Possible Excess Heating with Alternative Hydrogen Source: Calibration Error Concluded
|February 9, 2015||Posted by Jack Cole under Hobbyist LENR|
Please see Update 2 at the end. I believe we can safely conclude that these results were due to calibration error.
The current experiment utilizes an alternative method of hydrogen production to that used in previous experiments which gave indications of excess heating (see the first and second). The previous experiments utilized aluminum powder and lithium hydroxide for the production of hydrogen. It seemed to this experimenter that the hydrogen production was inconsistent, which may have been related to different amounts of water available to the reaction (a requirement for hydrogen production with this method). Vortex member Jones Beene suggested the use of titanium hydride, which was the hydrogen source in the present experiment.
Fuel composition: mostly nickel powder (INCO type 255, 2.2 to 2.5 um), lithium hydroxide (LiOH), iron oxide-red (Fe2O3), titanium hydride (TiH2), and a small amount of lime based ceramic mix.
The current experiment utilized a conduction calorimetry method developed by Bob Findlay (see discussion of the method and apparatus modifications in the comments section of this post). The results showed a maximum of 16.2 W of excess heating calculated using the conduction calorimetry method. The maximum COP was 1.16.
Chart A. Calibration vs. Active Experimental Run
Chart B. Calculated Excess Power by Input Power Step
Chart C. Reaction Cell Temperature (Delta T from Ambient) by Input Power Levels
Chart D. Calculated Excess Power Based on Reaction Cell Temperatures
Charts C and D are provided for reference. This is a less reliable method for calculating excess power since it is taking a point temperature measure on the outside of the reaction cell. It does provide additional evidence for excess power.
These results show that the use of TiH2 may have promise in the production of excess heating in LENR. Again, these results should not be considered as definitive evidence of excess heating until a large set of replications can occur or a COP of 1.5 or greater can be achieved. A COP of 1.5 was arbitrarily chosen as a cut off for strong evidence of excess heating, as this experimenter believes that level of excess heating would be clear and convincing.
The current experiment utilized a very small amount of TiH2 in order to avoid over-pressurizing the cell. Future experiments will likely utilize an increased amount of TiH2.
The present experiment continues to run at the 90W input level with a reaction cell temp of 707C. The current design appears to be more robust against degradation of the heating element, and it will be allowed to continue to run. An additional evidence for excess heating would occur if the reaction trails off to calibration levels over the course of several days.
Here is another chart plotted differently as requested by some.
Chart E. Delta T by Input Power.
Update 2: Experiment Completed 2/11/15
Unfortunately, the re-calibration revealed a higher curve than the first yielding a max excess power of 4.2W. We can probably safely discard this as being excess heat. There have been a number of valid points raised in the comments on things to consider as far as systematic sources of error are concerned. One concern was about the validity of the calibration run. One hypothesis I had was about the calibration run tube possibly being in contact with the insulation at the bottom, whereas the experimental tube was not touching the insulation beneath (suspended by the electrical leads). The thought was that contact with this insulation would allow heat to be conducted downward into the ceramic element and supporting ceramic bricks. The original calibration cell was re-inserted and care was taken to place it as close as possible to the same position as the experimental tube (slightly suspended by the electrical leads above the lower insulation). Of possible interest is that the temperatures of the reaction cell were grossly consistent with each other, whereas the experimental tube was ~60C hotter. Again, this is of uncertain significance and probably not a reliable indication of excess heating. I apologize for raising false hope with this experiment, and appreciate the feedback and help in discovering that it was not excess heating.