FacebookTwitterDiggStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditTechnoratiLinkedin

ICCF Fun [UPDATE#2 - DGT Demo transcript of conversation with independent monitor]

on .

After the first day and a half of ICCF18, MFMP is really showing its momentum and having fun, as well.

We have a table of shiny toys with blinking lights that is a lot of fun to tell people about.   We were pleased to meet so many of the frequent readers and contributors here and finally get to shake their hands and thank them in person for their insights and suggestions.

 

MFMP did a great 15 minute presentation about ourselves that we will post here very shortly.  It seemed to be received very well by the audience who voted us people's choice amongst the entrepreneurial showcase last night.  We will also post the final version of the Live Open Science posters.

The content at the conference has been top notch and many, many people are excited about the open mission of MFMP.  We are attracting offers of support in various ways and kind words for which we are all very grateful.

 

Today, Defkalion is doing a live streaming video demonstration of their reactor.  Despite a couple glitches in program coordination and the technology, many people here are very hopeful that they pull off something compelling as it proceeds over the next several hours.  Below is a picture of most of the ICCF attendees watching the streaming video in the break area.

 

 

The good news is that the streaming demo is very boring as they take many measurements in front of the camera and patiently allow us to watch the data as it warms up.  They demo is being streamed and recorded and they have also committed to making the data files available for analysis afterwards.  As you can imagine, we greatly welcome that approach.  Maybe the next step will be black box testing of their device.


UPDATE#1 - DGT Demo comment

It was a great show today and we want to congratulate DGT for being more open with their wonderful demonstration, we had encouraged them to take this approach when Ryan went to meet them earlier in the year. We particularly like several of the things that were reported fresh that chime with our own recent independent experience that point to important parameters for achieving successful excess heat. This gives us good confidence in their reported findings.

1. The temperature of the Nickel must be 179ºC (it's Debye) to achieve triggering. You can see this effect in the data from the US dual cells, and this was in the report Mathieu made today before DGT reported it - in our case, being above this temperature signalled a step change in output.

2. Thermal Gradients - this is something Celani has been encouraging all of the replication efforts of his experiment. He suggested us to use knots in the wire to set up thermal gradients.

We had the fortune to be in direct Skype chat contact with Mats Lewin during the experiment and it was definitely live, we were able to ask Mats to pose questions, challenges and do additional testing during the run and saw near real time responses including watching him respond to our requests - People at ICCF could pass questions through this channel and this was very satisfying and reassuring. This gave us total confidence in the live nature of the presentation.

An important takeaway was that the changes were manually done and then Mats was able to verify the National Instruments LabView reported numbers after the manual changes. This makes it very difficult to have set up any kind of pre planned data faking. They will be making data available - in combination with cross referencing the live stream recording, this will also have made any faking very difficult. Again this gives us good confidence in the results.

We are very happy to see this adoption of live open science and we would strongly encourage other players to take this approach. Indeed we have been inundated with other researchers at the conference that are giving us strong indications that they are willing to be FAR more open with their technology and we hope to have a blooming of collaborative live open science for you to enjoy in the coming period. Thank you all for making this possible.

Special thanks goes to Mats for his hard work today.


UPDATE#2 - DGT Demo transcript of conversation with independent monitor

So when we started watching the wonderful Live Open Science demonstrated by DGT... Bob noticed that there was a guy in the room running about measuring current and what not and he thought he recognised him... a quick look at his Skype contacts revealed it was Mats Lewin... Seeing that his status was on-line he thought "I wonder if we can live chat" - he could and the transcript is given below... (all times are Indian due to Bob's laptop time). In gaining permission to publish the transcript, mr Lewin said....

Ok, you can do [publish] that.
Even though I see a couple of errors in my thinking.
The cables to the spark plugs could for example carry 1 kW if voltage is high.
These were spontaneous comments, not well thought through.

Mats


[23/07/2013 21:26:01] Bob W. Greenyer: Hi mats
[23/07/2013 21:26:16] Bob W. Greenyer: Watching the live stream here at ICCF18
[23/07/2013 21:26:43] Mats Lewan: Hi
[23/07/2013 21:27:04] Mats Lewan: I was not prepared to check the measurements, but now I'm doing it all the same...
[23/07/2013 21:27:11] Bob W. Greenyer: You are doing a great job
[23/07/2013 21:27:15] Bob W. Greenyer: Just a warning
[23/07/2013 21:27:31] Bob W. Greenyer: as it was scheduled as a 15 min "startup"
[23/07/2013 21:27:37] Bob W. Greenyer: they had to pull the stream
[23/07/2013 21:27:53] Bob W. Greenyer: and everyone is watching the "Tritium" panel lectures
[23/07/2013 21:28:04] Bob W. Greenyer: so there is practically no one watching here
[23/07/2013 21:28:18] Bob W. Greenyer: so they will be getting no questions
[23/07/2013 21:28:47] Bob W. Greenyer: You are doing a great job
[23/07/2013 21:28:51] Mats Lewan: ok, thanks
[23/07/2013 21:29:03] Bob W. Greenyer: I'll pass through what I can
[23/07/2013 21:30:21] Mats Lewan: ok
[23/07/2013 21:33:46] Bob W. Greenyer: Q1. Will you be able to see the contents of the reactor at the end of the run?
[23/07/2013 21:34:48] Bob W. Greenyer: Q2. What is the operating pressure?
[23/07/2013 21:35:46] Bob W. Greenyer: Q3. Did they turn on the spark during the CONTROL run
[23/07/2013 21:36:58] Bob W. Greenyer: Q3 - VERY IMPORTANT
[23/07/2013 21:39:16] Mats Lewan: Q1 hope so
[23/07/2013 21:39:27] Mats Lewan: 2,895 bars at the moment (argon)
[23/07/2013 21:39:31] Bob W. Greenyer: ok
[23/07/2013 21:39:53] Mats Lewan: Q3 will see. now it's on, but consuming much more power than indicated. they seem to have a problem there
[23/07/2013 21:40:43] Mats Lewan: 1300 watts measured by me, 200 watts reported by them...
[23/07/2013 21:40:46] Bob W. Greenyer: the resistance heating consuming more power?
[23/07/2013 21:40:54] Bob W. Greenyer: really
[23/07/2013 21:40:56] Bob W. Greenyer: ooops
[23/07/2013 21:44:00] Bob W. Greenyer: is it a current or voltage miss reporting?
[23/07/2013 21:45:58] Bob W. Greenyer: Q3… not being addressed
[23/07/2013 21:46:32] Bob W. Greenyer: and LiveStream dropped out
[23/07/2013 21:47:52] Bob W. Greenyer: He is not saying they will spark it
[23/07/2013 21:48:01] Mats Lewan: Q3: Spark plug is active
[23/07/2013 21:48:09] Bob W. Greenyer: ok
[23/07/2013 21:48:16] Bob W. Greenyer: where can we see the data for that
[23/07/2013 21:48:24] Mats Lewan: the problem is the power reported to the sparkplug
[23/07/2013 21:48:51] Mats Lewan: the power to the spark plug should be the one indicated HV
[23/07/2013 21:49:00] Bob W. Greenyer: yes
[23/07/2013 21:49:17] Bob W. Greenyer: it has a high possibility of miss-reporting on energy in
[23/07/2013 21:49:40] Mats Lewan: it's reported to be 216 watts now, but the current to the variac is 5,8 A and voltage 220...
[23/07/2013 21:49:51] Mats Lewan: that is variac number two, dedicated to the HV system
[23/07/2013 21:49:52] Bob W. Greenyer: hmmm
[23/07/2013 21:50:01] Bob W. Greenyer: is that because it is pulsed DC
[23/07/2013 21:50:11] Bob W. Greenyer: so the reporting is average
[23/07/2013 21:50:18] Bob W. Greenyer: it will give a duty cycle
[23/07/2013 21:50:24] Bob W. Greenyer: if so
[23/07/2013 21:50:43] Mats Lewan: I measure before the variac, which is before the HV generator
[23/07/2013 21:50:50] Bob W. Greenyer: right
[23/07/2013 21:50:52] Bob W. Greenyer: hmmmm
[23/07/2013 21:50:56] Mats Lewan: with a FLUKE True RMS
[23/07/2013 21:51:01] Bob W. Greenyer: mmm
[23/07/2013 21:51:30] Bob W. Greenyer: so you do not know if that is the energy delivered
[23/07/2013 21:51:44] Bob W. Greenyer: where are they measuring the cumulative energy delivered in the spark
[23/07/2013 21:53:05] Mats Lewan: the enrgy to the spark plug is measured before the HV generator
[23/07/2013 21:53:41] Mats Lewan: but now Hadjichristos tells me that we'll have to use the higher value, and still the output power will exceed the imput power by far
[23/07/2013 21:53:45] Bob W. Greenyer: The HV has a good variation - which is nice to see
[23/07/2013 21:53:54] Bob W. Greenyer: ??
[23/07/2013 21:54:00] Bob W. Greenyer: ok
[23/07/2013 21:54:26] Bob W. Greenyer: so has agreed to use your calculated HV
[23/07/2013 21:54:27] Bob W. Greenyer: ?
[23/07/2013 21:58:06] Bob W. Greenyer: I have a question from Seung Bin from KAST
[23/07/2013 21:58:36] Bob W. Greenyer: sent a file 20130723_112454.jpg to this group

[23/07/2013 22:06:52] Bob W. Greenyer: Q.4 From JPB
[23/07/2013 22:07:40] Bob W. Greenyer: WHY are they not doing higher flow rate to avoid going to Vapor
[23/07/2013 22:08:01] Bob W. Greenyer: If they have higher flow rate they can avoid this mess
[23/07/2013 22:08:03] Mats Lewan: at the moment they avoid vapor
[23/07/2013 22:08:08] Bob W. Greenyer: and be able to report higher cop
[23/07/2013 22:08:13] Bob W. Greenyer: they need to do it on the control
[23/07/2013 22:08:17] Bob W. Greenyer: also
[23/07/2013 22:08:20] Mats Lewan: I don't know if they'll use maximum flow -- that might be the answer
[23/07/2013 22:08:43] Mats Lewan: in any way, they won't calculate vapor enthalpy -- they'll assume it's still water
[23/07/2013 22:08:59] Bob W. Greenyer: right
[23/07/2013 22:09:17] Bob W. Greenyer: but that is a shame they did not keep it below Vapor
[23/07/2013 22:09:30] Mats Lewan: i'll ask about that
[23/07/2013 22:11:08] Mats Lewan: I asked -- the answer is that the flow from the water pipe is not enough
[23/07/2013 22:15:03] Bob W. Greenyer: ok
[23/07/2013 22:17:27] Bob W. Greenyer: Q5. When the triggering starts, it might make extremely noisy wave forms on then input power that would be hard to meter accurately. How do they account for that?
[23/07/2013 22:27:07] Mats Lewan: We discussed that just 30 seconds ago
[23/07/2013 22:27:27] Mats Lewan: That might be the problem which makes the Fluke measure a wrong value.
[23/07/2013 22:27:40] Mats Lewan: In the next run we will connect an oscilloscope to check the wave form
[23/07/2013 22:27:56] Bob W. Greenyer: thanks
[23/07/2013 22:28:03] Mats Lewan: reassuring that they have an osciloscope here !
[23/07/2013 22:29:15] Bob W. Greenyer: yes!
[23/07/2013 22:29:25] Bob W. Greenyer: can you take a few photos
[23/07/2013 22:29:27] Bob W. Greenyer: ?
[23/07/2013 22:45:18] Mats Lewan: I will
[23/07/2013 22:45:39] Mats Lewan: Just blew the main fuse -- did you see that...
[23/07/2013 22:45:53] Mats Lewan: That was me connecting the ground of the oscilloscope to the phase
[23/07/2013 22:46:15] Mats Lewan: luckily non data or other systems were damaged, puh!!
[23/07/2013 22:54:27] Bob W. Greenyer: no - getting lunch
[23/07/2013 22:54:35] Bob W. Greenyer: phew
[23/07/2013 23:00:01] Bob W. Greenyer: what are they using to log their HT power?
[23/07/2013 23:11:44] Mats Lewan: the high voltage power?
[23/07/2013 23:11:47] Mats Lewan: you mean?
[23/07/2013 23:12:03] Mats Lewan: Everything's recorded in lab view /NI
[23/07/2013 23:31:41] Bob W. Greenyer: ok
[23/07/2013 23:31:53] Bob W. Greenyer: but the data acquisition method
[23/07/2013 23:39:50] Bob W. Greenyer: Q6. From ICCF floor, how can we be sure that it is not fraud?
[23/07/2013 23:41:23] Bob W. Greenyer: Q7. The report HV looks a little higher on average - do they have an integral for that.
[23/07/2013 23:43:45] Mats Lewan: Q6 -- well.... tht's what people been asking
[23/07/2013 23:44:11] Mats Lewan: Q7 -- what do you mean -- an integral over time?
[23/07/2013 23:44:21] Bob W. Greenyer: for the HV
[23/07/2013 23:44:27] Bob W. Greenyer: the cumulative power in
[24/07/2013 00:04:09] Bob W. Greenyer: wow - some humour!
[24/07/2013 00:05:55] Bob W. Greenyer: Respect
[24/07/2013 00:06:06] Mats Lewan: I don't think they have that in the view
[24/07/2013 00:06:19] Bob W. Greenyer: they did
[24/07/2013 00:06:23] Bob W. Greenyer: I saw the exchange
[24/07/2013 00:06:29] Mats Lewan: ok
[24/07/2013 00:06:33] Bob W. Greenyer: respect for pushing hard
[24/07/2013 00:45:23] Bob W. Greenyer: The HV appears to be running higher
[24/07/2013 00:45:48] Mats Lewan: not much
[24/07/2013 00:46:14] Bob W. Greenyer: I have just seen 250
[24/07/2013 00:46:34] Bob W. Greenyer: But your calculation may be more similar
[24/07/2013 01:04:57] Bob W. Greenyer: George miley is in his talk
[24/07/2013 01:05:20] Bob W. Greenyer: They will be ready soon but we were running 10 mins late
[24/07/2013 01:06:26] Bob W. Greenyer: Ok ... gm has been asked to conclude
[24/07/2013 01:06:50] Bob W. Greenyer: Just to let ypu know
[24/07/2013 01:07:50] Bob W. Greenyer: Many people are seriously considering working with us or more openly having seen what had been achieved by Celanis courage
[24/07/2013 01:10:39] Mats Lewan: good
[24/07/2013 01:11:08] Bob W. Greenyer: Gm is on conclusion
[24/07/2013 01:15:40] Bob W. Greenyer: We did not hear the answers to the first question
[24/07/2013 01:16:03] Bob W. Greenyer: S
About resistors in parallel
[24/07/2013 01:16:14] Bob W. Greenyer: And debye temp
[24/07/2013 01:16:38] Bob W. Greenyer: Can you ask him to re answer this
[24/07/2013 01:19:08] Mats Lewan: Resistors are in parallel
[24/07/2013 01:19:37] Bob W. Greenyer: Yes
[24/07/2013 01:19:47] Bob W. Greenyer: I saw it on the stream
[24/07/2013 01:19:55] Bob W. Greenyer: But the room here did not
[24/07/2013 01:19:56] Mats Lewan: the inside temp when reactions start is average 179 degrees celsius
[24/07/2013 01:20:04] Bob W. Greenyer: Yes
[24/07/2013 01:20:05] Mats Lewan: which i debye temp of nickel
[24/07/2013 01:20:11] Bob W. Greenyer: Yes
[24/07/2013 01:20:14] Bob W. Greenyer: I saw these
[24/07/2013 01:20:28] Bob W. Greenyer: Can you ask him to repeat these answers
[24/07/2013 01:20:35] Mats Lewan: ok
[24/07/2013 01:25:01] Mats Lewan: now repeating
[24/07/2013 01:26:34] Bob W. Greenyer: The room is clapping
[24/07/2013 01:31:19] Bob W. Greenyer: They have been told there will be a summary of the cop later
[24/07/2013 01:34:21] Mats Lewan: The short degassing obviously decreases the COP
[24/07/2013 01:35:22] Mats Lewan: Then there's the issue with the input energy
[24/07/2013 01:35:49] Mats Lewan: a pity because I believe the input power of a kW on the HV side is wrong.
[24/07/2013 01:36:25] Mats Lewan: The number around 250 watts is more probable -- the cables to the sparkplugs couldn't run a kw
[24/07/2013 01:37:05] Mats Lewan: Then.... at the output there's no water drippling. It's all steam. And if you calculate also steam enthalpy you end up at 27 kW
[24/07/2013 01:37:26] Mats Lewan: And I believe that's what it is
[24/07/2013 01:37:59] Mats Lewan: That would give a COP of 16...
[24/07/2013 01:38:28] Mats Lewan: Anyway, they will still increase the output power
[24/07/2013 11:07:52] Bob W. Greenyer: Thanks for that
[24/07/2013 11:09:06] Bob W. Greenyer: That is really good news


We feel that the unrestricted, unplanned access to the independent monitor to take open questions real-time from ICCF participants proves it was live and that DGT have great confidence in their claims. It is very encouraging. The dam is breaking.

 

 

Comments   

 
0 #25 chat rooms 2018-04-02 00:46
Hello there! Do you use Twitter? I'd like to follow you if that would be ok.
I'm absolutely enjoying your blog and look forward to new posts.
Quote
 
 
0 #24 chat rooms 2018-04-02 00:45
Hello there! Do you use Twitter? I'd like to follow you if that would be ok.
I'm absolutely enjoying your blog and look forward to new posts.
Quote
 
 
0 #23 chat rooms 2018-04-02 00:45
Hello there! Do you use Twitter? I'd like to follow you if that would be ok.
I'm absolutely enjoying your blog and look forward to new posts.
Quote
 
 
0 #22 Robert Greenyer 2013-08-06 23:09
I would suggest they use a closed loop molten salt feeding a heat exchanger whose flow rate is modulated to keep the water temperature to around 80-90ºC

http://www.dynalene.com/Dynalene-Molten-Salts-s/1831.htm
Quote
 
 
0 #21 Tom Clarke 2013-08-04 22:48
Alain: looking more it does seem the flowmeter is on the input side but above the bottom of the cooling coils.

That leaves open the possibility of issues, but I agree is less obviously wrong than if on the output side!

I'm not saying this is happening. Without very detailed investigation trying to debug experiments is a mug's game.

But if it were happening the error (measuring gas not water volume) could be as large as you like. and certainly could give the claimed COP.

DGT do not claim this demo as a real test, which is fair enough. But it is equally important to consider all issues if we consider it at all. Anything with phase change seems unnecessary and adds possible error sources like this which cannot simply be ruled out.

After all, why not just increase flow rate and remove some coils for the same heat extraction?

DGT surely have enough time to put together a convincing demo if they want a demo, and they must know the issues about phase change.


It would be nice to think that DGT are as keen to get bomb-proof black-box confirmation of their stuff as we are. It would surely help their commercial position to be credible. Any credibility lack could be addressed by proper black box testing with no loss of IP
Quote
 
 
0 #20 Alain Coetmeur 2013-08-04 22:05
The flow meter as far as I understand is before the reactor.
there is an anti return, pressure stabilizer, degazer on the chain.

that hypothesis is not matching the precise setup, but even if some artifact happen, it could not explain a huge difference in power. a factor of 2 cannot be explained by that.

I suspect that like on Pomp&Ericcson pamphlet, all is based on incomplete information and bad estimation of the artifact amplitude.

some slight error in volume does not allow 1 to look like 20.

anyway measuring single phase will shut up some critics..
I'm just afraid that as usual, some other similar critics allow it artificially introduce doubt based on misreading, or black and white conception of precision.

Quoting Tom Clarke:
The reactor temperature could be kept hotter while increasing flow-rate and so having single phase by increasing thermal resistance coolant coils to reactor - for example having fewer coils.

But there is another reason why hotter output liquid might give better apparent results.

The flowmeter used is a gearmeter and will measure flow in solids and liquids. Therefore it will over-estimate flowrate if bubbles are present in the liquid going through it....
Quote
 
 
0 #19 Tom Clarke 2013-08-04 18:51
The reactor temperature could be kept hotter while increasing flow-rate and so having single phase by increasing thermal resistance coolant coils to reactor - for example having fewer coils.

But there is another reason why hotter output liquid might give better apparent results.

The flowmeter used is a gearmeter and will measure flow in solids and liquids. Therefore it will over-estimate flowrate if bubbles are present in the liquid going through it.

That looks like a classic possible experiment error that could give arbitrarily high apparent COP for real COP of 1.

The warning that phase change calorimetry is a bad idea is particularly relevant here! We have a new and very large source of possible experimental error that only happens because of the phase change.

I can't be sure that this is the case (I don't have full expeirmental details) but it is consistent with recent news of flow-meter issues and yesterday DKF Europe questioning a previous demo's results after watching the streaming demo. maybe this error mechanism just ocurred to them.

If true it is a classic example how how LENR+ is not a good substitute for careful bomb-proof scientific investigation.
Quote
 
 
0 #18 Alain Coetmeur 2013-07-29 21:23
about why they don't do singlephase calorimetry, it seems it have been addresed during nelson test:
if water is liquide, the reactor is too cold and is too hard to trigger
http://www.lenr-forum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=18&d=1362347930
Quote:
Before leaving for this trip, it was stressed to me that I should observe this system without
allowing the system to produce steam. After the third and final day that I was there, it became
very clear to me that this test apparatus was not designed to operate in a single phase with the
thermal fluid mix being used. They used a mixture of 30% EG (Glycol) and 70% water for my
first two days of testing. I had them use 100% water in the last day of testing. In spite of the
inability to maintain a single phase, I believe the measurements of the flow meter was located
far enough away from the reactor to be unaffected by the back pressure of the thermal fluid as
it flashed upon entering the reactor. The water feeding the reactor on the last day came
directly from the water grid of Athens ensuring that a constant positive pressure was
maintained through the flow meter all the way to the reactor. There were no bubbles observed
in the water flowing to the reactor. For the third and final day of testing, Defkalion, chose to
trigger the hydrogen reaction much more aggressively than was done on the first day. Upon a
preliminary look at the data, the reactor was operating well in excess of a COP of 3.
Quote
 
 
0 #17 Alain Coetmeur 2013-07-29 21:15
Quoting Ecco:
@blaze: DGT reportedly use a metallic (nickel?) foam with nickel particles (and catalysts?, additives?) dispersed on it.

in ICCF17 paper they talk of a mix of oxydes:

http://www.lenr-forum.com/showthread.php?360-Defkalion-Theory&p=1623#post1623

section B1 Engineering LENR as a geometrical problem

"We realized that nickel crystals (raw material
of 5 microns powder) were “too dense” to act in a LENR
reaction, as we desired. We introduced a method to turn
the Ni Face Centered Cubic crystals close to a C4 or a
Pm3m structure, removing all of the face atoms and some
Ni atoms in the edges, using a proprietary technique."

"We then had to protect the modified Ni crystals
from the high temperatures around the glow discharges
(3500 K at its surface, 14000 K in the kernel)[4]
distributing them in a special designed “cage” of Ni foam
of the same size (5 microns, 200 microns of porous)."

"RSHs need to “travel” towards the NAE
without any phase change or total disassociation into
protons and electrons, following the magnetic fields
created from the plasma current. We use several layers of
“agents”, coated around a Si-Al ceramic surface
surrounding the nickel foam, to help RSH atoms to
survive this journey. Some of these agents are ZnO, MgO
and ZrO2. We define all such structure of Ni and its
surrounding environment as the NAE of the reactions in
the Hyperion SS316 lab reactors."

BIberian says ICCF18 changed nothing.....

they claimed 60grams of powder including 6g of nickel...
Quote
 
 
0 #16 Ecco 2013-07-29 17:48
@MFMP: thanks for the transcript, that's interesting information.
Quote
 

Add comment


Here is your generous contributions so far towards our $500,000 target, thanks everyone! : $45,020   Please Donate
See the current state of our booked costs here