I just completed a long time frame program test run for the recent downloaded data for one of the Celani cells. I am using the time domain curve fit program that I developed recently that uses the solution for a non linear differential equation describing the behavior of these types of cells. This is the same one that I have posted details on vortex with 4 installments. The MFMP team was very gracious and performed a special calibration run the day before this data began to accumulate allowing me to obtain good solid calibration data.
I waited for many days for a step in power that my program can analyze with excellent accuracy but this has not occurred due to various reasons. One good reason is that the team has been watching the excess power climb upwards during that time frame when calculated using an internal monitor point within their cell. This test point was chosen earlier by observations of the cell behavior while I have concentrated upon the outer glass monitor which I suspected is not as influenced by variables such as hydrogen gas pressure and density. Until I actually performed the latest program run, I assumed that the power might be climbing just as the others since the temperature of the mica inside appeared to be ascending steadily. Of course everyone is excited by the potentially positive results. The program run I just completed assumed a dummy transient step in power. This should not constitute a problem, since the transient due to the assumed step rapidly goes to zero as compared to the very large time frame that the data spans. I adjusted the beginning point for the LMS routine to exclude the false transient. I also found that the averaging TC that calculates the delay was not working as it should due to the step times being far larger than the delay, leading to instability. This was not a problem since I am not interested in the rising edge of a dummy event. I obtained what I consider a null excess power calculation once the program cranked out its results. The expected power output should equal the input applied in the absence of internally generated power by the cell. I registered this result with a respectable accuracy. My program claims that the actual input power was about .2 watts lower than the applied power of approximately 105.4 watts. On peaks of the output there might be additional power of +.6 watts on rare occasions, but the overall average during the test time frame is -.2 watts. Negative peaks were actually a bit larger than the positive excursions. Please understand that I am not happy to report these results. I was hoping to be able to state with a degree of certainty that excess power generation by these cells is verified. That is actually what I assumed that I would be writing about with this post. It would have been easier to ignore my findings and just wait longer until more evidence has accumulated, but I know everyone wants to have the naked raw facts placed before them in a timely manner and thus this posting. I hope that my program will be found in error once the air flow calorimeter comes into its own, but there is no assurance that this will happen. So, I submit this information for you to consider and perhaps the future will sort out the truth in this matter. I placed the following statement on the comment section of the MFMP site to offer them feedback. This is one of those rare times when I hope to have made a miscalculation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A dummy step run was just completed on the excess power from cell FC0103 beginning just after the last power adjustment step 1/29/2013 at 5:00 through the present time of 2/6/2013 13:45. I had to allow my program to go through a dummy transient since there are no actual ones during this time. I calculated the power using T_GlassOut minus Ambient temperature as always. The calibration values are the same as those generated during the recent special calibration. Unfortunately, I see an average match between the power input and the calculated power to within .2 watts over this time frame. On rare peaks, there may be a small amount of excess power(.6 watts ?), but the average is zero(actually slight negative -.2 watts). The internal temperature monitor points may be subject to drift due to gas density variations as others have suggested. I am reporting my findings even though the results do not match my desires. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reluctantly, Dave
