Wire Temp Hypothesis 2
We are just finishing a mini-experiment where we turned off the power to the cell, let it cool (almost to ambient) and then turned it back on again. Once again, as we turned the power back on, the impedance of the wire jumped almost instantly and then curved up to asymptotically approach a final level.
This time I realized we have a nice comparison for what the temperature of the wire was at that resistance and under nearly identical conditions. The impedance jumped from 15.145 up to 15.380, presumably from the wire heating up till it achieved an equilibrium over the temperature of the cell. During the cool down, the impedance dropped through 15.380, also, as the wire was approximately at the cell temperature. If we take T_mica as representative of the cell temperature during cool down, we can find out what temperature the wire was when it was at 15.380 ohms. I get T_mica was 120 C at that point. T_mica was down to 27.2 when the power was turned back on. If the wire jumped to 120 from 27.2, that means it equilibrated at roughly 93 C above the cell temp!
Does this make sense? Are there killer non-linearities that I have to contend with?
The impedance of the wire seems to change linearly with the T_mica as it fell with no current through it.
What else would throw this off? I'm open to criticism of using this 90C as an approximate idea of how much hotter the wire is than T_mica. Maybe at higher temperatures when the spread between the T_glass and T_mica is larger, we'd have to take an average of the two to use as a base temperature. Now that we are running both conductors for the present test, we should be able to do a higher temperature test by shutting off the Celani wire and then turning it back on again. Sounds like something easy and fast and useful.
Thoughts?
Comments
It is a legitimate question, we are not trying to show results people want to see, we are following the evidence and being thorough. By challenging claims impartially and being complete, open and transparent, when we do show something - the credibility will be extremely robust and the full history of how we got there available to would be detractors.
The donations have made a big difference to the project, particularly for the website element and the EU cell. By far and away the bulk of the progress has been made from the efforts of the facilitators in raw hours donated and leveraging the resources of their various companies and experience. This has required deep sacrifice in earnings and opportunity cost, but we are serious and committed, it is more important than any one of us.
You will note that from the outset the Celani cell was just one of several options put forward for achieving our primary aim. The decision to run with it first was based on the relative simplicity of the device and the extraordinary cooperation developed with Celani precisely because this is a non-profit, international community based and supported project concept.
We have discovered so much in less than 3 weeks of experimentation and you can expect a data tsunami of rich experimentation variation to come.
Until we reach our primary aim, be it with Celani or another technology, what is so exciting is the new things we are discovering, sharing and discussing with you, this for me is what science is about. As a bonus, we may be a potential motivational force for others working in this field. If we help others to accelerate their work, such that they achieve our primary aim, then that is good to.
Fair point though I stand by the rest. Would it not be awesome if we could get experimentation al, albeit black box, confirmation of excess energy from Celani's cell? At least then we can approach the rest of what the MFMP is trying to do with great confidence. I am sure the donations would be flooding in then.
For something so revolutionary (New Fire!) would it not make more sense, and hence a priority, to get Celani to make the time to have his cell tested?
You guys are requesting donations to aid in your experimentation . People are donating based on blind faith. What if Celani is mistaken e.g. made some measurement errors. I'd feel rather cheated if I'd donated ...
Having said all that, please don't me wrong. I've been following LENR/CF for a long time now and I want this to work REALLY BADLY. Please try and persuade Celani to have his cell tested.
The leak is actually where the wires pass through the flange and enter the cell. We are currently working on the next generation of cells that will have improved wire pass throughs.
Hi, sorry for sounding negative again, but this doesn't make sense. It is strange for Celani to request things to "go further" when a baseline for reproducible excess energy has not been achieved. There are many who cast doubt at Celani's demonstration and it should first and foremost be proved that his cell is producing excess energy.
What is your relationship with Celani like? Would it be possible for you guys to get him to bring his cell in for testing? I'd be happy to contribute towards flying him over.
@Dieter - We are working on a new cell that will hopefully be much tighter. But, as often happens, the declining pressure, which is a feature of Celani's work, also, may have lead us to some new understanding.
It would be nice if this variable is removed and the experiment is repeated after a day or two.
Since outer glass temperature is being used for calculating P_Xs, it would seem that pressure drop will only affect T_Mica and the reduced conduction of heat will equalize the temperature on outer glass. But I'm guessing this reasoning is just a big assumption and should be tested.
If you check the Celani report, he deliberately reduced the pressure a few times to keep the temperature from rising very much, so lowering the pressure apparently reduces the excess energy production. I guess this is the reason we are seeing a very very slow rise. I hope I'm not totally wrong about this guess.
What about hydrogen loading, that will drive the pressure. Am I missing something?
Thanks for the info! I guess I like to play it safe around flammable things, but does sound like it's not too dangerous after all.
@Ron and Greenwin,
The EU cell will be much more like Celani's, using the right type of glass to hold the proper temperatures that this cell can't without much higher (dangerous for the wire) input powers. It should be able to do the "complete" replication. The EU cell will be very interesting to watch, and is an improvement over the US cell in basically every way due to learning from the US cell.
@Ecco,
Very cool graph, thanks for the graphs you post here, I enjoy the longer view they give. Strange there's an upwards inflection point there. Might give David's great calculations some meat to chew on. The cell is very "cool" relatively right now, so maybe the raising temperatures are having a slight effect. So much to tease apart.
i.imgur.com/ke8U5.png
With the EU cell presumably being completed or almost completed and possibly getting the spotlight for the time being, I think it might be a good idea to leave the US cell alone running as it is until next week. Interesting data might come earlier than expected.
That would be a very interesting experiment, I just wonder about safety?
Still, we could do the same if we rely on the previous effects we've seen, which is that it appears when P_xs climbes to a higher level at a certain input and temperature, it'll stay at that level when the reactor is stopped and restarted. So if we held all conditions the same, and just ramped up the pressure after a stop; then we can watch the restart and see if P_xs returns to where it was (or close enough to). We can do this first without raising pressure as a control. That might be a safer way to get at the data.
There should not be a falling pressure during the measurements.
The pressure in the current test is higher.
@ Rats
Celani encouraged us to take things further, to not just repeat and that is the road that was first set out on in the US. Having said that, the EU cell will be as near as possible a straight replication of Celani's set-up - though we are starting to discover the merits of his long offset passthroughs which we will not be able to replicate in the EU test at this stage- but watch this space.
Did you modify the pressure or other factor for this test? I used the values from the start of the power pulse to a period that is 1000 seconds into the rise for the fit. If the chosen fit period is longer the error due to the continual rising outer glass temperature begins to generate errors that are too large at the beginning region of the function.
For example, when 2000 seconds is tried, an obvious shape error emerges and the fit suffers.
Data set begins approx. 11/27/2012 @18:20
Not to sound too negative here but I am honestly confused by the approach you guys are taking. It seems you are doing everything that Celani did not do. I've mentioned in a previous thread about why aren't you exactly following what Celani did? Surely the aim is to firstly get conclusive proof of excess energy and then try tweaking things.
If I may suggest an approach, why not ask Celani to bring his cell in and run it for a few days. In this way we can then be 100% sure the LENR effect is real and it then becomes an engineering problem to replicate it.
The higher the pressure, the smaller the spread between T_Mica and T_Glass becomes. However, also the larger the spread between T_Mica and T_Well becomes.
i.imgur.com/WZlni.png
RSS feed for comments to this post