Re: [Vo]:MFMP plans to verify claims made by "me356"

[Jed Rothwell]

A follow up video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwChE4-rMgE=youtu.be

Re: [Vo]:MFMP plans to verify claims made by "me356"

[Jed Rothwell]

Here is a video in which they discuss the MFMP calorimetry planned for this
project:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cub7m9qfxQQ=youtu.be

Re: [Vo]:MFMP plans to verify claims made by "me356"

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

> You seem to be making a couple of questionable assumptions, not the least
> of which is that the flow rate of tap water will remain stable over a long
> time period - in fact it can vary significantly in many locales.
>
Not in my experience. I have tested this in many places. It is remarkably
steady. Better than a good pump.

There are local disruptions when someone flushes a toilet or fills a tub,
but they are small. In any case, they are bringing two flow meters and they
will record the flow rate, so the data can be adjusted for variations in
the flow rate.


> We're talking about Eastern Europe, no? The plumbing may go back to the
> kingdom of Bohemia.
>
The physical arrangement of a reservoir or water tower is the same
everywhere.


> Even though the setup seems fundamentally flawed as a precision
> calorimeter, it can serve a purpose.
>
Why does anyone need a precision calorimeter for this purpose? The report
is 1 kW input, 8 kW output. That does not call for precision. It calls for
ordinary, industrial style calorimetry. The sort of thing people do during
boiler tests, following regulations. Florida regs, which are based on ASME
textbooks, specify that you confirm the flow rate with a bucket and
stopwatch. That is low precision. The flow meters are usually the float
type, and the thermometers are bimetallic dial thermometers. By law, that
is what you have to use in the test. You can have more high tech
instruments, but you must have those as well. Low tech, low precision, but
high accuracy. They use lookup tables with 10 or 20 divisions; in other
words, 5% precision.

Basically, the regulations specify that you must use 19th century
technology to confirm that a boiler is working. That works every time. It
is certain you can detect the difference between 1 kW and 8 kW with these
methods. Using more complicated methods or instruments that are 140 years
more up to date would not improve the result, or bolster confidence.


> Maybe Dewey Weaver will have a look.
>
I hope so.


> If there really is an apparent COP near 8 for instance - a University or
> large company can take more accurate thermal data without phase change.
>
Again, the phase change is a trivial thing. There are hundreds of thousands
of qualified boiler engineers in the world and any one of them could do
this in his sleep. They have been doing this since the late 18th century,
and modern methods have been in use since the ASME was founded in 1880. (It
was founded to stop boiler explosions, which it did.)

There is simply no reason for you or anyone else to doubt a properly
performed test of steam enthalpy, done by a professional. Unfortunately,
the people from the MFMP are not professionals, but I am confident they can
do a reasonably good job by sparging and using a heat exchanger, because
this eliminates the phase change. It is not an issue at all.


> The inventor could even close the loop with that kind of gain. In fact,
> that is probably the only way to convince most doubter. The best advice is
> to close the loop ASAP.
>
I think that is unnessary. People who are not convinced by conventional
ASME industry standard calorimetry will not be convinced by closing the
loop. They will say it is fake. If Rossi were to do it, I would say it is
fake. Probably fake.


> But if it gets down to judging steam quality to make a case for thermal
> gain in the range of COP~1.5 - then it has been a waste of time IMHO.
>
That's absurd. Anyone can measure a COP of 1.5 with confidence.

Rossi could not measure a COP of 5000 with his instruments, but any normal
person would have no difficulty measuring 1.5. Granted, it would be a
little more challenging than 1 kW to 8 kW. Conventional electric boiler
tests show something like 90% to 95% efficiency. If they can measure that
with confidence, knowing for sure it is 90% and not 80%, they could far
more easily measure 150%.

If they could not distinguish between 80% and 90%, boilers would explode. A
mistake on that scale might be fatal.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MFMP plans to verify claims made by "me356"

[Jones Beene]

You seem to be making a couple of questionable assumptions, not the 
least of which is that the flow rate of tap water will remain stable 
over a long time period - in fact it can vary significantly in many 
locales. We're talking about Eastern Europe, no? The plumbing may go 
back to the kingdom of Bohemia.


Even though the setup seems fundamentally flawed as a precision 
calorimeter, it can serve a purpose. An apparent large COP will suffice 
to make the prima facie case - and that would entice an investor.


Maybe Dewey Weaver will have a look. If there really is an apparent COP 
near 8 for instance - a University or large company can take more 
accurate thermal data without phase change.


The inventor could even close the loop with that kind of gain. In fact, 
that is probably the only way to convince most doubter. The best advice 
is to close the loop ASAP.


But if it gets down to judging steam quality to make a case for thermal 
gain in the range of COP~1.5 - then it has been a waste of time IMHO.



Jed Rothwell wrote:

Jones Beene > wrote:

Using water, instead of a heat transfer fluid makes no sense to
me, given the history of LENR and especially the duplicity of
Rossi which is looming over everything these days.

He is using tap water. That is simple and cheap. He does not need a 
pump. When you open a faucet and leave it alone you get pretty much 
the same pressure and flow rate all day long. Using oil or some other 
heat transfer fluid would be expensive, complicated and messy. You 
have to have pumps and tanks and so on.


I think you are exaggerating the difficulties of measuring the 
enthalpy of steam. With the proper instruments and techniques it is 
not difficult at all. You just have to measure steam quality. Or, as 
we have discussed here, condense the steam by sparging, or use a heat 
exchanger. What's the big deal?


Steam was a problem with Rossi because he _made it into_ a problem. 
Hot water would have been a problem with him. He would have found a 
way to screw up that measurement as well.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MFMP plans to verify claims made by "me356"

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:

> Using water, instead of a heat transfer fluid makes no sense to me, given
> the history of LENR and especially the duplicity of Rossi which is looming
> over everything these days.
>
He is using tap water. That is simple and cheap. He does not need a pump.
When you open a faucet and leave it alone you get pretty much the same
pressure and flow rate all day long. Using oil or some other heat transfer
fluid would be expensive, complicated and messy. You have to have pumps and
tanks and so on.

I think you are exaggerating the difficulties of measuring the enthalpy of
steam. With the proper instruments and techniques it is not difficult at
all. You just have to measure steam quality. Or, as we have discussed here,
condense the steam by sparging, or use a heat exchanger. What's the big
deal?

Steam was a problem with Rossi because he *made it into* a problem. Hot
water would have been a problem with him. He would have found a way to
screw up that measurement as well.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MFMP plans to verify claims made by "me356"

[Bob Higgins]

Jones,

I believe the system he has designed is for heating his house.  I imagine
it is to feed conventional radiators as would a conventional home heating
boiler.  It is not designed as a test vehicle for someone to measure.

I mentioned the scale because it can be used to measure mass change vs.
time.  This is an MFMP scale, not one owned by Me356.  It will be for
confirmation of mass flow measurement (for example for confirmation that
the inlet liquid water flow meter is reading correctly).

When making black box measurements, the intentions for the design engineer
for his box are irrelevant and unimportant as long as the nature of the
inputs and outputs are understood well enough that proper measurement
instruments can be brought to the site.

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 2:28 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Hi Bob,
>
> No argument that MFMP should not attempt to change anything on their own
> initiative. This is about the inventor and his motivation.
>
> Any mention of a gram scale indicates that they will be measuring steam
> production, which means that phase change is going to be a systemic and
> unnecessary problem. The inventor should realize that phase change can be
> extremely problematic with no redeeming feature, so why have it as part of
> any black box -- when it easy to provide another mechanism? Does he not
> want to convince potential investors?
>
> What is the rationale for not using a heat transfer fluid like mineral
> oil/ therminol? If anything the temperature control should be more accurate
> than with water, which is always problematic due to pressure surges and
> flash steam at the interface with the reactor - not to mention calcium
> deposits and corrosion.
>
> Using water, instead of a heat transfer fluid makes no sense to me, given
> the history of LENR and especially the duplicity of Rossi which is looming
> over everything these days.
>
> If anything, the cost of heat transfer fluid should be low, perhaps less -
> but mostly it will show that the inventor has put some thought into the
> problems of accurate measurement of heat output.
>
> On 5/9/2017 12:21 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
>
> Jones,
> In making a "black box" test, one cannot readily change the system control
> of what is inside the black box.  One must be prepared to measure the black
> box as it is designed to work. If that means water in and steam out, then
> that is what must be measured accurately.  MFMP does not want to be in the
> position of altering the flow rate that is a controlled state variable in
> Me356's system.  If MFMP did not measure XH after having changed something,
> the reason could be that the system control had been changed causing the
> device not to work.  MFMP must be prepared to accurately measure the
> performance without relying on measurements of steam quality, pressure, and
> temperature measurements.  Sparging is a good way to go as Jed suggests.
> Proper setup and use of a heat exchanger with steam will work perfectly
> fine too - it will underestimate the output heat if anything.
>
> The reason one could never rely on a test made of Rossi's device is not
> because there was steam, it was because he never allowed a public test with
> independent well prepared testers using their own equipment for
> evaluation.  The tests Mats Lewan performed were not well prepared through
> no fault of his own.  If you read his book, you would see that he had to
> improvise the testing at the last minute or there would have been no
> measurements.
>
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>>
>> The problems with the proposed testing is HUGE and must be changed- as of
>> now, this is looking like the oldest scam in the book -
>> wet-steam/dry-steam. Rossi has been successful in making the wet-steam scam
>> into an art form. To have any credibility - this test must not involve
>> steam at all. There are good options which do not involve steam.
>>
>>
>
>

Re: [Vo]:MFMP plans to verify claims made by "me356"

[Jones Beene]

Hi Bob,

No argument that MFMP should not attempt to change anything on their own 
initiative. This is about the inventor and his motivation.


Any mention of a gram scale indicates that they will be measuring steam 
production, which means that phase change is going to be a systemic and 
unnecessary problem. The inventor should realize that phase change can 
be extremely problematic with no redeeming feature, so why have it as 
part of any black box -- when it easy to provide another mechanism? Does 
he not want to convince potential investors?


What is the rationale for not using a heat transfer fluid like mineral 
oil/ therminol? If anything the temperature control should be more 
accurate than with water, which is always problematic due to pressure 
surges and flash steam at the interface with the reactor - not to 
mention calcium deposits and corrosion.


Using water, instead of a heat transfer fluid makes no sense to me, 
given the history of LENR and especially the duplicity of Rossi which is 
looming over everything these days.


If anything, the cost of heat transfer fluid should be low, perhaps less 
- but mostly it will show that the inventor has put some thought into 
the problems of accurate measurement of heat output.



On 5/9/2017 12:21 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:

Jones,
In making a "black box" test, one cannot readily change the system 
control of what is inside the black box.  One must be prepared to 
measure the black box as it is designed to work. If that means water 
in and steam out, then that is what must be measured accurately.  MFMP 
does not want to be in the position of altering the flow rate that is 
a controlled state variable in Me356's system.  If MFMP did not 
measure XH after having changed something, the reason could be that 
the system control had been changed causing the device not to work.  
MFMP must be prepared to accurately measure the performance without 
relying on measurements of steam quality, pressure, and temperature 
measurements.  Sparging is a good way to go as Jed suggests.  Proper 
setup and use of a heat exchanger with steam will work perfectly fine 
too - it will underestimate the output heat if anything.


The reason one could never rely on a test made of Rossi's device is 
not because there was steam, it was because he never allowed a public 
test with independent well prepared testers using their own equipment 
for evaluation.  The tests Mats Lewan performed were not well prepared 
through no fault of his own.  If you read his book, you would see that 
he had to improvise the testing at the last minute or there would have 
been no measurements.


On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Jones Beene > wrote:



The problems with the proposed testing is HUGE and must be
changed- as of now, this is looking like the oldest scam in the
book - wet-steam/dry-steam. Rossi has been successful in making
the wet-steam scam into an art form. To have any credibility -
this test must not involve steam at all. There are good options
which do not involve steam.

Re: [Vo]:MFMP plans to verify claims made by "me356"

[Bob Higgins]

I am only peripherally involved in these tests - I will not be on site.  My
understanding is that more than one flow meter will be taken (one may be
embedded in a separate heat measuring system) and they are bringing a gram
accurate scale capable of up to 100kg that will be used as part of flow
meter verification by mass and by volume.

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Bob Higgins  wrote:
>
>
>> The reason one could never rely on a test made of Rossi's device is not
>> because there was steam, it was because he never allowed a public test with
>> independent well prepared testers using their own equipment for evaluation.
>>
>
> Yup. As Rick Smith pointed out, the enthalpy of steam could have been
> measured reliably with industry standard methods. But it wasn't.
>
>
> On another subject in the other discussion: You people will bring a flow
> meter, right?
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:MFMP plans to verify claims made by "me356"

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Higgins  wrote:


> The reason one could never rely on a test made of Rossi's device is not
> because there was steam, it was because he never allowed a public test with
> independent well prepared testers using their own equipment for evaluation.
>

Yup. As Rick Smith pointed out, the enthalpy of steam could have been
measured reliably with industry standard methods. But it wasn't.


On another subject in the other discussion: You people will bring a flow
meter, right?

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MFMP plans to verify claims made by "me356"

[Axil Axil]

MFMP is using this flow meter on the cold water side

http://www.heattracing.co.uk/sub-product-details/sensus-pollucom-e-heat-meter



On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 3:13 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Axil Axil  wrote:
>
> As I understand the MFMP testing process...
>>
>> The flow of water will be set through the heat exchanger to insure that
>> the input water flow into a bucket is equal to 60C. The weight of the water
>> will be recorded and then dumped whereby the filling of the bucket will
>> start another cycle.
>>
>
> Surely they will also use a flow meter! You can't keep dumping buckets
> hour after hour.
>
> You can buy a highly reliable industrial flow meter for $48:
>
> http://www.omega.com/pptst/FL2000.html
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:MFMP plans to verify claims made by "me356"

[Jed Rothwell]

Axil Axil  wrote:

As I understand the MFMP testing process...
>
> The flow of water will be set through the heat exchanger to insure that
> the input water flow into a bucket is equal to 60C. The weight of the water
> will be recorded and then dumped whereby the filling of the bucket will
> start another cycle.
>

Surely they will also use a flow meter! You can't keep dumping buckets hour
after hour.

You can buy a highly reliable industrial flow meter for $48:

http://www.omega.com/pptst/FL2000.html

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MFMP plans to verify claims made by "me356"

[Axil Axil]

As I understand the MFMP testing process...

The flow of water will be set through the heat exchanger to insure that the
input water flow into a bucket is equal to 60C. The weight of the water
will be recorded and then dumped whereby the filling of the bucket will
start another cycle.

The total volume of water will 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 will 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, an electric resistance heater will heat the same total
amount of water that had been heated to 60C 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 dummy based verification method
and the calculated power derived from the first method being from the flow
based  calorimetry process of the first method.

On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:26 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Jones Beene  wrote:
>
>
>> Well that's not exactly true... there is an overlooked detail here which
>> should be clarified . . .
>
>
> If me356 can make it work, he must know something no one else knows. No
> one can make Ni-H produce 8 kW out 1 kW input. If me356 can patent his
> method, even if it is very similar to previous patents or public domain
> information, it will still be unique, patentable and worth $1 trillion.
>
>
>
>> The problems with the proposed testing is HUGE and must be changed- as of
>> now, this is looking like the oldest scam in the book -
>> wet-steam/dry-steam. Rossi has been successful in making the wet-steam scam
>> into an art form. To have any credibility - this test must not involve
>> steam at all.
>
>
> They plan to use a heat exchanger, which will eliminate this problem. The
> method I described, sparging the steam in cold water, will also eliminate
> this problem. Sparging will accurately measure the enthalpy from any
> mixture of wet steam, dry steam or hot water. It is a lot simpler than a
> heat exchanger. The limitation is, you can only do it for 30 minutes or so.
> If you want a long-term test to prove the excess heat goes beyond the
> limits of chemistry you have to use some other method.
>
> I recommended they start with sparging because it can be done quickly and
> easily. If it shows excess heat they should do the heat exchanger method.
> If it does not show any excess I would pack up and go home.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:MFMP plans to verify claims made by "me356"

[Jed Rothwell]

Jones Beene  wrote:


> Well that's not exactly true... there is an overlooked detail here which
> should be clarified . . .


If me356 can make it work, he must know something no one else knows. No one
can make Ni-H produce 8 kW out 1 kW input. If me356 can patent his method,
even if it is very similar to previous patents or public domain
information, it will still be unique, patentable and worth $1 trillion.



> The problems with the proposed testing is HUGE and must be changed- as of
> now, this is looking like the oldest scam in the book -
> wet-steam/dry-steam. Rossi has been successful in making the wet-steam scam
> into an art form. To have any credibility - this test must not involve
> steam at all.


They plan to use a heat exchanger, which will eliminate this problem. The
method I described, sparging the steam in cold water, will also eliminate
this problem. Sparging will accurately measure the enthalpy from any
mixture of wet steam, dry steam or hot water. It is a lot simpler than a
heat exchanger. The limitation is, you can only do it for 30 minutes or so.
If you want a long-term test to prove the excess heat goes beyond the
limits of chemistry you have to use some other method.

I recommended they start with sparging because it can be done quickly and
easily. If it shows excess heat they should do the heat exchanger method.
If it does not show any excess I would pack up and go home.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:MFMP plans to verify claims made by "me356"

[Jones Beene]

 Jed Rothwell wrote:

At LENR Forum a mysterious person calling himself "me356" claims that 
he replicated Rossi... the other day he said he is no longer using 
nickel because of "patent considerations." That is absurd. There are 
no viable patents relating to Ni-H cold fusion, and even if there were 
there is plenty of leeway to improve on them.


Well that's not exactly true... there is an overlooked detail here which 
should be clarified, although I agree that nickel alone as a catalyst 
cannot be protected by patent. The original Thermacore patent has 
expired, and that was that ground-breaking IP which protected the use of 
nickel with potassium hydroxide in a Mills-type reaction, not LENR.


In the years after the basic IP for NiH expired - an improvement based 
on the two heavy isotopes of nickel 62Ni and 64Ni -- as enriched in a 
specialty catalyst, were claimed in a granted patent to Rossi... which 
is involved in the pending lawsuit but ostensibly is now owned by IH.


As we have observed before, there is the possibility that only the 
heavier isotopes of nickel work reliably. Since the total concentration 
of those heavy isotopes of natural nickel is in the range of 5% - there 
would be a large improvement by going to an enriched specialty metal. 
The cost for using heavy isotopes  - in the range of $20 k/gm is too 
high to be commercialized, without a breakthrough in the cost of 
enrichment.


Or - the patent that me356 is wanting to protect could be one relating 
to his own catalyst, thus he wants to make it clear that nickel of any 
kind is absent. IOW he may have a yet unpublished patent application in 
the works.


The problems with the proposed testing is HUGE and must be changed- as 
of now, this is looking like the oldest scam in the book - 
wet-steam/dry-steam. Rossi has been successful in making the wet-steam 
scam into an art form. To have any credibility - this test must not 
involve steam at all. There are good options which do not involve steam.