New Reports from Jack Cole and Brian Albiston [Update: Excess Heat Seemingly Found in Latest Albiston Test]

UPDATE: Brian Albiston has published his results from the testing overnight from April 11-12.

Here’s a chart that shows what happened.

brianchart

As you can see, at about 22:30, he pushed the power up a little, and the temperature took off vertically from about 1050 C until it hit 1200 C, where the PID controller kicked in and regulated the temperature so it would not go any higher. The blue line oscillating between about 400W and 0 shows the power turning on and off to maintain temperature. Something happened in the reactor at about 6:00 a.m. as the excess heat started to diminish and dropped off sharply at around 9:00 a.m. After realizing the excess heat was not going to come back, Brian tried to push the power to see what it would take to reach 1200 C but in doing so, killed his heater tube, and the thermocouple.

See here for Brian’s full report: http://www.hydrogenfusion.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-little-reactor-that-could.html

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

With the attention of the LENR world focused on the proceedings of the ICCF19 conference in Padua, there are some other things going on as well. Jack Cole reported on his LENR-Coldfusion site that he is putting together a new experimental system using induction heating, along with a new system of calorimetry. Jack says that from here on out he will be ignoring heat losses in his calculation and will be concentrating on measuring useful energy output. He writes:

I believe a more effective demonstration would be to ignore all heat loss. This is also a matter that pertains to commercializing the process. If you cannot effectively recover more energy in the form of heat than the electricity you use, then there can be no commercial application. For my purposes going forward, I will refer to Effective COP and Effective Energy Balance. It would be most significant to recover more heat energy in the water of the calorimeter than was applied to the heating system (ignoring losses), and this is my goal going forward.

Jack says he is getting set up for a new round of experimentation.

Another experiment to keep an eye on is the latest one by Brian Albiston. In a new post on his Fusion Test Log blog yesterday he explains his new experimental setup which employs a new power meter which also includes a temperature controller to prevent thermal runaway. He also has new thermocouple placements which he thinks will be more accurate, plus he has put some extra protection on his thermocouples to try to prevent them from burning out.

The experiment is currently running (started Sunday) and he says there should be new results to report on Monday Check out each of the websites for pictures.brianchart

  • Sanjeev

    JP Biberian’s results show an excess power of 12W. Not much, but it seems if its taken to 1200°C, it can reach higher values. Thanks to Alain for the picture taken at ICCF.

  • Josh G

    New report from Jack Cole shows apparent excess heat found on Ross/Parkhomov replication:
    http://www.lenr-coldfusion.com/2015/04/16/experiment-generates-apparent-excess-heat/

    One point. He says that the Parkhomov experiment suggests that leak doesn’t matter. I am not sure I agree with this interpretation of Parkhomov’s pressure measurements. In as much as Parkhomov’s pressure measurements showed the creation of a vacuum, the ’cause’ of his low pressure was likely due to the absorption of hydrogen into the nickel. But if there is a leak, then the low pressure might be mainly due to the hydrogen escaping from the chamber rather than being absorbed. If hydrogen is critical to the reaction, then avoiding leaks is essential, although high pressures are unnecessary (and may cause a boom).

  • Obvious

    I like the heater, but I think this one might be a bit tougher. The Superthal Mini.
    http://kanthal.com/Global/Downloads/Furnace%20products%20and%20heating%20systems/Heating%20modules/Superthal%20heating%20modules/S-KA021-PS-ENG-2011-09.pdf
    (PDF link)
    It is rated for 1500 C, and is nearly the same design.
    That should keep you to only burning out thermocouples.

    • Wishful Thinking Energy

      Very nice, but very expensive. There’s one on ebay for $800, without the heating element!

      MFMP is doing their $300 silicon carbide elements. I have some other ideas percolating in my head too.

      • Obvious

        No element…LOL. Anyways, the 2 inch is a monster: over 2100 W, and pulls ~90 A at ~24V, but would reach 1700C. Way too big, and a pain to power up.
        I am still waiting for a quote on both minis.
        The non-wetting molten aluminum and lithium proof tubes were a tad much also, if they fail more than a couple times.

        • Wishful Thinking Energy

          Keep in mind that we should be focusing on a system that can be placed in some type of calorimeter – Parkhomov style. One problem I’ve faced with my 14″ long reactor is that it’s very difficult to find a pot/vessel big enough to fit it in.

          And keep it as simple as possible to begin with.

          • Obvious

            Pots for boiling jars for canning are big enough, cheap and common. Enamelled, too.

            • Wishful Thinking Energy

              Hmm… might work. I was also thinking about using a chafing dish.

              • Obvious

                Lobster pots are also a good bet. Don’t go fo the cheapest ones, the enamel falls off too easily. Also, many have a convex bottom, intended for gas burner stoves, which can reduce the volume a bit, and heat funny with an electric coil calibration burner.

  • Sanjeev

    These are internal temperatures, so no radiative power here and no meaningful COP can be estimated using SB law.

  • Sanjeev

    BTW, Frank, the link to full report has two links in it.

  • Sanjeev

    Both the sharp rise and sharp fall of core temperature are anomalous events.
    The magenta trace is initially higher than the red because the furnace TC is closer to the heater (I guess), which is expected because the heater is the source of heat and the reactor is the sink. But that changes suddenly and at the time of spike, the controller kicks in and reduced the power, you can see the magenta trace dropping, which shows that the heater cools down, but the red trace does not go down, which can only mean that now the reactor is the source of heat now.
    At around 5:00AM the reactor stabilizes, which is evident by the controller increasing the power (less frequent cuts). The magenta rises because the heater is now supplying most of the power.
    The sharp fall is very strange (can be endothermic), because there is no reason for the reactor to cool down so fast, except if it was generating its own heat before the sharp fall. Now it returns to the previous trend of 200C below magenta.
    I hope this analysis is correct. This surely is a good result and demands further experiments.

    • Ged

      Thank you for the analysis, Sanjeev. I must concur with you. The behavior is fascinating, with what looks like two phases of activity. That could suggest two modes of activity (the unstable then stable). Could be the heater starting to fail broke the reactor out of its activity, leading to the sharp fall and return to a heatsink. if the heater had stayed stable, it may have gone on.

      Alternatively, the reactor has two fuel stages. Once the first stage was used up it got less fitful, but also generated less energy (less cut back by controller). That may be the hydrogen fusion initiator events. After that, the more stable but less energetic second fuel phase occurred, which may be the hypothesized isotope shifts to stability by neutron shuffling perhaps catalyzed by lithium. Once that wound down the reaction crashed with no new unstable isotopes being fed in by hydrogen fusion. We see the collapse is two phase too, with a rapid and then slow phase (most unstable isotopes used up, then relatively unstable isotopes used up?).

      Interesting stuff. I don’t think the reaction was quenched, such as by cooling or losing control, but that it actually ran out of (hydrogen) fuel. If so, first time we captured that process on a trace. Guess attempts to restart would answer that.

      • Sanjeev

        Interesting views Ged ! Its destroyed, and he disassembled it, so can’t be restarted but it can be repeated with better hardware.

        But before we can speculate on the mechanisms, we need to rule out the ordinary sources of anomaly. Like I replied to Ecco below, the causes can be hot spot over the reactor TC, TC failure, shift in the location of TC due to expansion etc etc.
        Anyway, since Brian got interesting data in all his three runs, there are good chances that there is some excess here.

  • Freethinker

    Brian and Jack, Kudos to both of you for your excellent work.

  • Ophelia Rump

    Was there more heat out overall than energy input? Without that knowledge it is just a graph of various relative temperatures. If the inside is hotter than the outside, yes it is a higher temperature but there is not enough of that higher temperature to heat the larger outer surface. How are we to weigh these relative volumes and temperatures and determine their normalcy? Only a final tally of power in / heat out will do.

    Beware of sampling error.

    • Mats002

      Is it your opinon that Parkhomov proved that by boiling off water? Is his setup for measure the only one you would accept?
      With respect

      • Ophelia Rump

        Parkhomov did not perform this test. The interpretation of this test requires due diligence.

        I accept the work of Parkhomov. Parkhomov performed his due dilligence.

        No Parkhomov’s work is not the only method I would accept. I might even accept this work if there were some way to determine that this graph is not an artifact of fluctuations in local temperatures in the device. A small area of a reactor being hotter on the inside than a small sampled area of the heating coil on the outside does not convince me that the inside gave off heat.

        • Wishful Thinking Energy

          I agree that thermometery won’t give us an accurate COP estimate. Calorimetery will and that’s my plan, but it takes time and money.

          I provide these results not to convince anyone, but to help other researchers. Before this test we didn’t know if special wave forms were required, special Russian nickel, ultra high pressures, what temperature the effect starts at, how many days a reactor can sit, etc. etc. Hopefully we’re getting closer to understanding some of those questions.

          • Ophelia Rump

            I appreciate your effort and honesty. I have been thinking about how to address this problem for the small scale small budget investigator like yourself. I want to believe your measures. You certainly do not have to satisfy me. However to gain credibility you need to satisfy a great many someones.

            If you could map the correlation between surface temperature and core temp as a whole and keep the heat dissipation at a constant through environmental controls, you could map a projection of heat generated and dissipated at any given surface temperature. This would allow you to make a reasonable estimate of heat produced based upon surface temp. With sufficient documentation of the heat from dummy loads and pumping the full range of temperatures through the standardized device you could come up with reasonable and credible approximations of heat produced.

            Basically all I am suggesting is rigorous control of heat loss so you get consistent surface measures and some baseline runs pushing the device temp to levels a functioning reactor would produce. I think this would lend great credibility.

            Then you can compare unknown output to a chart of known output and it’s relative input.

            I hope this helps.

          • SG

            Would be interesting for a next run to let the temp stabilize at above 1200, say 1250, given that 1200 seemed to be an inflection point for Mr. Parkhomov over which excess energy was more pronounced.

            • Ophelia Rump

              I would like to see a Control test brought to the same temp as SG’s suggestion above, The precise power usage and thermal measurements should be documented, then do SG’s test. I think that would lend great credibility. You could repeat incrementally both tests at whatever temperatures or other variables you choose. We need at least enough to compare your results to to know what a normal expectation looks like.

          • Sanjeev

            Yes, the Parkhomov style boiling water calorimeter will be ideal. I guess you are the only one who is doing the right thing, the rest are trying their own wild fantasies before trying that which is shown to work. The result – you are seeing interesting data. (And JPB, as seen in his poster at ICCF, but he is not open).

            I think many here, including myself, will be happy to donate. Since you are doing it all open sourced way. So please mention your paypal id somewhere in your blog. Some of the readers will surely accuse you of setting up a scheme to get money, so I can understand that you may not accept donations. Anyway, many thanks for sharing the results.

            • Wishful Thinking Energy

              Please, no donations. Please direct your funds to the MFMP.

  • Andre Blum

    I find it fascinating (and in an odd way disappointing) that an almost instantaneous increase of 100K, which from extrapolation of earlier data seems not to be caused solely by increasing the furnace power, can be held almost perfectly stable by toggling the furnace power.

    that is: it looked more ‘runaway’ than that.

    • Mats002

      Why disappointing? It contradicts your knowledge or you expected something else or..?

      • Andre Blum

        +100 °C “in an instant” gives the impression that something very powerful is unleashed within the reactor. When I said disappointing I meant that it would be cool to see that it would require some more effort to tame it 🙂

        • Mats002

          Yes, I see. It is interesting indeed. If we just witnessed a replication of starting the reaction, next challenge would be keeping it going as long as possible, then make SSM as long as possible. But first we need to replicate the effect several times + several reference runs without active fuel. This will take some time.

        • Slad

          The temperature rises quickly possibly because the reactor is a poor insulator, ie. the heat needed to sustain the reaction is able to dissipate… Which incidentally is a good way of preventing runaways! The electrical heating is the same as temporarily adding insulation.

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    Please see my blog for the long answer, but the short answer is no, not an apples to apples. I think there is still valuable information here though.

  • artefact

    WTE, 🙂 the graph looks realy interesting. Well done!

  • Obvious

    Cool. Or should I say “That’s hot!”.
    How do like the Labjack? I checked out the link on a previous post, and it looked really awesome.

    • Wishful Thinking Energy

      It worked really well for this test. At this point I would recommend it.

      • Obvious

        How does the thermocouple program module work? Did it come with one, or is a add-in program (I think that is how these unit work). Do you know if it uses a table or algorithm?
        I’m not suggesting anything weird is going, but actually curious.

        • Wishful Thinking Energy

          The T7 model comes with a very basic logging program that I used for this test. The look up tables for several different thermocouple types are pre-programmed in the device.

          • Obvious

            Thanks.

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    Where do you want it? I might be able to put it in a public Dropbox. There is a lot of data. Excel kept choking on it. I had to finally put it into Matlab to get the above plot.

    • Ecco

      .csv file on Dropbox will be fine!

      • Wishful Thinking Energy

        https://www.dropbox.com/sh/vuw95utpmj8bmle/AAAvrli0AGxoigqyK8W2fkjma?dl=0

        Let me know if this works. There is a short readme explaining the files.

        • Ecco

          It does work. I’ll see what I am able to extract from the data. Thanks!

          • Ecco

            Whatever happened at about the spike onset, it appears to have affected all thermocouples relatively quickly in a way or another.

            http://i.imgur.com/xYlP6qF.png

            • Sanjeev

              Can you see the correlation with the reactor temperature ?
              The rise in all other TCs before the spike can be because of power step up and the fall after the spike can be because of power cut off by the controller.

              Thanks for the nice graph, as always.

              • Ecco

                Hard to tell. I’m noticing a few more things, though:

                – The rise-fall behavior of thermocouple temperatures, mainly on the “Right Furnace” one, when power is increased. This eventually showed on other thermocouples as well.

                – There are indications that the same happened when the apparent 10 hours long large excess heat signal occurred. First a big spike, then the power needed over time to keep 1200 °C increased over time. This is similar to the rise-fall behavior occurred for previous power steps.

                – At the end of the test, before the heater failed and after the apparent excess heat ceased, the hottest thermocouples showed lower temperatures for the same input power, but the coldest ones (which I amplified in this graph) were measuring about the same or slightly hotter temperatures. Besides showing that excess heat ceased, this could also mean that the hottest thermocouples degraded with heat. If you notice, “Right Furnace TC” also became noisy during high temperature exposure.

                – A possible skeptical explanation I proposed on Brian’s blog is that the ceramic heater, being pushed beyond its 1200°C max temperature specification, was acting weirdly and showing unexpected hotspots in its inner surface which might have affected internal thermocouple readings. That input power became unstable before the heater failed (disregarding the period where power was cycled), makes me suspect that it was already degrading somehow.

                http://i.imgur.com/X4AnRAZ.png

                Besides attempting to improve the thermometry or performing proper calorimetry, it would really be best to not use the heater and the thermocouples beyond their intended continuous operating temperature range.

                • Ecco

                  See this graph too:

                  http://i.imgur.com/DKscDaA.png

                  It would have been much easier to estimate the apparent COP if temperatures didn’t sag for some reason after power was increased, before the spike.

                • Sanjeev

                  I tried to fit a Log trendline on both the RT and RF plots. It shows that the RT would reach 1200°C at around 450W, which means a COP of 1.3, and an excess power of 100W, since it actually reached there at 350W (min).
                  This is a very rough estimate.

                • Sanjeev

                  The plot.

                • Sanjeev

                  I agree with your last point, the instruments and heater are both operating on the edge of their reliability.
                  We do not know the thermal behavior of the system, since there is no calibration. So can’t say anything definitely about the hottest and coldest TCs trends.

                  The hot spot explanation works in part. I expect the hot spot to get hotter and hotter till the element melts at that spot, but we see a sudden cooling, while the heater worked normally. There is no related cooling in other traces….this is really strange, if its due to weird actions of heater, it should show up in other traces.

                  The sudden cool down can be explained by some error in the TC, may be some tension release and shift in location etc. But we do not know for sure. So back to calorimetry.

        • Ecco

          Just to let you know, I’ve managed to plot your data with my toolset. For my convenience I merged your thermocouple and power data files into two single files. Now I can zoom in/out easily and quickly, check trends in detail, etc.

          http://i.imgur.com/yFGdTBg.png

        • Josh G

          Neat! Is there data on the pressure?

        • clovis ray

          hi, wte. ECW has a database it would be a great place to put it, and everyone could access it there. it’s at top of page ,rightside.

  • Wishful Thinking Energy

    Sorry, I knew that was a little unclear but I just haven’t had time to make a better drawing (I had 2 hrs sleep Saturday night). I’ll try and add a picture with the TCs labeled in the next day or so.

  • Mats002

    Hello everyone! Brian has updated his blog with the result of the night:

    His conlusion: ” I think it is clear that something produced excess heat for over 10 hours along with the excess produced in previous runs.”
    Is there A*N*Y chance this was chemical (let’s say Ni-Al forming Raney Nickel and Heat)???

    • Wishful Thinking Energy

      For those capable of doing this calculation, I used 1.2 g of INCO 255 nickel powder and 0.12 g of LiAlH4.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Since not all possible reactions are known, it is difficult to give definite numbers. But one would get 0.5 Wh by burning the 12.7 mg hydrogen that are contained in 0.12 g LiAlH4. 85.3 mg of aluminium would gain 0.48 Wh in a thermite reaction with 0.252 g Fe2O3, and reactions of the 21.9 mg lithium would likely contribute an amount in the same order of magnitude. So the fuel could presumably generate no more than a few watt-hours, provided that the nickel does not react with the reactor walls.

        To be on the safe side, one could take the hydrogen equivalent of the complete 1.32 g (Ni + LiAlH4), which would come to 52 Wh. With the low hydrogen content, actually only a small fraction of this amount could be released. If you have produced significantly more than 52 Wh from 1.32 g fuel than I think that all known chemical sources could be ruled out. Even more safe would be a calculation which is based on the mass of the whole reactor, but you would presumably need a long-term test (like the one made in Lugano) to produce enough excess energy.

        • Ged

          If we calculate the Wh generated by looking at the Wh saved as shown by the average power trace, it seems more than an order of magnitude more energy was produced than chemically possible. Pekka is the best at these calculations.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            As far as I understood it, the Watts in the diagrams stand for input power. You would need a full calibration run in order to determine the energy balance.

            If I remember correctly, Pekka used the number of atoms instead of the mass in his calculations, which you can do if you know the composition of the fuel. Assuming that the nickel was pure we had 1.142*10^22 + 1.231*10^22 = 2.372*10^22 atoms (in 0.12 g LiAlH4 / 1.2 g Ni). 2.372*10^22 * 4 eV (the ‘chemical limit’) equals 15.21 kJ, or 4.224 Wh. This number is less conservative, but as well reliable.

            • Ged

              It’s definitely input power, for sure. But we can use the fall in average input power that occurs due to an increase in heat forcing the heater to back off considerably while maintaining that heat. We see the heater kick back up once the event is over and core temps drop back down (10 hours later). You’re absolutely right that this won’t be nearly as precise as direct control comparison, but it can still give a rough approximation as one can use the before and after traces as baseline; it should be a conservative comparison as previous excess heat if there leading up to the event will be the new baseline and removed from the event. that average is noisy though, and will probably need integration. Again, it may be rough, but doable and informative for approximation and show if more investigation is warranted or not.

              Thanks for the additional calculation!

    • Wishful Thinking Energy

      Mats, I forgot to mention that this test was run using the variac. Pure sine maxing out around ~70VAC. I know you were interested in that previously.

      • Mats002

        Thanks, that kind of rule out special wave forms or spikes.
        I suppose the Parkhomov powder from Bob G didn’t arrive yet, if so that rule out very special (unique) Ni powder. This is so cool…

        • Wishful Thinking Energy

          The Parkhomov powder hasn’t arrived yet. All four of my tests have been run with the same INCO 255/LiAlH4 charge. By same I mean the charge was reused without removing from the reactor.

          • Ged

            If that’s so, then the total energy density of the process has to be totaled by the excess energy out across all your tests. Aka, this appears way more energy dense than possible with chemical–and you may have finally used up the fuel with this last test.

          • Mats002

            So you have heat-cycled the fuel and according to Piantelli and other sources this is a key to get the effect. How would you describe that treatment as a temperature plot over all time since loading the device?

            • Wishful Thinking Energy

              The fuel was heated slowly to 1200C+ over 12-15 hours for run #1. I think I started seeing the first signs of excess heat here. See my update on that:
              http://www.hydrogenfusion.blogspot.com/2015/04/review-of-run-1.html

              Run 2 heated it to just under 1200C in a couple of hours with no noticeable excess.

              Run 3 heated it to 1250C+ (maybe 1400C+) with significant excess heat in just a couple of hours.

              Run 4 heated it to 1200C in 9 or 10 hours followed by 10 hours of excess heat.

              It may be that heat-cycling results in greater longevity of the fuel. Same goes for special wave forms. Parkhomov doesn’t heat-cycle his fuel.

        • Axil Axil

          Re: “that kind of rule out special wave forms or spikes.” “Something happened in the reactor at about 6:00 a.m. as the excess heat started to diminish and dropped off sharply at around 9:00 a.m. ” The reaction wasn’t maintained either.