Plan for Dogbone Week

Bob Greenyer and Alan Goldwater are here to help execute a rapid series of live experiments.  We have assembled all the test equipment we had hoped for.  Now it is time to see how they work together.  We have an ambitious plan with several tests, but the thermal assessment is the top priority. In the event that we run into some serious snags, be prepared for the plans to change and tests to be dropped.

How do you interact?  Live streaming links will be announced on facebook and int he comments below.  Add comments below and on the comment section of the YouTube live streaming.  It will be low bandwidth, unfortunately.  Maybe next time a lab located where high bandwidth is readily available will run some experiments.

Time Line:

Tests are defined in more detail below.

Assess the thermal evaluation made during the Lugano tests with the optris camera - original notes here: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/experiements/active-experiments/pdb

• Key questions to answer:

• How well did the emissivity curve they used match various samples of our cast and purchased alumina?

• Can the Williamson Pyrometer add insight about the actual emissivity and surface temperature?

• With our best guess of alumina emissivity, how well can we match what the thermocouple is reading?

• Does the pattern seen in the IR picture in the Lugano report indicated heat coming from inside making the brighter areas the spaces between the heater coils?

• Does the Parkhomov report mean we may be able to see excess energy in a dog bone?

Tests Planned for DogBone Week  Feb 3 - 6, 2015

Test 1:  Calibration with Thermocouples, Optris camera, and Williamson Pyrometer.

Objectives:

• Collect thermal camera data in ten zones just like in the Lugano report for post processing compared to actual input power

• measure at several temperatures to develop curves

• Assess emissivity of our dogbone over temperatures.

• Expose as many little details as we can about what is involved in the thermal behavior of this apparatus for people to consider

Equipment:

• Optris PI-160 thermal camera calibrated up to 1500C

• PCE 830 power analyzer

• Williamson P90 dual wavelength point pyrometer

• HUGnetLab for data acquisition

• T_ext - Type K thermocouple with bare leads - on outside of shell held on by nichrome wire

• Type B - Type B thermocouple with bare leads - on outside of shell held on by nichrome wire

• T_int - Type B thermocouple on inside of the dogbone

• T_ambient - Type K thermocouple

• United Automation Limited Single Phase 12KW Power controller

• Dogbone cast with 18g Kanthal wire heating element (same one from live December test

• Experiment live streaming computer aggregating power data, thermocouple data, pyrometer data, and thermal data in a video stream

Set up:  see video description and still images

Test Plan:

• Establish dot of 0.95 emissivity, Aremco 840-CM high temperature within hottest zone

• Designate 10 thermal zones in Optris Software (PI Connect) and set emissivity to 0.95

• Step power up in 200 watt steps to 800W, and then 100 W steps up to 100 or 1200 trying not to damage the heating coil in this dogbone.

• take thermal image data for post analysis

• Capture thermocouple data and pyrometer data from analog output

• Compare to temperature reading from pyrometer.

• Limitations:  Because this coil is unable to reach much more than 1300C and we have seen a notable difference between internal temperature and external temperature, we will be unable to actually achieve a surface temperature of 1400C, like was reported by Levi et al on Rossi’s device.  We had tried to cast 2 dogbones with silicon carbide elements in them, but 2 out of 3 coils broke and the third was reserved for achieving high temperatures in powder tests, instead.

Test 2:  Fat coil dog bone with internal heat source

Objectives:

• Qualitative assessment of appearance when a dogbone made with fat coils of Kanthal is heated from both the main coil and a coil inside to add insight to the meaning of the image from the Lugano report.
  
  

Equipment:

• Dogbone cast with a heater made of 4mm diameter Kanthal in a coil.

• Fat coil power supply

• Variac transformer 120V

• 10:1 step down transformer

• Voltage and current handheld meters

• Internal heater made from 18g Kanthal wrapped on an alumina tube and a type B thermocouple in the middle.

• United Automation Limited Single Phase 12KW Power controller

• PCE 830 power analyzer

• Optris Thermal Camera

• Visible cameras

Set up:  Insert photo

Test Plan:

• This is a relatively quick and dirty test.  It is limited by the very low resistance of the heater coil and the very high currents required.  Upper power for the fat coils will be limited, but the internal power will be able to make up the difference and add illumination from within.  We will take pictures and make observations

Test 3:  Assessment of Alan’s calibrated alumina temperature sources

Objectives:

• Use Alan’s nicely fabricated and controlled heat sources within alumina tubes to compare the function of the Optris thermal camera and the Williamson pyrometer in order to better understand the issues of measuring temperature of and through alumina
  
  

Equipment:

• Optris Thermal Camera

• Williamson P90 dual wavelength point pyrometer

• Visible cameras

Set up:  Insert photo

• Alan Goldwater put together a device that simultaneously maintains 4 controlled temperatures along the length of an alumina tube 0.5 inches (12.2 mm) outside diameter with a wall thickness of 1.5mm

Test Plan:

• We will simply set the device where a dogbone would be and then inspect it with the thermal camera, the pyrometer, and other cameras.

Test 4:  Powder Test in sealed Alumina tube

Objectives:

• Inspired by Rossi and then Parkhomov, we will continue our previous tests of a mix of Nickel powder and LiAlH4.  

• By running these tests inside a calibrated dogbone, we should be able to achieve some adequate calorimetry if the effect is like Parkhomov reports.

Equipment:

• Same as test 1 with addition of active fuel tube.

Set up:  essentially the same as in Test 1

Test Plan:

• Take powder mix (already prepared from powder test in December) and insert into fuel tube, insert space filling rod, and seal with stainless Swagelok fitting and aluminum ferrules.

• Attach pressure sensor if feasible.

• Step up slowly watching for pressure releases and allowing time for absorption and gettering effects.

• Bring up to 1200C or more and watch for higher than expected temperatures.

Tests 5, 6, 7, ...:  Powder Test in sealed Alumina tube

• We iterate and try different ideas while we have the team assembled

Test X:  High Temp Inconel Heater Dogbone Calibration

• Take feedback from crowd and perform a second calibration using a dogbone made with high temperature inconel heater coil and attempt to achieve a higher temperature.

• Done in a manner similar to Test 1 with modifications suggested by the crowd

Frustrations so far:

We have already had our share of frustrations as we have prepared since Friday.  We have had to seek better and better computers to make a composite video stream with all the data streams in it.  The latest one is currently crashing occasionally.  We also have very limited bandwidth since we are in rural Minnesota and our DSLs are not performing as advertised.  We have struggled to understand why it appears that we have a very low emissivity reading from the pyrometer, and we are also struggling to understand why we are unable to log the data from the PCE830 on the computer like it is supposed to do.