FacebookTwitterDiggStumbleuponGoogle BookmarksRedditTechnoratiLinkedin

HUG Concentric Calorimeter

Keep up to date with the experiments using HUGs flexible Concentric Calorimeter right here.
Please feel free to add your comments to the blog entries.


LENR-Stick 1: Loading Complete and Live Data Streaming UPDATE: Added geiger counter

on .

We have completed the loading phase of the first LENR-Stick test cell with 400L wire in it.  We went through 6 phases as illustrated below.  The complete write up is in this report: LENR_Stick_1_Loading_Report

After moving the apparatus to a different data collection computer, the data is now streaming live, too, under the name "CTC: Air Jacket Test".  This refers to the Concentric Tube Calorimeter, and the first version that is air jacketed, instead of the coming versions that are water jacketed.

We ended up with a few interesting things to note.  First, we saw a total "loading" - or pressure drop, corresponding to 1.53 atoms of H for each atom of   Nickel.  Second, we saw the reduction in resistance happen mostly at the tail end of the loading.  Some of that hydrogen may have gone to making water by reducing the oxides into water and then condensing in the cold part of the test cell.  The loading happened most rapidly when the thermocouple next to the actively heated wires read 175C.  The wire, isolated from the thermocouple by a fiberglass insulation sleeve, may have been somewhat hotter.  One of the more interesting things, though is a sawtooth pattern that appeared in the pressure readings.  We saw them first in Phase F.  When we looked, again, we saw it phase B, also.  We did not see it in Phase E at a higher pressure and temperature.

The large sinusoidal signal is the pressure being modulated by a few degree change in room temperature over a daily cycle and has a amplitude of approximately 20 mbar.  The small sawtooths, which always face up the slope, are between 1 and 2 mbar in amplitude with a period of roughly an hour or two.  The graph below is from phase F and spans about 4 days.  The only interruption in the pattern (just before the second major peak) corresponds to a temperature and resistance change event, but with no discernible change in energy output.  See the report write up for more details.

When we looked back, we were able to see the same pattern appear as the pressure leveled off in Phase B, which was at the same power level, but 0.25 bar less pressure.

We have looked at the data extremely closely to see if it an instrumentation artifact, but it does not seem to be because the changes take place slowly instead of instantaneously.  We did not see them at 24W input power during phase E.

I can think of a few, tiny mechanisms of adsoprtion/absorption and pressure related triggers that might cause a sudden release or a cavity between layers to open, but they are only guesses.  Who else has guesses as to what this means?  What might happen at other pressures and temperatures?  Can this effect be engineered to drive flux of hydrogen in the wire to help fuel the LENR effect?

The take home conclusion from this phase of the test is that there are dynamic little things going on in this system.  Understanding what they are and how any of them *might* relate to excess power generation will be critical going forward.

Possible future experiments include:

 - Adding acetone per Celani's email last week 

- Adjusting the pressure up to 10 or 20 bars and seeing if the loading is pressure dependent

- Devise something to tease apart the hydrogen loading versus reducing the oxides and making water.

- Assembling a new cell and try loading at 0.1 bar or something below atmospheric

- Assembling a new cell and shoving every active wire we have into it and seeing if we can get any signal off of all of them.


Oh, and by the way, we are currently tracking some excess energy on that cell and trying to see if it is real.  We'll keep trying to disprove it and let you know if we can't.  


UPDATE 1: We found an instrumentation configuration bug that accounted for that excess heat signal.   We'll keep trying, though.

In other news, we have added a geiger counter with an analog output to the test cell instrumentation package.  The data column for it is in relative units.  It adds a nice scientific ambiance to the lab with it's occasional beeping.  I think the odds of it ever really capturing useful info are pretty slim since it is only gamma rays that are likely to penetrate the stainless tube and the two aluminum tubes and the plastic tube to get to the geiger tube in the detector.  If it ever does capture anything, though, it'll be really exciting!!  


0 #42 RosemarieJuicy 2018-09-29 04:21

But did you know that there is a tool that allows you
to create new posts using existing content (from article directories
The new articles are unique and pass the copyscape test.
Search in google and try: miftolo's tools
0 #41 Susan Clark 2018-01-02 12:34
0 #40 Ecco 2013-06-03 17:37

if you're planning to keep CTC input power off to test for the influence of heat/ambiental changes on the Geiger counter until tomorrow, then I would suggest to also turn off the active insulation and keep a window or two opened to decrease lab temperatures throughout the night (since it appeared that Geiger readings were following ambient temperature).

Electromagnetic interferences (by the power supply?) are more likely to cause false readings than that, however.
The apparent correlation with ambient temperature could have been due to the temperature compensation of the power supply, possibly altering generated EMI as temperature changes, but in a detectable way only as long as some load is applied.
0 #39 Ron B 2013-06-02 18:39
It's still changing though and that alone is something worth giving note. Any ideas why the resistance changes and then why does it reverse itself? It's true that both temp/pressure affect the resistance, that's why it's hard to sort it out but I've seen enough data to believe that something unique is happening and that resistance is a key indicator. The trigger tests don't really hurt anything. As long as the wire is exposed to hydrogen it seems to follow a similar path. The only thing I've seen reverse it is to pull a vacuum on it.
0 #38 Ecco 2013-06-02 14:45
We're speaking of fractions of milliohms, though. It doesn't look like it in the live graph, but it's a very tiny change.

Personally I would like to see more active testing than letting the wire sit in the cell passively or keeping applying slow on-off duty cycles which don't seem to be doing much. The output/input ratio has remained at almost exactly 1 for weeks and I doubt it will improve any more than this.

If we are to take other claims of excess heat seriously, it's likely that some sort of repetitive "shock" (Electrical? Gas pressure? Heat? etc) is needed to trigger excess heat.

It would also help big time if somehow more wire mass were to be tested in one single cell.
0 #37 Ron B 2013-06-02 14:28
I'm not quite sure what the magic was/is but I now have up-to-date data coming from the CTC. Yea!
It's of interest to note that the resistance continues on its downward journey. Hopefully no one will lose patience on this test setup and stop it because as we've seen in the other cells, the pattern is for the resistance to continue to drop and then at some point it will reverse directions and then we will start to see excess power.
0 #36 Ron B 2013-05-30 03:26
Bob et al,

There's an interesting read on vortex about H and Ni. It talks about loading hydrogen with regard to pressure.
If the pattern follows what I've noticed before, maybe we'll start seeing excess power when the slope of resistance changes and it starts it steady uphill climb.
This is very exciting and worth the long wait to get here.

0 #35 Robert Greenyer 2013-05-13 14:52

Your suggestion is good, very limited options for triggering, stimulation and acceleration, but one to consider.
+1 #34 Ecco 2013-05-12 14:47
As long as the cell is under water, what goes in has to come out somehow. Insulation could be as simple as a closed steel tube containing air/mild vacuum, to which the stick could be screwed on like a cartridge heater, if the problem is direct heat removal by water cooling. But the intended advantages of this experiment are:

- Being simple -> by reducing the testing apparatus to the minimum complexity needed to show excess heat.
- Being cheap -> by not requiring expensive controls, sensors, equipment and materials.
- Being straightforward -> output energy calculation can be performed just by knowing the amount of water, its temperature and time elapsed.
- Removing or averaging out all possible variables -> all the above + the large amount of water and long time constant ensuring that small variations in testing conditions are not very relevant anymore.

Mass flow calorimetry is of course very welcome and needed, but would it fulfill all the above?
0 #33 Robert Greenyer 2013-05-12 13:52

I understand the heat loss from the stick into the fluid would be too fast and result in lowering of the temperature of the reactor below the threshold in which it is susceptible to some form of triggering.

The steel and glass cell maintains a high core temperature by having a lower pressure gas in the space between the glass and the steel.

Maybe some insulation could be done on the stick though that would be equivalent. I think the next version though might be fluid mass flow.

Add comment

See the current state of our booked costs here