Several more pieces of data have been prepped for dissemination.
Data files for the second run with Celani Wire in Helium at 0.5 Bar are posted:
RunHe2_USA.xls (8.2mb) RunHe2_USA.csv (2.7mb)
Hydrogen loading step data posted.
Because of the size of the 31.4 hours of data, we have split it into 3 files.
| H2Loading1st12.xls (7.2 mb) | H2Loading1st12_RawData.csv (3.2 mb) |
| H2Loading2nd12.xls (7.7 mb) | H2Loading2nd12_RawData.csv (3.4 mb) |
| H2LoadingLast7.5.xls (2.3 mb) | H2LoadingLast7.5_RawData.csv (2.3 mb) |
A good program for viewing this data rapidly in graphs is Live Graph. http://www.live-graph.org/index.html
Loading Observations:
We know our baseline for excess energy seems to be low, resulting in higher than expected excess heat calculations. We are working to recalculate based on the other temperature sensors, but there are only so many hours in a weekend. Tomorrow may be good for that.
The ambient temperature in the little annex is dropping by 2 to 3 degrees so far today.
The graph below shows the correlation of the the temperatures to the Ambient (in Yellow)
The Power In varies somewhat with the ambient temperature, also. Once we get the feedback controller into the firmware on the instrumentation, that won't happen anymore. Meanwhile, we get to see hints of how things change with eachother.
It is interesting to note, however, that the P_xs, or excess energy calculation, despite probably reading high, did continue to rise throughout the whole time going from about 5.9 to 6.8 watts. Far from definitive, but tantalizing because this is despite the T_mica and the P_in dropping.
Cool Down Mini Experiment
It was suggested that we try turning the cell off and watching the shape of the cool down. Since we had to add hydrogen, anyway,we made it a plan.
Not too much interesting to see here. The curve looks like a clean fall off. Turns out we don;t have another example of turning the power off at this temperature, which means we can't compare it directly.
The impedance is kinda interesting. It drops down to 14.45 ohms, or so, right along with the temperatures.
Yep, right along with the temperature. Wait, what's that little tail at the high temperature? Probably the slight drop in resistance at the end of the loading phase when the temp was constant. OK, then what's that little tail at the low temperature, then?
Good question! It turns out that just before we got this data sample, we re-pressurized the cell to get ready for a stepped test to watch the impedance of the loaded wire change with temperature. When we upped the Hydrogen pressure, the resistance of it rose! Why? Beats me. Put your best guesses below in the comments.
Data files: Cell_Cool_off.xls (1.9mb) Cell_Cool_off.csv (910kb)
Getting ready for the next phase
This is where we repressurized the back to 3.5 Bar H2.
Then we set up a voltage stepping routine, much like the calibration runs, but not intended to go as hot. We will heat the nichrome and then let it settle at that level for 45 minutes. At the end it will return to be close to where it was for the earlier loading phase. In the morning we will turn it off, let it cool, put in the H2/Ar mix at 3.5 Bars and heat with the Celani Wire to see what kind of fun we can have.
Oh, one more thing...
As we strive to figure out a better measurement of the heat flow, we are considering using the temperature difference between the inside of the glass and the outside. The sensors are almost exactly opposite of each other. Each sensor runs for quite a ways along the face of the glass to better approach the glass temp. The temperature difference should be proportional to the heat loss. We'll graph it up and see if it fits.
Good night, all. More fun in the morning.
Comments
That's just off the top of my head. This heat measurement thing seems very thorny to me, but I have no expertise in that area. Do you have a calorimetry expert on board? it would be more persuasive if you do.
If you check the Nov 6th entry here, you will find the calibration runs with Nichrome wire and H-Ar mixture. Pure H is also mentioned, but I couldn't find the data for that.
To rule out chemical origins of heat He is a good choice.
This would be interesting to test. It might even be automated (like the calibration procedure). Also, it might even turn out that it's not necessary to let the cell rest in the loading phase for extended periods of time if the same can be accomplished just by repeating the loading->cooldo wn procedure frequently.
But what happens, if it doesn't succeed? How long will you try? maybe it is not a nuclear reaction but only a chemical with some measurement errors? Just waiting for your results...
Your R/R0 calculations are in line with ours after cool down - this was predicted by Celani, of course there would be some resistivity drop expected anyhow.
I suggest adding a "resource" page so that interested people can be pointed to the right applications (such as this one) to analyze and study incoming new data.
By the way, is R/Ro measured at ambient temperature, 1atm or during operating conditions? If it's the former, then it reached a value of approximately 0.8 (since resistance dropped to 14.45 during cooldown).
He and H2 are very similar in thermal conductivity, 0.138 and 0.172 respectively at 20 Celsius (W/m K) and far lower than the conductivity of glass (0.8). (Ref. Young). One would expect (I think!) then a lower temperature at the mica with H2 compared with He as the difference in conductivity is approx. 20% in favour of H2 and consequently equal heat (power) will be lost from the system at a lower temperature gradient. But the total difference of the system has to include the glass – now the difference is even smaller.
Of more importance is the shape of the curve of total heat loss from the system versus temperature. For a single source (resistive heating) all curves will have the same profile. But if a second source of heat (LENR power) becomes significant at an intermediate point in the temperature curve – then this will be seen in the curve as a deviation from the original control curves. This is what will be looked for.
Perhaps when you re-pressurised, the metal end flanges were still warm and this warmed the hydrogen as it entered the cell.
Question is did the increase in resistance remain or return back to the original curve with time?
Interestingly, the variation of resistance with temperature is greater now with the loaded wire compared to the controls
Reading a comment by Al Potenza in a previous post, now I have a doubt.
The comparison between two runs such as the calibration
"Celani's wire + He" and the run "Celani's wire + H"
should say whether the anomalous heat is caused by the Hydrogen, but the _value_ of the excess heat should be achieved by a comparison between
"normal wire + H" calibration and the run "Celani's wire + H"
(i.e. different wires, in the same hydrogen atmosphere)
this in order to guarantee that the heat transmission between the wire and the mica, or the glass (that depends on the gas' thermal conductivity) is the same in both cases.
Is it right?
RSS feed for comments to this post