NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/sci/physics/fusion/1750

Internet Message Format | 1992-07-21 | 6.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!decwrl!mips!pacbell.com!tandem!zorch!fusion
From: [e-mail] (Jed Rothwell)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion
Subject: Better Experiment Now In Progress
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 21 Jul 92 19:55:19 GMT
Sender: [e-mail] (Scott Hazen Mueller)
Reply-To: Jed Rothwell <[e-mail]>
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Lines: 100

To: >INTERNET:[e-mail]

Tom,

     I will fax your comments to Takahashi. I think you should talk to him
directly to resolve some of these doubts and questions you have raised. Your
comments are helpful, but somewhat off the mark. The good news is that he
improved his calorimetry, and he has started a second experiment.

     Let me ask a few questions, based upon my replication of Takahashi's
work. If his excess heat is an artifact of the convection loops and so on:

1. Why did it take several weeks to show up? When he calibrates, and when he
begins the high-low run, he sees no such effect. How could convection suddenly
have this effect 2 or 3 weeks into the experiment, and why does it build up
over time? The effects of convection currents must surely be the same
throughout the experiment.

2. Why does the heat also show up in the flow Delta-T (in the current
experiment)? Convection within the box does not affect this measurement.

3. Why don't I see it? My box is exactly the same as his, and I have not seen
anything like this. I have been watching four months of a rock steady
performance. I see no such elevated temperature artifact in the box
temperature. Takahashi and I both calibrated with resisters and with
electrolysis. There was no significant difference between the curves. Although
there was a larger thermal gradient with the resister, it was nothing like
what you have postulated here.

4. If his cell TCal varies by a factor of 9 as the water level changes, why
does mine only change 3% when I keep the water level in the range he
recommends, and 20% to 30% when I let the water level down by half (far below
what he did)? I assume, of course, that I was not getting any excess heat at
any time.

"This information is contained in the temperature time constant as the
experiment is switched between low current and high current... I assume the
thermometer reads correctly, and it was reading 33.5 C at the time the switch
to low current was made.  The computed calorimeter constant is now (33.5 - 20
C)/22.1 watts or 0.61 C per watt!  Nine times Takahashi's value.  Why?  I
think the stirring changes drastically as the current is shut down. This
causes the conduction calorimeter resistance to increase.  Note
that we can neglect the low power input (1.2 watts) compared to the conduction
cooling.  Using this calorimeter constant, and the input power of 1.2 watts
gives a temperature rise of 1.2*0.61 = 0.7 C..."

The stirring does not change drastically. When we go from 100 watts to 1 watt,
the three thermocouples in my box do not show any significant change in the
thermal gradient, or any significant horizontal temperature differences. The
temperature does not oscillate. It shows a very steady, predictable level,
hour after hour, day after day.

I do not follow your analysis. Let me point out though, that after the box
cools down, the TCal returns to exactly the right level. That is: in my box,
with no excess heat, the temperature goes right back to the original
calibration point TCal, and in Takashi's box, during the first weeks of the
experiment, it returns to *his* original calibrated level. So, I think you do
not understand the dynamics of the cooling. If the TCal has changed, why does
it revert back to the original level after the cell cools down?

I suggest that you ignore the cooling phase, because it is complicated, and
concentrate instead on hours 2 through 5 of the low phase. In my cell, and in
Takahashi's sweep 1, the cell goes back to the original TCal. In sweep 42 it
does not. Why?

One thing you have overlooked is that low phase input power for sweep 34 is
not 1.2 watts. It is 31 watts; 1 watt of electricity, 30 watts cold fusion.
That is the whole point. There is a lot more energy going into the cell as it
cools down than you think. I suggest you contact Takahashi and get clean,
blown up copy of sweep 1 and sweep 34 and try again.

Mark Hugo did an analysis of the heat loss time constant, and came up with
*exactly* the opposite conclusion from you. He looked at the slope, and the
fact that it takes 45 minutes to 1 hour for the cell to stabilize back to its
normal TCal, and from that he showed that there must be more than 1 watt going
into the cell. If there was only 1 watt, the cell would drop to 20 C in 15
minutes. We ran a few tests that seemed to confirm his analysis, but our tests
were not conclusive. I think you and Mark should get together and hash this
out. I suggest you use my data, or ask Takahashi for more.

"This discussion is limited to his experiment 115 where he calibrated with a
50 and 100 watt heater which gave a 14.3 watts per C calorimeter constant." In
previous experiments with same box and the very same water, but with different
cathodes, he also calibrated with additional points, as shown in figure 27: 0,
15, 45, 75, 150, 190, 240 watts. If, as you say, the TCal was 9 times lower
with 100 watts, why is this calibration line straight?

In the current experiment, he calibrated with 8 points, measuring the
temperature in the cell, at the cell wall outside (I believe), and in the
flow. They all line up. The TCal does not vary by even 3%, and certainly not
by 900%! Not in his cell, and not in mine; I would have noticed if it did. I
would have thought I had excess heat!

I think you misunderstand the dynamics of cooling, but as I *certainly* don't
understand these dynamics, I am not in a position to judge. I prefer to look
at the steady state equilibrium the cells reach after they cool down, and
compare these temperatures. I will run your analysis past Gene, Mark and
Takahashi-san, and I will post their responses.

- Jed