FacebookTwitterDiggStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditTechnoratiLinkedin

Let the Data Flood Commence! (Updated)

on .

I hope you are all ready for this, in the next couple of weeks we are all going to have an immense amount of data to work through and we are going to need your help looking for anomalies, patterns, features and most importantly, science.

We know you have been asking for a new wire to be tested since it became apparent that the first one might possibly have been fried. And that will happen next week in the EU cell. We need this to be followed closely.

Whilst that will be as close as we have come yet to a direct replication of Celani's original work - we have heard your calls for more, and you are going to get more, much more. We are going to get to the bottom of this. See what you can spot in this little teaser video.


There are going to be a number of different iterations of Celani's wires, with differing numbers of layers set into metal, borosilicate, quartz single and double ended cells and some insulated, some with a calorimeter or two.

We need everyone to come join the party, invite your friends. Be open minded, help us follow the evidence, let's do science.


There has been some good discussion on the Air Flow Calorimeter but we feel people have been running a little blind up till now, so in the below video, you can see Paul Hunt, the man that has bankrolled much of the hardware you have been watching to date discussing the design. Please discuss any improvements you think can be made and any links to component suppliers.



0 #44 Ged 2012-12-05 16:59
At 1 Bar of pressure in He, the P_xs seems to be well into negative temperature, bouncing up around 0. This is in opposition to the 1 W or so P_xs of the hydrogen runs at this pressure. Still a very minor "signal" in the noise, if it is such (which one can only know after full analysis of the data). Still makes me wonder just how functional the wire is; but it leaves the mystery of the hydrogen/argon pressure-temper ature relationship... still no full explanation.
+4 #43 Robert Greenyer 2012-12-05 08:37

In order to rapidly meet your call and others to know what is being run in the cells. I suggested and interim solution to Ryan last night which he has implemented. It is linked at the top of the page next to the LIVE data.

From tomorrow, everyone should be able to see what is going on in various reactors at these links.

Keep those ideas coming!
+1 #42 Dieter Seeliger 2012-12-05 06:57
thanx for your return, also a link with descriptions would be great !
Keep up your great work and tnx for publishing your data.
BR Dieter

Found the log link in the top row :-)
Perfect !!!
0 #41 Ged 2012-12-05 05:06

Yeah, it was dropping for the while I was watching, but did jump on the next pressure release. I have a limited view of the data unfortunately. This'll be very interesting, and we should be able to directly compare this to the previous "experimental" runs.
0 #40 123star 2012-12-05 04:12
T_Glassout seems increasing (while pressure is decreasing) so far to me. Are you sure you are looking at the right cell (#1)?.We are at 4 bar now. Of course, we can only really compare the data points corresponding to (48W, 3.5bar) and (48W, 0.5 bar).
Let's see if T_Glassout will decrease between 3.5 and 0.5 bar.
I suggest taking more data points around these two pressures.
0 #39 Ged 2012-12-05 03:04

Actually, nevermind. The calibration was a spread of input powers at the same pressure. This is the same input power over a spread of pressures. This will be effectively a new calibration curve.

The T_GlassOut is apparently dropping with pressure so far though.
0 #38 Ged 2012-12-05 02:53

I would expect the P_xs then to run near 0 all the way through, since it's based on helium as its calibration point? This'll be fun to watch, see if we reconfirm our earlier findings.
+3 #37 vjman 2012-12-05 01:04
Quoting Rats:
Quoting observer:
My comments are due to the fact there appears to be a positive bias to this experiment. Meaning, it appears you want to prove Celani's results. My opinion is to do the science properly. If you happen to disprove and invalidate all of Celani's work along the way, that's how science works. Likewise, if you prove him right, that is good science also.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Only people who believe in positive result have the diligence to work through all the obstacles and exhaust all possible approaches before they reach a conclusion. If they didn't have the positive bias they would have given up long ago.
0 #36 123star 2012-12-05 00:00
I see from the Cell #1 log that a pressure drop test in Helium is in progress. From the previous calibrations we expect the temperature to drop as the pressure drops (at least in a particular pressure range), unlike the Hydrogen/Argon case. Can't wait to see what will happen :)
0 #35 Pelluet 2012-12-04 22:51
seems to be a good way that to increase the controlled environment of the cell, even if it could also introduce other complexities when the target of th experiment is only to deliver the proof ... what it could be ?

Add comment

Security code

Here is your generous contributions so far towards our $500,000 target, thanks everyone! : $30,055   Please Donate
See the current state of our booked costs here