. You have given great suggestions previously, but you are now taking it too far into detracting territory, but that is easy to come back from. Focus on the goal: proper scientific method designed experiment. That means controls and replications.

          • Axil Axil

            You have a valid point. I am suffering from physiological trauma from watching my friend Peter Gluck lose his health from battling to defeat the doubts about the Rossi test that have come from paid IH operatives. It is not only trolls that seek to undercut a given system; it is big money competitors who want to kill off the comparison and acquire their IP. This test is not only scientific in nature it is also commercial. It seems to me that MFMP should protect their integrity as well as the commensal interests of ME356 because they are connected in this test. We should protest any budding LENR developer from what their competitors can do to them. I remember Defkalion and how they were put out of business by competitors. I believe that is what Peter feared what would happen to Rossi. Please forgive me from suffering these battle scars and make allowances.

          • Ged

            I am very saddened to hear that is happening to Peter Gluck. He is a good man who has suffered so much, I hope he recovers soon.

            I also apologize for coming on so strongly in the above. I often crack the whip far too hard. You have made so many major contributions to this test and the field of LENR as a whole. Thank you for all your work, and for persevering despite the terrible things that have happened.

          • This fund rising campaign has nothing to do with IH.

          • Steve Swatman

            I might be wrong, but if Godes only owns 5% of Brillouin energy and the patents and IH is the main owner, is it not really IH looking for investment?

          • Bob Greenyer

            We have two scales.

            We will have known weights – like a coin and a litre of water.

            At least the very expensive scale is calibrated.

            Continuous recording

          • Ged

            If the scale was bad, it would affect both experimental and control measurements! This is called a systematic error, and will Not affect the results gained by comparing controls to experiments what so ever. This is why science has controls that undergo all the same measurement steps so that all systematic errors and biases are corrected for.

            Their procedure is far superior to just a static water tank. Flow calorimetry is better than bomb calorimetry in both sensitivity and lower error.

          • Gerard McEk

            In principle you are right Axil, it would be an accurate method. But isn’t the flow rate meter an instrument to determine the water volume per time unit? The bucket, they want to use also is another.
            To determine an ‘identical volume’ you still need some kind of instrument, so I do not fully understand your remark.
            You seem to say that it is easier to determine the energy of both input and output than the power input and output. Correct?

          • Axil Axil

            I have been watching these LENR systems tests for years and the criticisms of these tests by the trolls are fiendishly imaginative. The ways that these trolls can disparage a flow meter is hard to anticipate. If we fill a bucket, and we fill it again, it is recognized by everybody that the volume of water held by that bucket is the same on each filling. You don’t need to prove that the amount of water in the fillings of that bucket is the same.

            Remember that the trolls are going to claim scam and trickery. They will allege sleight of hand and willful intent to deceive. To defeat this chicanery at the very beginning, remove all possible complications that could possibly be used by the trolls to undercut the credibility of the test in the test design. From the experience from past tests, the flow meter has been attacked many times in discrediting these over unity tests.

            For example, in the latest Rossi test, there was a claim that the flow meter was half fill due to its placement in the water circuit and the volume of water moved through that flow meter was invalidly measured by a very substantial amount with the intent to show no over unity was achieved.

          • Ged

            That is a beautifully comprehensive interface, much clearer than earlier designs. I agree with Andreas below too, kJ will get filled up fast at that digit size.

  • Anon2012_2014

    me356=Nonsense. I’m getting tired of this paper chase. Put up (open demo, open schematics) or shut-up. Same with Rossi. Why are we paying attention to people that release teasers? Are you happy with bait and switch? How about with misleading news headlines that appear at first glance to be worthy of your time but after reading the article you see it was a waste of your time. Put up or shut up me356.

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Michael Faraday invented the electric generator in 1832. It was not until the 1880’s before electric generation plants started in the cities. By 1910, less than 20% of the home in the US were electrified.

      Similarly, the atom was first split in the 1930’s with the very first electric generation nuclear plant going on line in 1957, yet in 2017 (60 years later), only 19% of US electrical power is generated by nuclear plant. This is despite massive federal investment in the technology.

      What’s your rush?

      • Anon2012_2014

        Faraday didn’t hide what he was doing. He was a scientist. Neither did the early researchers in nuclear physics. They were scientists. me356 — I don’t know what to make of him (or Rossi) as they hide their science. It’s annoying. Apologize for them all you want. At least MFMP keeps it in the open. It’s better.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          I see. So ME356 and Rossi are ????? You might look at the intellectual property wars that took place during the fight for electrification. Edison and Tesla had big battles over technology. Much was done in secret.

          • psi2u2

            Thanks for keeping this real.

        • Axil Axil

          Leif Holmlid does science, Rossi and Me356 are inventors. If you are interested in LENR science, should read Holmlid’s papers. There are many of them.

          Here is his latest

          http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0169895#pone.0169895.ref007

          • Anon2012_2014

            Holmlid is a scientist. He does science and publishes. I am grateful for his efforts.

          • Axil Axil

            This brings up a burr under my saddle. Holmlid should be getting some kind of reaction for his work from many corners of the scientific community, but nothing is happening. Not even NASA is interested. His work gets no reaction let along recognition or even criticism.

            Making money is the only way for LENR to get any attention. Money always draws a reaction.

      • LilyLover

        Internet enabled societies must progress faster than those of the Flinstone era.
        Can’t do; won’t do – is OK. Can do; won’t do – is not.
        Can do; but, won’t let you do – is immoral.
        Immorality upheld by “Law”, “Peer review”, “Patents”, “Banking”, “Military” and other bureaucratic parasites.
        Slowness rewards already rich (parasites); fast pace forces them to evolve in competence; and, devolves their “worthiness”; hence rush we must.
        Or, at least, hence the good must rush.

        • Thomas Kaminski

          Of course the internet progresses faster — it is a matter of the technology. Most internet “advances” are based on software systems that are based on generations (short years here) of technology. To develop something entirely new without the benefit of BIG$$ research monies takes more time. You must also realize that the whole internet thing is fueled by the advancement of computing technology.
          That is a “winner take all” approach where those with the biggest sales get to build the next multi-billion dollar production facility for the sub-sub-nano technology.

          Probably a more applicable example is the pace of the space race starting with Kennedy’s “Race to the Moon” speech. Still, with massive investment, often funding multiple competing paths, it took 10 years to get there.

          • Pekka Janhunen

            With internet, all the world’s info as at our fingertips (google+wikipedia), plus simulations and CAD tools can sometimes replace experiments. That should increase development speed significantly compared to the Apollo era. I think that was what Lily meant with ‘Internet enabled societies’.
            I also agree with Thomas, factually, but is a slightly different point.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Hot fusion was conclusively demonstrated on November 1, 1952 in the pacific ocean, and it took until XXXX before the first hot fusion reactor was, errr…

        • Russell K
          • Ged

            Making plasma is easy enough. The Germans did that in 2015 with their version. Don’t be fooled; they are not making energy with this thing any time soon if ever (they don’t even have the magnets installed yet that they need for high enough temp plasma!), just a lot of hype that forgets even recent history.

      • CWatters

        Faraday typically published full details of his experiments immediately after his discoveries were made. He did so in sufficient detail to allow replication.

    • Ged

      ????

      Isn’t the entire point of MFMP openly testing his design this month aimed at precisely accomplishing that goal?

      • Anon2012_2014

        I will believe it when I see the test. This mystery waiting I have no interest in.

        • Bob Greenyer

          me too! And if the truth is not what we might otherwise want, at least we know.

          • Anon2012_2014

            Bob — you’re doing your best to progress the field with open science. I appreciate it. Thank you.

          • Bob Greenyer

            No probs, actually if something was conclusively proved soon, it would be a lot better for my personal finances!

            Hurry up already!

        • Ged

          But… Why are you commenting here then? The test is coming, you could either wait for it patiently, or prepare this commentary for if it is suspiciously delayed. You are just too early at the moment.

          • Anon2012_2014

            “But… Why are you commenting here then? ”

            I read ECW to see if anything new has come in LENR. I comment out of frustration with the slow pace of new information being released by Rossi and now me356.

        • psi2u2

          I think the mystery of waiting is fascinating in its own right.

          That doesn’t mean I don’t share your frustration over the elusive character of full and satisfying demonstration of LENR+. I do. But I still find the debate, discussion, and news to be highly entertaining and worth following on a regular basis.

          One reason I don’t read the comments that much on other sites is that the people posting at least some of them have already made up their minds that by not denouncing Rossi I am a dupe and an ignoramus, and I don’t care too much for loose flying ad hominems that catch a whole bunch of targets at once.

          Maybe I am an ignoramus, but if so I don’t need to be reminded by it every other posting by people who seem to prefer insults to discussion. These same people complain about being banned here, but from my observation of their verbal behaviors, they most likely brought it on themselves, and I am comfortable with the generally polite discussion that occurs here.

          Or, maybe I’m still comfortable waiting, because I see enough evidence still to think that perhaps Rossi is not the horrible man these people are making him out to be, that he has something, maybe very nearly what he says he has.

          I’ve been following this story since around 2011 and I haven’t decided yet. Some days I am more discouraged than others, because, believe me, the world needs LENR, and some days I do give up on Rossi. Just not every day.

          But meanwhile, to me, the waiting is fascinating still.

          Think of some of the things that are or have happened.

          New players step up to test, verify, and prove as best they can what they can. Nasa releases evidence of their long interest in the field. Behemoths in the corporate world file patents.

          Rossi sues for breach of contract after claimed 1 year test success. The largest and most powerful public relations agency in the world is turned on Rossi by his former partners.

          Online sleuths pour over trial documents and photos of the 1 year test site, finding trees cut down from excess heat and evidence of a second floor heat exchanger.

          Engineer48, with this exceptionally relevant training and experience, continues to speak up for Rossi and interpret the technical aspects of the evidence to show how Rossi’s design functioned.

          These events could be described in many ways, but boring they aren’t, at least to me.

          And who could ask for a more entertaining prospect than a front row seat with a direct connection to MFMP’s ongoing quest to open source the protocols for confirmation?

          With scientists like Dr. Suhas emerging in this field, you can bet something is happening, even if exactly what it is, has not exactly been made clear yet.

      • Rene

        Agreed. I am happy to see me356 letting MFMP do the 3rd party verification of his reactor. That is far better than Rossi wanting no one to see anything or having indipendent (sic) testing until grand marketing day – Waiting for Godot is boring.
        It is a bit sad that most of us placed our order intent with Rossi’s domestic e-cat (presently vaporware) six years ago, only to end up buying a me-cat. Rossi needs to let MFMP perform verification of his quarkettes.

        • Bob Greenyer

          We have offered some time back via a third party.

          • Stephen

            I would like to see that verification.

            I think when you are a person with ideas or have inventive mind it’s rarely an issue of money except where that money supports the development of your ideas. In my experience people like that are amazingly altruistic but for sure they care a lot about that idea, how it is perceived and how it will influence the world almost as much as you would do for a child. But as with all children there reaches a time when you have to let it go in to the world.

            When this technology is ready it’s important that innovation does not stop we will need many more innovators and I hope that those few with experience and knowledge today can inspire the next generation inventors by engaging them in a real and connected way.

            Perhaps in the past larger corporations were essential do develop and distribute a technology and perhaps there is still a very big need for that support even today. But in this Internet connected world LOS and open verification and sharing of knowledge in forums, blogs and special interest web sites like this one is hugely powerful and will only become more so in the future.

            Andrea Rossi has engage the connected world in his forum. I’m sure he sees it’s strength and that the world is developing in a way that embrace this approach.

            Maybe once the court case is over and any constraints regarding NDA’s are over or can be negotiated between involved parties more freely. It would be worth approaching again.

            Even a limited sharing of simple early devices could stimulate the field and an inspire a whole new future generation of inventors.

            I think the future world needs that.

          • psi2u2

            “in this internet connected world LOS and open verification…..etc. is hugely powerful and will only become more so in the future.”

            Well said.

          • Warthog

            “When this technology is ready it’s important that innovation does not
            stop we will need many more innovators….

            Why would innovation stop?? An even remotely believable verification and replication and innovation will explode.

          • Stephen

            You are probably right. Actually I’m very sure you are right. The technology is inspiring enough in itself.

            But the more that can be shared replicated and veirified safely openly and fairly in the internet and media especially by the main innovators of today the greater that inspiration for future inventors. They may not be able to share everything for what ever reason but what they can share and allow to be verified openly will certainly help.

    • Gerd

      Can you tell me where me356 is releasing any teasers? All of the humbug is caused by others that are trying to share everything that me told them. As far as I know me is not claming absolutely anything for long time.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Our timetable is weeks. This is thanks to the generosity of the crowd and the very hard work of team members.

  • HAL9000

    Tension is building… MFMP’s vetting of LENR candidates is generating more heat than a runaway Rossi reactor! Members are cracking under the pressure! Venture capitalists are circling high above; “Hey, we all love science but just imagine the GOOD you could do with a few billion!” Who will be the winner? Check with e-Cat World for the next exciting development!

    • Ged

      A bit bored today, eh?

      • HAL9000

        To the contrary. It is exciting to see MFMP mount an aggressive, orderly search for evidence of LENR activity. Combo a LENR source with an array of emDrives and we might have a formidable interplanetary drive capable of reaching Mars in less than a week (Elon, are you listening?).

  • Bob Greenyer

    Bob Higgins about to start next live test…

    In his own words

    “I have started the 32 hour calibration sequence using the reactor tube that I will be filling with fuel on Wednesday (5/3) or Thursday 5/4) for the next fueled run. I am experimenting with the fuel preparation now. The plan is to etch the Hunter AH50 Ni powder in 15% concentrated HCl (by mass, about 10°Baume’) at 50°C in ultrasound. Then the powder will be rinsed (multiple times) in degassed H2O, drained, and frozen in an attempt to fracture the particles. Following that, the powder will be heated and vacuum dried. It will be mixed with 10% LiAlH4 as the fuel. The protocol will include heating to 1200°C and at some point reducing the pressure to see if Li boiling can be stimulated.

    The data for the calibration and this experiment will go into this Google Drive folder:

    https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5Pc25a4cOM2VDB0NkRqSDhkWDg?usp=sharinghttps://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/127073de59288e32821792cfa3a25eadb8fc80f73f74a2cc7fa4c9417bdddec4.png

    • Stephen

      I must admit I’m having trouble keeping up with everything at the moment. Things are moving so fast on so many fronts. That’s a very good sign though I think.

      I’m wondering if the fuel catalyst mixture is always tightly packed in the Nickel particle based LENR experiments such as the recent ones by Bob Higgins?

      Could it be beneficial for the mixture to be much more loosely packed?

      If the heat is initially being radiated from the Nickel particles as blackbody/grey body radiation in these set ups then perhaps the heat observed externally is only the radiated heat from the overall external surface. Perhaps in closely packed fuel it is difficult to see any Heat from particles caused by LENR as adjacent particles are also radiating and absorb heat from each other.

      With loosely packed fuel perhaps more of the LENR heat would be radiated out of the system.

      I find the configuration of the ECat interesting in this regard as the flat thin radiating surfaces seem to be designed to optimize the external surface to the surrounding medium. Which makes sense if what I speculated above is true. Also perhaps the physical size of the ECat reactor is defined by the requirements of the radiating surface.

      Just for clarification I should say the overall external radiating surface is different than the sum of surface area of the particles which should perhaps be optimized to adsorbe as much hydrogen as possible. Possibly at as high a rate as possible.

      (Note I suppose that other devices similar to QuarkX could be using a slightly different principle for the heat source it self)

  • Bob Greenyer

    Bob Higgins about to start next live test…

    In his own words

    “I have started the 32 hour calibration sequence using the reactor tube that I will be filling with fuel on Wednesday (5/3) or Thursday 5/4) for the next fueled run. I am experimenting with the fuel preparation now. The plan is to etch the Hunter AH50 Ni powder in 15% concentrated HCl (by mass, about 10°Baume’) at 50°C in ultrasound. Then the powder will be rinsed (multiple times) in degassed H2O, drained, and frozen in an attempt to fracture the particles. Following that, the powder will be heated and vacuum dried. It will be mixed with 10% LiAlH4 as the fuel. The protocol will include heating to 1200°C and at some point reducing the pressure to see if Li boiling can be stimulated.

    The data for the calibration and this experiment will go into this Google Drive folder:

    https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B5Pc25a4cOM2VDB0NkRqSDhkWDg?usp=sharinghttps://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/127073de59288e32821792cfa3a25eadb8fc80f73f74a2cc7fa4c9417bdddec4.png

    • Stephen

      I must admit I’m having trouble keeping up with everything at the moment. Things are moving so fast on so many fronts. That’s a very good sign though I think.

      I’m wondering if the fuel catalyst mixture is always tightly packed in the Nickel particle based LENR experiments such as the recent ones by Bob Higgins?

      Could it be beneficial for the mixture to be much more loosely packed?

      If the heat is initially being radiated from the Nickel particles as blackbody/grey body radiation in these set ups then perhaps the heat observed externally is only the radiated heat from the overall external surface. Perhaps in closely packed fuel it is difficult to see any Heat from particles caused by LENR as adjacent particles are also radiating and absorb heat from each other. Especially if there is additional heat coming from external sources and stimulation.

      With loosely packed fuel perhaps more of the LENR stimulated heat would be radiated out of the system.

      This could be particularly relevant maybe if the optimum stimulating temperature is lower than the temperature generated by LENR it self. And perhaps as a consequence if radiant thermal stimulation of adjacent particles is better served if they are slightly separated.

      I find the configuration of the ECat interesting in this regard as the flat thin radiating surfaces seem to be designed to optimize the external surface of the Nickel powder layer to the thermal conducting layers and then ultimately to the surrounding medium. Which makes sense if what I speculated above is true. Also perhaps the physical size of the ECat reactor is defined by the size requirements of the radiating surface.

      Just for clarification I should say the overall external radiating surface is different than the sum of surface area of the Nickel powder particles which it seems should perhaps be optimized to adsorbe as much hydrogen as possible. Possibly at as high a rate as possible. I suppose that could be important if the heat is being generated from either some kind of exothermic sorption process of the Hydrogen or from the LENR processing of the Hydrogen itself.

      Even if there are additional sources of heat due to heating of lead shielding etc by x-rays or particles from LENR+ or Li7 + H to 2 alpha interactions perhaps the process above is part of the story.

      (Note I suppose that other devices similar to QuarkX could be using a slightly different principle for the heat source may be not directly from the Nickel)

    • Stephen Harrison

      Perhaps seeing as me356 isn’t using nickel anymore he might give Bob Higgins a few hints as to whether he’s heading in the right direction.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Testing Team

    Ryan Hunt
    Brian Albiston
    Alan Goldwater

    • Since we’re on the team do we get jersey numbers?

      Or better yet, a starting date so we can plan our time?

      • Bob Greenyer

        The live document is already running…

        https://goo.gl/NuuoJy

        Saddle up

        • Mats002
          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes. Good that he too is managing expectations.

            People need to consider being more courteous in the interests of the wider goals here.

          • Mats002

            Agree.

        • Ged

          Let’s get this rodeo on the road!

        • NotMe356

          32 Gauge Ni200 wire X 200 ft around alumina spindle annealed for twenty cycles alternating between hydrogen absorption and vacuum off gasing, positively charged during active run with microwave frequency RF atomic hydrogen generation producing negative clusters bombarding hydrogen loaded wire surface with protons. “Free” kinetic-thermal energy conversion from bombardment plus fusion of ultra dense hydrogen “clusters” initiated by pressure waves as protons hammer through the lattice with 100x expected energy. Tune size and frequency of RF antenna element to resonator cavity for maximum H2 ionization and electron cluster formation at very low input. Heating resistor required only initially for warm up. Tight seal against atmosphere required. Added lithium = reactor corroding overkill if optimized.

          The above is all fake, false, and made up… or not.

          Ask me356.

          • Ged

            Nice stream of buzz phrases. Why do you feel the need to hide behind sockpuppets? What’s so scary to you about MFMP testing Me365’s box?

    • Gerard McEk

      Very interesting times ahead, Bob!
      Just some questions about the AURA:
      1. Black box: Does it mean that you will not be able to inspect the outside of the reactor? Will you be able to take pictures?
      2. ME356 seems to deliver the box with the reactor and the heat exchanger. Will you be allowed to look inside that box? Will you measure the weight of that box or of the reactor?
      3. I assume you will only be allowed to measure voltages, powers, currents and their shapes to the mains side of the controller?
      4. Will you also measure out of the normal performances like the situation at a COP of 40?
      5. Will you be able to detect muons, neutrons and other radiation also near the reactor?

      What you are going to do may change the world. I wish the four of you all the brains to do this perfectly and that it does not leave any doubt in the results. Good luck!

      • Bob Greenyer

        1. We will be able to take pictures, of basically a box.
        2. No we cannot look inside. We can weigh it though.
        3. Yes
        4. I doubt we will see 40 – me356 did claim in communications that a previous iteration was capable of that in very short bursts, but we do not know how that was determined or if this reactor will be able to handle it. I feel that it is more imporant that we a) see if it is over unity. b) see if we can run it long enough to discount chemical.
        5. We will have a range of analogue and digital radiation monitoring devices.

        This is only possible because of the crowds support and the willingness of a claimant

      • artefact
    • Eddie H.

      Does it bother you in the least that you will only be testing a black box? We’ve had enough tests of mystery boxes in the past several years. They are a consistent sign of misdirection.

      • Ged

        Something about this scares you, so you hide behind puppets. Nothing to be afraid of about testing a box. A thorough test will find out all the details on its operational parameters, and that is all that matters. You’ll soon have all the data you could ever want, why be so afraid?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Sometimes you take what you can get.

        We have had an open offer to AR to test a black box on his site or one of ours since late 2012 – no movement on that, so this is a big improvement.

        In the case of ECCO, it is not so constrained.

  • Bob Greenyer

    AURA testing team

    Ryan Hunt
    Brian Albiston
    Alan Goldwater
    Bob Greenyer

    and…

    YOU!

    • Since we’re on the team do we get jersey numbers?

      Or better yet, a starting date so we can plan our time?

      • Bob Greenyer

        The live document is already running…

        https://goo.gl/NuuoJy

        Saddle up

        • Mats002
          • Bob Greenyer

            Yes. Good that he too is managing expectations.

            People need to consider being more courteous in the interests of the wider goals here.

          • Mats002

            Agree.

        • Ged

          Let’s get this rodeo on the road!

        • NotMe356

          32 Gauge Ni200 wire X 200 ft around alumina spindle annealed for twenty cycles alternating between hydrogen absorption and vacuum off gasing, positively charged during active run with microwave frequency RF atomic hydrogen generation producing negative clusters bombarding hydrogen loaded wire surface with protons. “Free” kinetic-thermal energy conversion from bombardment plus fusion of ultra dense hydrogen “clusters” initiated by pressure waves as protons hammer through the lattice with 100x expected energy. Tune size and frequency of RF antenna element to resonator cavity for maximum H2 ionization and electron cluster formation at very low input. Heating resistor required only initially for warm up. Tight seal against atmosphere required. Added lithium = reactor corroding overkill if optimized.

          The above is all fake, false, and made up… or not.

          Ask me356.

          • Ged

            Nice stream of buzz phrases. Why do you feel the need to hide behind sockpuppets? What’s so scary to you about MFMP testing Me365’s box?

    • Gerard McEk

      Very interesting times ahead, Bob!
      Just some questions about the AURA:
      1. Black box: Does it mean that you will not be able to inspect the outside of the reactor? Will you be able to take pictures?
      2. ME356 seems to deliver the box with the reactor and the heat exchanger. Will you be allowed to look inside that box? Will you measure the weight of that box or of the reactor?
      3. I assume you will only be allowed to measure voltages, powers, currents and their shapes to the mains side of the controller?
      4. Will you also measure out of the normal performances like the situation at a COP of 40?
      5. Will you be able to detect muons, neutrons and other radiation also near the reactor?

      What you are going to do may change the world. I wish the four of you all the brains to do this perfectly and that it does not leave any doubt in the results. Good luck!

      • Bob Greenyer

        1. We will be able to take pictures, of basically a box.
        2. No we cannot look inside. We can weigh it though.
        3. Yes
        4. I doubt we will see 40 – me356 did claim in communications that a previous iteration was capable of that in very short bursts, but we do not know how that was determined or if this reactor will be able to handle it. I feel that it is more imporant that we a) see if it is over unity. b) see if we can run it long enough to discount chemical.
        5. We will have a range of analogue and digital radiation monitoring devices.

        This is only possible because of the crowds support and the willingness of a claimant

    • Eddie H.

      Does it bother you in the least that you will only be testing a black box? We’ve had enough tests of mystery boxes in the past several years. They are a consistent sign of misdirection.

      • HAP9000

        Good point: should Me356’s “black box” pass an “over unity” test with flying colors, what is the take-away, other than providing an endorsement for a curiously useful black box? If proof of transmutation activity could be incorporated into a secure testing protocol, then we should have grounds to declare a LENR victory. Third party replication is another story, however, absent some cooperation by Me356.

        • Bob Greenyer

          If the excess is conclusively demonstrated, then it is likely this is from LENR since me356 has a history or research into this field.

          We have offered to arrange before and after fuel/ash testing. That may or may not happen, in the short term, probably not.

      • Ged

        Something about this scares you, so you hide behind puppets. Nothing to be afraid of about testing a box. A thorough test will find out all the details on its operational parameters, and that is all that matters. You’ll soon have all the data you could ever want, why be so afraid?

      • Bob Greenyer

        Sometimes you take what you can get.

        We have had an open offer to AR to test a black box on his site or one of ours since late 2012 – no movement on that, so this is a big improvement.

        In the case of ECCO, it is not so constrained.

  • Warthog

    “me356 is being secretive, withholding information about both his/her
    identity and specifics of the replication process. This is the OPPOSITE
    of open.”

    He is withholding said information until after replication/verification. is done. If you will recall, this is exactly what the pathological skeptics excoriated Pons and Fleischmann for NOT doing.

  • georgehants

    If we care about having a meaningful world in which to lead
    meaningful lives then we should all try harder to reinvest our
    environments with the meaning that belligerent materialism has sucked
    out of them.
    Alan Moore

  • georgehants

    If we care about having a meaningful world in which to lead
    meaningful lives then we should all try harder to reinvest our
    environments with the meaning that belligerent materialism has sucked
    out of them.
    Alan Moore

  • Josh G

    Me356 posted the following yesterday at LENR forum:

    Dear LENR readers,

    I am sorry for not responding for long time. If you want to succeed, it always costs you something. I am dedicating all of my time to allow what I think is the best.

    First from all, I would like to put things right. Important key points that were written about my work or what I have said were not always true. This also happened due to lack of detailed information from my side. Secondly – there is misinterpretation in many areas.

    Some claims that were written for months as my were not written by me. Fortunately major part of the claims are usually right.
    Again, this problem is happening, because I am often deliberately not giving a specific and clear answers to others that are asking me – I don’t want to do nor I have time to do so.

    I have taken the route of not being open due to few main reasons:
    This work is not done as hobby anymore.

    One that is in the same position as I am, will not earn anything real by this, but unfortunately loose. Even if some can help, cons are significantly dominant.

    I have spend milions on the research and expecting some return reward.

    There is no insurance, that the world will get better if the knowledge will be public with no device, that can prove to be usefull. Are you able to guarantee that it can’t cause any very bad scenarios sooner?
    Only competition will profit in reality from the knowledge – there is already enough competitors. Nobody else will create units for similar purpose in the mass scale.

    Theoretical papers will not help you with heating your building.

    From the beginning of the research:

    I have never wanted anything from anyone.
    I never wanted to convince anybody.
    I am not teasing or announcing anything.
    I have never given any specific date.

    If you don’t believe, you can completely ignore any related posts.

    If one believe, it is enough. And one can do everything. Blessed are those who have not seen and believed.

    Thank you for the support.

    • hhiram

      “I have spend milions on the research and expecting some return reward”

      There it is. I’ve been saying this for months. The secrecy is because me356 turned into Rossi. As soon as it looked like the technology could actually work, it instantly became all about making money – even though me356 is obviously already rich.

      We should never have expected a selfless hero working for the betterment of humanity.

      Having said this, the post is vague and a bit goofy towards the end – it sounds like a teenager trying to be mysterious. So I wouldn’t be surprised if we found out later that this is not an authentic post.

      • Jon Fredricks

        Truth always falls to money. When will someone finally replicate the E-Cat and tell everyone how to do the same? This me356 user sure did trick all of us.

        • Ged

          Sockpuppetting isn’t going to trick us though. Care to make a Disqus and actually speak in the open instead of shill behind multiple names?

  • Josh G

    Me356 posted the following yesterday at LENR forum:

    Dear LENR readers,

    I am sorry for not responding for long time. If you want to succeed, it always costs you something. I am dedicating all of my time to allow what I think is the best.

    First from all, I would like to put things right. Important key points that were written about my work or what I have said were not always true. This also happened due to lack of detailed information from my side. Secondly – there is misinterpretation in many areas.

    Some claims that were written for months as my were not written by me. Fortunately major part of the claims are usually right.
    Again, this problem is happening, because I am often deliberately not giving a specific and clear answers to others that are asking me – I don’t want to do nor I have time to do so.

    I have taken the route of not being open due to few main reasons:
    This work is not done as hobby anymore.

    One that is in the same position as I am, will not earn anything real by this, but unfortunately loose. Even if some can help, cons are significantly dominant.

    I have spend milions on the research and expecting some return reward.

    There is no insurance, that the world will get better if the knowledge will be public with no device, that can prove to be usefull. Are you able to guarantee that it can’t cause any very bad scenarios sooner?
    Only competition will profit in reality from the knowledge – there is already enough competitors. Nobody else will create units for similar purpose in the mass scale.

    Theoretical papers will not help you with heating your building.

    From the beginning of the research:

    I have never wanted anything from anyone.
    I never wanted to convince anybody.
    I am not teasing or announcing anything.
    I have never given any specific date.

    If you don’t believe, you can completely ignore any related posts.

    If one believe, it is enough. And one can do everything. Blessed are those who have not seen and believed.

    Thank you for the support.

    • hhiram

      “I have spend milions on the research and expecting some return reward”

      There it is. I’ve been saying this for months. The secrecy is because me356 turned into Rossi. As soon as it looked like the technology could actually work, it instantly became all about making money – even though me356 is obviously already rich.

      We should never have expected a selfless hero working for the betterment of humanity.

      Having said this, the post is vague and a bit goofy towards the end – it sounds like a teenager trying to be mysterious. So I wouldn’t be surprised if we found out later that this is not an authentic post.

      • Jon Fredricks

        Truth always falls to money. When will someone finally replicate the E-Cat and tell everyone how to do the same? This me356 user sure did trick all of us.

        • Ged

          Sockpuppetting isn’t going to trick us though. Care to make a Disqus and actually speak in the open instead of shill behind multiple names?

    • HAL9000

      In his latest post on LENR Forum Me356 (as cited here by Josh G) implores us to “completely ignore” his posts. Wish granted.

      • Ged

        And no one cared :). So long you!

  • Bob Greenyer

    HOMO & ECCO – Arranging suitable sample analysis

    Recording of a discussion with analysis expert at Masaryk University Brno, Czech to arrange testing of before and after samples from both HOMO (Alexander Parkhomov) and ECCO (Suhas Ralkar) research.

    https://soundcloud.com/user-554048314/homo-ecco-arranging-suitable-sample-analysis

    Depending on the sample form/scale, various approaches were advised…

    SIMS
    XPS
    MALDI

    If you have thoughts on what we might want to see and if these approaches would give us the right feedback, don’t hold back.

  • Bob Greenyer

    HOMO & ECCO – Arranging suitable sample analysis

    Recording of a discussion with analysis expert at Masaryk University Brno, Czech to arrange testing of before and after samples from both HOMO (Alexander Parkhomov) and ECCO (Suhas Ralkar) research.

    https://soundcloud.com/user-554048314/homo-ecco-arranging-suitable-sample-analysis

    Depending on the sample form/scale, various approaches were advised…

    SIMS
    XPS
    MALDI

    If you have thoughts on what we might want to see and if these approaches would give us the right feedback, don’t hold back.

  • Axil Axil

    It occurred to me that the stated reason for the delay on the production of the QuarkX waiting on the testing to get to sigma 5 quality level is a canard on the part of Rossi to conceal his plan to use IH money gained from the lawsuit to fund his robotic factory. He would like to keep total control of the production of the QuarkX rather than get construction funds for his factory from the moneyed partners who would want primary control of the E-Cat market.

    EM356 does not need a sigma 5 quality standard on his reactor before he puts it on the market so why should Rossi?

    Rossi’s tigers never got to sigma 5 and they were on sale to MP according to Rossi.

    I predict that Rossi will keep the sigma at 4 until he gets the IH money from the court suit. It is my guess that Rossi might want to keep his true motives secret from his supporters so he can maintain his image.

    • Chapman

      All very good points. No arguments from me.

      Just one additional thought:

      Rossi may be motivated by patent considerations. Given the current field of persons chasing, and duplicating, his research, he may well be preparing an all-inclusive and comprehensive patent application. Such an application needs to include a full disclosure of all aspects of his device construction and function, and be a complete step-by-step outline of how to reproduce the device in any competent lab. The sigma 5 confidence is just a safety margin, because once the application is published ALL his secrets are exposed. He will only get one shot to secure his absolute ownership of the entire scope of his research. A half-assed submission that is not guaranteed to be fully reproducible may not result in an approval, and his current pole-position in this race will be forfeit.

      There are just too many folks sniffing at his tracks and sneaking up on him from behind. He has reached a classic put-up-or-shut-up moment. Legally, he needs to mark his territory like a hound, and disclose all his secrets in order to secure his ownership of them.

      So I anticipate that we are soon going to be collectively awed by a new Patent application that answers all our questions.

      I also predict that such an application will be made under the name of a whole new entity. Not Rossi, as an individual, and not Leonardo.

      I suspect Dr. Rossi has been a busy boy…

      • AdrianAshfield

        Rossi state earlier he was working on hundreds of patent applications.
        It us also worth keeping in mind the old saw. “A patent is valueless until it has been tested in court.”
        The only thing certain is that lawyers will be employed for many years.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Well, Rossi has never claimed how well the 1MW plant works. (he always quotes in terms of others tests). You can’t find a quote where Rossi himself claims high COP.

      If the 1MW plant produced the power that metering tests showed then VERY little effort would be required to sell such plants for any heat hungry industry. In other words, I don’t really see the lawsuit or future production of such plants being held up by Rossi’s ability to raise money. A few working 1MW plants and Rossi would have massive amounts of money and investment chasing him.

      So I not sold on Rossi “waiting” for IH money, and such court cases tend to drag on for 5-7 years – often even longer. So I don’t think Rossi (who had experience with lawsuits) is going to wait for the IH issues to be resolved. The only real issue I can think that would hold up production of said plants is lack of COP.

      I believe that Rossi has LENR working, but high COP outputs remain in doubt. And this includes the Quark which may be far from ready for any kind of industrial use at this point in time.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • GiveADogABone

      Just to give Axil, Me356 and Chapman a taste of what awaits in Health & Safety product approval. If anyone says nuclear, another torrent of approvals will be needed. The process costs serious money and takes years. A tester question, ‘How can you demonstrate that the AURA is immune to steam explosions caused by water leaks close to the core at 1500C?’ :-

      http://www.hse.gov.uk/pressure-systems/index.htm
      Pressure systems
      Pressure systems can range from steam-generating commercial coffee machines to large boilers. When using pressure systems every employer or self-employed person has a duty to provide a safe workplace and safe work equipment. Designers, manufacturers, suppliers, installers, users and owners have additional health and safety duties.

      About pressure systems
      The main regulations covering pressure equipment and pressure systems are the Pressure Equipment Regulations 1999 (PER) and the Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000 (PSSR).

      Examples of pressure systems and equipment are:
      boilers and steam heating systems
      pressurised process plant and piping
      compressed air systems (fixed and portable)
      pressure cookers, autoclaves and retorts
      heat exchangers and refrigeration plant
      valves, steam traps and filters
      pipework and hoses
      pressure gauges and level indicators

      Principal causes of pressure-related incidents are:
      poor equipment and/or system design
      poor installation
      poor maintenance of equipment
      inadequate repairs or modifications
      an unsafe system of work
      operator error, poor training/supervision

      The main hazards from pressure are:
      impact from the blast of an explosion or release of compressed liquid or gas
      impact from parts of equipment that fail or any flying debris
      contact with the released liquid or gas, such as steam
      fire resulting from the escape of flammable liquids or gases

      • LENRISHERE

        Perhaps the biggest issue is the safety of the LENR community. With Rossi being exposed as a pathological liar about certain issues such as the relationship with Johnson Mathey, we don’t need another scandal. The travesty is that a so called open organization is cooperating with such a secretive person who is likely untrustworthy.

        • Omega Z

          he he he, You’re funny.
          I’m assuming of course you mean to sound as if you don’t know what you’re talking about….

        • Ged

          I smell a surprising influx of sockpuppets. How interesting.

        • Steve Swatman

          ahahahahahaha ah ha, spotted, marked and ignored, is one of your internet names jed by any chance?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hi ECW,

            Since I do not have any form of scintillator here, I have asked a famous medium format Czech photographer that has a darkroom just 6m from my desk to sit an ECCO fuel sample on 6″ x 4.5″ BW negative in a sleeve. Not sure how long to sit it there. There will be the polymer sample container in the way and some card.

            I am wondering if to put a metal foil mask in the way – but a first step is just to let it sit there for a day I guess and see if we see anything when the film is developed.

            I will also ask him to prepare some negatives for up and coming tests, but I need some advice, should we have some sort of mask or metal plate with holes to allow for co-limiting so that we can prove directionality/source or radiation (if there is any) during AURA/ECCO/NOVA testing.

          • Ged

            Yes, need to take exposures of several different time lengths to find the optimal. A few uS should make a noticeable dark spot in a couple to tens of minutes depending on the film in question. A day sounds way long, but of course there must always be a negative control sample to compare with no matter the time scale used. If anyone has some 1950s yellow plates, can use the uranium in the yellow pigment as a positive gamma control too.

          • Axil Axil

            About a dozen people have done this type of LENR experiment on LENR ash. One is Keith Fredericks

            [email protected].

            His web site:

            http://restframe.com/mm/

            details his work and theories. This site is worth a look. Keith’s papers explain how to determine the energy of these particles from their track lengths. They are entangled and coherent. Keith measures and categorizes their magnetic fields. I am sure that he could help you in the setup and analyses of your upcoming results.

        • Bob Greenyer

          If you are referring to me356, I can tell you he is completely trusted to deliver quality product in his main business by thousands of happy customers around the world.

          Like many wise hardware developers, he does not commit to firm delivery dates because he understands through experience that schedules change and suppliers can make errors or go bust or whatever.

          me356 seems to be designing a New Fire reactor and control system that should be more immune from the normal hardware and software product gotchas.

          • Axil Axil

            There is nothing like competition to motivate LENR developers to get their products into the marketplace. If ME356 gets his system into the market, many more products will come out of hiding and hit the street in short order.

          • Axil Axil

            The goal is to remove any calorimetry malarkey from the test: pressure, pumping, bubbles in the steam and the like.

            Use two large identical insolated tanks.

            Feed the output of the system into one and measure the electric power consumed by the system at the wall plug.

            Feed that power measured at the plug of the system into a resistance heater inside the second dummy tank placed on the bottom.

            Measure the water temperature of the water in the system tank. When the temperature of the water temperature reaches a predefined temperature, (180 F) stop the test and measure the COP of the system.

            The COP of the system is determined by comparing the heat content of each tank: the system tank and the dummy tank. Measure the temperature in both tanks in the same way.

            Build or buy two large insolated heat storage tanks and fill with the same amount of water.

            https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/39/92/12/3992122e4a165bcee7ed6a21d0835ad2.jpg

            The advantages of differential measurement.

            It is well known that differential measurement washes out error in the measurement process.

            In my suggested method, there is little or no calibration required because all the measurements are done by a single item of equipment and the comparison between the system and the dummy is differential.

            In the two large tank method, the volume of water that these two tanks contain is equal because the same flow meter is used to assure these two tanks contain the same volume of water. The water comes from the same source, therefore the temperatures of the two tanks are initially the same. The power used to measure the input power supplies between the system and the dummy is done using the same power meter. The COP of the system is calculated based on the difference in the water temperatures between the two tanks.

            The amount of heat heat produced by the system is large enough to insure there is no way that heat could have been produced by a chemical source.

            My suggestion uses one thermometer, one flow meter, and one power meter each of which need not be calibrated. Because the COP is determined by differential measurement using the same equipment. Because all measurement is differential, error inherent to that equipment does not matter.

          • Ged

            The heat exchanger itself could be put in the bath of the experimental tank and used as the source of heating for that. Then, measuring the tank temp over time, and the outflow temp downstream of tank and exchanger, will allow thorough accounting of the energy with no need to deal with steam quality. Pairing this with a dummy load (though not essential) with a heater element driven to try to match the heat of the experimental would indeed give very potent differential data for power/energy.

            Only weakness I see at the moment being that heat losses on transport from reactor to exchanger/tank will not be reflected in the dummy, meaning the dummy will have less losses and thus an easier time heating per watt than the reactor. Should be a small bias error however as long as the pipes are insulated to keep losses negligable.

          • Axil Axil

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_thermal_analysis

            Differential thermal analysis (or DTA) is a thermoanalytic technique. Similar to differential scanning calorimetry. In DTA, the material under study and an inert reference are made to undergo identical thermal cycles, while recording any temperature difference between sample and reference

            https://image.slidesharecdn.com/thermalanalysisforpreformulationtrialsnew-130406020211-phpapp01/95/thermal-analysis-for-preformulation-trials-new-7-638.jpg?cb=1365213785

            http://www.eag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/dta.png

            The COP is defined by the delta temperature.

      • Axil Axil

        A molten salt/thorium hot air system is possible to design get around the steam and possible radiation problems.

        • GiveADogABone

          OK. How long to a working product that has cleared all Health & Safety hurdles?

          i noticed that the NIBE 3.5kw heater has a ‘CE’ mark on the cardboard box in Bob’s photo. It is has been through H&S product approval and passed. Fail to to obtain ‘CE’ clearance in Europe and you will sell precisely nothing.

        • Axil Axil

          A huge love deficit has accumulated over all this time. Every bit on the positive side helps. However it is not required.

    • Omega Z

      Axil, I’m pretty sure this is all about control of the IP. IH/Darden want the IP without giving Rossi anymore money. My confidence in this opinion is based on an IH investors(Woodford) statement. It’s about control of the IP…
      I have no reason to doubt him.

    • AdrianAshfield

      Axil Axil,
      It is more murky for me. If IH pays Rossi they get to keep the IP and sales control over much of the world.
      If Rossi can somehow show the QuarkX was developed outside his agreement with IH he can start with a clean page.

      • Axil Axil

        Because of breach of contract no contract provisions like IP transfer will be done. Rossi wants 3 time damages so he expects to get about 300 million.

        • AdrianAshfield

          You may be right, but I would guess if Rossi wins IH would pay ~$150 million and keep the now dated IP.

  • Axil Axil

    It occurred to me that the stated reason for the delay on the production of the QuarkX waiting on the testing to get to sigma 5 quality level might be a canard on the part of Rossi to conceal his plan to use IH money gained from the lawsuit to fund his robotic factory. He would like to keep total control of the production of the QuarkX rather than get construction funds for his factory from the moneyed partners who would want primary control of the E-Cat market.

    ME356 does not need a sigma 5 quality standard on his reactor before he puts it on the market so why should Rossi?

    Rossi’s tigers never got to sigma 5 and they were on sale to MP according to Rossi.

    I predict that Rossi will keep the sigma at 4 until he gets the IH money from the court suit. It is my guess that Rossi might want to keep his true motives secret from his supporters so he can maintain his image.

    • Chapman

      All very good points. No arguments from me.

      Just one additional thought:

      Rossi may be motivated by patent considerations. Given the current field of persons chasing, and duplicating, his research, he may well be preparing an all-inclusive and comprehensive patent application. Such an application needs to include a full disclosure of all aspects of his device construction and function, and be a complete step-by-step outline of how to reproduce the device in any competent lab. The sigma 5 confidence is just a safety margin, because once the application is published ALL his secrets are exposed. He will only get one shot to secure his absolute ownership of the entire scope of his research. A half-assed submission that is not guaranteed to be fully reproducible may not result in an approval, and his current pole-position in this race will be forfeit.

      There are just too many folks sniffing at his tracks and sneaking up on him from behind. He has reached a classic put-up-or-shut-up moment. Legally, he needs to mark his territory like a hound, and disclose all his secrets in order to secure his ownership of them.

      So I anticipate that we are soon going to be collectively awed by a new Patent application that answers all our questions.

      I also predict that such an application will be made under the name of a whole new entity. Not Rossi, as an individual, and not Leonardo.

      I suspect Dr. Rossi has been a busy boy…

      • AdrianAshfield

        Rossi state earlier he was working on hundreds of patent applications.
        It us also worth keeping in mind the old saw. “A patent is valueless until it has been tested in court.”
        The only thing certain is that lawyers will be employed for many years.

    • Albert D. Kallal

      Well, Rossi has never claimed how well the 1MW plant works. (he always quotes in terms of others tests). You can’t find a quote where Rossi himself claims high COP.

      If the 1MW plant produced the power that metering tests showed then VERY little effort would be required to sell such plants for any heat hungry industry. In other words, I don’t really see the lawsuit or future production of such plants being held up by Rossi’s ability to raise money. A few working 1MW plants and Rossi would have massive amounts of money and investment chasing him.

      So I not sold on Rossi “waiting” for IH money, and such court cases tend to drag on for 5-7 years – often even longer. So I don’t think Rossi (who had experience with lawsuits) is going to wait for the IH issues to be resolved. The only real issue I can think that would hold up production of said plants is lack of COP.

      I believe that Rossi has LENR working, but high COP outputs remain in doubt. And this includes the Quark which may be far from ready for any kind of industrial use at this point in time.

      Regards,
      Albert D. Kallal
      Edmonton, Alberta Canada

    • GiveADogABone

      Just to give Axil, Me356 and Chapman a taste of what awaits in Health & Safety product approval. If anyone says nuclear, another torrent of approvals will be needed. The process costs serious money and takes years. A tester question, ‘How can you demonstrate that the AURA is immune to steam explosions caused by water leaks close to the core at 1500C?’ :-

      http://www.hse.gov.uk/pressure-systems/index.htm
      Pressure systems
      Pressure systems can range from steam-generating commercial coffee machines to large boilers. When using pressure systems every employer or self-employed person has a duty to provide a safe workplace and safe work equipment. Designers, manufacturers, suppliers, installers, users and owners have additional health and safety duties.

      About pressure systems
      The main regulations covering pressure equipment and pressure systems are the Pressure Equipment Regulations 1999 (PER) and the Pressure Systems Safety Regulations 2000 (PSSR).

      Examples of pressure systems and equipment are:
      boilers and steam heating systems
      pressurised process plant and piping
      compressed air systems (fixed and portable)
      pressure cookers, autoclaves and retorts
      heat exchangers and refrigeration plant
      valves, steam traps and filters
      pipework and hoses
      pressure gauges and level indicators

      Principal causes of pressure-related incidents are:
      poor equipment and/or system design
      poor installation
      poor maintenance of equipment
      inadequate repairs or modifications
      an unsafe system of work
      operator error, poor training/supervision

      The main hazards from pressure are:
      impact from the blast of an explosion or release of compressed liquid or gas
      impact from parts of equipment that fail or any flying debris
      contact with the released liquid or gas, such as steam
      fire resulting from the escape of flammable liquids or gases

      • LENRISHERE

        Perhaps the biggest issue is the safety of the LENR community. With Rossi being exposed as a pathological liar about certain issues such as the relationship with Johnson Mathey, we don’t need another scandal. The travesty is that a so called open organization is cooperating with such a secretive person who is likely untrustworthy.

        • Omega Z

          he he he, You’re funny.
          I’m assuming of course you mean to sound as if you don’t know what you’re talking about….

        • Ged

          I smell a surprising influx of sockpuppets. How interesting.

        • Steve Swatman

          ahahahahahaha ah ha, spotted, marked and ignored, is one of your internet names jed by any chance?

        • Bob Greenyer

          If you are referring to me356, I can tell you he is completely trusted to deliver quality product in his main business by thousands of happy customers around the world.

          Like many wise hardware developers, he does not commit to firm delivery dates because he understands through experience that schedules change and suppliers can make errors or go bust or whatever.

          As I understand it, the Patterson cell failed as a product because the company that made the cells went out of business. Also, many P&F replications failed because Johnson Matthey changed their production process.

          me356 seems to be designing a New Fire reactor and control system that should be more immune from the normal hardware and software product gotchas.

          • Axil Axil

            There is nothing like competition to motivate LENR developers to get their products into the marketplace. If ME356 gets his system into the market, many more products will come out of hiding and hit the street in short order.

      • Axil Axil

        A molten salt/thorium hot air system is possible to design get around the steam and possible radiation problems.

        • GiveADogABone

          OK. How long to a working product that has cleared all Health & Safety hurdles?

          i noticed that the NIBE 3.5kw heater has a ‘CE’ mark on the cardboard box in Bob’s photo. It is has been through H&S product approval and passed. Fail to to obtain ‘CE’ clearance in Europe and you will sell precisely nothing.

    • Omega Z

      Axil, I’m pretty sure this is all about control of the IP. IH/Darden want the IP without giving Rossi anymore money. My confidence in this opinion is based on an IH investors(Woodford) statement. It’s about control of the IP…
      I have no reason to doubt him.

    • AdrianAshfield

      Axil Axil,
      It is more murky for me. If IH pays Rossi they get to keep the IP and sales control over much of the world.
      If Rossi can somehow show the QuarkX was developed outside his agreement with IH he can start with a clean page.

      • Axil Axil

        Because of breach of contract no contract provisions like IP transfer will be done. Rossi wants 3 time damages so he expects to get about 300 million.

        • AdrianAshfield

          You may be right, but I would guess if Rossi wins IH would pay ~$150 million and keep the now dated IP.
          And then it would get appealed. etc.

      • hhiram

        It’s not that simple. IH and Rossi don’t have a working product, so post-facto patent enforcement would be limited largely to imposing a retroactive licensing arrangement on any producer who beat IH/Rossi to market.

        In other words, me356 could start making and selling LENR reactors without worrying too much about IH/Rossi patents. The worst that could happen is that after 5 years in legal battle, the court will rule that me356’s company must pay a 10% royalty on each unit sold. This is a small price to pay for being the first company to sell and thereby capture market share.

        Nothing is stopping me356 from commercializing LENR, even if the technology was stolen directly from Rossi (which is not the case, as there appear to be substantial differences).

        me356 knows this of course, and is being secret because he/she now sees the opportunity to makes millions/billions by being first to market with a real product.

  • Ged

    Making plasma is easy enough. The Germans did that in 2015 with their version. Don’t be fooled; they are not making energy with this thing any time soon if ever (they don’t even have the magnets installed yet that they need for high enough temp plasma!), just a lot of hype that forgets even recent history.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Preview of Digital Acquisition interface for AURA test

    Thankyou to Brian Albiston for all his hard work!

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e117f699f46f5bef4cf1f10c6a3aacd8710a4cfb29df121be96c520b1fe06b86.png

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Nice. I would only use MJ or kWh for the “Total Excess” field. Otherwise, you might exceed the displayable maximum after a few hours.

    • GiveADogABone

      I am not entirely sure what I am looking at in respect of instantaneous or averaged/cumulative values :
      CoP = Energy Out/Energy In = m*cp*(Tout-Tin)/E
      The CoP can be instantaneous or averaged over varying periods of time.
      Cumulative power, cumulative mass flow and average temperature difference are needed to form an average CoP over a defined time period.

      1: Power Input (E) : PA1000
      The panel reports rate(Watt) and cumulative (Watt Hours)

      2: Mass Flow (m) :
      The Arlyn +Dymo are scaled in (g)
      Are the Arlyn and Dymo weighing measuring tank(s)?

      3: Temperature Difference : (Tout – Tin)
      Is that on the secondary circuit of the plate heat exchanger?

      4: Calorimetry :
      CoP : Instantaneous or averaged?
      Should Total Excess kJ be kJ/s? (Cumulative or rate)

      • Bob Greenyer

        We will make things clear in a video when things are set up.

        Bob

    • Ged

      That is a beautifully comprehensive interface, much clearer than earlier designs. I agree with Andreas below too, kJ will get filled up fast at that digit size.

    • Looks like it was made using Visual Basic. No?

  • Bob Greenyer

    Petenshi Zen – Spotting Untrustworthy Measurements…

    Crowd contribution by Saito Shinichi sharing some experimental considerations, in no specific order from his own experience.

    https://steemit.com/science/@mfmp/petenshi-zen-spotting-untrustworthy-measurements

    Thankyou Saito!

  • Bob Greenyer

    Hey guys,

    I am writing a post on the testing of Parkhomov samples.

    Can anyone point to details of the “SK4” and “KV3” reactors?

  • Bob Greenyer

    Hey guys,

    I am writing a post on the testing of Parkhomov samples.

    Can anyone point to details of the “SK4” and “KV3” reactors?

  • Bob Greenyer

    Hi ECW,

    Since I do not have any form of scintillator here, I have asked a famous medium format Czech photographer that has a darkroom just 6m from my desk to sit an ECCO fuel sample on 6″ x 4.5″ BW negative in a sleeve. Not sure how long to sit it there. There will be the polymer sample container in the way and some card.

    I am wondering if to put a metal foil mask in the way – but a first step is just to let it sit there for a day I guess and see if we see anything when the film is developed.

    I will also ask him to prepare some negatives for up and coming tests, but I need some advice, should we have some sort of mask or metal plate with holes to allow for co-limiting so that we can prove directionality/source or radiation (if there is any) during AURA/ECCO/NOVA testing.

    • Ged

      Yes, need to take exposures of several different time lengths to find the optimal. A few uS should make a noticeable dark spot in a couple to tens of minutes depending on the film in question. A day sounds way long, but of course there must always be a negative control sample to compare with no matter the time scale used. If anyone has some 1950s yellow plates, can use the uranium in the yellow pigment as a positive gamma control too.

      Edit: might also be good to have an update log in the live document, so everyone can follow along with the timeline and how things progress and change.

    • Axil Axil

      About a dozen people have done this type of LENR experiment on LENR ash. One is Keith Fredericks

      [email protected].

      His web site:

      http://restframe.com/mm/

      details his work and theories. This site is worth a look. Keith’s papers explain how to determine the energy of these particles from their track lengths. They are entangled and coherent. Keith measures and categorizes their magnetic fields. I am sure that he could help you in the setup and analyses of your upcoming results.

    • HAL9000

      You can build a simple cloud chamber using a can of compressed air and a small amount of isopropyl alcohol. You have real-time ionization trail visualization for a few dollars. The trail signature is useful to determine the nature of the ionizing particle stream.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVj69R66Agg

  • Axil Axil

    The goal is to remove any calorimetry malarkey from the test: pressure, pumping, bubbles in the steam and the like.

    Use two large identical insolated tanks.

    Feed the output of the system into one and measure the electric power consumed by the system at the wall plug.

    Feed that power measured at the plug of the system into a resistance heater inside the second dummy tank placed on the bottom.

    Measure the water temperature of the water in the system tank. When the temperature of the water temperature reaches a predefined temperature, (180 F) stop the test and measure the COP of the system.

    The COP of the system is determined by comparing the heat content of each tank: the system tank and the dummy tank. Measure the temperature in both tanks in the same way.

    Build or buy two large insolated heat storage tanks and fill with the same amount of water.

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/39/92/12/3992122e4a165bcee7ed6a21d0835ad2.jpg

    The advantages of differential measurement.

    It is well known that differential measurement washes out error in the measurement process.

    In my suggested method, there is little or no calibration required because all the measurements are done by a single item of equipment and the comparison between the system and the dummy is differential.

    In the two large tank method, the volume of water that these two tanks contain is equal because the same flow meter is used to assure these two tanks contain the same volume of water. The water comes from the same source, therefore the temperatures of the two tanks are initially the same. The power used to measure the input power supplies between the system and the dummy is done using the same power meter. The COP of the system is calculated based on the difference in the water temperatures between the two tanks.

    The amount of heat produced by the system is large enough to insure there is no way that heat could have been produced by a chemical source.

    My suggestion uses one thermometer, one flow meter, and one power meter each of which need not be calibrated. The COP is determined by differential measurement using the same equipment. Because all measurement is differential, error inherent to that equipment does not matter.

    • Ged

      The heat exchanger itself could be put in the bath of the experimental tank and used as the source of heating for that. Then, measuring the tank temp over time, and the outflow temp downstream of tank and exchanger, will allow thorough accounting of the energy with no need to deal with steam quality. Pairing this with a dummy load (though not essential) with a heater element driven to try to match the heat of the experimental would indeed give very potent differential data for power/energy.

      Only weakness I see at the moment being that heat losses on transport from reactor to exchanger/tank will not be reflected in the dummy, meaning the dummy will have less losses and thus an easier time heating per watt than the reactor. Should be a small bias error however as long as the pipes are insulated to keep losses negligable.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We have purchased a 3.5kw flow heater (no tank) to use as a test of the calorimetry and a comparison to the reactor under test. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ce3804836090e9e5cb3d662980de0c7f7bf201567d3ced8245e07560651d1447.jpg

    • Ged

      Very nice! Great headroom above the max input the reactor will have, so this will work nicely, and looks nifty.

    • Axil Axil

      Cycle water through the AUAR tank using AUAR until the temperature in the AUAR tank gets to a pre-defined reference temperature. Measure the electric power input to AUAR required to produce that temperature increase.
      Cycle water through the reference tank using the 3.5kw flow heater until the temperature in the reference tank gets to a pre-defined reference temperature. Measure the electric power used by the 3.5kw flow heater required to produce that temperature increase.

      The COP is the difference between the electric power needed by each heat source to produce the same temperature between the AUAR tank and the reference tank.

      • Bob Greenyer

        This is part of what we will do. This will establish a comparison. It is also quite similar to what Jed Rothwell has suggested.

        We have the flow based tests to establish that the output is beyond chemical / etc.

        • Axil Axil

          A very large bucket or tank will do the same thing.

          • Ged

            Not once it heats up, which will not take long at these temps.

          • Axil Axil

            It seems obvious to me that a 55 gallon barrel of water will take more energy to heat from ambient to near boiling that can be produced by a chemical combustion process occurring inside the controller box.

          • Ged

            Yes, at 2 kW of power, it would take about 9 hours to heat a 55 gallon drum to 95 C from 25 C. I am thinking along the lines of days of steady state monitoring. Heating such a mass of water is also a more insensitive method, except at the end point. It could still be done as a “spot check” of course, as it is not mutually exclusive to the flow method–just stop the flow and let the fluid sit around the exchanger or dummy.

            The other big issue is that as it heats the heat transfer rate will go down since that is determined by delta T. So if there is steam it may stop condensing and damage the reactor or other parts. Getting to 60 C would probably be safe, and if the fluid was stirred to distribute the heat, that would help a lot, otherwise the water immediately around the exchanger could get much hotter than the bulk and lead to damage more quickly than expected.

        • lrao

          Can you invite Jed to go and be present during the test?

          • Bob Greenyer

            anyone can be there, just tune in.

          • Axil Axil

            What is the current live broadcast plan (date/time eastern standard US) for the start of the test and its projected duration?

          • Bob Greenyer

            sometime during the last 1/3 of the month.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We can give specifics when we are actually on site and know what we have to arrange and how. We will have a few days prep I should expect.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We have purchased a 3.5kw flow heater (no tank) to use as a test of the calorimetry and a comparison to the reactor under test. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ce3804836090e9e5cb3d662980de0c7f7bf201567d3ced8245e07560651d1447.jpg

    • Ged

      Very nice! Great headroom above the max input the reactor will have, so this will work nicely, and looks nifty.

      Edit: Also, as long as you can measure the heat output of the exchanger as well as the outflow temperature of the water coming out, you can get a full (enough) accounting of the reactor’s heat production without having to worry about steam quality or make any assumptions about that as the exchanger output is a direct measure of all steam enthalpy.

      ((Water temp out * mass/time)+(exchanger out * mass/time)) – (water temp in * mass/time) = power output of the system, basically.

    • Axil Axil

      Cycle water through the AUAR tank using AUAR until the temperature in the AUAR tank gets to a pre-defined reference temperature. Measure the electric power input to AUAR required to produce that temperature increase.

      Cycle water through the reference tank using the 3.5kw flow heater until the temperature in the reference tank gets to a pre-defined reference temperature. Measure the electric power used by the 3.5kw flow heater required to produce that temperature increase.

      The COP is the difference between the electric power needed by each heat source to produce the same temperature between the AUAR tank and the reference tank.

      This differential measurement method is so simple and idiot proof that not even Jed Rothwell can find a possible flaw in this comparison.

      MFMP might be able to use two 55 gallon drums as the tanks or use one drum filled from the same water source to the same height in a serial test.

      • Bob Greenyer

        This is part of what we will do. This will establish a comparison. It is also quite similar to what Jed Rothwell has suggested.

        We have the flow based tests to establish that the output is beyond chemical / etc.

        • Axil Axil

          A very large bucket or tank will do the same thing.

          • Ged

            Not once it heats up, which will not take long at these temps.

          • Axil Axil

            It seems obvious to me that a 55 gallon barrel of water will take more energy to heat from ambient to near boiling that can be produced by a chemical combustion process occurring inside the controller box.

          • Ged

            Yes, at 2 kW of power, it would take about 9 hours to heat a 55 gallon drum to 95 C from 25 C. I am thinking along the lines of days of steady state monitoring. Heating such a mass of water is also a more insensitive method, except at the end point. It could still be done as a “spot check” of course, as it is not mutually exclusive to the flow method–just stop the flow and let the fluid sit around the exchanger or dummy.

            The other big issue is that as it heats the heat transfer rate will go down since that is determined by delta T. So if there is steam it may stop condensing and damage the reactor or other parts. Getting to 60 C would probably be safe, and if the fluid was stirred to distribute the heat, that would help a lot, otherwise the water immediately around the exchanger could get much hotter than the bulk and lead to damage more quickly than expected.

        • lrao

          Can you invite Jed to go and be present during the test?

          • Bob Greenyer

            anyone can be there, just tune in.

          • Axil Axil

            What is the current live broadcast plan (date/time eastern standard US) for the start of the test and its projected duration?

          • Bob Greenyer

            sometime during the last 1/3 of the month.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We can give specifics when we are actually on site and know what we have to arrange and how. We will have a few days prep I should expect.

  • Axil Axil

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_thermal_analysis

    Differential thermal analysis (or DTA) is a thermoanalytic technique. Similar to differential scanning calorimetry. In DTA, the material under study and an inert reference are made to undergo identical thermal cycles, while recording any temperature difference between sample and reference

    https://image.slidesharecdn.com/thermalanalysisforpreformulationtrialsnew-130406020211-phpapp01/95/thermal-analysis-for-preformulation-trials-new-7-638.jpg?cb=1365213785

    http://www.eag.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/dta.png

    The COP is defined by the delta temperature.

  • Axil Axil

    Quote from the MFMP test plan
    “MFMP will then measure the rate of cooling water going into the heat exchanger and the temperatures of the water in and out in order to determine heat output. If the steam does not fully condense, then the power output will read low.”

    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. Don’t your remember what Jed R taught us in the Rossi/IH test?

    • Chapman

      Axil, I have followed your idea through the other posts and I just want to congratulate you on cutting through all the nonsense and complexity that keeps fouling up a straightforward test. Accuracy does not demand complexity.

      Your idea is dead on. It is such a great example of the KISS principal that I bet even Engineer would give you a hearty “thumbs up”.

      I take back 87.4% of my previous snarky criticisms… 🙂

      (feel the love Axil)

      • Axil Axil

        A huge love deficit has accumulated over all this time. Every bit on the positive side helps. However it is not required.

        • Cupid

          Don’t you reject his love Axil.

    • Ged

      Both methods can be done at once. What they are doing is correct, and it is easy to make sure flow is right (correct sized pipe and meter for the pump). This method will properly measure the heat lost in the exchanger, so steam issues are solved.

      The other advantage to flowing coolant is long term stability of the experiment. A static bath will quickly heat up and cooling potential will plumment, which means only a short experimental time is available, and potential for overheat damage is high. There are plenty of way around that too, but it can be done any time during the experiment only for a short burst, while constant flow means constant monitoring over long time periods.

      Their way is superior in the long run, and they have the heater for doing differential thermal analysis with a cooling flow.

    • Andreas Moraitis

      As far as I understood, they plan to collect the water in buckets which are eventually weighed. That would not require a flow meter. I guess they want to use the meter mainly for collecting live data. Weighing the water will allow corrections if necessary. The differential method would give no advantage since the heat capacity of water is well known.

      • Axil Axil

        For example, error is introduced if the scale is bad. The difference measurement system washes out error in all measuring devices where the error mechanism does not change.

        We could use salt water and the measurement would be insensitive to that change in heat capacity.

        • Andreas Moraitis

          I doubt that their scale is „bad“, and even if so, this would be easy to determine by a simple test. And in which country one might expect that something else than water comes out of the tap?

          • Axil Axil

            I was illustrating a principle.

            The Lugano test would have worked with great accuracy if two identical alumina tubes would have been used: a dummy tube and a live system. When the same optical thermometer read the same temperature on both tubes, the difference in input power between the two tubes would define a valid COP no matter how inaccurate that single optical temperature sensor was.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I tend to agree regarding Lugano, although I think that a proper calibration of the used reactor would have been sufficient. But that was a completely different setup, not comparable to the current one.

        • Bob Greenyer

          The scale is seriously good!

          • Axil Axil

            How are you intending to prove that the scale has not been willfully modified to support scam and trickery that will be alleged after the test? Or will you just say “trust me”.

          • Ged

            Have a control bucket measured before and after, and that proves it–problem solved!

            Come on now, don’t feed into neurosis. People can claim anything they want with no support, and that does not make their claims valid. If trolls want to troll, they will always find a way, and absolutely nothing will stop them from making bs claims.

          • Axil Axil

            In Rossi’s last validation test with IH, Rossi cluttered up the test up with a boatload of irrelevant complications that are being used in the trial to undercut his credibility. The same goes from the Lugano test. The lesson to be drawn from this Rossi situation is to keep the test as simple as possible to protect the credibility of the testers.

          • Ged

            And what you are starting to do is demand the same complications, rolling too far and demanding prohibitively overly complex crud that detracts from instead of adds to the experiment, or fails to control/calibrate for confounding variables. You keep bringing up Rossi, but you neglect to point out that the 1 year test was not designed like a scientific experiment, and neither was Lugano. Both did not follow the scientific method. All MFMP has to do is follow the method. You create boogiemen right now, but don’t then offer any useful solutions–but I crush your complaints with a simple response: just measure a control bucket! From what philosophy does that response come? The scientific method. Wowzers, who would have thought!

            Don’t focus on the specter of trolls or what people could bs about or not, focus on designing a proper scientific experiment that can stand on its own in accordance with the scientific method. You have given great suggestions previously, but you are now taking it too far into detracting territory, but that is easy to come back from. Focus on the goal: proper scientific method designed experiment. That means controls and replications. Anything else is just running uselessly in circles.

          • Axil Axil

            You have a valid point. I am suffering from physiological trauma from watching my friend Peter Gluck lose his health from battling to defeat the doubts about the Rossi test that have come from paid IH operatives. It is not only trolls that seek to undercut a given system; it is big money competitors who want to kill off the comparison and acquire their IP. This test is not only scientific in nature it is also commercial. It seems to me that MFMP should protect their integrity as well as the commensal interests of ME356 because they are connected in this test. We should protest any budding LENR developer from what their competitors can do to them. I remember Defkalion and how they were put out of business by competitors. I believe that is what Peter feared what would happen to Rossi. Please forgive me from suffering these battle scars and make allowances.

          • Ged

            I am very saddened to hear that is happening to Peter Gluck. He is a good man who has suffered so much, I hope he recovers soon.

            I also apologize for coming on so strongly in the above. I often crack the whip far too hard. You have made so many major contributions to this test and the field of LENR as a whole. Thank you for all your work, and for persevering despite the terrible things that have happened.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We have two scales.

            We will have known weights – like a coin and a litre of water.

            At least the very expensive scale is calibrated.

            Continuous recording

        • Ged

          If the scale was bad, it would affect both experimental and control measurements! This is called a systematic error, and will Not affect the results gained by comparing controls to experiments what so ever. This is why science has controls that undergo all the same measurement steps so that all systematic errors and biases are corrected for. Of course, over multiple N.

          Their procedure is far superior to just a static water tank. Flow calorimetry is better than bomb calorimetry in both sensitivity and lower error.

    • Gerard McEk

      In principle you are right Axil, it would be an accurate method. But isn’t the flow rate meter an instrument to determine the water volume per time unit? The bucket, they want to use also is another.
      To determine an ‘identical volume’ you still need some kind of instrument, so I do not fully understand your remark.
      You seem to say that it is easier to determine the energy of both input and output than the power input and output. Correct?

      • Axil Axil

        I have been watching these LENR systems tests for years and the criticisms of these tests by the trolls are fiendishly imaginative. The way I have been watching these LENR systems tests for years and the criticisms of these tests by the trolls are fiendishly imaginative. The ways that these trolls can disparage a flow meter is hard to anticipate. If we fill a bucket, and we fill it again, it is recognized by everybody that the volume of water held by that bucket is the same on each filling. You don’t need to prove that the amount of water in the fillings of that bucket is the same.

        Remember that the trolls are going to claim scam and trickery. They will allege sleight of hand and willful intent to deceive. To defeat this chicanery at the very beginning, remove all possible complications that could possibly be used by the trolls to undercut the credibility of the test in the test design. From the experience from past tests, the flow meter has been attacked many times in discrediting these over unity tests.

        For example, in the latest Rossi test, there was a claim that the flow meter was half fill due to its placement in the water circuit and the volume of water moved through that flow meter was invalidly measured by a very substantial amount with the intent to show no over unity was achieved that these trolls can disparage a flow meter is hard to anticipate. If we fill a bucket, and we fill it again, it is recognized by everybody that the volume of water held by that bucket is the same on each filling. You don’t need to prove that the amount of water in the fillings of that bucket is the same.

        Remember that the trolls are going to claim scam and trickery. They will allege sleight of hand and willful intent to deceive. To defeat this chicanery at the very beginning, remove all possible complications that could possibly be used by the trolls to undercut the credibility of the test in the test design. From the experience from past tests, the flow meter has been attacked many times in discrediting these over unity tests.

        For example, in the latest Rossi test, there was a claim the flow meter was half fill due to its placement in the water circuit and the volume of water moved through that flow meter was invalidly measured by a very substantial amount with the intent to show no over unity was achieved.

        In other tests and demos, steam or air in the water fooled the flow meter. It is prudent to stay away from using a flow meter.

  • pelgrim108

    Brillouin Energy, a Berkeley, California based clean technology company, is in early discussions to raise USD 15m in equity financing, CFO David Firshein said.
    Brillouin’s goal is to complete the Series C raise by June, Firshein said.

    http://brillouinenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MergerMarket-2017-04-04.pdf (PDF)
    http://brillouinenergy.com/about/news/

  • pelgrim108

    Brillouin Energy, a Berkeley, California based clean technology company, is in early discussions to raise USD 15m in equity financing, CFO David Firshein said.
    Brillouin’s goal is to complete the Series C raise by June, Firshein said.

    http://brillouinenergy.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MergerMarket-2017-04-04.pdf (PDF)
    http://brillouinenergy.com/about/news/

    • Bart Z.

      You mean Industrial Heat’s investment?

      • This fund rising campaign has nothing to do with IH.

        • Steve Swatman

          I might be wrong, but if Godes only owns 5% of Brillouin energy and the patents and IH is the main owner, is it not really IH looking for investment?

  • Bob Greenyer

    In the interests of accommodating Jed Rothwell and Axil’s simple “Bucket test” we have ordered a 2.4kW immersion heater which you can see in the picture. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/974fc2fa15826689c0f61a36a02f0997d3764e89c3eeb5978a2d036932e7d0ef.jpg

    • Axil Axil

      The more ways that we can test something, the more credible the results will be perceived to be especially if all the results are consistent. Multiple tests of the same thing can expose any unrecognized errors in methods and/or sensors.

      For example, critics of the Lugano temperature measurement process said that a thermocouple should have been used to back up the optical temperature sensor.

      • Bob Greenyer

        We have 30cm accurate lab thermometers (4 of) We can make cork floats and suspend them at different depths.

        We have analogue gauge thermometers

        We have 3 pin PT100s

        We have Optris

        All are rated to work in the desired temperature range.

        • SG

          I love the MFMP.

          • we-cat

            Sounds like a cool t-shirt!

        • Thomas Kaminski

          Typical bomb calorimeters use a stirred bath in a well insulated pail. I suggest that rather than try to measure the temperature at a number of different points, you make several measurements with different sensors at nearly the same point in a well-stirred bath. Also, the temperature will rise approximately like a first-order system, until the heat loss matches the heat input. That might be above the boiling point of water, but you can do an exponential fit if you measure the rise over time. The early part of the curve should be approximately linear.

    • GiveADogABone

      Health & Safety alert : Buckets must withstand 100C water and not melt. Plastic buckets do not pass the test. Bucket tipping must be possible without putting hands on the bucket.

      • Bob Greenyer

        We would only look to raise water to 60ºC

        • GiveADogABone

          As shown, the heater element is in contact with the plastic. The heater element at the contact spot will be a lot hotter than 60C.

          • Bob Greenyer

            This is trivial to mitigate.

    • Rene

      It’s a good idea to measure the important properties in a few completely different ways. If/when excess heat is determined, having cross-verification using different methods will help stave off the hyper-skeptic responses. It is an effective way to disprove systemic bias or error.

      • Ged

        Exactly true. This seems like a great spot check method, and easily done if excess heat is suspected any time during the flow monitoring; especially if they can set up a valve to switch at will the AURA output from sparging the bucket to going through the exchanger. All these different methods together makes for one potent experimental design.

    • Ged

      There are two weaknesses to actual sparging we should consider. First, that sparging steam gas though water will add to that volume of water by condensation and the bucket will eventually over fill (and the changing volume will make calculations more difficult). Second, that steam that bubbles out and escapes the water is lost to the environment and won’t be able to transfer its heat to the water in the bucket, and steam isn’t that great at heat transfer either. That would end up underestimating the power out by a significant margine. The stirring does help as it increases the mean path length to the surface for the bubbles by imparting lateral motion.

      But how to deal with the two issues… The second can be handled by adding a lid and magnetic stir bar to stir with it sealed (and the sensor ports would have to be through a stopper or sealed with parafilm or such). The first issue can be handled by a run off port that doesn’t let steam escape, but then the excess water and its temp has to be taken into account–a lot more complex.

      Hm. Has to be some easier solutions to this, and hopefully others will think of better solutions than I. These two issues as they stand mean the sparge check will never match the flow (always be less than flow and not direct like the heating of the control bucket) and will undermine the experiment. Not unless the control bucket is also a sparging of steam from a known heat source, rather than an electric heater.

      • Axil Axil

        The flow of water should be set high enough through the heat exchanger to insure that the input water flow into a bucket is equal to 60C with no steam formation. The weight of the water that had been heated to 60C will be recorded and then dumped whereby the filling of the bucket will start another water heating cycle.

        The total volume of water shall be determined as the sum of the weight of all the 60C heated water that was produced through N cycles of bucket filling.

        The N cycles shall be large enough to ensure that a chemical process could not generate the total heat required to sustain N cycles of 60C heated water.

        As a double check to the first method of heat measurment, an electric resistance heater will heat the same total amount of water by weight that had been heated to 60C by the flow method and the amount of power feed to the electric resistance heater in the first method will be compared to the power consumed by the reactor.

        There should be an agreement between the actual power consumed by the differential method of heat measurement of the dummy based differential verification second method and the calculated power derived from the first method being from the flow based calorimetry process of the first method.

        The two methods of heat measurement need not occur in parallel. A serial process shall be just as accurate as the parallel process.

    • Stephen Harrison

      Can you just put the heat exchanger into the same size bucket of water? compare the time to reach the same temperature of the two.

  • Bob Greenyer

    In the interests of accommodating Jed Rothwell and Axil’s simple “Bucket test” we have ordered a 2.4kW immersion heater which you can see in the picture. 2.4kW is a little over the max input of the AURA. Given it is a simple resistive load it will be trivial to quantify power used.

    Weight of water would be accurately determined on our scales. We have two digital scales – one VERY accurate.

    We would sparge AURA steam through a long coiled copper tube with a holes at end.

    We could stir manually and use the Optris for confirmation of same temperature up the bucket and across its surface.

    Would look to see a temp rise from feed water temperature to say 60ºC

    At the very least this would provide a good test to see if there is a significant differential.

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/974fc2fa15826689c0f61a36a02f0997d3764e89c3eeb5978a2d036932e7d0ef.jpg

    • Axil Axil

      The more ways that we can test something, the more credible the results will be perceived to be especially if all the results are consistent. Multiple tests of the same thing can expose any unrecognized errors in methods and/or sensors.

      For example, critics of the Lugano temperature measurement process said that a thermocouple should have been used to back up the optical temperature sensor.

      • Bob Greenyer

        We have 30cm accurate lab thermometers (4 of) We can make cork floats and suspend them at different depths.

        We have analogue gauge thermometers

        We have 3 pin PT100s

        We have Optris

        All are rated to work in the desired temperature range.

        • SG

          I love the MFMP.

          • we-cat

            Sounds like a cool t-shirt!

        • Thomas Kaminski

          Typical bomb calorimeters use a stirred bath in a well insulated pail. I suggest that rather than try to measure the temperature at a number of different points, you make several measurements with different sensors at nearly the same point in a well-stirred bath. Also, the temperature will rise approximately like a first-order system, until the heat loss matches the heat input. That might be above the boiling point of water, but you can do an exponential fit if you measure the rise over time. The early part of the curve should be approximately linear.

    • GiveADogABone

      Health & Safety alert : Buckets must withstand 100C water and not melt. Plastic buckets do not pass the test. Bucket tipping must be possible without putting hands on the bucket.

      • Bob Greenyer

        We would only look to raise water to 60ºC

        • GiveADogABone

          As shown, the heater element is in contact with the plastic. The heater element at the contact spot will be a lot hotter than 60C.

          • Bob Greenyer

            This is trivial to mitigate.

    • Rene

      It’s a good idea to measure the important properties in a few completely different ways. If/when excess heat is determined, having cross-verification using different methods will help stave off the hyper-skeptic responses. It is an effective way to disprove systemic bias or error.

      • Ged

        Exactly true. This seems like a great spot check method, and easily done if excess heat is suspected any time during the flow monitoring; especially if they can set up a valve to switch at will the AURA output from sparging the bucket to going through the exchanger. All these different methods (flow calorimetry with dummy control; timing the heating of a known weighed water volume compared to dummy control) together makes for one potent experimental design.

        Edit: Now just need a good way to get in some technical replicates. The bucket (sanity) spot check can be done multiple times throughout the run, particularly at different suspected COP levels or interesting moments in the flow data, so getting a replicate N for that is easy (true N requires different reactors, but a technical replicate assesses the stability of the method and measuring equipment). But the flow calorimetry is a constant trace except when sparging the bucket. To get tech reps of that, they would have to stop and restart the reactor completely in a new run. I don’t know how easy that will be, which makes the bucket sparge tech reps all the more important for checking the deviation of both methods (the flow method by proxy). An important suggestion by Axil, indeed!

    • Ged

      There are two weaknesses to actual sparging we should consider. First, that sparging steam gas though water will add to that volume of water by condensation and the bucket will eventually over fill (and the changing volume will make calculations more difficult). Second, that steam that bubbles out and escapes the water is lost to the environment and won’t be able to transfer its heat to the water in the bucket, and steam isn’t that great at heat transfer either. That would end up underestimating the power out by a significant margine. The stirring does help as it increases the mean path length to the surface for the bubbles by imparting lateral motion.

      But how to deal with the two issues… The second can be handled by adding a lid and magnetic stir bar to stir with it sealed (and the sensor ports would have to be through a stopper or sealed with parafilm or such). The first issue can be handled by a run off port that doesn’t let steam escape, but then the excess water and its temp has to be taken into account–a lot more complex.

      Hm. Has to be some easier solutions to this, and hopefully others will think of better solutions than I. These two issues as they stand mean the sparge check will never match the flow (always be less heat seen by this than flow, and not direct like the heating of the control bucket so the control would not be calibrated to the sparge bucket and would underestimate the reactor pound for pound), and will undermine the experiment. Not unless the control bucket is also a sparging of steam from a known heat source, rather than an direct electric heater–that would fix that control comparison issue since we are evaluating heating per unit time of known water (calorimetry), so the heat transfer method needs to be calibrated equally between experimental and control.

      Edit: Thought of a solution to problem 2 of the sparging idea: have the end of the copper coil sparging into a submerged dome in the bucket. That way steam cannot escape, and no top is needed. Of course, both buckets should be weighed with the water in them before anything else is added, as it may be hard to put the weight of the copper + its water + the sparge receiving dome in the control, but all we need is the weight of the original water. This doesn’t solve the very big issue of Problem 1. Still not sure how to address that for the sparging idea.

      Though, as mentioned previously, and as Stephen Harrison suggests, having the exchanger in the bucket would solve all the above issues. If that is technically feasable, given dimensions and such, and ease of moving a hot working exchanger…

      • Axil Axil

        The flow of water should be set high enough through the heat exchanger to insure that the input water flow into a bucket is equal to 60C with no steam formation. The weight of the water that had been heated to 60C will be recorded and then dumped whereby the filling of the bucket will start another water heating cycle.

        The total volume of water shall be determined as the sum of the weight of all the 60C heated water that was produced through N cycles of bucket filling.

        The N cycles shall be large enough to ensure that a chemical process could not generate the total heat required to sustain N cycles of 60C heated water.

        As a double check to the first method of heat measurment, an electric resistance heater will heat the same total amount of water by weight that had been heated to 60C by the flow method and the amount of power feed to the electric resistance heater in the first method will be compared to the power consumed by the reactor.

        There should be an agreement between the actual power consumed by the differential method of heat measurement of the dummy based differential verification second method and the calculated power derived from the first method being from the flow based calorimetry process of the first method.

        The two methods of heat measurement need not occur in parallel. A serial process shall be just as accurate as the parallel process.

    • Stephen Harrison

      Can you just put the heat exchanger into the same size bucket of water? compare the time to reach the same temperature of the two.

      • Stephen Harrison

        I may be stating the obvious but…..if you have 2 insulated buckets that hold 16L of water fill one with the 16L of tap water and run with immersion heater for 1Hr. measure temperature. Allow the second bucket to fill from the output of the AURA at 16L per hour and measure temperature. If the water heats too quick with immersion make adjustments i.e. 12L for 3/4Hr,, 8L for 1/2Hr etc.

  • Jouni Tuomela

    I would prefer the two-bath/swimming-pool-technique, but if the effect is very weak we just have to use something like 200l steel barrels. Used ones are cheap.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Let’s start from a reasonable volume and work upwards.

      • Gerard McEk

        Hi Bob, can you give us an insight in the MFMP agenda for testing the different reactors?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Yes.

          As it stands, much depends on claimants.

          We will be ready and in position to test me356s AURA from 19th.

          We will be ready to test Egely’s NOVA end of month

          We have set aside time to test Suhas’ ECCO middle of June

          • Gerard McEk

            Thanks Bob, most appreciated.

  • Jouni Tuomela

    I would prefer the two-bath/swimming-pool-technique, but if the effect is very weak we just have to use something like 200l steel barrels. Used ones are cheap.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Let’s start from a reasonable volume and work upwards.

      • Gerard McEk

        Hi Bob, can you give us an insight in the MFMP agenda for testing the different reactors?

        • Steve Albers

          I saw the dates for this on their Google Doc, beginning May 19.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Yes.

          As it stands, much depends on claimants.

          We will be ready and in position to test me356s AURA from 19th.

          We will be ready to test Egely’s NOVA end of month

          We have set aside time to test Suhas’ ECCO middle of June

          • MorganMck

            This sounds ambitious but laudable. I certainly hope that one or more of these systems yield unequivocally positive results. Rossi certainly seems to have stalled out. Not that he isn’t busy and energetic but he appears to be mostly running in place these days and sometimes mistakes activity for progress. He told us that the IH lawsuit would not slow him up but something certainly has. LENR could certainly use a shot in the arm.

          • Gerard McEk

            Thanks Bob, most appreciated.

  • Bob Greenyer

    How a Sensus thermal watt meter determines flow rate, temperature delta & metrics like short term average power & flow rate.

    https://youtu.be/SwChE4-rMgE

  • Bob Greenyer

    How a Sensus thermal watt meter determines flow rate, temperature delta & metrics like short term average power & flow rate.

    https://youtu.be/SwChE4-rMgE

  • Kasper Madsen

    That looks like a box with a Raspberry Pi 2/3 and a 2.3″ 4D Systems screen in the lid 🙂
    Interesting part is in the code, I do have som experience with both the physical aspect of thermal physics and designing/programming systems to calculate power/flow/temperatures in process system and would like to volunteer my help to the MFMP, so Bob, if you need my resources, please contact me 🙂

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks Kasper, your offer is noted.

  • Bob Greenyer

    A backup calorimetry setup…

    Discussed here with ‘dummy reactor’ for comment.

    https://youtu.be/cub7m9qfxQQ

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Bob,

      I think you have a incorrect understanding of the difference between flow metering and temperature measurement. For the turbine/paddle wheel type flow sensors, typically you have a straight pipe of 10 diameters ahead of the measurement and 5 diameters after the measurement. They require laminar flow for accurate flow measurement. On the other hand, you should use a static mixer ahead of a thermal sensor to make sure that there is no temperature stratification before the sensor. I would do the following:

      1). 10 diameter straight pipe
      2). Flow meter
      3). 5 diameter straight pipe
      4). Static Mixer
      5). Thermal sensor
      6). Condensor tube inlet
      7). Condenser tube outlet
      8). Static Mixer
      9). Thermal Sensor

      The thermal sensors can be just before a bend, but after the static mixer — the static mixer assures that the fluid is well mixed so any point in the flow will be an accurate temperature. Placing the temperature sensors after a straight pipe re-introduces laminar flow with potential thermal stratification.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Hi Thomas,

        You are right, I was getting confused with the ultrasonic flow meters that need to have lamina flow to work.

        I will be taking a trip to the hardware store later this week, so could you take a look at the spec sheet in a language of your choice here:

        https://goo.gl/Xac1E7

        Ours is the 0.6. Note, the input sensor is built in to the Sensus in correct position – we only have the option to position the output temperature PT500 sensor.

        Please let me know what length of pipe you would recommend and your suggestion for a suitable static mixer.

        Thanks for your contribution – this is why we do it openly, so mistakes are caught before hand!

        • Thomas Kaminski

          Bob,

          I am not exactly sure what the internal technology is, but I have used turbine meters that require the laminar flow. Paddle wheels, however, might not indicate correctly with laminar flow, depending on where the paddlewheel is in the flow. I did look up an installation manual and it shows typical installations here:

          http://www.brinck.nl/producten?format=raw&task=download&fid=100

          Yours looks a lot like a typical installation.

          The turbine I have used is an Omega device shown here:

          http://www.omega.com/Manuals/manualpdf/M4517.pdf

          See page 10 for typical installation details.

          For thermal measurement, a static mixer is best use to present a well-mixed, not stratified fluid, for the thermal sensor to measure. On the other hand, if the pipes are well insulated, or if the flow is a high-Reynolds number, turbulent flow, it is not likely to be much in error. For the meter you chose, the input sensor is fixed, so you don’t have a choice. Still, the output thermal sensor could be proceeded by a static mixer.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Will put some steel pan scrub in pipe before output.

            The main flow calorimetry setup will use Omega flow meter device

            Thanks for your attention.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            The pan scrub will definitely increase pressure drop, but might work. As an alternative, take some aluminum flashing and cut out two alternating half-circle strings like the picture below (a commercial mixer).

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b093a8cfee17294cd0e020247d6a1f005256cbfc243a02ad0d09eb58ffb93dfb.jpg

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hmm – I have some aluminium sheet and some sheet cutters – It might not look as pretty, but I can give it a go.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Video showing two bucket options for steam sparging / immersion heater quick comparison. They are made of polypropylene which melts at 160C, will be looking to top out at about 60C

            Our highly accurate scale can measure up to 44kg, and so these are suitable for our testing.

            https://youtu.be/N-oywunRumU

          • we-cat

            Hi Bob,

            Great stuff. Looks like you guys are ready. Did me356 confirm on a test period yet?

            Cheers,

            JB

          • Bob Greenyer

            The schedule has not changed. me356 knows the timings, he has not said don’t come – we already know he is a man of courage to conduct this research with his own resources – let’s hope he has the courage to see if his hard work has really delivered something.

          • we-cat

            Hi Bob,

            Thanks for answering! That means that tickets are booked, right?

            I can imagine that you guys are very excited. All the best!

            JB

          • Bob Greenyer

            We will do periodic updates as we prepare for claimants to be ready.

            We will settle what is in each data feed as everything comes together.

            plot.ly and dashboard.io are very easy to use.

            We have a good array of cameras, even a steady cam.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We are very excited and nervous at the same time, for the claimant also.

            Since the bulk of the testing team will be coming from the west with exhausting journeys, we will need a few easier days to begin with.

            We must bring all the equipment together as it is coming from 4 locations and test it all works – we don’t want to be messing around at the claimants site. We want to mount the heat exchanger and assorted components on a board and seal and test everything including the dummy reactor and run mock bucket tests.

            We will also want to familiarise ourselves with some of the new tools as a team since some members know some things and others know other things.

          • Bob Greenyer

            That is the plan.

          • Mats002

            Alan Smith wrote “I have no technical information to impart, merely a confirmation that they are working on Ni-H with positive results, passed on in full.” and ” I think more will be revealed by summer’s end, in the meantime, they are locked down, no visitors no publications.”

            He also wrote that he got this information in an email conversation.

            Whatever ‘positive results’ may mean.

          • Omega Z

            Just an observation.

            Parkhomov had consultations or conversations with Levi and other members of the Lugano team.

            Immediately after the GPT concluded, Fulvio Fabiani makes a trip to Russia. “Parkhomov possibly?”

            Fulvio Fabiani is now working as a visiting researcher at Uppsala University. In the same department of Roland Pettersson, a member of the Lugano team.

          • Mats002

            Yes but this is all rumors, not verified, it is a possibility that this Fulvio Fabiani is another guy happen to have the same name. By the way glad you spelled Uppsala correctly, I live not so far up north from Uppsala.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Affordable power monitors…

            An article looking at a few affordable power monitors with an in depth video.

            We will be using these in up and coming reactor tests and seeing how accurate they are when compared to equipment that costs over $2000.

            https://steemit.com/science/@mfmp/affordable-power-monitors

          • Ged

            Could be a very useful test for validating practical equipment for the wider groups of replicators out there. Actually quite excited to see how that comparison pans out.

          • Rene

            Bob,
            Most power monitors have some amount of line conditioning to reduce harmonics induced measurement errors. You might want to consider getting a line conditioner to clean up what it measures, though do not get one that has UPS capability because that would complicate power measurement. Noise and RFI conditioners run in the $100-400 range.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We have two high spec power analysers with us to compare against. We do not want to have anything in the way of these affordable units when we tests them against the analysers – since we want to know they produce comparable results, or not, so that less well funded researchers can use them in their work as ballpark measurement tools.

          • Rene

            You don’t want resistance, you want turbulence induced mixing, hence discontinuities to break up laminar flow.

          • Bob Greenyer

            It is ok, I will make the static mixer insert as advised by Thomas.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I would not expect that thermal stratification could be a problem at the input side, at least if you let the water run a few minutes before the test starts. But, of course, better safe than sorry. BTW it might be interesting to place sensors both before and behind the mixers, just to get an impression of the possible deviations.

        • Bob Greenyer

          The Sensus has the PT500 on the input side just prior to the turbine, so at least on the input side you cannot have a mixer just before it otherwise you will break up the laminar flow for the turbine.

    • LT

      On the steam output side, where you have condensed water, the thermocouple is placed after the bend at the end of the straight pipe.
      Should that thermocouple not be placed at the end of the straight pipe because of possible turbulance after the bend as you stated ? (In the flowmeter follow up video it is placed correct)

      • Bob Greenyer

        Actually as Thomas said below, I made a mistake in my unscripted description (and that is why we do things openly). We need the flow laminar before the flow meter turbine, but before the TC it needs to be mixed, in the case of the input TC this is not possible as the TC is integrated just before the turbine, on the output we will put a static mixer in the pipe (steel pan scrub).

        In the case of the steam trap U, this is only a bonus metric to give us an idea of how much heat may remain in the condensed water from the reactor. It will not be a key metric unless the COP is questionably low. It will be better with turbulent flow, however the flow may be very low – maximally around 15l per hour.

    • GiveADogABone

      The core component here is the condensing tube and shell heat exchanger. As shown :-
      1: Steam in and condensate out on the primary side which is inside the tubes.
      2: Cool water in and warm water out on the secondary side on the outside of the tubes (or inside the shell of the heat exchanger)

      You have an immediate design choice.
      Cooling water inside the tubes or outside?
      You have chosen outside.
      It is not clear in what orientation the heat exchanger will be finally mounted.

      There are issues:-
      1: steam/water flow areas,
      2: the effect of gravity on the condensing process,
      3: venting
      4: pump suction on the AURA?
      5: whether the AURA superheats?
      6: trip parameters to protect the plant.

      1: Steam has a specific volume 1600 times water at zero bar gauge/100C. All 100% of the steam has to pass into the tubes at the inlet end before condensing starts to reduce the volume. Sufficient flow area? Obstruction produces a pressure drop that the AURA circulating pump/head has to overcome. Further down the condensing surface area is much obstructed by water droplets running down and even a water level at the bottom. The hot end of the shell is also a dead space that will stay close to 100C.

      2: Gravity assists/drives the draining process, so the steam inlet is normally placed well above the condensate outlet. That suggests the length of the heat exchanger might be mounted vertically (or sloped).

      3: Incondensible gases are always an issue with condensation because the water surface normally traps them and they wreck the heat transfer if they remain in situ in the heat exchanger.

      4: It is a headache that we do not know what the rest of the primary water/steam circuit looks like. There might be an assumption that there is a water circulating pump. All pumps need a positive suction head (above the vapour pressure of the water in them) to prevent cavitation. This issue is normally dealt with by a hotwell that has a water level and the flow rate control valve is on the discharge side of the pump. Flowing primary water back to the AURA at high temperatures (well above 60C) demands a high head pipework system i.e. the heat exchanger is mounted much higher that the AURA.

      5: Superheating by the AURA might generate steam in the dead space of the coolant side.

      6: Is the AURA fully protected with its own trip signals and reserve cooling water?

      So six choices :-
      1: primary or secondary fluid inside the tubes, and
      2: heat exchanger mounted horizontally, vertically or sloped

      My preferred option would be sloped with primary side fluid on the outside of the tubes, steam in uppermost, and secondary fluid inside the tubes with the inlet at the lower end. That makes the steam flow area inside the heat exchanger much greater and the primary side free-draining. A vent for incondensible gases, on the same pipe as the safety valve would be good. The secondary side is self-venting.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks for this detailed consideration

        The specs for the heat exchange is that it is to be mounted vertically, however, this may not be assuming steam. Likewise the specifications say the water to be heated goes in at the bottom of the outer and out at the top, the heating fluid goes through the top and out the bottom.

        It is true that there is more volume in the outer.

        • GiveADogABone

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/78aec47e004f7f8148061a58d1f23bcb9897f3566a07641036a0abee6568016b.png

          This is the standard way of arranging things. Steam in at the top and condensate out at the bottom of the shell side. Cooling water in and out inside the tubes. A suction/vent for removing incondensible gases from the steam space.

          In your case, tilt the tube with the steam in at the high end and the condensate out at the low end. You can even fit a gauge glass to see the water level in the shell, if it helps. Fit a long pipe on the condensate out to increase the pressure at the pump below (just like Rossi did with the mezzanine heat exchanger).

          • Bob Greenyer

            This looks more like me356 unit, however all of the feeds are from one side.

  • Bob Greenyer

    A backup calorimetry setup…

    Discussed here with ‘dummy reactor’ for comment.

    https://youtu.be/cub7m9qfxQQ

    • Thomas Kaminski

      Bob,

      I think you have a incorrect understanding of the difference between flow metering and temperature measurement. For the turbine/paddle wheel type flow sensors, typically you have a straight pipe of 10 diameters ahead of the measurement and 5 diameters after the measurement. They require laminar flow for accurate flow measurement. On the other hand, you should use a static mixer ahead of a thermal sensor to make sure that there is no temperature stratification before the sensor. I would do the following:

      1). 10 diameter straight pipe
      2). Flow meter
      3). 5 diameter straight pipe
      4). Static Mixer
      5). Thermal sensor
      6). Condensor tube inlet
      7). Condenser tube outlet
      8). Static Mixer
      9). Thermal Sensor

      The thermal sensors can be just before a bend, but after the static mixer — the static mixer assures that the fluid is well mixed so any point in the flow will be an accurate temperature. Placing the temperature sensors after a straight pipe re-introduces laminar flow with potential thermal stratification.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Hi Thomas,

        You are right, I was getting confused with the ultrasonic flow meters that need to have lamina flow to work and transferring that as a requirement for the PT500s. Still need lamina flow for the turbine as you say but not for the temp sensing.

        I will be taking a trip to the hardware store later this week, so could you take a look at the spec sheet in a language of your choice here:

        https://goo.gl/Xac1E7

        Ours is the 0.6. Note, the input sensor is built in to the Sensus in correct position right next to the turbine – we only have the option to position the output temperature PT500 sensor.

        As far as I can tell, I just need to add a static mixer (please suggest a solution) before the output PT500 inoculation point. Perhaps I could fill the straight section of the output pipe with some open-cell nickel foam? Ryan suggests stainless or brass pan scrubbers. What you are saying is we can loose the long pipe at the top and have a mixer in there.

        Thanks for your contribution – this is why we do it openly, so mistakes / omissions are caught before hand!

        • Thomas Kaminski

          Bob,

          I am not exactly sure what the internal technology is, but I have used turbine meters that require the laminar flow. Paddle wheels, however, might not indicate correctly with laminar flow, depending on where the paddlewheel is in the flow. I did look up an installation manual and it shows typical installations here:

          http://www.brinck.nl/producten?format=raw&task=download&fid=100

          Yours looks a lot like a typical installation.

          The turbine I have used is an Omega device shown here:

          http://www.omega.com/Manuals/manualpdf/M4517.pdf

          See page 10 for typical installation details.

          For thermal measurement, a static mixer is best use to present a well-mixed, not stratified fluid, for the thermal sensor to measure. On the other hand, if the pipes are well insulated, or if the flow is a high-Reynolds number, turbulent flow, it is not likely to be much in error. For the meter you chose, the input sensor is fixed, so you don’t have a choice. Still, the output thermal sensor could be proceeded by a static mixer.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Will put some steel pan scrub in pipe before output.

            The main flow calorimetry setup will use Omega flow meter device

            Thanks for your attention.

          • Thomas Kaminski

            The pan scrub will definitely increase pressure drop, but might work. As an alternative, take some aluminum flashing and cut out two alternating half-circle strings like the picture below (a commercial mixer).

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b093a8cfee17294cd0e020247d6a1f005256cbfc243a02ad0d09eb58ffb93dfb.jpg

          • Bob Greenyer

            Hmm – I have some aluminium sheet and some sheet cutters – It might not look as pretty, but I can give it a go.

          • Rene

            You don’t want resistance, you want turbulence induced mixing, hence discontinuities to break up laminar flow.

          • Bob Greenyer

            It is ok, I will make the static mixer insert as advised by Thomas.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        I would not expect that thermal stratification could be a problem at the input side, at least if you let the water run a few minutes before the test starts. But, of course, better safe than sorry. BTW it might be interesting to place sensors both before and behind the mixers, just to get an impression of the possible deviations.

        • Bob Greenyer

          The Sensus has the PT500 on the input side just prior to the turbine, so at least on the input side you cannot have a mixer just before it otherwise you will break up the laminar flow for the turbine.

    • LT

      On the steam output side, where you have condensed water, the thermocouple is placed after the bend at the end of the straight pipe.
      Should that thermocouple not be placed at the end of the straight pipe because of possible turbulance after the bend as you stated ? (In the flowmeter follow up video it is placed correct)

      • Bob Greenyer

        Actually as Thomas said below, I made a mistake in my unscripted description (and that is why we do things openly). We need the flow laminar before the flow meter turbine, but before the TC it needs to be mixed, in the case of the input TC this is not possible as the TC is integrated just before the turbine, on the output we will put a static mixer in the pipe (steel pan scrub).

        In the case of the steam trap U, this is only a bonus metric to give us an idea of how much heat may remain in the condensed water from the reactor. It will not be a key metric unless the COP is questionably low. It will be better with turbulent flow, however the flow may be very low – maximally around 15l per hour.

    • GiveADogABone

      The core component here is the condensing tube and shell heat exchanger. As shown :-
      1: Steam in and condensate out on the primary side which is inside the tubes.
      2: Cool water in and warm water out on the secondary side on the outside of the tubes (or inside the shell of the heat exchanger)

      You have an immediate design choice.
      Cooling water inside the tubes or outside?
      You have chosen outside.
      It is not clear in what orientation the heat exchanger will be finally mounted.

      There are issues:-
      1: steam/water flow areas,
      2: the effect of gravity on the condensing process,
      3: venting
      4: pump suction on the AURA?
      5: whether the AURA superheats?
      6: trip parameters to protect the plant.

      1: Steam has a specific volume 1600 times water at zero bar gauge/100C. All 100% of the steam has to pass into the tubes at the inlet end before condensing starts to reduce the volume. Sufficient flow area? Obstruction produces a pressure drop that the AURA circulating pump/head has to overcome. Further down the condensing surface area is much obstructed by water droplets running down and even a water level at the bottom. The hot end of the shell is also a dead space that will stay close to 100C.

      2: Gravity assists/drives the draining process, so the steam inlet is normally placed well above the condensate outlet. That suggests the length of the heat exchanger might be mounted vertically (or sloped).

      3: Incondensible gases are always an issue with condensation because the water surface normally traps them and they wreck the heat transfer if they remain in situ in the heat exchanger.

      4: It is a headache that we do not know what the rest of the primary water/steam circuit looks like. There might be an assumption that there is a water circulating pump. All pumps need a positive suction head (above the vapour pressure of the water in them) to prevent cavitation. This issue is normally dealt with by a hotwell that has a water level and the flow rate control valve is on the discharge side of the pump. Flowing primary water back to the AURA at high temperatures (well above 60C) demands a high head pipework system i.e. the heat exchanger is mounted much higher that the AURA.

      5: Superheating by the AURA might generate steam in the dead space of the coolant side.

      6: Is the AURA fully protected with its own trip signals and reserve cooling water?

      So six choices :-
      1: primary or secondary fluid inside the tubes, and
      2: heat exchanger mounted horizontally, vertically or sloped

      My preferred option would be sloped with primary side fluid on the outside of the tubes, steam in uppermost, and secondary fluid inside the tubes with the inlet at the lower end. That makes the steam flow area inside the heat exchanger much greater and the primary side free-draining. A vent for incondensible gases, on the same pipe as the safety valve would be good. The secondary side is self-venting.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks for this detailed consideration

        The specs for the heat exchange is that it is to be mounted vertically, however, this may not be assuming steam. Likewise the specifications say the water to be heated goes in at the bottom of the outer and out at the top, the heating fluid goes through the top and out the bottom.

        It is true that there is more volume in the outer.

        • GiveADogABone

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/78aec47e004f7f8148061a58d1f23bcb9897f3566a07641036a0abee6568016b.png

          This is the standard way of arranging things. Steam in at the top and condensate out at the bottom of the shell side. Cooling water in and out inside the tubes. A suction/vent for removing incondensible gases from the steam space. Add a safety valve on the suction/vent.

          In your case, tilt the tube with the steam in at the high end and the condensate out at the low end. You can even fit a gauge glass to see the water level in the shell, if it helps. Fit a long, vertical pipe on the condensate out to increase the pressure at the pump below (just like Rossi did with the mezzanine heat exchanger).

          • Bob Greenyer

            This looks more like me356 unit, however all of the feeds are from one side.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thanks Kasper, your offer is noted.

  • Charlie tapp

    Cop 10 shouldn’t be that hard to figure out if it is I recommend not even giving the results out it will turn into lenr forum over here

  • Samec

    Who is such “highest echelon of science” as was mentioned on JoNP (who recently replicated Rossi effect) ?

  • Bob Greenyer

    A call for suggestions on the best way we can use 10 X 8 negatives plates for radiation monitoring.

    We will be getting some of this sensitive film https://goo.gl/YdZq1c

    https://youtu.be/1ZMCCK9w53A

  • Bob Greenyer

    A call for suggestions on the best way we can use 10 X 8 negatives plates for radiation monitoring.

    We will be getting some of this sensitive film https://goo.gl/YdZq1c

    https://youtu.be/1ZMCCK9w53A

    I say 8 x 4 but I mean 10 X 8 inch in the video

  • Bob Greenyer

    Video showing two bucket options for steam sparging / immersion heater quick comparison. They are made of polypropylene which melts at 160C, will be looking to top out at about 60C

    Our highly accurate scale can measure up to 44kg, and so these are suitable for our testing.

    https://youtu.be/N-oywunRumU

    • we-cat

      Hi Bob,

      Great stuff. Looks like you guys are ready. Did me356 confirm on a test period yet?

      Cheers,

      JB

      • Bob Greenyer

        The schedule has not changed. me356 knows the timings, he has not said don’t come – we already know he is a man of courage to conduct this research with his own resources – let’s hope he has the courage to see if his hard work has really delivered something.

        • we-cat

          Hi Bob,

          Thanks for answering! That means that tickets are booked, right?

          I can imagine that you guys are very excited. All the best!

          JB

          • Bob Greenyer

            We have prepared to do tests for 3 claimants – but there will still be a huge amount of work bringing everything together.

            HOMO – already have Parkhomov Samples in hand, will write on that tomorrow.
            ECCO – We will do more tests on ECCO foil / fuel samples in hand and hopefully tests on fresh fuel and ash.
            AURA – We will prepare for testing the reactor by bringing all of the data logging and other equipment together and doing tests of dummys and controls. We will then be ready to test AURA within our time window.

            The work to prepare for AURA testing will also be a dry run for testing ECCO.

          • Stephen Harrison

            Sounds like you really have taken on a lot of work with all the logistical associated problems. I’m just saying in terms of AURA just make sure you get the 2 bucket tests done and videoed, it’ should only take a couple of hours (hopefully). All your complicated instrumentation and data connections are then only trying to confirm something that your fairly certain about, which is the result of your simple tests. Good luck to you and your team…

          • Bob Greenyer

            That is the plan.

          • Bob Greenyer

            We are very excited and nervous at the same time, for the claimant also.

            Since the bulk of the testing team will be coming from the west with exhausting journeys, we will need a few easier days to begin with.

            We must bring all the equipment together as it is coming from 4 locations and test it all works – we don’t want to be messing around at the claimants site. We want to mount the heat exchanger and assorted components on a board and seal and test everything including the dummy reactor and run mock bucket tests.

            We will also want to familiarise ourselves with some of the new tools as a team since some members know some things and others know other things.

        • Gerd

          So you didn’t ask him? 🙂 Maybe he have simply more important things to work on lol.

        • Cupid

          Hi Bob.
          I haven’t used plot.ly or dashboard.io before. Can you tell me please what information will be contained in each of these data feeds?
          In terms of using Manycams – will you be live streaming to the MFMP Youtube channel?

          • Bob Greenyer

            We will do periodic updates as we prepare for claimants to be ready.

            We will settle what is in each data feed as everything comes together.

            plot.ly and dashboard.io are very easy to use.

            We have a good array of cameras, even a steady cam.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Affordable power monitors…

    An article looking at a few affordable power monitors with an in depth video.

    We will be using these in up and coming reactor tests and seeing how accurate they are when compared to equipment that costs over $2000.

    https://steemit.com/science/@mfmp/affordable-power-monitors

    • Ged

      Could be a very useful test for validating practical equipment for the wider groups of replicators out there. Actually quite excited to see how that comparison pans out.

    • Rene

      Bob,
      Most power monitors have some amount of line conditioning to reduce harmonics induced measurement errors. You might want to consider getting a line conditioner to clean up what it measures, though do not get one that has UPS capability because that would complicate power measurement. Noise and RFI conditioners run in the $100-400 range.

      • Bob Greenyer

        We have two high spec power analysers with us to compare against. We do not want to have anything in the way of these affordable units when we tests them against the analysers – since we want to know they produce comparable results, or not, so that less well funded researchers can use them in their work as ballpark measurement tools.

  • Bob Greenyer
    • LB

      Hi Bob ! I don’t know what kind of signals you have in the cables 4 and 5 from the left mounted on the plate , but if you experience high frequency noise in them, you can improve the shielding by clamping the shield directly against the groundplane. The “pigtails” I see from the cable shields to the common ground point are long and will introduce inductance that will prevent high frequency noise currents induced in the shield to flow unhindered, thereby reducing the shielding efficiency. Or move them to the rightmost clamps, minimizing the length of the pigtails.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks for the tip. Will see what we see when everything is brought together on the weekend.

  • Dodger

    The Uppsalla Team is still working on a Rossi replication and has success (COP > 1)!

    https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/4745-rossi-vs-darden-developments-part-2/?postID=59370#post59370

    Read the next posts by Alan Smith on the page below.

    • Mats002

      Alan Smith wrote “I have no technical information to impart, merely a confirmation that they are working on Ni-H with positive results, passed on in full.” and ” I think more will be revealed by summer’s end, in the meantime, they are locked down, no visitors no publications.”

      He also wrote that he got this information in an email conversation.

      Whatever ‘positive results’ may mean.

      • Omega Z

        Just an observation.

        Parkhomov had consultations or conversations with Levi and other members of the Lugano team.

        Immediately after the GPT concluded, Fulvio Fabiani makes a trip to Russia. “Parkhomov possibly?”

        Fulvio Fabiani is now working as a visiting researcher at Uppsala University. In the same department of Roland Pettersson, a member of the Lugano team.

        • Mats002

          Yes but this is all rumors, not verified, it is a possibility that this Fulvio Fabiani is another guy happen to have the same name. By the way glad you spelled Uppsala correctly, I live not so far up north from Uppsala.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thanks for the tip. Will see what we see when everything is brought together on the weekend.

    • Bob Greenyer
      • Mats002

        Bob – have you concidered tapping some inflow water at run for smell, taste and analysis? Just to rule out a scam by feeding the water with some kind of fuel which in this scenario would be filtered out and consumed by the ‘machine’.

        • Bob Greenyer

          good idea. Will take sample, put a flame to it and any other ideas you have

          • Mats002

            Just drink it! If me356 try to stop you or if you get drunk it might be an indicator… 😉

          • Bob Greenyer

            Maybe he would drink it!

          • Mats002

            Why not? But please get the event on video. Any kind of carbon-hydrogen would give a taste you all recognize.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I’ll do it

          • Bob Greenyer

            Testing the analogue and digital temperature sensing systems for AURA.

            https://youtu.be/wOvFAdrEzu0

            For the data, go https://goo.gl/MQ1leX

        • Ged

          Well, maybe not directly tasting. But if there was something like natural gas in the water, they could light the water on fire. That would be a good test. Though, natgas and other fuels have a strong smell when in water anyways.

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Mats002

      I could not see any test for magnetic fields around the reactor. May be a simple compass can be used to check for strong magnetic fields? (As if what you already planned should not be enough 😉

      • Bob Greenyer

        haha – already got that covered, my plan was to use my S7 Magnetic sensor, I have done extensive tests with it with Suhas fuel (yes it is very slightly magnetic) and big fat neodymium magnets. I know where the sensor is in the device as a result. It even shows the vector.

        ALSO: I am going to use the GRAVITY meter, to see if the reactor effects the local gravity as it should if charge clusters are present.

        • guitarwebs

          Weight change during self sustain mode is something i’ve been expecting to see recorded for some time now. If so, it will make you rethink just what gravity is. It will also change perceptions of quantum mechanics. I believe me356 reported neutron emision without radiation being emited?….

  • Bob Greenyer

    Quick update.

    Alan arrived on the 17th into Prague – only his bags didn’t. Alan has come to Brno for the first of the series of ‘HOMO’ Parkhomov tests – bags are supposed to follow.

    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/548-homo-parkhomov-reactor-sample-tests

    Ryan and Brian arrived into Vienna 18th – only their bags didn’t. They are overnighting in Vienna airport area in the hope that the bags will arrive on the 8am flight from Holland. There is much more to the story, but need to be fresh for the morning tests.

    So, we are set back on getting everything integrated and preliminary tests, will keep you posted.

  • Bob Greenyer

    HOMO: Data from Parkhomov’s ‘KV3’ ash sample after testing in the MALDI TOF MS

    At this laser energy it sees ions, like Ni2, Cu2 etc nothing much below 100 with an Mz accuracy of 1 decimal place

    https://goo.gl/mBLfuh

    Here is the same sample after HCl etch, water and methanol wash.

    https://goo.gl/EAg9zq

    You can analyse the data with this free tool – let us know what you think is going on!

    http://www.mmass.org/download/

  • Bob Greenyer

    Still no bags…

    • Ged

      Holy smokes. How did the airlines lose everyone’s bags? This is a bit absurd. Keep badgering them relentlessly lest they be lazy. I once had my bags arrive but the airport baggage claim put them in the wrong bin and thought they were lost when they weren’t, due to internal misunications. Really odd to lose so many different people’s bags at once though–supreme incompetence.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Two different beginning and end points and two different airlines

        • Ged

          Very frustrating, but hopefully it’ll resolve soon! Good luck guys.

          • Bob Greenyer

            ok – just got notification that Alans bags should be delivered around midnight tonight

          • artefact

            nice!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Ok – all bags will be in Czech by mid day tomorrow

            It has put us 2 days behind.

          • Ged

            Ouch. Hopefully everything can still be squeezed in just as well as planned, within reason. Fun times with flying skies!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Discussion of MALDI TOF MS testing done on Parkhomov’s ash from his Protok 6 reactor.

            https://soundcloud.com/user-554048314/parkhomovs-protok-6-reactor-ash-analysis-via-maldi-tof-ms

          • Mats002

            They put a video on FB with everything assembled and test run with a normal water heater. Can’t make a link – probably because I am not an FB member. I hope it will be uploaded to youtube later.

          • Ged

            So it is beginning? Oh man, I am as excited as a little kid is for Christmas.

          • Mats002

            Me too ^^

            Hope we have been good this year.

          • Rene

            Agreed. Bob, a number of us have no Facebook accounts. Facebook is exceedingly nasty to people without FB accounts, as in videos cannot be viewed. So, please, place them either on steemit or youtube.

          • Bob Greenyer

            Sorry – we still have internet cable cut to house, video of bucket test took 7 hours to upload at other location. We did the Facebook live to just get something out.

            Uploading some sound cloud.

            Hopefully going to have wired internet tomorrow.

          • pelgrim108
          • Ged

            This delay hasn’t affected the project time line adversely, I hope? I mean, people have to fly back home eventually, so is there still time to get everything done despite such a bagged delay?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well, assuming me356 can be ready for us when we are, we’ll definitely be able to do the bucket test 😉

    • Rene

      Maybe they detected LENR activity.

    • LT

      Would it be better to use the next time a courier service (UPS, DHL) to ship important stuf ?
      I think they are much more reliable then airlines.

    • Jas

      Two years ago I went to Sardinia for a long weekend. My suitcase went to Sicily. Someone on a flight to Sicily had the same last name as me. The airline sent his suitcase to Sardinia. I finaly got my luggage on the Sunday. Not fun at all.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Still no bags…

    • Ged

      Holy smokes. How did the airlines lose everyone’s bags? This is a bit absurd. Keep badgering them relentlessly lest they be lazy (seriously though, call them up every hour and ask for updates). I once had my bags arrive but the airport baggage claim put them in the wrong bin and thought they were lost when they weren’t, due to internal miscomunications. Really odd to lose so many different people’s bags at once though–supreme incompetence.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Two different beginning and end points and two different airlines

        • Ged

          Very frustrating, but hopefully it’ll resolve soon! Good luck guys.

          • Bob Greenyer

            ok – just got notification that Alans bags should be delivered around midnight tonight

          • artefact

            nice!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Ok – all bags will be in Czech by mid day tomorrow

            It has put us 2 days behind.

          • Ged

            Ouch. Hopefully everything can still be squeezed in just as well as planned, within reason. Fun times with flying skies!

          • Ged

            This delay hasn’t affected the project time line adversely, I hope? I mean, people have to fly back home eventually, so is there still time to get everything done despite such a bagged delay?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well, assuming me356 can be ready for us when we are, we’ll definitely be able to do the bucket test 😉

    • Rene

      Maybe they detected LENR activity.

    • LT

      Would it be better to use the next time a courier service (UPS, DHL) to ship important stuf ?
      I think they are much more reliable then airlines.

    • Jas

      Two years ago I went to Sardinia for a long weekend. My suitcase went to Sicily. Someone on a flight to Sicily had the same last name as me. The airline sent his suitcase to Sardinia. I finaly got my luggage on the Sunday. Not fun at all.

  • Bob Greenyer

    We are finally in our off-off-site accommodation.

    Last bags arrived today and after and arduous cross country journey by taxi, trains and car – we are ready to start integrating the equipment. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/35935b05ad03ccb4393e4f0a5dcb4050d7ee37d5c573cc2d0d8b0cbb456d196a.jpg

  • Bob Greenyer

    We are finally in our off-off-site accommodation.

    Last bags arrived today and after and arduous cross country journey by taxi, trains and car – we are ready to start integrating the equipment. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/35935b05ad03ccb4393e4f0a5dcb4050d7ee37d5c573cc2d0d8b0cbb456d196a.jpg

    • Ged

      Woo! Good luck and keep kicking butt guys. It’s already one heck of an adventure.

    • Cupid

      Bob, during me356 testing, what site will you update the most regularly with commentary – e-cat/LENR-Forum/Youtube/MFMP/other?
      BR.

    • sam
  • Ged

    Hey Frank. I apologize for making a request, but would it be ok to have a new MFMP tests thread for updates and all for following along? It seems like a good time since they are setting up now and are going to begin soon, and this thread is getting a little buried/outdated.

    • orsobubu

      And I would put a title like “The final thread” or “The definitive proof” or something like that 🙂

    • Frank Acland

      Good idea, I am planning to do that as soon as there is a green light from Bob.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Discussion of MALDI TOF MS testing done on Parkhomov’s ash from his KV3 reactor.

    https://soundcloud.com/user-554048314/parkhomovs-protok-6-reactor-ash-analysis-via-maldi-tof-ms

  • Bob Greenyer

    MFMP volunteers Brian Albiston and Ryan Hunt discuss the difficulties they had trying to bring their equipment for the tests.

    https://soundcloud.com/user-554048314/bryan-ryans-bags

  • Bob Greenyer

    MFMP volunteers Brian Albiston and Ryan Hunt discuss the difficulties they had trying to bring their equipment for the tests.

    https://soundcloud.com/user-554048314/bryan-ryans-bags

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Mike Henderson

      Good luck getting your laptops back to the U.S. http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/19/politics/laptop-ban-us-john-kelly/

      • Ged

        It is fine in checked baggage… Though we saw what just happened with that and the airlines. Last I heard yesterday is the proposed carry-on ban is not going into effect, but something to keep an eye on.

        • sam

          Comment Bob Higgins Lenr Forum

          I believe most of the evaluations of the Me356 reactor as a black box
          and the ECCO DC plasma reactor as a full open description should be
          completed by early June – testing is imminent. Let’s set some
          expectations. The test of the Me356 reactor will only be a measure of
          COP – does it produce real XH? Me356 will not provide any additional
          details of how it works. In the case of Suhas’ technology for his DC
          dusty plasma reactor, he has indicated that he will tell MFMP
          everything, including how the fuel is made. Suhas will also help MFMP
          build a replica reactor. Many of the details of his device have already
          been revealed. Measuring its COP credibly is a first step and that
          should happen by early June.

          Then there is also the dusty microwave plasma work of George Egely.
          George has already described his apparatus and operation. He is going to
          bring a reactor to the university, load it with materials that will be
          sampled and analyzed; operate the reactor (it only takes a few minutes),
          and then the ash will be immediately analyzed. Egely’s apparatus is a
          transmutation machine, not an XH machine (XH is not known). I believe
          this test is planned within 1 month, but I am not exactly sure the final
          date has been selected.

          My personal goal is to see that the experiment you describe (truly
          repeatable, completely laid open) is produced. That’s what it will take
          to get the universities involved. I personally believe we will not get
          the breakthrough in understanding of LENR until the universities are
          involved.

          • This is very exciting. The fact that me356 has allowed the testing team to come over and get ready means he’s going to go through with it.

            Feels like a watershed, possibly even historic, moment is approaching quickly. Good luck MFMP!

        • Bob Greenyer
    • Mats002

      There is a fifth man in the mirror…

      • Omega Z

        Michael Jackson-Man in the mirror

    • Rene

      It’s a tease, but glad you all made as well as your equipment.

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Mike Henderson

      Good luck getting your laptops back to the U.S. http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/19/politics/laptop-ban-us-john-kelly/

      • Ged

        It is fine in checked baggage… Though we saw what just happened with that and the airlines. Last I heard yesterday is the proposed carry-on ban is not going into effect, but something to keep an eye on.

    • Mats002

      There is a fifth man in the mirror…

      • Omega Z

        Michael Jackson-Man in the mirror

      • Carlo

        Me356?

    • Rene

      It’s a tease, but glad you all made as well as your equipment.

  • sam

    Comment Bob Higgins Lenr Forum

    I believe most of the evaluations of the Me356 reactor as a black box
    and the ECCO DC plasma reactor as a full open description should be
    completed by early June – testing is imminent. Let’s set some
    expectations. The test of the Me356 reactor will only be a measure of
    COP – does it produce real XH? Me356 will not provide any additional
    details of how it works. In the case of Suhas’ technology for his DC
    dusty plasma reactor, he has indicated that he will tell MFMP
    everything, including how the fuel is made. Suhas will also help MFMP
    build a replica reactor. Many of the details of his device have already
    been revealed. Measuring its COP credibly is a first step and that
    should happen by early June.

    Then there is also the dusty microwave plasma work of George Egely.
    George has already described his apparatus and operation. He is going to
    bring a reactor to the university, load it with materials that will be
    sampled and analyzed; operate the reactor (it only takes a few minutes),
    and then the ash will be immediately analyzed. Egely’s apparatus is a
    transmutation machine, not an XH machine (XH is not known). I believe
    this test is planned within 1 month, but I am not exactly sure the final
    date has been selected.

    My personal goal is to see that the experiment you describe (truly
    repeatable, completely laid open) is produced. That’s what it will take
    to get the universities involved. I personally believe we will not get
    the breakthrough in understanding of LENR until the universities are
    involved.

    • This is very exciting. The fact that me356 has allowed the testing team to come over and get ready means he’s going to go through with it.

      Feels like a watershed, possibly even historic, moment is approaching quickly. Good luck MFMP!

  • HAL9000

    How does a positive test result (if that is the case) of a black box advance the cause of LENR research? Without the ability to have independent replications, MFMP puts itself forever in the position of having to defend a controversial test result (if positive) that MFMP cannot replicate, ironically placing itself in the same position as Martin and Fleischmann.

    • Mike Henderson

      Let’s just take it one step at a time. If a black box can run for some period of time throwing more heat than could be possibly be contained in that box as either chemical or electrical potential, then something nuclear must be going on within that box. That’s sufficient for the moment.

  • Mats002

    They put a video on FB with everything assembled and test run with a normal water heater. Can’t make a link – probably because I am not an FB member. I hope it will be uploaded to youtube later.

    • Ged

      So it is beginning? Oh man, I am as excited as a little kid is for Christmas.

      • Mats002

        Me too ^^

        Hope we have been good this year.

    • Rene

      Agreed. Bob, a number of us have no Facebook accounts. Facebook is exceedingly nasty to people without FB accounts, as in videos cannot be viewed. So, please, place them either on steemit or youtube.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Sorry – we still have internet cable cut to house, video of bucket test took 7 hours to upload at other location. We did the Facebook live to just get something out.

        Uploading some sound cloud.

        Hopefully going to have wired internet tomorrow.

    • pelgrim108
  • Bob Greenyer
  • Mike Henderson

    Let’s just take it one step at a time. If a black box can run for some period of time throwing more heat than could be possibly be contained in that box as either chemical or electrical potential, then something nuclear must be going on within that box. That’s sufficient for the moment.

  • Bob Greenyer
    • Mats002

      Bob – have you concidered tapping some inflow water at run for smell, taste and analysis? Just to rule out a scam by feeding the water with some kind of fuel which in this scenario would be filtered out and consumed by the ‘machine’.

      • Bob Greenyer

        good idea. Will take sample, put a flame to it and any other ideas you have

        • Mats002

          Just drink it! If me356 try to stop you or if you get drunk it might be an indicator… 😉

          • Bob Greenyer

            Maybe he would drink it!

          • Mats002

            Why not? But please get the event on video. Any kind of carbon-hydrogen would give a taste you all recognize.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I’ll do it

      • Ged

        Well, maybe not directly tasting. But if there was something like natural gas in the water, they could light the water on fire. That would be a good test. Though, natgas and other fuels have a strong smell when in water anyways.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Testing the analogue and digital temperature sensing systems for AURA.

    https://youtu.be/wOvFAdrEzu0

    For the data, go https://goo.gl/MQ1leX

  • Bob Greenyer

    AURA test log.

    https://goo.gl/O7WsX5

  • Bob Greenyer

    AURA test log.

    https://goo.gl/O7WsX5

  • artefact