Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
by the way comparative calorimetry can assert proofs. the normal COP if mainstream theory is real, is COP=1, and excess heat~= 0, in any condition, on long term. on short term the excess heap should not be out of +/- chemical energy inside the reactor . Einitial-EchemicalEfinalEinitial+Echemical if he prove a difference between two experiments that either prove longterm two COP differences (COPaCOPb) , or any excess heat EaEb on long term, above all error possible, or any short term discrepancy between heat above 2 chemical energy inside the reactor (Ea-Eb2Echemical), then IT IS A BREAKTHROUGH. comparative is not perfect to measure the detail, but it is enough to eliminate the mainstream theory as factually false. Am I right when I say that we are in that situation where whatever is said, the mainstream theory of COP=1 and |Efinal-Einitial|Echemical is refuted with many sigma. I think first about the NASA GRC experiments (89 and 2005) that are far enough to refute mainstream theory. Nothing more seems required. Or did I miss something subtle about error margins ? NB: it is not a rhetorical question, since I'm looking for critic to my reasoning, so I don't tell stupidities in public. 2012/8/20 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com At 02:02 AM 8/18/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: So I understood, but then the flip side: why the questions about the calorimetry? Again, what am I missing? I've answered before but these responses are delayed. What you are missing, Jeff, is that Celani's work isn't conclusive, by any means. It's investigational, and he is comparing results between his own experiments. What was demonstrated wasn't even one of these, not really, though maybe he'll be able to use the data. Some enthusiastic supporters of cold fusion exaggerate the importance of such demonstrations. Don't get me wrong. I support cold fusion research. Celani's work is actually quite important, but not for convincing skeptics, or demonstrating absolute, confident calorimetry. That any heat at all is apparent is of interest to most of us. It's an indication that NiH reactions are possible, one more among many. Of course I'd love to see better calorimetry! But it is not Celani's purpose, which is investigating the materials and their responses under test. He only needs *relative* calorimetry for that. And he doesn't need two experimental setups for that. He just runs them all the same and compares outcomes, serially. You may want to see a simultaneous control, but you aren't paying his bills!
Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
At 12:51 AM 8/18/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: Good calorimetry is difficult, but comparisons are not. Wouldn't it be sufficient to demonstrate two parallel implementations, one with an unprocessed CONSTANTAN wire and no H2, one with a processed wire and H2, and measure the difference using the same approach? Why do I even have to pose this question? Questions like this are what cause the rest of the world to doubt the whole discipline. How hard is this? What am I missing? Help me out here. Jeff, the Celani experiment is not designed to show the rest of the world that cold fusion is real. He is investigating a technique, and for that purpose, if he keeps his apparatus the same, he doesn't need an absolute control. Rather, he sees the effect on the results from shifts in materials. His *experimental series* provides the control he needs. You are correct. He's comparing results. Here, he was only showing one experiment. His calorimetry was approximate. If he keeps the same conditions, his comparisons should be sound, and I'd assume that the full series would include something not active. That will check his baseline. He only demonstrated one experiment out of a series, and that not under full operating conditions. This is little more than show and tell. Demonstrations don't convince anyone who is truly skeptical, but Celani's full experimental reports might be better for someone on the fence. If you want better study, take a look at SRI P13/P14. That series, done in 1991, I think, shows definitive XP, with matched hydrogen control; the full series shows the variability of results. The same cathode, same apparent conditions, two times the same current excursion was run, no heat. The same with the hydrogen control. Third time's a charm. The third excursion is what was published widely, it's in the 2004 U.S. Department of Energy review paper. Without knowing about the first two excursions, though -- which weren't mentioned in the review paper -- you'd just think, well, XP tracking input current. This is unusual? Yes, it is *very* unusual. The hydrogen control is in series, measured with the same calorimetric method, showing no excess heat, only an increase in noise with increased current (as would be expected). The deuterium cell takes off. The first two runs show that the calorimetry is working. The shutdown also shows that the calorimetry is working. The whole series shows that the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect depends on uncontrolled variables. Even the *same cathode* did not produce the same effects. By the way, SRI monitored the D/PD and H/Pd ratios. It was over 90% for all excursions. The difference is not due to loading difference. Storms, now, would explain this by differences in the surface cracking of the cathodes. Not controlled. It is absolutely no wonder that many researchers found nothing, and finding nothing proved nothing other than ... it's possible to do the experiment, as it was defined, and find nothing. In science, we look for explanations that cover *all* the work that has been done. What came to be known, eventually, covers, quite well, the early negative replications. From what we know, they were to be expected. Lewis, for example, didn't have over 80% loading, a necessity with his approach. He may or may not have seen some actual XP, that issue is covered by the correspondence between Noninski and Nature. And then there came heat/helium, and knocked the brains out of the skeptical responses. Except, for those who were pseudoskeptics instead of real skeptics, believing in themselves more than science, they haven't noticed yet it takes a while for the beast to go down, since it doesn't depend on higher brain functions it only operates on primitive survival instincts.
Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
At 02:02 AM 8/18/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: So I understood, but then the flip side: why the questions about the calorimetry? Again, what am I missing? I've answered before but these responses are delayed. What you are missing, Jeff, is that Celani's work isn't conclusive, by any means. It's investigational, and he is comparing results between his own experiments. What was demonstrated wasn't even one of these, not really, though maybe he'll be able to use the data. Some enthusiastic supporters of cold fusion exaggerate the importance of such demonstrations. Don't get me wrong. I support cold fusion research. Celani's work is actually quite important, but not for convincing skeptics, or demonstrating absolute, confident calorimetry. That any heat at all is apparent is of interest to most of us. It's an indication that NiH reactions are possible, one more among many. Of course I'd love to see better calorimetry! But it is not Celani's purpose, which is investigating the materials and their responses under test. He only needs *relative* calorimetry for that. And he doesn't need two experimental setups for that. He just runs them all the same and compares outcomes, serially. You may want to see a simultaneous control, but you aren't paying his bills!
Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
Thanks. Very much appreciated (both of them). Jeff On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.comwrote: At 02:02 AM 8/18/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: So I understood, but then the flip side: why the questions about the calorimetry? Again, what am I missing? I've answered before but these responses are delayed. What you are missing, Jeff, is that Celani's work isn't conclusive, by any means. It's investigational, and he is comparing results between his own experiments. What was demonstrated wasn't even one of these, not really, though maybe he'll be able to use the data. Some enthusiastic supporters of cold fusion exaggerate the importance of such demonstrations. Don't get me wrong. I support cold fusion research. Celani's work is actually quite important, but not for convincing skeptics, or demonstrating absolute, confident calorimetry. That any heat at all is apparent is of interest to most of us. It's an indication that NiH reactions are possible, one more among many. Of course I'd love to see better calorimetry! But it is not Celani's purpose, which is investigating the materials and their responses under test. He only needs *relative* calorimetry for that. And he doesn't need two experimental setups for that. He just runs them all the same and compares outcomes, serially. You may want to see a simultaneous control, but you aren't paying his bills!
Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
So I understood, but then the flip side: why the questions about the calorimetry? Again, what am I missing? On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.comwrote: He did it... 2012/8/18 Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Good calorimetry is difficult, but comparisons are not. Wouldn't it be sufficient to demonstrate two parallel implementations, one with an unprocessed CONSTANTAN wire and no H2, one with a processed wire and H2, and measure the difference using the same approach? Why do I even have to pose this question? Questions like this are what cause the rest of the world to doubt the whole discipline. How hard is this? What am I missing? Help me out here. Jeff On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** *From:* Robert Lynn ** ** [snip] Add that 25.2 to the 36.7 and subtract 48 input and you get 14W excess…. I think you can pretty confidently state that it is over 10W.** ** ** ** ** ** Nice work. Thanks. ** ** Is there any way to guesstimate – assuming the best reasonable kind of insulation is added to retain heat, something like aerogel, etc – how much more mass of active wire (if any) would be necessary to get close to a nominally self-sustaining system? ** ** Jones -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
Ive a bit concern about the total radiation. But Im not expert in calorimetry, neither in heat transfer. Radiation is emission of IR (infrared) from a warm surface. The Boltzmanns law give the energy radiated from a surface at a given temperature and kind of material. Inside the Celanis cell, there are equipments (included wires) which emit also IR. The total surface inside the cell is not negligible and warmer than the borosilicate glass. What happens to the IR from the inside of the cell when they arrive to the borosilicate glass? Does the IR heat the glass or did they pass through it? Or is it like a greenhouse effects? The IR wavelength emitted inside the cell is around 5 ~8 µm. What is the transmission of those IR through the glass used by Celani? From Duran In the spectral range from about 310 to 2200 nm the absorption of DURAN® is negligibly low. What about above the 2200 nm? http://www.duran-group.com/en/about-duran/duran-properties/optical-properti es-of-duran.html http://www.duran-group.com/en/about-duran/duran-properties/optical-propertie s-of-duran.html My thinking could be here completely false. _ From: Robert Lynn [mailto:robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com] Sent: samedi 18 août 2012 05:08 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration From those numbers (30°C room, 120°C at 48W and 140°C when LENR active) I calculate 16W excess if you assume all radiative heat transfer. But it will actually be slightly less than that because the hotter tube surface will convect heat away at a rate that is roughly proportional to the air to tube temperature difference. The next level of complication is that the natural convection air flow will also be slightly faster due to the increased buoyancy, so the heat transfer coefficient will increase as temperature increases too, typically at a rate proportional to the temperature differential to the power of 0.25. I'll do the calculation assuming constant heat transfer coefficient and then with variable heat transfer coefficient caused by increased temperature, shouldn't be much difference due to relatively small relative temperature increase. From his paper he says that the tube dimensions are Ø40mm OD and 280mm long, I will use the full length assume that the temperature is the same everywhere due to internal convection of that most magical of heat transfer fluids hydrogen. Borosilicate glass has emissivity of about 0.9 so the tube is radiating about 27.4W at 120°C and 36.7W at 140°C in a 30°C environment. So 48-27.4=20.6W convected at 120°C and 20.6x(140-30)/(120-30)=25.2W at 140°C. Add that 25.2 to the 36.7 and subtract 48 input and you get 14W excess. Assuming that the heat transfer coefficient increases in proportion to the temperature differential to the power of 0.25 then the convected and therefore excess heat rises by about 1.2W to 15.2W All the same calculations repeated for a 25°C ambient temperature instead of 30°C drop the excess heat from 15.2W to 14.6W, again not much difference There might be a little more complication with the end caps etc, but I think you can pretty confidently state that it is over 10W. Also perhaps someone did a check on the temperature at the top and bottom of the outside of the tube to see if there was a significant temperature difference? I think it is pretty unlikely but you never know. On 18 August 2012 01:53, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Several experts in calorimetry expressed doubts about the Celani demonstration at ICCF17. Mike McKubre in particular feels that it is impossible to judge whether it really produced heat or not, because the method is poor. He does not say he is sure there was no heat; he simply does not know. Others feel that he exaggerates the problem. There were concerns because Celani has programmed in the Stephan-Boltzmann law which multiplies things to the a 4-th power. Srinivasan worried that he makes a mountain out of a molehill. The temperature is measured at one point on the surface of the tube. I asked Brian of NI to give me the actual temperature readings. With 48 W of input power only, before excess heat or with the Ar calibration, in a room with 30 deg C ambient temperature, the temperature rose to 120 deg C. When the excess heat appeared it rose to 140 deg C. Celani says that equals 14 W excess, and that is what was displayed by the instrument. McKubre and others worry this may be caused by decreased pressure in the cell. However, the pressure fell only gradually, and stabilized in the last 2 days. They also worried about changes in conduction within the tube, and uneven heat on the surface. I do not think that such effects can account for a 20 deg C temperature rise, especially given the smooth line produced when there is no heat, with H or Ar. The temperature returned to the same level with 48 W, in Italy, Texas and Korea, after the gas had been changed
Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
Is there any way to guesstimate – assuming the best reasonable kind of insulation is added to retain heat, something like aerogel, etc – how much more mass of active wire (if any) would be necessary to get close to a nominally self-sustaining system? ** ** Jones That would be very easy to do, no need for anything fancy, just wrap it in Fiberglass insulation and tape it on, like lagging a pipe. Quick mental calculation suggests on the order of 0.1W per cm of thickness per degree of temperature differential, so for 15W and 100 degree temperature differential you would need about 6mm thickness of fiberglass. Would only take 5-10 minute to set up. Bigger problem is stopping it from over-heating. Ideally need to surround it in a heat sink with a controllable temperature - eg 120°C so that as the reactor gets hotter than that it will rapidly start to transfer heat to the heat sink. Want the heat sink close to the reactor operating temperature (I think this was one of Rossi's problems in getting safe controllability last year) So put the whole reactor inside a really well insulated metal container filled with oil that can be heated up to as much as 190°C, and perhaps a way of dripping water into the oil if you need to get rid of heat (20cc water per hour would do it for 12W) The oil will prevent rapid thermal run-aways with it's thermal inertia.
RE: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
From: Robert Lynn * Bigger problem is stopping it from over-heating. Ideally need to surround it in a heat sink with a controllable temperature - eg 120°C so that as the reactor gets hotter than that it will rapidly start to transfer heat to the heat sink. Want the heat sink close to the reactor operating temperature (I think this was one of Rossi's problems in getting safe controllability last year) Coincidentally, I ran across this: http://www.amazon.com/Antec-Kuhler-H2O-620-Liquid/dp/B004LWYE4Q/ref=sr_1_5?s =industrialie=UTF8qid=1345300478sr=1-5keywords=heat+exchanger attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Is there any way to guesstimate – assuming the best reasonable kind of insulation is added to retain heat, something like aerogel, etc – how much more mass of active wire (if any) would be necessary to get close to a nominally self-sustaining system? The present mass of wire would be fine. Any kind of insulation would do. The hard part is keeping it from overheating. Assuming the heat really is 15 to 20 W, it should be no problem using that much to keep the temperature above the critical point of ~120 deg C. The system will be externally heated at first, and then the external heat will be backed off as it self-heats. Celani already had plans to do this. He hopes to try in about 2 weeks. He will report the results immediately, to me and others. It may take a while to write a detailed report. He hopes to give me the data from the run at ICCF17, which is about 5 MB. He has to get permission from NI since it is their equipment. I gather that is a formality. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
10x gasoline. 1 or 2 weeks would be 10,000. The upper limit for fusion in general is around 200.000. 6 months of operation (sounds like Rossi...). 2012/8/17 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com He has run it for as long as a month, so a 1 or 2 week self-sustaining run should not be a problem. Given the mass of wire, even 10 minutes would be convincing. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
On 2012-08-18 02:53, Jed Rothwell wrote: Celani hopes to run it in self-sustaining mode with better insulation. That will put to rest all questions about calorimetry. He hopes to do this as quickly as 2 weeks from now! More power to him. Given the interest this device generated it would be great if data about one or two self-sustaining runs were publicly released before the next major cold fusion event. Has Celani said anything as to when he eventually plans releasing them? By the way, about the same observations made by McKubre and others at ICCF-17 have been already discussed by skeptics on discussion boards around on the Web. I think these are valid concerns which a more accurate and reliable calorimetry (maybe not possible for a portable clear cell?) or a significantly increased output/input ratio could easily dispel. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
From those numbers (30°C room, 120°C at 48W and 140°C when LENR active) I calculate 16W excess if you assume all radiative heat transfer. But it will actually be slightly less than that because the hotter tube surface will convect heat away at a rate that is roughly proportional to the air to tube temperature difference. The next level of complication is that the natural convection air flow will also be slightly faster due to the increased buoyancy, so the heat transfer coefficient will increase as temperature increases too, typically at a rate proportional to the temperature differential to the power of 0.25. I'll do the calculation assuming constant heat transfer coefficient and then with variable heat transfer coefficient caused by increased temperature, shouldn't be much difference due to relatively small relative temperature increase. From his paper he says that the tube dimensions are Ø40mm OD and 280mm long, I will use the full length assume that the temperature is the same everywhere due to internal convection of that most magical of heat transfer fluids hydrogen. Borosilicate glass has emissivity of about 0.9 so the tube is radiating about 27.4W at 120°C and 36.7W at 140°C in a 30°C environment. So 48-27.4=20.6W convected at 120°C and 20.6x(140-30)/(120-30)=25.2W at 140°C. Add that 25.2 to the 36.7 and subtract 48 input and you get 14W excess. Assuming that the heat transfer coefficient increases in proportion to the temperature differential to the power of 0.25 then the convected and therefore excess heat rises by about 1.2W to 15.2W All the same calculations repeated for a 25°C ambient temperature instead of 30°C drop the excess heat from 15.2W to 14.6W, again not much difference There might be a little more complication with the end caps etc, but I think you can pretty confidently state that it is over 10W. Also perhaps someone did a check on the temperature at the top and bottom of the outside of the tube to see if there was a significant temperature difference? I think it is pretty unlikely but you never know. On 18 August 2012 01:53, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Several experts in calorimetry expressed doubts about the Celani demonstration at ICCF17. Mike McKubre in particular feels that it is impossible to judge whether it really produced heat or not, because the method is poor. He does not say he is sure there was no heat; he simply does not know. Others feel that he exaggerates the problem. There were concerns because Celani has programmed in the Stephan-Boltzmann law which multiplies things to the a 4-th power. Srinivasan worried that he makes a mountain out of a molehill. The temperature is measured at one point on the surface of the tube. I asked Brian of NI to give me the actual temperature readings. With 48 W of input power only, before excess heat or with the Ar calibration, in a room with 30 deg C ambient temperature, the temperature rose to 120 deg C. When the excess heat appeared it rose to 140 deg C. Celani says that equals 14 W excess, and that is what was displayed by the instrument. McKubre and others worry this may be caused by decreased pressure in the cell. However, the pressure fell only gradually, and stabilized in the last 2 days. They also worried about changes in conduction within the tube, and uneven heat on the surface. I do not think that such effects can account for a 20 deg C temperature rise, especially given the smooth line produced when there is no heat, with H or Ar. The temperature returned to the same level with 48 W, in Italy, Texas and Korea, after the gas had been changed out twice. Anyway, I would like to note that these people have doubts. Others agree with me that the method is crude but unlikely to produce such a large error. Celani hopes to run it in self-sustaining mode with better insulation. That will put to rest all questions about calorimetry. He hopes to do this as quickly as 2 weeks from now! More power to him. He has run it for as long as a month, so a 1 or 2 week self-sustaining run should not be a problem. Given the mass of wire, even 10 minutes would be convincing. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
Isn't 23 years of torture enough? On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Several experts in calorimetry expressed doubts about the Celani demonstration at ICCF17. Mike McKubre in particular feels that it is impossible to judge whether it really produced heat or not, because the method is poor. He does not say he is sure there was no heat; he simply does not know. Others feel that he exaggerates the problem. There were concerns because Celani has programmed in the Stephan-Boltzmann law which multiplies things to the a 4-th power. Srinivasan worried that he makes a mountain out of a molehill. The temperature is measured at one point on the surface of the tube. I asked Brian of NI to give me the actual temperature readings. With 48 W of input power only, before excess heat or with the Ar calibration, in a room with 30 deg C ambient temperature, the temperature rose to 120 deg C. When the excess heat appeared it rose to 140 deg C. Celani says that equals 14 W excess, and that is what was displayed by the instrument. McKubre and others worry this may be caused by decreased pressure in the cell. However, the pressure fell only gradually, and stabilized in the last 2 days. They also worried about changes in conduction within the tube, and uneven heat on the surface. I do not think that such effects can account for a 20 deg C temperature rise, especially given the smooth line produced when there is no heat, with H or Ar. The temperature returned to the same level with 48 W, in Italy, Texas and Korea, after the gas had been changed out twice. Anyway, I would like to note that these people have doubts. Others agree with me that the method is crude but unlikely to produce such a large error. Celani hopes to run it in self-sustaining mode with better insulation. That will put to rest all questions about calorimetry. He hopes to do this as quickly as 2 weeks from now! More power to him. He has run it for as long as a month, so a 1 or 2 week self-sustaining run should not be a problem. Given the mass of wire, even 10 minutes would be convincing. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
From: Robert Lynn [snip] Add that 25.2 to the 36.7 and subtract 48 input and you get 14W excess.. I think you can pretty confidently state that it is over 10W. Nice work. Thanks. Is there any way to guesstimate - assuming the best reasonable kind of insulation is added to retain heat, something like aerogel, etc - how much more mass of active wire (if any) would be necessary to get close to a nominally self-sustaining system? Jones
Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
Good calorimetry is difficult, but comparisons are not. Wouldn't it be sufficient to demonstrate two parallel implementations, one with an unprocessed CONSTANTAN wire and no H2, one with a processed wire and H2, and measure the difference using the same approach? Why do I even have to pose this question? Questions like this are what cause the rest of the world to doubt the whole discipline. How hard is this? What am I missing? Help me out here. Jeff On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** *From:* Robert Lynn ** ** [snip] Add that 25.2 to the 36.7 and subtract 48 input and you get 14W excess…. I think you can pretty confidently state that it is over 10W. ** ** ** ** Nice work. Thanks. ** ** Is there any way to guesstimate – assuming the best reasonable kind of insulation is added to retain heat, something like aerogel, etc – how much more mass of active wire (if any) would be necessary to get close to a nominally self-sustaining system? ** ** Jones
Re: [Vo]:Some doubts expressed about Celani demonstration
He did it... 2012/8/18 Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com Good calorimetry is difficult, but comparisons are not. Wouldn't it be sufficient to demonstrate two parallel implementations, one with an unprocessed CONSTANTAN wire and no H2, one with a processed wire and H2, and measure the difference using the same approach? Why do I even have to pose this question? Questions like this are what cause the rest of the world to doubt the whole discipline. How hard is this? What am I missing? Help me out here. Jeff On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: ** ** *From:* Robert Lynn ** ** [snip] Add that 25.2 to the 36.7 and subtract 48 input and you get 14W excess…. I think you can pretty confidently state that it is over 10W.*** * ** ** ** ** Nice work. Thanks. ** ** Is there any way to guesstimate – assuming the best reasonable kind of insulation is added to retain heat, something like aerogel, etc – how much more mass of active wire (if any) would be necessary to get close to a nominally self-sustaining system? ** ** Jones -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
