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:[email protected]/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.

  • 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.

  • 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

    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
  • 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
    • 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

    • Rene

      It’s a tease, but glad you all made as well as your equipment.

  • 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

    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

  • 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.

    • Frank Acland

      Good idea, I am planning to do that as soon as there is a green light from Bob.

  • 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

    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!

            • 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
    • 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 here 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.

  • 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

    That is the plan.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Thanks for the tip. Will see what we see when everything is brought together on the weekend.

  • Bob Greenyer
  • 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
    • 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

    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 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

    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

    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.

            • 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

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

    https://youtu.be/SwChE4-rMgE

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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?

  • 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/

  • Axil Axil

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

  • 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.

            • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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