First Calibration Test of Stainless Cell
Calibration of Stainless Cell and Air Flow Calorimeter
We have completed two initial calibration runs on the insulated stainless cell within the air flow calorimeter (AFC). The goal is to attempt to calibrate and characterize both the stainless cell and the AFC simultaneously. The cell looks like this installed. Here is the link to the Active Wires in the Chambers & Insulated Cell Details blog post.
The whole air flow calorimeter has been set into a cabinet of sorts to try to eliminate the effects of cooler drafts on the exterior of the unit and to isolate it slightly from the temperature variations in the room. The box is open on the top to allow for heat to escape and not build up.
The set up works for drafts, but this room still changes about 1.5 degrees over a day and the cabinet changes with it. We may need to actively control to a higher temp. Below you can see the exterior of the cabinet and the laptop monitoring the experiment from the shelf next to it.
Calibration Cycles
We did 2 calibration cycles so far.
Time constants, settling times
These runs were done with 3 hour steps rising and falling at 4 power levels. It is pretty obvious from the data that the cell has a very long time constant. On a separate, single heating to the same high power level as the calibrations, we had the resulting curve indicating a settling time of approx 5 hours. Interestingly, it also shows the the top interior sensor runs cooler- presumable because of the thinner insulation around the top of the flange and the plumbing and pass through tubes sticking through the insulation.
Resulting curves
Ratios
Are the ratios of the temperature rises consistent? Are they good indicators of constant thermal resistance? The ratio across the insulation dropped at higher temperatures. This is not unusual for most insulation materials. The ratio between the Macor and the inside wall was very constant, which would seem to indicate that the thermal resistance across the hydrogen was consistent.
Degrees/watt
8 to 10 on t_mica! The thermal noise should be minimal, too with the insulation. That means we should have good resolution for future wire tests. If we ever see a wire with 15 to 20 watts output, 2 meters could be self sustaining at 2 watts/meter, 15 to 20 meters could be self sustaining!
Non uniformity of shell
As I noted above, the top interior sensor was cooler than the middle or bottom. Meanwhile, the middle exterior sensor runs the hottest while the bottom exterior runs cooler and it's not entirely clear why. The result is that this form of calorimeter is not gonna be easily approximated based on a pure physics calculation, so we’ll have to be content with an empirical fit. We will also have to watch carefully for mischievous effects caused by slight temperature changes altering the heat flow out through the gas tube and the pass through tubes. That is one reason we are running this cell in the Air Flow Calorimeter, which will at least provide a a nice, stable exterior temperature.
Offset in the middle of run
If you look closely at the data you will see that on both runs at almost the same exact time of day, the exterior temperature slowly rises a small, but noticeable amount. This was caused by the AFC changing air flow rate because the fan was set to right near minimum speed, just barely turning. Our hypothesis is that the fan changes mode slightly and reduced the air flow. We since turned up the fan and just added another filter to slow and even out the air flow back to a speed where it will rise 1 degree C for every 10 watts. Since we made that change, we have not seen another offset like that one. We will have to try to run a more precise calibration again now that the offset seems to be cured.
SS Cell Calibration Data
All in one Zip - including 1 minute raw data, and spreadsheets.
AFC Calibration
I was hoping to include a graph of the AFC output vs SS Cell input power, but the data from the AFC is still not ready. We achieved a rough calibration, but it is proving inaccurate (off by 1.6 watts at 37 W input power) after we changed the fan speed and added an additional filter. When we re-run a more thorough calibration, we will need to zero all the sensors appropriately with offsets while everything is cold and settled. If the calibration doesn't tighten down more after a more careful calibration, at least it makes a nice controlled temperature environment for the SS Cell.
Air Flow Calorimeter Document
We are in the process of making a nice reference document to explain the design and principles of the Air Flow Calorimeter. It is a draft in process, so don't expect perfection, but I wouldn't mind your questions or suggestions to help make it better.
You can find it here: HUG Air Flow Calorimeter
Next steps:
Besides slowly testing this set up, we are working on Version 1.3 of the glass, Celani type cell, while we continue to watch the vertical cells. Pictures and more details soon.
Comments
P_xs is derived from some calculations based on calibration baselines, right? So when the maths shows the output power to be greater than what was established during the calibration then we show a positive P_xs.
However taking a closer look at the data available it appears T_glassout is fairly stable for the duration of the experiment. If the Celani cell is producing excess heat should we not see a higher delta for T_glassout?
It has been a long time since any transitions have been available, but the input from Ascoli got my attention. I ran a dummy transient and let the program calculate the best match for the power input as if it were a calibration.
I used the latest data for the last 12 hours at 30 second intervals. I get a matched power of 105.6 watts with peaks reaching the input that should be available of 106.4 watts.
I used the calibration values obtained during the special run for this experiment. I would consider this a null excess power event. I have been using the outer glass - ambient for the temperature delta. This does not support excess power generation.
In the Extra cell there's no pressure sensor but if we assume the pressure is dropping there too, and there's no active wire in it then the graph of it's temperature rising over the last 5 days might be a clue.
Looks like you're adding just enough H to keep the pressure constant, excellent plan!
The image below provides an update of the power imbalance at cell 1.1 in the period from January 25 to February 5, corrected on the base of the gas density inside the cell. As you can see, the corrected imbalance remains close to zero.
It is to be noted that the formula and the parameters used for the correction were derived from the calibration cycles performed between 4 and 8 January, when the molecular density decreased from 3.1 to 2.7 mbar/K. The present much lower value of density, about 2 mbar/K, may affect this correction.
It would be useful to replay, at the end of this period run at constant power, a few calibration cycles, varying each time the initial (cold) pressure from 0.5 to 2.0 bar (or vice versa), with 0.5 bar steps (4 cycles in total). In this way, one could derive a more precise correction formula to be applied to the results obtained until now.
Image: i.imgur.com/UAHtfNH.jpg
GET READY!
EeeeeyYiYi.. lol
Go slowly!!! Over hours if possible.
Are we considering that as the internal cell temp goes up, the gas pressure increases over 1 atm, then gas leaks... this lowers the density of the gas and so potentially its ability to conduct power away from the wire to the glass - but the wire is close to the Macor...
What we need is to remove these debates about gas and the effect of the environment...
GET READY!
First we charge a length of pipe with hydrogen, then we use a series of needle valves and quarter-turn plug valves, to control the flow into the reactors. We can usually get a small steps of 0.01 bar or so with this method.
@ 123star
As to how many sensors have the aluminum patch, there is only one. It is on cell 1.1 as the T_GlassOut sensor. We are also using a white thermal paste between the aluminum and glass. The rest of the exterior glass sensors are fixed with Kapton tape.
I propose yet another (simple) test to check if IR absorption matters. I know that all current temperature probes on the glass surface are attached to an aluminum patch (correct?). Aluminum is a good reflector so IR absorption is reduced greatly.
I propose to attach another temperature probe on the glass with ugly, BLACK, electrical tape (so to say) which is presumably opaque at near IR and see if:
-- The absolute reading of the "black tape probe" is higher by a certain offset (I suspect so)
-- The reading of the "black tape probe" follows the T_Macor and internal temperatures, unlike what happens now (as shown by Ecco). This effect, if present, should be imputable to IR absorption characteristics .
Just trying to understand a bit more about your prediction curves.
Would the calibration factors remain the same with or without excess heat? As of now, we are not quite sure whether there is an exact trigger temp/power/curr ent. There could be excess heat at all power levels that could throw off your predicted equilibrium, correct?
If we performed another calibration as before and we see a different set of factors, would they say that we are not producing excess heat or could it say that we are producing excess heat?
Likewise, if we see the same factors (within tolerance), would that mean that we are not seeing excess heat or would it mean that we are seeing excess heat?
However, comparing internal and Glass_Out temperatures for both cells 1.0 and 1.1 might be a more effective reality check.
Cell 1.0
Mica Temperature (used for P_xs calculations)
Glass_Out temperature
Cell 1.1
T_Macor temperature (used for P_xs calculations)
T_G1 and T_G2 (auxiliary external glass temperature - upper and middle glass tube sections)
I fear that some are getting too much enthusiastic, too early.
did you noticed my comment #80 at the post:
"Much Lower Levels [UPDATE#1 - back to higher Pxs]"
?
BR Dieter
The US cells are playing very nice at the moment. Will be interesting to see if we have to lower the power and load the wire again after a while and start another cycle.
The wires, from the last 2 EU runs are planned to be analysed with SEM. We are dependent on the donation of university facility time and that is a challenge to secure, if anyone can provide another option before we get access to the previous resource we used, that would be awesome. Mathieu is an SEM god, but he needs the tool to do the job also.
@Rats
By the end of today we hope we will post a mega blog that I think is going to surprise you all. It will address most of the challenges and problems we have seen to date. What we have done so far has given us much confidence that Celani really has something and this set of tests will be run during our kickstarter and we hope will produce the conclusive evidence that the New Fire is not only possible, but really on its way to us.
These tests are going to be expensive for us, so we hope that when the Kickstarter is running, everyone can rally together and spread the word to the world to help let us light the New Fire together.
Is this the mysterious EMF we've heard about? ;)
If both US cells continue at the same rate, it looks like they might reach the 7W mark by this time tomorrow.
If we produce 3W for an hour we pass chemical. We are as fascinated as everyone else as to what is going on - both cells are in the same environment and are doing different things - but there been a good run up of late.
RSS feed for comments to this post