It is hard to believe it has been only 5 days since we discovered that our cell temperatures rose as the pressures fell. The results form our test last weekend sure stimulated some good discussion. The announcement of the new test cells and the air flow calorimeter we are attempting has also lead to good suggestions. We are simultaneously continuing along our path of creating the new cells, trying out a better way to measure the heat flow, and working to understand this significant pressure related effect in our cells. Other open issues include a leak in our first test cell, a probably damaged Celani wire, and a ton of requested software improvements. Fortunately, we are making progress on all those fronts. We are assembling new cells to use with new wires. We are almost ready to start the first flow through the calorimeter. We have open sourced our software on GitHub.com. And we are learning more about the differences between our cell and Celani's.
Dialog with Celani
When I raised this issue with him, this is what I got.
Dear Ryan,Dear Mathieau, at first, I am very glad for the wonderfull, and high quality, work, all of you are doing. *BTW, now I stay, from several days, abroad because medical treatments to my teeth. So, I don't have all the computer data, and log-book, with me. * Anyway, watching in deeper details to my previous data (experiment started 10 July), I realised: A)even with pure He there his some loading of H2 inside the constantan. I send a mail to Mathieau some time before, please read details in sch document. B) I can reconfirm that the pressure reduction of He has almost NO effect on temperature detected OUTSIDE the glass borosilicate wall tube. c) Amng others,I made specific experiments on October 3-10 2012, using He at 2 different constant and variable pressures. I will send the data starting from 5 December. *Next Monday I will came back to Italy, the day later I will have a meeting in Rome. So, only December 5 I will be at full work in my Laboratory in Frascati. *Please, be free to ask everything You like, WHITOUT formalities. I enclose 3 jpeg pictures, I hope self explaining,bout the 10 July experiment. My best, Francesco *************
Celani has given us permission to post some of his emails to us. We are pleased to have this kind of working relationship. It is encouraging that he did these tests and found that the external cell temperature did NOT change like ours did. Since this test is in Helium, we just started that test with Cell1, this evening.
Experiment Logs
We added another tool to help observers better follow the data stream. Per one of the suggestion in the comment, we added links to an Experiment Log right next to the live data link at the top of the "Follow" section of the website. It's not quite everything I ever dreamed of, but it should serve till we can better integrate it with the data viewer.
New cells
One major change from the first cells is that the pass throughs are being made in a stem that will operate at much cooler temperatures and allow for many sealing layers in series.
The other obvious change is the use of the Macor ceramic instead of the mica. The Macor is harder to machine - not as easy as the brochures would imply. The advantage is that the Macor does not off-gas. When we put together this one, it was a mechanical fit, no-glue assembly, eliminating one more variable and making it easier to change out the wire supports.
And, finally, here we see Malachi testing all the new power supply and data collector units.
Weekend Results
Over the weekend I just let the cell run with both wires powered. There were slight cycles, but nothing that I feel compelled to write about at the moment. Last night I turned the power all the power all the way up on the NiCr wire and let it sit. The impedance on the NiCr wire rose with a sudden jump in a way I can't explain.
After that, there seemed to be a P_xs rise that lasted several hours. The P_xs I believe I can explain by the curtain near the cell having shifted slightly and limiting the air flow some tiny amount. The curtain has been more firmly fastened now. After it was moved, the P_xs fell again.
Yes, we are biased
I would like to respond to some of the questions about our experimental bias. I guess I can admit to being biased. I really want to see this phenomenon work. Does that mean I am going to fake results or deliberately misinterpret or misconstrue data? No. Am I going to inadvertently misinterpret data? Probably, but that's why I publish the data and welcome the skeptics to keep watching this progress, as well. Our goal is to make a demonstration experiment that will withstand the critics' arguments. Succumbing to bias does not get the job done. Mistaken conclusions don't heat air or water. (Actually, if they do I'll make a new energy source out of them, instead) But the point is, if it's not irrefutable, our job isn't done. We are very optimistic, but optimism is not the same thing as a working demonstration of a new fire, and we understand the difference. Once we know how to make a demonstration experiment, then we will welcome double blind studies with researchers and skeptics from all various institutions, every variation of calorimetry that anyone can devise, and anything else that we can do to test it. What if we never get there? Then at least we can say we tried. And given the potential importance of this energy source to the world, I feel pretty good about that.
Comments
There is tricky way i found on the internet.
If you want to learn it too, simply type in google: Riesling's strategy
I think Robert also said the same thing. There was a signal but nothing solid to say.
We will know what methods STMicro used to arrive at their results when they publish, and then we can fairly compare.
Geez Robert, I'd like to believe you achieved excess energy but the experiment was highly erratic in the early stages. I don't think any conclusions about excess energy can be reached other than pressure changes affected P_Xs.
I too am hopeful the Euro cell shows us something definitive. Despite my recent negative posts I want this to work more than anything!
i.imgur.com/pDJoY.png
While Celani's 2-layer wires perform half as much per weight compared to 300-layer ones, they're much more efficient per number of layers. I wonder if this also means that they're much less expensive/compl ex to produce. If it's indeed the case, them it might be easier with them to increase the amount of material used inside a single reactor.
BTW, 1 gram of 2L wire would be 200/0.055 = 3636 mm long. With a denser winding pattern it could still easily fit in a 300 mm long tube together with the heater wire.
We may have already done that. If you recall, when we we running our first test after loading and before we think we fried the wire, we were seeing 6-8W which, given that our wire is 5 times the length, if the effect could be established to scale, it would mean we were showing the same kind of Pxs as the other third party.
HOWEVER, we had a LOT more noise in the system from the room temperature fluctuations, sensitive T ambient, the saw tooth Pin (due to cooling fan on Power Supply) etc. Also at that time we were not confident in our use of T-Mica and its corresponding calibration curve as the basis for calculating Pxs. With all this combined we were not comfortable in claiming we had found anything.
We hope however that with Mathieu's meticulous approach and the learning from the US cell, we will be much closer to showing any effect if possible.
An experiment with this type of spheres having a total mass of 100 grams would yield around 30,000 watts. This power level is in the ballpark of the claims made by others.
This suggests that it will be difficult to achieve more than 1 watt of excess power during your testing.
(For this calculation I assumed the excess power to be 1.16 watts.)
I can't wait to come down and see what's going on.
Milt
@Malachi:
Please switch He to 0.5 bar for a while, I'm really curious!
I repost the graph of calibrations:
Keep going guys, more replications are good. Perhaps now you can update your goals to show more excess energy than ST and a fully functional kit.
>You have an error in the mass posted for the wire. You are off by a factor of 10. It should be .56 grams. This is assuming 67% copper and 37% nickel.<
Sorry about the confusion: The original mass you posted is correct. I made a little math error.
its enlightening to have some context what is / was going on.
With the EU cell joining i am looking forward to see some interesting things happen soon.
thanks
Thank you for you kind words.
It is quite frustrating to keep on doing calibrations as I have a cell that behaves in a good way, it leaks almost nothing, which is an achievement considering the nature of the gas we are using and it shows remarkable stability.
I should be done with the data analysis of the calibration data for the oxide wire very soon and will give everybody results.
Fastidious is the term, but what should one expect from scientists?
I agree... but actually neither are necessary on comment posts here :)
All I can say is everything I've seen being done by the MFMP guys appears overly and unnecessarily complicated.
Surely the first and foremost thing should be to prove beyond doubt there is anomalous energy. This can be done using Celani's own cell or failing that using multiple wires as you've pointed out. I hope at some stage the MFMP guys do get access to Celani's cell so they can confirm the effect beyond any doubt.
My posts are getting "thumbs down" a lot but I think what I'm suggesting makes sense. It is all good and proper to praise the MFMP guys and say good work, but if the focus of that work is in the wrong direction then what's the point?
If it is that simple why don't we get a whole bunch of wires and run the test again?
0.055 grams are a really small amount of material. If 0.055 g = 1.16 W, then 1 g = 21.09 W. With an input power of 48 W that would be a significantly detectable amount of excess heat. With enough material to reach the weight of one US cent (2.5 g, that is, still a very small amount of material) that would be 52.73 W of excess heat. Or better, assuming that an input power of 48 W is enough to heat the wires that much, that would mean we would have an output power of just over 100 W (this figure looks nice too).
Brutally increasing the amount of active material inside the reactor tube would probably be a less instructive experience but it would save a lot of time/money and conclusively show even to untrained people that something anomalous is indeed happening.
Reading from Vortex the independent replication of Celani's work only achieved:
1.16W at 350 °C
Wire mass = 0.055 g
length = 200 mm
diameter = 0.2 mm
The input power was unknown but suspected to be 48W. This doesn't fill me with confidence as the excess power is in the order of 2% over the input.
Full post here:
mail-archive.com/.../...
RSS feed for comments to this post