[Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
The excess power estimate of the test run is based on a higher temperature reading of the outer surface of the glass as compared to a lower temperature reading during the calibration runs However, someone named ECCO has noticed that the temperature of the inner glass surface is the same in the both the test run and the calibration runs: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/177-write-up-of-eu-cell-baselines If the higher temperature on the outer surface is not an artifact, wouldn't you expect the inner surface temperature to be somewhat higher as well? harry
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/177-write-up-of-eu-cell-baselines If the higher temperature on the outer surface is not an artifact, wouldn't you expect the inner surface temperature to be somewhat higher as well? Yup. I am sure it should be higher. Sigh . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
I'm not seeing the problem. The highest temperature in the calibration runs for T-GlassIn, at this power level, was about 125C. During this live run, the temperature appears to be about 5 C above that. Craig On 12/14/2012 03:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/177-write-up-of-eu-cell-baselines If the higher temperature on the outer surface is not an artifact, wouldn't you expect the inner surface temperature to be somewhat higher as well? Yup. I am sure it should be higher. Sigh . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
Correction! I didn't realize that they had upped the power to 54 watts. Craig On 12/14/2012 03:14 PM, Craig wrote: I'm not seeing the problem. The highest temperature in the calibration runs for T-GlassIn, at this power level, was about 125C. During this live run, the temperature appears to be about 5 C above that. Craig On 12/14/2012 03:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/177-write-up-of-eu-cell-baselines If the higher temperature on the outer surface is not an artifact, wouldn't you expect the inner surface temperature to be somewhat higher as well? Yup. I am sure it should be higher. Sigh . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
In their 12/12/12 Progress Blog posting, MFMP stated that there was a dleliberate error in the data viewer, and challenged people to spot it. *We have a “deliberate mistake” in the data viewer, if you are sober enough at this time in the day, we challenge you to spot it. * Did anyone ever find it? Jeff On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Correction! I didn't realize that they had upped the power to 54 watts. Craig On 12/14/2012 03:14 PM, Craig wrote: I'm not seeing the problem. The highest temperature in the calibration runs for T-GlassIn, at this power level, was about 125C. During this live run, the temperature appears to be about 5 C above that. Craig On 12/14/2012 03:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/177-write-up-of-eu-cell-baselines If the higher temperature on the outer surface is not an artifact, wouldn't you expect the inner surface temperature to be somewhat higher as well? Yup. I am sure it should be higher. Sigh . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
On 2012-12-14 21:24, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: Did anyone ever find it? It's Power (Red) (bar) instead of Power (Red) (W). Bars instead of watts. Red is the active wire. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
On 12/14/2012 03:24 PM, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: In their 12/12/12 Progress Blog posting, MFMP stated that there was a dleliberate error in the data viewer, and challenged people to spot it. *We have a “deliberate mistake” in the data viewer, if you are sober enough at this time in the day, we challenge you to spot it. * Did anyone ever find it? Is it something as simple as labelling the Power (Red) variable as (bar) for pressure, instead of (W) for watts? Craig
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/177-write-up-of-eu-cell-baselines If the higher temperature on the outer surface is not an artifact, wouldn't you expect the inner surface temperature to be somewhat higher as well? Yup. I am sure it should be higher. Sigh . . . - Jed Then again maybe the behaviour is analogous to the sun's corona. The corona sphere is at a higher temperature then the surface of the sun which is the opposite of what you would expect from a straightforward application of thermodynamics. harry
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
Is everyone taking into account the fact that the graphs for T_Glassout are actually (T_Glassout - T_Ambient), while the graph for T_Glassin is the raw T_Glassin and is not corrected for ambient? Or at least so they are labeled. Jeff On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/177-write-up-of-eu-cell-baselines If the higher temperature on the outer surface is not an artifact, wouldn't you expect the inner surface temperature to be somewhat higher as well? Yup. I am sure it should be higher. Sigh . . . - Jed Then again maybe the behaviour is analogous to the sun's corona. The corona sphere is at a higher temperature then the surface of the sun which is the opposite of what you would expect from a straightforward application of thermodynamics. harry
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
On 12/14/2012 03:53 PM, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: Is everyone taking into account the fact that the graphs for T_Glassout are actually (T_Glassout - T_Ambient), while the graph for T_Glassin is the raw T_Glassin and is not corrected for ambient? Or at least so they are labeled. Jeff I don't think that's relevant for this issue. The temperature of the inside of the glass appears to be the same in both the calibration runs and this current test, for the same power level applied. This implies that the extra temperature on the outside of the glass is some sort of artefact. Craig
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
The difference between T_Mica and T_GlassIn seems to be about 5 degrees larger than it was during calibration. I put the details in the progress blog comments. Jeff On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/14/2012 03:53 PM, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: Is everyone taking into account the fact that the graphs for T_Glassout are actually (T_Glassout - T_Ambient), while the graph for T_Glassin is the raw T_Glassin and is not corrected for ambient? Or at least so they are labeled. Jeff I don't think that's relevant for this issue. The temperature of the inside of the glass appears to be the same in both the calibration runs and this current test, for the same power level applied. This implies that the extra temperature on the outside of the glass is some sort of artefact. Craig
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
On 12/14/2012 05:17 PM, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: The difference between T_Mica and T_GlassIn seems to be about 5 degrees larger than it was during calibration. I put the details in the progress blog comments. Jeff Where do you see T_Mica for the calibration runs? Craig
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
I spotted it, but I just thought it was a mistake made in haste. Dave -Original Message- From: Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2012 3:29 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface. On 12/14/2012 03:24 PM, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: In their 12/12/12 Progress Blog posting, MFMP stated that there was a dleliberate error in the data viewer, and challenged people to spot it. We have a “deliberate mistake” in the data viewer, if you are sober enough at this time in the day, we challenge you to spot it. Did anyone ever find it? Is it something as simple as labelling the Power (Red) variable as(bar) for pressure, instead of (W) for watts? Craig
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: The difference between T_Mica and T_GlassIn seems to be about 5 degrees larger than it was during calibration. I suppose . . . if all of the temperature sensors show an increase except T_Glassin, that sensor might be malfunctioning. But I doubt it. When a sensor malfunctions it generally drifts, or it shows zero, or some random number. It does not usually show the same value it did during calibration. In this case, if the thing is malfunctioning it is too low. Meaning it drifted down. It should keep going down, lower and lower. This is not good news. In calorimeters of this general design that I know of, such the ones Mel Miles made where he measured the temperature at the cell wall, temperatures everywhere rise when heat increases. They may not all rise the same degree, but they rise proportionally. You do not see one sensor showing the same temperature as before. I have no idea why it might be doing this, but it does seem like an artifact. As I said before, the highly stable output that turns on right away also makes me think it is an artifact. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
They need to run the power into each wire sequentially at the same level for long enough to see if there is a difference between the two. I suggested a 1 hour run into the inactive, immediately followed by 1 hour of active wire drive, then followed up by 1 hour of inactive again at the 48 watt level. If they do not run this, then it will be very easy to assume calibration problems. It is so simple to perform this quick check. If we get the extra heating with the active wire and then the temperature returns afterwards there will be good evidence for excess power. The same power input to the cell should result in very similar heating of the outer glass. The main difference will be a large change in the active wire temperature which should significantly effect the power generation mechanism. I expect to see excess power visible between two equal lower power levels as reflected in the outer glass temperature. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2012 3:40 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface. On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/177-write-up-of-eu-cell-baselines If the higher temperature on the outer surface is not an artifact, wouldn't you expect the inner surface temperature to be somewhat higher as well? Yup. I am sure it should be higher. Sigh . . . - Jed Then again maybe the behaviour is analogous to the sun's corona. The corona sphere is at a higher temperature then the surface of the sun which is the opposite of what you would expect from a straightforward application of thermodynamics. harry
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: They need to run the power into each wire sequentially at the same level for long enough to see if there is a difference between the two. I suggested a 1 hour run into the inactive, immediately followed by 1 hour of active wire drive, then followed up by 1 hour of inactive again at the 48 watt level. If they do not run this, then it will be very easy to assume calibration problems. Good idea. Add this to their on-line comments if you have not done so already. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
I added it to the comment section yesterday but do not see any evidence that it is planned. It is simple and does not take much time for the payoff. I would be fairly well convinced that they have achieved the goal if this test is performed and the results are in agreement with their calibration runs. I recall reading about the old vacuum tube computers where the operators would run a test program before and then after a critical program run. If the bracket tests came out correct then they knew the tubes held up. It is hard to find a test that is more convincing. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2012 5:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface. David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: They need to run the power into each wire sequentially at the same level for long enough to see if there is a difference between the two. I suggested a 1 hour run into the inactive, immediately followed by 1 hour of active wire drive, then followed up by 1 hour of inactive again at the 48 watt level. If they do not run this, then it will be very easy to assume calibration problems. Good idea. Add this to their on-line comments if you have not done so already. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
Agree. No idea what's really going on. For example, the calibration numbers I posted came from a 1-bar 100% H calibration run. Are they now running 100%H or 75%H / 25%Ar in the cell? If the latter, is it enough to account for the apparent 5C degree difference? I'm not making any claims, that is for sure. Just posting data. Jeff On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: The difference between T_Mica and T_GlassIn seems to be about 5 degrees larger than it was during calibration. I suppose . . . if all of the temperature sensors show an increase except T_Glassin, that sensor might be malfunctioning. But I doubt it. When a sensor malfunctions it generally drifts, or it shows zero, or some random number. It does not usually show the same value it did during calibration. In this case, if the thing is malfunctioning it is too low. Meaning it drifted down. It should keep going down, lower and lower. This is not good news. In calorimeters of this general design that I know of, such the ones Mel Miles made where he measured the temperature at the cell wall, temperatures everywhere rise when heat increases. They may not all rise the same degree, but they rise proportionally. You do not see one sensor showing the same temperature as before. I have no idea why it might be doing this, but it does seem like an artifact. As I said before, the highly stable output that turns on right away also makes me think it is an artifact. - Jed
