FacebookTwitterDiggStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditTechnoratiLinkedin

Welcome

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.

There is a great opportunity to learn everything about the project and actively help it with every day progress. The great feedback from some of our volunteers will tell you more. Now we search for someone to come to HUG, Minnesota to spark the Sparky cell and see with own eyes whatever exciting will happen.

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.

Comments   

 
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.
Quote
 
 
-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.
Quote
 
 
0 #43 Alain Coetmeur 2012-12-02 17:34
Hi,
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?
Quote
 
 
+1 #42 Jeff 2012-12-02 17:13
This may not be a factor in this experiment where pressures are high, but at low pressures, the thermal conductivity of hydrogen gas is hugely impacted by small amounts of a heavier molecule gas that is added - such as Argon or nitrogen. I forget exactly how low the pressure needs to be - but something less than 10% of 1 atmosphere (1.5 psi). So for example, 1.5 psi of 90% H2 and 10% Argon has much lower thermal conductivity than 100% H2 at the same pressure. The reason is that fast moving hydrogen is *physically* blocked from transporting heat by the much slower moving Argon atoms. 18 years ago, in 1995, I was running a Mizuno replication experiment and I added a very small amount of air (which is mostly nitrogen) to the low pressure deuterium gas and got a temperature rise. I had thought that adding gas should increase the thermal conductivity of the gas but in this special case it was the reverse. It took me about a week to realize I had an artifact.
Quote
 
 
+4 #41 Ryan Hunt 2012-12-02 05:23
@ Rats and Observer - I have emailed Celani a brief synopsis of these findings and pointed him at the blog. He responded that he is out of the lab for the week and I do not know if he has taken time to study them. He is very happy with our work and very open to work with us and answer any questions.

@Jim Johnson - Great start on a great idea. I can make some time for that. I think Google Hangout has proven to be the best for something like that both for screen sharing. If the document is a google drawing, it makes it even easier to collaborate.

@ Al Potenza - I would love to try ten or twenty meters of wires, but I don't have access to that much treated wire at this time.

@ 123 Star - We are on the verge of getting a test with Borosilicate glass that should thermalize all the IR. We are also looking at a stainless tube instead of glass. Putting a shield inside the tube would change the calibration and isn't a good option for the first test set up.

@ Adriano - On the next cell I will include the pressure drop test with NiCr (or some other less likely to react wires). Then I would like to see a graph like the one you shared of the results.

@ MB - Thanks for the support. The likelyhood of any significant amount of energy being emitted in other spectra is highly unlikely. The thing is basically a new fangled toaster that is intended to get hot and create IR. We have not noticed any acoustical energy. It is tough to couple many watts of radio out. Just in case, we bought a spectrum analyzer we'll be putting near it. UV, Xray and gammas are important clues, but not likely to be emitted in enough quantity to represent much energy.

@ Clovis - Is that a piezo-electric effect when hydrogen gets into quartz?

@ essenmein, thermal, and David Jones - The IR and convection/cond uction flows are tricky. It will clearly be easier with a stainless tube instead of a glass one. My main thinking is that the gas at higher pressure allows heat to flow to the metal ends better, dropping the whole temp of the cell by acting as the "coolant", as you say. I think having a convection and radiation shield in front of the metal will, indeed, make a significant difference, too.

@ Eric Walker - If you look closely at the impedance and T_mica you can see two separate effects happening. When we released pressure from the cell, we could see the impedance of the wire drop for a couple seconds, presumably as the gas cooled momentarily. At the lower pressures, you can see the whole cell temp drop from gas expansion before rising again because of the changed heat flow within the cell. What I don't understand, or I'm not seeing, yet, is that hydrogen is supposed to be one of 3 gasses that can actually heat up as it expands. I wonder if these moderate pressures aren't adequate to see that happen, or if I just haven't looked close enough at the data on Friday to see it.

@ Holmium - Good points. Nice video link. Check out our latest video under the Watch menu for some IR shots.
http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/youtube-video-feed
You can clearly see the surface is not an even temperature.

Here is a comparison chart of the transmission spectra of various types of glass including fused quartz and boroslicate. http://www.rayotek.com/images/transmission.gif
Fused quartz is sensitive to the frequency of IR in a rather non-linear way.

@ everyone - Great discussion. It is thrilling to get all this input, even if it is humbling when I can't soak it all in fast enough. I don't know of any other forum short of the Manhattan project or certain Nasa like projects where this quality and quantity of scientific exchange continues for so long. A scientific conference can be intense, but it is over in a week. And Nasa has a much bigger budget than we do. Thanks everyone for the input and analysis. I really believe we are breaking new ground in more than one way.
Quote
 
 
+3 #40 Rats 2012-12-01 21:26
Quoting observer:
Have you informed Celani that some of his results might be invalid? If so, what was his response?


I second what observer has said. Is Celani aware of this?
Quote
 
 
0 #39 Jim Johnson 2012-12-01 20:35
I have great admiration and respect for everything that is being done here. I believe the productivity of the current dialog could be increased by supporting it with logical systems diagram. I created a simplistic conceptual draft of such a diagram and have posted it here: https://sites.google.com/site/lenrshare/mfmp-logical-system-diagram.
This is crude illustration, but it took me about ten minutes. In about an hour of real-time chat we could create a much more accurate one, which anyone could contribute to to make more accurate still. Each individual element of the system would an easy to reference name that could be used in discussion, and every possible energy flow was clearly identified and labeled. This could widen participation, focus discussion, broaden perspectives and highlight relationships. All the physical details could be mapped right behind it. You're doing great engineering. How about applying engineering to this very valuable dialog?
Quote
 
 
+6 #38 Al Potenza 2012-12-01 18:30
Not to be overly repetitious but once again: would you consider using multiple wires? As many as you can get up to maybe ten?

Most of your power input goes to heat up the cell, not specifically the wire. So if the wire is a source of excess heat and you increase the number of wires, your signal to noise ratio will go up. Add enough wires and maybe the considerations you are currently bogged down in will go away.

I know the wires are difficult to make but it may be worth doing it.
Quote
 
 
0 #37 123star 2012-12-01 18:24
I copy-paste what I wrote this in "Worth trying", date: 16 november (there is also the aluminium foil suggestion dating 2012-11-18 24h in Stable Run Write up, I thought about black paint too)

[BEGIN QUOTE]
In my opinion the spread between different runs with different wires could be due to the fact that the thermocouples are partly heated by direct radiation and partly by conduction. The temperature and the emissivity of the wires and hence their spectrum varies from run to run. We could try to reduce the spread, at least on Glassout, in two ways:

1) Using a steel container pipe (or anything that is either reflective or opaque).

2) Meanwhile, we could try to reduce the spread by putting a radiation shield before the glass_out probe. I'm thinking about a little rectangle of metal sheet inside the tube in correspondence with the glass_out probe, which is external.
[END QUOTE]
Quote
 
 
0 #36 adriano 2012-12-01 18:02
Third part:
Personally I think this graphic to see very well what happens in the case of pressure changes. The red dashed line shows the slope obtained in the experiment in deuterium of 20 June. I would be happy to check these measurements with the data of this experiment. It is not difficult, just reduce the pressure slowly, both in test phase, that in the measurement phase.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/53460473/Pressure%20Vs%20Power%20on%20T%20Gas%20-%20D06giu12-17-07-163000.0-429000.0-20.0.jpg
Quote
 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

Here is your generous contributions so far towards our $500,000 target, thanks everyone! : $40,780   Please Donate
See the current state of our booked costs here

MFMP Facebook Feed

Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project's Facebook Notifications

Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project's Facebook Notifications