Atom-Ecology

  • Thank you for that Jed. Actually there is some osscillation there, but we chose to represent the data without it. There is a 'ripple' every 5 or 6 seconds. I'm afraid that the chances of our calorimetry being adrift* are slim to none. And slim just left town.


    ETA * by more than 2.5% - we are looking at XSH in multiple joules, not millijoules. And we have done calibration every which way.

  • This graphs 1, 2 and 3 here show how it would look if the heat from cold fusion were steady. However, it never is steady. So heat after death curves never look like this. They look like the curves in Pons paper I referenced above. There is positive feedback, but it is hard to see, because many other factors play a role, causing large fluctuations. That includes unknown factors, making the results look random. Perhaps for some reason with this device the cold fusion heat is steady, but I doubt that.


    My plots were not for steady heat from cold fusion. They are what happens when the heat from cold fusion varies with temperature. At 300C, for instance you may get so many watts, at 350C you may get twice that value, and at 400C you may get 10 times that value. As the reactor temperature transits through different temperatures the lenr heat therefore varies.


    I am reasoning from the very simplest assumptions. I realize it may be more complicated but it is interesting, and good practice, to see what the simplest assumptions can account for and then take it from there.

  • My plots were not for steady heat from cold fusion. They are what happens when the heat from cold fusion varies with temperature.

    Sure. I get that. Actually, I would not say "cold fusion varies" but rather: "when an extra source of heat is modulated by temperature." Where the extra source is steady at a given temperature. Cold fusion is not steady, but if you could strip away the other instabilities, and see only the positive feedback parts, it would look like this. It does look like this in response to a heat pulse, in the early phase of some experiments. I guess that means it is fairly steady. By the time you reach heat after death it is always unstable, as far as I know. Also, the magnitude is much greater.


    Here is the decay curve in response to a heat pulse, showing positive feedback. This was Martin Fleischmann's favorite graph, drawn by him. On one occasion drawn by him with a pencil when he was wearing a pajamas and a red bathrobe.


    See p. 14:


    http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanlettersfroa.pdf


    The red lines were added by Miles. This is discussed in great detail in these letters and in paper by Fleischmann.

  • This is called either 'meltdown' or death by overheat. Nothing new there.


    My point was that meltdown (= death by overheat) on the one hand, and heat after death on the other, are two different behaviours that are to be expected from the same temperature-dependent anomalous heat mechanism. The only difference is that you would expect heat after death when the overall lenr mechanism isn`t very strong and meltdown when it is strong. The maximal strength of anomalous heat generation is like the gain around the feedback loop I was mentioning and determines what sort of behaviour you will get. It puzzles me greatly that the relaxation of the androcles reactor temperature after external heating cutoff looks nothing like any of the the expected behaviours.


    A good double check is to feed a matched pair of fuelled and control reactors precisely the same number of watts, but have the temperature of the fuelled reactor limited by thermostat - which also meters out identical amounts of power to both reactors. If you have anomalous heat contributing to the system temperature in the 'master reactor', then the control reactor temperature will diverge since it is being starved of electrical heat, and from the extent of the drop you can work out exactly how much anomalous heat you are getting. This maybe something similar to what you are thinking of, not really sure, but this particular experiment is 'on the (long) list.'


    This is an elegant way to assess anomalous heat generation but it is not what I am suggesting right now. I am suggesting that you first measure the relationship between temperature and anomalous heat generation over a temperature range of your choice. It might look like this (where dQ/dt is the rate of heat generation) ...



    Now put the fueled reactor away for the time being and turn your attention to the control reactor. Use the empirical relation you have measured to determine the current input to the ohmic heater in the control reactor. This has to be done moment-by-moment so that the heat generation tracks the temperature of the control reactor. In this way the internal heater in the control reactor will be endowed with some of the same properties as the lenr heat generator in the fueled reactor. You can now play with different stimulation protocols to see how the artificially lenr-equipped control reactor works (the fuelled reactor plays no role in any of this). I predict that giving this system a temperature pulse and then shutting off the external heater will lead to the sorts of plateau-and-cliff scenarios I diagrammed before and not the sort of exponential relaxation seen in the data from yesterday (the red trace).

  • Now put the fueled reactor away for the time being and turn your attention to the control reactor. Use the empirical relation you have measured to determine the current input to the ohmic heater in the control reactor. This has to be done moment-by-moment so that the heat generation tracks the temperature of the control reactor. In this way the internal heater in the control reactor will be endowed with some of the same properties as the lenr heat generator in the fueled reactor. You can now play with different stimulation protocols to see how the artificially lenr-equipped control reactor works (the fuelled reactor plays no role in any of this). I predict that giving this system a temperature pulse and then shutting off the external heater will lead to the sorts of plateau-and-cliff scenarios I diagrammed before and not the sort of exponential relaxation seen in the data from yesterday (the red trace).


    All this is in hand - I'm sorry I didn't quite understand your previous post about this. Friday, and its been a long week. Even though my working week only started on Wednesday.

  • Alan Smith


    Do you have a set terminology for your different experimental configurations? When the temperature of a reactor is being determined by your PID controller do you call it `temperature clamp` or something like that. And what is the name of the configuration when the temperature is free to vary?


    I may have just missed these terms. I am finding it awkward to express myself clearly if there there isn`t a clear terminology

  • Well, we just made some terms up to suit ourselves. We call them 'controlled', 'slaved',or 'free running' reactors. I guess you can work out which is which. You didn't miss this btw, the topic has not been discussed in any detaiil before.

  • It does look like this in response to a heat pulse, in the early phase of some experiments. I guess that means it is fairly steady. By the time you reach heat after death it is always unstable, as far as I know. Also, the magnitude is much greater.

    This is mere speculation, but I suppose this is because in the early stages only one or two spots on the cathode are active (NAE as Ed Storms calls it), whereas in heat after death, many spots are active, some of them increasing, some decaying. Like the active spots shown in the IR camera video from Pam Boss:


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?page_id=952


    Activity from one spot may be predictable and steady. Activity from many spots may look chaotic. That's my guess. It is even more complicated because one spot will influence others. Positive feedback is not limited to what happens with an external source of heat, such as a resistance heater or electrolysis. Heat from the cold fusion reaction itself produces feedback -- to itself. Like combustion, above at a certain rate with readily available fuel, the reaction rate increases on its own. A fire will blaze up, or go out of control. Heat after death would not happen at a detectable rate if there wasn't readily available fuel and a high reaction rate to begin with. Whereas, Fleischmann's graph of the response to a heat pulse is what you see with one spot on the cathode responding to one externally produced heat pulse. Not a whole bunch of pulses from neighboring spots on the same cathode, all adding up to much higher power than the single pulse.


    I predict that giving this system a temperature pulse and then shutting off the external heater will lead to the sorts of plateau-and-cliff scenarios I diagrammed before and not the sort of exponential relaxation seen in the data from yesterday (the red trace).

    I think I have seen the plateau and cliff pattern often. Linger, maybe increase a little, linger some more . . . abrupt end.

  • Reminds me of the "good old days". I did a series of internal heat tests to see what a reaction might look like. Almost all ended badly for the "reactor" (dummy). A bunch of internal heat, even a small fraction of the usual heat power, tended to add a lot of heat that was hard to deal with. These were typically 800 to 1300 W coils around a 3/4 inch OD thermocouple protection tube, which should be fairly robust.


    Here's one I found. I barely had turned on the outer coil, which finished off the 100 W halogen bulb that I had stuck inside as a internal heat source, almost instantly.

    The coil had a glass coating that conducted the external heater coil better to the tube, which in this case dripped inside through a heat crack and helped to seal the cracked internal bulb for a while.

    (May 2015)

  • Oh, the synopsis of what internal heat looked like is that it mostly looks like regular heat. Normal-shaped temperature rise and decay for the wattage applied.

    This is because the thermocouples are generally attached to the tube or whatever, which has some thermal resistance and mass.

    Maybe a sensitive thermocouple placement and an unstable reaction could be a bit lumpier.


    I hadn't tried adding power purposefully while cooling for comparison to a pure cut-off.

    However I often did not cut power completely during cooling, but stepped it down so as not to crack the large tubes I was using for a while.

    I might have enough data from one particular long-lived device to see if I could put a comparison together.

  • Well, we just made some terms up to suit ourselves. We call them 'controlled', 'slaved',or 'free running' reactors. I guess you can work out which is which. You didn't miss this btw, the topic has not been discussed in any detaiil before.


    There are strong parallels to these techniques in electrophysiology where voltage and current (across a cell membrane) are investigated instead of temperature and heat (within a reactor).


    In electrophysiology, when current is injected as a predetermined waveform and the voltage allowed to respond freely this is called a "current clamp" configuration. This corresponds to your use of external heaters to inject your reactors with heat and the resulting temperature allowed to vary freely.


    In electrophysiology, when a feedback system is used control the voltage to a desired level or waveform and the resulting current is measured, this is called "voltage clamp". It is similar to your voltage-controlled situation.


    In a real neuron or heart cell there are voltage-dependent currents across the cell membrane that affect voltage and create the action potential etc. These are analogues of the temperature-dependent heat generators you are investigating. If one measures the voltage dependence of one of the electrophysiologica currents and uses that relationship to control the current injected into a cell, this is called a "dynamic clamp" configuration. It corresponds to the configuration I recently suggested for the Androcles reactor.


    In 1963 Hodgkin and Huxley won the Nobel prize for using the voltage clamp configuration to show how voltage-dependent currents underlie the action potential. Kenneth Cole should have shared for his 1947 invention of the voltage-clamp technique.

  • Oh, the synopsis of what internal heat looked like is that it mostly looks like regular heat. Normal-shaped temperature rise and decay for the wattage applied.

    Yup. Not like heat after death from other experiments.


    This is because the thermocouples are generally attached to the tube or whatever, which has some thermal resistance and mass.

    Hmmm . . . Fleischmann was often criticized for measuring the temperature at only one point, in the electrolyte, some distance from the cathode. Although in fact he used an array of temperature sensors. Usually 6 of them, as I recall, in a line ~1 cm long. Anyway, electrolyte has a large thermal mass. But that did not dampen out the perturbations in heat after death. The plateaus sometimes last a long time, for hours. I don't see how thermal resistance and mass could hide that. It would blur it, but the result would not look like normal-shaped temperature decay.


    HAD has been detected with various other calorimeter types, including ones that measure the entire cell at one time such as flow calorimeters. However, the most dramatic and clear-cut HAD was measured and reported by Stan Pons, in the report I linked to above.

  • To answer a few questions, control reactors and test reactors have thermal masses and R-values matched as closely as careful craftsmanship and calibration permits. We make great care to make things very comparable, which will be part of a presentation at the Italy CMNS conference in October. So no worries about different latent heat capacity in different reactors. Less than 1 gram of fuel doesn’t store a lot of heat

    This assumes that only the heat capacity of the fuel is important. What if the active reaction causes a change in the heat capacity of the rest of reactor (heating coil, etc)? That might be caused by a phase change (melting) of the reactor, some other material change due to the heating, or even radiation effects.


    If this was the case, then the excess energy measurement would still be correct, but it would have been produced during the active phase of the experiment and not due to a continued reaction of the 1 g of fuel. Effectively the control would cool faster unless its heater is turned on.


    Specific heat capacity is measured in J/(Kg*Deg K) = W-s/Kg*Deg K). When measured over the same time period and with the same thermal mass, a difference in the control and active reactor heat capacity is proportional to power in Watts. So if the active reactor heat capacity of a 1 KG reactor is changed by 25, the 25 W heater would exactly compensate for the difference and produce the graphs that you showed. Specific heat of water is 4190 and of copper is 390. A delta of 25 does not seem impossible.

  • JedRothwell ,

    I could caveat a whole bunch about what a variable heat supply might do with the TC readings, but generally, the position and diameter of the TC relative to the heat source would affect sensitivity.

    I was mostly curious if a burst of heat would look weird, and how well a hot tube could handle a burst. A nice gentle extra heat looks pretty mundane. Fast bursts were surprisingly damaging.


    It is pretty hard to stick a very fine gauge thermocouple in the active area of a hot tube and keep it alive, while within a fluid experiment one could have a lot more choices.

    Any extra heat will perturb the "normal" temperature regime, but the temperature changes are limited by the thermal mass and resistance in communication with the TC and heat source. So sharp spikes would be unusual, while logarithmic-to-plateau spikes would be typical (the rate of which could be tested by a specifically varied pulse lengths, and pulsed power levels).

    (Note my plot above, where 100 W is turned on instantly with a ~600 C climb in one minute, and plateau in ~ 2.5 minutes, concentrated in about a 10 cm long area).


    Below is a segment of some duty cycle tests I did.

  • It is pretty hard to stick a very fine gauge thermocouple in the active area of a hot tube and keep it alive, while within a fluid experiment one could have a lot more choices.

    You mean a liquid electrochemical experiment. The classic Pd-D F&P experiment. Yes, that is much easier on the thermocouples! Plus, as I said, F&P and array of them, so they could tell if one was damaged.

  • This assumes that only the heat capacity of the fuel is important. What if the active reaction causes a change in the heat capacity of the rest of reactor (heating coil, etc)? That might be caused by a phase change (melting) of the reactor, some other material change due to the heating, or even radiation effects.


    Hi Robert, at the kind of temperatures we typically run at - between 200 and 800C there is no possibility of phase change in the Class 26 foamed aiumina furnace bricks or Kanthal heating wires that make up the inner part of the reactor, they are all good for up to 1300C continuous. But we never go above 1000C ever. These systems will run for months (as we have seen already) without problems at the stress levels we give them.

  • I am assuming here that the rate of anomalous heat generation increases with temperature such that at room temperature the rate is essentially zero and that at higher temperatures the rate increases.


    :thumbup: That's the assumption I was cack-handedly trying to point out earlier...


    Your argument suffers from a big leap of logic here though:


    (1) If the overall lenr effect is weak, then you should get almost pure newtonian cooling which is recognized by an exponential decline in temperature after the external heating cutoff.

    ...From all of this you can see that for an any appreciable strength of lenr activity the decline of temperature is definitely not exponential. This is one of the things that puzzles me about the data published yesterday because it definitely shows exponential cooling suggesting no anomalous heating.


    ie... It could also be possibly be showing a weak LENR effect, according to your point (1)

  • If an amount of "passive" matter, less than 1 gram, delivers ( in average) about 25 watts of excess energy, for 3 hours, then the arguments of the skeptics now read like simple statements of ordinary "fools" not willing to accept the reality of our world.


    This is not the first time such HAD happens, but it is the first time with a small amount of LENR active material.


    Now I asked the people just to wait until Russ & Co have made more experiments and more detailed measurements. It is also far to early to ask for a complete theory that explains the "new" effects.


    The only thing we know since the early days of LENR: The standard model is not able to deliver any explanation of any known LENR effect!

  • I think 1 g of most materials at 25 W would sinter, melt or vaporize. If it is a cold fusion effect, it will stop. I do not think it would go for 3 hours.


    The energy is transported by a magnetic effect (like an induction heater!) and for sure does not heat the LENR active material.


    There is a preliminary model that fits very well, also with old (Pd-D) experiments. But we need more detailed experimental input to verify it.


    LENR definitively is an all magnetic effect and thus you have to have a new theory!

  • ie... It could also be possibly be showing a weak LENR effect, according to your point (1)


    "Weak", in this instance means an lenr heating effect that is small relative to the rate of heat loss from the reactor. But the figure posted on Russ George's blog and then replicated on this site a couple of days ago shows a heating effect that is large compared with cooling. If the lenr heating was weak the red line in the figure would closely follow the green line and that is not what we see. It is worthwhile pointing out that Alan Smith has intentionally insulated these reactor chambers in order to reduce cooling and so make even small lenr heating effects large by comparison.


    So no, the lenr heating displayed in Russ George's figure is not weak and that cannot be the reason that the red curve appears exponential in character.


    I continue to point out that the data recently posted by Russ George is puzzling. That red curve should not be exponential, it should be something like a plateau followed by a cliff. And the red curve should not be basically a 2x-stretched version of the green curve.

  • -we have done all the things you suggest, and more. The anomalous heat doesn't go away very readily, even with the power off for several hours.


    Do you mean that the anomalous heat lingers for several hours when the fueled reactor is in controlled temperature mode? Or are you talking about when the temperature of the reactor is allowed to vary as it likes?

  • Do you mean that the anomalous heat lingers for several hours when the fueled reactor is in controlled temperature mode? Or are you talking about when the temperature of the reactor is allowed to vary as it likes?


    The power to the heater coil is turned off. You can, I am sure, work out what that means. "even with the power off for several hours."


    On a more general note, we are presenting limited data in the interests of sharing progress. I am not making (as JR calls them) 'claims' ... if the data isn't presented in the precise formats that people like -and many people have their own take on this - I'm sorry. But it is what it is.

  • I am not making (as JR calls them) 'claims' ...

    Yes, you are. "Claims" in the technical sense. Primary assertions rather than conclusions, questions, summaries, etc. I do not mean these dictionary definitions:



    state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

    "he claimed that he came from a wealthy, educated family"

    Or:


    an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.

  • I agree - this is not a simple infra-red emitter like a heater coil, it's more complicated than that.

    Are you suggesting the 1 g sample induces heat in the walls of the reactor? (Or something along those lines.) Is there evidence for that, or do you reach that conclusion because 25 W of heat from the sample would probably destroy it?


    That would be unlike any other cold fusion device, as far as I know.


    What you have described seems increasingly dissimilar from cold fusion, in the HAD behavior and the mechanism you describe.


    You have said the cell temperature is relatively modest. Not high enough to destroy the sample. However, if the heat originates in the sample, the sample will be much hotter than the cell average.


    Is there some way you can tell if the sample is incandescent?

  • Alan Smith


    Apologies if this has already been discussed. The graph posted by Russ suggests that the fueled reactor ran for a longer time than the two unfueled reactors before the input was turned off. If the 3 reactors were all surrounded by alumina bricks, something in agreement with the rather long decay time, then the alumina bricks of the fueled reactor may have had a higher temperature than the ones of the two unfueled reactors at the time the inputs were turned off. From the heat equation and the Fourier law, the thermal diffusibility would then be smaller for the fueled reactor and this alone may explain the observed difference. This would also explain the multiplication factor (of ~2) pointed out by Paradigmnoia .


    Can you confirm that your series of measurements exclude heat inertia in the alumina bricks as origin of the difference?