The paper linked by Robert above has the weights in the first sentence of Section 1, 1.1, page 1.
Yes, and it also says "A pair of 20 kg versions were used with the new method, one for control, and one for the active cell." Those cells are shown in Figure 5 of the paper, and were the cruciform reactors to which I referred in my earlier comment.
I'm not sure why the 2019 paper mentions 50 kg reactors. They don't seem to have been used since before 2016.
So 2 x 20.2 kg then.
I can use water instead of steel; about 5 kg should do.
See if you can get a 2 foot (600mm) long piece of 4 inch (100 mm) cast iron sewer pipe. Maybe from a scrap yard or plumber's.
It will weigh about 15 lbs and you can put your heater inside it. cover the ends with foil or something to restrict convection through the pipe.
With that installed, I wouldn't be surprised if the calorimeter took 12 hours to reach equilibrium.
See if you can get a 2 foot (600mm) long piece of 4 inch (100 mm) cast iron sewer pipe. Maybe from a scrap yard or plumber's.
It will weigh about 15 lbs and you can put your heater inside it. cover the ends with foil or something to restrict convection through the pipe.
With that installed, I wouldn't be surprised if the calorimeter took 12 hours to reach equilibrium.
I was thinking my shop vise might do... but is easier to put water bottles in than stick the vise (or pipe) in without disturbing anything.
Right now I am running hot air back in again, with improved plumbing, to investigate the strangeness from yesterday.
I was thinking my shop vise might do... but is easier to put water bottles in than stick the vise (or pipe) in without disturbing anything.
The important factor is having the heater inside something of substantial mass and limited thermal conductivity. Just putting some heavy pieces next to the heater won't have nearly the same effect on the temp vs time behavior.
Looking at the 2017 JCMNS Mizuno preprint, which contains discussion of the 120 W input tests, in the beginning of Section 2.6 it says:
“The same type of reactor is used in the calibration, and is installed as a control for calibration of the heat balance in the enclosure described below. The design, size, weight, and shape of this calibration reactor are exactly the same as the reactor used for testing. The internal reactants are the same nickel, of the same weight, size, dimensions and position. Both are washed and wound the same way. However, excess heat is not produced by the calibration electrode even though deuterium gas is added to the cell, because the nickel material is not processed as described in Section 2.5.“
So the 120 W calibration and active reactors should have roughly the same time constant. Both reactors should have been the cruciform style. (The 120 W active test was on May 19, 2016.)
However, with due respect to less than ideal experimental conditions that sometimes must be dealt with, the output recirculating around enough to significantly heat the intake is something to be avoided.
You are right. That should be avoided. I do not think it happened. The gradual rise in ambient temperature you see was caused by the room heaters, or sunlight, or the presence of people in the room. I do not think it was caused by warm air leaving the top of the box and coming down and around the side. Warm air rises.
However, even if that did happen to some extent, it would not affect the calorimetry except by introducing even more noise, on top of the room heaters and sunlight. The heat is computed from outlet minus inlet. That works even when you have a closed circuit, for example with the same water going around and around from an insulated reservoir with no temperature control, which gets hotter over time. That's not a good method, but it works.
Here are results of recirculating about 50 % of the outlet air back into the inlet (bypassing the inlet TC).
When I did about 30% back in, nothing happened to the outlet temperature at all !
While the tests here are not very well constrained, it seems that the recirculated heat has a disproportionately small effect on Delta T compared to heating ambient air...
Weird.
Hysteresis when cooling down could be an issue.
.
I re-calibrated last night for a much longer time, with all the outlet heat recirculation plumbing installed, but with the outlet to recirculating inlet connection part turned 180 degrees so it sucked in ambient air instead of hot air. In other words, a more proper calibration for the heat recIrculation test. The calibration delta T is actually 14.8 C, rather than 13.7 C as shown above.
So the recirculating hot air seems even less effective at raising the final outlet air temperature than before.
.
.
.
I re-calibrated last night for a much longer time, with all the outlet heat recirculation plumbing installed, but with the outlet to recirculating inlet connection part turned 180 degrees so it sucked in ambient air instead of hot air. In other words, a more proper calibration for the heat recIrculation test.
That's sort of interesting. But sort of pointless. There must be hundreds of things you should not do in an experiment. So don't do them! What is the point of exploring a configuration that no one would use in the first place, and that would serve no purpose? I see no benefit to recirculating the inlet, or anything you might discover by doing it.
Mel Miles once commented on an experiment by Steve Jones. Jones was trying to demonstrate that recombination can explain away all excess heat. He was obsessed with that notion. He even told me once that it can explain the heat in McKubre's closed cell, which is bonkers. Anyway, Miles pointed out that Jones' cell was the wrong shape, and the power level was ~1000 times lower than any cold fusion experiment, so of course there was recombination. Mel said, "Why not throw some particles of palladium into the electrolyte while you are at it?" That will cause recombination for sure.
Don't deliberately do things wrong. Or as I think I recall an electrochemist once said, don't piss in the electrolyte and expect it to work.
That's sort of interesting. But sort of pointless. There must be hundreds of things you should not do in an experiment. So don't do them! What is the point of exploring a configuration that no one would use in the first place, and that would serve no purpose? I see no benefit to recirculating the inlet, or anything you might discover by doing it.
Mel Miles once commented on an experiment by Steve Jones. Jones was trying to demonstrate that recombination can explain away all excess heat. He was obsessed with that notion. He even told me once that it can explain the heat in McKubre's closed cell, which is bonkers. Anyway, Miles pointed out that Jones' cell was the wrong shape, and the power level was ~1000 times lower than any cold fusion experiment, so of course there was recombination. Mel said, "Why not throw some particles of palladium into the electrolyte while you are at it?" That will cause recombination for sure.
Don't deliberately do things wrong. Or as I think I recall an electrochemist once said, don't piss in the electrolyte and expect it to work.
I am awaiting my atmospheric differential pressure sensors, so basically I just testing random effects at present to pass the Covid time.
It seems wired that that the hot air going back in has so little effect. It is not quite like heating the ambient air in a small space, since it cannot also heat the calorimeter box from the outside as well as inside. I am running it again with about 50% hot air recycling, but not fiddling around with it while it does it’s thing, this time. To do a decent job of it I will have to construct an external air mixer assembly so that the mixed air temperature can be measured properly. I doubt I will get that carried away.
Next I’ll make a sort tent around the calorimeter to better test ambient air heating.
That's sort of interesting. But sort of pointless. There must be hundreds of things you should not do in an experiment. So don't do them! What is the point of exploring a configuration that no one would use in the first place, and that would serve no purpose? I see no benefit to recirculating the inlet, or anything you might discover by doing it.
Mel Miles once commented on an experiment by Steve Jones. Jones was trying to demonstrate that recombination can explain away all excess heat. He was obsessed with that notion. He even told me once that it can explain the heat in McKubre's closed cell, which is bonkers. Anyway, Miles pointed out that Jones' cell was the wrong shape, and the power level was ~1000 times lower than any cold fusion experiment, so of course there was recombination. Mel said, "Why not throw some particles of palladium into the electrolyte while you are at it?" That will cause recombination for sure.
Don't deliberately do things wrong. Or as I think I recall an electrochemist once said, don't piss in the electrolyte and expect it to work.
.
Actually, what this seems to suggest is that many less obvious ways of “sneaking” extra power in are quite laughable considering what little is gained by very obviously dumping half the outlet air back in.
.
Photo of recirculation set up. The recirculator inlet is a bit closer to the outlet now. I could have done a neater, more direct plumbing job, but that is what I had at home.
.
how do you know what the fraction of the input air is made up of recirculated air?
also, the plastic pipe is not insulated so it will lose some heat to the cooler room.
how do you know what the fraction of the input air is made up of recirculated air?
also, the plastic pipe is not insulated so it will lose some heat to the cooler room.
Yeah, it’s not perfect, and it’s too much trouble to really measure it properly. More complicated than it seemed at first.
However the pipe inlet is about 2/3 the outlet area, and when pointed away from the outlet , has enough suction to pull the flame right off a candle. The air coming out of the pipe is about 28C when the outlet is 31 C, so the pipe is not losing much heat after it warms up. I have been cautious not to pressurize the outlet with the recirculator, which would really make things different from any calibration.
Once it runs for several hours at steady state tonight, I might send 100% of the outlet back in for a short while. That should do something. It has already been running for about 3 hrs so far.
Anyways, I can do some test requests, if anyone has better ideas than what I am doing right now, (which is interesting but probably pointless).
I'm testing a new data stream format and would appreciate some feedback on the layout. It will run for a few hours more tonight, and should be viewable afterwards as well.
I'm testing a new data stream format and would appreciate some feedback on the layout. It will run for a few hours more tonight, and should be viewable afterwards as well.
I think that the font sizes are a bit small and hard to read on almost everything (graph, IR, and scoreboard labels), at least on a pad.
Ho Ho! 100% output air back into the intake...
The Energy Eater III is running smooth.
Gobbles all the output and doesn’t break a sweat...!
It will take many hours (if at all) before it melts down.
I’ll wind it down if it hits 45 C, just in case.
I'm testing a new data stream format and would appreciate some feedback on the layout. It will run for a few hours more tonight, and should be viewable afterwards as well.
External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.
I'm with Paradigmnoi on the font size, trend line width/weight, low contrast colors, etc... Hard to see for these tired old eyes even with a large monitor. I also suggest reducing the size/scale of the control panel in favor of more space for the graphic trend display. Thanks!
So here is how it went...
(Inlet temperature is ambient T immediately before recirculation hose, not the real inlet temperature)
.
.
The Sphinx Signal
I'm with Paradigmnoi on the font size, trend line width/weight, low contrast colors, etc... Hard to see for these tired old eyes even with a large monitor. I also suggest reducing the size/scale of the control panel in favor of more space for the graphic trend display. Thanks!
In response to popular demand, I've bigened the fonts and thickened the lines. Let me know if it's adequate for prime time now.
