Failed Replication of Excess Heating
|January 15, 2015||Posted by Jack Cole under Uncategorized|
After the promising results of the previous experiment, it was important to see if the results could be repeated. As such, a new cell was assembled. A new heating element was wound and inserted into the cell. One end was sealed to allow for inserting the fuel in the open end after the calibration run.
The calibration phase consisted of fewer steps than the previous experiment and was kept at a lower input power level. The power was stepped from 10, 30, 50, and 70 watts with one hour of run time at each level. After an hour at 70 watts, the calibration phase ended. The cell was allowed to cool. After cooling, it photographed to allow precise placement back in the tube furnace after loading the fuel. The fuel was loaded and the end was sealed. The sealant was allowed to dry for 1 hours and then another hour running 3 watts of power through the heating element.
At this point, the experiment was commenced stepping from 10, 30, 50, 60, and 70 watts of power. To allow for an extended run, these lower power levels were chosen, because it was likely that excess heating would be evident at the 60 watt level based on the previous experiment. Additionally, the 60 watt input level was expected to produce roughly equivalent temperatures to the 70 watt calibration assuming 10 watts of excess heating.
The results failed to demonstrate any excess heating. A dangerous gas detector was used at the various power levels to detect hydrogen production. There was little hydrogen produced in comparison to the previous experiment. This may be one reason for the failure to replicate the previous findings.
Chart calibration v. experimental
The exact procedure followed in the first experiment was deviated from in that the sealant was dried with a torch on one end, and not given an extended period of drying on the other end. Additionally, a greater amount of fuel was added in this experiment. In the first experiment, at least 12 hours was allowed to elapse between sealing an end and commencing a run. In the case of sealing in the fuel, 2 watts of power was applied to the heating coil for 8 hours after allowing to dry for 4 hours.
This experiment did rule out one concern with the first experiment and that was having one end unsealed during the control run. This experiment demonstrates that this issue is not a concern. More work will need to be done to first replicate the findings of the first experiment, and second to elucidate the nature of the effect (presuming it can be reproduced).
More work to follow hopefully next week since I have exhausted my supply of alumina tubes. More have been ordered, and several tubes will be configured so that a large series of experiments can be run consecutively with different parameters.