From: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Subject: Status
Reply-To: ames!FNALD.FNAL.GOV!DROEGE
Organization: Sci.physics.fusion/Mail Gateway
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 20:10:38 GMT

We are running a pseudo Ying experiment - status 30 July 92.

The source is not expected for a week or so.  This will give time for a number 
of 24 hour segments.

Pt  Gamma   Duration   Duration   Accumulated  Estimated   Average 
#   Status  Seconds    Hours      Net Joules   Error-J     Power - watts

1   On      17760        4.9       532.8        49       0.0300  +/- 0.0027
2   Off     48060       13.4      1268.8        50       0.0264  +/- 0.0010
3   On      87300       24.3      2715.0       100       0.0311  +/- 0.0011
4   Off     77220       21.5      1621.6        50       0.0210  +/- 0.0006
5   On      82740       23.0      3607.5        50       0.0436  +/- 0.0006
6   Off     79980       22.2      2709.7        50       0.0339  +/- 0.0010
7   On      83640       23.2      3284.3        50       0.0393  +/- 0.0010
8   Off     57300       15.9      1201.0        50       0.0210  +/- 0.0010
9   On      25440        7.1       897.0        50       0.0353  +/- 0.0010
10  Off     20940        5.8      1365.4        50       0.0652  +/- 0.0010
11  On      34500        9.6      1663.3        50       0.0483  +/- 0.0010
12  Off     25500        7.1      1398.8        50       0.0548  +/- 0.0010
13  On      11760        3.3       685.5        33       0.0560  +/- 0.0028 
Here the code was changed to synchronize the data points with the saw tooth 
down stroke.  While the computation must be suspect, I think it is not the 
cause.  My best guess for the following power increase is that the change 
caused a higher peak saw tooth current, and this generated more "anomalous 
heat".  There are a lot of saw tooth changes, even in the data of this run 
which do not show computed power changes.
14  On      11400        3.2      1348.0        32       0.1182  +/- 0.0028 
15  Off     33360        9.3      3673.3        50       0.1101  +/- 0.0010 
16  On      21840        6.1      2250.2        50       0.1030  +/- 0.0010
17  Off     29460        8.2      2830.3        50       0.0960  +/- 0.0010
Dow inserting "dummy" of source during off periods.
18  On      33480        9.3      2405.1        50       0.0718  +/- 0.0010
19  Off     54240       15.1      4229.7        50       0.0780  +/- 0.0010
20  On      85680       23.8      7285.0        50       0.0850  +/- 0.0010
21  Off     86040       23.9      8063.7        50       0.0937  +/- 0.0010 

Point 22 will likely come out larger than 21 so it sort of looks like we have 
the "in-out" effect on top of a rising trend.  

While every time I "so something" I suspect that it might cause a calorimeter 
zero change, the calibration and null runs have been so stable that I consider 
any thing over a 10 mw change to be significant.  

Here is my theory for the above data with my "true believers" hat on.  
Starting at point 8 the time lag in the effect washed the "in" data into the 
"out" data.  When the program change was made, the increased current caused a 
temporary increase in the "anomalous heat" which is decaying exponentially.  
This reached its low at point 18, and "anomalous heat" is now building again 
due to the cumulative effect of the source.  

With my "true believers" hat off, it looks like nothing is happening.  
 
With the program change, we can look for information in the relatively smooth 
data between the above points.  By grouping all the power points in one saw 
tooth together there is a nice smooth trend with an occasional up bump.  I 
will try to get this data into shape that it can be passed out to those of you 
that want to look at it.  

Dennis Cravens has suggested that the source might change the efficiency of 
the thermoelectric refrigerator.  To get positive "anomalous heat" the 
efficiency of the refrigerator set that pumps heat out of the calorimeter 
would have to decrease.  Note that this set runs at about 1/2 ampere.  Those 
of you that like to compute such things have a go at this.  This will be 
tested by the cell out calibration at the end of the run. 

Tom Droege