May 27, 2017 4:37 PM
> *To:* Vortex
> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today
>
> I do not know whether me356 claimed it takes time to crank up his machine.
> I have not been following the discussion. However, if it *does* take
> time, he should have told that
Now at 15:15 local time for the researchers, the test has been running for
45 minutes. The rolling average COP=1.04 and perhaps is climbing slowly.
This test is using the heat exchanger with the flow calorimetry being run
on the cooling water side of the heat exchanger (not the reactor side).
Cool
I believe the Monday test is just being setup. Apparently Me356 has setup
a freshly prepared reactor for today's test.
MFMP is using 2 different high-end power analyzers for measurement of the
input power. To Me356's credit, he has worked hard to accommodate the
continued testing even though the
Looks like a major problem has been spotted, suggesting why me356
honestly thought he was getting excess heat:
His power meter was reading 0.452 KW
vs
1.112 KW from MFMP meter
Yikes... such a significant deficit error in measuring input power will
certainly give the appearance of OU. The inv
Has the testing concluded? It is now 3 PM in Czech.
From: Jed Rothwell
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2017 4:37 PM
To: Vortex
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today
I do not know whether me356 claimed it takes time to crank up his machine. I
involve
plasma-electrolysis.
Bob Cook
From: Bob Higgins<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 11:38 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today
I do not believe the Aura device is a plasma
I do not know whether me356 claimed it takes time to crank up his machine.
I have not been following the discussion. However, if it *does* take time,
he should have told that to the people from MFMP. Or, if the machine is
unreliable and does not work some days, he should have said so. He should
hav
and will run a
final test on Monday. He says it is the only unit he has that has a cover and
he is not prepared to show one without.
AA
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sat, May 27, 2017 4:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today
... It would be great if this could run for several days... in the best
effort of P&F experiments in France, there was no excess for 60 days -
followed by several months of gain.
-
One comment on the above in the context of today's lack of results,
since there
I agree with you Brian. This is quite disappointing.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Brian Ahern
To: Vortex
Sent: Sat, May 27, 2017 12:03 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today
Jed is being too generous. His failure to test today is unforgivable!
I
Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Apparently they are performing a test in his absence.
There is an informative ongoing summary page here - with rolling averages
https://freeboard.io/board/MwMhlL
The COP seemed to be hovering around one while I was watching. No
radiation. No surprises.
It would be grea
>From what I can tell in their live document, me356 is there with them
tweaking things. Doesn't really seem to be making any difference.
Jack
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 11:41 AM Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Brian Ahern wrote:
>
>> Jed is being too generous. His failure to test today is unforgivable!
>>
Brian Ahern wrote:
> Jed is being too generous. His failure to test today is unforgivable!
>
Apparently they are performing a test in his absence.
https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/thread/5228-me356-photos-of-aura-control-unit/?postID=60623#post60623
If he allows some of the MFMP team to stay se
starting to test me356 reactor today
At lenr-forum, me356 is quoted from somewhere:
"I can only tell, that the test was conducted in the condition that was very
far from ready from my side. This mean that I was not prepared for testing with
the current reactor at all. But this is the only one w
At lenr-forum, me356 is quoted from somewhere:
"I can only tell, that the test was conducted in the condition that was
very far from ready from my side. This mean that I was not prepared for
testing with the current reactor at all. But this is the only one with a
cover - thus nothing else can't be
Looks like he has already punted for the day citing family obligations.
The Americans are leaving Monday, I believe, so there may be tomorrow.
Were he planning to be objective, I think he would have said, "either I
made a mistake and it doesn't work, or it is not getting up to a high
enough tempera
As of now, this is looking worse than an objective observer would have
predicted from the circumstances. I agree with Jed that just by letting
these people in the door, me356 has enhanced his credibility... possibly
less than being an early Porsche owner but at least he is open to
scrutiny. Yet
Bob Higgins wrote:
The first 10 minutes would not necessarily be better because the heater was
> being driven with more power. It may measure more accurately because the
> water was closer to room temp.
>
That's what I meant. Better calorimetry. More adiabatic. Maybe not as good
for excess heat
I was only working from data I extracted from the plots. It may prove to
be a little better when the raw data itself is analyzed.
The first 10 minutes would not necessarily be better because the heater was
being driven with more power. It may measure more accurately because the
water was closer
Bob Higgins wrote:
> Calculated values for COP from the data graphs during this sparge test
> varied from 0.5-0.7 depending on the span of time taken.
>
That is a low recovery rate. I think because the bucket was small and they
ran the test for a long time, letting the water get hot.
> At t
The first MFMP test of the Me356 reactor was a steam sparge test that was
asked for by Jed Rothwell. The reactor's output steam+entrained water were
cooled in a bucket of water and discharged into the bucket. By measuring
the temperature rise of the water vs. time, the output power (heat) could
b
Thanks. I see my earlier reply now, but it wasn't there earlier. I have no
idea why it was used out of context to start a new thread.
AA
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker
To: vortex-l
Sent: Fri, May 26, 2017 11:46 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:24 AM, Adrian Ashfield
wrote:
That was what I wrote about in my last post but for some reaspn the post
> has not been published.
I saw your suggestion afterwards. I think it somehow started a new thread
rather than remaining in this one.
Eric
An oscilloscope is of negative value. It provides a false reading.
From: Adrian Ashfield
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 9:24 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today
That was what I wrote about in my last post bu
That was what I wrote about in my last post but for some reaspn the post has
not been published.
AA
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thu, May 25, 2017 10:46 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today
I believe an oscilloscop
measuring the RF ambiance with an oscilloscope can raise red flags.
imprecise indirect measurement are often good cross check
Nothing is fool proof individually but if the testers improve their tests
and cross check with simple measurement (like kill-a-watt at the socket,
electricity bill, RF
I believe an oscilloscope can also be used to check for high-frequency
components in the input power waveform.
Eric
vortex-l
Sent: Thu, May 25, 2017 3:39 pm
Subject: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356 reactor today
I do not believe the Aura device is a plasma electrolysis system. I believe it
is a Ni-H system with a dry reactor that is electrically stimulated. The water
is from cooling of the reactor. MF
This wiring diagram shows the AURA Device plugged into something similar to
a "Kill A Watt" brand EZ Electricity Usage Monitor (power meter). Another
brand is the "Watts Up" meter. See:
https://www.amazon.com/P3-International-P4460-Electricity-Monitor/dp/B000RGF29Q/
Those gadgets are great becaus
face the issue of dry versus wet steam which causes errors consonant with a
> COp around 6-8.
> --
> *From:* Adrian Ashfield
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 25, 2017 3:53 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' rea
>>
>> If the plasma electrolysis is not in operation, but boiling is; then we
>> face the issue of dry versus wet steam which causes errors consonant with a
>> COp around 6-8.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --------------
>> *From:* A
-
> *From:* Adrian Ashfield
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 25, 2017 3:53 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today
>
> Four members of MFMP are in Czechoslovakia and starting to do a black box
> test of me35
face the issue of dry versus wet steam which causes errors consonant with a
> COp around 6-8.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> *From:* Adrian Ashfield
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 25, 2017 3:53 AM
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
> *Subject:* [Vo]: MFMP starting t
From: Brian Ahern
Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 8:24 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today
May I make a prediction?
When the COP is around 6-8 and the process is plasma electrolysis, the inpu
]: MFMP starting to test me356' reactor today
Four members of MFMP are in Czechoslovakia and starting to do a black box test
of me356' reactor.
It is supposed to be similar to his previous model that has been running
several months now.
It was reported to be ~10 Kw with a COP >
Four members of MFMP are in Czechoslovakia and starting to do a black box test
of me356' reactor.
It is supposed to be similar to his previous model that has been running
several months now.
It was reported to be ~10 Kw with a COP >6.
See
http://www.e-catworld.com/2017/05/23/mfmp-on-site-pre
36 matches
Mail list logo