FacebookTwitterDiggStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditTechnoratiLinkedin


The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project is a group dedicated to researching Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (often referred to as LENR) while sharing all procedures, data, and results openly online. We rely on comments from online contributors to aid us in developing our experiments and contemplating the results. We invite everyone to participate in our discussions, which take place in the comments of our experiment posts. These links can be seen along the right-hand side of this page. Please browse around and give us your feedback. We look forward to seeing you around Quantum Heat.

Join us and become part of the project. Become one of the active commenters, who question our work and suggest next steps.

Or, if you are an experimenter, talk to us about becoming an affiliated lab and doing your work in a Live Open Science manner.

We believe we can explain at least part of the apparent excess energy Celani saw based on the nature of the gas as it changes pressure.

Here, again, is one of the runs published by Celani.  Note that the excess power quickly rises to 10W during the loading phase, and then returns there again after charging the cell w/Hydrogen.  Note how the power jumps up when the pressure drops occur, too.  

We were puzzled by how our excess power calculation could be so far negative in some of our key runs.  Then we were cautiously pleased by how the indicated excess power rose to be a couple watts positive over a few days.  One very insightful commentator, Ascoli65, contributed the following analysis pointing out that if we took our equilibrated starting point as the baseline, like Celani did, we would have shown power levels that would have been a basic replication of what Celani reported.

In both cases, the power out calculation is based solely on the temperature on the outside of the glass, and in both cases, the excess power indicated rose as the pressure decreased.  That made us wonder if that was a key relationship.  We started to explore that on the last blog post.

Since then we undertook two more tests.  First, we charged the cell with the H 75%/Ar 25% mixture to 8 bars and then stepped the pressure down in 1 bar steps so we could see the effect it was having on the temperatures in the cell.  The second test was the same thing, but with Hydrogen gas, to match the second part of Celani's "06giu12" run.  Below are the results and some ramifications of the results.

In the graph below it is very clear that the exterior glass temperature and the mica temperature rise immediately with each pressure decrease.  The magnitude of the temperature change is very significant.

When we plotted the settled temperature rise over ambient vs pressure, we see an interesting curve appear.  We added it to the same graph we had shown in the previous post.  The long green curve is for straight Hydrogen.  The long blue line is for the blended gas.  


Note that we added an estimated point at 9 bar, which is close to where the post loading run in Hydrogen entitled "06giu12" started out.  The general slope is comparable to the other little data sets at lower power levels.  The fact that these last two tests show higher temps than the calibration data may be that these sensors run hotter because of the denser wrapping.  It may still be attributable to the fact that we are using a wire that is potentially active.  The leveling off at low pressures also may merit more study.  


Below is another representation of the same data but divided by the P_in to get some sort of normalization.  Again, the behavior at low pressures looks like it may be interesting.

The ramifications of this effect are heavy.  To estimate them, I plugged the values for T_glass_out and T_ambient into the S-B equations that Ascoli65 cited from Celani.  First, I used the blended gas data that I had at my disposal first.  I went from 8 bar to 3 bar, mostly as an excercise.


And next in Hydrogen, from 9 Bar, where Celani's Hydrogen run phase started and then 3 bar, approximately where it ended.

As a preliminary result, it appears that this pressure related temperature change in Hydrogen could account for the vast majority of the demonstrated rise in power in Celani's graph above the 10 watt baseline that the run starts at.  It is unclear to me how he established his base line for that experiment that resulted in showing approximately 10 watts during the loading in the blended gas, and at the start of the Hydrogen phase.

This explanation does not at all address the measured gamma rays coinciding with hot spots in the wire.  It also does not address the test runs he mentions in the calorimeter.

I am assuming at this point that the pressure dependence is caused by the thermal conductivity of the gas changing.  I have not yet been able to locate a good reference on that.  Can anybody help with that?  I was able to find a reference showing that the thermal conductivity of the Hydrogen increases almost 50% going from room temp to 200C.  The concept is that as the thermal conductivity drops at lower pressures, less of the heat from the wires flows out of the cell through the metal flanges and the cooler parts of the glass near them.  

Going forward, I would like to take an entirely new cell with Nichrome or even Iron wire in it and repeat the pressure vs. temperatures tests from 8 bar down, again, perhaps at multiple power levels.  I would also like to test the gas range under 1 bar.  In all tests like that, we will take thermal images of the cell at 8 bar and at 1 bar and compare the relative temperatures of the glass and the metal flanges.

And, of course, I would like to test a nice, new wire in a calorimeter.  We're working on that.

I welcome your thoughts, as always.


0 #52 xem ngay 2018-01-17 06:51
Hi i am kavin, its my first time to commenting anywhere, when i read
this paragraph i thought i could also make comment due to this sensible paragraph.
0 #51 Website 2017-10-05 22:11
I am not sure where you're getting your info, but great topic.

I needs to spend some time learning much more or understanding more.
Thanks for magnificent info I was looking for this info
for my mission.
0 #50 valentine s day film 2017-01-31 07:23
WOW just what I was looking for. Came here by searching for LANR
0 #49 agence référencement 2017-01-20 18:00
What's up every one, here every person is sharing these experience,
thus it's nice to read this web site, and I used to pay a quick
visit this webpage all the time.
0 #48 twat 2016-12-02 09:58
At the end of article some links for your help available.
We specialize in placing text links on high quality websites.
Looking for four proven Internet business promotion methods.
0 #47 PlanBL 2016-11-18 13:23
Analysez vos backlinks avec planbl. nous entrons dans la liste tous les critères important tel le Pagerank, Alexa,
Majestic seo, SemRush etc... et nous travaillons depuis plusieurs années sur notre clair ' TrustRank ' qui va
surement prochainement effectuer plusieurs
0 #46 happy christmas eve 2016-11-15 17:51
I'm pretty pleased to find this web site. I need to to thank you for your time just
for this wonderful read!! I definitely appreciated every bit of it and
I have you saved as a favorite to look at new stuff on your site.
0 #45 charlie tapp 2012-12-03 22:22
i dont think thermal imageing will work through the glass, thats how mythbusters got past the thermal imaging alarms in one of the episodes.
-1 #44 Jeff 2012-12-02 18:55
@Alain Coetmeur
The effect I mentioned is for low pressures - lower than 0.2 Bar. At higher pressures - certainly above 1 atmosphere, the artifact I mentioned is not as apparent. I could not find a good graph on the internet for thermal conductivity of Ar/H2 or other mixed gasses at low pressure. But the Celani replication should be able to isolate any potential artifact by doing proper calibration with a nichrome wire - having the same pressure changes so that it is an apples and apples comparison.
0 #43 Alain Coetmeur 2012-12-02 17:34
do you still confirm that there is a big question mark on Celani NiWeek measures?

Celani said that direct heating was more efficient than indirect heating by the nichrome wire, but that it worked a little. is it coherent with the pressure artifact hypothesis?

Celani claims of Anomalous heat are 30%, is it compatible totally with the pressure artifact hypothesis?

given Celani various claims, is it possible that all be mistakes, or are there results from lab that looks correct anyway?

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