Re: [Vo]:Celani demonstration
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Does it mean that you have now seen first ever scientifically demonstrable quantum reactor that producess clear and replicable anomalous heat effect? No, I have seen several. This is not even the first time a cold fusion reactor has been demonstrated at an ICCF conference. Cravens brought a nice Patterson reactor to an ICCF conference once. The instrumentation is elegant here but the reactor vessel is somewhat crude and it leaks. The calorimetry is very simple. Celani is going to discuss it momentarily. The engineer from TI is easier to understand. He now understands it quite well. Back in Austin I hear the president and CEO assisted setting it up, enthusiastically and hands on. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Celani demonstration
how does he determine the ouput ? harry On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 1:14 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Celani has set up his demonstration cell. The people from TI reworked the instruments and the LabView code that collects data. They did a beautiful job. Celani just told me that he inputs 48 W constantly. This morning it did not work. They ran it and let it cool to clean it. They tried again about an hour ago and it began to produce ~4 W excess fairly soon. It climbs gradually up to ~20 W gradually and stays stable after that. Very impressive. Peter Hagelste - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Celani demonstration
Jed, Thanks for the live report! Isn't it NI instead of TI? Just to avoid giving credit to competitors that do not bring anything to the field... mic Il giorno 14/ago/2012 08:03, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com ha scritto: Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote: Does it mean that you have now seen first ever scientifically demonstrable quantum reactor that producess clear and replicable anomalous heat effect? No, I have seen several. This is not even the first time a cold fusion reactor has been demonstrated at an ICCF conference. Cravens brought a nice Patterson reactor to an ICCF conference once. The instrumentation is elegant here but the reactor vessel is somewhat crude and it leaks. The calorimetry is very simple. Celani is going to discuss it momentarily. The engineer from TI is easier to understand. He now understands it quite well. Back in Austin I hear the president and CEO assisted setting it up, enthusiastically and hands on. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Celani demonstration
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: how does he determine the ouput ? Briefly: The abstract says that at the lab they have a precision flow calorimeter. Here they are using crude thermometry in an uncontrolled environment. That is, a room full of people crowded around the machine, with currents of air and so on. Not a constant temperature incubator. That is obviously inaccurate but you cannot transport a flow calorimeter. The cell is equipped with two wires. One for calibration which I think is nichrome. It is gray, anyway. The other, working wire is constantan (Isotan 44) treated by Celani to be a lot more porous and absorbent. By thermometry I mean they turn on the 48 W heater or the working wire and watch the temperature stabilize at 120 deg C. That is the minimum temperature below which this material will not load, and no effect can be seen. This is straight DC power coming from a high quality power supply. As you would expect when there is no excess the temperature is very stable. The temperature stabilizes for a while even with the working wire. This morning it was flat. No indication of excess heat. When excess heat begins it fluctuates considerably, climbing and falling, from one minute to the next. With this kind of gas calorimeter, the increase in temperature is proportional to the excess heat, although not linear. When I did similar calorimetry years ago with Mizuno I found the response was stable, repeatable and predictable, and the fact that it is not linear is unimportant. (With something like LabView you can just tell it to be linear anyway. Throw in a fudge factor, or probably nowadays tell it to figure out the fudge factor.) Rob Duncan told me that the major problem with this arrangement would be changes in heat loss because of changes in convection. Convection dominates. If anything, he expects convection would increase as the gas moves faster, and this would lower the temperature. There is one thing that might raise the temperature slightly. The cell has a leak. It is initially pressurized to 20 atm. It loses 1 atm over 8 hours. That could not explain the anomalous temperature increase for two reasons: 1. The temperature rise happens too soon. 2. A leak is probably fairly steady, causing a steady, linear increase in temperature. It would never decrease. It would not fluctuate rapidly. When they brought the cell to Texas it had a variety of different instrument types attached, with LabView software written by various physicists and other non-experts. The people at NI looked at it -- actually, Truchard, the president and CEO himself looked at it, I gather -- and said let's get rid of everything but the cell. They replaced all instruments, computers, the interface box etc.; they put in the latest version of LabView and rewrote the code. So now it is as good as any instrument I have ever seen. It looks like a product brochure illustration. Except the method is still crude. At one point Truchard said, what this needs is an IR sensor for the surface temperature. He jumped in his car, drove to an electronics store and came back with a handheld IR sensor. He said: This was on sale. I got a great deal on it! The IR sensor is sitting on the table. That's the way the NI engineer told me the story, anyway. They say it is typical of Truchard. Input power is steady at 48 W both in Texas and here. Anomalous output was 5 W and climbing when I last saw it. In Texas it peaked at 21 W. I think Celani said that is a typical result. In other words, 48 + 21 = 69 W. I think that even crude thermometry should be adequate to measure a difference as large as this. I would call this a trade-show demonstration. That is, not something perfectly convincing in itself, but something that gives you feel for what the product is like. I doubt that the ENEA labs are incapable of measuring the difference between 48 and 69 W. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Celani demonstration
Michele Comitini michele.comit...@gmail.com wrote: Isn't it NI instead of TI? Yes. Both in Texas. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Celani demonstration
Celani's spoken English is hard to understand. Many details of his presentation escaped me. I will ask him for copies of the slides. He is usually happy to share them. He concluded by saying he plans to improve the insulation and put it in self-sustaining mode, soon. That is to say, trigger the reaction with external power much less than 48 W, and then when it heats up anomalously, cut the external power and let it run in heat after death mode indefinitely. The current does stimulate wire activity, I guess with electromigration, but it is not essential once the reaction can begin. That will put to rest any concerns about the calorimetry, needless to say. That is a good idea. Celani is no fool. He says he thinks the wire acts mainly as a proton conductor. Pure, clean, as-received constantan does not work. The stuff is very cheap, by the way. Available in unlimited amounts. I think he said the longest run with this device in Italy was 2 months continuous. The biggest technical hurdle with this and the other wires he has been working on is that the wire breaks. Hydrogen embrittlement, I suppose. Constantan is not particularly immune to this but it seems to hold up at high temperatures. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Celani demonstration
Hi Jed, When you say they cleaned it, what exactly did they do? Do you mean vacuum pumping it? Or rinsing it with H2? Or did they somehow give treatment to the wire? If this step apparently is so important and leaving it out is prohibitive for the results, I'd like to understand that better. One thing I also fail to understand of Celani's setup is when he talks about switching from the active (treated) wire to the inactive (stock ISOTAN44?) wire as a control experiment. As far as I understand, both wires are in the tube simultaneously. What does this switching comprise of? Is he applying a DC current to the wire? (And -- just to make sure I understand -- this then is different from the power applied to the heater?) Thanks! Andre On 08/14/2012 01:14 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Celani has set up his demonstration cell. The people from TI reworked the instruments and the LabView code that collects data. They did a beautiful job. Celani just told me that he inputs 48 W constantly. This morning it did not work. They ran it and let it cool to clean it. They tried again about an hour ago and it began to produce ~4 W excess fairly soon. It climbs gradually up to ~20 W gradually and stays stable after that. Very impressive. Peter Hagelstein considers this an important experiment. All of the papers from this conference have already been submitted (except mine) and will be on line soon. (Mine is not ready because they told me a week beforehand to write one.) - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Celani demonstration
On 2012-08-14 14:36, Andre Blum wrote: One thing I also fail to understand of Celani's setup is when he talks about switching from the active (treated) wire to the inactive (stock ISOTAN44?) wire as a control experiment. As far as I understand, both wires are in the tube simultaneously. What does this switching comprise of? Is he applying a DC current to the wire? (And -- just to make sure I understand -- this then is different from the power applied to the heater?) As far as I understand there are two wires in Celani's demo setup. One is inert, one is active (the treated ISOTAN44 wire). The inert wire acts as a heater and as a calibration/control wire. The treated ISOTAN44 wire over a certain temperature threshold will show excess heat even if heated indirectly. This is what is shown at beginning of the experiment by applying DC current to the inert wire only. At a later time of the experiment, DC current to the inert wire is switched off and gets applied instead to the active wire, which shows even greater excess heat than when heated indirectly. Celani concludes this shows the active material has a positive feedback with temperature, a phenomenon which has also been reported by Rossi. Incidentally, the ashes Rossi gave to Kullander for analysis about a year ago contained large amounts of copper together with nickel and other materials in small amounts at a natural isotopic ratio. I speculate that these were not ashes (in theory they were supposed to demonstrated Ni-Cu fusion) but part of the active powder instead (probably without the proprietary catalyst). Clever diversion by Rossi. The fusion theory (which he doesn't appear to believe in anymore) was probably a red herring to gain a time advantage: pure nickel doesn't work as good as other alloys. To all effects and purposes, Celani's demonstrative cell (assuming there are no gross errors in calorimetry, although his cell in his laboratory at Frascati, Italy, should have a more sophisticated one) demonstrates that Rossi's E-Cat does work at least in principle. In my opinion this is a huge achievement for the entire LENR field, which should make other researchers/experimenters think twice before keeping working on historically problematic Pd-D electrolytic systems. Ni-H gas loaded cells are cheaper, easier to set up, easier to replicate, and show a better observable effect. And we need more data. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Celani demonstration
In my opinion this is a huge achievement for the entire LENR field, which should make other researchers/experimenters think twice before keeping working on historically problematic Pd-D electrolytic systems. Ni-H gas loaded cells are cheaper, easier to set up, easier to replicate, and show a better observable effect. And we need more data. Cheers, S.A. I agree that it is a major major milestone. A fully reproducible and even portable setup that delivers multi-Watt excess heat. Normally this should have us dancing in the street. Ironically, we are not, because there are promises of something so much better even around the corner. I also personally feel that it is a major implicit endorsement for Rossi. It *seems* like Celani has bent his experiments towards the direction taken by Rossi since early 2011. And lo and behold, he gets (1) the 100% reproducibility Rossi claimed; and (2) power levels that start to matter. This is something we have gradually grown to in the last 1.5 years, but keep in mind that it was not a trivial thing to shout in January 2011. At least it is safe to say these results certainly do not prove Rossi wrong. Thanks for your explanation about the wires. As you may know I am involved in the FusionCatalyst.org efforts to come up with an open source hardware and software setup for hydrogen loading / fusion experiments (I write the controller software on the embedded linux board that aids in making this setup much more affordable while very flexible). This project is now in a shape that Bastiaan has started to run experiments. So far, with pure (micron sized) nickel powder, he has not seen excess heat. We are at a point now where we have to decide on a direction to take for next experiments. Maybe you are right that we should try with alloys. Andre
Re: [Vo]:Celani demonstration
On 2012-08-14 15:43, Andre Blum wrote: [...] has not seen excess heat. We are at a point now where we have to decide on a direction to take for next experiments. Maybe you are right that we should try with alloys. Remember that material surface nano/micro structures appear to be very important, at least in Celani's case. Excessively large or even excessively small structures are detrimental for the excess heat effect. Try reading recent papers and presentation by Francesco Celani from LENR-CANR.org for more details. This can be a good start: http://www.iscmns.org/work10/Celani.pdf (not on lenr-canr.org, but it's available there too AFAIK). I don't remember if Francesco Celani ever got much in detail on how the material treatment is performed. Apparently a paper dedicated on this aspect alone is under preparation. That will be interesting to check out when it will be released. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Celani demonstration -- Other ICCF17 Comments
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/08/report-from-iccf-17/ Report from ICCF-17August 14, 2012 I thought this comment from Tyler van Houwelingen deserved to be in separate post. Thanks Tyler! Greetings from ICCF-17, After seeing the DGT presentation, speaking with them and speaking with people who have been onsite to see the hyperion in Greece, my take is that they are farther away from having a commercial ready device than we had hoped. Based on what people are telling me here with first hand knowledge, as recently as 3 weeks ago they were still unable to obtain stable demos of their technology (problems with the spark plugs failing), thus I suspect no chance of any 3rd party results soon as we had hoped and they had promised. They stated something along these lines yesterday, saying now they will release 3rd party results only after receiving certification. That said, DGT does appear to be pretty sound both with the science and engineering, however I believe they will need more resources and a bit of luck to get this to market in the next 6-12 months. IMHO Brillouin is also very solid, as we knew, but still probably at least 1 year from commercial readiness as well. IMHO That just leaves Rossi in the short term and there are lots of mixed messages about him. Some things people with first hand knowledge are telling me makes me more confident, some things less. At this point on day 2 of the show I am lowering my optimism of commercial readiness in my presentation a bit. Maybe it will come back up before Friday when I present, we shall see. By the way, Celanis demo is being setup now and looks AWESOME. Finally seeing LENR first hand is very cool. With 25W excess heat expected, I will see if we can boil some water for the coffee here at the conference . tyler In addition, Jed Rothewell has been reporting on vortex-l about the Celani device that is being set up at the meeting:
Re: [Vo]:Celani demonstration -- Other ICCF17 Comments
Sorry if I missed this come across the wire last week: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/08/07/lenr-gets-major-boost-from-national-instruments/ Thought it was a great article and was surprised to see our dear old friend Mary Yugu as chatty as ever in the comments at the bottom of the article. Joe On 08/14/2012 04:12 PM, Alan J Fletcher wrote: http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/08/report-from-iccf-17/ http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/08/report-from-iccf-17/ *Report from ICCF-17* August 14, 2012 /I thought this comment from Tyler van Houwelingen deserved to be in separate post. Thanks Tyler! /Greetings from ICCF-17, After seeing the DGT presentation, speaking with them and speaking with people who have been onsite to see the hyperion in Greece, my take is that they are farther away from having a commercial ready device than we had hoped. Based on what people are telling me here with first hand knowledge, as recently as 3 weeks ago they were still unable to obtain stable demos of their technology (problems with the spark plugs failing), thus I suspect no chance of any 3rd party results soon as we had hoped and they had promised. They stated something along these lines yesterday, saying now they will release 3rd party results only after receiving certification. That said, DGT does appear to be pretty sound both with the science and engineering, however I believe they will need more resources and a bit of luck to get this to market in the next 6-12 months. IMHO Brillouin is also very solid, as we knew, but still probably at least 1 year from commercial readiness as well. IMHO That just leaves Rossi in the short term and there are lots of mixed messages about him. Some things people with first hand knowledge are telling me makes me more confident, some things less. At this point on day 2 of the show I am lowering my optimism of commercial readiness in my presentation a bit. Maybe it will come back up before Friday when I present, we shall see. By the way, Celanis demo is being setup now and looks AWESOME. Finally seeing LENR first hand is very cool. With 25W excess heat expected, I will see if we can boil some water for the coffee here at the conference tyler /In addition, Jed Rothewell has been reporting on vortex-l about the Celani device that is being set up at the meeting: /
Re: [Vo]:Celani demonstration -- Other ICCF17 Comments
At 01:47 PM 8/14/2012, Joe Hughes wrote: Sorry if I missed this come across the wire last week: http://blog.newenergytimes.com/2012/08/07/lenr-gets-major-boost-from-national-instruments/ Thought it was a great article and was surprised to see our dear old friend Mary Yugu as chatty as ever in the comments at the bottom of the article. Joe The usual old blank run, no calorimeter ... very neatly put down by martinezrr in the next post
Re: [Vo]:Celani demonstration
Thanks for the detailed answer. Harry On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 6:26 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: how does he determine the ouput ? Briefly: The abstract says that at the lab they have a precision flow calorimeter. Here they are using crude thermometry in an uncontrolled environment. That is, a room full of people crowded around the machine, with currents of air and so on. Not a constant temperature incubator. That is obviously inaccurate but you cannot transport a flow calorimeter. The cell is equipped with two wires. One for calibration which I think is nichrome. It is gray, anyway. The other, working wire is constantan (Isotan 44) treated by Celani to be a lot more porous and absorbent. By thermometry I mean they turn on the 48 W heater or the working wire and watch the temperature stabilize at 120 deg C. That is the minimum temperature below which this material will not load, and no effect can be seen. This is straight DC power coming from a high quality power supply. As you would expect when there is no excess the temperature is very stable. The temperature stabilizes for a while even with the working wire. This morning it was flat. No indication of excess heat. When excess heat begins it fluctuates considerably, climbing and falling, from one minute to the next. With this kind of gas calorimeter, the increase in temperature is proportional to the excess heat, although not linear. When I did similar calorimetry years ago with Mizuno I found the response was stable, repeatable and predictable, and the fact that it is not linear is unimportant. (With something like LabView you can just tell it to be linear anyway. Throw in a fudge factor, or probably nowadays tell it to figure out the fudge factor.) Rob Duncan told me that the major problem with this arrangement would be changes in heat loss because of changes in convection. Convection dominates. If anything, he expects convection would increase as the gas moves faster, and this would lower the temperature. There is one thing that might raise the temperature slightly. The cell has a leak. It is initially pressurized to 20 atm. It loses 1 atm over 8 hours. That could not explain the anomalous temperature increase for two reasons: 1. The temperature rise happens too soon. 2. A leak is probably fairly steady, causing a steady, linear increase in temperature. It would never decrease. It would not fluctuate rapidly. When they brought the cell to Texas it had a variety of different instrument types attached, with LabView software written by various physicists and other non-experts. The people at NI looked at it -- actually, Truchard, the president and CEO himself looked at it, I gather -- and said let's get rid of everything but the cell. They replaced all instruments, computers, the interface box etc.; they put in the latest version of LabView and rewrote the code. So now it is as good as any instrument I have ever seen. It looks like a product brochure illustration. Except the method is still crude. At one point Truchard said, what this needs is an IR sensor for the surface temperature. He jumped in his car, drove to an electronics store and came back with a handheld IR sensor. He said: This was on sale. I got a great deal on it! The IR sensor is sitting on the table. That's the way the NI engineer told me the story, anyway. They say it is typical of Truchard. Input power is steady at 48 W both in Texas and here. Anomalous output was 5 W and climbing when I last saw it. In Texas it peaked at 21 W. I think Celani said that is a typical result. In other words, 48 + 21 = 69 W. I think that even crude thermometry should be adequate to measure a difference as large as this. I would call this a trade-show demonstration. That is, not something perfectly convincing in itself, but something that gives you feel for what the product is like. I doubt that the ENEA labs are incapable of measuring the difference between 48 and 69 W. - Jed
[Vo]:Celani demonstration
Celani has set up his demonstration cell. The people from TI reworked the instruments and the LabView code that collects data. They did a beautiful job. Celani just told me that he inputs 48 W constantly. This morning it did not work. They ran it and let it cool to clean it. They tried again about an hour ago and it began to produce ~4 W excess fairly soon. It climbs gradually up to ~20 W gradually and stays stable after that. Very impressive. Peter Hagelstein considers this an important experiment. All of the papers from this conference have already been submitted (except mine) and will be on line soon. (Mine is not ready because they told me a week beforehand to write one.) - Jed
[Vo]:Celani demonstration
Celani has set up his demonstration cell. The people from TI reworked the instruments and the LabView code that collects data. They did a beautiful job. Celani just told me that he inputs 48 W constantly. This morning it did not work. They ran it and let it cool to clean it. They tried again about an hour ago and it began to produce ~4 W excess fairly soon. It climbs gradually up to ~20 W gradually and stays stable after that. Very impressive. Peter Hagelste - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Celani demonstration
Jed, is the device putting out heat of 48 + 20 = 68 watts? I just wanted to make sure I understood your description. Thanks. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 14, 2012 1:14 am Subject: [Vo]:Celani demonstration Celani has set up his demonstration cell. The people from TI reworked the instruments and the LabView code that collects data. They did a beautiful job. Celani just told me that he inputs 48 W constantly. This morning it did not work. They ran it and let it cool to clean it. They tried again about an hour ago and it began to produce ~4 W excess fairly soon. It climbs gradually up to ~20 W gradually and stays stable after that. Very impressive. Peter Hagelste - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Celani demonstration
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jed, is the device putting out heat of 48 + 20 = 68 watts? Correct. At peak that is what it does. At the moment it is 48 + 5 = ~53. It is just turning on. It sometimes takes many hours to ramp up to peak. I think they need a lot of input power to bring it up to the operating temperature. Celani said it would be easy to insulate it to lower the background 48 W but he wants to be able to look inside. I agree that is a good thing. I do not see any problem with the high input power. It is simple DC, no fancy waveform or anything like that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Celani demonstration
Sounds good. Just one more quick question if I may. Are they monitoring the radiation emitted by the device? If so, do you see any special energy levels such as 511 keV? Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 14, 2012 1:32 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Celani demonstration David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jed, is the device putting out heat of 48 + 20 = 68 watts? Correct. At peak that is what it does. At the moment it is 48 + 5 = ~53. It is just turning on. It sometimes takes many hours to ramp up to peak. I think they need a lot of input power to bring it up to the operating temperature. Celani said it would be easy to insulate it to lower the background 48 W but he wants to be able to look inside. I agree that is a good thing. I do not see any problem with the high input power. It is simple DC, no fancy waveform or anything like that. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Celani demonstration
Thanks Jed for reporting! Does it mean that you have now seen first ever scientifically demonstrable quantum reactor that producess clear and replicable anomalous heat effect? Too bad that Fleischmann cannot receive Nobel prize anymore. But at least he did not die in vain but is making soon glorious scientific rebirth(?). —Jouni On Aug 14, 2012 8:20 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Jed, is the device putting out heat of 48 + 20 = 68 watts? I just wanted to make sure I understood your description. Thanks. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tue, Aug 14, 2012 1:14 am Subject: [Vo]:Celani demonstration Celani has set up his demonstration cell. The people from TI reworked the instruments and the LabView code that collects data. They did a beautiful job. Celani just told me that he inputs 48 W constantly. This morning it did not work. They ran it and let it cool to clean it. They tried again about an hour ago and it began to produce ~4 W excess fairly soon. It climbs gradually up to ~20 W gradually and stays stable after that. Very impressive. Peter Hagelste - Jed
