Multi-Wire Test Heating Up
After a long delay as we failed to troubleshoot the water flow calorimeter, the Multi-wire test has been installed in a concentric tube calorimeter. It is now heating up and the first of the 3 wires is starting to drop resistance.
This is the test with 3 lengths of different Celani wires in a LENR-stick test cell. All the details are in the protocol document here: Protocol: Multi-Wire Test
Previous blog post: Multi-wire test commencing -Update4
You can follow the data on Test FC0405 LENR Stick: Multi-wire and FC0403 CTC #2: Air Jacket
From Malachi:
We are starting to see the 270L wire loading. The internal temperature is ~208C. The interesting thing is that neither of the other wires (350L and 400L) are dropping in resistance yet. Could lower numbers of layers correlate to a lower loading temperature? This test will be an interesting one in the coming weeks!
The other two wires (a 350 layer and a 400 layer) are actually increasing over time at this temperature.
Comments
I agree that more loading is needed. Currently the wires are set up only for resistance measurements. It would require another power supply and this is something I also want to see on the wires. This could happen very soon.
The limit here is that any physical change performed to the LENR stick will potentially invalidate the last calibration made. I think there's not much that can be done with the wires already in place if you want to avoid this.
What is next for the multi-wire test? Does anyone have an idea?
We've run it up and down through our temperature range, tried to deload the wires and we've tried to reload them.
They don't seem to be decreasing any more, in terms of resistance.
It looks like each wire has its own optimal loading temperature range. That of the 270L wire appears to be rather wide (in one of the latest blogpost updates it was observed to decrease resistance at an internal temperature of 208°C while other ones didn't yet).
This also means that there's an optimal H2 desorption temperature range too, depending on wire characteristics , which might have some interesting practical implications.
It looks like the 270L wire is doing most of the loading job so far (the H2 pressure decrease is tracking its resistance decrease quite closely). It's the one which appeared to perform the best during the first loading phase too.
The calibrations look sound. We are going to increase the hydrogen pressure inside the cell. Then we will try to load the wires as far as we can.
But I guess we'll see in a while.
I will set the input power to 35 watts and see if it still holds.
However, I think this time it will really be +/- 30-60 mW, if the previous apparently rather positive results were an artifact due to using a different stick or changing its position inside the CTC.
Still, it might be interesting to see if this still holds at a higher input power.
y = a + bx + cx^2
Fitting target of lowest sum of squared absolute error = 8.8798690830743515E-03
a = 3.7115236254221067E+01
b = -3.2643234519158354E+03
c = 1.2266525881480571E+04
This is the new fit equation. We can plug it in and see how well it fits. If it does have a positive bias, then we will perform extra calibration cycles, in a decreasing fashion perhaps.
In order to have the additional calibrations to step down to the 38W step, you would have to set them to start from 40W. Of course the 40W step would have to be disregarded.
** It would really be better if all calibrations used a longer settling time, though.
EDIT 20131007: my point is that by using 1 hour upward steps you will be inducing a slight positive bias to the system once you will use a calibration based on this data. In other words, that if you will keep applying power for more than 1 hour, even without reloading H2, calculated output power will appear to show an excess, although it likely doesn't actually.
You could test this before reloading H2 by powering the cell at any given power step for more than an hour.
Hopefully, perhaps with the aid of the quicker power cycling, temperatures will keep decreasing during the next calibrations, showing that what was observed during the active runs under hydrogen and this prolonged vacuum run was actually real.
i.imgur.com/dPDL7vs.png
Weird, isn'it? I tried adjusting data to the previous runs at a lower outer tube temperature, with a second order polynomial curve, and this is the result:
i.imgur.com/GBbTK4M.png
I wouldn't take this too much seriously... but it's interesting data nevertheless.
i.imgur.com/4VBPjF4.png
As a side note, it appears that wire resistance is increasing over time noticeably faster than before, after increasing temperatures (besides the immediate increase due to higher temperatures / PTC behavior of the wires at this stage).
The inside thermocouples are free floating. They could be shifting when the wires (separated by fiberglass sheathing) get hot and deform. Just a thought, but it could explain the difference in temperature rises between runs or power levels.
Outer tube temperatures haven't budged yet though, which is a good thing.
There is no rational, it must have slipped my mind. I will make a better effort today! Thanks.
i.imgur.com/lbpI3gR.png
With the point being: once input power is high enough, if there really is exponentially increasing excess heat, it will be very noticeable. It shouldn't be visible only through internal temperatures.
RSS feed for comments to this post