After lots of poking around, overall results are that the fan makes 0.5 C DT, and the calorimeter box makes 0.2 C DT. I don’t have the resolution, but it is actually probably 0.45 C DT due to the fan, and 0.25 C DT from the calorimeter box for whatever reason.
Also, 1 hr steady state with 100 W lamp was DT of 7.4 C
and 200 W input is DT 15.3 C
Probably should do a few more to confirm the numbers before theorizing.
Will leave the fan intake thermocouple in place for a while.
Yes I know that is your theory, but the marks I posted from were embedded deep inside A metallic rock found in Chile, not in the surface.
How did they look inside a metal rock?
Multibody wear marks are almost to be expected on ground or polished surfaces. I recognized the patterns immediately having seen them many times before working in a machine shop a long time ago. Anyone can duplicate them easily with two CDs or DVDs and some dust. Dust collected from the finest grades of sandpaper works especially well. Don’t grind, just ever so gently glide the CDs across each other, dial one way then the other for the V traces once you get good at it...
Right before the forum went down, and prompted by the recent mention and emphasis that Bob Greenyer has put into the patent that Solin got granted (from another one with priority in 1992, about which Bob has been greatly interested in the tracks and marks found in the zirconium that are similar to others found across many LENR systems) I had been looking for further information about Mikhail Solin, and this thread was one of the results brought back by google
.....
I missed this earlier. See:
Loosened the fan to a 4 mm gap between the 12 mm thick fan gasket and the calorimeter lid, to let the fan suck in lots of outside air. Almost no change in total DT. (! Unsteady 0.1C drop.)
Took one of the inlet TCs and installed it between the fan gasket and the calorimeter lid, so 12 mm ahead of the outlet blower fan intake side, in the center of the airstream. Tightened fan back up.
Fan on: fan intake TC temperature is halfway between the calorimeter inlet and outlet temperature. Solid 0.4 C DT between fan intake and outlet. 0.7 to 0.8 C DT fairly steady between calorimeter intake and outlet.
Fan off: calorimeter top/fan intake side temperature climbs 0.1 to 0.2 C above the fan-running outlet temperature. The outlet temperature drops about 0.1 C.
Few businesses release their IP..especially so in LENR. That said, I was more curious about the format, wording, photos...for now?
Claiming a mass produced version is probably a poor idea at this stage, as well as 100 kW fantasies.
The first part, explaining that the company is based in Hokkaido and Sapporo is not very clear. The first and last sentence should be combined and streamlined.
The site overall looks nice.
Paradigmnoia: You probably know this - just pointing this out:
For room temperature measurements, Type J gives better sensitivity - and if you use multiple thermocouples, you can average the readings which will give more accuracy with less drift.
If you can, use multiple RTD's or the most accurate is thermistors. But thermocouples are the easiest to set up obviously. Watch out for room temperature conducting up the TC probe and affecting the reading. Need a good amount of length in the air flow to counteract that.
Two outlet thermocouples, two inlet thermocouples, of which all four are from a matched set of five thermocouples, all of which agree when the tips are all in the same spot. A third outlet temperature sensor is built into the Bosch BME280 atmospheric pressure/temperature/humidity sensor. Two other stand alone RTD sensors with digital displays plus a mechanical thermometer monitoring the air temperature around the calorimeter (but these are not recorded).
The “extra temperature” is there when no heat source is active in the box.
In other words everything is at room temperature.
Easy enough to fiddle with anyways, since the two inlet and two outlet thermocouples are connected to a dedicated thermocouple datalogger with a live digital display for all 4 channels, (and then that digital TC data goes to the main datalogger along with recorded voltages, currents, BME280 data, etc.
Rather uninformative, and it is a bit odd listing reports of replications without showing or explaining what Mizunotech has that was being replicated.
It’s an alright start.
Sorry, that was supposed to be a reply to Alan S.
Good work, and although there may be room for further improvement, air flow calorimetry is generally thought to have reduced precision compared to other techniques.
About ±0.5°C is the best stability I've been able to get from type K TC's. It seems to me you may have established a calibration constant and reached the precision limit for the system. That said, in the power domain 12 watts is a pretty big difference. That's about what I established for the Glowstick system, using just differential thermometry in open still air.
I figured the outlet fan would have blown any stratified air out of the box pretty quick.
I am running a 100 W input test to try and see if the apparent extra bit of heat is additive, like a positive offset on the DT, or if it is just there when there is no real source of heat.
Is there such thing as a thermoelectret?
Today the box is merrily making a Delta T of 0.7 to 1.0 C with no heat source.
It was making it without the fan on, after sitting at ambient for the last 20 hours or so.
Fan on, almost no change. Fan cover off-on almost no change.
Thermocouples checked/swapped, heated and allowed to restabilize...
Fan on, fan off.
Still doing it.
a DT of 1.0 C is equivalent to about 12.65 W.
A similar thought had briefly crossed my mind, but rather than a container - plant composed of many E-cats, what Rossi is talking about is an E-cat SKL manufacturing plant.
It will be a bundle of hairs, 50 SKLs per cm in a plasma fibre rope of any desired output.
How do you know?
Rossisaid on Dec 7.
All these historical events at least had pictures, articles, real humans showing up next to Rossi. For the last 1.5 years we have nothing but Rossisays on his blog. Along with devolvement of claims (it used to be closed loop, now no longer) This is exactly what Shane predicted. Just letting the scam ride until only the most stupid/naive/gullible/desperate/idealistic hang on. Really sad.
Now he’s already back to building some sort of Plant made of many ecat thingys again.
Because a giant complicated contraption is way more believable than a single table-top device that runs itself.
Display MoreYou can see my interpretation of the layout of the 1 MW plant in the jpeg (1) I posted on EnergeticAmbiente (2) a few days after the October 28 test.
(1) https://i.imgur.com/B51xW5x.jpg
(2) https://www.energeticambiente.…265944.html#post119265944
Italian/English:
Pompa EP (Esterni Posteriori) = (External Rear modules) Pump
Pompa EA (Esterni Anteriori) = (External Front modules) Pump
S (Sinistra) = Left
D (Destra) = Right
Passacavi = Cable sleeve
Contatore = Water meter
Vasca = Tank
The 2012 Popular Science article shows a photo of many of those metering pumps bolted to the ‘steam’ outlet end of the blue container Plant, which are probably the ones that ended up in an array at the double door end of the Doral red container Plant.
Please, watch the video and look on the roof of the container.
The video wasn’t working, but I found a photo of Stirling next to the container on the 28th, that has the boxes on top, foil covered. So the extra reactors have been there for a long time,
Thanks.
Where were the pumps for the roof reactors before the 2012 Pop Sci article? They didn’t appear on the ‘steam’ outlet end until Ferrara it seems.
I didn't.
All these tests can be dis-proven:
The other tests, IMO, can be ignored.
I think the external modules showed up a bit later than October 28, 2011, but before May 2012.
They were present at the Validation, eventually becoming “Tigers”, then “Big Frankies” ca. 2013-2014 after being fitted inside the new longer red Plant container.
I'm not sure what you mean by sensitivity here. Leaks mainly seem to (substantially) affect the time constant. They seem to have a pretty much undetectable effect on the eventual steady-state deltaT (I think because the intentional leak out of the exhaust opening in the top of the calorimeter is so much bigger in comparison). I assume that the increase in sensitivity appearing as the difference between the blue and red traces in Paradigmnoia's plot is due to the use of extra insulation.
The leak at the fan, which is ‘sucking’ air ideally from the inside of the box, lets in unheated air, reducing the apparent outlet temperature, and therefore reducing apparent power across the whole experiment.
A leak of air almost anywhere else, inside the box, is not much different than coming in through the inlet. There is not much pressure difference to drive substantial leaks compared to the large (75 mm) inlet hole. The small leaks add up to a small decrease in overall calculated output efficiency, which is true.
The removal of about 20 kg total mass from inside the calorimeter envelope gave all the rate increases.
Heat only the air, ideally.
Nice! I am amazed at the difference that sealing leaks makes. I suppose that this is something that becomes particularly important when you have forced-air cooling.
Now that you have lots of experience with this type of calorimetry, have you come across anything in your non-LENR system that would account for the difference between the active and inactive runs in the papers by Rothwell and Mizuno?
I haven’t even sealed the panels yet. The small leak at the fan (just upstream of the outlet thermocouples) was probably a bigger issue for measurement than the possible leaks at panel joins which are overlapped and a convoluted way for air to sneak in (and be heated by the inside air anyways).
Eliminating the excess mass of bricks and the heavy acrylic box has shortened the warm up time by 3 hours, and the same for cool down. It was pretty much at steady state when I remembered to put on the fan cover. I’ll test that again today, with the fan cover on from the start. It is just a box made of foam, not really sealed but enough to keep the fan heat loss to a minimum. The exposed fan heat loss is about twice what the fan consumes in power.
There are several potential pathways to erroneous results in this method, but a method that results in getting positive errors in only the “activated” experiments is something that I cannot explain in a consistent, believable way. Most errors in the measurements or method will cause a constant offset in all tests. The air inlet area geometry and the outlet fan connection to the box are the most sensitive areas for transient errors. Since the Delta Temperature is directly proportional to the measured outlet power, getting a strong temperature : power response ratio is important to weeding out artefacts.
The main thing is now a round trip, heat-cool cycle is shortened from 6-8 hours to 2-3 hours, meaning various things can be tested about 3 times faster. Plus I still have a separate, original Mizuno configuration to compare to.
So, took out the bricks, made a stage with SS plate with curled edges for stiffness, supported on two ceramic "angle iron" shaped pieces.
Fixed a slight leak at the fan inlet, reinforced the fan hold down screw bosses... And it heats up realllly quick now.
Check it out.
.
