The big questions are: Is the excess energy real?? And how much is real??
In short, YES , we are seeing excess energy as far as we can tell. There is still a chance that we are fooling ourselves, but that chance is getting smaller and smaller as we rule out potential error after error.
The amount of energy is AT LEAST 5 WATTS. We have reason to believe it may be more. Below is an explanation of how we arrived at the baselines we did.
This blog entry took a while to put together. It is worth noting that while our team was focused on working out some technical details to make the experiment happen and then focused on pulling the data together for ourselves and for Celani, our awesome core of followers has been providing us with as many insights as we could have hoped to come up with from weeks of our own work. The power of the crowd is working!
Below is the graph of all the calibration runs on the Euro Cell in terms of temperature rise for each power.
The first run was way below the others. The last tests, with the active wire in helium, fell close to this lowest curve.
Why are the other calibrations higher than the first?
Possibility 1: The oxide coated control wire started generating excess heat after taking on some loading during the first calibration. This is Celani's inclination. If this is the case, we can safely say that we are demonstrating approximately 5 watts more output energy than the oxide coated constantan wire did.
Possibility 2: T_Glass Out sensor was less thermally connected to glass than in later runs.
From all these calibration lines, we decided to use the highest as the most conservative number, and the lowest because that was closest to how the installed Celani Wire was working under Helium with the exact same T_glassout sensor location. See graph below.
These are the lines we fit the formulas for the P_Out from. Here are the curve fit data and resulting equation parameters.
This is another view of the same thing. Mathieu prepared this for Celani to include in a presentation in Rome this morning.
When we look at the equivalent power to achieve that Delta T_out according to each base line, we get the following:
This graph was provided by one of the commentators and shows that the total amount of radiated energy from the glass is only about 31 Watts. While it does not account for all the 48 W of input power to the cell, it is still an increase of energy output from before the very same wire was loaded with hydrogen. The remaining energy output is in the form of convection.
From Nic:
We still have a low and high estimate based on the calibration baseline we take as reference.
Low is Calib CuNi44 H2 1bar
High is Calib 360L He 1bar
Then the SB calculation gives us a Cell Coefficient (CC)
CC= Correction_Factor * BlackBodySurface * Emissivity * SB_Constant
Low: CC = 3.740958E-09
High: CC = 4.514090E-09
I took Emissivity = 1, since the Correction_Factor (CF) is modifying it anyway.
Low: CF = 1.500
High: CF = 1.810
Finally the Output Power is:
P_SB_out = CC * (T_glassout^4 - T_ambient^4)
This model work very well as the errors between the model and the calibration curves are very small. The calibration data fits perfectly with the SB model, once the correct factor is estimated correctly.
As we struggle with which baseline is really appropriate, perhaps we should extrapolate the pre-loading performance of the actual Celani Wire in which the wire location, emissivity, and sensor location are all exactly the same as during the loading and following live run. Below is an illustration of this approach.
.
According to this baseline, we are getting 64.9 Watts (64.9 - 48.0 = 16.9 Watts excess).
One more piece of data to contend with - Interestingly, the graph of T_Glassin does not show the first calibration run to be that much below the others. I (Ryan) believe this is a hint that the first run was lower because of a variation in thermal contact between the thermocouple and the glass.
The graph below is meant to illustrate how the temperatures from each run were interactive with the pressures and gas types. Each of these lines represents one of the calibration runs The power and temperature started out low. As the power stepped up, the temperature rose, which caused the gas pressure to rise also. The runs starting at higher pressure showed a larger pressure rise in bars (following the ideal gas law). The one perfectly vertical line was adjusted at each step to hold a constant pressure.
The effect we demonstrated on Cell 1 in the USA is not applicable to the current run in Cell 2 because the pressure is very close to constant at just over 1 bar.
We look forward to more advice and analysis by the many, many sharp individuals out there. We also look forward to more design suggestions for how to do the experiment in better ways. Similarly, if anyone else is interested in trying the experiment for themselves or at their institutions, let us know. Facilitating research into the New Fire is our goal.
Addendum: Mathieu has put together this nice summary of the early results in a PDF document:
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9qCtGOFmvhmeFF2ZzNhX3JXUTQ
Update #1 - Calibration Basis Overview
This talk through was given in Rome to help delegates at the Coherence meeting understand the data coming from the EU cell.
Correction: Bob says "same source" that should be "same type"
Comments
1- Ok I got the graph wrong before. But I did some calculations:
the IR radiated portion for a blackbody at 600°C from 750 nm to 2500 nm (IR range for which the borosilicate is transparent) is
T= 650 °C --> IR power (range 750 nm- 2500 nm) = 12%
T= 900 °C --> IR power (range 750 nm -2500 nm) = 26%
So a consistent part of the radiated power still escapes.
Anybody please check this calculation
About the graphs you posted, I see your point, at some low pressures the T_glassout decreases (especially with Helium). But the general trend is that at high pressures (>3 bar) the temperature drops. This is consistent with Gipsel interpretation: compressed gas cools the wire by convection and hinders IR radiation. Then the thermocouple reads a lower value because it sensitive to IR radiation. By the way, the pressure dependence is not related to emissivity at all, it's just cooling by convection.
The last observation I make is that for the EU cell, when power_in was raised from 48 W to 54 W or so, the P_Xs also did not increase much, not until the resistivity of the wire began to become unusual and funky. This too is contrary to the emissivity hypothesis, as significantly higher internal temperatures did not result in a significantly altered (over basline) T_GlassOut reading (until, again, resistance began to get weird).
There is just too much handwaving and too many holes in the idea it can account for a significant portion of anything. Ultimately, I really like 123Star's idea for experiments to quantitate the effect if it exists. If it does, and you were right and supported by direct data, then the quantitation would allow us to factor it out and see if any excess was left over.
Finally, look at these two graphs: quantumheat.org/.../... and quantumheat.org/.../...
Not only do the show the behavior I'm talking about where there's an optimal pressure, but even worst for the emissive hypothesis, the higher 110 W show even less of an effect! That is absolutely opposite what your hypothesis claims. Here a hotter wire with more emissivity is giving less of an effect over a cooler wire, and this effect falls faster with pressure drops than the cooler wire (less of a hump too).
The fact the P_xs did -not- increase with increasing power in directly falsifies and torpedoes the emissivity hypothesis. Unless there is an alternate explanation.
So, the data continues to leave me unconvinced of this emission hypothesis.
Take a look at this graph, quantumheat.org/.../...
Look at the calibration curves, not the experimental curves (which yours is), as the experimental curve may have been showing actual production, it's impossible to know but obfuscates the discussion. If you look at those shapes, you'll see exactly what I mean.
Here's Ecco's picture for borosilicate transmission of IR i.imgur.com/EIZzK.png . Anything longer than 4 um is fully absorbed at our thickness. Ecco also posted a picture for quartz somewhere, but it's really buried, and is quite different than borosilicate.
quantumheat.org/.../...
Quoting Ged:That's not true neither. Borosilicate has some partial transparancy below 3.5µm and is basically fully transparent below 2.8µm. With quartz the partial transparency starts at about 4µm, and gets fully transparent (for 3-4mm thickness) below about 3.5µm to 3µm depending on the quality. Quartz just lets through a bit more at lower wire temperatures already. That's all.
Remember, the US cell is transparent to IR. IR is already making it fully through the cell. Or put another way, the thermalcoupler is already seeing the full IR radiation of the cell at all times. That is lost energy from the system that is not detected, but became detected on a very narrow band of pressure in accordance with particular types of gas. And this effect did not appear to be power-in sensitive (which your hypothesis necessitates it would be).
That is in direct opposition to the emissivity hypothesis. Then you have to factor in the magnitude of the effect in the EU cell (the magnitude of the worst case in the US cell was still much smaller than what the pressure steady EU cell saw), and the fact that the NiCr wire also saw a small anomaly of excess heat over the highest baseline -only- when the Celani wire was loaded with hydrogen, and not during the calibrations in the presence of the naive wire (or helium).
docs.google.com/.../...
We have all the data for 4 cell temperatures. One inside the thermal well in the middle, one on the mica wire support, one on the inside of the glass (held by spring pressure of the thermocouple) and one on the outside of the the glass held in place by kapton tape.
We looked at the variation of each temperature in different gasses at different pressures. The temperatures in the thermal well and the mica were greatly affected by gas and pressure. The external glass temperature minus the ambient was more independent. The difference across the glass was explored, but showed all sorts of unexpected deviation. See the blog post
quantumheat.org/.../...
I agree we should chat directly about this and future options, but I wanted to share some of the methodology with anyone else wondering.
The method requires measuring the ∆T across a STABLE thermal barrier. Nothing else matters. This ∆T MUST represent the average over the entire thermal barrier. Since the barrier in this case is glass, some energy will be lost by radiation, but this is small compared to the claimed amount of excess power being reported. You need to address the biggest error first. The biggest error appears to be in the calibration.
Just wanted to say that I'm very happy Doctor Edmund Storms decided to join our quest. To my mind his presence gives the project even higher credentials so I'm very happy the project managed to attract such a respected scientist.
I feel very positive about his remarks as we need some really critical minds examining the work done here. Some of us may feel a bit offended by his comments, but that will be nothing compared to what will happen once the reactors and documentation will be sent out in the open. We need some serious critics on our methods from some keen minds to stand a chance of surviving the scientific community when this get's reviewed.
We can expect really harsh critics once the reactors are send out, so let's all be open to Doctor Storms very constructive contribution.
Also, big thanks to both the Europe and the US team and all the contributors. You're doing a great job!
Thanks to Dr. Edmund Storms, for his contribution on the calorimetry and measurements: , and to this brilliant team of investigators i think this group can do any and all that is necessary to nail this experiment down, with a new lab in Switzerland , wow this is great news, how exciting good work guys.
Actually, it is not immediately clear, in which direction this would influence the calculated output power with the current methodology. This is dependent on details like the thermal contact of the thermocouples to the tube and the emissivity of these sensors. Radiation transmitted through the glass doesn't heat the tube (lowering the glass temperature) but could on the other hand directly heat the temperature sensor on the outside (raising the measured temp). It is simply a potential source of error one should avoid.
Good thermal contact of the glass_out sensor to the tube and low emissivity of the sensor results in an underestimation of the output power, bad thermal contact and high emissivity leads to an overestimation.
Very interesting, thanks for that info. That could be a significant amount of undetected energy then (it'll make our detected excess lower than it is). We are indeed in need of those calorimeters, but let's see if the new Swiss lab location can control the ambient factors tightly enough to give us a good replication of the Celani cell before we improve it.
Link on Vortex: mail-archive.com/.../...
We are now at a lab in Switzerland and will publish a video of the facility later.
We have just been cleaning the hood where the cell will soon be cited. I think people will approve of the new environment.
We aim to take on board much of what has been discussed here where possible.
Quote:I don't think one can take this for granted (123star also said this a few times). It is only true, if the cell is contained in or made of some intransparent material. Glass tubes don't qualify for that (also not borosilicate). It has significant transparency below 3.3µm. Wire temperatures as low as 500K (227°C) start to show some significant thermal emission in that range (and the wire temperature is higher than T_mica). If the Celani wire gets hotter (because of lower diameter or lower emissivity), more and more radiation escapes the cell.
Great suggestions and wonderful to have you on board Edmund, we will endeavour to address all matters when the EU team is together later today, this is exactly the kind of constructive criticism that we welcome and sought and is precisely why we planned the internal replications first. We are not concluding or publishing anything like a definitive paper as we progress - we are saying what we see and leaving it open to the floor for discussion.
It is absolutely fundamental that both the experiment and the protocol is water tight and clearly shows signal above any noise before we attempt to send replications of the resulting evolved experiment to respected institutions across the globe.
We want and desire all the well considered challenges we can get such that they can be adressed NOW not after. We want to have the debate concluded BEFORE the final results from across the world are forthcoming, those results need to be incontrovertible.
We are serious. As many that have worked in this field before, we are putting our time and cash into this to make it happen, with your help, we can get this right together, it is too important to our children not to.
RSS feed for comments to this post