Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
Wire diameter 0.2mm, 1000mm long gives 0.031cm³, or about 500W/cm³, Heat flux is all about surface radiation - not volume. The surface flux is surprisingly mild. The actual figures are: Volume basis 667W/cc Surface radiation 3.33W/cm2 Cheers Mark Snoswell.
RE: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
Hm... Chelani appears to be completely oblivious to the fact that cooling of his heater wires is primarily via convection in his 7 Bar H2 atmosphere. I know from firsthand experience that a majority of the heat will be carried from the wires to the glass surface directly above the wires. There will be hotspots above the wires and there will also be a big difference between the top and bottom of the glass tube. Chelani even reports a burnout when he loses hydrogen pressure and yet he still doesn't appear to realize the huge contribution of convection in a hydrogen atmosphere. Until he improves his calorimetric measurement method to measure total output heat flux the results are equivocal. Mark Snoswell
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
Hey Jed - If you get a chance ask Chelani about SiO2 coating of the Isostan wire. His recently released patent has this as an essential step - and DK also seem to have copied this idea with their Al2O3+SiO2 coating. In the current work Chelani seems to have done away with the SiO2 coating? - or has he just not reported it? Thanks Mark S.
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
I was reviewing the data series for the demonstration and would like to make a suggestion. Could a well filtered variable current source be used as the drive waveform for the active wire? I was thinking that a square wave source with DC offset might reveal some interesting phenomena. Set the DC level to generate 48 watts as is customary for these tests and then modulate that current level with a square wave signal that changes the wire input power by plus and minus one watt. An accurate voltmeter and ammeter can be associated with the source to record the actual power being absorbed by the test wire. The frequency of the square wave source can be adjusted as needed to determine if there are any interesting output transient effects caused by the drive currents abrupt edges. The time domain movement in output power as well as its final value might be used to separate out the positive feedback activity of the LENR effect. The relatively small signal aspect of the drive waveform would be ideal to analyze differential performance since the operating conditions are set by the large average current. This is similar to small signal testing of an active transistor. When I have tested devices in the past, I have always resorted to a procedure of the proposed nature since a great deal of time domain data can be observed as well as frequency response data. A secondary test where the waveform is sinusoidal should also be conducted to obtain other interesting data, especially distortion products appearing within the output waveform. Dave
RE: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
Will cold fusion finally go mainstream after this ICCF-17? Celani has done independent testing, right? I'm not very familiar with how science becomes accepted mainstream, but I do not understand why it is taking so long. From: mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:31:50 +1000 In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:14:32 +1000: Hi, [snip] Wire diameter 0.2mm, 1000mm long gives 0.031cm³, or about 500W/cm³, you I think that should be 0.31 cc, making it about 45 W/cc. I stuffed this up. :( It is indeed 0.031 cc. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
Jarold McWilliams oldja...@hotmail.com wrote: Will cold fusion finally go mainstream after this ICCF-17? No. Celani has done independent testing, right? Not sure what this means. Are you asking whether Celani has sent his device to others to be tested? The answer is no, but I think he has sent some samples of his material to others. I am not sure if they have tested or report back yet. I'm not very familiar with how science becomes accepted mainstream, but I do not understand why it is taking so long. Cold fusion is encountering unprecedented opposition. In the history of science, no experiment has been so widely replicated yet still rejected. This is an institutional failure. The scientific method works. The experiments are definitive. But many scientists have stopped acting like scientists. They are letting their emotions get the better of them. This has often happened in the past, but never to this extent, and never for this long. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
What is the new method of treatment for the wire? The new method, although started from the old one in some key aspects, was really revolutionary about the practical parameters of: mechanical stability (few leakage of the best material from the surface), percentage of material at small dimensions. Such last parameter increased from only 1-2% up to about 30% of the whole material. Any clue? Rossi said that is powder needs a repeated process of heating/cooling. Rossi's powder needs as well activation. Is the activation done by oxiding the powder? Arnaud -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: mercredi 15 août 2012 02:11 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Jed Rothwell Subject: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation Jed just gave me a copy. I have u/l to google: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8mt4mJOTGvBeXJCNXNUdEJVME0 Haven't read it yet. I have another; but, we are awaiting permission to share. T
RE: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
Celani has a patent for oxidation of Ni surface : http://www.google.com/patents?id=0iQSAgAAEBAJzoom=4dq=francesco%20celanip g=PA1#v=onepageq=francesco%20celanif=false _ From: Arnaud Kodeck [mailto:arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be] Sent: mercredi 15 août 2012 12:20 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation What is the new method of treatment for the wire? The new method, although started from the old one in some key aspects, was really revolutionary about the practical parameters of: mechanical stability (few leakage of the best material from the surface), percentage of material at small dimensions. Such last parameter increased from only 1-2% up to about 30% of the whole material. Any clue? Rossi said that is powder needs a repeated process of heating/cooling. Rossi's powder needs as well activation. Is the activation done by oxidation the powder? Arnaud -Original Message- From: Terry Blanton [mailto:hohlr...@gmail.com] Sent: mercredi 15 août 2012 02:11 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; Jed Rothwell Subject: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation Jed just gave me a copy. I have u/l to google: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8mt4mJOTGvBeXJCNXNUdEJVME0 Haven't read it yet. I have another; but, we are awaiting permission to share. T
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
At 03:38 AM 8/15/2012, Jed Rothwell wrote: Jarold McWilliams mailto:oldja...@hotmail.comoldja...@hotmail.com wrote: Will cold fusion finally go mainstream after this ICCF-17? No. Well, in some senses, cold fusion is already mainstream. The extreme, pseudoskeptical position is dead in the journals. Some journals still automatically reject papers on the field, but that is basically meaningless. The last nail was driven in this coffin when Naturwissenschaften published the Storms review in 2010, the shift had obviously begun years before. Read carefully, the 2004 U.S. DoE review shows the bankruptcy of the position that cold fusion is pathological science or pseudoscience, even though that review was badly flawed in certain ways. However, there is, to be sure, a large well of strongly-held myth, common among the ignorant. There is also such a large well about other topics, such as evolution. So? We just saw, here, someone continue to assert that Obama's long form birth certificate was obviously bogus. There was indeed a well of criticism that spurted strongly when that was released, based on arguments that have been thoroughly discredited, most were simply blatant errors. Yet a lot of people still believe in the various myths, such as the totally preposterous Professor Fleischmann's findings were never replicated. You can even find that in some newspaper accounts. So? All this shows is that some newspaper writers don't research the topic before writing on it, beyond looking at their own old files, errors reported years ago. Celani has done independent testing, right? Not sure what this means. Are you asking whether Celani has sent his device to others to be tested? The answer is no, but I think he has sent some samples of his material to others. I am not sure if they have tested or report back yet. There is a lot of confusion over the difference between experimental work and demonstrations. Demonstrations rarely prove anything. They are just an opportunity for people to see the kind of work that is being done, to meet involved people, etc. With cold fusion, whenever there is some jiggling about possible commercial energy production, demonstrations are not satisfying. What is needed is fully independent replication, and that necessarily takes time. Lots of time. However, a truly killer demonstration might be different. Celani is obviously not ready for that, nor would I encourage him to try to create it. He's still working on the basic process. Sure. He could put a lot of effort into making a device with 100 wires in it, and maybe generate 1.5 kilowatts. And people would still grumble. He's much better off running lots of individual wire experiments, until he's found his optimal operating points. As long as the size is adequate to produce clear measurements above noise, smaller is actually better. People who are asking what is the COP are not interested in the science, they are interested in commercial power. Too bad. They may have to wait. The big issue with CF has *always* been reliability, and a couple of experiments don't establish reliability. What will establish it is a series of independent replications, where the results are *quantitatively* compatible. *Nobody* is there yet; that is, if they are there, they aren't telling, not in any way that can be confirmed with clarity. I'm not very familiar with how science becomes accepted mainstream, but I do not understand why it is taking so long. Cold fusion is encountering unprecedented opposition. In the history of science, no experiment has been so widely replicated yet still rejected. This is an institutional failure. The scientific method works. The experiments are definitive. But many scientists have stopped acting like scientists. They are letting their emotions get the better of them. This has often happened in the past, but never to this extent, and never for this long. Jed is right. There is a lot of history to this. I highly recommend, as to something that is easily found and read, Beaudette, Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed. Something very strange happened in 1989-1990, the basic protocols of science were abandoned. Normally, an isolated unconfirmed report that implies something is wrong with common assumptions might be ignored. Once it's replicated, though, independently, the situation shifts. Even a single replication can have that effect. Replication failure is *never* a reason to reject a report, for sometimes replication failure is simply that: a failure to replicate. It can mean any of many things, from failure to reproduce the original report's conditions, to there being a chaotic element in the experiment, to, yes, error or fraud in the original report. But the basic finding of Pons and Fleischmann was replicated many times; Jed has a listing of 153 reports of anomalous heat, published in peer-reviewed journals. Why
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: A dislike for the possibility that some knowledge might be wrong. (Mostly illusory. To use cold fusion to test existing theory, one must have a proposed mechanism. Exiting theory does rule out some mechanisms, perhaps, but can't rule out unknown nuclear reaction, which, it has been so easily forgotton, was what Pons and Fleischmann actually claimed, not cold fusion. The NY Times Fleischmann obituary got this directly wrong. Pons and Fleischmann did not invent the term cold fusion and did not claim that what they found -- the major anomalous heat -- was the result of fusion. They asked the question, that's all.) They did more than pose a question. They attempted to answer their own question by doing some experiments. Even if they did not officially claim their experiments demonstrated fusion, I am sure they were motivated by the speculation that fusion might occur in a lattice frequently enough to produce measureble heat. In other words they were exploring the question of cold fusion, even if they did not call it that. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
Oh, Jed suggested the following edit: Nuked eyes = naked eyes But, the document is locked and does not accept changes. T On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: Jed just gave me a copy. I have u/l to google: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8mt4mJOTGvBeXJCNXNUdEJVME0 Haven't read it yet. I have another; but, we are awaiting permission to share. T
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
On 2012-08-15 02:10, Terry Blanton wrote: Jed just gave me a copy. I have u/l to google: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8mt4mJOTGvBeXJCNXNUdEJVME0 Haven't read it yet. I have another; but, we are awaiting permission to share. Very good! Thanks! Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: Very good! Thanks! After all you do, da nada! We have a lot of lurkers on Vortex. Ten minutes after I u/l, there are 25 views. :-) T
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
This image: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8mt4mJOTGvBUkl3SGNkcmQxTTg shows the effect from the air conditioner since the demonstration unit is not insulated. (From Jed) T
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: This image: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8mt4mJOTGvBUkl3SGNkcmQxTTg shows the effect from the air conditioner since the demonstration unit is not insulated. (From Jed) Source is from National Instruments guy according to Jed. T
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
NI guy = Brian Glass, Applications Engineering. Many thanks to him. As you see, nominal excess power is 12 to 14 W. Most perturbations are probably caused by changes in ambient temperature this morning when the air conditioning came on. Ambient at present 29.4 deg C. Surface temperature of device is difficult to measure with the IR sensor. I think it is 220 to 240 deg C. They use: A TC at the core A surface mounted TC on tube outer surface Ambient TC The calibration constant is established by turning on the active wire initially and measuring the temperature when it reaches a stable state. In other words, by assuming there is no excess heat at first. The line is very stable and flat so this is a reasonable assumption. Yesterday there were several hours with no excess heat, until they cycled the wire on and off for a while, probably to clean it. They also calibrate with Ar gas for several hours. They do not want to do that too long because the Ar may eventually damage the wire. The second wire is for indirect heating during calibration and also during the active run. Not sure what that means. This configuration has not been run in their flow calorimeter because it only works at high temperature and that flow calorimeter does not allow high temperatures. So this has only been detected with thermometry and an Ar calibration. But the effect is quite large and I doubt there is a problem. Even arch-skeptic David Kidwell agrees with me on that. The active constantan wire is ~1.1 m long. It is very thin. The total mass is small, so the power density per cubic centimeter is high. I suppose it is in the same range as Rossi. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
Thin like what? For any wire I can think of, I think for its volume it should yield a much higher density than Rossi's. 2012/8/14 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com The active constantan wire is ~1.1 m long. It is very thin. The total mass is small, so the power density per cubic centimeter is high. I suppose it is in the same range as Rossi. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
On 2012-08-15 02:47, Terry Blanton wrote: This image: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8mt4mJOTGvBUkl3SGNkcmQxTTg shows the effect from the air conditioner since the demonstration unit is not insulated. This picture shows about 20.5 hours of cell activity. Nice. Is the reactor still going on? When does Celani plan to switch it off? Any information about the excess power spike at around the first hour of activity? Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: Thin like what? Thin like within an order of magnitude of eng. Rossi. This is Ni-H at high temperature, high power density, at a National Lab, with a detailed description of the material preparation. What's not to like? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
On 2012-08-15 03:14, Daniel Rocha wrote: Thin like what? For any wire I can think of, I think for its volume it should yield a much higher density than Rossi's. It should be 0.2 mm thin. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote: This picture shows about 20.5 hours of cell activity. Nice. Is the reactor still going on? Yes. When does Celani plan to switch it off? Friday, I think. Any information about the excess power spike at around the first hour of activity? The power was cut off accidentally. I think someone tripped over the extension cord. It is now taped to the floor. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
That's 14W/(PI*(0.3)^2)*1)~14W/(0.3mm^3)~45KW/cm^3. DAMN! 2012/8/14 Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com On 2012-08-15 03:14, Daniel Rocha wrote: Thin like what? For any wire I can think of, I think for its volume it should yield a much higher density than Rossi's. It should be 0.2 mm thin. Cheers, S.A. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
On 2012-08-15 03:21, Jed Rothwell wrote: When does Celani plan to switch it off? Friday, I think. Very nice, I'm looking forward to seeing the final charts. By the way, what is the general reaction to Celani's demo? Personally I have been very positively impressed so far, the presentation is quite good too (excluding English errors). This is one of the best things happened in the LENR field in at least the past 18 months, in my opinion. The power was cut off accidentally. I think someone tripped over the extension cord. It is now taped to the floor. Ok, I see. I hope it will be enough. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
Wire diameter 0.2mm, 1000mm long gives 0.031cm³, or about 500W/cm³, you were off by a factor of about 1000. It is likely that not the whole thickness is active, and this is only early days in development, not even running at high temperature yet. On 15 August 2012 02:23, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's 14W/(PI*(0.3)^2)*1)~14W/(0.3mm^3)~45KW/cm^3. DAMN!
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
Argh, I meant a factor of 100 (never a good look to cock up your own arithmetic when correcting someone) On 15 August 2012 02:32, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com wrote: Wire diameter 0.2mm, 1000mm long gives 0.031cm³, or about 500W/cm³, you were off by a factor of about 1000. It is likely that not the whole thickness is active, and this is only early days in development, not even running at high temperature yet. On 15 August 2012 02:23, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That's 14W/(PI*(0.3)^2)*1)~14W/(0.3mm^3)~45KW/cm^3. DAMN!
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
On 2012-08-15 02:47, Terry Blanton wrote: This image: https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B8mt4mJOTGvBUkl3SGNkcmQxTTg shows the effect from the air conditioner since the demonstration unit is not insulated. I just noticed that the pressure, resistance and temperature charts do not start from the beginning, but are only plotting the previous 3 hours or so. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
That`s still more than Rossi! His old reactor had 50cm3. 2012/8/14 Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com Wire diameter 0.2mm, 1000mm long gives 0.031cm³, or about 500W/cm³, you were off by a factor of about 1000. It is likely that not the whole thickness is active, and this is only early days in development, not even running at high temperature yet. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
In reply to Daniel Rocha's message of Wed, 15 Aug 2012 01:01:26 -0300: Hi, [snip] That`s still more than Rossi! His old reactor had 50cm3. 2012/8/14 Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com Wire diameter 0.2mm, 1000mm long gives 0.031cm³, or about 500W/cm³, you I think that should be 0.31 cc, making it about 45 W/cc. were off by a factor of about 1000. It is likely that not the whole thickness is active, and this is only early days in development, not even running at high temperature yet. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Celani ICCF17 Presentation
In reply to mix...@bigpond.com's message of Wed, 15 Aug 2012 14:14:32 +1000: Hi, [snip] Wire diameter 0.2mm, 1000mm long gives 0.031cm³, or about 500W/cm³, you I think that should be 0.31 cc, making it about 45 W/cc. I stuffed this up. :( It is indeed 0.031 cc. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
