Posts by Paradigmnoia

    The 72 W power drop/recovery part is something other than a reactor cooling heating effect, in my opinion, because it took 12000 seconds to raise the power from 60 W to 70 W the first time, and around 1200 seconds the next few times. Without overshooting the previous maximum of 70 W. The largest thermal mass in the calorimeter is the reactor, which as seen from the calibration and excess periods, requires a long time period to change temperature and therefore the outlet air temperature from which power is calculated.


    More similar to someone opening the side panel and putting it back on.

    Thank you.


    Your box is much better insulated than the Saito calorimeter shown in Figure 1 (1). The latter has a metal frame, probably in aluminum, and only one layer of bubble foil which separates the interior space from the external air. Needless to say, I would be very curious to see what would happen if you remove the interior acrylic box and leave only the exterior bubble box. Maybe it could be the right sort of artifact inducement to attempt.


    (1) https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MizunoTsupplement.pdf

    As was discussed on this thread earlier, bubble foil is terrible as insulation if it can conduct heat anywhere. The reflective properties of bubble foil are only effective when used with an air gap on both sides, in still air. (The R value of bubble foil is 1.)

    Have you tried to direct the air flow from a fan heater to the exterior walls of your box?

    Maybe it's possible to reproduce the strange behavior shown in Figure 6. "Calibration and excess heat at 72 W."

    See also The NEDO Initiative - Japan's Cold Fusion Programme

    I am attempting several sorts of artifact inducement. So far the calorimeter is remarkably robust.


    My box currently has an air gap between the exterior bubble foil and the acrylic box, so outside influences are minimal. The interior acrylic can heat up, but transfers little to the outer surface (or vice-versa, presumably). Previous tests showed about a 10% improvement in heat recovery from adding the air gap.


    Previously, before the air gap was introduced, active cooling of the outside would probably have lowered the maximum interior temperature, and therefore decrease the outlet air temperature.


    The MOT saturates very easily, so it needs a ballast or it will probably burn. Often additional MOTs with shorted secondaries installed in series are used for that purpose.


    Edit: A few years ago while scrounging around for MOTs, two appliance repairpersons from different shops told me the same thing:

    "If you are messing around with MOTs to get sparks, you need two more things on hand at all times: Someone to give you CPR and someone to call the ambulance while CPR is going on."

    Data from last test plotted up and examined.

    Ended up with a best Delta T of 15.9, which is 0.1 C less than the previous maximum. With input power bouncing around a little bit, that is basically the same.

    However, steady-state operation began an hour earlier than previous tests, so reducing the calorimeter air inlet opening (but not actually causing an air restriction), was a good improvement.

    .

    A CRT or oil heater igniter flyback transformer is much safer than a MOT

    Are you sure? One=I .... wouldn't

    The cp/density difference btw 20/40 C air is 6.76 %

    I would also make sure to check my calorimeter RTD's

    to check that they are not underreading or overreading by 0.25C

    if 10W is a significant quantity.


    Now I can deal with this comment.

    So, is it then about a 4 C difference from calibration that reports as 150 W extra?

    Are you sure? One=I .... wouldn't

    The cp/density difference btw 20/40 C air is 6.76 %

    I would also make sure to check my calorimeter RTD's

    to check that they are not underreading or overreading by 0.25C

    if 10W is a significant quantity.


    That looks like the volumetric thermal expansion rate for air from 20 to 40 C, for which I have 6.82 %.

    So... 0.932 m3 at 20 C goes in, and comes out at 1 m3 at 40 C....

    ...redo some math...

    Neato! 0.1% difference between methods. That seems essentially irrelevant, which makes me feel better about the vanilla delta T method.

    That also means that the hot wire anemometer use will lead to about the same error (6.8%) if it is not corrected from NTP velocity to Actual velocity for the Actual conditions at 40 C.

    If one simply multiplies the delta T at (example) 40 C from 20 C (a delta of 20 degrees or 20 K) and use the air density and air specific heat for 40 C, instead of calculating the energy in 20 C air and subtracting it from 40 C air energy per cubic m, then a 10% excess can be incorrectly calculated per cubic m.