As smooth as glass? [UPDATE #1 - New glass greatly reduces systematic differential]
Mathieu, in France, has finally got to the bottom of a problem that has been holding back the re-running of the dual cell Celani problem for quite some frustrating time.
In the Celani Dual Cell with Protocol V1.3 experiments, with no active wire contributions, this differential experiment is supposed to show identical temperatures on both cells with the same power input right? But there was something not quite right, they did not, there was a temperature differential with the same input power even before ICCF18 and so the approach for the first experiments was to use calibrations to compensate any lack of cell correlation.
Following ICCF18, Mathieu wanted design out this apparent flaw. In order to understand the system better he opted for new, more accurate thermocouples with uniform attachment because he was not satisfied with the previous temperature measurement of the surface of the tubes. The component chosen is listed on omega as SA1. They are able to sustain 175°C before unsticking from the tube. The documentation can be downloaded here. Compared to all the other means of measurement, the mode of attachment is designed to be identical in shape and have the same reflection and so multiple sensors would respond in the same way.
Installing the new sensors proved that Mathieu’s concern was well founded. The far greater precision of them, showed precisely the magnitude of the discrepancy (up to 10ºC). Additionally, these sensors are not reflective so they acquired the same temperature as could be independently confirmed by an IR thermometer. So, we knew they were reading the right temperature, so Mathieu started to investigate why it was that with the same input power into each cell, they were giving different measurements. The first step was to characterise the discrepancy. He did this by measuring the difference in reading for 10, 15 and 20 W of power input in a fixed 2 mbar vacuum. Temperature was seen to diverge as power input increased.
Then he swapped the integrated power supplies to see if it could be something to do with them being different in some way, it didn’t. Then he used different power supplies (Our Thurlby Thandars ) but it didn’t change the result. Then he decided to wrap the cells with aluminum foil and some kapton tape, but again, the temperature difference remained the same. Such a frustrating situation! Mathieu decided to wait for Jean-Paul Biberian’s visit because he was so stumped and wanted to take external advice.
They repeated the tests together with an identical nichrome wire to that of the control cell, sacrificing a brand new, unactivated, non-loaded Celani wire, just in case that was the reason. The wire was given to Jean-Paul for him to test resistance drop, so not totally wasted! They tested over and over again until it became clear that there was only one possible explanation for the observation. Could it be that tube thickness was the cause? In the extrusion process of the borosilicate tube, it happens that thickness and concentricity between the external surface and the internal one is not always certain. Bob suggested Mathieu used a spare tube to test his hypothesis by changing a single cells glass. Finally, the amplitude value of the differential temperature finally changed... This is quite a issue and must raise many questions we will try to discuss in the comments.
Two new tubes ordered
Mathieu devised a solution to the problem. It was decided to change both tubes and take further precautions in their manufacture. First, these two tubes must come from the same original extrusion. This will keep the variation in thickness to a minimum and keep the radial variation consistent. Then, the glass-blower was instructed to mark the tube to allow proper rotational alignment, Mathieu provided the example image below to the manufacturer.
This rigorous approach should keep all inconsistencies of the glass manufacture equivalent as much as possible between the two cells. This in turn should resolve the observed base temperature differentials.
Nearly ready to run
Ok, so we are waiting for the new glass now, but it is important to note that Mathieu has done a fine piece of research here in order to iron out an annoying inconsistency that had to be calibrated out in the first runs of these experiments. If all the investigation above pays off and the new glass delivers on design and expectation, we should have a re-run of this important experiment with greater integrity and less reliance on calibration curves. This will form an important pre-cursor to the mass flow calorimetry that he is similarly being very cautious to get right. Also after calibration, loading and a bit of active running, we'll be able to look for Gammas again - at last!
Foil wrap
One other thing, we are going to do what many have asked for and foil wrap before calibration and active run of this experiment, we know you have wanted it and we do listen!
UPDATE #1 - New glass greatly reduces sytematic differential
Mathieu has installed the new glass and we are happy to report that the temperature differential is far less, reducing from 8.7ºC to less than 2ºC and may even not be divergent but an offset, though this will be properly assessed when he does the calibration curves.
Comments
What I was actually suggesting is that merely passing a current through them might be causing cause some of the tiniest nano/micro- metric features on their surface to locally heat up at a much higher temperature than the rest of the wire causing - at a very small scale - vaporization and subsequent deposition on the glass surface, especially if under vacuum.
Assuming this is what's happening, there are chances that exposing the wires to H2 even once might be increasing the likelihood of this occurring through embrittlement (or otherwise wire surface reorganization, which resistance data seem to suggest), although that might not be needed.
Assuming again this is true, once nano particles are sparsely deposited on the glass surface (implying: isolated and fixed in place), it might even turn out that H2 isn't actually needed for them to behave in unexpected ways, as per recent peer reviewed findings of anomalous behavior of isolated nanoparticles under just coherent light, which I deem quite significant.
To be fair, this is admittedly non-expert, bystander conjecture with possibly dubious scientific bases. Still, if I were to test this (and only this; you might have different plans) myself, I would put only Celani wires in a cell, only plain/smooth inactive wires on the other one, experiment as usual for a few weeks, then remove all wires and install new heating wires only on both cells and check glass temperatures out again.
Yes, calibration will be done without activating the new Celani wires. The new temperature sensors are bonded to the glass, so they will retain their position even after active wire removed after full run. It will be easy to mark the glass and flange to ensure that they are re-located in same position for the test you suggest.
It will be even more interesting if one of these new glass tubes will be installed on an active cell with a Celani wire, while the other one on a blank cell where there will never be one. If over time the glass tube in the active cell will develop a divergent positive temperature differential (increasing with input power), even without anything else inside besides a plain heating wire, then that's a strong indication that what these Celani wires are doing, perhaps when high input currents are tested, and maybe mainly in their first few hours of usage, is coating the tubes' inner surface with nano particles, which might be generating some sort of thermal/IR-trig gered excess heat at best or physically affecting the tubes' transmittance properties at worst.
Mass flow calorimetry will likely provide a definitive answer about this issue.
Also, this metallic coating which will deposit pretty much anywhere inside the cell will likely be rather conductive. This could cause issues/problems in unexpected ways.
On a related note, the glass tube ['s inner uncoated surface] is an insulator, while the stainless steel bases of the cell in contact with it are not. There might be merit in keeping the electrically conductive coated tube surface insulated from them or any other cell part.
We have already discussed doing precisely that. We will not do it on the differential, but Mathieu has built another cell and after doing calibrated runs, forcing metal vapour deposition is on the cards.
The new glass arrived today - wahoo... but Mathieu was all day with Jean-Paul Biberian, so I don't know if it got tested.
This might not have been a bad thing at all*** but we would need to determine first whether this was just the effect of glass tube IR transmission being affected (and affecting temperature sensors in turn) or something else instead.
*** In fact, it actually might turn out that [thin film] deposition of nanostructures in an H2 rich environment and some kind of external triggering are an important key for LENR to occur. Have a look at this:
nanowerk.com/.../...
nature.com/.../...
This could have deep implications on observations and hypotheses made so far on observed anomalies, including Celani's (eg Langmuir effect, etc).
I can't say that I agree with the idea that the glass cells are flawed. If the excess heat was a function of some odd thing with the glass then why can't it be replicated at will?
We saw the excess heat climbing up and up day after day. Since that time, we've not really be able to generate that excess heat to the same degree.
Mathieu is building a separate cell for other calorimetry methods and we have a new team member joining HUG today, perhaps one or other can test using this approach, we have group meet earmarked for this week and will discuss it.
If we see excess heat in the mass flow experiment comparable to the Celani cells, then it will back verify what we think we have seen, so we will hold any judgements.
The point then being is that the Celani cells are cheaper to build and run (especially one based on calibrations) than a full mass flow set-up.
Bottom line is that is that glass tubes cannot be trusted enough for measuring small excess heating effects. Even though I like the guy, I hope Celani will realize this too, as it's putting his findings into question.
Now you understand our determination to characterise and solve the problem.
Perhaps a localised heat capacity, or reflection. There is a chance that the old tubes from the long run had some internal deposition on one, in which case the new tubes will resolve this anyhow.
The mass flow will not exhibit an issue like this.
What is it that it's actually being affected? Heat conduction to the bases? IR transmittance (and therefore absorption)? Both or possibly even more factors?
Are glass tubes really needed anyway? Others seem to be successfully using stainless steel. It doesn't seem like sulfur poisoning is actually that much of a problem.
RSS feed for comments to this post