Re: [Vo]:Events at the end of Jiang's run #2, Fig. 3

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:

I think you interchanged T1 and T2.
>

Ah, you are right. T2 is inside the reactor in hydrogen gas. T1 is between
the reactor cylinder and the heater ("DC power" shown in orange).

For most of the test shown in Fig. 3, T1 (blue) is hotter than T2.
Yesterday I said "it might not actually be higher; I do not know the error
margin." However, come to think of it, if there is no anomalous heat being
generated in the cell than you would expect T1 to be hotter than T2,
because it is next to the heat source.

Assuming both T1 and T2 were correct up to hour 14:00, and T1 was hotter
than T2 the whole time, then there was no anomalous heat being generated in
the reactor.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Events at the end of Jiang's run #2, Fig. 3

[Alain Sepeda]

>From the exchanges it seems we miss some "metadata" associated with the
curve.

One thing that amazed me was pressure change, but if there is presurization
by bottle, then there is no mystery.

hot H2 and TC seems not to work together, even if Pr Songsheng reports
documents that state compatibility of reductive/H2 athmosphere with K-type
TC (maybe the document refers to reductive, not to H2 which is an uncommon
gas)

from the comments, I step back to pessimism .

recently the only solid calorimetry I've seen is Ed, and his seebeck
calorimeter.

even if people stay to NiH(Li) studies, there are many good ideas to take
from his setup, and from his old book "the science of LENR" (of the student
guide to cold fusion).

maybe there is a marker for selling ready to use flow, or seebeck,
calorimeters. pre-characterized, calibrated, with redundancy, with
integrated logging, with integrated continuous selfcalibration ...

something that can measure precisely even the chemistry reaction and phase
change heat.

No need of LENR competence, just calorimetry.


2016-03-02 2:20 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell :

> H LV  wrote:
>
> I think you interchanged T1 and T2.
>>
>
> I do not think so, but you can check my work. Copy the original image out
> of the Chinese .pdf paper and paste it into a graphics program. It comes
> out in one chunk, easily.
>
> I am pretty sure that at that point, T2 is slightly higher. It may not
> actually be higher; I do not know the error margin. Plus, T1 is the one
> which goes bonkers. Ed Storms and others think it went bonkers because it
> is in hot hydrogen gas.
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Events at the end of Jiang's run #2, Fig. 3

[Jed Rothwell]

H LV  wrote:

I think you interchanged T1 and T2.
>

I do not think so, but you can check my work. Copy the original image out
of the Chinese .pdf paper and paste it into a graphics program. It comes
out in one chunk, easily.

I am pretty sure that at that point, T2 is slightly higher. It may not
actually be higher; I do not know the error margin. Plus, T1 is the one
which goes bonkers. Ed Storms and others think it went bonkers because it
is in hot hydrogen gas.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Events at the end of Jiang's run #2, Fig. 3

[H LV]

I think you interchanged T1 and T2.

Harry

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:
> I printed out the graph and measured the elapsed time between events toward
> the end of the run, starting around hour 14:00. I measured some temperatures
> on the right Y axis. I assume T2 and T4 are correct. I do not trust T1.
> Times are approximate:
>
> Minute 0. T1 and T2 begin rising. T4 stable.
>
> Minute 14. T4 suddenly rises from 110°C up to around 120°C.
>
> Minute 30. T1 falls abruptly. Becomes erratic.
>
> Minute 34. Power off. T2 begins falling. T4 still rising.
>
> Minute 41. T2 begins falling much faster.
>
> Minute 68. T4 reaches a peak temperature of 167°C. This is 34 minutes after
> the power has cut off.
>
> Note that from ~9:00 to 13:15, T4 rose from ~20°C and stabilized at 110°C,
> in response to internal power levels that raised T1 and T2 up to around
> 1100°C. In other words, T4 goes up 90°C, or 1 degree for each 12 degree
> increase in T1 and T2.
>
> Then when T1 and T2 rose only about 100°C more, up to around 1200°C, T4 rose
> proportionally much more than before. It should have gone up ~8°C. Instead,
> it jumped up by around 24°C initially, then it gradually climbed to a peak
> of 167°C, a 57°C increase, even though T1 and T2 had already fallen
> drastically when it peaked.
>
> I cannot make head or tail of this behavior. If there is heat after death,
> it should show up on T2, but I don't see it. T1 is probably damaged, but T2
> seems intact.
>
> - Jed

Re: [Vo]:Events at the end of Jiang's run #2, Fig. 3

[Bob Higgins]

The events leading up to the excess heat are also significant.  Apparently
in the heat treatment phase the H2 pressure was topped up with a tank to
500kPa and it stayed there a while.  Then the pressure began to fall
gradually to 300kPa where, at about 14:15, the pressure was topped up again
to 500kPa.  At about 14:30, the pressure suddenly drops to about 100kPa (1
bar absolute), presumably by the pressure being quickly vented.  The
venting seems to be responsible for sudden cooling of T2 1260C to 1150C.
It is possible that by gas expansion out of the fuel capsule, the whole
fuel capsule cooled by Joule-Thompson effect.  So, venting the gas cooled
the fuel.  The fuel stayed at this temperature or increased a little as
long as T1 was bigger than T2.  Up until this point, the temperature of T2
seems mostly explainable.

However, at some point, when T1 had fallen to about the same temperature as
T2, T2 began rising even though T1 was still declining.  This is a smooth
change in T2 temperature and looks to be a valid temperature measurement,
indicating heat coming from the fuel.  If I saw this, I would have been
excited.

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> I wrote:
>
>
>> Minute 41. T2 begins falling much faster.
>>
>
> This is a little hard to see. Look carefully. The slope of T2 changes a
> lot. At face value, that does indicate there is a source of heat in the
> cell which cuts off when the slope increases.
>
> I am not saying this is definitive.
>
> Let me illustrate this with a small image. Slope 1 is shown with a green
> line, (and marked "1"). Slope 2 is shown with a red line:
>
>
> ​
>
>
> - Jed
>
>

[Vo]:Events at the end of Jiang's run #2, Fig. 3

[Jed Rothwell]

Let me send this message again, with a very small copy of the image
attached.


I wrote:


> Minute 41. T2 begins falling much faster.
>

This is a little hard to see. Look carefully. The slope of T2 changes a
lot. At face value, that does indicate there is a source of heat in the
cell which cuts off when the slope increases.

I am not saying this is definitive.

Let me illustrate this with a small image. Slope 1 is shown with a green
line, (and marked "1"). Slope 2 is shown with a red line.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:Events at the end of Jiang's run #2, Fig. 3

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:


> Minute 41. T2 begins falling much faster.
>

This is a little hard to see. Look carefully. The slope of T2 changes a
lot. At face value, that does indicate there is a source of heat in the
cell which cuts off when the slope increases.

I am not saying this is definitive.

Let me illustrate this with a small image. Slope 1 is shown with a green
line, (and marked "1"). Slope 2 is shown with a red line:


​


- Jed

RE: [Vo]:Events at the end of Jiang's run #2, Fig. 3

[Russ George]

It is a telling and sad story on the character of LENR when this Chinese report 
that shows inadequate experimental design and clearly defective thermocouples 
with no redundancy is proposed by some as a ‘confirmation’ of lenr. Whether the 
reported experiment(s) are shoddy or not, the data presented can certainly not 
make anything clear, save to reveal a path to repeat with improved design and 
methods. 

 

From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 1, 2016 11:47 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: [Vo]:Events at the end of Jiang's run #2, Fig. 3

 

I printed out the graph and measured the elapsed time between events toward the 
end of the run, starting around hour 14:00. I measured some temperatures on the 
right Y axis. I assume T2 and T4 are correct. I do not trust T1. Times are 
approximate:


Minute 0. T1 and T2 begin rising. T4 stable.

Minute 14. T4 suddenly rises from 110°C up to around 120°C.

Minute 30. T1 falls abruptly. Becomes erratic.

Minute 34. Power off. T2 begins falling. T4 still rising.

Minute 41. T2 begins falling much faster.

Minute 68. T4 reaches a peak temperature of 167°C. This is 34 minutes after the 
power has cut off.

Note that from ~9:00 to 13:15, T4 rose from ~20°C and stabilized at 110°C, in 
response to internal power levels that raised T1 and T2 up to around 1100°C. In 
other words, T4 goes up 90°C, or 1 degree for each 12 degree increase in T1 and 
T2.

Then when T1 and T2 rose only about 100°C more, up to around 1200°C, T4 rose 
proportionally much more than before. It should have gone up ~8°C. Instead, it 
jumped up by around 24°C initially, then it gradually climbed to a peak of 
167°C, a 57°C increase, even though T1 and T2 had already fallen drastically 
when it peaked.

I cannot make head or tail of this behavior. If there is heat after death, it 
should show up on T2, but I don't see it. T1 is probably damaged, but T2 seems 
intact.

- Jed

[Vo]:Events at the end of Jiang's run #2, Fig. 3

[Jed Rothwell]

I printed out the graph and measured the elapsed time between events toward
the end of the run, starting around hour 14:00. I measured some
temperatures on the right Y axis. I assume T2 and T4 are correct. I do not
trust T1. Times are approximate:

Minute 0. T1 and T2 begin rising. T4 stable.

Minute 14. T4 suddenly rises from 110°C up to around 120°C.

Minute 30. T1 falls abruptly. Becomes erratic.

Minute 34. Power off. T2 begins falling. T4 still rising.

Minute 41. T2 begins falling much faster.

Minute 68. T4 reaches a peak temperature of 167°C. This is 34 minutes after
the power has cut off.

Note that from ~9:00 to 13:15, T4 rose from ~20°C and stabilized at 110°C,
in response to internal power levels that raised T1 and T2 up to around
1100°C. In other words, T4 goes up 90°C, or 1 degree for each 12 degree
increase in T1 and T2.

Then when T1 and T2 rose only about 100°C more, up to around 1200°C, T4
rose proportionally much more than before. It should have gone up ~8°C.
Instead, it jumped up by around 24°C initially, then it gradually climbed
to a peak of 167°C, a 57°C increase, even though T1 and T2 had already
fallen drastically when it peaked.

I cannot make head or tail of this behavior. If there is heat after death,
it should show up on T2, but I don't see it. T1 is probably damaged, but T2
seems intact.

- Jed