Re: [Vo]:MFMP has presented the strongest evidence of excess heat due to LENR so far
MFMP's instrumentation error is currently of about 10%. If they had excess heat in the last experiment it unfortunately was within the measurement error... What we need (considering keeping the current setup), then, is a high amount of excess heat. Typically, nuclear reactions need a certain critical mass. In the Lugano report it is said that Rossi have loaded the reactor with about 1 gram of fuel (http://www.sifferkoll.se/.../2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf). MFMP used 0.6 grams. Also, the inner diameter (ID) of the alumina tube used in the Lugano report was about 4 mm, while MFMP have used a tube with ID equal to 3.175 mm. I have suggested to them use more fuel and an alumina tube with ID = 3.9624 mm. They mentioned they are planning a new experiment with more fuel. Let's hope they find the right parameters, if there are any... Alberto. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Alberto De Souza alberto.investi...@gmail.com wrote: It is important to note, though, that this offset was not observed during this initial test. Perhaps obvious to electrical engineers that this kind of thing can happen. But an excellent lesson for those of us coming up to speed on scientific instrumentation and measurement. Seems the scales need to be tared from time to time. I suppose it would have been obvious that there was artifact had the temperature been systematically lower the second time around. I think of an error that is in one's favor as a banker's error. If one discovers the balance in one's bank account is too low, one is likely to complain to the bank. If one discovers the balance is higher than it should be, there is less incentive to complain. Eric
Re: [Vo]:MFMP has presented the strongest evidence of excess heat due to LENR so far
I believe that this last MFMP experiement is suffering from a undersized fuel load. But a larger fuel load will most likely blowout the alumina tube when the temperature hits the 600C critical temperature. The energy burst from from a larger fuel load when the reactor hits that critical temperture threshold will blowout the tube. The amount of fuel used in the LENR reactor may be a critical parameter in the robustness of the reaction. In the alumina tube reactor design, only a very small amount of fuel can be tolerated. If too much fuel is used, a blowout occurs. The oxide compound of the containment tube makes the alumina tube hydrogen tight. In the latest MFMP reactor design, only a fraction of a gram fuel load is used and no blowout occurred. But the reaction was not very vigorous. Songsheng Jiang used another approach. His reactor is strong. It can constrain and control far more fuel. His reaction shows bursts of power that are very vigorous. This type of reaction would blowout an alumina tube. But Jianr’s reactor is stainless steel which can resist bursts of high LENR activity. Being a metal, the realitively high heat conductivity and ductilibility of stainless steel will absorb and distribute the bursts of LENR energy more readily than a ceramic tube would thus mitigating the destructive potential of the energy bursts. Jianr makes his reactor hydrogen tight by using a ceramic outer container. That ceramic is probably an oxide that keeps the hydrogen that leaks through the stainless steel contained. Like in a nuclear rector, the amount of nuclear active material used is critical to keep the reaction under control. The amount of fuel used must be matched with the strength of the reactor’s ability to contain the reaction. But more fuel makes the reaction proportionally more viable. Like fire, a small fire is proportionally harder to manage than a large one. A large reaction will mitigate any flaws in the reactor’s design and/or management. A strong reactor design like the tungsten tube design that I have previously recommenced would be able to hold a large amount of fuel and fully able to contain the near instantanous energy bursts produced by that large fuel load when the reactor hits the critical reaction startup temperature. A strong metal reactor is the best way to show what LENR can do. On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Alberto De Souza alberto.investi...@gmail.com wrote: MFMP's instrumentation error is currently of about 10%. If they had excess heat in the last experiment it unfortunately was within the measurement error... What we need (considering keeping the current setup), then, is a high amount of excess heat. Typically, nuclear reactions need a certain critical mass. In the Lugano report it is said that Rossi have loaded the reactor with about 1 gram of fuel (http://www.sifferkoll.se/.../2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf). MFMP used 0.6 grams. Also, the inner diameter (ID) of the alumina tube used in the Lugano report was about 4 mm, while MFMP have used a tube with ID equal to 3.175 mm. I have suggested to them use more fuel and an alumina tube with ID = 3.9624 mm. They mentioned they are planning a new experiment with more fuel. Let's hope they find the right parameters, if there are any... Alberto. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Alberto De Souza alberto.investi...@gmail.com wrote: It is important to note, though, that this offset was not observed during this initial test. Perhaps obvious to electrical engineers that this kind of thing can happen. But an excellent lesson for those of us coming up to speed on scientific instrumentation and measurement. Seems the scales need to be tared from time to time. I suppose it would have been obvious that there was artifact had the temperature been systematically lower the second time around. I think of an error that is in one's favor as a banker's error. If one discovers the balance in one's bank account is too low, one is likely to complain to the bank. If one discovers the balance is higher than it should be, there is less incentive to complain. Eric
Re: [Vo]:MFMP has presented the strongest evidence of excess heat due to LENR so far
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Alberto De Souza alberto.investi...@gmail.com wrote: It is important to note, though, that this offset was not observed during this initial test. Perhaps obvious to electrical engineers that this kind of thing can happen. But an excellent lesson for those of us coming up to speed on scientific instrumentation and measurement. Seems the scales need to be tared from time to time. I suppose it would have been obvious that there was artifact had the temperature been systematically lower the second time around. I think of an error that is in one's favor as a banker's error. If one discovers the balance in one's bank account is too low, one is likely to complain to the bank. If one discovers the balance is higher than it should be, there is less incentive to complain. Eric
Re: [Vo]:MFMP has presented the strongest evidence of excess heat due to LENR so far
Bad news... From MFMP Facebook page: Re-heat of *GlowStick* GS3 reveals scalar offset between active and null. It require some analysis, but the offset is about as high as the difference in temperature observed during the test that (apparently?) showed excess heat... It is important to note, though, that this offset was not observed during this initial test. But it definitely show that some work in better measuring equipment is necessary. Alberto. On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Mark Jurich jur...@hotmail.com wrote: Hi Alberto: Great job on the plotting. I am going to refrain commenting about excess heat at this time, but I have a few suggestions/comments: 1) It is my understanding that the Coil Resistance is 8.5 ohms cold (Room Temperature) and the largest value I heard Alan mention during the experiment was 9.1 ohms. At this point, I would assume a linear relationship with temperature of the Coil Resistance, and using the two data points given (9.1 ohm at the maximum obtained temperature), replot the power curve taking into account the Coil Resistance Variation. 2) Annotate the two “Y” Axis (Left/Right) as Temperature [C] and Power [W]. 3) Compute/Estimate the Heat Capacity of the Null Reactor/Cell and the Fueled Cell, and divide the two. This will give us an idea how large the Cells are off from each other. The Null Cell has the same pressure as the Fueled Cell, but is “filled” with an Alumina Plug with a “Press Fit”. The Fueled Cell has Nickel and much more Hydrogen Gas by Volume than the Null Cell. Hydrogen Gas has a Heat Capacity Value, itself. Those are the differences in Heat Capacity and Thermal Mass. You can start with a Heat Capacity of an Alumina Cylinder and Kanthal Heater Coil of given diameter (sorry, I don’t recall the diameter off the top of my head). There is a rather nice drawing Alan made with the dimensions. If you need some help, post and I am sure we will help out where we can. Also, unfortunately Heat Capacity is a function of temperature and we will have to dig up some data on that, to make a better estimate. Thanks and keep up the good work! - Mark *From:* Alberto De Souza alberto.investi...@gmail.com *Sent:* Monday, June 01, 2015 8:30 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* [Vo]:MFMP has presented the strongest evidence of excess heat due to LENR so far In the graph attached, I have plotted data made public by the MFMP. The graph shows the temperature in a (null hypothesis) empty reactor (that was run in series with a loaded reactor), the temperature of the loaded reactor, and the power applied to both; both reactors were heated by the resistances of the same value. The three variables were plotted according to a moving average of 1000 samples. The power was computed by squaring the voltage and dividing it by 8.6 (the resistance of the heater). As the graph shows, there is strong evidence of excess heat - the power applied to the system reduces, but the active reactor increases its temperature. IMHO, this experiment is the best proof of excess heat due to LENR so far. Alberto. ps. link to graph: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=914302228591022set=p.914302228591022type=1
Re: [Vo]:MFMP has presented the strongest evidence of excess heat due to LENR so far
Hi Alberto: Great job on the plotting. I am going to refrain commenting about excess heat at this time, but I have a few suggestions/comments: 1) It is my understanding that the Coil Resistance is 8.5 ohms cold (Room Temperature) and the largest value I heard Alan mention during the experiment was 9.1 ohms. At this point, I would assume a linear relationship with temperature of the Coil Resistance, and using the two data points given (9.1 ohm at the maximum obtained temperature), replot the power curve taking into account the Coil Resistance Variation. 2) Annotate the two “Y” Axis (Left/Right) as Temperature [C] and Power [W]. 3) Compute/Estimate the Heat Capacity of the Null Reactor/Cell and the Fueled Cell, and divide the two. This will give us an idea how large the Cells are off from each other. The Null Cell has the same pressure as the Fueled Cell, but is “filled” with an Alumina Plug with a “Press Fit”. The Fueled Cell has Nickel and much more Hydrogen Gas by Volume than the Null Cell. Hydrogen Gas has a Heat Capacity Value, itself. Those are the differences in Heat Capacity and Thermal Mass. You can start with a Heat Capacity of an Alumina Cylinder and Kanthal Heater Coil of given diameter (sorry, I don’t recall the diameter off the top of my head). There is a rather nice drawing Alan made with the dimensions. If you need some help, post and I am sure we will help out where we can. Also, unfortunately Heat Capacity is a function of temperature and we will have to dig up some data on that, to make a better estimate. Thanks and keep up the good work! - Mark From: Alberto De Souza Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 8:30 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: [Vo]:MFMP has presented the strongest evidence of excess heat due to LENR so far In the graph attached, I have plotted data made public by the MFMP. The graph shows the temperature in a (null hypothesis) empty reactor (that was run in series with a loaded reactor), the temperature of the loaded reactor, and the power applied to both; both reactors were heated by the resistances of the same value. The three variables were plotted according to a moving average of 1000 samples. The power was computed by squaring the voltage and dividing it by 8.6 (the resistance of the heater). As the graph shows, there is strong evidence of excess heat - the power applied to the system reduces, but the active reactor increases its temperature. IMHO, this experiment is the best proof of excess heat due to LENR so far. Alberto. ps. link to graph: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=914302228591022set=p.914302228591022type=1
