I was a little disappointed with the latest replication results of last evening and took a little time to consider exactly how the configuration being used for the experiment should behave had there been any measurable core thermal power generation.
It occurred to me that it is going to be a bit confusing to clearly understand the data being collected due to the nature of heat flow through thermal resistances. If we make the assumption that the PID controller is doing its job well and regulating the temperature being measured by the thermocouple attached to the outside surface of the inner core module then certain observations should be present. First of all, any thermal power generated within the core must flow through at least one more thermal resistance than electrical heater power. This extra resistance is due to the fact that core heat must radiate, or conduct, or perhaps even convect across the gap that appears between the two device cylinders. At this point in time I have not seen sufficient evidence of the magnitude of that resistance, but it is likely to be significant due to the small areas associated with the surfaces at that location. My ultimate conclusion is that if thermal power is actually being generated within the core, then the total power being radiated from the main heater cylinder outer surface should be lower than that determined when no internal core heat generation is present. This is due to the action of the feedback. Any core heat generation will trade off with electrical heater generation at a rate that is larger than unity due to the thermal resistances. So, if say 500 watts of core power is generated, then perhaps 700 watts of heating reduction will be needed to ballance the feedback loop. This crude example would suggest that the overall power leaving the device would be reduced by 200 watts and the outer surface would be cooler. Of course Parkhomov saw the heater power drop significantly when his feedback was active which is along the lines of what I am now expecting. This conclusion does leave me wondering exactly how much additional power his experiment demonstrated. It is very unfortunate that he did not use his method of calorimetry at the same time that his feedback loop was active. This one simple test could have verified his results and proven or disproven my latest theory. So, now I would like to propose that if MFMP continues to use a closed loop PID controller that accurately keeps the temperature of the outer surface of the core module constant that we can prove that core power is being generated by monitoring the outside surface of the larger cylinder. If that temperature drops, then it is safe to assume that core power is being generated. If I recall from yesterdays experiment the outside temperature did not drop once the regulation was established so there was likely little if any core power generation. This technique should be an accurate way to determine core power generation if a calibration method can be established. The value of that extra thermal resistance is the key question that much be answered. Of course, it may be necessary to go to lengths to maintain the same value of thermal resistance when the structure is reassembled unless a calibration can be performed each time that is of sufficient accuracy. If anyone detects a flaw in my present theory please continue to discuss it since this may become a vital method of proving extra core power generation. The issue is complex enough to confuse anyone, including me, so lets get it right. Dave
