Posts by Paradigmnoia

    dselke , not meaning to be hostile or attacking your work, I am also thinking what exactly is being claimed as the relationship of this experiment to hydrinos.

    The “excess heat” claim is based upon a theoretical estimation of maximum expected chemical energy release.


    Now let’s say the excess heat is proven beyond any reasonable doubt (we have yet to hear from our resident skeptics all the ways in which the experiment is incorrect Regards to calorimetry), then this excess heat can be proof of LENR, UDH or even Magnehydrogen formation. How do you tell is hydrinos?


    In other words, can you provide the Mills model based equation that predicts this excess heat over expected chemical reaction, in order to claim the experiment proves the equation valid?

    Best to wait for the reaction product analyses. It is hard to exclude excess heat over chemical heat when the chemical product is unknown/unverified.

    Using the measurement of excess heat is an unreliable indicator for an active LENR reaction. A more reliable indicator is the detection of transmutation. MFMP has shown the production of transmutation in LION material. In one case, The SEM data shows the production of extensive and all pervasive transmuted material in diamond which starts out as pure carbon. In another view of LION reactor material, Quartz is shown to be transmuted. In these cases, the hallmark of the EVO is apparent in these observations. Transmutation provides a stable record of the LENR reaction that is fixed in time. For example, a solid ball of mixed transmuted elements are found inside and at one end of an enclosed and empty tunnel of diamond and in other cases inside an empty tunnel of quartz. This record of transmutation is static and not susceptible to changing conditions. Experimental control is provided by the purity of the material in which the transmutation took place and the spherical form that the completely enclosed and encapsulated transmuted materia assumed.

    Then they should make a pail of transmutation diamond and a pail of transmutation quartz, sell it for a billion dollars as incontrovertible proof of whatever and fund whatever they want forever.

    It is abundantly clear that there are individuals here who are quite confident that their tireless scouring of fringe websites provides far greater scientific acumen than advanced degrees and decades of research experience.

    Indeed.

    Or even 5 minutes of experience often.


    I can’t even get any of the Brown’s Gas/HHO aficionados to ‘put their money where their mouth is’ and put the ‘cold flame’ torch to their hands properly.
    Or even a pseudo-hand made of chicken.

    Finally got the REED read reading smoothly.

    (There way too many ways to handle characters, strings, Strings, pointers, addresses, and arrays in C it seems.)


    These in the image are printing a new line each time a fresh REED sentence is analysed and the respective thermocouple temperature is updated.

    However, the program will normally run in the background and the temperatures can taken from the most recent values at any time.


    Whatever complete REED thermocouple channel sentence is read first's array is updated immediately, no matter what channel arrives first (or in what order).

    Broken, incomplete, or out of range sentences are ignored and discarded. Note two sets of diagnostic temperature values that also identify the TC channels.

    9999 is blank spaces in TC data, meaning open thermocouple, (and also bad non-decimal number character in sentence temperature bytes, in this program).


    This one just happens to have the first complete TC 1 update sentence reported by the REED occur last, immediately after the start of the program.

    .


    I see two websites that say this:

    "950 Palladium is made up from 95% Palladium with the rest made up from a combination of Ruthenium and Gallium"

    I don't see a website that mentions silver as being the 5%.


    The risk is that the Palladium 950 is too hard even in the annealed condition and it won't rub properly onto the nickel mesh.

    I did a quick look for less than 1 oz palladium and it is scarce. I suggest a group of replicators go ‘pieces of eight’ with a 9995 palladium Maple Leaf Oz (Troy) and that is just about 4 grams each.

    Promotion is good, when not over-the-top. I’m not suggesting a Super Bowl halftime show.

    Just simple plots with easily comparable before and after, without adding what was not measured.


    Like: “Here is our house paint vs the competition after 5 years of Mohave Desert sunshine <image of two squares of paint, side by side>. “

    Not: “Here is a computer- enhanced photo of our house paint after 5 years in the Mohave Desert showing what it looks like if it was on the mostly shady side of the of house <image of paint square>. The sunny side was faded more but everyone knows that. Here are a half dozen other photos of the paint in sun, out of the sun, at different exposure periods. You can work out what our paint looks like after 5 years in the desert sun by comparing these photos and working out a pixel colour adjustment formula.”


    Or: “Here is a plot of 300 W excess heat, if we recovered all of it, which we didn’t , <image of line curving to a flat line about 150 W above input line>. If you are lucky there is another image somewhere on the Internet of a calibration at the same or similar input showing only the measured heat, which probably has a curving line that eventually levels out around 150 W below the input line. If you want to know what the first plot looks like with only measured heat, use this mathematical formula <formula here> somehow on the first .jpeg image, or just squish the image down with Photoshop a bit while leaving the y axis values in place, or use your imagination. Squint or tilt your screen away from you, and you will get the idea, maybe.”

    Perhaps Paradigmnoia could promote his vacuum system..in his schedule.. which is essential for replication,,,. rather than noise...

    I have no plans for real vacuum anything. I managed around 27 in Hg with a Food Saver and a big syringe, with some good one-way valves. I could rough the Food Saver down in big gulps by pumping the syringe and using Jar mode. Enough to get full glow discharge in regular air vacuum, with a cargo-culted , Rossi-esque XD device.
    Enough also to decide that some current is needed to do real work, which requires probably the arc end of things, for which high vacuum probably isn’t necessary.


    As for vacuum inside the Mizuno thing, I don’t see how it can affect the calorimeter except by changing the device heating rate, which goes away at steady state. So I hereby declare, unless someone has great reason to resuade me, that the only vacuum that might have a tiny (but probably measurable) effect will that which is inside the calorimeter box, (due to the fan-inlet pressure differential), not the inside of the reactor or null devices.

    (Actually, it would be easier to change the y-axis scale and then raise the input curve, since it is a straight line. Don't bother with a computer. Print it and use a pen, the old fashioned way.)

    Or just take the calibration input power, multiply by 0.69 (which is what almost all Saito examples show: 69% heat recovery), and presto! There is the measured output power at steady state.
    I would expect the same losses/ heat recovery factor for excess, since it is so linear.

    Adjusting the graphs for losses is the same type of adjustment as not showing that the measured power happens to be same as input power (which is probably coincidence since 100% recovery is unlikely). It is promotional. However it can be confusing.


    Promotional is fine, really, unless this is something that one prefers to remain in a few labs and garages forever. Make it look good, but with as little data massaging as possible. Sometimes emphasizing something looks like de-emphasizing or obscuring something else, even if that is not the intent.

    Do the calibrations get adjusted for losses? Not often, it seems.


    Why not just show uncorrected calibration power and uncorrected excess power, both, with a respective (same) input power trace? Then we can easily look at the losses for the calibration if we want to.


    (I wouldn’t be surprised if the excess power fluctuations are magnified by the loss correction.)

    Maybe I’m wrong, but printing graphs with estimated output watts instead of the actual measured output watts because the actual output watts land on the input watts trace is a promotional problem.

    Yes, but that proves there is a lot of excess heat, because it is far below the calibration input power line during all calibrations at these power levels. For it to be on the calibration input power line, the box would have to be perfectly insulated. Perfect insulation does not exist, and in any case, this is far from perfect. You can see the heat coming from the box with an IR camera.

    Yes, but not much more insulation would put the power trace somewhere else, and then no one would mention it again.

    If there is no problem, then the temperature is doing exactly what you see there. That graph is the temperature. So I don't understand why you ask what the temperature is doing.

    The graph is the delta T, mixed with a whole bunch of other stuff, some measured, some calculated, so it is more like a diluted temperature plot.
    The actual temperature traces may contain more information.

    If there is no problem, I don’t see any need to keep the temperatures secret.

    The graph is all I have, so I don't know the details. However, the ambient temperature in this lab is much more stable than Mizuno's, and the equipment is better, so I assume inlet temperature was quite steady and the outlet was bouncing around as shown in the graph. As you know, the graph actually plots outlet minus inlet temperatures, with a fudge factor to convert that value into watts. It is not actually watts measured directly. So, that bump has to be the outlet temperature. I assume it reflects an actual change in power, rather than an instrument glitch. I could be wrong, but I expect they would have found a glitch and tossed out the data. They wouldn't have sent the graph.

    I don’t assume that it is some sort of problem. I am just curious as to what the temperature is doing, since the heat fluctuations are presumed to be caused by a reaction.

    Sometimes the reaction (or whatever) seems to start right away, with no fluctuations, and other times there are these sinusoidal periods.

    I wonder what the difference is.

    What is the inlet and outlet temperature doing at the area of the bump just after Wout > Win?