From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Status
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 23:23:50 GMT

This is the status of our current P&F type experiment.  28 September 1992 

Executive summary:  Average power levels have increased above the previous 
report, but seem to have stabilized.  The mean power levels are of order 100 
times the calibrated drift.  
                   
Cell 4A2
Cathode Electrode: 1 cm x 2 cm x 1 mm, Pd ground surface
Anode Electrode: Wound Takahashi style, #30 Pt, 50% coverage, 1 cm by 2 cm
                 both sides.  Anode to cathode spacing, 2.5 mm.
Electrolyte: 30 cc Saturated D2O + LiOD + 3 cc H2O
Charging Profile: 170 ma per sq cm 
Duration: Now charging for 19 days  
Initial D/Pd ratio: .94
Heater + Cell Power: 10.151
Cell Voltage: Presently aprox 3.4 volts  
Closed Cell:Engelhard Palladium Catalyst D
Temperature: 24 C  Calorimeter shell, Cell temperature aprox. 30 C.
Accumulated "anomalous heat": 36,000+ joules

Date    Power    Source     Notes
        Watts

7 Sept   0.0008   Out/In     Empty cell calibration.  No source effect.
9 Sept  -0.0010   Out        Cell in, zero current calibration
9 Sept  -0.1902   Out        Charging Palladium.  
9 Sept  -0.0163   Out        Late Charging, almost balanced.
10 Sept -0.0004   Out        Full Current Operation
11 Sept  0.0002   In         Start Source Out/In at Full Operating Current
12 Sept                      Data Lost
13 Sept                      Data Lost
14 Sept  0.0092   In         Full 24 hour data
15 Sept  0.0130   Out        Full 24 hour data
16 Sept  0.0158   In         Some data lost due to UPS failure.
17 Sept  0.0173   In         Replaced UPS               
18 Sept  0.0239   Out   
19 Sept  0.0204   In         Partial data is suspect.  Switch to 20 second
20 Sept  0.0251   Out        data collection interval.
21 Sept  0.0271   In
22 Sept  0.0312   Out
23 Sept  0.0372   In 
24 Sept  0.0409   Out
25 Sept  0.0497   In
26 Sept  0.0840   Out

The dates are for running periods which started at roughly 22:15 on the 
indicated date.  As of 28 Sept 10 AM we had accumulated 36 killojoules since 
17 Sept when the data collection program was restarted.  We continue the 
source In/Out experiment even though there does not seem to be a large effect 
on the energy accumulation.  When the source was added on the evening of 25 
September, there was an immediate jump in power level to the 72 mw level 
followed by several "after spikes" of successively smaller size.  When the 
source was installed on 27 Sept., nothing particular happened.  No spikes of 
this magnitude above the average power level have been observed before or 
since.  

There have been a number of occasions when the cathode was observed to absorb 
a cc or so of D2.  This was followed by an increase in power level.  There 
have also been more occasions when gas absorption was not followed by a power 
level increase.  But some of these events have been very persuasive.  During 
the entire time that the power level has been increasing, there has been 
continued absorption of gas as indicated by an increase of gas in the 
measurement syringe (we think we measure the excess oxygen when D is 
absorbed).  Due to the several power outages, we have lost track of the 
absorbed gas level.  We may be able to reconstruct this later. 

The current data is bumping around a long term average value of 85 mw.  The 
increase in power level seems to have stopped.  There have been a number of 
hour long periods where the power level was above 100 mw.

The calibrations on 7 and 9 Sept indicate a drift of less than one milliwatt.  
The early operation on 10 - 11 Sept. indicates that the cell stayed in 
balance within one milliwatt during several days of charging at the high 
power operating point.  Since then the calorimeter balance point has changed 
two orders of magnitude to the 85 milliwatt area.  The 7-9, 10-11 data, and 
many other calibration runs indicate that the calorimeter is stable to the 1 
mw (peak to peak variation) area when run over long time periods, and when the 
balance is taken at the same time each day.  For less careful runs, including 
opening and closing the calorimeter, 8 mw one sigma has been measured.  

Now that we know what to expect, we think that "anomalous heat" can be 
detected within one week by a sufficiently sensitive calorimeter.  Going back 
and examining the very first heavy water cell attempted in the late summer of 
89 we find that the data was similar to what we observe today.  I now think 
that the correct way to proceed is to build a bank of very sensitive 
calorimeters and to attempt to optimize this reaction by simultaneous runs 
with different parameter changes.  The null cells should be detectable within 
a week, allowing allocation of the calorimeter to the next parameter on the 
list.  

Barring someone correcting my minimal knowledge of statistics, this looks like 
it meets my "100 sigma" requirement.

Tom Droege 

Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion