Oct 28th rossi 1 mw cold fusion test....

[sno]

Still looking good...

http://pesn.com/2011/10/28/9501940_1_MW_E-Cat_Test_Successful/


--
Correct Scientific Terminology:
Hypothesis - a guess as to why or how something occurs
Theory - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
to be generally assumed to be true.
Law - a hypothesis that has been checked by enough experiments
in enough different ways that it is assumed to be truer then a theory.
Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be true.

[eric gisse]

sno <s...@opelc.com> wrote in news:4eab8193$0$12949
$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com:

>
> Still looking good...
>
> http://pesn.com/2011/10/28/9501940_1_MW_E-Cat_Test_Successful/
>
>

"Once the reaction chambers got up to temperature, they were maintained by
the heat produced by the reaction. I'm not sure why they kept the generator
running after that, but I would guess it was for back-up or safety."

*sigh*

Here I was hoping Rossi wasn't full of shit, and there we are.

"Apparently, gamma radiation is produced during the reaction, which is
shielded by water, iron, lead, and a final coating on the apparatus."

Not with that level of shielding. There would be measurable non-background
counts if this were real. Too bad its' a long con.

[vaughn]

"sno" <s...@opelc.com> wrote in message
news:4eab8193$0$12949$892e...@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
>
> Still looking good...

I would love to believe. Really I would! But I don't. At least, not yet.

Sorry, but I find this test (in which the system allegedly put out 470KW whilst
connected to an obviously running 500 KW generator) to be spectacularly
unconvincing.

"Probably the biggest opening for skeptics will be the continually running
genset that is probably rated for 500 kW (my guess), and appears to have been
connected by cables to the E-Cat. "Where's the mystery?" So knock yourselves
out, skeptics. It's the customer who has to be happy, and apparently this one
was satisfied that those cables were not contributing to the 470 kW output
during self-sustaining mode."

Surry, but the alleged happiness of some anonymous and possibly fictional
customer hardly constitutes proof of anything.

Waiting for Morris's results...

Vaughn

[Yousuf Khan]

On 29/10/2011 12:31 AM, sno wrote:
>
> Still looking good...
>
> http://pesn.com/2011/10/28/9501940_1_MW_E-Cat_Test_Successful/

How's that? They won't let anyone see what's inside their black boxes?

How do they expect an endothermic reaction like Nickel to Copper is
going to *produce* energy?

Yousuf Khan

[Prai Jei]

Yousuf Khan set the following eddies spiralling through the space-time
continuum:

That's not the aim. They want it to produce *money* - for them.
--
ξ:) Proud to be curly

Interchange the alphabetic letter groups to reply

[eric gisse]

Yousuf Khan <bbb...@spammenot.yahoo.com> wrote in news:4eac4fcd$1...@news.bnb-
lp.com:

This is what is known as a "scam".

[profIJM]

On 29/10/11 05:31, sno wrote:
> Note: nothing is proven in science, things are assumed to be true.

...until thrown into doubt by an apparently contradictory observation :-)

[Morris Dovey]

[reading/posting @ alt.solar.thermal]

I'm disappointed that Rossi did not present a demonstration adequate to
convince all reasonable skeptics.

I'm flattered that Vaughn might consider any result I might produce to
be worth waiting for - but I think it'd be a GoodThing^TM if more people
conducted their own tests and made their results public.

My efforts are painfully slow. Nearly every aspect of this thing calls
for knowledge and skills I don't have. I have a pretty good idea what I
want to build and how I want to control it; but I have little-to-no
experience in how to build it safely/well* - and it doesn't help a lot
to know that, even if I manage to build well, a self-sustaining Ni/H
fusion process may not ensue.

Had I been in Rossi's shoes, I would also have kept the generator
running to ensure the ability to power the coolant pumps if any system
failure required a safe emergency shutdown (1MW - or even just 470kW -
confined to that plumbing strikes me as a /lot/ of heat). His test would
have been much more convincing for me if he had shown /clearly/ that
power had been disconnected from the heaters.

-----
* If anyone would like to play along, I could use some help with a
combination heater/temperature sensor using an up to 16-inch (406.4mm)
nichrome wire threaded through ceramic cores (inside a 1/4x4-inch copper
tube that's closed on one end) with one side connected to ground and the
other to a SPST relay so that when the relay is powered, the wire will
be heated with AC power; and when the relay is unpowered, the resistance
of the wire can be sensed to determine its temperature. The sensing
circuit needs to produce an output voltage that can be fed to an Arduino
A/D converter with a 5VDC Vref and sharing the ground connection. Heater
power needs to be something that can be reasonably derived from 120VAC
60Hz mains to provide power in the 250W neighborhood. I just uploaded a
photo of some ceramic cores to

http://www.iedu.com/Solar/Electricity/Fusion/Core4(500x400).jpg

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
http://www.iedu.com/Solar/

[Morris Dovey]

On 10/29/11 11:09 PM, Morris Dovey wrote:

Argh!

> * If anyone would like to play along, I could use some help with a
> combination heater/temperature sensor using an up to 16-inch (406.4mm)
> nichrome wire threaded through ceramic cores (inside a 1/4x4-inch copper
> tube that's closed on one end) with one side connected to ground and the
> other to a SPST relay so that when the relay is powered,

SPST should have been SPDT! Sorry.

[eric gisse]

Morris Dovey <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in
news:j8iil4$g4g$4...@speranza.aioe.org:

[...]

I don't know what your role is in all this, so I'll just proceed as if
you have one.

If convincing skeptics is the goal, have Rossi or someone else put an
inductive loop around the generator leads so the current can be known at
all times. Additionally, have a voltmeter hooked up physically so
voltage can be known at all times.

Then, P = IV.

If P_generator << P_blackbox then YHATZEE! People will take Rossi
marginally more seriously and then people like me won't be able to see
that the generator was running the whole time and be entirely right for
laughing at the scam.

I, however, expect P_generator ~ P_blackbox because it is my personal
opinion its' a long con designed to bilk money out of that investor
assuming he actually exists. If the investor doesn't exist, one will
soon.

[Bob F]

Morris's chosen role is to try to create one of Rossi's devices on his own,
seemingly from just the published information and his own creative spirit.

[amdx]

> -----
> * If anyone would like to play along, I could use some help with a
> combination heater/temperature sensor using an up to 16-inch (406.4mm)
> nichrome wire threaded through ceramic cores (inside a 1/4x4-inch copper
> tube that's closed on one end) with one side connected to ground and the
> other to a SPST relay so that when the relay is powered, the wire will
> be heated with AC power; and when the relay is unpowered, the resistance
> of the wire can be sensed to determine its temperature. The sensing
> circuit needs to produce an output voltage that can be fed to an Arduino
> A/D converter with a 5VDC Vref and sharing the ground connection. Heater
> power needs to be something that can be reasonably derived from 120VAC
> 60Hz mains to provide power in the 250W neighborhood. I just uploaded a
> photo of some ceramic cores to
>
> http://www.iedu.com/Solar/Electricity/Fusion/Core4(500x400).jpg
>

Hi Morris,
Not sure I clearly understand what you want, but I'll stick my neck out!
After you have heated the wire then you want to measure the resistance
of the wire and from that deduce the temperature. I would want to
totally isolate the AC from the resistance measurement. A DPDT relay
would do that. (isolate both ends of the wire. I don't know about
connecting AC neutral to 5v ground, might be ok, but...)
Unless you cycle the relay for heat/measure modes, I don't see how you
will know when to stop heating. So, you have the relay on some clock
cycle, (heat 5 seconds measure temperature 1 second) then when the
proper temp is reached the relay measures temp only until temp drops
below some threshold then your heat/measure cycle starts again.
To measure the resistance of the wire, you will drive some DC current
through the wire and a series (sense) resistor and measure the voltage
across the sense resistor. The voltage will probably need to be
amplified before going to the Arduino.
There my be a way to sense the AC current to the wire and know the
temp of the wire but any AC voltage fluctuations to you home may cause
errors. I'm sure there is a way to compensate for that though.

Ok, have I got the basic idea?
Fill me in.
Thanks, Mikek

[vaughn]

"Morris Dovey" <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in message
news:j8iil4$g4g$4...@speranza.aioe.org...

> * If anyone would like to play along, I could use some help with a combination
> heater/temperature sensor using an up to 16-inch (406.4mm) nichrome wire
> threaded through ceramic cores (inside a 1/4x4-inch copper tube that's closed
> on one end) with one side connected to ground and the other to a SPST relay so
> that when the relay is powered, the wire will be heated with AC power; and
> when the relay is unpowered, the resistance of the wire can be sensed to
> determine its temperature.

I would urge you to reconsider that approach. If you use a standard temperature
probe (perhaps right inside that pipe with the heater), you not only gain the
advantage of using some standard "pre engineered" temperature sensing circuit,
you also can dispense with that relay and easily control the heater with a
standard SSR (Solid State Relay) The varying contact resistance of that relay
would always introduce some "noise" into your temperature readings..

Vaughn

[Morris Dovey]

You've pretty well nailed it. DPDT relay it'll be, with hot/neutral for
the AC heater power and ground/5VDC for sensing. Some other DC voltage
can be used, but I already have decently-regulated 5V available and
would prefer not to build/buy another power supply if it can be avoided.

The relay power will be software controlled with allowance made for
make/break latencies - and I plan to capture the A/D value while heater
power is off. This approach should allow me to vary the heating duty
cycle and to exercise a (hopefully useful) control of the heating rate -
then continuously monitor the reactor temperature if/after "ignition"
takes place.

If ignition occurs, there will be another latency as heat is transferred
from the containment vessel into the heater tube - but I think that
situation would exist for any affordable strategy.

The change in resistance looks like it'll be small, and I guessed that
an op-amp circuit might be useful to produce a larger temperature swing.
A temperature range of 25-537°C would probably be a sensible design
target. (I'm /aware/ of op-amps, but I've never designed a circuit that
actually /used/ one of the little buggers.)

A linear output would be "nice to have", but isn't essential - I don't
think a table look-up/interpolation is likely to overburden even the
little Arduino.

-----

For my first go at this problem, I plan to start at a very low H2
pressure and increase it incrementally. At each pressure setting I'll
start at a low temperature setting and increase the temperature
incrementally to some safe limit (probably 250°C) and watch for any sign
that ignition may have taken place. If so, then I plan to remove heater
power and check for a self-sustaining reaction. If the reaction isn't
self-sustaining, I'll continue from where I left off in the heating
sequence.

If I reach the safe limit without ignition, I'll let the apparatus cool
down and then repeat at the next pressure increment.

The entire exercise is to discover whether a self-sustaining reaction
can be initiated and, if so, the minimum (pressure,temperature) values.

[Morris Dovey]

On 10/30/11 10:27 AM, vaughn wrote:

> I would urge you to reconsider that approach. If you use a standard temperature
> probe (perhaps right inside that pipe with the heater), you not only gain the
> advantage of using some standard "pre engineered" temperature sensing circuit,
> you also can dispense with that relay and easily control the heater with a
> standard SSR (Solid State Relay) The varying contact resistance of that relay
> would always introduce some "noise" into your temperature readings..

I'm still considering a thermocouple inside the heating tube but until I
know what the nichrome length needs to be, don't know if there'll be
core channels available for the leads.

Separate heater and the probe elements close together inside the tube
raised concerns about capacitive and inductive coupling also introducing
noise.

One of the grim realities is that this is all being done under some
severe budget limitations (what remains of a S/S check after all the
bills have been paid).

If the varying contact resistance turns out to be intolerable, I'll have
to re-do the heater and switching, but right now the priorities are
simplicity, low cost, schedule time, and getting the basic control
software in place.

[Bob F]

I would think that thermocouple temperature monitoring/control would make a lot
more sense that using a relay to disconnect the power so you can measure the
resistance. The time delay of the relay approach drastically lessens the
controlability. There are plenty of thermocouple temperature controllers
available.

[eric gisse]

"Bob F" <bobn...@gmail.com> wrote in news:j8jdka$lqs$1...@dont-email.me:

[...]

>
> Morris's chosen role is to try to create one of Rossi's devices on his
> own, seemingly from just the published information and his own
> creative spirit.

Since Rossi isn't saying, that does strike me as a unique challenge.

The most hilarious outcome would be if Morris deciphered the trade secret
in the event that Rossi isn't full of shit [unlikely] and started selling
some devices on his own or just published how to make it.

Patents on stuff like this will be granted....if there's a working model.

Otherwise...lol

[Mho]

The US Patent Office grants patents on anything, even if it is impossible or
doesn't exist. Patents average less than 5 hours of Officer time and they
don't have time to actually investigate anything. The patent holders signs
"prior art" agreements.

US patents have become a joke and have to be rescinded frequently due to
legal actions.


-----------
"eric gisse" wrote in message
news:Xns9F8EAD2E4FA6Ejo...@88.198.244.100...

[Morris Dovey]

On 10/30/11 4:12 PM, Bob F wrote:

> I would think that thermocouple temperature monitoring/control would make a lot
> more sense that using a relay to disconnect the power so you can measure the
> resistance.

I want to be able to control the amount of power used for heating, and
cycling the power on and off (varying the duty cycle) appears to be the
easiest and most cost-effective method.

If I take this approach, it seems reasonable to use the off time to
sample the resistance directly from the heating element itself.

> The time delay of the relay approach drastically lessens the
> controlability.

I don't see this as a practical impediment. The time required to
initiate an A/D conversion should be negligible and both make and break
times are factored into the duty cycle calculations.

I'm thinking that the latency due to the heat transfer from inside the
heater tube to the reaction chamber (and/or vice versa) is very much
greater - and that latency will be the controlability limit regardless
of the method used to produce or sense heat.

I could improve on this by locating a thermocouple bead inside the
reaction chamber itself, but that introduces other (serious) problems
that I really don't have even a clue how to solve. Don't wanna go there.

> There are plenty of thermocouple temperature controllers
> available.

Agreed. The AD595 mentioned earlier, along with a decoupling cap, would
provide everything needed to allow using a thermocouple - and the �C
provides everything else needed. Its software can provide all of the
control logic provided by the external temperature controller.

[Morris Dovey]

On 10/30/11 5:01 PM, eric gisse wrote:

> Since Rossi isn't saying, that does strike me as a unique challenge.

I'm not attempting to reverse-engineer what Rossi claims: a device
fueled with nickel and hydrogen and which requires a proprietary catalyst.

I thought about all I've heard about catalysts and decided that if a
Ni/H fusion reaction is possible, then it should proceed at some
(pressure,temperature) combination with or without a catalyst. (Think
about it - in how many ways can an H+ ion be aligned?)

I may be wrong, but IF I'm right THEN I have a physics discovery rather
than a patentable device, and I intend to publish that discovery for
everyone to use, and make my test data available so that physicists can
improve our understanding of the universe.

> The most hilarious outcome would be if Morris deciphered the trade secret
> in the event that Rossi isn't full of shit [unlikely] and started selling
> some devices on his own or just published how to make it.

I'm really hoping that Rossi has a genuine breakthrough. It /would/ be
amusing if his catalyst were part of a protective disinformation effort
and I achieved fusion without it - but in that case, we would all still
owe Rossi a debt of gratitude for pointing the way toward a productive
new technology.

> Patents on stuff like this will be granted....if there's a working model.
>
> Otherwise...lol

You're right about that, but the exciting part wouldn't be the fusion
reactor itself - it'd be all of the new technology that would be made
possible. :-)

[eric gisse]

Morris Dovey <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in

news:j8kmcn$93t$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

> On 10/30/11 5:01 PM, eric gisse wrote:
>
>> Since Rossi isn't saying, that does strike me as a unique challenge.
>
> I'm not attempting to reverse-engineer what Rossi claims: a device
> fueled with nickel and hydrogen and which requires a proprietary
> catalyst.
>
> I thought about all I've heard about catalysts and decided that if a
> Ni/H fusion reaction is possible, then it should proceed at some
> (pressure,temperature) combination with or without a catalyst. (Think
> about it - in how many ways can an H+ ion be aligned?)

Nickle-Hydrogen fusion has a significantly higher threshhold than other
possible combinations.

[amdx]

Snips

> If ignition occurs, there will be another latency as heat is transferred
> from the containment vessel into the heater tube - but I think that
> situation would exist for any affordable strategy.
>
> The change in resistance looks like it'll be small, and I guessed that
> an op-amp circuit might be useful to produce a larger temperature swing.
> A temperature range of 25-537°C would probably be a sensible design
> target. (I'm /aware/ of op-amps, but I've never designed a circuit that
> actually /used/ one of the little buggers.)
> > A linear output would be "nice to have", but isn't essential - I don't
> think a table look-up/interpolation is likely to overburden even the
> little Arduino.
>
> -----
>
> For my first go at this problem, I plan to start at a very low H2
> pressure and increase it incrementally. At each pressure setting I'll
> start at a low temperature setting and increase the temperature
> incrementally to some safe limit (probably 250°C)

> The entire exercise is to discover whether a self-sustaining reaction
> can be initiated and, if so, the minimum (pressure,temperature) values.
>

Hey Morris, is there a reason you don't want to stick a thermocouple in
the tube for your temp measurements as others have suggested? It would
sure simplify this section, and, you could get lots of design help on
sci.electronics.design to raise the thermocouple output voltage nearer
5v at 537*C.
Also I suspect you have thought that if the temp sustains itself or
starts to run away, your Ardiuno will sense this and start limiting
hydrogen input and/or pump more water.
Mikek

[Bob F]

My concern if he is switching a relay on/off to control temp, is that the on/off
time will be large per cycle. Using a thermocouple controller operating an SCR
or other such switch gives significantly finer and quicker, more proportional
control to avoid overruns. But, it might cost a couple hundred $, and Morris is
operating on a tight budget. If this is really dealing with nuclear reactions,
maybe the control is important. He doesn't want a runaway reaction.

[Bob F]

Actually, Morris - you should look at least at the possibility of using a solid
state relay to lessen the risk of fused contacts.

[Morris Dovey]

On 10/30/11 8:09 PM, amdx wrote:

> Hey Morris, is there a reason you don't want to stick a thermocouple in
> the tube for your temp measurements as others have suggested? It would
> sure simplify this section, and, you could get lots of design help on
> sci.electronics.design to raise the thermocouple output voltage nearer
> 5v at 537*C.

I may be able to do that but can't design it that way without first
determining the heater parameters. If the heater wire length takes up
all 16" of the available ceramic core channels, then there won't be any
room for anything else.

So far, everyone has been trying to jump ahead to the temperature
measurement part of the problem, but first we need to design the heater
portion in order to know how much space (if any) will be available for
the thermocouple bead and its wire leads.

Since I don't *know* that there's enough space for the thermocouple, I
pretty much have to plan to make the heater wire do double duty.

There actually is an advantage to this in that it limits the number of
terminals needed at the end of the tube to just two, instead of the four
that would be needed if there were separate heater and thermocouple leads.

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

> Also I suspect you have thought that if the temp sustains itself or
> starts to run away, your Ardiuno will sense this and start limiting
> hydrogen input and/or pump more water.

I'm not planning to water cool this thing at all. If the reaction is
able to sustain itself, then the next step (phase 2) will be to coax it
to self-sustain in the 400°C neighborhood needed by the parent project
into which I want to embed the reactor.

The phase 1 testing is to find the (pressure,temperature1) points, if
any, at which ignition occurs and the corresponding minimum
(pressure,temperature2) points where the reaction becomes
self-sustaining. During the initial phase 1 testing the 'safe'
temperature threshold will probably be set down to 250°C to give me time
to get over being terrified. :-)

If a runaway condition is detected (either by exceeding the preset
'safe' temperature threshold or by a significant increase in radiation),
then the shutdown routine will [1] kill heater power (even if it's
already off), [2] shut off the hydrogen supply, and then [3] open a
valve between the reaction chamber and a vacuum tank to remove the
hydrogen from the reactor. A full shutdown should take less than a
second and the vacuum valve will remain open until an explicit "close
valve" command is entered by the operator (me).

[Morris Dovey]

On 10/30/11 10:33 PM, Bob F wrote:

> Actually, Morris - you should look at least at the possibility of using a solid
> state relay to lessen the risk of fused contacts.

Ok. I don't yet know what my heater voltage/current levels need to be,
but I found

"OMRON G3NA210BDC524 Solid State Relay Input DC Maximum Operating
Voltage 24 VDC Minimum Operating Voltage 5 VDC Output AC Output Current
Range with Heat Sink 0.1 - 10 Amps Minimum Output Voltage 19 VAC Maximum
Output Voltage 264 VAC Maximum Input Current 7 Milliamps"

for about $20 with shipping.

That will resolve the fused contacts issue, but leads me to ask a
related question: If/when an SSR fails, does it fail open or does it
fail closed?

If I do that, I'll need the AD595 thermocouple adapter at $17.95+ and a
Type-K glass braid insulated thermocouple at $13.95+

And I need to reduce the maximum allowable length of the nichrome heater
wire from 16" to about 12" to allow locating the thermocouple bead
somewhere near the middle of the heater tube.

That adds up to about $55 in additional cost to avoid fused relay
contacts...

Now can we please go back and figure out the heater itself so there's
something to measure?

:-)

[Morris Dovey]

On 10/30/11 7:06 PM, eric gisse wrote:

> Nickle-Hydrogen fusion has a significantly higher threshhold than other
> possible combinations.

I understand that. Reactions should favor production of Ni and Fe - and
yet expert observers are reporting Ni/H fusion producing Cu as the
primary end product...

I have an immediate application for such a small heat source, and I'm
too impatient (and too old) to sit around waiting for someone else to
figure Rossi's device out for me so that I can then continue developing
my application.

[vaughn]

"Morris Dovey" <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in message
news:j8lgpt$sc4$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

>
> That will resolve the fused contacts issue, but leads me to ask a related
> question: If/when an SSR fails, does it fail open or does it fail closed?
>

The normal fail mode is closed. I have used literally thousands of these things
in traffic signals controllers. In practice, they seldom fail randomly and are
at least as reliable as a mechanical relay (which can fail open OR closed)..
High current from a short circuit or a zap of lightning were the usual culprits
that caused failure.

Vaughn

[eric gisse]

"Bob F" <bobn...@gmail.com> wrote in news:j8l4qg$7c5$1...@dont-email.me:

[...]

> If this is really dealing with nuclear reactions, maybe the
> control is important. He doesn't want a runaway reaction.
>

Fusion is not self sustaining without immense, directed, energy input.

[Morris Dovey]

On 10/31/11 1:55 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:

> Now can we please go back and figure out the heater itself so there's
> something to measure?

Following up - I just ordered a 100' spool of NiCr wire on eBay and
picked up a piece of 3/8"OD (1/4"ID) copper tubing and piece of
HardyBoard (work surface for brazing this stuff together) from Home Depot.

According to my calculations, a 12" length of #40 NiCr wire should
provide about 250W of heating and draw about 2A at 115VAC.

I'm going build /two/ heaters so I can try both the DPDT relay with an
op-amp circuit and the SSR/thermocouple/TC amp approaches. I'm
interested in learning how many cycles a relay can switch 2A before it
welds the contacts together; and I'm interested to see how much
crosstalk there will be between 115VAC and 5VDC pairs inside a 1/4" cavity.

When the wire arrives I'll connect a 12" length to the mains and see how
it behaves.

Thanks to all for sharing ideas and suggestions!

[amdx]

Sorry, I need to ask, Will the NiCr handle 250 watts per 12".
Just thinking about my toaster and I know the NiCr is longer than
12". I know it is different wire, but still want to ask.
Thanks, Mikek

[Morris Dovey]

On 11/1/11 12:06 PM, amdx wrote:
> On 11/1/2011 10:17 AM, Morris Dovey wrote:

>> According to my calculations, a 12" length of #40 NiCr wire should
>> provide about 250W of heating and draw about 2A at 115VAC.

> Sorry, I need to ask, Will the NiCr handle 250 watts per 12".
> Just thinking about my toaster and I know the NiCr is longer than
> 12". I know it is different wire, but still want to ask.
> Thanks, Mikek

Nothing to be sorry about - it's a good question.

I think so, but won't really know until I try it out. I suspect it'll
require a fairly low duty cycle to avoid melting the wire.

I worked from the formulas at

http://www.wiretron.com/design.html

and the tables at

http://www.wiretron.com/nicrdat.html

Note that the second table specifies ohms/ft for the wire sizes listed.

[amdx]

I see a 1.5% resistance change from 400C to 600C. Is that right?
If so that's like 50 ohms at 400C and 53.75 ohms at 500C. If I'm
close with my numbers, that will be tough to use as a thermometer.
I hope my quick check is wrong.
Mikek

[Morris Dovey]

On 11/1/11 3:02 PM, amdx wrote:

> I see a 1.5% resistance change from 400C to 600C. Is that right?
> If so that's like 50 ohms at 400C and 53.75 ohms at 500C. If I'm
> close with my numbers, that will be tough to use as a thermometer.
> I hope my quick check is wrong.

You're probably right - it's probably going to depend heavily on being
able to put together a good op-amp circuit.

If you asked if I can do that, I'd have to give you the same answer I'd
give if asked if I can play the violin: "I don't know, I've never tried
before." :-)

[Dan Coby]

One table says that NiCr melts at either 1350 C (NiCr C) or 1400 C (NiCr A).
Another table says that #40 will heat to 1093 C with .79 amps.
You are planning on running 2 amps through the wire.

My guess is that the wire will melt rather quickly.

You will need to use either:

1) A larger wire to handle the current (which would have to be longer to keep the
total resistance the same).
2) Several #40 wires in parallel to share the current (and they would have to be
longer to keep the total resistance the same).
or
3) A very short duty cycle. (However the first program bug that leaves the current
on will melt the wire.)


Dan

P.S. I would be very surprised if this works. If Rossi had what he claims he
would be presenting real information.

[Morris Dovey]

On 11/2/11 12:22 AM, Dan Coby wrote:

> My guess is that the wire will melt rather quickly.
>
> You will need to use either:
>
> 1) A larger wire to handle the current (which would have to be longer to
> keep the
> total resistance the same).
> 2) Several #40 wires in parallel to share the current (and they would
> have to be
> longer to keep the total resistance the same).
> or
> 3) A very short duty cycle. (However the first program bug that leaves
> the current
> on will melt the wire.)

I think you're right. The only practical option was #3. Debug could have
been done using a scope, but to handle the strict duty cycle
requirements I'd have had to give up more programming flexibility than
I'm willing to sacrifice.

I've ordered a 1/4" diameter 3" long 115VAC 200W cartridge heater that
should fill the heating requirements, but precludes co-locating a
thermocouple for closely tracking heater temperature. :-(

This means that I'll have to either attempt to monitor heater resistance
using a DPDT relay and op-amp circuit or settle for measuring the
reaction chamber temperature via thermocouple and amp with an
uncomfortable latency from application of power to measured temperature
rise.

> P.S. I would be very surprised if this works. If Rossi had what he
> claims he would be presenting real information.

I'd be delighted to hand you a surprise. :-)

Rossi suffers from a severe case of geekiness. I think he's spent so
much of his life learning to deal with technical matters that he hasn't
developed other skills. I suspect that he's so worried that someone
might steal his work that he'd prefer to limit his statements to "I did
it - GFY." Geeks are notoriously poor salesmen - DAMHIKT.

If it does work I'll be pleased - and if it doesn't I won't be - but
either way, I don't think I'll be terribly surprised.

[Jim Wilkins]

"Morris Dovey" <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in message

news:j8rkq9$8nj$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> Morris Dovey

I don't lack interest in your project, only power and phone lines thanks to
our little snowstorm.

This laptop is finally operating off a very marginal Harbor Freight solar
panel kit and Virgin Mobile wireless "broadband". If you want I could mail
you a few feet of thermocouple wire, and I picked up considerable experience
with op amp measurement circuits working as an analog test engineer.

jsw

[Morris Dovey]

On 11/3/11 9:32 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:

> I don't lack interest in your project, only power and phone lines thanks to
> our little snowstorm.

I heard it was a mess.

> This laptop is finally operating off a very marginal Harbor Freight solar
> panel kit and Virgin Mobile wireless "broadband". If you want I could mail
> you a few feet of thermocouple wire, and I picked up considerable experience
> with op amp measurement circuits working as an analog test engineer.

I don't know yet if I need the wire yet - but I'm grateful for the
opportunity to tap into your experience.

As you probably read, I've ordered a little (1/4"ODx3"L) 200W 115VAC
heater and would like to be able to capture heater temperature in real time.

AFAICT, the "real time" aspect would pretty much require turning off the
heater power briefly at intervals long enough (1 msec?) to capture the
heater resistance to determine the temperature.

[ The thermocouple approach would be much simpler electronically, but
would create other problems (with construction and loss of real-time
capability) that I want to avoid. ]

I'd like to be able to adjust a trim pot to set the lower limit (what my
A/D converter considers "zero") to room temperature, and to adjust
another trim pot to set the upper limit (what my A/D converter considers
its maximum conversion value).

I've been looking at schematics on-line but haven't found one that
allows adjusting both low- and hi-end readings. Can you help?

[vaughn]

"Morris Dovey" <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in message

news:j8uhnp$ogl$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

> AFAICT, the "real time" aspect would pretty much require turning off the
> heater power briefly at intervals long enough (1 msec?) to capture the heater
> resistance to determine the temperature.

Morris, (On the huge assumption that I understand what you are trying to do).
Any time you heat a mass with a point temerature source, you end up with a
temperature gradient. The heater temperature will be significantly hotter than
the material you are heating. The short interval approach you mention will give
you the temperature of the heater, not the temperature of the mass you are
heating. Is that what you really want? To accurately measure the temperature
of the mass using the heater as a sensor, you will need to have a longish time
delay so that your sensor can cool down and finally match the temperature of the
mass.

Vaughn

[Bob F]

Morris Dovey wrote:
> AFAICT, the "real time" aspect would pretty much require turning off
> the heater power briefly at intervals long enough (1 msec?) to
> capture the heater resistance to determine the temperature.

I don't think relays will be able to attain anywhere near that 1ms sample rate,
FWIW.

[Morris Dovey]

Sorry, I should have described this better: 1 sample/sec should be
enough during initial heating. If it takes 1 msec to capture the
reading, then heating time can be as much as 999 msec (less relay
make/break latencies) out of each second.

If/when there is ignition, heating will stop altogether and the rate
will be increased to 10 samples/sec during the self-sustain testing.

All the while, beta- and gamma-radiation counts will be accumulated into
100 msec counter "buckets".

I'm hoping none of these modes will strain any components.

[Morris Dovey]

You're right - but there'll be a fair amount of testing with an unfueled
reactor to get a handle on things like the heat transfer rate you
pointed to.

My thinking is that I can use the heat transfer information along with
predictive logic to project what temperatures /should/ result from the
heating so that significant variances from the predicted values
(signalling ignition) can be identified fairly quickly. Knowing the heat
transfer rate should allow me to shorten the delay between powering down
the heater and capturing the heater resistance, and to use that value in
context to accurately /infer/ the temperature in the reaction chamber.

Keep in mind that during heating I only care about detecting ignition,
that with ignition electric heating stops, and that I only care about
accurate temperatures /after/ that point.

Aside from the electronics and logic issues, I still have to be able to
build this thing. The reactor has to be hydrogen-tight at a couple
hundred PSI and every "feature" adds difficulty to the build (and I'm
neither skilled machinist nor expert welder).

[CWatters]

On 31/10/2011 07:05, Morris Dovey wrote:
> On 10/30/11 7:06 PM, eric gisse wrote:
>
>> Nickle-Hydrogen fusion has a significantly higher threshhold than other
>> possible combinations.
>
> I understand that. Reactions should favor production of Ni and Fe - and
> yet expert observers are reporting Ni/H fusion producing Cu as the
> primary end product...
>

Perhaps CU is the catalyst :-)

[CWatters]

On 04/11/2011 05:05, Morris Dovey wrote:
> On 11/3/11 8:13 PM, Bob F wrote:
>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>> AFAICT, the "real time" aspect would pretty much require turning off
>>> the heater power briefly at intervals long enough (1 msec?) to
>>> capture the heater resistance to determine the temperature.
>>
>> I don't think relays will be able to attain anywhere near that 1ms
>> sample rate,
>> FWIW.
>
> Sorry, I should have described this better: 1 sample/sec should be
> enough during initial heating. If it takes 1 msec to capture the
> reading, then heating time can be as much as 999 msec (less relay
> make/break latencies) out of each second.

Rossi suggests that perhaps kW are needed so losses fropm the cell must
be quite high?

I think you might find the temperature of the heating element falls
rapidly when the power to the heater is turned off until it reaches the
temperature of the bulk material around it. If you sample the
temperature immediatly you turn off the heater you might end up
measuring the temperature of the heater not what the bulk material would
be with the heater off. Isn't it the latter that matters?

Perhaps experiment to work out what that sampling delay should be, eg
heater off then sample the resistance every half second for say 10-20
seconds, plot the graph and see what it looks like. If the temperature
stops falling with the heater off then some kind of reaction is going on.

[CWatters]

On 30/10/2011 17:29, Morris Dovey wrote:
> On 10/30/11 10:27 AM, vaughn wrote:
>
>> I would urge you to reconsider that approach. If you use a standard
>> temperature
>> probe (perhaps right inside that pipe with the heater), you not only
>> gain the
>> advantage of using some standard "pre engineered" temperature sensing
>> circuit,
>> you also can dispense with that relay and easily control the heater
>> with a
>> standard SSR (Solid State Relay) The varying contact resistance of
>> that relay
>> would always introduce some "noise" into your temperature readings..
>
> I'm still considering a thermocouple inside the heating tube but until I
> know what the nichrome length needs to be

Use the element from a bar fire or hot water cylinder?

[Morris Dovey]

Assuming that one of these things /can/ be self-sustaining, my ultimate
goal (for now) is to run one of these things somewhere in the
neighborhood of 385-400°C - and haven't yet found any OTS components to
do the job. You can get a glimpse of the "parent" project at the bottom
of this page:

http://www.iedu.com/Solar/Electricity/

I do have two really small water heater elements (used for testing a
tankless WH design 25 years ago), but they're much too large for the
reactor I'm working on.

A friend in Belgium is sending a trio of solid state relays for me to
play with (He can't use them because of incompatible mains voltages).

[Morris Dovey]

On 11/4/11 11:20 AM, CWatters wrote:
> On 04/11/2011 05:05, Morris Dovey wrote:
>> On 11/3/11 8:13 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>>> AFAICT, the "real time" aspect would pretty much require turning off
>>>> the heater power briefly at intervals long enough (1 msec?) to
>>>> capture the heater resistance to determine the temperature.
>>>
>>> I don't think relays will be able to attain anywhere near that 1ms
>>> sample rate,
>>> FWIW.
>>
>> Sorry, I should have described this better: 1 sample/sec should be
>> enough during initial heating. If it takes 1 msec to capture the
>> reading, then heating time can be as much as 999 msec (less relay
>> make/break latencies) out of each second.
>
> Rossi suggests that perhaps kW are needed so losses fropm the cell must
> be quite high?

His output temperature versus time plot appears to indicate that his
table-top reactor ignited at about 60°C - and one is left to infer that
power was removed when/before the output temperature reached 100°C.

To figure the actual reactor operating temperature we'd need to know the
input temperature and flow rate, but it's safe to assume that it was in
excess of 100°C - it may have been double or triple that.

He had that little reactor wrapped in a heat exchanger - fiberglass wool
- foil - lead jacket, so it shouldn't have been too awfully lossy in
that temperature range.

> I think you might find the temperature of the heating element falls
> rapidly when the power to the heater is turned off until it reaches the
> temperature of the bulk material around it. If you sample the
> temperature immediatly you turn off the heater you might end up
> measuring the temperature of the heater not what the bulk material would
> be with the heater off. Isn't it the latter that matters?

Yes, that's what I expect - but I think it's possible to avoid having to
wait for the heating element to cool to the same temperature as the
reaction chamber. See below...

> Perhaps experiment to work out what that sampling delay should be, eg
> heater off then sample the resistance every half second for say 10-20
> seconds, plot the graph and see what it looks like. If the temperature
> stops falling with the heater off then some kind of reaction is going on.

Absolutely. I think this can be streamlined somewhat by experimenting to
determine the heat transfer parameters; and once established it
shouldn't be necessary to wait for a temperature equilibrium to be
established - only for the heating element temperature to drop enough to
accurately measure dT/dt (rate of change in element temperature per unit
of time).

[Jim Wilkins]

"Morris Dovey" <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in message

news:j903e2$bak$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> ... My thinking is that I can use the heat transfer information along with

> predictive logic to project what temperatures /should/ result from the
> heating so that significant variances from the predicted values
> (signalling ignition) can be identified fairly quickly. Knowing the heat
> transfer rate should allow me to shorten the delay between powering down
> the heater and capturing the heater resistance, and to use that value in
> context to accurately /infer/ the temperature in the reaction chamber.
>

> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar

If I were doing this I would scare up a surplus PID temperature controller,
Omron is a good name, a thermowell for the temperature sensor and a vacuum
oven feedthru for the heater power leads. The rest can be fabricated,
including the thermowell if you have a decent thread-cutting lathe (almost
essential for physics experiments). The feedthru on my vacuum oven was a
pipe plug with Glyptal sealing the wires. It leaked and thus I bought the
oven cheap, but making a new one fixed it fine.

If you attempt to measure temperature from heater wire resistance you will
have to wait many seconds for it to cool down exponentially to the internal
temperature. You could sacrifice one to find the input power that damages it
and stay below that with the second one.

Usually we keep the heater and sensor separate, with the heater upstream and
the sensor in a location that better averages the temperature of the
contents. Applications that measure and control the heater resistance
generally keep its temperature constant and read out the necessary power,
for instance the hot-wire detector in a mass spectrometer or the mass air
flow sensor in a car engine. Otherwise PID control which avoids temperature
overshoot is much better.

The two accessible controls on your A/D converter are gain and offset. Use
the offset to get your zero and the gain, the reference voltage, for full
scale.

jsw

[Jim Wilkins]

"Morris Dovey" <mrd...@iedu.com> wrote in message

news:j91704$am1$2...@speranza.aioe.org...

> On 11/4/11 11:20 AM, CWatters wrote:
>> On 04/11/2011 05:05, Morris Dovey wrote:
>>> On 11/3/11 8:13 PM, Bob F wrote:
>>>> Morris Dovey wrote:
>>>>> AFAICT, the "real time" aspect would pretty much require turning off
>>>>> the heater power briefly at intervals long enough (1 msec?) to
>>>>> capture the heater resistance to determine the temperature.

>>>>...

> Morris Dovey
> DeSoto Solar
> http://www.iedu.com/Solar/

I misunderstood your intention.

Heater resistance is the voltage across it divided by the current through
it. You can easily measure both while the power is on with a four-terminal
(Kelvin sense) current sense resistor. You wouldn't need a separate
resistance measuring circuit protected from full heater power.

The simpler approach puts the resistor in the return leg to reduce common
mode voltage. The heater voltage should also be sensed as close as practical
to both ends of the Nichrome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-terminal_sensing
http://www.ohmite.com/cgi-bin/showpage.cgi?product=10_series#four

There are also inexpensive isolated Hall-effect current sensors. I haven't
tested the samples I have and don't know it they are accurate enough to
measure the small resistance change in hot Nichrome.

Inductances in the heater circuit will give you false readings immediately
after current changes. I've measured the settling time for a machine that
performed automated tests on memory chips and saw low-level effects like
dielectric absorption in wiring and relay insulation that lasted up to 5mS.
The worst case was a transistor tester that needed 15 Seconds to settle
because the engineer neglected relay coil diodes.

jsw

[daestrom]

In large commercial AC generators, that is exactly how they measure the
rotor winding temperature. Measure the applied voltage and resulting
current. As far back as the 1940's (maybe even earlier), companies like
GE and Westinghouse built a sort of analog computer that was just wired
into the circuit that applies power to the rotor slip-rings and provided
continuous rotor winding temperature indication on a servo-driven pen
recorder.

daestrom