MFMP New Generation Celani Wire Test Shows Possible >10% Excess Heat?

    Quote

    Answer to MY about that most of electric energy IN go to heat loss in the apparatus: According to Bob at MFMP the heat loss is 22.28% determened from calibration runs.77.72% of input electric energy go into the mass flow of water through the apparatus.You are wrong.


    Nobody said most energy went to heat loss. What was said is that most energy goes to heating the reactor. OK, so in this case, an amazing amount is lost to the measurement system (the water). That doesn't change the argument that adding more wires should give more signal if indeed, the wire makes heat energy as is claimed.


    Energy heating the cooling water does not heat the wire. So again: the argument is that virtually all the energy from the electrical heater heats something OTHER than the supposedly reacting wire. Some heats the apparatus OTHER than the wire, some heats the cooling water, some accounts for radiative and convective losses. Thus adding more wire does not require more heat. That was my original point. The electrical heat supplied is virtually the same for one wire, ten wires, probably even a hundred wires.


    But *if* the wire makes heat, then more wires mean more heat and a larger "COP". A large COP, easily distinguishable and measurable, is the goal of the experiment. They *must* add more wires -- as many as they practically can. It would probably also help to improve the insulation and refine the measurement system so it doesn't require so much cooling water mass flow. Then, if the wires really make heat, the system could run without electrical power. That was the point of the other person posting on Moletrap.


    Your figures don't say the determination of how much electrical power it takes to heat *just* a single wire but from your own figures, it is probably negligible. This is also predictable (easily) from the small mass and therefore small heat capacity of the wires.


    This might be a good place to remind everyone that the original ecats, which had much better power output and COP than hot cats according to Rossi and Levi, were heated by two heaters. One was in the middle of the core, as per Rossi, and the other was a huge band heater around the entire device. But the exterior of the ecat was a coolant jacket through which the cooling water flowed. So in that irrational and bizarre geometry, the main heater actually heated the cooling water! This obvious nonsense was first noted by Alsetalokin (a pseudonym) on the Moletrap forum. In early 2011!

    Meanwhile, from e-catworld.com:


    Quote

    Thanks MY, I learned new things today!

    Welcome. Glad to hear it.


    I think the main reason MFPM doesn't use multiple wires... well there are at least two. First, Celani gives them very few. I guess his method of making them is cumbersome or expensive. Second, the geometry of the flow calorimeter, as much as I have had time to study what it is from their diagrams, is not optimal. They need to make room for more wires and at the moment, there may not be enough. It would also help to insulate more and to decrease the mass flow rate of the cooling water if the measuring system is sensitive and stable enough to cope with it. But one way or another, they need more wires by far, if they are to further define and characterize whatever it is that Celani sees or thinks he is seeing.

    Axil, how much could the temperature vary within the two lines, maybe +-2 C°? Comparing noise levels for different temperatures may be misleading since the absolute value of the noise increases with temperature.


    If you want to call this jitter micro-explosions, be my guest. But if you say that they are of nuclear origin I refuse to put it on my bill.

    Quote from H-G Branzell

    how much could the temperature vary within the two lines, maybe +-2 C°? Comparing noise levels for different temperatures may be misleading since the absolute value of the noise increases with temperature.


    Note that in the transect for the range ~ 40-60°C, the highest range we've seen so far, the "jitter" is quite a bit less, on the order of +- 0.5°C, while the jitter for the transect for the range 21-41°C is approx. +-2°C. Note also that the line following the gradient from the edge to the region of max temperature is not very jittery. So here we see that sometimes there is significant jitter and sometimes relatively little, that the jitter is not necessarily proportional to the temperature and that it does appear to be a function of the distance from the edge of the cathode into the center. If it's noise, it seems to be noise of a systematic variety.


    Here we're dealing with small N, of course. But I would not be surprised if these conclusions were amplified by the full set of transects available to the researchers.

    Meanwhile, back to Celani wires, it seems a flow meter malfunction is responsible for positive results. By exactly the right margin. Failure to properly calibrate again... seems to be behind a lot of LENR results and certainly is responsible for all of Rossi's. And I continue to be amazed -- what is it about simple direct calibration and blank runs that LENR experimenters simply don't appreciate? It's such a basic concept in science. How do they keep missing it (Kullander, Essen, Lewan and all the Swedish blind mice scientists missed it in their two tests of Rossi's hot cat tube furnace!)



    Anyway:



    http://ecatnews.com/?p=2683&cpage=5#comment-135839

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.