LION-AG Experiment

  • The first LION-AG active run started at 23:50 UTC on 7 April. The streaming data is available at

    https://plot.ly/~QuantumHea...

    Plotly update is pretty slow, so be patient and it will eventually show the moving graph of temps and power.

    The fuel load and core construction are as close to the LION-provided description as possible, but with added thermocouples for measurement of the core temperature. Five calibrations were performed, showing good stability and measurement accuracy of around ±5°C and ±3 watts at 800°C. The initial program is a 48-hour linear ramp from 100 C to 800 C, followed by a soak period or temperature cycling, depending on conditions at that time. Full details of the experimental setup will be made available shortly.


    Images and data will be made available as the experiment progresses.


    AlanG

  • can

    I'm having my doubts about the average power trace. I recall seeing that it is supposed to be a 300 sec moving average but it doesn't look like that to me.


    Also, not temperature vs average power (although that would be a pretty interesting plot!). You are showing temperature and average power vs time

  • Bruce__H

    Sorry, I was incorrect. I meant temperature and power.


    The average power looks ok to my eyes, but it's hard to tell without the raw data available:



    I found I am not able to export data from the live graphs with my personal Plotly account. A possible solution could be digitizing it from the previously posted screen grabs using WebPlotdigitizer and then resampling it with other techniques to create a proper temperature vs power graph but I'd rather wait for the actual raw data first, or for the testers to post their own.

  • can

    As you suggested, Plotly no longer supports persistent data in the cloud. I am collecting the data locally from Labjack and will post the files as soon as the experiment ends, in a couple of hours. Thanks again for offering your perception and skill for this important analysis of the experiment.


    @Bruce_H

    The Average Power is a 300 second trailing average, so it will not be perfectly centered in the messy Watts graph. It is calculated from the Watt-Hours integration of the Tektronix PA1000, read once per second into a Python array and the delta then divided by elapsed seconds. Because the sampling is asynchronous with the PA1000 integration, there will be measurement jitter of one part in 300 using this technique, so the average power plot is not perfectly smooth, but it's close enough.


    Experiment details and links to data files (when available) can be seen in the Live Doc at:

    https://docs.google.com/docume…wa9T_mpyErhsCppMXxizazc5s

  • The Average Power is a 300 second trailing average, so it will not be perfectly centered in the messy Watts graph. It is calculated from the Watt-Hours integration of the Tektronix PA1000, read once per second into a Python array and the delta then divided by elapsed seconds. Because the sampling is asynchronous with the PA1000 integration, there will be measurement jitter of one part in 300 using this technique, so the average power plot is not perfectly smooth, but it's close enough.


    OK. It is not the lag produced by the trailing average that I am wondering about. But if what I am seeing is a discretation error of some sort then I think I understand.


    The Live Doc summary is fabulous!

  • can

    Interesting choice to show not temperature versus power but temperature differential versus power!


    If there is no anomalous power generation in the system, I would expect this plot to be a straight horizontal line ... and that is basically what we see for the primary thermocouples.


    What would you expect to see if there is anomalous power generated in the core? I would expect a straight horizontal line that droops at the right hand side and then possibly turns back on itself.

  • Bruce__H

    The underlying assumption with that graph is that there is a direct relationship with input power, which might not necessarily be the case over long periods. So for long term graphs it would probably be best to revert to temperatures and power against time.


    It looks like PID control is based on Tactive, so with anomalous power production Tactive would remain constant while Tnull decreases. With a sudden excess power release Tactive might increase above the setpoint before this occurred, though.

  • The underlying assumption with that graph is that there is a direct relationship with input power, which might not necessarily be the case over long periods. So for long term graphs it would probably be best to revert to temperatures and power against time.


    I partially disagree. If the relationship between input power and the rest of the system changes over a long time period then one would hope that the same change would occur in the control chamber too and these change would cancel out when you plot the temperature difference




    It looks like PID control is based on Tactive, so with anomalous power production Tactive would remain constant while Tnull decreases. With a sudden excess power release Tactive might increase above the setpoint before this occurred, though.


    I asked and had it confirmed that the PID control is based on T_active. You are correct that with anomalous power generation T_active should remain relatively constant while T_null decreases, but don't forget that input power will also decrease. That is why I think a plot of T_diff vs Power should look like a lower-case letter r that has been rotated 90 degrees clockwise.



    I've used data as it came from the xls file and haven't tried yet to compute average power values on my own.


    I tried out a 300 sec trailing average on the xls data and found that my calculations generally agree with the results in the "Average Power" column of the spreadsheet. I think that plotly has some bugs that was producing some odd appearances for the average power trace in the streaming data.

  • I partially disagree. If the relationship between input power and the rest of the system changes over a long time period then one would hope that the same change would occur in the control chamber too and these change would cancel out when you plot the temperature difference


    If there's the chance over time of a drift only affecting one side of the apparatus due to real excess power or thermocouple issue / artifact, this might not necessarily be the case, which is why I added that over longer periods a temperature vs time graph (as shown by default on the live Plotly pages) might be better. The next portion of my comment was under this context, although this was probably not sufficiently clear.

  • I note that the "Average Power" trace on the streaming coverage of the replication is currently (Tuesday Apr 10, showing temperature cycling between 500C and 800C) much smoother and more in line with my expectations of a 5 minute moving average than it was previously during the ramp. Not sure why.

  • I note that the "Average Power" trace on the streaming coverage of the replication is currently (Tuesday Apr 10, showing temperature cycling between 500C and 800C) much smoother and more in line with my expectations of a 5 minute moving average than it was previously during the ramp. Not sure why.

    Under the cycling regime, the temperatures really never settle, so the PID is always trying to catch up with the thermal settling time, and the sign of the differential (the "D" in PID control) only flips as the cycle reverses. The result is relative absence of servo hunting and a smoother curve.


    We will soon change from 1 hour to 15-minute cycling interval in response to advice received by BobG from LION.

  • Alan Smith

    Alan. Can you comment on the nature of the moment-to-moment current waveform used to drive the heater coil in the setup that LION used? On information from Engineer48, there appears to be a possibility that it is a 35KHz square wave going between 0 AMP and some non-zero instantaneous peak current. I imagine that with this scheme the average power would depend on a combination of duty cycle and the peak current. This type of input should generate a very different sequence of electromagnetic field oscillations in the reactor core than a scheme whereby most of the average power is accounted for by a dc input with superimposed small-amplitude current changes.


    It would also be useful to know how similar or dissimilar the current waveform used in your own replication attempts is to LION's.


    I admit that because of digitization and averaging issues I am still a little foggy on the current input being used in the AG replication.

  • I'm not sure what waveform Magicsound is using. The standard model T is supplied with a 36V 11A DC (or 36/15) PSU, which has an infinitesimal high-frequency ripple when viewed on a scope. The output from this PSU may be mediated using a PWM we supply as standard which produced a somewhat larger 15kHz ripple. I will hook a scope and see what the waveform actually looks like.


    I am using this configuration, I am not sure if LION actually uses the PWM, it isn't obligatory.

  • Any influence on the contents of the model T furnace from variations in the electromagnetic field created in the heating coil would be mediated by photons. Higher harmonics of the field will yield photons with higher energy (proportional to the frequency), but even at 100 MHz the energy per photon will be only 4.1E-7 eV. Such low energy levels do not even cause chemical reactions.

  • Based on advice from Alan Smith, for this project I built a power system with a 36 vdc 11 amp power supply similar or identical to the one supplied by LFH to LION. The power is switched on and off by a solid state relay, controlled by a typical PID pulse output. The cycle time is 1 second for my system, and I believe 2 seconds for the PID used by LFH. I expect there will be only minimal residual ac in the power supply output, though I haven't looked with a scope.

    Regarding the possible effect of the heater coil's magnetic field: based on the coil turn spacing and current, the calculated field in the mild steel rod is around 2k gauss at room temperature. However, the Curie temperature of the steel is around 5-600°C, so at operating temperature it is essentially non-magnetic and the field strength is just 20 gauss (2 mT), pretty trivial. Having said that, cycling the reactor above and below the steel Curie temp would result in a varying magnetic field in the core, and this might be a useful path to explore.


    Regarding the average power calculation algorithm, I described it previously in some detail. I will make the Python source code available if someone cares to examine it to suggest improvements for the next round.


    AlanG

  • Thanks for running the experiments everyone. I have one question. What is the evidence that the original LION experiments showed excess heat or LENR in the first place? I read that Bob G says it was because "Strange Radiation" trails were found in both samples. However is "Strange Radiation" considered a real phenomena, even among the more open minded physicists? Is there a general understanding of what strange radiation might be (ex photons with a certain strange wavelength range, Strange Quarks, bubbles from Strange Brew, etc.)? I think it is great to run these experiments, I just wonder about the initial justification and what is so strange about the radiation.

    Image result for strange brew

  • Dear all,


    Would like to react on the waveforms and what could happen.


    In the lookingforheat Model T test kit (http://www.lookingforheat.com/…enr-test-kit-mk1-model-t/ ) the current through the heater coil is adjusted by a PWM power stage.

    This type of power stage makes a lot of Electromagnetic noise (harmonics).


    The temperature is controlled by a PID controller, and it will switch the PSU mains off if the temperature is reached.

    The PSU voltage will not drop directly, caused by the discharging time of the PSU capacitors.


    If the voltage drops, the current through the heater (and magnetic field in the reactor) will also drop.

    The PWM will still work during the PSU discharge time (maybe 2-3 second) and will still produce more or less the same harmonics.


    Deuterium can be activated by the Larmor frequency, for deuterium this is just 6.54 MHz/T.

    I think it is possible that a harmonic of the PWM in a dropping magnetic field can hit the deuterium Lamor frequency.


    This would also explain why you must cycle the heather temperature to wakeup the reaction.


    Ron

  • Thanks for running the experiments everyone. I have one question. What is the evidence that the original LION experiments showed excess heat or LENR in the first place? I read that Bob G says it was because "Strange Radiation" trails were found in both samples. However is "Strange Radiation" considered a real phenomena, even among the more open minded physicists? Is there a general understanding of what strange radiation might be (ex photons with a certain strange wavelength range, Strange Quarks, bubbles from Strange Brew, etc.)? I think it is great to run these experiments, I just wonder about the initial justification and what is so strange about the radiation.


    Bob found some unusual markings on the carcasses of the LION 1 and 2 reactors and interpreted these as the effects of "strange radiation". I am completely unimpressed with this interpretation. Those marks could be due to all sorts of things. To single this out as "proof" of LENR activity is silly. Only when a number of successful LION replications show these markings in the active reactors but not the controls will I be convinced ... not before.

  • is "Strange Radiation" considered a real phenomena, even among the more open minded physicists?


    i don't know - how open-minded are you?


    ...from Low-energy nuclear reactions and the leptonic monopole

    (Georges Lochak, Leonid Urutskoev) p10:


    "Typical traces are shown in Figure 7 [...] the traces are very unusual, and because of

    that the hypothetical radiation was called a ‘strange’ one"







    h t t p : / / pdfs.semanticscholar.o…4cabc92354ee692e9876e.pdf


    [sr]

    Gie me ae spark o' nature's fire, That's a' the learning I desire

    R. Burns

    The post was edited 1 time, last by nul-points: Added Figure 7 from the paper quoted ().