FacebookTwitterDiggStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditTechnoratiLinkedin

A Beautiful Beast of an Apparatus (Update #3 - Cool Videos)

Scritto da Ryan Hunt on .

Lots to report from the last few days

1- Difference between sensors

We learned from all the additional sensors we installed this week that our temperature control int eh room was very good at controlling the temeprature at the one point of the sensor.  The other temperature sensors shows some variation throughout the day, though.  At least that explains some 12 hour trends we saw during our previous runs.  Going forward we will be more careful about that.  

The graph below illustrates this point.  The cell temps all dropped (no power applied to cell at all), while temperature where the T_ambient sensor is located stays in a tight range.

Here we see the Air temps at the top of the hood run warmer than the cell temps and the T_ambient sensor.

We were suspicious of the new, very inexpensive thermocouples we were using to read the air temps.  This is what Malachi learned about them:

 

To gauge the accuracy of our new thermocouples we took T_A3 and submerged it into a hot water bath and boiled the water.  This took place around 10:05 AM local time.  The resulting temperature was 100 C (+-0.05 C).

Then, to gauge the precision we took all three ambient thermocouples (T_A1-3) and brought them to the same point. We isolated them from each other in 1 inch by 1/4" diameter individual copper tubes. These three tubes were then put in a larger copper tube with tape on the ends to restrict air flow. Then we waited and the resulting temperatures were within 0.05C of one and other. We can safely say the new thermocouples have an accuracy of +-0.05C and a precision between sensors of +-0.05C.



2 - Installing cells vertically with air flow

Per suggestions from Celani and Ed Storms and a few others on the blog, we are trying some runs with the test cells oriented vertically. The idea is that the air flow outside the cell and the convection cycles inside the cell with make the inside glass and outside glass temps more consistent and usful for indicating actual heat flow. Dr Storms would like to see us using the temperature difference across the glass as an isoperibolic calorimeter. 

Much work was done.  More pictures and video to come below.


3 - Repaired pass through, cracked wire support

Yesterday, as we installed fresh NiChrome wires and Bare Isotan wires into the cells, one of the copper wires glued into the passthroughs broke.  It broke right up close to the pass through so we couldn't solder or attach to it. We decided to attempt a repair.  We heated the passthrough with a propane torch to break down the epoxy.  It worked, but it was a very stinky success and there was black gooey epoxy all over that came off only with acetone and a tiny buffer wheel.  We also cracked a Macor support, but it was only a tiny piece of the corner that came off. We added a dot of epoxy where it meets the flange and called it good.


4 - AFC - Getting ready to test - Insulated stainless cell

Early test are looking promising on the air flow calorimeter.  They are mostly informal, so far.  We have been very busy getting the two cells mounted in the vertical apparatus, but we did manage to put together another core that will serve inside a stainless shell for inside the Air Flow Calorimeter.  The one on the right will be in the calorimeter.  We will insulate the stainless shell of the shell in 2 inch (5cm) of mineral wool insulation so it will require very little energy input to get up to working temperature.

Here are the details of the wire pass throughs.


5 - New wires arriving next week

In the reworking process, we decommissioned the first Celani wire we had used.  We will try to take some pictures of it soon.

Next week we will receive some new Celani wires to put into these fun toys.  More on that when they get here.  We're hoping to have enough calibrations done to be able to pop them in and have some active runs over New Years.

6 - The Monster-Twin-Cell-Vertical-Apparatus and the Calibration Routines

Here is the groovy stuff going on right now.  We just assembled and commissioned this dual cell apparatus.

Cell 1.0 - The Mica/Quartz glass cell with NiChrome on the blue power channel and Isotan wire on the red power channel.

The Macor/Pyrex cell with NiChrome on the blue power channel and Isotan wire on the red power channel.

Isn't that an intimidating mess of sensors?  

The data collectors are set on this new shelf under the hood.  This isolated their heat output from being directly on the cells.

The data is streaming.  We are doing a 7 step up, 7 step down calibration.  Both cells are at 0.5 bar and will do this calibration cycle twice.  Then I will up the pressure to 1 bar and perform that calibration 6 times to get a good idea of the variability and error bars.


Update #1

Happy holidays and happy data watching.


Update #2/3 (now with video)

Just in case the world did end, the EU team wanted to have a bit of fun on their last full day together in Switzerland, so, in a break from the normal schedule, they did a Mizuno type experiment.

On a serious note, we decommissioned the first EU active 360 layer Celani wire from its cell and Mathieu will be taking that back to France to, as planned, see if anything can be seen under the Scanning Electron Microscope and other tests.

Removing the wire

After which, we drank "LA FIN DU MONDE" beer at the university bar - which is French for "The end of the world"

The end of the world

If tomorrow comes - we hope you can join us in our continuing journey.
Happy Christmas Everybody!

 

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

Comments   

 
0 #45 MaisieJuicy 2018-08-23 08:06
Hi. I see that you don't update your website too often. I know that
writing articles is time consuming and boring.
But did you know that there is a tool that allows you to create new articles using existing content (from article directories or other websites
from your niche)? And it does it very well. The new articles
are unique and pass the copyscape test. Search in google and try:
miftolo's tools
Quote
 
 
0 #44 73Brittny 2018-07-31 17:24
I can see that your content probably doesn't
have much traffic. Your posts are awesome, you only need more
new readers. I know a method that can cause a viral effect on your site.

Search in google: dracko's tricks make your content
go viral
Quote
 
 
0 #43 Chuck 2012-12-28 19:13
I'm not a physical chemist, so I don't have any training or knowledge in this aspect, but do we have a way of tracking the hydride content of the wire during operation? Is there a way to do this?
Quote
 
 
0 #42 David Roberson 2012-12-28 16:24
I need to have a run with the pressure held as constant as possible and at the same level as the calibration to verify these results.

Also, it is important for a calibration run with an inactive wire that is guaranteed to not generate excess power in order to prove that the vertical system follows the same non linear differential equation.

We may be getting the results that we seek, but it is a bit premature to celebrate. It is too bad that we are only seeing 1 watt or so, but the actual level needs to be more accurately determined.

I will be out of the office for the next few days.
Quote
 
 
0 #41 David Roberson 2012-12-28 16:18
Ok, I took the very latest calibration step test for the cell FC0101 and used that to obtain the latest coefficients. These were then used with the latest full rising waveform step in power and I can say that the results are definitely different than I have seen in the past with earlier time domain runs.

I am unable to make the temperature versus time waveform match the non liinear differential equation solution as before and the difference is not trivial and apparent.

I am concerned about the fact that the pressure seems to be differernt for these two intervals of time so that might be an issue, but if not, there is definite evidence of something unusual with the latest test.

If the Celani wire is loaded, then I suspect that we will be able to verify that extra power is being generated after more careful calibration. I estimate that the excess power is in the vicinity of 1 watt from a quick look at the fit.

Dave Roberson 12/28/2012
Quote
 
 
0 #40 Ecco 2012-12-28 14:26
I'm noticing that the 1.1 cell is slowly gaining pressure although it's currently turned off. Wouldn't this imply a risk of air contamination when operating the reactor below 1 bar of pressure?
Quote
 
 
0 #39 Ryan Hunt 2012-12-28 04:44
The valid calibrations for the vertical cells all started about 21:00 gmt on Dec 21. The first two were at 0.5 bar H2. The next 8 were at 1 bar starting pressure. Yesterday we turned off cell 1.0 and then turned it back on. Today we turned off cell 1.1 and turned it back on. Then, tonight, we started with another 0.5 bar calibration cycle. The details are all in the experiment log.
Quote
 
 
-1 #38 charlie tapp 2012-12-27 18:12
i have a question i realy want this thing to work but even when you are seeing exess power it is very small. could the extra heat be from the wire being wraped around and around turning it into a chock coil? because a choke coil will put off heat. also if i am wrong which i am alot could the wire acting as a choke coil be holding up the results we are looking for?
Quote
 
 
0 #37 AlanG 2012-12-27 17:54
@Ryan Hunt - I'm convinced that much of the noise in the measurements is due to a timing problem. Many of the power increments appear to span two sample periods (at 1 minute intervals in the graphs). You can see the consequence of this in the discontinuous step in the Down1plot at ~80 watts, for example.

Is there a ramp time parameter in the power control mechanism?
Quote
 
 
0 #36 Robert Greenyer 2012-12-27 13:28
@Everyone

Thanks for all your analysis people, this really helps us see things.
Quote
 
 
0 #35 Ecco 2012-12-27 09:28
@Robert Greenyer: sorry for the delayed reply, but this is something I realized only now.

With the 2-layer wire according to the STM experiment, there was about a 20% increase in output power to input at 350 °C (wire temperature or reactor temperature?). If two or them are going to be installed in the MFMP 1.1 reactor, this percentage should increase even if just one of them is going to be heated directly. Perhaps by 10% or so?

A 30% increase with an input power of 50W would imply a DeltaT Out difference of about 20 °C. I'm wondering how much would be needed at the least to rule out any possible imaginable artifact.

This is data from one of the latest calibration cycles for the MFMP cell v1.1 from which I estimated this:


i.imgur.com/A96nA.png

(sorry for the poor graph this time)

EDIT: btw, "Delta T Out" is T_Rise, which is T_GlassOut - T_Ambient.
Quote
 
 
+1 #34 David Roberson 2012-12-26 23:54
I want to congratulate you gentlemen on doing a remarkably consistent job of measuring the input power versus outside glass temperature.

I get a R^2 value of .999957 for a curve fit to a quadratic equation. From experience I can expect my model to yield near perfect results in the time domain response.

Thanks!
Quote
 
 
0 #33 David Roberson 2012-12-26 23:37
@Ecco

I probably should offer a good explanation for the time constants that I have been freely throwing around. If you look at a typical power input step and the associated outside glass temperature you see a smooth, exponential rising curve. An exact solution to the differnetial equation tying this curve to time contains an exponential function plus all of its harmonics. The time constant is expressed as 1/Wreal where Wreal is the natural frequency of the decay. Each harmonic is smaller than the fundamental one in level and I have a formula that calculates each component. My final closed form relationship automatically performs the addition of the harmonic components so it is not necessary to calculate them independently.

A second shorter time constant decay is in effect during the very initial edge of the rising waveform due to a delay mechanism.
Quote
 
 
0 #32 Ryan Hunt 2012-12-26 23:10
@ Ecco - The data interruption was planned, but it went went wrong, anyway when the data collector itself actually froze up for a while unnoticed. It is logging again and not much data was lost.
Quote
 
 
0 #31 AlanG 2012-12-26 22:06
Hmm, here's the link to the spreadsheet again:

magicsound.us/MFMP/FC0103-3.xls
Quote
 
 
0 #30 AlanG 2012-12-26 22:03
Here's delta T vs Power In for the first six cycles of cell 1.0



I suspect from looking at the data that the power steps are asynchronous with the sampling interval (1 minute for this graph), causing in some of the data dispersion shown. If a power step occurs near the end of the sample interval, two samples will be affected. I've tried to compensate for this by filtering the data based on delta power, offset by two samples, but I'm not yet happy with the results.

The source spreadsheet for the graph is at

" rel="external nofollow" target="_blank">
Quote
 
 
0 #29 Ecco 2012-12-26 20:54
@MFMP: it looks like the data feed for the US cell ceased working at about 17:56 CET. Was the cell stopped completely or did something unexpected happen?

@David Roberson: I have to admit that I have a hard time understanding what exactly your time constant work is about. Can you point me to the right resources to get what it is in short?
Quote
 
 
0 #28 David Roberson 2012-12-26 16:57
@Ecco

The time constant associated with the cell is in the vicinity of 360 minutes. If they allowed 3600 seconds (1 H) of time for each power step the fractional error would be 4.54 x 10^-5 which is more than required for our needs. The fractional error due to only using 45 minutes (2700 Seconds) is still only 5.53 x 10^-4 which I would assume is adequate. The noise level is much larger than the current mathematical limit they now face.
Quote
 
 
0 #27 Ryan Hunt 2012-12-26 16:31
@AlanG
Thanks for graphing that! The slope difference is really interesting, isn't it? Cell 1.1 has 3.2mm Pyrex. Cell 1.0 has 2.5 mm Quartz. Cell 1.1 also has that nice aluminum plate on the T_glass out to broaden out the area of the glass it senses from. It'll be interesting to see how they compared from run to run.
Quote
 
 
0 #26 Dieter Seeliger 2012-12-26 10:55
@all
Why are we no trying to prepare the active wires by ourselves?
I want to suggest another mini project:
"Wire preparation"
Reading Celani`s papers, this is another task, worth
of replication in the crowd.
The tools needed are not so complex and this work could also be done in an not so perfect featured lab.
The main task is good documentation.
Quote
 

Here is your generous contributions so far towards our $500,000 target, thanks everyone! : $45,020   Please Donate
See the current state of our booked costs here