Differential Celani Cell Tests - Update 2
The US team has reconfigured their V1.3 Celani type cells to test in a pure differential mode between cell A and cell B. Mathieu had done the same with the EU cells just before ICCF. This configuration will allow us to set the cells to any temperature and pressure and power configuration and simply look for a large temperature difference between the active cell and the passive cell. The US cells are now operating. The EU cells will start up soon after some troubleshooting in the pass-throughs.
The reconfiguration in the US was made by taking the "used" Celani wire from cell A, taking a couple centimeter sample off of it, and placing the rest into Cell B in place of the heater wire. Then we replaced that wire in cell A with a fresh nichrome wire. That means cell B has 2 Celani wires and Cell A has 2 nichrome wires. The cells are plumbed together and the connection between them will be open so that they always see the same gas and pressure conditions.
US Cell Configuration
| Cell A | NiCr1 | Previous NiCr wire |
| NiCr2 | New NiCr wire | |
| Cell B | CuNi1 | Celani Wire previously loaded in Cell A. The Resistance for this wire is Rb_CuNi1 in test "Cell US1.3B" |
| CuNi2 |
Celani Wire that had remained unloaded in Cell B during the V2.0 Protocol tests. The Resistance for this wire is Rb_CuNi1 in test "Cell US1.3B" We will be watching this wire load first. |
Loading: Start at 5 bar H2 and 70C, raise the power in 2.5 Watt steps and wait for the resistance to level off at each step.
First 24 Hours of loading test:
We started the low power first step of this test of this yesterday. As the power was turned on and then turned up a couple hours later, the CuNi2 wire showed a negative temperature coefficient by dropping in resistance while the CuNi1 wire, having already been loaded, increases , instead.
During the previous tests we did not see anything more than a watt or two, and because of ambient changes, limited power, vacuum variation, and other unknowns that may have been occurring, we could not call that test a definite excess energy. With the flexibility that running in differential mode gives us, we should be able to test to a higher wire temperature and see if we just weren't getting it hot enough, or if our vacuum was too strong. The tradeoff is that our calibrations will not be accurate at all since they were prepared in 1 mBar vacuum and only up to 25 or 30 watts. The really nice thing is that abandoning calibrations mean we should be able to swap out these wires in cell B with new ones every week till we find one that shows enough signal to be compelling.
Update 8/16/13
Every once in a while I wish I was faking the whole thing and only going live for a few hours at a time so I could show some exciting results and be pretty sure things would look perfect. Yesterday we made a mistake and it was, thankfully, caught by Ecco, our most consistent comment contributor. When we reconfigured the wires in the cells, we accidentally moved the NiCr wire from cell A instead of the Celani Wire. Malachi came in late last night to correct the problem. (Note: this does explain why the "loaded wire" in the graph above was showing us a positive temperature coefficient :-/ )
Ecco noticed what happened as he was scouring the data and noticed that one of the wires in Cell A was decreasing in resistance significantly. The graph below is for Cell A.
Looking at the graph above, it is clear that the blue resistance line is in the range of the Celani wire instead of the NiCr. What amazed me when I saw it, though, is that the "loading" started after a few hours at 70C mica temperature. I did not expect to see resistance dropping at that temperature. The knee on the slope about 09:00 when nothing else seems to be changing except the pressure is interesting. This is the same wire that we spent a lot of time trying to load after the first few runs and thought we were seeing it get less active because it just wouldn't seem to load much, anymore. What is going on inside this wire?
You can keep watching this wire with us, but you'll have to look in cell B, now. If we make more mistakes, let us know. We want to make many mistakes and fix them quickly so we make the most rapid progress.
UPDATE 2 - 8/19
Over the weekend, we continued the loading of the active wires in Cell B. The plan was to up the temperature and wait for the resistance to level off. Since were weren't going to be around to watch, though, we gave the cells 12 hours per step. As you can see from the graph below, the rate of resistance drop didn't seem to change much over the weekend. Now we will leave the power steady till it does. The rate of resistance drop at such a low temperature is something pretty interesting to me.
Since Hydrogen seems to be percolating into the new wire and the old wire was already mostly loaded, I thought I would see if there was any temperature difference, yet.
There is, but it was the control cell that was consistently slightly hotter. Interesting, huh? It should make any positive looking result a little more believable, anyway.
Comments
Writing manually takes a lot of time, but there is tool for this time
consuming task, search for: ssundee advices unlimited content for your blog
rexresearch.com/.../...
Quote:As for why only recently (ICCF18) this idea is being deemed as very important for excess heat generation, despite having been in the public domain for a long time, I don't know. Perhaps it might be a good idea to give a more detailed look at Piantelli LENR patents for other useful information.
EDIT: like for example: Quote:
I'd talked about keeping a constant pressure on the cell by having a reserve tank and regulator on the line. Is that just impossible? I only ask because I would love to see changes over time that were a result of only the hydrogen being absorbed. The constant power disruptions for refill add a whole new level of complexity in analyzing the data. If pressure and power were constant then it would be easier to see excess power over time.
Flash suppressors can be used in-line to address safety issues.
It depends if we think excess heat depends on total loading or on the time rate of change of total loading (flux).
If total loading we should be getting lots of excess heat now. We are getting some but not the maximum. ??? I am interested to see where excess heat goes with time at this applied power level.
[addition]
the above was written in haste. I expect NiH behaves like PdD that is
excess heat =k*((loading - loading threshold)^2)*abs(flux)
that is both flux and loading are required.
[addition]
The last 24 hours of data are showing fascinating correlations between R/R0 changes and temperatures changes.
In the end, I'm not getting why this is supposed to be a problem. It's exactly what should be expected. The resistance of CuNi Wire #1 with power applied is currently at 13.53 Ohm; when power will be removed it will likely fall down to 12.7-12.8 Ohm which is a good result, and close (or even better than) to the lowest value achieved during the first loading under the V2.0 vacuum protocol.
[addition]
as of the 3rd we are real close to zero net flux
Thank you for you're great work, of course! Never forgot that you are putting some extraordinary effort in this project.
What I was saying (maybe too "rudely"
Unfortunately I had not time to analyse those data, but they seem too beautiful to be true
The leak is likely mostly located in the shared H2 plumbing connecting both cells. When the connection is closed, the cells appear to leak hydrogen at a much slower rate, although even so, Cell A still seems to be leaking H2 quicker than Cell B.
Hydrogen will just leak from any gap, anyway. It's a very small molecule. It's unlikely that other gases will leak into the cells as they have significantly larger molecules so usually it's only hydrogen that flows out. Reducing the amount of plumbing and gaps (for example by using single ended glass tubes. Metallic tubes of any kind will slowly absorb and leak hydrogen to the outside) is the only way to really reduce (not fix) leaks.
As a side note, Ed, please try editing your messages instead of adding new short ones unless necessary for clarity (for example when other people post new comments after yours). This is done by clicking the "change" button on the bottom left of your posts:
i.imgur.com/ZuZUBBq.png
If you can't see this in your comments, that's because you need to be logged in.
I would most like to see the leak fixed. And learn what is Vac (mbar)?
I agree with your point and think closing the cross connect might solve that.
The leak means two things hydrogen is leaking and oxygen is leaking in.
What do you mean that the cell is running out of flux?
Anyway, I think there are more serious issues to solve first. For example I find very concerning that whenever Cell B appears to be increasing in temperature, Cell A does almost the exact opposite, and viceversa:
i.imgur.com/rXZSPLu.png
i.imgur.com/1CfPMqN.png
To me this is hinting that cell location and exposure to external influences (random air currents, pockets of heated air, ambient temperature variations etc) are largely responsible for the apparent excess heat signal.
Right now we are focused on load, load, load, etc
I think we have reached the end of that road.
previous data
This all makes sense except for the peak in excess heat at 12am on the 1st. Overall less flux means less excess heat. On the other hand the rise that is happening now is strange. Little flux but rising excess heat.
Indeed, it appears that CuNi #2 is starting to load, with the 40W passive heating:
i.imgur.com/4Isvk4k.png
Oscillating patterns for the previous power steps are most likely due to diurnal variations in ambient temperature.
Could people take a look at the last 3 days data.
It would appear that following the last step of power and re-pressure on the main wire, the second wire is starting to load which appears to be endothermic pulling the cells temperatures closer together, but that might be because the higher pressure is stopping any potential excess heat process, but that after a period, the pressure drops to a lower level and the apparent excess returns.
We are approaching the practical safe current in the main powered wire, but there is still some headroom, so there is more chance for passive loading of the second wire before actively powering it.
With regard to variation in environmental talk back. It would be possible to swap the cell positions over and keep everything else the same.
I can understand your frustration, this effort takes a lot out of all participants and we really appreciate personally, more than ever, the sacrifices made by those that have toiled in this space for the past quarter century.
We are doing what we can. I am personally guilty for not having completed that key blog, but I will. I had to spend time with my family who thought they were becoming orphans to the MFMP and we have been suffering high fever these past several days.
I have also had to work hard in my business which was failing in a large part because of my desire to spend the majority of my time working charitably for the project over the past year.
Please, if you are confused, or need clarification on anything, just ask, we are not trying to make this difficult to follow. We want everyone to be able to understand what we are doing. We are testing the claims of others, in an inexact, undefined area of research, we are learning as much as anybody, help us.
@btbbass
Oh for strong data! Yes, we want that too, when experiments prove very positive, we can swap the data acquisition tools we are using with the bast available (the EU team was donated top of the line National Instruments kit and we could use that). For now we are seeking multiple replication internally. Then we can look to internally cross-check that with NI equipment for validity or stimulate others to do that.
RSS feed for comments to this post