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.

The US team has completed the Pre Calibration  (Step 0 in the V2.0 Protocol Table).  I know it is not very impressive sounding to say we got through step zero, but it is an important piece of validating how the cells perform and how reliably they measure before we put in the Celani wire to test it.  Getting a clean base line, or several in this experiment, is critically important.  

The main questions we asked were: 

  1. How stable and consistent are the temperatures we achieved at certain powers?  How stable is it over a long period at a constant power?
  2. How much difference was there between these identically manufactured cells?
  3. How much difference in temperature readings are there when heating with one wire versus the other?
  4. Do the temperatures achieved validate Celani's Stefan-Boltzman estimation of calorimetry?

 

Repeatability and stability

To answer this question we did several calibration cycles and calculated the confidence intervals based on the variability seen, just like previous experiments.  We last did these as a practice before adding the environment shell around the cells and measured confidence intervals after about 5 tests of roughly 1/2 a watt.  Steps 5.a and 5.b in the protocol will have us recreate these while the Celani Wires are in place.

 

The third part of Step 0 in the protocol is holding the power constant for 16+ hours and observing how much the key measurements changed over that time.  Below is a table summarizing the results.

Table of variation of temperature rise above ambient within the cell and on the glass over 20 hours at constant power (30 second averages of ~3 second data).

 

CELL A

CELL B

 

Ta_ext1_rise

Ta_mica_rise

Tb_ext1_rise

Tb_mica_rise

Max

80.24

152

82.89

154.43

Min

79.35

150.57

81.29

152.78

Max-Min

0.89

1.43

1.6

1.65

% Deviation

1.12%

0.95%

1.97%

1.08%

 

 

Difference between cells

After some early calibration tests showing large variation between the two cells, we engineered a better temperature controlled environment that would be less susceptible to air currents in the room changing.  The measured ambient in that environment is nice and stable, 

 

 

Difference between wires

 

 

 

Fit to Stefan-Boltzman

We found that, in our covered apparatus, at least, the Temperature vs Power In curve did not fit well to a constant factor.  I welcome anyone else to try to see how well they can make it fit.  

The latest calibration cycle: NiCr+Ox_130430_PreCal_CellA_CellB.xls

The Calibration cycle before that before we enclosed the cells:  NiCr+Ox_130408_Vac_Calib.xls

 

I, also, eagerly anticipate Mathieu's data because his dual cells are in open air in a large room, so the thermal radiation will be more applicable.

 

We have not really come to any conclusions about the meaning of all this.  Being that the cells are very close in design to Celani's original, I do think some comparisons can be made to the repeatability and stability his cell could have been expected to demonstrate.  Thoughts?

 

Pictures of 400 Layer Celani Wires being installed into the US Cells.

Yesterday, after completing the calibration cycles and analysis, Malachi installed one 400 layer wire into both test cells.  The images are added to this gallery.

After some much needed maintenance and cleaning, we finally had the time for Celani wire micrographs. Also note we figured out how to display a FIGURE KEY. This image is 434L (US cell B) treated wire with a small abnormality among the fuzzy topography typical of a Celani-treated surface. 

 

SEM images being taken

An important part of the plan is to take SEM images of the  wire before and after.  Here you can see Wes inspecting a crack in the outer layer of the wire.  We'll publish the images soon after we get a good set.  Today, we can't figure out how to get the scale bar onto the CRT that faces the camera (we don't have the direct digitizer box).

 

 

Some days it feels like you have to build the sidewalk before you can take a walk.  We have been troubleshooting and improving the power supply control and the data collection a fair amount this week as we struggle to get data out of the experiments and verify it.

Add comment


Security code
Refresh

Comments   

 
0 #24 Adriana 2023-08-28 02:22
Usually, for those locations, if your booth requires any tools to be put together, union labor must
do it. A small piece of charcoal or pencil lead can also be
used to put a tiny smudge on a card back.

Have a look at my blog post rubyfortune casino online
login - Reece: Google.Com.bd/.../
-
Quote
 
 
0 #23 Maritza 2023-06-07 23:41
That is a good tip especially to those fresh to the blogosphere.
Short but very precise info… Thank you for sharing this one.
A must read post!

my site: sweet
bonanza xmas play: sweetbonanzaplay.click
Quote
 
 
0 #22 Ryan Hunt 2013-05-23 19:03
When we started on the path of doing LENR experiments, we considered the options of buying versus making our own closely . You identified the pros and cons accurately for this stage of the experimental process we seem to be at with just a few experiments in process. We saw from very early on that we will need many, many, experiments operating simultaneously in order to cover the parameter spaces involved. We also ran into some instrumentation artifacts with an early purchased unit and decided we'd rather have full control over what we are measuring. Given those considerations and the strengths of our team, we embarked on the path we are on. I have the highest regard for NI and their history of supporting cold fusion research. The cost and learning curve involved with implementing a full blown NI set up with labview for the four experiments we currently have operating just at HUG would be considerable. For where I want to go with the research and possibly dozens of experiments running here, I would rather put my efforts into making a platform I can use to make cheap copies of a high quality apparatus. That also enables the next step of the plan, which is to send many, many more starter/demonst ration experiment kits out into the world as soon as we validate that one of them works at least semi-consistent ly.
Quote
 
 
0 #21 Rats 2013-05-23 04:30
No comments here on Rossi's recent independent report?
Quote
 
 
0 #20 Robert Ellefson 2013-05-22 23:25
For the purposes of the MFMP distributed replication goal, using off-the-shelf hardware seems to me to make the most sense, for the immediacy and third-party confidence. For in-house, ongoing projects like the powder reef experiment, the HUGnet modules may be a better choice, for their (presumed) affordability and customizability.

The list price for the NI CompactDAQ hardware suggests a per-system cost of about $2-4K, depending on module selections. It sounds like NI has been good to LENR researchers thus far, and perhaps they would be willing to help out with the initial system purchase pricing a bit, for the MFMP lab units anyhow.

Many potential research institution partners already have substantial investment in National Instruments hardware and software, so this would likely dovetail reasonably well with their lab setups.
Quote
 
 
0 #19 Robert Ellefson 2013-05-22 23:08
The use of NI (or similar) hardware will come with commercial brand-name confidence that gives people warm-and-fuzzy feelings about the veracity of the data. This is not a small consideration in a project of our nature, whose current primary goal's success criteria is defined by a new observer's perceived confidence level in our apparatus.

With the ethernet-connec ted module racks, we can use a wide variety of software options running on a lab server to analyze, condition and distribute data to downstream web interface components.

I noticed that most of the operational code is in PHP, which isn't a great choice for time-sensitive, high-reliabilit y functions. I would suggest a re-write of the core aggregation and analysis functions away from PHP and into a C or C++ native deamon process running on a small solid-state linux data server of some sort, that is independent of the main web distribution network loading. I'd be happy to help sketch up architecture.
Quote
 
 
0 #18 Robert Ellefson 2013-05-22 22:54
@Ryan Hunt, thanks for the links. I looked at the code, and it seems you guys have been doing quite a bit of development work on this system. I can understand if HUG wants to capitalize on this substantial investment.
Given that the full HUGnet DAQ system is apparently not yet fully mature and ready to scale up, it may make sense for the initial MFMP replication effort to use off-the-shelf components that do not require undue additional debugging and support time from MFMP staff or participants.

I poked around a bit for open-source DAQ systems, and while there are a number of candidates, it struck me that most of them will incur self-support overhead of a nature similar to what we currently face with HUGnet.

Although it will cost an apparently-insu rmountably-high amount up front, I think investment in commercial, off-the-shelf hardware such as a National Instruments CompactDAQ series of ethernet-connec ted modular component systems makes sense.
Quote
 
 
0 #17 Ryan Hunt 2013-05-22 19:53
@ Robert Ellefson - Thanks for the nudge. We have the whole software system from the PC to web in open source at the moment. I think we could use another few eyes on various parts of that system. You can get involved with the code by going to dev.hugllc.com. The code itself is hosted on github.com

We are also starting to look for people to architect and code a new version of the whole data repository and web display and annotation system that will become a new Live Open Science site.
The firmware and hardware are not open source, yet. That is partly because we have been thinking that it may be a nice product base some day, but also partly from lack of experience managing that kind of open source project. But, I am open to suggestions. Brainstorm it up!
Quote
 
 
0 #16 Robert Ellefson 2013-05-22 17:24
@Ryan Hunt: Given the large pool of talent available to trouble-shoot open-source software, perhaps it is time to initiate a transition to fully open-sourced hardware and software for all of the monitoring apparatus. I don't really understand what the proprietary boundaries for the HUGnet system are; is some or all of this hw/sw intended to be open-sourced directly? If so, is this not an appropriate time to get more eyes on the code? If HUG intends to retain proprietary rights to HUGnet hardware and software, how will an open, public inspection of the entire apparatus take place without a readable code base to verify?
Quote
 
 
0 #15 Ryan Hunt 2013-05-22 16:35
Sorry, everybody, for the snags in the software. We are troubleshooting growing pains in the system. We had a network failure last weekend that broke the data replication to the outside server. We have been playing catch up ever since. Additionally, we have a serious bug with the data averaging routine that was inadvertently telling the server that the averaging was done so the server wouldn't do it when it really still needed to.
Quote
 
 
0 #14 Ecco 2013-05-22 16:19
I'm not getting any live data either. It's been like this for several days.
Quote
 
 
0 #13 Ron B 2013-05-22 15:45
Am I the only one that gets no live data? What am I doing wrong? I've tried about every combination of the settings and I get no data and the date is always 1970.
Has everyone there just given up on this?
Quote
 
 
0 #12 Edwin Pell 2013-05-16 20:00
Hi, I have done some firmware programming for office building lighting control and monitoring. I might be able to help with your firmware.

Ed
edpell @ optonline .net (no spaces)
Quote
 
 
0 #11 Malachi Heder 2013-05-13 20:48
@ All

We are tracking a large bug in our firmware currently. Until we find it our control software will not work. So we are dead in the water until we find it. More updates soon!
Quote
 
 
0 #10 AlanG 2013-05-11 22:26
Thermal finishing of the copper bands offers a partial solution that can be retro-fitted without opening the cells. The bands would be given a 'black-body' finish on the inside surface and polished on the outside. Ebonol C black finish is one example, but even flat-black stove paint would be pretty effective. The outside should be clear-coated or plated after polishing to prevent oxidation.

This configuration approximates over a small area the metal-encased concentric calorimeter, in that it is capable of measuring the substantial cell heat output as IR emission. This is an important improvement over an all-glass cell .
See magicsound.us/MFMP/copper_black_finish.pdf for details and references
Quote
 
 
0 #9 Ecco 2013-05-11 21:00
@123star

To put it more clearly, I'm referring to its use in these cells in particular. If we were to use quartz glass for example, strong UV light (a possible / suggested trigger for LENR) would over time cause its discoloration, which would affect IR thermalization over time and skew from starting calibrations.
Borosilicate glass (which is what has been chosen for v1.3 cells, I think), although it's less heat-resistant than quartz glass, should have more stable properties. But what if other things (residues from heated components?) slowly affected its IR transparency? We've already seen that when a wire gets overheated the glass tube gets irremediably coated with copper / nickel particles and has to be replaced. Could this also slowly happen with use over time?

It might sound like I'm just arguing for the sake of it, but it's the sort of things which would make any apparently positive result quickly fall apart unless it's very large.
Quote
 
 
0 #8 123star 2013-05-11 19:55
Quoting Ecco:
I think it should be also worth investigating if over time the glass tubes used retain their IR transparency properties. A further reason for using a 100% IR-opaque tube, in my opinion.


That's another good point.
Quote
 
 
0 #7 Ecco 2013-05-11 15:29
@123star: ugh, now I see, after reading more carefully. That makes my post look a bit embarassing in context. However, I think that my point that as long as an unshrouded glass tube is used, any anomaly or positive result with this cell will be called into question, still holds.

I think it should be also worth investigating if over time the glass tubes used retain their IR transparency properties. A further reason for using a 100% IR-opaque tube, in my opinion.
Quote
 
 
0 #6 123star 2013-05-11 15:20
I agree with you, Ecco, but I was arguing that a black wire would lead to lower measured temperatures, not higher.

For example, I'd expect that an oxidized costantan wire exposed to hydrogen should deoxidize (water is formed), so the constantan will get shiny and therefore get a lower emissivity (shiny metals typically have lower emissivities).

Anyway, using the steel&glass cell (with the probe placed on the external steel surface of course) would clear all doubts regarding this matter.
Quote
 
 
+1 #5 Ecco 2013-05-11 15:04
Following In contrast with 123star's comment (though it is a different issue than what noted in this blogpost), I am thinking that the progressively blackening behavior of the active wire over extended amounts of active time under hydrogen (experienced by MFMP) somehow makes reported temperatures higher and might actually explain where the apparent xs heat increase over time comes from. Adding acetone as suggested by Celani immediately makes the wires turn black, exacerbating this issue which would otherwise take weeks to show.

I fear there might be unexpected issues with this calorimeter due to the transparent glass tube and the only way to test wire performance properly with it is either by wrapping the tube with some sort of metallic foil (with temperature sensors on top of the foil, not under it) or using a more advanced setup like the steel&glass cell which for all intents and purposes is like putting the glass tube inside a black box.
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