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

    02:17 screengrab is indicating >13% excess

    • Ged

      This is quickly turning fantastic.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Well – we remain cautious – however, Mathieu seemed reasonably encouraged when it was at 10% before he went to bed and it hit 13.8% a little while back. These are all figures in line with our historical tests but they were in much more questionable thermometry based Celani cells – Mathieu was half expecting it to show nothing – so it is one to watch.

        • Ged

          A lot of careful dissection. But the larger the signal, if it continues going up, the better the analysis. Interesting that the wires have been so much more consistent than bulk.

    • Zeddicus Zul Zorander

      Totally awesome. You guys absolutely deserve some success. Let’s hope the excess heat is true and not a measurement issue.
      Also good luck on the glowstick test currently running: who knows that may also kick off.

  • Jarea

    Very good news!! Hurray!
    When will you have some stable and confident news regarding these results?
    Would you start after this a new replication with the same constraints to reproduce these results?
    Thanks for your hard work MFMP

  • Sanjeev

    10% is significant for this calorimeter.
    How is he going to verify it ? Post run calibrations ?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Yes – post run calibrations – exhaustive… we have until the 9th it would seam… so the main experiment can run for a good few days yet.

      • Eric Walker

        Is the final energy balance going to subtract any periods of endotherm?

        • Bob Greenyer

          Naturally it would need to if the signal was low. We need to see where this goes and for how long we can run the experiment.

  • Sanjeev

    The latest (08:47am) screenshot shows excess going beyond the plot area. Perhaps 15-20W…
    Is there a way to set the axis limits automatically?

  • catfish

    This is very good news. I have been hoping MFMP could get their first inequivocal moment for awhile. I am glad you are continuing the Celani wire tests.

    • Bob Greenyer

      If solar panels were 10% more efficient – it would be very big news…

  • Bob Greenyer

    Well – Mathieu knows the Calorimeter better than I. It is actually based on a design by Jean-Paul Biberian and has been constructed with his regular consultation. Franco Morici rightly challenges its level of characterisation so far and for this reason I am uncomfortable to make any firm statements at this time.

    What I can say is that the findings are in-line with a range of other Celani wire experiments in different locations, very different apparatus etc. Can it be the case that so many times we test a Celani wire – it produces higher temperatures than the control / null / calibrations and there still be no truth that it is producing excess.

    What people forget when they see the size in W produce 9W over 60W say in this case – is that this, if real, is coming from say a 20um nano structured layer on a wire that weighs typically less than 0.3g. Do the math and you start to see the W/kg is very large.

    Celani went down the wire route to STUDY the effect – like Piantelli chose a rod for the same reasons – to learn parameters and control. It is not meant to be a practical power source for thermal heat.

    We can be more definitive when more calibrations are conducted at the end of the experiment. Live Open Science is allowing us to live this moment as it happens – but the data still needs to rigorously scrutinised and challenged to ensure that no one is fooling themselves.

    • M

      Thanks for the reply and explanation. Yes, I think the distinction between an experimental “prep” for scientific study vs. commercial R&D is wise and important. In fact a 100% repeatable effect – if that’s what you have in the Celani system – in combination with an affordable calorimetry setup, made entirely from off-the-shelf components, is what MFMP needs to take this work to the next level. With these in hand, I’m hoping you will create “kits” with detailed protocols and specs to disseminate widely to academic labs for replication and study. This is jumping the gun a bit since the results are not final. But if all pans out, you are very close. You’ve made great strides in these few years. Getting good experimental data is not NEARLY as easy as it appears. Again, deepest thanks and congratulations.

      • Bob Greenyer

        Thanks should be directed to Ryan, Mathieu, Nico, Julian, Alan, Mark, Skip, Lenka, Stoyan, me356, All the team at HUG, Ecco, Celani, Piantelli, Parkohomov, Stephen, New Energy Foundation, BobCat Sweden staff, E-Cat World, 100s donors – indeed so many to thank it would be read like one of our CSV data dumps!

        Of course our plan is always to find something repeatable – describe it and get it out there. We may be overtaken by events – or… if events move too slow we may overtake events – time and reality will tell.

        • mike wolf

          Congratulations folks, looks like your baby took its first step. Before you know it, it will be running. Can’t wait.

  • Bob Matulis

    I see 10 degrees excess rather than 10% Still exciting. Please let me know if/how I am misinterpreting

    • artefact

      In: 50W Out: 60W
      The 10W gain is 20%
      It reads: 10W excess screenshots

      • Bob Greenyer

        Actually it is nearly 59.841W in 69.248W out… reached a little higher in this latest grab (intra grabs).

  • nietsnie

    Congrats on your success! This is great news!

  • georgehants

    Wonderful, is the information on how this was achieved freely available to anybody that wishes to repeat the experiment?

    • Bob Greenyer

      We are rolling out the process to make 1st generation Celani wires.

      http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/mfmp-blog/503-how-to-make-a-celani-wire-is-coming

      The second generation – of which this is one, is much more involved – but there is good detail in Celani’s paper which I edited for clarity here.

      http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/home/general-updates/507-final-version-of-celani-s-iccf-19-paper-available

      Mathieu is adding detail on the current experiment to the live document

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

      You will see links to data and VI screen grabs every half hour. From this you will be able to determine all the power/pressure and stimulation at every point. At some point this should be written into a succinct form.

      • georgehants

        Again Wonderful, no patents, no profit, just free science to be used by anybody, hopefully to produce energy to help those most in need.
        That is why I made a donation to MFMP and if this continues freely then we will consider donating much more.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Thanks for helping make our work possible.

        • artefact

          I see that the reactor now gets 10 W more input with a core temperature of 505 C. What temperature can the wires manage?

          • Bob Greenyer

            Perhaps 800ºC

          • Bob Greenyer

            Well – you would always see the same delay – that is the time constant.

            If you look at earlier in the run, before the wire supposedly got ‘active’ you see 20W in equals 20W out (see attached image) (Output thermal-Input Electric = 0W)

            In this test, when it is reporting 9.xW ‘excess’ – you see that if you add 10W power – the calculation adjusts immediately, and then recovers. It all points to validity – but I’d personally like to wait and see the back end calibrations.

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/e91c5d16cc8534510e4434dd8a36c8e15c7e5796622105fc9443c008d3cc70e2.png

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Yes. That would give a COP of 0.99 for the last data set (2016-02-05_10-17-33-194). Hopefully, Mathieu can explain it.

          • Bob Greenyer

            I have tried to explain it based on my understanding below.

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Corrected to 0.98 using more precise numbers. For the slide you cite below I get a COP of 1.058 (that is, 5.8 ‘excess’ in the calibration).

            With Mathieu’s conservative factor of 1.222 the calculated COPs would come to 0.93 and 1.005. He says that something with the flowmeter could be wrong. We will see.

          • Bob Greenyer

            yes… those Are the numbers I get.

            I Would have been on top of this more… but I fell off my bicycle…

          • Andreas Moraitis

            Ouch…Get well soon!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Cheers Andreas

          • ecatworld

            Hope you’re okay Bob!

          • Bob Greenyer

            Thanks Frank… Only got one functional thumb… grrr

          • Bob Greenyer

            Important test of wires in MFC supports the data so far…

            At around hour 52:40 in the experiment, the power was raised by 10W on the suggestion of Francesco Celani. The event and subsequent response by the MFC can be seen in this GIF animation.

            https://goo.gl/JyLya0

            Francesco Celani’s comment about the result is also attached.

          • Ged

            Well then, congrats guys! Just need to make another, show it is easily reproducible under a standard method, and then we can finally move to the true phase of the MFMP’s mission: making and distributing kits for others to test and verify in massively parallel science.

          • Bob Greenyer

            That would be so nice… of course, we have felt like this before… We need to work hard to disprove what is apparently happening here – the bookend calibration will help.

          • Ged

            Considering what we’ve seen with the dogbones and glowsticks and lithiumless old celani cells, where if things don’t work (like when hydrogen sieves out, or missing catalyst) the system is indistinguishable from calibration… and these setups you list are widely different measuring schemes, controls, and comparisons… No, there is no common systematic error that can explain the wire results. We’ve ruled out hydrogen presence, wire differences, measurement differnences, material and design differences, power supplies and more.

            In fact, I can quantitate that with statistics given just a few facts (average input, average calibration, average excess) from each. Dunno how to find that data; the celani data was never as easy for me to track as the GS. But I should be free to finally start analyzing things again soon.

          • Bob Greenyer

            That’d be great.

            From a thermal assessment point of view – my confidence that Celani has something has increased.

          • Sanjeev

            Looks like Celani is happy with the results.
            Does he have an explanation? Why did the excess drop ?

          • Bob Greenyer

            The excess dropped because 10W was added. and the output power is determined via the heat capacity of water, see the live document for details on the specific equations used. Essentially the input water temp + flow rate in relation to the output water temp + flow rate determines the energy out (after calibrating and characterisation for system losses etc).

            The input power in W is taken from the assessed output power – the output power determination lags VERY significantly because the whole system has to heat up to transfer the new input power effect to the Mass Flow Calorimetric assessment. This means that there is a time constant before the reactor reaches steady state.

            At the point before the input power being raised, the MFC was in steady state, as soon as the input is raised – it is deducted from the output resulting in a near zero value – Celani suggested that the input power be raised by approximately by the reported excess precisely for this reason. Then… the system took time to get back to steady state.

          • Sanjeev

            Thanks for the explanation. So its the time constant and not any strange lenr effect.
            I guess on page 9, the equation should say “Output power” instead of “Excess power” ?

          • Bob Greenyer

            It is a time constant thing.

            Suggest the wording change to Mathieu on QH blog and he should pick it up. Thanks!

          • Sanjeev

            Done…

          • Bob Greenyer

            Splendid sir!

  • TPaign

    Way to go guys, very impressive! After the experiment, are you going to rerun the whole setup a few more times to prove that the experiment is reproducible? And will you provide a “step by step” guide for other labs to reproduce? Thanks for your perseverance and commitment to the scientific method.

    • Bob Greenyer

      That very much depends on if we can find a solution to the fact that Mathieu will need to re-locate on 9th Feb. Before he has to move, a back end calibration will be done.

  • SD

    Is this the kind of experiment where it is possible to look at isotopic shifts?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Possibly – but the energy output is minuscule and so any changes that may occur would be likely be undetectable. In Piantelli’s Lab he had an experiment that I believe has now concluded – it was running for about 3 years at something like 40% excess (don’t quote me on that) – the reason it was left running for so long was to maximise the chance of seeing statistically significant elemental or isotopic shifts.

  • Is this a original wire from Celani, or did Mathieu prepare it himself with information from Celani?

    • Bob Greenyer

      From Celani.

      • Okay, a self prepared wire would have been cool, but however it’s nice to see interesting stuff which is worth to dig deeper 🙂

        • Bob Greenyer

          It would be. Perhaps when Mathieu is settled in a new location – we could pursue this.

  • bkrharold

    This is great new, a completely independent confirmation using transparent procedures. My congratulations to the MFMP team who have worked so hard and diligently to achieve this result.

    • Bob Greenyer

      Thanks – This really is a team effort – the apparatus was our most expensive and time consuming build by far and the money came from donors, it is they that were key to making it possible.

      I still want to see an exhaustive back end calibration before I get too excited.

      • bkrharold

        You and the volunteers in the MFMP truly represent the legacy of Martin Fleischman. Your success will forever silence the doubters and skeptics, and remove any more excuses by the Scientific community not to examine and understand and explain this new phenomenon. Good luck to you.

        • Bob Greenyer

          Thankyou, I shall pass on your comments to the team… in the meantime – we’re having fun over on the GS5.2 experiment.

          http://magicsound.us/MFMP/video/

  • Bob Greenyer

    Mathieu Valat has noted an additional potential verification approach on our blog

    “One additional data point:

    Original resistance of the platinum wire is 14.07ohm

    Its length is 108.5cm

    Its current resistance is 38.77ohm

    Since it is platinum, we can calculate its average temperature!

    What I get from my calculation is 467.82°C.

    The thermocouple screwed on the mica plate is showing 478°C.”

    In short – the internal reactor TC is hotter than the average temperature of the heating wire, where is the heat coming from?

    • Andreas Moraitis

      Wouldn’t absorbed hydrogen alter the resistivity? The following paper gives some references, maybe worth to explore them in detail:

      http://pac.iupac.org/publications/pac/pdf/1990/pdf/6211×2091.pdf

      • Andreas Moraitis

        With regard to the GlowStick test, it might also be an idea to explore the behaviour of thermocouples when they come in contact with hydrogen. I guess that small amounts of hydrogen will anyway leak out. Just to make the results as watertight as possible.

  • Mats002

    Congratulation Mathieu and MFMP, Live Open Science is here to stay!

    What about HAD in this type of experiment, is it something to test for?

    • Bob Greenyer

      Firstly, it would be very difficult to determine with the long time constant of the MFC… But more that that – the thermal mass in Celani wires is minuscule, just a 20um layer on 200um wire – the wire is less than 0.3g total and spread along the whole reactor length. HAD would require dense packing with much larger volumes in my opinion.

      • Ged

        And enormous COP (>2) to distinguish away from the input heat’s percentage of the total heat. HAD is still out of reach till specifically energetic and sensitive reactor designs are made with the express purpose of looking for it.

  • Bob Greenyer

    Not yet

  • 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.

  • 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

    @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…

        • 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.

    • 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

          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!

  • 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.

        • 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

      • 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

    Please thank Frank