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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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. >> >> > >
