MFMP New Generation Celani Wire Test Shows Possible >10% Excess Heat? (UPDATE: MFMP Conclude Likely No Excess Heat)

UPDATE: (Feb 5, 2016)

Bob Greenyer posted this in a comment below:

I want to say that I have been working with Mathieu this afternoon to address the legitimate points raised by “Fact Police”. The net result is that at this stage, I must report that due to an instrumentation artefact, it is likely we have NOT seen apparent excess heat in this experiment to date.

Mathieu is stuck at home ill – but he is getting to the bottom of it and reporting on our main site. It is due to the new flow controller’s data interface/VI module (what else in an MFC!).

It might not be what you want to hear, but we felt it was of the utmost importance to address it. See here:

Here’s a post from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project’s Facebook Page about a separate experiment they are carrying out with Celani wire.

New generation Celani wires in MFC showing evidence of >10% excess? *very cautious note at this stage as the…

Posted by Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project on Monday, February 1, 2016

  • Bob Greenyer

    Mathieu has updated the blog – he took his ill self into the lab and did some flow rate tests… here is the blog update for convenience.

    “UPDATE2 : Measuring the flow

    After an issue with flow measurement was questioned by one of our follower, between the different instruments readings, additional verification of the flow control setup are done locally on Feb 6th. Three measurements of the flow using a graduated flask and a scale shows results of 130,05 g/min, 127,63 g/min and 129.44 g/min. This is lower than the requested value of 150 g/min.

    Finding the origin of the issue was not obvious at first. But when I remembered the switch behind the cryostat head, this hinted the origin of the problem. This switch is setting the flowrate of the cryostat pump. Since this pump provides the pressure necessary for the flow-controler to control the flow, it was the best candidate to be the cause of the problem. Because it was on the lower flow setting it was not providing sufficient pressure to the controller. Hence explaining also the disparities on the analog readout, mainly because Kv factor of the valve was not calibrated to the condition imposed by the setup. Flipping it to the higher setting corrected the problem within few minutes, bringing it back up the requested command of 150 ml/min within a ±1ml/min variations on the analog output.

    To keep going with the current run and avoiding disparities with our current calibration, the average value of the analog measurements is used from a very large sample population. The result is 128.177 ml/min. The scale applied to the analog output is verified and should give proper results, variations are within a tenth of a percent from our previous measurements. However, with a standard deviation of 4.86 ml/min, this value lowers by 3.8% our confidence of the current run to previous calibrations. We will have to wait new a calibration, that will be published after the test, to have a better assessment of the results.

    On a personal note, this proved me not to trust the program and the given tools. I did log the analog out for this very reason, but it was not showing the right calculation since the beginning of the test. The only conclusion is to avoid making wrong or awkward assumptions until we have ruled all the potential problem that are potentially occuring on the system. As I said before, I am very surprised to have positive results on the first run. It is very likely later calibrations cancel any positive results.”

    • Sanjeev

      With the new value of flow and a factor of 0.82, there is no significant excess. Thanks to Mathieu for measuring it.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Yes and Yes

      • Ged

        Amazing and thorough diagnostic work. The value of manual confirmation of automated systems!

  • Bob Greenyer

    Ok … Mathieu has updated the experiment blog. He is going to reserve judgement until he can get back to lab and also after bookend calibrations.

    • Sanjeev

      Its not clear but I guess he trusts the RS232 readings. So we may still have the “excess”. (To be verified).

      • Bob Greenyer

        I agree it is not clear. We’ll have to wait and see.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Ok, I am back from Accident & Emergency.., witnessed some x-rays today… they showed I have a torn ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) of the thumb – who says you can’t self-diagnose! Hand will be in plaster for two weeks, got a sling also – hopefully that will fix it and it will not need surgery. Thanks for all the well wishing.

    On the plus side… I can’t type so fast.

    Mathieu is less quick to annul the data and is writing long blogpost update. Things may not be as bad as first thought.

    • passerby

      Whoa that sucks. Hope you feel better soon.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks

  • Bob Greenyer

    Please thank Frank

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Note that this is not yet the end, since the error occurred apparently already in the calibration phase. But it seems that the whole experiment has to be repeated. Maybe Dr. Celani would deliver a fresh wire if necessary.

    • Sanjeev

      I agree, its not over yet. If manual measurement of flow reveals that its 150ml/min, then we have the excess. Anyway, it will not be conclusive until another calibration is done and the effect is found to be repeatable in more experiments. Its all a time consuming hard work….science.

      • Ged

        Welcome to my life! Such are the twists and vaguities of the big S :). But yeah, manual measurement to confirm before fixing would assuage matters too.

      • Andreas Moraitis

        Well, it depends. I see no excess in case that there was a constant rate of 150ml/min both in the calibration and in the active run.

        • Sanjeev

          I can. I did the calculations on the data.
          Hopefully we will know soon what the flow rate was.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            I did the calculations as well, although not for the complete data. For the calibration point posted by Bob below I get 19.56 W out (uncorrected) vs. 20.899 W in (flow rate of 150ml/min assumed), which means that the calorimeter’s heat loss would come to about 6.4%, much less than the original estimate of 22.28%. That is, you would have to apply a much lower correction factor to the data from the active run.

    • Ged

      Indeed, if it was an offset error from the beginning it was already calibrated out. As long as the interface error was linear, that is. We’ll know with a proper re-do!

  • Bob Greenyer

    @All

    Guys – I have to got to hospital as I fell off my bicycle (fortunately not at speed) and my entire fall has been taken by my left thumb… This has happened.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamekeeper%27s_thumb

    Before I go to hospital – I want to say that I have been working with Mathieu this afternoon to address the legitimate points raised by “Fact Police”. The net result is that at this stage, I must report that due to an instrumentation artefact, it is likely we have NOT seen apparent excess heat in this experiment to date.

    Mathieu is stuck at home ill – but he is getting to the bottom of it and reporting on our main site. It is due to the new flow controller’s data interface/VI module (what else in an MFC!).

    It might not be what you want to hear, but we felt it was of the utmost importance to address it. See here:

    http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/516-new-generation-celani-wire-experiment

    Thankyou to real time peer review of “Fact Police” that necessitated us to scrutinise the data today. Chalk up another one to the power of LOS.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Hi Bob,

      Wish you a speedy recovery. I had a broken finger once and it wasn’t pretty. Hope your injury isn’t as painfull as mine was. Though I’m a crybaby when pain is involved 😉

      Good to see actual science at work regardless of the outcome. Better to correct fault like this as soon as possible; it just adds to MFMP’s credibility.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks zzz – and yes…

    • nietsnie

      Oh, that’s bad luck, Bob. I haven’t fallen off a bike since middle school but I recall vividly how not-fun it is. Hopefully your thumb is repairable and you will be back in action in no time. Get well soon!

      • Bob Greenyer

        Specifically – It was a builders ramp from my building that flipped as I freewheeled over it.

    • Sanjeev

      Hopefully your injury will be cured soon.
      It looks like Mathieu used a constant 150ml/min value of the flow and the data shows some other value. He also used a proportionality constant which is not mentioned in the public document.

      If the real flow is around 150ml/min, then it indeed shows an excess of 10W, else not ! Hopefully he will find it out. See the discussion on QH for more.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Min 2 weeks in Plaster… Typo rate will increase.

        Look out for blog post from Mathieu… Not all is so bad…

        • Gerard McEk

          Hope that you recover soon Bob!
          I thought cycling was a Dutch habit though 🙂
          Take care

    • Mats002

      Sorry about your thumb Bob. I worked with a projectleader once that came back from a ski vacation with both hands totally binded trying to hit the keyboard to get some text on the screen. I don’t want to know how he managed his ‘technical pauses’ 🙂

      Just trying to say it can be worse if that is a comfort.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks Mats002

    • Ged

      Holy smokes. Heal up fast Bob!

      • Bob Greenyer

        cheers Ged

    • Anon2012_2014

      Bob,

      Sorry about the thumb, but good work on your science.

      -Anon12/14

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks… Science should be challenged… the truth will emerge through the noise because nature does not lie.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Could you run you calculations on this earlier time slice in the experiment before there would be expected to be any excess heat and the MFC was reporting basically the same determined thermal power via the same equations we are discussing as the input electrical power.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Mathieu is off sick today – and I am no expert on his calculations, however, as I understand it, during calibration – the system lost 22.28% of heat into the bench from electrical input energy as compared to that calculated from mass flow temperature differential. Meaning that the output determined is only 77.72% of the input power.

    Therefore to determine the actual heat being captured from the reactor chamber – the watts as determined by the mass flow temperature differential needs to be multiplied by 1/0.7772 which means you need to multiply it by 1.2867 to 4dp.

    Mathieu says that he only had a confidence factor of 95%, so he multiplied 1.2867 by 0.95 to get the conservative adjustment factor of 1.2223

    He says that if you multiply the MFC but 0.7772 you will compound the losses.

    I understand he will try to answer you on QH himself – and he thanks you for letting him understand that the live document needs more clarification.