Anomaly Found @ 920c During LENR Testing (Thomas Conover)

The following post has been submitted by Thomas Conover

Anomaly found @ 920c during LENR testing

1.6 % increase in temp with 2.3% less power.
Not enough to crow about, but hey, it’s my first rodeo.

More tests now scheduled to amplify this if possible.

Tom Conover

See the report here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0-v-YrLYfWxcHNlRktIMm50QW8/view?usp=sharing
See a demo of the reactor here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSrfniw3PK8&feature=youtu.be

a·nom·a·ly
əˈnäməlē/Submit
noun
1.
something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected.
“there are a number of anomalies in the present system”
synonyms: oddity, peculiarity, abnormality, irregularity, inconsistency, incongruity, aberration, quirk, rarity

  • Frank Acland

    Thanks very much for the report, Tom — please keep us updated on how things progress.

  • wizkid

    You are welcome, Frank. I look forward to updating progress as it occurs.

    • Ged

      Good luck on your experiments! May your data be unambiguous, and your variables well behaved :).

      • wizkid

        Time will tell Ged, thank you for your encouragement. My hardware grows wiser when it uses me to write the software that drives it, and plays kickball on the playground with the gang. It’s asking for a play date with the nanobots that just won the Nobel Prize. Go figure!
        http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-nobel-prize-chemistry-20161005-snap-story.html

      • interesting.
        One possibility to eliminate is a chemical/physical reaction of storage and release, with limited energy involved.

        could you estimate the quantity of heat released by the anomalous power measured?

        crossing the fingers

        • wizkid

          It’s just an anomaly, but very interesting to me. I am lining up several retests to find out if it is repeatable. This particular fuel cell had been through several tests, which implys that it’s not a chemical reaction. The data possibly insinuates that it is 4.62 watts of power that is extra. If it’s not repeatable it’s an anomaly. I will check that first. But it was very fun to see even if my machines were just telling me a joke. Thank you for your comment.

      • wizkid

        Yup the data is on the spreadsheet pdf printout with the graghs. Other viewers can see it, visit e-catworld.com to see it better. Thanks for asking.

  • Gerard McEk

    Interesting Tom, do you also measure radiation? I assume you found nothing there? Good luck with your tests!

    • wizkid

      I just got my geiger counter, but I haven’t set it up yet.

  • Gerard McEk

    Interesting Tom, do you also measure radiation? I assume you found nothing there? Good luck with your tests!

    • wizkid

      I just got my geiger counter, but I haven’t set it up yet.

  • Bruce__H

    I’m afraid I don’t understand your calculations. On your data sheet you show some average values for temperature and power. For the eras beginning at time steps 127, 146, and 166 these averages are

    power (Watts?)
    371.05,
    414.69,
    418.02

    temperature (deg C)
    887.86
    921.30
    906.33

    Where do you calculate your changes from? The nearest I get to your figures are the changes seen when going from the 2nd to the 3rd time era (i.e., from time era 146 to 166). These changes constitute a 1.6% DECREASE in temperature with a 0.8% increase in power.

    Added in edit: I can see that the differences in temperature and power can be interpreted in 2 directions. You could say (as I have) that going from era 2 to era 3 there is a drop in temperature even though the input power is higher, or you could see this (as you have done) as an increase in temperature and a corresponding drop in power in going from era 3 to era 2.

    My concern in your data is that it sort of looks as if there has been an irreversible change (chemical decomposition or physical rearrangement) beginning around era 2. If this is true then it would enforce the my interpretation of your results. .I suggest in future runs ramping up AND down in power within this temperature regime. That would eliminate issues of irreversible change,

    • wizkid

      Sorry to hear that. The anomaly is located in the subset of data next to the small graph. Thanks for asking!

      • Bruce__H

        I think you will find that if you plot temperature vs power for all your data, you will find that the anomaly consists of a set of anomalous temperature readings between time steps 166 and 180 … a time era which is to the right of the era you have arrows pointing to on your chart. The temperature readings during this era are anomalously low, not anomalously high. Not sure what is going on.

        • wizkid

          Thank you for your suggestion. That graph is actually shown on the printout but in an even more enhanced version of the graph I can see that the only section that does not fit the power I applied is the section where the arrows point. So then, been there, done that.

  • ebevogon

    Just a small comment, the last 6 articles didn’t contain “Rossi” in the title. Is the star of Rossi going down?

    • SD

      That’s just an anomaly.

      • wizkid

        Ha ha! I agree.

    • wizkid

      What’s your name?

    • Rene

      The star of Rossi is veiled under secrecy and by his choice. It will rise (or not) when/if he delivers a working product to the market.

      • wizkid

        Rrrr?

  • SD

    That’s just an anomaly.

    • wizkid

      Ha ha! I agree.

    • wizkid

      What’s your name?

  • Rene

    The star of Rossi is veiled under secrecy and by his choice. It will rise (or not) when/if he delivers a working product to the market.

    • wizkid

      Rrrr?

  • clovis ray

    Hi Tom,
    Good looking experiment/test, i feel you are on the right track, i can only encourage you so ,
    Good luck, when exploring on the frontier,take nothing for granted, double check everything, keep easy accessible data, and then just do the thing, you love to do, create something new and exciting, liberate us from the never ending want list for energy.
    i’ll only be happy when it’s as free as the air we breath,

    • wizkid

      Me too! 🙋

  • clovis ray

    Hi Tom,
    Good looking experiment/test, i feel you are on the right track, i can only encourage you so ,
    Good luck, when exploring on the frontier,take nothing for granted, double check everything, keep easy accessible data, and then just do the thing, you love to do, create something new and exciting, liberate us from the never ending want list for energy.
    i’ll only be happy when it’s as free as the air we breath,

    • wizkid

      Me too! 🙋

  • Michael W Wolf

    I recall talk where others have said reactions start at over 900C.

    • wizkid

      I agree! It is in the zone. Thank you for your comment Michael.

  • Michael W Wolf

    I recall talk where others have said reactions start at over 900C.

    • wizkid

      I agree! It is in the zone. Thank you for your comment Michael.

  • wizkid

    Thank you for your suggestion. That graph is actually shown on the printout but in an even more enhanced version of the graph I can see that the only section that does not fit the power I applied is the section where the arrows point. So then, been there, done that.

  • wizkid

    THE NEXT RUN DID NOT SHOW THE ANOMALY. Same exact reactor, fuel cartridge, software version … and me at the helm. Thanks for your support guys!

    • Obvious

      Thank you for replicating yourself.
      I would do it at least one more time, and then compare all runs using the same methodology. This will give you an idea of the natural variability of the experiment.

      • wizkid

        Thank you for the encouragement, that is already standard operating procedure. I currently have six backup furnaces an one additional control center. I am currently evaluating fuzed crystal tubing vs alumina tubing for my furnaces, the alumina product is more durable but the fuzed crystal costs 50% as much, jury is still out on this issue, they both hold up.

  • wizkid

    THE NEXT RUN DID NOT SHOW THE ANOMALY. Same exact reactor, fuel cartridge, software version … and me at the helm. Thanks for your support guys!

    • Obvious

      Thank you for replicating yourself.
      I would do it at least one more time, and then compare all runs using the same methodology. This will give you an idea of the natural variability of the experiment.

      (Good to see that the tube design seems stable now)

      • wizkid

        Thank you for the encouragement, that is already standard operating procedure. I currently have six backup furnaces an one additional control center. I am currently evaluating fuzed crystal tubing vs alumina tubing for my furnaces, the alumina product is more durable but the fuzed crystal costs 50% as much, jury is still out on this issue, they both hold up.

  • wizkid
  • wizkid

    oops, I still see an anomaly there on the left – ha ha!

  • Bruce__H

    So what was actually being tested here? This is an ecat replication? What fuel specifications?

  • Bruce__H

    So what was actually being tested here? This is an ecat replication? What fuel specifications?