magicsound MFMP
  • Male
  • from Santa Cruz, California USA (UTC -8)
  • Member since Jul 19th 2015
  • Last Activity:

Posts by magicsound

    The shadow effect hasn't been visible in any of the Glowstick tests. However, I did notice that if the coil expands so that there is contact with the outer cover at some spots, those places show a darker color but higher spot temperature (measured with an IR device), compared to nearby spots. I attribute that to the wire actually being cooler at those spots due to thermal conduction into the cover. The cover material gets hotter there as a result.

    @Paradigmnoia.
    The cell in the image was the Dogbone replica with the outer coil cast into the finned body. The core was a 3/8" ID alumina tube into which I inserted a finely wound Kanthal heater coil. The core power as shown on the PCE830 display was 650 watts at the time of the photo.


    The best explanation I've come up with for the back-side shadowing is that the wire of the outer winding has lower thermal emissivity than the cast body. Thus at identical temperature, it emits less visible light than the surrounding ceramic. Admittedly far-fetched but the best I could think of.

    Here's an image from the MFMP Dogbone test replicating the physical structure of the Lugano reactor. Heat is being provided by an inner coil, replacing the fuel core. The shadow of the non-powered outer coil winding is clearly visible. What's interesting is that both sides of the outer coil are visible as shadows. Can you explain what caused this?
    We concluded that the images from the Lugano report did indeed signify a source of visible light (and possibly heat) originating from inside the heater coil, brighter than the coil itself.


    @Thomas Clarke


    Our estimate of Lugano COP was based on Higgins calculations, after discussion. For my own work, I claim an error band of ±10% in thermal measurements, and ±1% in power. As I've stated before, I need to measure at least 20% excess heat before I would claim any positive result. I've not seen that in any of my test and therefore consider all of them to be null proofs.


    Experimental science is an iterative process and each of my runs has produced improvements in technique and understanding of the system. As I pointed out to Ed Storms, even a null result is useful in that way.

    @'me356
    Regarding Parkhomov's cement, he gave us (MFMP) the formulation and I tried it several times, but was unable to get it to seal hydrogen, due to micro porosity. See my online note for details:
    http://www.evernote.com/l/AXem…FyblbYyTSrJdswl9cGew0w4k/


    At ICCF19, he told me several coats, individually dried were needed. I had already tried this, and found that Parkhomov's cement formulation will not bind to alumina:
    http://www.evernote.com/l/AXeK…FMpLYlLx85OpP_c-MaaApbfs/
    We then asked him "what kind of ceramic are you using?" and found it was some kind of mullite but further details weren't available.


    By then I had started working with Swagelok aluminum ferrules, with good results. But for GS4 I tried a mullite tube and found it deteriorated and became leaky, finally breaking after about 100 hours. I attribute this to the reaction of molten Li with the silica in the ceramic. Pictures of this are included in the GS4 report at:
    http://www.quantumheat.org/ind…log/502-glowstick-gs4-run


    But you could be right, that a certain critical leakage rate is needed for this design to work.

    I call your attention to Bob Higgins' excellent analysis of the emissivity errors in the Lugano report:
    https://drive.google.com/file/…4cOM2Zl9FWDFWSUpXc0U/view
    and to MFMP's measurements of a physical replication of the Lugano reactor, using an identical factory-calibrated Optris camera and a Williamson dual-wavelength pyrometer:
    https://www.youtube.com/embed/0DY4TJmCJS8


    Based on this work, we concluded that the real COP at Lugano was around 1.2 - 1.4.

    me356:
    My last test series (GS4) used a mullite tube and AC heater power controlled by a variac. The fuel was supplied by Parkhomov, ground and mixed to his specification. No excess heat was seen.


    I consider this an accurate replication, with null result. The only difference was my use of Swagelok seals rather than cement.

    I can only speak for myself in this, but I haven't gone anywhere. My two replication attempts so far, using Parkhomov-supplied fuel, produced null results. The experiments are not particularly expensive in materials, but do take considerable time to set up, run and analyze. This is particularly true of the isotopic measurements, which are useful but not essential until excess heat is seen beyond doubt.


    As far as other reported replications, enough questions were raised by crowd peer-review that the results should not be considered conclusive. We are all chasing Rossi in this technology, and while I'm fairly confident his system works as reported, we don't have the magic formula yet. My next attempt will use some Fe2O3 type catalyst, and I have some hope it will show convincing excess heat.

    While these results are definitely encouraging, I must point out two two potential sources of error noted in my Glowstick experiments:
    1. The presence of hydrogen in tube reactors changes the thermal flow due to increased conduction. The hydrogen essentially fills the gap between the heat source and the filler rods (or in this case, the heating element). The thermal profile of the entire system is thus substantially changed from calibration without hydrogen of equal density.
    2. The morphology and thus the emissivity of ceramics changes with extended exposure to high temperatures, which impacts the accuracy of measurements made by IR emission. I observed and measured this effect in the tests at HUG in Feb. 2015, and described it in the MFMP article in Infinite Energy.


    The first problem can be resolved by calibration with hydrogen but no other active fuel in the reactor. A 'null' fuel load (without a key element such as Li) and all other internal parts should be in place for this. The second problem can be resolved by a post calibration using the same setup as described above. This requires a way of removing the active fuel, which in this case includes the heater wire. As an alternative, a calibration run equal in length to the active run would show any effect of ceramic aging on the emissivity.


    These issues have led me to estimate the measurement uncertainty of my own experiments as 20%. I would need to see a COP of 1.2 or better before claiming excess heat. The data from this experiment seems to meet that requirement, which I find very encouraging. Nice work me356!

    axil: The animated diagram shows two nuclei exchanging a neutral pion. From the same Wiki article (for the Pion):


    "The π0 meson has a mass of 135.0 MeV/c2 and a mean lifetime of 8.4×10−17 s. It decays via the electromagnetic force, which explains why its mean lifetime is much smaller than that of the charged pion (which can only decay via the weak force). The main π0 decay mode, with a branching ratio of BR=0.98823, is into two photons"


    From the very short lifetime, it seems at least some will decay while between the nuclei. Assuming the two photons are of equal energy, what would their wavelength be?


    Axil wrote
    "We can see if pions are produced randomly by SPPs, there will be confusion inside the nucleus."

    The GS4.2 reheat experiment data has finally been posted at http://data.hugnetlab.com/
    Click to VIEW FC0600 at the bottom of the test definitions list. Then click on the "From" time and set it to 9/17 03:00 using the slider controls.


    The pressure plot illustrates the reversible LiH decomposition and recombination over the range of 425-1050 °C in the core (about 50-100 degrees hotter than the outside temperatures shown).

    We ended the test run at around 21:00 utc. We learned some useful things about the reactor and the test apparatus. The data will be uploaded to a Google Docs repository later today, to be announced here.


    Regarding the Google Hangout platform, it's not necessary to have a mic or camera online, and both can be disabled easily. The important point is that there is a text chat facility that we use exclusively for these events. You enable the text sidebar by clicking on an icon at the top left of the screen. The icon is hidden until you mouse over it, and I apologize for not mentioning that earlier. A transcript of the text chat will be included in the archive if and when available.


    Thanks to Ecco and Justa Guy for their stalwart support and help.


    AlanG

    The experiment is still running, and the hangout is still active at the same link address shown above.


    We'll be doing some more heat cycles. If you have suggestions for other test parameters, feel free to chime in.

    I've started a GS4 reheat. I have a Google Hangout set up with the various data streams and chat:
    talkgadget.google.com/.../...


    If you aren't able to join directly, let me know your email and I'll send an invite.


    Today's experiment had two goals:

    • Test the Tektronix PA1000 power analyzer in a variety of operating modes. Several bugs were discovered and mostly resolved, and the instrument seems to be very accurate and works well.
    • Reheat the GS4.1 cell with lower H2 pressure. It had come down to around -2 psi (gauge) after two weeks idle. After debugging the system issues, we ran a number of heat cycles between 350 °C and 1250 °C in the core. Pressure behavior seen suggests a small but repeatable amount of reversible LiH decomposition.

    The final heat up cycle is about to begin at 06:30 utc.

    The legends on the pressure dial aren't readable unfortunately. To synchronize the data with the video, we need a "clapper" mark.


    The data file has 172550 records, or roughly one per second. So the critical point of interest (00:35) is somewhere around record number 63000.


    The attached chart shows records 63701-64500. From that we can see that the 'event' happens at record 63878


    The data file has eight columns, separated by a single space. Here are data descriptions for the columns, with the graph legend for each:
    1) Elapsed in tenths of seconds (not shown on graph)
    2) reactor temp "series 1"
    3) geiger CPM "series 2"
    4) Current (A) "series 3"
    5) Voltage (V) "series 4"
    6) Power (W) "series 5"
    7) PID Set point "series 6"
    8] Triac pwm "series 7"


    http://magicsound.us/MFMP/me356_reactor_event_.jpg

    Yes there is some confusion. We did two separate runs. The second one (GS4.2) used a new heater coil and mullite reactor cell, and was carefully calibrated before the second run. The analyses done by GED and ECCO used the correct calibration data and found no excess heat, with a data resolution of about 1% of T (±10°C).


    Your point is a good one though, in that the construction of the Glowstick design leads to some variation in the balancing of the active and null thermocouples. This must be accounted for by calibrating the two thermocouples against steady-state input power before the fuel is added. There is experimental evidence that the difference in TC readings is due to the conduction of the longer alumina filler rod in the null side of the cell.


    Hi me356,


    I wonder if you have any comments on our recent GS4 tests. This is the closest we've come to replicating Parkhomov's reported parameters, and there was no sign of excess heat beyond the range of measurement uncertainty. I'd appreciate your insight towards designing the next test.


    Thanks,
    Alan Goldwater / MFMP


    I am perfectly sure that it will work. At this time there is no room to be sceptic as there are so many cases with success.


    We have still not replicated Focardi/Piantelli work which may be prerequisite for Rossi effect. LENR is probably very sensitive for inpurities so we need very tight lab conditions to make it work.
    If it was that easy, then LENR was discovered much sooner.

    Bob, check also the start of the Padua data for a zero gauge pressure reference point. The sensor has an accuracy spec of 2% of full scale, so the possible error at zero is ±32 psi. I suspect it may be showing atmospheric pressure within the error margin. You'll also have to account for any difference from the supply voltage used at Padua.


    AlanG


    MFMP fb page



    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content 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.


    Quote

    Here is an overview of the in-progress set-up of the equipment for non-contact long term control of reactors - currently attached to the Padua cell.It is hoped that data for the following will be available.PCE-830 power monitoringOptris Pi 160 monitoring1000 5V pulse per 1kw hour pulses in streamAmbient temp K-TypeTemperature from IR gun (outside core, outside cement)Temperature from K-Type (outside core, embedded in cement)Pulse to triacPressureCounts per minute from Geiger Counter

    [/quote]