FacebookTwitterDiggStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditTechnoratiLinkedin

Welcome

The Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project is a group dedicated to researching Low Energy Nuclear Reactions (often referred to as LENR) while sharing all procedures, data, and results openly online. We rely on comments from online contributors to aid us in developing our experiments and contemplating the results. We invite everyone to participate in our discussions, which take place in the comments of our experiment posts. These links can be seen along the right-hand side of this page. Please browse around and give us your feedback. We look forward to seeing you around Quantum Heat.

Join us and become part of the project. Become one of the active commenters, who question our work and suggest next steps.

Or, if you are an experimenter, talk to us about becoming an affiliated lab and doing your work in a Live Open Science manner.

We have compared the exterior glass temperatures (T_Glassout) to the Mica temperatures (T_mica) as a better key for measuring the heat flow out of the reactor.  This in another great thing Celani suggested.  

 

The thing that stands out to me is that these lines are all much closer to each other than the T_mica curves were.  This makes sense since the exterior of the glass is where most of the heat has to be lost through regardless of the insulating properties of the gas within.  Whereas, the mica inside is clearly insulated by the gas around it and can run warmer.   

 

We thought the next step was to fit the equation to the new curve, update the parameters and be done.  We ran into a road block when the curve fit routine wouldn't match the same equation to the curve very well at all.  Now we'll have to find a new equation and make a routine to calculate based on that, and then drop the new routine in place, and then modify the T_rise to be calculated on the T_Glassout.  Ad we'l throw in a R/R0 column, too, probably.

We'll let you know when it's done.

Add comment

Security code
Refresh

Comments   

 
0 #9 David Jones 2012-11-12 21:59
Apologies - glassin-glassou t and not as posted
Quote
 
 
+3 #8 David Jones 2012-11-12 21:51
Hi Robert – Thanks for the reply. I agree entirely with what you post. My point was not too well put.

If the data is very marginal you might just see an effect in the mica temperature readings that is lost in the glassout readings. This would not constitute any useful proof, but would be a start.

The other point (as you have stated) is that glassout-glassi n must be proportional to the heat flow through the glass and subtracting one from the other will reduce the spread in the calibration curves and hence increase the signal to noise.

Any way good luck – this has got to be one of the most exciting experiments I have ever followed
Quote
 
 
0 #7 Ecco 2012-11-12 21:34
So, should we watch preferably (on the live data page, although there are often long periods where no data is received) the external glass temperature instead, right? What is the trigger temperature at the external glass surface, by the way?
Quote
 
 
0 #6 Robert Greenyer 2012-11-12 21:28
Hi David, Last night in communication with Celani - he advised that the internal T-Mica was not good to use for some of the reasons you have identified. He said we must use the outside glass temp - so the numbers were crunched and the live feed excess power estimation is configured now for this based on calibration run data.

Whilst there is a much longer delay now between current applied and temperature stabilisation on the outside, we are much more comfortable that the reading is around zero at the moment as we are below trigger temperature.
Quote
 
 
0 #5 David Jones 2012-11-12 21:10
Other calculations you can do (in the analysis later) is to subtract the glass out temperature from the mica temperature and as you previously suggested the glassout temperature from the glassin temperature. Both these calculations should reduce the data spread.
Quote
 
 
0 #4 David Jones 2012-11-12 21:04
The mica is the support for the Celani wire and hence in direct contact with the source of the anomalous heating should it occur. The glass is heated indirectly via the Ar/H gas and might also be damped by the colder metal end flanges. I suspect that the Mica temperature would be more sensitive to the change in temperature and hence anomalous heating – and this is possibly highlighted by the greater spread of calibration results for the mica temperature compared with the ‘glassout’ results.

I would monitor both temps carefully – as I’m sure you will do.
Quote
 
 
0 #3 Rats 2012-11-12 21:00
Quoting edog:


I was just wondering if any of you have time, would it be possible to get some layman explanations of what is going on? and why you are doing things? and what all the terms and values mean?


I'd like to second what edog has suggested. For those of us who are interested in LENR, but not too technically inclined, a layman's explanation would be much appreciated if you have time.
Quote
 
 
0 #2 edog 2012-11-12 20:57
Hi Guys and Girls at MFMP.
First of all.. Good Luck!

I was just wondering if any of you have time, would it be possible to get some layman explanations of what is going on? and why you are doing things? and what all the terms and values mean?

I am not sure if you have like.. a cheat sheet or experiment schedule online here somewhere? I have looked but didnt find.. or didnt realise what I was looking at? But if there is someone there .. who could fill us, not so intelligent folk, in on what is happening? I would be appreciated!! :)

and I do like the blog entries, they are very down to earth and have a inclusive feel to them!

Thanks!
Quote
 
 
0 #1 David Roberson 2012-11-12 20:54
Monitoring the outer glass temperature makes a great deal of sense. I suggest that you make a strong effort to prevent air currents from extracting heat from this surface to reduce variability.

The possible IR direct heating effect upon the glass should be further analyzed to ensure that the measurements are valid. There remains a question as to why the outer glass temperature seems to exhibit an impulse like response to a power input negative pulse of greater duration. Is it possible that the multiple paths and time frames for net heat flow are interacting?

Thanks for the excellent work.
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