Is it, or isn't it?
What everyone wants to know is: Are we REALLY making excess heat?
Current Conditions: H2@3.5 Bar (starting pressure) and heating with the Nichrome (close to 22 ohms), and T_ambient of 23C
Comparisons for Current Conditions:
We have a number of comparable results, but none is a perfect control. The post warming loading, the closest to current conditions could be demonstrating excess energy.
| Run Name | Description | Gas | Heating Wire | Ambient |
| Early Calibration | A calibration test done before beginning with Isotan 44 | H2 @ 3.5 Bar | NiChrome @ ~25 ohm | 24 =>21 |
| Cal 7 | With Isotan | H2 @ 3.5 Bar | Isotan @ ~16 Ohms |
22.2 =>23.2 |
| Run He 1 | Just after installing Celani Wire (1 wrap short on the end) | He @ 3.5 Bar | Celani Wire @ ~18 Ohms | 25 =>24 |
| Post Loading Warming | Stepped increase in power like a calibration, but after loading the wire | H2 @ 3.5 Bar | Nichrome @ ~21 ohms | 19.5 =>19.7 |
Compared on Graphs
The major uncertainty comes from not having the wire installed in exactly the same manner. Otherwise, it looks promising that we are above the other baseline calibrations and right at the same point or higher than as the test with the Helium, which has a lower thermal conductivity and usually makes the T_mica run hotter.
If we saw the temperatures and excess power slowly climbing, that would be another good clue.
Time to change something. Higher power to try to trigger? Lower power to attempt more loading? Or switch to heating from Celani Wire? Or attempt to open it up and re-wrap the wire more like the control wire was?
And again, thank you for all the wonderful suggestions and insights from the comments. I regret not having the time to engage them all in discussion, but I do read them and will re-read them as we design the next experiment.
Comments
But in the future there are literally hundreds of variations like that to try.
Are the wires extremely rare or expensive to make? Is there some other reason not to increase their number? Certainly there is plenty of room on your mica form.
I think static conditions are not helpful, and that maybe even Celani's hydrogen leak may have helped to trigger the reaction.
Here is a paper discussing problems with static equilibrium and triggering.
lenr-canr.org/.../...
I don't know if you have performed calibration runs at low gas pressures, though.
You have nothing to lose doing this.
This setup (and I understand the desire to mimic Celani as closely as possible) is inimical to doing clear demonstrations - it requires far too much power to maintain temperatures in the desired range, introducing large error bars, and requiring too many compromises in terms of limiting max temp, and introducing leaky seals. The sooner it is ditched in favour of a low power input high temp calorimetry method the better. But in the absence of anything else encapsulating most of the reactor in insulation leaving only small viewing windows would help to reduce the error bars by reducing necessary power input. (Or you could put the whole unit in a constant temp enclosure at 1-200°C - a deep fryer would do the job)
Anyway, I agree with the choice of trying to find a temperature range which makes the sudden and anomalous decline of wire impedance to show. That is supposed to be a preamble for excess heat with Celani's wire, at least according to what I know. Maybe it might be a good idea to consult with Celani to know if with his latest wires excess heat has ever appeared without that happening first. If not, then, there might be problems with your wire.
This graph method will allow calculation of the coulomb energy barrier also from the slope change.
You need your perfect control before going much farther. You should set it up as a simultaneous cell as close to the test cell as possible, and you should do it DOUBLE BLIND, so that only someone unconnected with your experiments knows which has the Celani wire and which does not. (If there are visual tells on the Celani wire, the experimenters should not have visual access to the wire.)
It's very easy for even sincere and honest investigators to subconsciously start interpreting ambiguity in their favor, so going double blind at the start will really help you build confidence that what you are seeing (if anything) is not wishful thinking.
If we don't see any change in impedance, we will switch to the Celani wire and see if we see any rise in excess power.
Rewrapping the Celani wire around the mica support without a spare one in case of damage (since it's brittle, etc) would delay experimentation and progress. Also, it might need to be planned in advance due to the time needed (I guess, unless you can virtually stop the reactor now and fitting the wire again in a couple hours).
However, if you choose to refit the Celani wire but you can't do it right now you can still experiment with higher temperatures in the meanwhile.
In either cases, if you decide to increase temperatures (doing this by increasing power to the heating wire seems the safest choice currently. There's quite some headroom left, I think) I would suggest monitoring manually from time to time with the IR probe the center portion of the Celani wire which as seen yesterday gets hotter than on its ends.
I do not know the current status of setup 2, but you could consider running some calibration runs with normal isotan in a tight wrap just like you have in setup 1.
Or maybe a somewhat less meticulous test can be performed in a quick and dirty third setup with just the components essential to find out how the temperature would vary with wrap.
That's my thought. This is very interesting, quite the twist.
RSS feed for comments to this post