Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.

~Russ

Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« on October 20th, 2015, 12:52 PM »Last edited on October 20th, 2015, 01:36 PM
Hey guys, here i will be posting my work on the LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system i have constructed.

Starting with the Box's. More detail in the next video but this is basically a slightly heated box for room temp control...





https://youtu.be/I9WqrJ1Dw_A

~Russ

Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #1, on December 31st, 2015, 06:26 PM »Last edited on December 31st, 2015, 06:29 PM
OK update, i will update this post with technical data if need be when i get time for now just watch the video:

https://youtu.be/J3_ISxlX-k0
feed back please.

some next steps is to put the system is a double walled vacuum insulated "box" housing to get the room swing out of the equation...

Also isolate the chamber more would be good!

element 119

Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #2, on January 1st, 2016, 12:44 AM »
Hi Russ ; just watched last video and in it you asked for feedback, so if you still want it here is my two cents...lol

You talked about the sun hitting the garage door and affecting the room temp.

So if you do not open and close that door then maybe cover the outside with a large sheet of plastic and tape edges.

Also you could cover the outside of it with the same insulation you made the chamber box out of.

That would help reflect the sunlight  temp and keep it out of the room.

Well just my input, hope it helps.

PeakPositive/element 119 :)

Matt Watts

Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #3, on January 1st, 2016, 01:15 AM »Last edited on January 1st, 2016, 01:18 AM
Lot of hard work there Russ.  Looking good.

Fun watching you walk in my footsteps.  :)

If you have an LOI (Letter of Instruction) written up, I'd like to see it.  The video provides a nice overview, but the details are crucial to all this hard work being accepted into the science community.

Some notes you may or may not be aware of:
  • Calibration routines need to be executed before and after each trial.
  • Raw data must be recorded for each sensor.  When I say raw, I mean non-calibrated voltage or current loop data.
  • I highly recommend using signal conditioners on all inputs.  Your DAC may have them already--check to be sure and add them if it does not.
  • I would use LabVIEW to do ALL of your data collection and control.  Having separate hardware for your PID control may likely cause you grief down the road.
  • If you don't have it already, prepare your post-processing (data crunching) algorithms now before you ever start a real trial.  Every single data point will REQUIRE a full chain of custody audit trail, so you will need to not only reduce the data down to a form suitable for the final report, but show EXACTLY every step you took in the process.  This should all be fully documented in the LOI.
  • I'm not sure what sample intervals you are going to use, but I would go with a standard one-sample-per-second.  Hard drives are cheap these days and the last thing you want to do is miss a crucial data point.
  • When doing such tight tolerance temperature measures, I have found it wise to ALWAYS keep the test chamber several degrees above ambient.  The reason for this is you have no cooling control, so the closer the test chamber is to ambient, the more difficult it is to lock it to a fixed value.  The chambers I worked on had both heating and cooling and the trick is to run them both with a large overlap.  This gives you the ability to lock the temperature rock solid using a proportional heating system.  You may be able to augment your setup with a cold water circulation system to give you this ability.  Then you can run STP at 72 degrees.
  • Before you run a real trial, I would highly recommend picking some sort of top scale heat you expect to see from the actual LENR chamber and be sure your complete system can handle this reading.  The last thing you want is to have a successful LENR reaction that off-scales your instrumentation.

There are probably dozens of tips I have forgotten over the years--my last go at this stuff was in '97.  If anything else comes to mind, I'll post it in this thread.

Good luck Russ.  I hope 2016 brings great progress to the table.

 :thumbsup:

sebosfato

Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #4, on January 1st, 2016, 03:07 AM »
Good luck Russ

happy new year...

i also recomend you to use labview, you will be able to save all data in the form of graphs and tables... not easy but not impossible.... i use it here for the water project to monitor all i need..

good luck


Diadon

Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #5, on January 1st, 2016, 04:53 AM »
It is looking fantastic and I am glad to see it advancing. I think I already suggested everything I could think of since I am a complete calorimetry rookie as well. I am using a water bath in my system but I am short on funds for the plumbing right now. Just need to be patient to set up a simple pump primer. I would love to acquire PID controller like you have going on, but I didn't ask Santa ;)  I did a trial with LabView and its awesome, not compatible with arduino though, and I am the epitome of a garage experimenter as you know.  I am glad you took the advice on the aluminum for thermal reflection, but I would listen to Alan in putting some thermal venting of roughly 2mm slits or break points on the edges. Its like voltage potential in a way, the potential difference increases on the points and edges in the form of vibration in sense. In high voltage one could consider it ionization, the same is true for most frequency bands of energetic momentum.  The more you can eliminate those places, the more stable system you have without a sudden radical leakage/release. Just like on a heat-sink where there is many fins to create a large radiation of thermal energy. Knowing and coming to understand your auto ranging system, I don't think its too much of an issue, but it might help in configuring your thermal difference between your control and sample reactors. Again, I am learning far more from you than I could give any helpful advice, as I am a rookie at this stuff. From what I have researched and learned, there may still be naysayers unless the excess exceeds a ~10% range due to your air temp swings and your thermal capacitance composition of a known value. That being the greater LA area air on any given day ;)  Anything under ~10% excess heat, while a novel phenomenon, is probably not very useful anyways until completely understood and utilized to its full potential anyways right?

 The results aren't as important as what we all learn from this process. Regardless of what they may be, if its any consolation, I love you all the same ;)
It may take me a couple more months than I hoped for to get my setup running how I envision it, but that's the way it goes when you have piggy bank resources. Perhaps its just the creator telling me to slow down to ensure when I run full experiments, they are designed to create what it is we are all so desperately searching for. A way for energetic abundance on this beautiful sphere we call home.
  Much love as always and I look forward to seeing the Pd holder D2 runs you have in store for us all. I am more partial to the classical fusion experiments rather than the Rossi work, as he has become more of a talking politician than a applied scientist. You are truly an inspiration to many my friend, and I am glad to share this time and space with you.
 

Gunther Rattay

Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #6, on January 1st, 2016, 05:18 AM »Last edited on January 1st, 2016, 05:20 AM
@Diadon
There are high level and low level interfaces in LabView that serve you to integrate Arduino. No need to leave LabView configuration environment to implement your integration.
Worth to give it a try.

sausage

Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #7, on January 1st, 2016, 05:23 PM »
I'm following along in earnest. Can't wait for the real test to begin.
Best of luck Russ!

Diadon

Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #8, on January 1st, 2016, 07:16 PM »
@Gunthar I would love to use LabVIEW, just don't have the $$ for the software. I saw some ways to incorporate arduino, I was using the trial version and exploring it. If they don't track IP adress , maybe I can just keep re-applying for the trail with new User IDs ;)
 I am just kidding, I wouldn't do that.

Tcarey

Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #9, on January 1st, 2016, 10:42 PM »
Congratulations on a nicely thought out set up.

The only thing that I found that made me uncomfortable is the gas line being split prior to the two chambers and then recombined after leaving them. 

That means an assumption has to be made that the gas is flowing equally in each path and if the gas is shut off, that there is no gas circulating in the loop moving heat around.

I am assuming that the system will be vacuumed, gas admitted, and then the flow shut off for the duration of the experiment so that leaves the circulation as an issues since the pressure equalization will get equal volumes of gas in each test chamber.

The two exit lines could be brought all the way out of the apparatus with valves installed on each leg to prevent circulation. That would increase the heat paths out of the apparatus so the consequences of that would have to be evaluated to see if that makes sense. Alternatively solenoid operated valves could be installed in the inner chamber if gas is not going to be flowing once the experiment is underway. Any heat generated by the solenoids would be dissipated during initial temperature equalization.   


Matt Watts

Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #10, on January 2nd, 2016, 01:15 AM »
Quote from Tcarey on January 1st, 2016, 10:42 PM
Alternatively solenoid operated valves could be installed in the inner chamber if gas is not going to be flowing once the experiment is underway. Any heat generated by the solenoids would be dissipated during initial temperature equalization.
Yes, good idea Tcarey.  I'm sure they make latching solenoid valves (same as latching relays) that could be triggered with an impulse to force the valve open or closed.  The tiny amount of heat emitted during valve position change would show-up on the sensors and provide positive feedback the valve had been activated.  Basically a mark on the data logging stream.  With some pre-trial tests, this additional heat could be exactly accounted for.  Then all that would be needed is to have LabVIEW generate the pulse at the proper time and make it part of the programming protocol for the test sequence.

Gunther Rattay

Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #11, on January 2nd, 2016, 04:55 AM »
Quote from Diadon on January 1st, 2016, 07:16 PM
@Gunthar I would love to use LabVIEW, just don't have the $$ for the software. I saw some ways to incorporate arduino, I was using the trial version and exploring it. If they don't track IP adress , maybe I can just keep re-applying for the trail with new User IDs ;)
 I am just kidding, I wouldn't do that.
Try student version.

benkomisar

Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #12, on January 2nd, 2016, 01:04 PM »
Looks amazing Russ!
You have went with a very interesting approach to conducting your research.
All in all I have to say I think it is truly excellent.
What type of lattice are you putting in your SS tube? (I guess you'll be sharing that in upcoming videos)
The heat differential method for calorimetry is interesting.
I really hope you achieve heat energy gains from the way you have your system setup as it would prove that no energy is needed to excite the Deuterium loaded lattice ... I will say I have a bit of a gut feeling that the LENR/Cold fusion phenomenon relies somewhat on
#1 : the deuterium (or hydrogen) loading process into the lattice
#2: and ALSO the excitation provided to the lattice by current running through it (<--I could be totally wrong <That is why we are trying to run these experiments I guess :D )

I am looking forward with enjoyment on your progress!
I am also looking forward to conducting my own LENR experimentation setup. (I have been learning C code as much as I can and I hope to be able to make my own simple program to run my calorimetric calculations)
We shall see.
Again, amazing work! Exciting stuff!
Peace :)
Ben

Diadon

Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #13, on January 3rd, 2016, 12:22 AM »
@Gunthar I will give thgst a shot. My wife is as student at PSU so maybe I can work an angle there. Thanks for your suggestions.

@Tcarey That's a good thing to bring up. I think they share pressure and the total D2 injected is calculated and valved off. Fromwhat I understand, that's the easy part of the setup. The difficult part is the temperature equilization process he has to do in the preheating of the chamber. Then making absolutely sure that the passive heater doesn't give a false positive due to thermal capacitance of his internal metals. Especially if the internal metals can couple with the external fluctions.

@BenK Got both those bases covered in this experimental apparatus. It is using an  extremely low input power. So we will see how many eV it takes to vibrate the lattice into whatever theory one to follows. Look forward to seeing some runs into the beginning of the new year. Exciting times to bve living in :)

benkomisar

Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #14, on January 3rd, 2016, 01:39 AM »
@Diadon
Ahhh, I see... The current is passing through the lattice then through the 10k resistor... Ahhhh..
Very nice.
For some reason I thought the setup had the 10k resistor in there to warm the chamber...
Super interesting and incredibly awesome setup.
Looking forward.
:D

~Russ

Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #15, on January 3rd, 2016, 11:46 AM »
Hey guys thanks for all the feed back. In Will go through thses in detail Monday. And replay then !! Thanks!! ~Russ
Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #16, on January 8th, 2016, 11:23 AM »
Quote from element 119 on January 1st, 2016, 12:44 AM
You talked about the sun hitting the garage door and affecting the room temp.
So if you do not open and close that door then maybe cover the outside with a large sheet of plastic and tape edges.
Also you could cover the outside of it with the same insulation you made the chamber box out of.
yes that is a good first step to take i agree! i did "some" insulating of it but need to do the back of the door for sure.

~Russ
Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #17, on January 8th, 2016, 11:52 AM »
Quote from Matt Watts on January 1st, 2016, 01:15 AM
Lot of hard work there Russ.  Looking good.

Fun watching you walk in my footsteps.  :)

If you have an LOI (Letter of Instruction) written up, I'd like to see it.  The video provides a nice overview, but the details are crucial to all this hard work being accepted into the science community.

Some notes you may or may not be aware of:
  • 1 Calibration routines need to be executed before and after each trial.
  • 2 Raw data must be recorded for each sensor.  When I say raw, I mean non-calibrated voltage or current loop data.
  • 3 I highly recommend using signal conditioners on all inputs.  Your DAC may have them already--check to be sure and add them if it does not.
  • 4 I would use LabVIEW to do ALL of your data collection and control.  Having separate hardware for your PID control may likely cause you grief down the road.
  • 5 If you don't have it already, prepare your post-processing (data crunching) algorithms now before you ever start a real trial.  Every single data point will REQUIRE a full chain of custody audit trail, so you will need to not only reduce the data down to a form suitable for the final report, but show EXACTLY every step you took in the process.  This should all be fully documented in the LOI.
  • 6 I'm not sure what sample intervals you are going to use, but I would go with a standard one-sample-per-second.  Hard drives are cheap these days and the last thing you want to do is miss a crucial data point.
  • 7 When doing such tight tolerance temperature measures, I have found it wise to ALWAYS keep the test chamber several degrees above ambient.  The reason for this is you have no cooling control, so the closer the test chamber is to ambient, the more difficult it is to lock it to a fixed value.  The chambers I worked on had both heating and cooling and the trick is to run them both with a large overlap.  This gives you the ability to lock the temperature rock solid using a proportional heating system.  You may be able to augment your setup with a cold water circulation system to give you this ability.  Then you can run STP at 72 degrees.
  • 8 Before you run a real trial, I would highly recommend picking some sort of top scale heat you expect to see from the actual LENR chamber and be sure your complete system can handle this reading.  The last thing you want is to have a successful LENR reaction that off-scales your instrumentation.

There are probably dozens of tips I have forgotten over the years--my last go at this stuff was in '97.  If anything else comes to mind, I'll post it in this thread.

Good luck Russ.  I hope 2016 brings great progress to the table.

 :thumbsup:
great points Matt,

some feed back:
i numbed them them above and below :

6 yes sample rate is 1/Sec.

2  I'm  logging all data as Raw and the data that is being "converted" the "Raw" data is being converted in the DAQ its self. not all of it is like this but most of it is. i will need to add the points are are not.

i have a type of LOI but i need to really update it according to each step. i have all those details on my log book. but not yet transferred in to the LOI in a hard more clear copy. is a lot of work to keep that up up to date in each detail but it is a MUST for publishing and to get excepted as "real science "

3 signal conditioners, :
http://www.mccdaq.com/pdfs/manuals/USB-TEMP.pdf
http://www.mccdaq.com/PDFs/manuals/USB-2416-4AO.pdf

those are the 2 DAQ's I'm using, feel free to help me decide on what signal conditioners to use, i don't think theses have any build it. any recommendation would be greatly helpful.

i originally got the USB-2416-4AO for temperature readings but then after having some trouble with the readings due to grounding problems i switched to 4 wire RTD's so a new DAQ was needed the USB-TEMP was the pick...

so only voltages and analog output is used with the 2416.

1. yes good point to do it after the test also.

4. yes, i did not want to do it this way because i don't have "real time hardware" so according to my research doing any precise control loop with in labView is a bad idea unless you have RTH. so i opted for an outside control loop. RTH is very expensive, from NI any way...

5. can you please go in o more detail onthis, im not so sure i fully understand this. i think i do but before i respond further please elaborate for me!

7 i thought good and hard about cooling and heating at the same time. however when you have them you have to account for them. heating is much easier to account for. cooling requires a bunch of extra precise flow and delta calculations. and for this system i was not willing to play the cooling game. however i did decide to use the "above ambient" method. this is actialy a " second version" of my setup after i did some testing and decided to  go this rough of heating. the next step is to put the entire system is a double walled vacuum chamber of some kind...

8. yes. i did this do a degree and then decide to go for broke on the smallest measurement as we wanted to be sure to catch anything at all if our " calculations" were way wrong...

thanks for the fantastic feed back! more please ...

~Russ
Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #18, on January 8th, 2016, 11:53 AM »
Quote from sebosfato on January 1st, 2016, 03:07 AM
Good luck Russ

happy new year...

i also recomend you to use labview, you will be able to save all data in the form of graphs and tables... not easy but not impossible.... i use it here for the water project to monitor all i need..

good luck
thanks !!! yes Lab View is doing all the Logging  and Graphing work.

happy new year indeed!

~Russ
Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #19, on January 8th, 2016, 12:37 PM »Last edited on January 8th, 2016, 12:39 PM
Quote from Diadon on January 1st, 2016, 04:53 AM
It is looking fantastic and I am glad to see it advancing. I think I already suggested everything I could think of since I am a complete calorimetry rookie as well. I am using a water bath in my system but I am short on funds for the plumbing right now. Just need to be patient to set up a simple pump primer. I would love to acquire PID controller like you have going on, but I didn't ask Santa ;)  I did a trial with LabView and its awesome, not compatible with arduino though, and I am the epitome of a garage experimenter as you know.  I am glad you took the advice on the aluminum for thermal reflection, but I would listen to Alan in putting some thermal venting of roughly 2mm slits or break points on the edges. Its like voltage potential in a way, the potential difference increases on the points and edges in the form of vibration in sense. In high voltage one could consider it ionization, the same is true for most frequency bands of energetic momentum.  The more you can eliminate those places, the more stable system you have without a sudden radical leakage/release. Just like on a heat-sink where there is many fins to create a large radiation of thermal energy. Knowing and coming to understand your auto ranging system, I don't think its too much of an issue, but it might help in configuring your thermal difference between your control and sample reactors. Again, I am learning far more from you than I could give any helpful advice, as I am a rookie at this stuff. From what I have researched and learned, there may still be naysayers unless the excess exceeds a ~10% range due to your air temp swings and your thermal capacitance composition of a known value. That being the greater LA area air on any given day ;)  Anything under ~10% excess heat, while a novel phenomenon, is probably not very useful anyways until completely understood and utilized to its full potential anyways right?

 The results aren't as important as what we all learn from this process. Regardless of what they may be, if its any consolation, I love you all the same ;)
It may take me a couple more months than I hoped for to get my setup running how I envision it, but that's the way it goes when you have piggy bank resources. Perhaps its just the creator telling me to slow down to ensure when I run full experiments, they are designed to create what it is we are all so desperately searching for. A way for energetic abundance on this beautiful sphere we call home.
  Much love as always and I look forward to seeing the Pd holder D2 runs you have in store for us all. I am more partial to the classical fusion experiments rather than the Rossi work, as he has become more of a talking politician than a applied scientist. You are truly an inspiration to many my friend, and I am glad to share this time and space with you.
Tahnks Diadon,

I will make those thermal brakes as that is something i did not think of. i guess i was thinking that it was to thin to really transfer the heat but indeed with a system this sensitive i can see how that would make a difference.

also the lab view dose indeed support the Ardino. give it a google. but... you cant " make a program" and "run it" on the ardino. its just only for connecting to your IO points. so as a standalone thing its kinda not helpful. but it dose work...

 thanks for the feed back and thanks for that last paragraph ! God Bless!

~Russ

Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #20, on January 8th, 2016, 12:54 PM »
Quote from Tcarey on January 1st, 2016, 10:42 PM
Congratulations on a nicely thought out set up.

The only thing that I found that made me uncomfortable is the gas line being split prior to the two chambers and then recombined after leaving them. 

That means an assumption has to be made that the gas is flowing equally in each path and if the gas is shut off, that there is no gas circulating in the loop moving heat around.

I am assuming that the system will be vacuumed, gas admitted, and then the flow shut off for the duration of the experiment so that leaves the circulation as an issues since the pressure equalization will get equal volumes of gas in each test chamber.

The two exit lines could be brought all the way out of the apparatus with valves installed on each leg to prevent circulation. That would increase the heat paths out of the apparatus so the consequences of that would have to be evaluated to see if that makes sense. Alternatively solenoid operated valves could be installed in the inner chamber if gas is not going to be flowing once the experiment is underway. Any heat generated by the solenoids would be dissipated during initial temperature equalization.
yes my original design was to have a " flow" of gas. however i changed my ideas abut and just caped off the exit port.

using valves or solenoid or even precise control valve was something i thought about. but ended up opting with just a closed loop with no flow. so there for even if the test chamber some how builds up pressure the control will also see it. this can be a good thing or a bad thing. depending on what was needed in the testing. I'm OK with this for what I'm doing.

so yes the process is Vac -then D2. Then close valves.

I also had a valve on the input side so that i could " cap" the system inside more closely to the chambers but after i redesigned the box's i had to go for an outside valve.  if i use any the method other than the hand valve i will need to make sure the control valve dose not put off any heat... just one more thing to deal with. but if need be can be worked out.

thanks for the feed back!

~Russ

Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #21, on January 8th, 2016, 12:58 PM »
Quote from Matt Watts on January 2nd, 2016, 01:15 AM
Yes, good idea Tcarey.  I'm sure they make latching solenoid valves (same as latching relays) that could be triggered with an impulse to force the valve open or closed.  The tiny amount of heat emitted during valve position change would show-up on the sensors and provide positive feedback the valve had been activated.  Basically a mark on the data logging stream.  With some pre-trial tests, this additional heat could be exactly accounted for.  Then all that would be needed is to have LabVIEW generate the pulse at the proper time and make it part of the programming protocol for the test sequence.
yes good idea. a "latch" valve. this would resolve some of those heat problems with solenoid .

ill look in to this. sounds like a money maker. if some one hasn't maid it... yo can sell them telling people there 99.999% efficient over conventional ones...  lol

~Russ
Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #22, on January 8th, 2016, 01:44 PM »
Quote from benkomisar on January 2nd, 2016, 01:04 PM
Looks amazing Russ!
You have went with a very interesting approach to conducting your research.
All in all I have to say I think it is truly excellent.
What type of lattice are you putting in your SS tube? (I guess you'll be sharing that in upcoming videos)
The heat differential method for calorimetry is interesting.
I really hope you achieve heat energy gains from the way you have your system setup as it would prove that no energy is needed to excite the Deuterium loaded lattice ... I will say I have a bit of a gut feeling that the LENR/Cold fusion phenomenon relies somewhat on
#1 : the deuterium (or hydrogen) loading process into the lattice
#2: and ALSO the excitation provided to the lattice by current running through it (<--I could be totally wrong <That is why we are trying to run these experiments I guess :D )

I am looking forward with enjoyment on your progress!
I am also looking forward to conducting my own LENR experimentation setup. (I have been learning C code as much as I can and I hope to be able to make my own simple program to run my calorimetric calculations)
We shall see.
Again, amazing work! Exciting stuff!
Peace :)
Ben
I'm doing a type of Zeolite experiment at the moment. and the versions around that work.

basically small particle sizes of Pd. 5um or so.

that's the Current research. and indeed i will be showing theses thing is Grete Detail ( i hope) in upcoming videos.

also on your #2

I see this as some methods like Mecubra's Nanor is like this. Load the Pd then apply a current / voltage to it. possibly to "vibrate" it so the reaction takes place? there is a lot of unknowns, but a lot of god reasons to work on that type of system ..
 we have good hopes that if there is a reaction with out any input at all then we can make a good point about it...

looking forward to seeing your progress. maybe think about posting it here on this forum? maybe you already have and i missed it ?

thanks! ~Russ

Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #23, on January 8th, 2016, 01:51 PM »
Quote from benkomisar on January 3rd, 2016, 01:39 AM
@Diadon
Ahhh, I see... The current is passing through the lattice then through the 10k resistor... Ahhhh..
Very nice.
For some reason I thought the setup had the 10k resistor in there to warm the chamber...
Super interesting and incredibly awesome setup.
Looking forward.
:D
wait, no the 10K resistor is for calibration only. This is how I'm checking on how much power is needed to raise the chamber a particular temperature. and this data i will use to compare the "reaction" to the calibration.

so in my testing i will be taking out the resistor and replacing it with the test powder. in my case a Zeolite loaded with Pd.

this make sense?

~Russ

Matt Watts

Re: Russ's LNER Low Temp Calorimetry system overview Descussion Thred.
« Reply #24, on January 8th, 2016, 03:54 PM »
Quote from ~Russ on January 8th, 2016, 11:52 AM
1. yes good point to do it after the test also.

3. signal conditioners

5. can you please go in o more detail onthis, im not so sure i fully understand this. i think i do but before i respond further please elaborate for me!

7 i thought good and hard about cooling and heating at the same time. however when you have them you have to account for them. heating is much easier to account for. cooling requires a bunch of extra precise flow and delta calculations. and for this system i was not willing to play the cooling game. however i did decide to use the "above ambient" method. this is actialy a " second version" of my setup after i did some testing and decided to  go this rough of heating. the next step is to put the entire system is a double walled vacuum chamber of some kind...
#1.  The reason you need before & after calibrations is because the outer environmental chamber may incur a temperature drift.  To compensate for this, you will have before and after temperature measurements and can plot a linear drift slope that you will want to subtract out of the actual test data.  This gets a little tricky, but you will want to incorporate it in your LOI and make sure any gurus that will review your process are good with how you mathematically compensate for environment drift.  The purpose is pretty straightforward--you want to account for any heating/cooling within the test chamber by outside forces.  The resulting "crunched" data should show a perfectly level plot depicting only heat added by way of the actual test.  The control chamber should be a flat line from start to finish.


#3.  Have a look at the four wire RTD signal conditioners here:
http://www.dataq.com/data-acquisition/amplifiers/8b/

They are good to 3Hz, so sampling at 1Hz will be perfect.  If you poke around I think you'll find DataQ makes a back-plane board with pluggable modules which makes things a bit tidier.


#5.  What this boils down to is the method in which you go from raw data to final report data.  For example, if you apply the leveling routine in step #1, you have effectively altered the test data.  So you must show the algorithm applied, the time stamps and each data point before and after the application of the leveling routine.  The leveling routine will use your before and after calibration points, so these too must be time stamped and accounted for.


#7.  Above ambient should be fine especially if you apply a drift removal routine.  For outdoor testing this is what I always did.  For indoor laboratory testing I used overlapped heat/cool control.  What you are shooting for is accountability.  You will not be able to fully keep environmental thermal transients out of your test chamber, but you should be able to calculate exactly how much thermal energy is entering or exiting the internal test chamber.  If you had absolutely perfect thermal insulation, then this would be a moot point.  That's not the world we live in, so the next best thing we can do is to remove what we want to be a very linear drift.  We don't want bumps and spikes from the environment entering into the test data.  Instead we want a smooth predictable ramp of temperature change that can be easily calculated out of the final test data.


It's good to review the intent of the LOI.  This document will state what you will are attempting to accomplish, how you will accomplish it and all the details needed for an exact replication.  If you incur any deviations in your test procedure or test setup, you will need to add appendixes detailing why a change was made and exactly what the change was.  When everything is said-and-done, your LOI will translate very smoothly into your final report.  If done with precision, your LOI can simply be referenced in the final report.  The final report will then become a summary stating your objectives and test results.  In the end, all your hard work and planning should speak for itself.

Now that being said, I would highly recommend you find some certified PhDs fluent in this form of testing review and approve your LOI before you begin testing.  Do expect to make changes.  These guys live in this world and know what it takes to be successful.  The testing I did went through Oregon Graduate Institute, Radian Corporation, Lockheed and a couple other academic institutions interested in our work.  The final say was approved by the USEPA.  You will encounter a lot of thrashing and head banging among these intellectual types so be prepared to have Klee draw the line when enough is enough.  After all, Klee is funding this testing, so it's his call when he feels it's up to the caliber needed for publishing.