FacebookTwitterDiggStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditTechnoratiLinkedin

HUG Concentric Calorimeter

Keep up to date with the experiments using HUGs flexible Concentric Calorimeter right here.
Please feel free to add your comments to the blog entries.

LIVE DATA | Experiment Log | Latest Video | RSS feed of blog posts | RSS feed of all comments

Multi-Wire Test Heating Up

on .

After a long delay as we failed to troubleshoot the water flow calorimeter, the Multi-wire test has been installed in a concentric tube calorimeter.  It is now heating up and the first of the 3 wires is starting to drop resistance.

This is the test with 3 lengths of different Celani wires in a LENR-stick test cell.  All the details are in the protocol document here: Protocol:  Multi-Wire Test

Previous blog post: Multi-wire test commencing -Update4


You can follow the data on Test FC0405 LENR Stick: Multi-wire  and FC0403 CTC #2: Air Jacket


From Malachi:

We are starting to see the 270L wire loading.  The internal temperature is ~208C.  The interesting thing is that neither of the other wires (350L and 400L) are dropping in resistance yet.  Could lower numbers of layers correlate to a lower loading temperature? This test will be an interesting one in the coming weeks!

The other two wires (a 350 layer and a 400 layer) are actually increasing over time at this temperature.



0 #114 Malachi Heder 2013-10-17 21:20
@ Ecco

I agree that more loading is needed. Currently the wires are set up only for resistance measurements. It would require another power supply and this is something I also want to see on the wires. This could happen very soon.
0 #113 Ecco 2013-10-17 19:28
What about trying to apply power directly to them (EDIT: corrected) to check out if they will load more? Or if it will trigger better loading? As for power output under direct power stimulation, I guess that won't give reliable results as some of the power will be also heating the wire length outside the LENR stick.

The limit here is that any physical change performed to the LENR stick will potentially invalidate the last calibration made. I think there's not much that can be done with the wires already in place if you want to avoid this.
0 #112 Malachi Heder 2013-10-17 14:53
@ All

What is next for the multi-wire test? Does anyone have an idea?

We've run it up and down through our temperature range, tried to deload the wires and we've tried to reload them.

They don't seem to be decreasing any more, in terms of resistance.
0 #111 Ecco 2013-10-08 23:44
Not too much surprisingly, it appears that decreasing temperatures to improve loading worked. However I think it's the first time this is clearly observed in one of these experiments.

It looks like each wire has its own optimal loading temperature range. That of the 270L wire appears to be rather wide (in one of the latest blogpost updates it was observed to decrease resistance at an internal temperature of 208°C while other ones didn't yet).

This also means that there's an optimal H2 desorption temperature range too, depending on wire characteristics , which might have some interesting practical implications.
0 #110 Ecco 2013-10-08 16:13
It doesn't look like the wires are loading much; the 400L wire didn't change resistance at all, especially. Either long exposure under vacuum at high temperature (although not directly powered) damaged them, or temperature is too high for loading to be efficiently occur. 350-400°C might be a more suitable temperature range to attempt..

It looks like the 270L wire is doing most of the loading job so far (the H2 pressure decrease is tracking its resistance decrease quite closely). It's the one which appeared to perform the best during the first loading phase too.
0 #109 Malachi Heder 2013-10-08 15:07
@ All

The calibrations look sound. We are going to increase the hydrogen pressure inside the cell. Then we will try to load the wires as far as we can.
0 #108 Ecco 2013-10-07 18:16
@Malachi: if you removed the cooling water hose there's a chance that at 35W the outer tube will get hotter than it's supposed to, causing output power will be negatively affected, which could possibly mask any calibration-ind uced positive bias.

But I guess we'll see in a while.
0 #107 Malachi Heder 2013-10-07 18:06
@ Ecco

I will set the input power to 35 watts and see if it still holds.
0 #106 Ecco 2013-10-07 17:27
It looks like the CTC with the new calibration is less biased I thought it would get, at least at 10W of input power. The calculated output power appears to still be within a +/- 30-60 mW margin as you calculated for the 95% CI in the previous calibration.

However, I think this time it will really be +/- 30-60 mW, if the previous apparently rather positive results were an artifact due to using a different stick or changing its position inside the CTC.

Still, it might be interesting to see if this still holds at a higher input power.
0 #105 Malachi Heder 2013-10-07 15:14
@ Ecco

y = a + bx + cx^2
Fitting target of lowest sum of squared absolute error = 8.8798690830743515E-03
a = 3.7115236254221067E+01
b = -3.2643234519158354E+03
c = 1.2266525881480571E+04

This is the new fit equation. We can plug it in and see how well it fits. If it does have a positive bias, then we will perform extra calibration cycles, in a decreasing fashion perhaps.

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