FacebookTwitterDiggStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditTechnoratiLinkedin

Celani Replication

Keep up to date with our replication of experiments based on Celani's cell right here.
Please feel free to add your comments to the blog entries.

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

First Run in Helium

on .

The first calibration process is done in He at 3.5 Bar.  We are showing temperatures just a couple degrees warmer than before.  Part of the difference might be that we didn't wrap the Celani wire as tight to the supports, which means that we used up the meter one wrap before the end.  This may have concentrated the same amount of power into a slightly closer space.

To compensate for this, we may take the previous calibration run at 3.5 Bar in He, subtract that off, and use the difference to make an adjustment to the calibration at the loading (H @ 3.5 Bar at room temp) and running conditions (75%H/25%Ar @ 3.5 Bar at room temp) we plan.  Any opinions? 

 

The impedance of this wire performed way different, too.

 

More baseline data from the many calibrations.  To get a sense of the effect of different gasses and pressures, we took measurements at a constant power of 110 W and plotted the temperature achieved at various pressures for each gas.  I would love to plot the temperature rise vs. thermal conductivity of the gas, but haven't gotten that far, yet.  Anybody wanna try that?  The master database for this version is here: Master_Spreadsheet11-9.xls 

 

We have started the second and final Helium run at 0.5 Bar.  Stay tuned.

 

Comments   

 
0 #22 freethinker 2012-11-10 19:24
Yes I see the same behaviour for T_Well.
Quote
 
 
0 #21 Ryan Hunt 2012-11-10 17:57
I have not examined the P/T data, yet. I find your questions very intriguing. Could you look at the same thing with T_well?
I appreciate all these suggestions. It is a little overwhelming to try to absorb all of them right away, but they will be contemplated and either acted upon in this experiment if practical, or included into the next version of the experiment.
As far as a good forum for experimental methods, I think we could either create a thread in the discussion area, or you could link to a document from this comment area.
Quote
 
 
0 #20 freethinker 2012-11-10 17:29
Nice going, there.

Question:


What would be the H2 dissociation as function of temperature and pressures in your ranges?
Quote
 
 
0 #19 Al Potenza 2012-11-10 17:13
I had more to say about this issue including a related reference to Storm's book, but comments are understandably required to be short. Is there a better place for suggestions about experimental methods? I looked under your "discussion" tab but there didn't seem to be a place for technical suggestions for the experiments under way. Good luck with the coming experiment.
Quote
 
 
0 #18 Al Potenza 2012-11-10 17:09
In addition to 123star's suggestion of measuring surface temperatures on the glass casing, you may wish to measure heat flow through the glass casing directly.

Reliable heat flow transducers are commercially available. Omega makes them or just Google the term. They are thin "patch-like" devices that can be clamped or adhered to the surface of your casing. Off the shelf Omega transducers have a temperature limit of 150 degrees C but higher temperature versions can be obtained.

If the heat flux readings are consistent at selected locations on the casing from run to run, your calibration is probably reliable. If heat flux changes inconsistently with time or from one test wire to another, spot temperature measurements may not be as reliable an indicator of energy production as they would be with consistent heat flow.
Quote
 
 
0 #17 123star 2012-11-10 07:28
Ok, the IR camera may certainly help to find any temperature distribution change.

My suggestion, by the way, is to place a temperature probe on a sliding support (otherwise by hand) and measure the temperature on many places along the glass casing, and plot the temperature distribution, in both blank run and loaded wire setups.

You may consider to do the same with the other thermocopules.

Good luck.
Quote
 
 
0 #16 Ryan Hunt 2012-11-09 22:53
We may have a couple easy options for dealing with the local heating vs average heating uncertainty. In the center of the cell is a 6mm stainless tube with a thermocouple int he middle. (see experiment details under the replication menu) We did the calibrations based on the Mica temperature, but the metal tube in the center may average the temperature better. It wouldn't be too hard to run another calibration graph and curve fit and determine another calibration, basically. We have taken thermal images of the glass, too, on multiple occasions. It is not transparent enough to IR to be able to see the wire or gauge wire temp, but it can give an idea of the temp distribution of the glass.
Quote
 
 
0 #15 123star 2012-11-09 22:27
oh: lcd made the same objection as mine! :eek:
Quote
 
 
0 #14 123star 2012-11-09 22:17
Note: before I was talking about the glass casing temperature because I find it much more "reliable" than the wire or mica temperature for obvious reasons
Quote
 
 
0 #13 123star 2012-11-09 22:14
Hi guys, nice job!
I haven't read all your posts yet, could you please restate how many temperature probes there are, and where.
Some time ago at ecatnews.com we argued that there could be temperature variations along the glass casing which can't be detected by "spot" calorimetry (i.e. measuring temperature only at certain places).

Even if you detect a temperature increase with the Hydrogen loaded wire, that would not be conclusive, but if you manage to prove that the temperature is rising everywhere along the glass casing, this would be sufficient to conclude that there is excess heat production.
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

Here is your generous contributions so far towards our $500,000 target, thanks everyone! : $26,055   Please Donate
See the current state of our booked costs here