Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Is it because you use temperature values on the exterior of the cell and they don't when calculating excess power? harry On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is not what I wanted to see Harry. I was expecting to calculate plenty of excess power right up until I ran the program. Another guy performed a correction upon the data that was being used by the MFMP group where he compensated for the pressure drop occurring as the hydrogen escapes the envelop and came up with results that match mine. I hope we are both wrong and they can test that by adding back additional hydrogen pressure. So far that has not been done, so we all await patiently. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 10, 2013 10:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result My questions, concerns and speculations about method arise because I find it baffling that your estimate and MFMP team's estimate of excess Power can be so different. Harry
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
My calculations continue to suggest that very little power is being generated by the cell. You are correct in assuming that others are calculating excess power while I do not is due to the monitor point that they are using, but recent measurements tend to add support to my method. The cells were cooled down and extra hydrogen added to bring the pressure approximately back to where it was during the calibration runs. When the systems were powered up again I determined roughly the same null result, but the other monitor points suggest that the significant excess power they were measuring has gone away. I was not surprised by this result. The worst problem that my technique has to overcome is caused by variation in the density of the hydrogen gas. I believe this is due to the fact that lower density hydrogen leads to less heat being conducted from the hot wires. The wires rise in temperature as a result, leading to additional IR radiation. Some of the direct wire IR escapes capture in the glass envelop and is not detected. This causes the outer glass monitor, the one I rely upon, to cool down and I therefore calculate less power. The magnitude of the problem is enough to be a concern, but appears to generate much less error for me than for people using one of the internal sensors. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 17, 2013 1:08 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result Is it because you use temperature values on the exterior of the cell and they don't when calculating excess power? harry On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:39 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: It is not what I wanted to see Harry. I was expecting to calculate plenty of excess power right up until I ran the program. Another guy performed a correction upon the data that was being used by the MFMP group where he compensated for the pressure drop occurring as the hydrogen escapes the envelop and came up with results that match mine. I hope we are both wrong and they can test that by adding back additional hydrogen pressure. So far that has not been done, so we all await patiently. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 10, 2013 10:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result My questions, concerns and speculations about method arise because I find it baffling that your estimate and MFMP team's estimate of excess Power can be so different. Harry
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
My questions, concerns and speculations about method arise because I find it baffling that your estimate and MFMP team's estimate of excess Power can be so different. Harry On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Harry, I use a blindfold when the data is being optimized. :-) The LMS routine takes the raw data and makes my simulated curve match it. I do not have any idea what the result will be and it could be either positive or negative. An earlier calibration sets the rules that the data is compared against. Most of the time I download the live data from the MFMP site and evaluate one of the power steps. If there is a problem with the collection of the data, then that shows up in such a way as to generate a visual flag which I can review to determine why it is behaving in a strange manner. That is a rare occurrence. How would you handle the evaluation in the absence of a calorimeter? Time domain transient analysis is the best that I can do under the current restrictions. I am open to suggestions provided they are possible to achieve, but do keep in mind that I can only request special tests by the MFMP group and I have no control over their decisions. I believe that it is preferable to do something instead of wait for someone else to spoon feed me. I chose to post the results of my program runs to ensure that the vortex group is aware of any progress. If you are serious about blind analysis being useful and not kidding then I will answer. Of course it is important and is essentially conducted every time I run a set of data through my program. Initially, I was expecting to see positive results, but that is not what the program produced. Any new data that I download might demonstrate either positive or negative excess power since I do not have a clue about what will be found. I must admit that after so many runs with no excess power being determined, I am becoming biased toward that expectation, but I do not modify the way the program operates to achieve that result. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 3:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The questions that are being asked are important and the MFMP guys are working very hard to answer them. A number of additional measures have been taken at various times to root out unusual behavior and to improve the accuracy of the results. Everyone realizes how important this is to get right. One test that they ran last month was per a request I made that is quite similar to what is suggested by Jack. First the cell was stabilized with all of the power being applied to the test Celani wire. At a specific point in time, the power was quickly shifted to the heating wire which is NiCr. The input powers were matched to a close degree. I noted that the apparent excess power changed by about .4 watts if I recall. That actual value for this discussion is not important, but if you need I can look it up. The source of the difference was not determined at that time, but both wires were exposed to helium instead of hydrogen for that test. A vacuum and other attempts had been recently performed to remove any LENR activity that might be normally there. The details are written in a log on their site. This lack of power output correlation concerned me then and still does. There are numerous variables to contend with and it is apparent that control of the accuracy is not trivial. Everyone is getting a good education as to how difficult these tests are to confirm. Lately, I have been worried that the excess power being shown on their web site(~5 watts) with the current technique that they have been using to calculate it is far too large to be real. I do not want to see too many folks let down by reality when the calorimeter does is miracles. Another guy, Ascoli, used a technique to adjust their results that compensates for the density changes of the hydrogen. The final curve he determined matches my steady state program output closely. I use the outside glass temperature minus the ambient to calculate the instantaneous power which is more immune to changes within the cell such as gas density. Of course my program takes into account the delay associated with heating of the glass and monitor. The amount of direct hot wire generated IR that escapes through the glass envelop is a potential contributor to inaccuracy. If this drifts, then the power captured and monitored on the outer glass test point will vary. There has been evidence of this effect in the past when goop collected upon the test wires leading to changes in emissivity. That is the current theory I apply to calibration drift. Amazingly, the recent calibration factors appear to be holding well after
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
It is not what I wanted to see Harry. I was expecting to calculate plenty of excess power right up until I ran the program. Another guy performed a correction upon the data that was being used by the MFMP group where he compensated for the pressure drop occurring as the hydrogen escapes the envelop and came up with results that match mine. I hope we are both wrong and they can test that by adding back additional hydrogen pressure. So far that has not been done, so we all await patiently. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 10, 2013 10:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result My questions, concerns and speculations about method arise because I find it baffling that your estimate and MFMP team's estimate of excess Power can be so different. Harry On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Harry, I use a blindfold when the data is being optimized. :-) The LMS routine takes the raw data and makes my simulated curve match it. I do not have any idea what the result will be and it could be either positive or negative. An earlier calibration sets the rules that the data is compared against. Most of the time I download the live data from the MFMP site and evaluate one of the power steps. If there is a problem with the collection of the data, then that shows up in such a way as to generate a visual flag which I can review to determine why it is behaving in a strange manner. That is a rare occurrence. How would you handle the evaluation in the absence of a calorimeter? Time domain transient analysis is the best that I can do under the current restrictions. I am open to suggestions provided they are possible to achieve, but do keep in mind that I can only request special tests by the MFMP group and I have no control over their decisions. I believe that it is preferable to do something instead of wait for someone else to spoon feed me. I chose to post the results of my program runs to ensure that the vortex group is aware of any progress. If you are serious about blind analysis being useful and not kidding then I will answer. Of course it is important and is essentially conducted every time I run a set of data through my program. Initially, I was expecting to see positive results, but that is not what the program produced. Any new data that I download might demonstrate either positive or negative excess power since I do not have a clue about what will be found. I must admit that after so many runs with no excess power being determined, I am becoming biased toward that expectation, but I do not modify the way the program operates to achieve that result. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 3:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The questions that are being asked are important and the MFMP guys are working very hard to answer them. A number of additional measures have been taken at various times to root out unusual behavior and to improve the accuracy of the results. Everyone realizes how important this is to get right. One test that they ran last month was per a request I made that is quite similar to what is suggested by Jack. First the cell was stabilized with all of the power being applied to the test Celani wire. At a specific point in time, the power was quickly shifted to the heating wire which is NiCr. The input powers were matched to a close degree. I noted that the apparent excess power changed by about .4 watts if I recall. That actual value for this discussion is not important, but if you need I can look it up. The source of the difference was not determined at that time, but both wires were exposed to helium instead of hydrogen for that test. A vacuum and other attempts had been recently performed to remove any LENR activity that might be normally there. The details are written in a log on their site. This lack of power output correlation concerned me then and still does. There are numerous variables to contend with and it is apparent that control of the accuracy is not trivial. Everyone is getting a good education as to how difficult these tests are to confirm. Lately, I have been worried that the excess power being shown on their web site(~5 watts) with the current technique that they have been using to calculate it is far too large to be real. I do not want to see too many folks let down by reality when the calorimeter does is miracles. Another guy, Ascoli, used a technique to adjust their results that compensates for the density changes of the hydrogen. The final curve he determined matches my steady state program output closely. I use the outside glass temperature minus the ambient to calculate
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Why not doing both? You refer to true positives, that is, a signal actually being measured. So, why not a false negative, that is, something that should be there but it isn't. 2013/2/6 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com If it does not show up, how could it be measured? [image: :-)] -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I realize that you were just using the sine wave process as an example. I pointed out that the time period spanned by the data is important to help catch issues of this nature. I acknowledge that it is possible for a very long delayed effect to come into play during or after the samples. If this system was generating normal cold fusion excess heat, it would be readily apparent. You would not need complex algorithms to tease that heat out of the data. Fleischmann and Miles use complex algorithms to explore the heat in detail, but a first-approximation method shows there is heat. I do not think this system is producing any heat. Fluctuations plus or minus 0.6 W on this scale are noise. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
I wish I knew how to answer this line of inquiry. If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity and thus a reading of zero excess power is a false negative, then the program demonstrates that. It is my philosophy to let the results speak for themselves regardless of the outcome. The program does that by fitting the input power variable to the data for the best match. I have no way to change this once it has been told to optimize unless I intentionally lock its value for other purposes. For all of the runs up through the present, the optimized input power has calculated less than the applied power. There have been a few times when the instantaneous power difference has suggested that slightly more is coming out than in, but the longer term average never has. Most times the average excess power has been quite close to the applied input as in the latest run where it was within -.2 watts out of 105.4 watts. I suspect that the noise riding on the data due to external temperature variation, or etc. has enabled the peaks to exceed the input, but there also may be a small component of true excess power. When I make an objective analysis of the program runs so far I come to the conclusion that there is no significant excess power being displayed. Label me a skeptic, but I very much want to see positive results. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 5:53 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result Why not doing both? You refer to true positives, that is, a signal actually being measured. So, why not a false negative, that is, something that should be there but it isn't. 2013/2/6 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com If it does not show up, how could it be measured? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy, a fake data and input that into the program and see if you can hide a positive, dummy, signal. 2013/2/7 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity and thus a reading of zero excess power is a false negative, then the program demonstrates that. It is my philosophy to let the results speak for themselves regardless of the outcome. The program does that by fitting the input power variable to the data for the best match. I have no way to change this once it has been told to optimize unless I intentionally lock its value for other purposes. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
I am positive that two equal and opposite dummy signals would cancel each other out. Is that what you mean? Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:37 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy, a fake data and input that into the program and see if you can hide a positive, dummy, signal. 2013/2/7 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity and thus a reading of zero excess power is a false negative, then the program demonstrates that. It is my philosophy to let the results speak for themselves regardless of the outcome. The program does that by fitting the input power variable to the data for the best match. I have no way to change this once it has been told to optimize unless I intentionally lock its value for other purposes. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
test - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:33 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result I wish I knew how to answer this line of inquiry. If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity and thus a reading of zero excess power is a false negative, then the program demonstrates that. It is my philosophy to let the results speak for themselves regardless of the outcome. The program does that by fitting the input power variable to the data for the best match. I have no way to change this once it has been told to optimize unless I intentionally lock its value for other purposes. For all of the runs up through the present, the optimized input power has calculated less than the applied power. There have been a few times when the instantaneous power difference has suggested that slightly more is coming out than in, but the longer term average never has. Most times the average excess power has been quite close to the applied input as in the latest run where it was within -.2 watts out of 105.4 watts. I suspect that the noise riding on the data due to external temperature variation, or etc. has enabled the peaks to exceed the input, but there also may be a small component of true excess power. When I make an objective analysis of the program runs so far I come to the conclusion that there is no significant excess power being displayed. Label me a skeptic, but I very much want to see positive results. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 5:53 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result Why not doing both? You refer to true positives, that is, a signal actually being measured. So, why not a false negative, that is, something that should be there but it isn't. 2013/2/6 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com If it does not show up, how could it be measured? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Seems to me like they could do something like that with a calibration run. Heat with the inactive wire, then put 10watts through the active wire. It should then show up as 10W excess if they leave that power input out of the calculation. Just to demonstrate that the method is working conceptually. On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy, a fake data and input that into the program and see if you can hide a positive, dummy, signal. 2013/2/7 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity and thus a reading of zero excess power is a false negative, then the program demonstrates that. It is my philosophy to let the results speak for themselves regardless of the outcome. The program does that by fitting the input power variable to the data for the best match. I have no way to change this once it has been told to optimize unless I intentionally lock its value for other purposes. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
David, I have not been following your evaluation closely, but I have done a lot of calorimetry in my life. The ONLY way a calorimeter can be tested is to use it without any source of excess energy being present. That means you need to run the calorimeter in the planned way with the Celani wire replaced by an inert wire of the same resistance. When you do this, you will quickly discover how the calorimeter behaves and what is required to achieve a null. Other people are suggesting the same method. As long as the Celani wire is present, the results will be confused by the potential excess. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, David Roberson wrote: I am positive that two equal and opposite dummy signals would cancel each other out. Is that what you mean? Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:37 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy, a fake data and input that into the program and see if you can hide a positive, dummy, signal. 2013/2/7 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity and thus a reading of zero excess power is a false negative, then the program demonstrates that. It is my philosophy to let the results speak for themselves regardless of the outcome. The program does that by fitting the input power variable to the data for the best match. I have no way to change this once it has been told to optimize unless I intentionally lock its value for other purposes. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Seems to me like they could do something like that with a calibration run. Heat with the inactive wire, then put 10watts through the active wire. It should then show up as 10W excess if they leave that power input out of the calculation. That's what calibrations are for! That's what they *are*. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: The ONLY way a calorimeter can be tested is to use it without any source of excess energy being present. That means you need to run the calorimeter in the planned way with the Celani wire replaced by an inert wire of the same resistance. And, unfortunately, Celani and ST Micro do not do this. The ST calibration was with the same wire in the same gas, run at lower power. That's not how you are supposed to do it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
They performed something a bit like this for me earlier. First, the Celani wire was given several input power steps up to the max to be used followed by steps of the heating wire. All the average points gathered around these steps was used to establish a quadratic calibration curve. The R^2 fit for these points was in the .+ range. This would not have been so accurate had any of the steps been significantly out of line. I also ran the program with most of these individual steps and the fit was marvelous. After the step process was finished, they then ran two major steps. The first was from zero power to the maximum Celani wire drive. A second step started at that point and proceeded to the maximum total power level. These calibrations were a dream come true for setting up accurate parameters to use with my program. I thanked them profusely for the effort and now both of us have the proper tools to evaluate the real data. I just hope I find support for LENR activity soon to help repay their great contributions. Dave -Original Message- From: Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:47 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result Seems to me like they could do something like that with a calibration run. Heat with the inactive wire, then put 10watts through the active wire. It should then show up as 10W excess if they leave that power input out of the calculation. Just to demonstrate that the method is working conceptually. On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy, a fake data and input that into the program and see if you can hide a positive, dummy, signal. 2013/2/7 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity and thus a reading of zero excess power is a false negative, then the program demonstrates that. It is my philosophy to let the results speak for themselves regardless of the outcome. The program does that by fitting the input power variable to the data for the best match. I have no way to change this once it has been told to optimize unless I intentionally lock its value for other purposes. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Ed, I reluctantly have to agree with you. I would love to have that run as a reference, but just the taking apart of the unit to reinstall a new wire, or any changes whatsoever mess up the calibration. A true calorimeter that accurately captures the heat is the only absolute way to determine the facts and that is what they are planning and building now. Until that comes on line we have to do the best that we can with the tools at our disposal. I consider the first order results that my program supplies to be a good indication, particularly since it matches the input power by curve fitting to within .2 watts out of 105.4 watts. Time domain variations to the power output also are demonstrated with good accuracy as the temperature of the cell heads toward its steady state value. So, my program does a fairly good job of working with static as well as dynamic change. It would take a very sneaky LENR behavior to escape entirely unless it was tiny in magnitude or extremely long (many days) in lag. The possibility of excess power is always left open, but that door is not very wide according to what has been observed in these tests. This is my result so far. Tomorrow, I am hoping that things will change toward the other direction. I am confident that you are aware that I am seeking confirmation of LENR activity. It is unusual for me to behave as a skeptic. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result David, I have not been following your evaluation closely, but I have done a lot of calorimetry in my life. The ONLY way a calorimeter can be tested is to use it without any source of excess energy being present. That means you need to run the calorimeter in the planned way with the Celani wire replaced by an inert wire of the same resistance. When you do this, you will quickly discover how the calorimeter behaves and what is required to achieve a null. Other people are suggesting the same method. As long as the Celani wire is present, the results will be confused by the potential excess. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, David Roberson wrote: I am positive that two equal and opposite dummy signals would cancel each other out. Is that what you mean? Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:37 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy, a fake data and input that into the program and see if you can hide a positive, dummy, signal. 2013/2/7 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity and thus a reading of zero excess power is a false negative, then the program demonstrates that. It is my philosophy to let the results speak for themselves regardless of the outcome. The program does that by fitting the input power variable to the data for the best match. I have no way to change this once it has been told to optimize unless I intentionally lock its value for other purposes. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
It should be added that a stainless steel wire may not be inert. Depending on the alloy, the wire can contain substantial nickel content - and also molybdenum - which is the best Mills' catalyst (in terms of most exact Rydberg fit). As to what kind of wire (of moderately high resistance similar to Constantan) could be used as a control - and also be largely inert (at least with no substantial evidence in the literature) that would be an interesting question. Most of the transition metals have some association with putative gain, even iron. It would NOT be stainless of any kind due to the nickel content - and the expensive choices would be vanadium, niobium, tantalum. And even those are not absent from the literature. However, among cheap metal wire - carbon steel wire with no nickel would probably be less likely to show intrinsic gain than anything else. It would be FAR less likely than stainless. In fact, there is a good argument that 316L alloy with high moly content is showing decent thermal gain itself. From: Edmund Storms David, I have not been following your evaluation closely, but I have done a lot of calorimetry in my life. The ONLY way a calorimeter can be tested is to use it without any source of excess energy being present. That means you need to run the calorimeter in the planned way with the Celani wire replaced by an inert wire of the same resistance. When you do this, you will quickly discover how the calorimeter behaves and what is required to achieve a null. Other people are suggesting the same method. As long as the Celani wire is present, the results will be confused by the potential excess. Ed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
That is a good idea. It would show whether a particular method analsysis can reveal or mask a positive signal. Harry On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Seems to me like they could do something like that with a calibration run. Heat with the inactive wire, then put 10watts through the active wire. It should then show up as 10W excess if they leave that power input out of the calculation. Just to demonstrate that the method is working conceptually. On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy, a fake data and input that into the program and see if you can hide a positive, dummy, signal. 2013/2/7 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity and thus a reading of zero excess power is a false negative, then the program demonstrates that. It is my philosophy to let the results speak for themselves regardless of the outcome. The program does that by fitting the input power variable to the data for the best match. I have no way to change this once it has been told to optimize unless I intentionally lock its value for other purposes. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Dave, I'm glad you are keeping an eye on this measurement. I agree, the small amount of apparent excess power revealed so far is not important because the uncertainty in the behavior of the calorimeter is not known. Anyone doing calorimetry must first determine the uncertainty in the measurement using a known inert material. A calibration with the potentially active material in place is not useful because the calibration heats the unknown, which might initiate excess energy. But, as Jones notes, what can we accept as inert wire? I think Pt is a good choice. This metal does not react with H2 and has been shown to be inert in past studies. Once the calorimeter is tested with Pt, other cheaper materials can be tested to see if they are inert. If found inert, these metals can then be used in future tests to avoid the high cost of Pt. This study is so important that it MUST be done correctly and without compromise. This means spending time using an inert material to reveal the strange behaviors that all calorimeters have. Until this has been done, no one has any reason to believe the results. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:25 AM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I reluctantly have to agree with you. I would love to have that run as a reference, but just the taking apart of the unit to reinstall a new wire, or any changes whatsoever mess up the calibration. A true calorimeter that accurately captures the heat is the only absolute way to determine the facts and that is what they are planning and building now. Until that comes on line we have to do the best that we can with the tools at our disposal. I consider the first order results that my program supplies to be a good indication, particularly since it matches the input power by curve fitting to within .2 watts out of 105.4 watts. Time domain variations to the power output also are demonstrated with good accuracy as the temperature of the cell heads toward its steady state value. So, my program does a fairly good job of working with static as well as dynamic change. It would take a very sneaky LENR behavior to escape entirely unless it was tiny in magnitude or extremely long (many days) in lag. The possibility of excess power is always left open, but that door is not very wide according to what has been observed in these tests. This is my result so far. Tomorrow, I am hoping that things will change toward the other direction. I am confident that you are aware that I am seeking confirmation of LENR activity. It is unusual for me to behave as a skeptic. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result David, I have not been following your evaluation closely, but I have done a lot of calorimetry in my life. The ONLY way a calorimeter can be tested is to use it without any source of excess energy being present. That means you need to run the calorimeter in the planned way with the Celani wire replaced by an inert wire of the same resistance. When you do this, you will quickly discover how the calorimeter behaves and what is required to achieve a null. Other people are suggesting the same method. As long as the Celani wire is present, the results will be confused by the potential excess. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, David Roberson wrote: I am positive that two equal and opposite dummy signals would cancel each other out. Is that what you mean? Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:37 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy, a fake data and input that into the program and see if you can hide a positive, dummy, signal. 2013/2/7 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity and thus a reading of zero excess power is a false negative, then the program demonstrates that. It is my philosophy to let the results speak for themselves regardless of the outcome. The program does that by fitting the input power variable to the data for the best match. I have no way to change this once it has been told to optimize unless I intentionally lock its value for other purposes. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Seems to me like they could do something like that with a calibration run. Heat with the inactive wire, then put 10watts through the active wire. It should then show up as 10W excess if they leave that power input out of the calculation. That's what calibrations are for! That's what they are. - Jed Calibrations involve a method analysis. Daniel's point is that a method of analysis can be flawed if it generates a false positve signal OR if it masks a positive signal. The method analysis should be capable of detecting both a positive (desired) signal and a negative (null, undesired) signal. To test the method analsysis the system should be fed a dummy positive signal and dummy negative signal. Harry Harry
RE: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
But Ed - platinum wire would not be resistive enough, would it? As you say - it might be wise to use very thin platinum once; and thereby to compare to see if another kind of higher resistance wire (far cheaper) such as iron is also inert. From: Edmund Storms Dave, I'm glad you are keeping an eye on this measurement. I agree, the small amount of apparent excess power revealed so far is not important because the uncertainty in the behavior of the calorimeter is not known. Anyone doing calorimetry must first determine the uncertainty in the measurement using a known inert material. A calibration with the potentially active material in place is not useful because the calibration heats the unknown, which might initiate excess energy. But, as Jones notes, what can we accept as inert wire? I think Pt is a good choice. This metal does not react with H2 and has been shown to be inert in past studies. Once the calorimeter is tested with Pt, other cheaper materials can be tested to see if they are inert. If found inert, these metals can then be used in future tests to avoid the high cost of Pt. This study is so important that it MUST be done correctly and without compromise. This means spending time using an inert material to reveal the strange behaviors that all calorimeters have. Until this has been done, no one has any reason to believe the results. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:25 AM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I reluctantly have to agree with you. I would love to have that run as a reference, but just the taking apart of the unit to reinstall a new wire, or any changes whatsoever mess up the calibration. A true calorimeter that accurately captures the heat is the only absolute way to determine the facts and that is what they are planning and building now. Until that comes on line we have to do the best that we can with the tools at our disposal. I consider the first order results that my program supplies to be a good indication, particularly since it matches the input power by curve fitting to within .2 watts out of 105.4 watts. Time domain variations to the power output also are demonstrated with good accuracy as the temperature of the cell heads toward its steady state value. So, my program does a fairly good job of working with static as well as dynamic change. It would take a very sneaky LENR behavior to escape entirely unless it was tiny in magnitude or extremely long (many days) in lag. The possibility of excess power is always left open, but that door is not very wide according to what has been observed in these tests. This is my result so far. Tomorrow, I am hoping that things will change toward the other direction. I am confident that you are aware that I am seeking confirmation of LENR activity. It is unusual for me to behave as a skeptic. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result David, I have not been following your evaluation closely, but I have done a lot of calorimetry in my life. The ONLY way a calorimeter can be tested is to use it without any source of excess energy being present. That means you need to run the calorimeter in the planned way with the Celani wire replaced by an inert wire of the same resistance. When you do this, you will quickly discover how the calorimeter behaves and what is required to achieve a null. Other people are suggesting the same method. As long as the Celani wire is present, the results will be confused by the potential excess. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, David Roberson wrote: I am positive that two equal and opposite dummy signals would cancel each other out. Is that what you mean? Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:37 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy, a fake data and input that into the program and see if you can hide a positive, dummy, signal. 2013/2/7 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity and thus a reading of zero excess power is a false negative, then the program demonstrates that. It is my philosophy to let the results speak for themselves regardless of the outcome. The program does that by fitting the input power variable to the data for the best match. I have no way to change this once it has been told to optimize unless I intentionally lock its value for other purposes. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
I should add that pure iron itself can be very conductive - but even modest amounts of carbon make it resistive. Iron wire is usually 4% carbon or up. This is an important point - if anyone has the numbers handy - please share. From: Jones Beene But Ed - platinum wire would not be resistive enough, would it? As you say - it might be wise to use very thin platinum once; and thereby to compare to see if another kind of higher resistance wire (far cheaper) such as iron is also inert. From: Edmund Storms Dave, I'm glad you are keeping an eye on this measurement. I agree, the small amount of apparent excess power revealed so far is not important because the uncertainty in the behavior of the calorimeter is not known. Anyone doing calorimetry must first determine the uncertainty in the measurement using a known inert material. A calibration with the potentially active material in place is not useful because the calibration heats the unknown, which might initiate excess energy. But, as Jones notes, what can we accept as inert wire? I think Pt is a good choice. This metal does not react with H2 and has been shown to be inert in past studies. Once the calorimeter is tested with Pt, other cheaper materials can be tested to see if they are inert. If found inert, these metals can then be used in future tests to avoid the high cost of Pt. This study is so important that it MUST be done correctly and without compromise. This means spending time using an inert material to reveal the strange behaviors that all calorimeters have. Until this has been done, no one has any reason to believe the results. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:25 AM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I reluctantly have to agree with you. I would love to have that run as a reference, but just the taking apart of the unit to reinstall a new wire, or any changes whatsoever mess up the calibration. A true calorimeter that accurately captures the heat is the only absolute way to determine the facts and that is what they are planning and building now. Until that comes on line we have to do the best that we can with the tools at our disposal. I consider the first order results that my program supplies to be a good indication, particularly since it matches the input power by curve fitting to within .2 watts out of 105.4 watts. Time domain variations to the power output also are demonstrated with good accuracy as the temperature of the cell heads toward its steady state value. So, my program does a fairly good job of working with static as well as dynamic change. It would take a very sneaky LENR behavior to escape entirely unless it was tiny in magnitude or extremely long (many days) in lag. The possibility of excess power is always left open, but that door is not very wide according to what has been observed in these tests. This is my result so far. Tomorrow, I am hoping that things will change toward the other direction. I am confident that you are aware that I am seeking confirmation of LENR activity. It is unusual for me to behave as a skeptic. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result David, I have not been following your evaluation closely, but I have done a lot of calorimetry in my life. The ONLY way a calorimeter can be tested is to use it without any source of excess energy being present. That means you need to run the calorimeter in the planned way with the Celani wire replaced by an inert wire of the same resistance. When you do this, you will quickly discover how the calorimeter behaves and what is required to achieve a null. Other people are suggesting the same method. As long as the Celani wire is present, the results will be confused by the potential excess. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, David Roberson wrote: I am positive that two equal and opposite dummy signals would cancel each other out. Is that what you mean? Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:37 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy, a fake data and input that into the program and see if you can hide a positive, dummy, signal. 2013/2/7 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity and thus a reading of zero excess power is a false negative, then the program demonstrates that. It is my philosophy to let the results speak for themselves regardless of the outcome. The program does that by fitting the input power variable to the data for the best match. I have no way to change this once it has been told to optimize unless I intentionally lock its value for other purposes. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
The questions that are being asked are important and the MFMP guys are working very hard to answer them. A number of additional measures have been taken at various times to root out unusual behavior and to improve the accuracy of the results. Everyone realizes how important this is to get right. One test that they ran last month was per a request I made that is quite similar to what is suggested by Jack. First the cell was stabilized with all of the power being applied to the test Celani wire. At a specific point in time, the power was quickly shifted to the heating wire which is NiCr. The input powers were matched to a close degree. I noted that the apparent excess power changed by about .4 watts if I recall. That actual value for this discussion is not important, but if you need I can look it up. The source of the difference was not determined at that time, but both wires were exposed to helium instead of hydrogen for that test. A vacuum and other attempts had been recently performed to remove any LENR activity that might be normally there. The details are written in a log on their site. This lack of power output correlation concerned me then and still does. There are numerous variables to contend with and it is apparent that control of the accuracy is not trivial. Everyone is getting a good education as to how difficult these tests are to confirm. Lately, I have been worried that the excess power being shown on their web site(~5 watts) with the current technique that they have been using to calculate it is far too large to be real. I do not want to see too many folks let down by reality when the calorimeter does is miracles. Another guy, Ascoli, used a technique to adjust their results that compensates for the density changes of the hydrogen. The final curve he determined matches my steady state program output closely. I use the outside glass temperature minus the ambient to calculate the instantaneous power which is more immune to changes within the cell such as gas density. Of course my program takes into account the delay associated with heating of the glass and monitor. The amount of direct hot wire generated IR that escapes through the glass envelop is a potential contributor to inaccuracy. If this drifts, then the power captured and monitored on the outer glass test point will vary. There has been evidence of this effect in the past when goop collected upon the test wires leading to changes in emissivity. That is the current theory I apply to calibration drift. Amazingly, the recent calibration factors appear to be holding well after many days of burn. This is a learning experience for all of us. Experimental science is a form of bondage! Does it ever get better? Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 11:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote: Seems to me like they could do something like that with a calibration run. Heat with the inactive wire, then put 10watts through the active wire. It should then show up as 10W excess if they leave that power input out of the calculation. That's what calibrations are for! That's what they are. - Jed Calibrations involve a method analysis. Daniel's point is that a method of analysis can be flawed if it generates a false positve signal OR if it masks a positive signal. The method analysis should be capable of detecting both a positive (desired) signal and a negative (null, undesired) signal. To test the method analsysis the system should be fed a dummy positive signal and dummy negative signal. Harry Harry
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I reluctantly have to agree with you. I would love to have that run as a reference, but just the taking apart of the unit to reinstall a new wire, or any changes whatsoever mess up the calibration. This happens to some extent with most calorimeters. Ed and others have told me that when you take the lid off a Seebeck calorimeter, and then you put it back and bolt it down, the calibration constant comes out measurably different. If the excess heat is so small it might be brought into question because of effects like this, it is too small to believe. I have enormous respect for Ed, and McKubre, Miles, Fleischmann and others who have mastered calorimetry to such an extent they can detect these microscopic changes. I understand why they want extreme accuracy and precision. At the same time, I feel that if you cannot even detect the heat without that precision, I cannot trust it. High precision should be used to explore robust heat when it appears -- if it appears. It should not be used to confirm heat at the extreme low limits of detection. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
And of course we might find that magnetic interaction causes unusual behavior. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 12:15 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result I should add that pure ironitself can be very conductive – but even modest amounts of carbon make itresistive. Iron wire is usually 4% carbon or up. This is an important point– if anyone has the numbers handy – please share. From:Jones Beene But Ed – platinum wire would not be resistive enough, wouldit? As you say – it might be wise to use very thin platinumonce; and thereby to compare to see if another kind of higher resistance wire(far cheaper) such as iron is also inert. From:Edmund Storms Dave, I'm glad you are keeping an eye on this measurement. Iagree, the small amount of apparent excess power revealed so far is notimportant because the uncertainty in the behavior of the calorimeter is notknown. Anyone doing calorimetry must first determine theuncertainty in the measurement using a known inert material. Acalibration with the potentially active material in place is not useful becausethe calibration heats the unknown, which might initiate excess energy. But, as Jones notes, what can we accept as inert wire? I think Pt is a good choice. This metal does not react with H2 and hasbeen shown to be inert in past studies. Once the calorimeter is testedwith Pt, other cheaper materials can be tested to see if they are inert. If found inert, these metals can then be used in future tests to avoidthe high cost of Pt. This study is so important that it MUST be donecorrectly and without compromise. This means spending time using an inertmaterial to reveal the strange behaviors that all calorimeters have. Until this has been done, no one has any reason to believe the results. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:25 AM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I reluctantly have to agree with you. I would love to havethat run as a reference, but just the taking apart of the unit to reinstall anew wire, or any changes whatsoever mess up the calibration. A true calorimeter that accurately captures the heat is the onlyabsolute way to determine the facts and that is what they are planning andbuilding now. Until that comes on line we have to do the best that wecan with the tools at our disposal. I consider the first order results that my program supplies to bea good indication, particularly since it matches the input power by curvefitting to within .2 watts out of 105.4 watts. Time domain variations tothe power output also are demonstrated with good accuracy as the temperature ofthe cell heads toward its steady state value. So, my program does a fairlygood job of working with static as well as dynamic change. It would takea very sneaky LENR behavior to escape entirely unless it was tiny in magnitudeor extremely long (many days) in lag. The possibility of excess power is always left open, but that dooris not very wide according to what has been observed in these tests. Thisis my result so far. Tomorrow, I am hoping that things will change towardthe other direction. I am confident that you are aware that I am seekingconfirmation of LENR activity. It is unusual for me to behave as askeptic. Dave -OriginalMessage- From: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result David, I have not been following your evaluation closely, but I have donea lot of calorimetry in my life. The ONLY way a calorimeter can be testedis to use it without any source of excess energy being present. That means youneed to run the calorimeter in the planned way with the Celani wire replaced byan inert wire of the same resistance. When you do this, you will quicklydiscover how the calorimeter behaves and what is required to achieve a null. Other people are suggesting the same method. As long as the Celaniwire is present, the results will be confused by the potential excess. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, David Roberson wrote: I am positive that two equal and opposite dummy signals wouldcancel each other out. Is that what you mean? Dave -OriginalMessage- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:37 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy, a fake dataand input that into the program and see if you can hide a positive, dummy,signal. 2013/2/7 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity andthus a reading of zero excess power is a false negative, then the programdemonstrates that. It is my philosophy to let the results speak forthemselves regardless of the outcome
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
And these guys are planning to build devices that can be shipped to companies and other organizations as proof of LENR to get their attention. This will not work as long as it is this difficult to achieve performance that is beyond question. Jed has a valid point here. The earlier work by Celani suggests that one day the LENR will begin to dominate the results and that should be trivial to determine. My program would yell that out. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 1:09 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: I reluctantly have to agree with you. I would love to have that run as a reference, but just the taking apart of the unit to reinstall a new wire, or any changes whatsoever mess up the calibration. This happens to some extent with most calorimeters. Ed and others have told me that when you take the lid off a Seebeck calorimeter, and then you put it back and bolt it down, the calibration constant comes out measurably different. If the excess heat is so small it might be brought into question because of effects like this, it is too small to believe. I have enormous respect for Ed, and McKubre, Miles, Fleischmann and others who have mastered calorimetry to such an extent they can detect these microscopic changes. I understand why they want extreme accuracy and precision. At the same time, I feel that if you cannot even detect the heat without that precision, I cannot trust it. High precision should be used to explore robust heat when it appears -- if it appears. It should not be used to confirm heat at the extreme low limits of detection. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Its hard to understand how anyone seriously interested in doing these experiments, after lo these 2+ decades of torturous discourse, could make such a fundamental mistake. Why are best calorimetric practices not so firmly established by now that virtually everyone with any degree of credibility agrees? On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: David, I have not been following your evaluation closely, but I have done a lot of calorimetry in my life. The ONLY way a calorimeter can be tested is to use it without any source of excess energy being present. That means you need to run the calorimeter in the planned way with the Celani wire replaced by an inert wire of the same resistance. When you do this, you will quickly discover how the calorimeter behaves and what is required to achieve a null. Other people are suggesting the same method. As long as the Celani wire is present, the results will be confused by the potential excess. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, David Roberson wrote: I am positive that two equal and opposite dummy signals would cancel each other out. Is that what you mean? Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:37 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy, a fake data and input that into the program and see if you can hide a positive, dummy, signal. 2013/2/7 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity and thus a reading of zero excess power is a false negative, then the program demonstrates that. It is my philosophy to let the results speak for themselves regardless of the outcome. The program does that by fitting the input power variable to the data for the best match. I have no way to change this once it has been told to optimize unless I intentionally lock its value for other purposes. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
James, this is a bit too harsh. These guys are learning the best procedures and that takes a little time. Had the excess power been large as was expected, then it would not have required the degree of precision that you imply to achieve their goals. Let the process continue to its conclusion and then give em hell if you are still dissatisfied. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 1:24 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result Its hard to understand how anyone seriously interested in doing these experiments, after lo these 2+ decades of torturous discourse, could make such a fundamental mistake. Why are best calorimetric practices not so firmly established by now that virtually everyone with any degree of credibility agrees? On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: David, I have not been following your evaluation closely, but I have done a lot of calorimetry in my life. The ONLY way a calorimeter can be tested is to use it without any source of excess energy being present. That means you need to run the calorimeter in the planned way with the Celani wire replaced by an inert wire of the same resistance. When you do this, you will quickly discover how the calorimeter behaves and what is required to achieve a null. Other people are suggesting the same method. As long as the Celani wire is present, the results will be confused by the potential excess. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, David Roberson wrote: I am positive that two equal and opposite dummy signals would cancel each other out. Is that what you mean? Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:37 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy, a fake data and input that into the program and see if you can hide a positive, dummy, signal. 2013/2/7 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity and thus a reading of zero excess power is a false negative, then the program demonstrates that. It is my philosophy to let the results speak for themselves regardless of the outcome. The program does that by fitting the input power variable to the data for the best match. I have no way to change this once it has been told to optimize unless I intentionally lock its value for other purposes. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
I'm asking the question in all sincerity and without finger-pointing, let alone malice toward anyone. The absence of widely-publicized and accepted best practices for LENR calorimetry points out a serious need. On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:37 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: James, this is a bit too harsh. These guys are learning the best procedures and that takes a little time. Had the excess power been large as was expected, then it would not have required the degree of precision that you imply to achieve their goals. Let the process continue to its conclusion and then give em hell if you are still dissatisfied. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 1:24 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result Its hard to understand how anyone seriously interested in doing these experiments, after lo these 2+ decades of torturous discourse, could make such a fundamental mistake. Why are best calorimetric practices not so firmly established by now that virtually everyone with any degree of credibility agrees? On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.comwrote: David, I have not been following your evaluation closely, but I have done a lot of calorimetry in my life. The ONLY way a calorimeter can be tested is to use it without any source of excess energy being present. That means you need to run the calorimeter in the planned way with the Celani wire replaced by an inert wire of the same resistance. When you do this, you will quickly discover how the calorimeter behaves and what is required to achieve a null. Other people are suggesting the same method. As long as the Celani wire is present, the results will be confused by the potential excess. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, David Roberson wrote: I am positive that two equal and opposite dummy signals would cancel each other out. Is that what you mean? Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:37 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy, a fake data and input that into the program and see if you can hide a positive, dummy, signal. 2013/2/7 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity and thus a reading of zero excess power is a false negative, then the program demonstrates that. It is my philosophy to let the results speak for themselves regardless of the outcome. The program does that by fitting the input power variable to the data for the best match. I have no way to change this once it has been told to optimize unless I intentionally lock its value for other purposes. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Good question, Jim. The reason is that people jump into what looks like an easy measurement to quickly see excess energy, which is the brass ring. They want to win the game without taking the time to master the skill. I did this 20 years ago as well. Fortunately, the excess I detected then was large, which easily exceeded my error. Over the years, trial and error have taught me lessons that I had not bother to learn at first. Calorimetry is part science and part art. It is unforgiving to mistake. Large amounts of heat are easy to measure but the small amounts being claimed are hard to detect, especially when power has to be applied to start the process. The reputation of LENR adds to the difficulty because the results will not be accepted unless they meet very high standards. I admire the people who are starting down this path, but I'm saddened by the time wasted in the process. But, I guess that what makes science at this level fun. We all hope to discover something new without too much investment. I know the joy of the process thanks to 23 years of effort looking at LENR while tying to do the same thing after 40 years of doing conventional science. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 11:24 AM, James Bowery wrote: Its hard to understand how anyone seriously interested in doing these experiments, after lo these 2+ decades of torturous discourse, could make such a fundamental mistake. Why are best calorimetric practices not so firmly established by now that virtually everyone with any degree of credibility agrees? On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: David, I have not been following your evaluation closely, but I have done a lot of calorimetry in my life. The ONLY way a calorimeter can be tested is to use it without any source of excess energy being present. That means you need to run the calorimeter in the planned way with the Celani wire replaced by an inert wire of the same resistance. When you do this, you will quickly discover how the calorimeter behaves and what is required to achieve a null. Other people are suggesting the same method. As long as the Celani wire is present, the results will be confused by the potential excess. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, David Roberson wrote: I am positive that two equal and opposite dummy signals would cancel each other out. Is that what you mean? Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:37 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy, a fake data and input that into the program and see if you can hide a positive, dummy, signal. 2013/2/7 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity and thus a reading of zero excess power is a false negative, then the program demonstrates that. It is my philosophy to let the results speak for themselves regardless of the outcome. The program does that by fitting the input power variable to the data for the best match. I have no way to change this once it has been told to optimize unless I intentionally lock its value for other purposes. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
James Bowery jabow...@gmail.com wrote: Why are best calorimetric practices not so firmly established by now that virtually everyone with any degree of credibility agrees? To some extent it is because no single calorimeter type works for every kind of experiment. You have to look at the operating temperature, the size of the cold fusion device and the absolute power. A glow discharge experiment can only be done with some kind of bomb calorimeter, I think. I do not mean to apologize for sloppy work or for people who do not read the literature before doing experiments. A technique that is perfectly reliable and believable with one device may be useless with another. Rossi and the people who have tested his device independently use conventional, off-the-shelve HVAC tools, such as a shielded thermocouple and the kind of mechanical flow meter in millions of houses worldwide. Because Rossi gets so much heat, with such small input power, these instruments and techniques are perfect. In my opinion, you could not improve on them with a million dollars in high precision equipment. A conventional HVAC thermocouple measures to the nearest 0.1 deg C. I would not be one bit more convinced with one that measures to 0.001 deg C, like the ones McKubre uses. Some people strongly disagree with me about this. Rossi's problem is not the techniques he uses, or even the instruments. It is that he is sloppy. Unbelievably sloppy! I mean that literally: I do not believe he is actually that sloppy, I think he is trying to cover up his results and keep doubt alive. He could have made a few minor adjustments to any of the tests he did in 2011 and made the results so bullet-proof, and convincing, nearly everyone would believe him. For example, he had a 4-probe thermocouple that records on an SD-card. He used only 2 probes and he did not insert a card, so the readings are lost, except for ones written down at random times by poor, put-upon Lewan. If Rossi had lifted a finger to insert the other probes a short distance away in the outlet flow, and taken a moment to insert an SD card, his results would be FAR more convincing. Two minutes of effort. I told him to do this! I and others gave Rossi a list of things he should do to improve his demonstrations. He ignored us. He is a smart person. I assume he did a lousy job on purpose. - Jed
RE: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Awkshully - there could a small bit of justified finger-pointing - but not towards MFMP - towards Celani himself. He will get over it, in the end. After all - he will get the lion's share of the credit, when this is finally replicated, but if it not replicated, then his exuberance in Texas and Korea are partly to blame for the widespread expectation that this is a robust phenomenon, when in fact it is probably NOT robust, and instead requires precision. To wit - Celani told a number of observers off-the-record that he had witnessed a period of self-power. That was reported on Vortex and elsewhere. He later retracted that statement. But whatever the truth of it turns out to be, the claim left a lingering expectation in the minds of those who wanted to replicate quickly. Since there is less need of great precision - if in fact the wire, once heated, can undergo a period of infinite COP - you cannot blame cutting corners on MFMP. Jones From: James Bowery I'm asking the question in all sincerity and without finger-pointing, let alone malice toward anyone. The absence of widely-publicized and accepted best practices for LENR calorimetry points out a serious need. David Roberson wrote: James, this is a bit too harsh. These guys are learning the best procedures and that takes a little time. Had the excess power been large as was expected, then it would not have required the degree of precision that you imply to achieve their goals. Let the process continue to its conclusion and then give em hell if you are still dissatisfied. Dave -Original Message- From: James Bowery It's hard to understand how anyone seriously interested in doing these experiments, after lo these 2+ decades of torturous discourse, could make such a fundamental mistake. Why are best calorimetric practices not so firmly established by now that virtually everyone with any degree of credibility agrees? On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Edmund Storms stor...@ix.netcom.com wrote: David, I have not been following your evaluation closely, but I have done a lot of calorimetry in my life. The ONLY way a calorimeter can be tested is to use it without any source of excess energy being present. That means you need to run the calorimeter in the planned way with the Celani wire replaced by an inert wire of the same resistance. When you do this, you will quickly discover how the calorimeter behaves and what is required to achieve a null. Other people are suggesting the same method. As long as the Celani wire is present, the results will be confused by the potential excess. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, David Roberson wrote: I am positive that two equal and opposite dummy signals would cancel each other out. Is that what you mean? Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:37 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy, a fake data and input that into the program and see if you can hide a positive, dummy, signal. 2013/2/7 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity and thus a reading of zero excess power is a false negative, then the program demonstrates that. It is my philosophy to let the results speak for themselves regardless of the outcome. The program does that by fitting the input power variable to the data for the best match. I have no way to change this once it has been told to optimize unless I intentionally lock its value for other purposes. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Awkshully - there could a small bit of justified finger-pointing - but not towards MFMP - towards Celani himself. If it turns out to be wrong, he has been sloppy. In Korea, McKubre and others said they thought his calorimetry was totally inadequate. To wit - Celani told a number of observers off-the-record that he had witnessed a period of self-power. Did he!? I don't recall that. He told me he wanted to make it self-powered. After the conference, he tried to do that, but failed. That gave me a bad feeling. Jim Dunn and others pointed out to me that it can be a challenge to do that for a variety of reasons, and the failure does not necessarily mean the heat does not exist. That was reported on Vortex and elsewhere. Do you remember who reported this? - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The questions that are being asked are important and the MFMP guys are working very hard to answer them. A number of additional measures have been taken at various times to root out unusual behavior and to improve the accuracy of the results. Everyone realizes how important this is to get right. One test that they ran last month was per a request I made that is quite similar to what is suggested by Jack. First the cell was stabilized with all of the power being applied to the test Celani wire. At a specific point in time, the power was quickly shifted to the heating wire which is NiCr. The input powers were matched to a close degree. I noted that the apparent excess power changed by about .4 watts if I recall. That actual value for this discussion is not important, but if you need I can look it up. The source of the difference was not determined at that time, but both wires were exposed to helium instead of hydrogen for that test. A vacuum and other attempts had been recently performed to remove any LENR activity that might be normally there. The details are written in a log on their site. This lack of power output correlation concerned me then and still does. There are numerous variables to contend with and it is apparent that control of the accuracy is not trivial. Everyone is getting a good education as to how difficult these tests are to confirm. Lately, I have been worried that the excess power being shown on their web site(~5 watts) with the current technique that they have been using to calculate it is far too large to be real. I do not want to see too many folks let down by reality when the calorimeter does is miracles. Another guy, Ascoli, used a technique to adjust their results that compensates for the density changes of the hydrogen. The final curve he determined matches my steady state program output closely. I use the outside glass temperature minus the ambient to calculate the instantaneous power which is more immune to changes within the cell such as gas density. Of course my program takes into account the delay associated with heating of the glass and monitor. The amount of direct hot wire generated IR that escapes through the glass envelop is a potential contributor to inaccuracy. If this drifts, then the power captured and monitored on the outer glass test point will vary. There has been evidence of this effect in the past when goop collected upon the test wires leading to changes in emissivity. That is the current theory I apply to calibration drift. Amazingly, the recent calibration factors appear to be holding well after many days of burn. This is a learning experience for all of us. Experimental science is a form of bondage! Does it ever get better? Dave Doesn't SM include blindfolds? ;-) Early you also said you believe in letting the data speak for itself. In that case, you should also be blind as to whether the data set contains an expected positive or negative signal. In other words you should be analysing data sets without knowing what exactly is being tested in each set. Do you think in principle a blind analysis can be informative even without calibration data? One could choose any data set as their baseline and see how the data sets *compare*. Harry
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: This is a learning experience for all of us. Experimental science is a form of bondage! Does it ever get better? Dave Doesn't SM include blindfolds? ;-) Hence the Double Blind experiment, beloved of biologists. They also get off on torturing mice, fruit flies, and E. Coli. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Harry, I use a blindfold when the data is being optimized. :-) The LMS routine takes the raw data and makes my simulated curve match it. I do not have any idea what the result will be and it could be either positive or negative. An earlier calibration sets the rules that the data is compared against. Most of the time I download the live data from the MFMP site and evaluate one of the power steps. If there is a problem with the collection of the data, then that shows up in such a way as to generate a visual flag which I can review to determine why it is behaving in a strange manner. That is a rare occurrence. How would you handle the evaluation in the absence of a calorimeter? Time domain transient analysis is the best that I can do under the current restrictions. I am open to suggestions provided they are possible to achieve, but do keep in mind that I can only request special tests by the MFMP group and I have no control over their decisions. I believe that it is preferable to do something instead of wait for someone else to spoon feed me. I chose to post the results of my program runs to ensure that the vortex group is aware of any progress. If you are serious about blind analysis being useful and not kidding then I will answer. Of course it is important and is essentially conducted every time I run a set of data through my program. Initially, I was expecting to see positive results, but that is not what the program produced. Any new data that I download might demonstrate either positive or negative excess power since I do not have a clue about what will be found. I must admit that after so many runs with no excess power being determined, I am becoming biased toward that expectation, but I do not modify the way the program operates to achieve that result. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 3:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The questions that are being asked are important and the MFMP guys are working very hard to answer them. A number of additional measures have been taken at various times to root out unusual behavior and to improve the accuracy of the results. Everyone realizes how important this is to get right. One test that they ran last month was per a request I made that is quite similar to what is suggested by Jack. First the cell was stabilized with all of the power being applied to the test Celani wire. At a specific point in time, the power was quickly shifted to the heating wire which is NiCr. The input powers were matched to a close degree. I noted that the apparent excess power changed by about .4 watts if I recall. That actual value for this discussion is not important, but if you need I can look it up. The source of the difference was not determined at that time, but both wires were exposed to helium instead of hydrogen for that test. A vacuum and other attempts had been recently performed to remove any LENR activity that might be normally there. The details are written in a log on their site. This lack of power output correlation concerned me then and still does. There are numerous variables to contend with and it is apparent that control of the accuracy is not trivial. Everyone is getting a good education as to how difficult these tests are to confirm. Lately, I have been worried that the excess power being shown on their web site(~5 watts) with the current technique that they have been using to calculate it is far too large to be real. I do not want to see too many folks let down by reality when the calorimeter does is miracles. Another guy, Ascoli, used a technique to adjust their results that compensates for the density changes of the hydrogen. The final curve he determined matches my steady state program output closely. I use the outside glass temperature minus the ambient to calculate the instantaneous power which is more immune to changes within the cell such as gas density. Of course my program takes into account the delay associated with heating of the glass and monitor. The amount of direct hot wire generated IR that escapes through the glass envelop is a potential contributor to inaccuracy. If this drifts, then the power captured and monitored on the outer glass test point will vary. There has been evidence of this effect in the past when goop collected upon the test wires leading to changes in emissivity. That is the current theory I apply to calibration drift. Amazingly, the recent calibration factors appear to be holding well after many days of burn. This is a learning experience for all of us. Experimental science is a form of bondage! Does it ever get better? Dave Doesn't SM include blindfolds? ;-) Early you also said you believe in letting the data speak for itself
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
The current graphs of their live data are looking more interesting to me. I am viewing from 2/1 to 2/7. Cell 1.0 is approaching 8 watts excess (according to their calculation method). If the trend keeps going up with Cell 1.0, we could get to more convincing territory. On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:56 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Harry, I use a blindfold when the data is being optimized. :-) The LMS routine takes the raw data and makes my simulated curve match it. I do not have any idea what the result will be and it could be either positive or negative. An earlier calibration sets the rules that the data is compared against. Most of the time I download the live data from the MFMP site and evaluate one of the power steps. If there is a problem with the collection of the data, then that shows up in such a way as to generate a visual flag which I can review to determine why it is behaving in a strange manner. That is a rare occurrence. How would you handle the evaluation in the absence of a calorimeter? Time domain transient analysis is the best that I can do under the current restrictions. I am open to suggestions provided they are possible to achieve, but do keep in mind that I can only request special tests by the MFMP group and I have no control over their decisions. I believe that it is preferable to do something instead of wait for someone else to spoon feed me. I chose to post the results of my program runs to ensure that the vortex group is aware of any progress. If you are serious about blind analysis being useful and not kidding then I will answer. Of course it is important and is essentially conducted every time I run a set of data through my program. Initially, I was expecting to see positive results, but that is not what the program produced. Any new data that I download might demonstrate either positive or negative excess power since I do not have a clue about what will be found. I must admit that after so many runs with no excess power being determined, I am becoming biased toward that expectation, but I do not modify the way the program operates to achieve that result. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 3:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The questions that are being asked are important and the MFMP guys are working very hard to answer them. A number of additional measures have been taken at various times to root out unusual behavior and to improve the accuracy of the results. Everyone realizes how important this is to get right. One test that they ran last month was per a request I made that is quite similar to what is suggested by Jack. First the cell was stabilized with all of the power being applied to the test Celani wire. At a specific point in time, the power was quickly shifted to the heating wire which is NiCr. The input powers were matched to a close degree. I noted that the apparent excess power changed by about .4 watts if I recall. That actual value for this discussion is not important, but if you need I can look it up. The source of the difference was not determined at that time, but both wires were exposed to helium instead of hydrogen for that test. A vacuum and other attempts had been recently performed to remove any LENR activity that might be normally there. The details are written in a log on their site. This lack of power output correlation concerned me then and still does. There are numerous variables to contend with and it is apparent that control of the accuracy is not trivial. Everyone is getting a good education as to how difficult these tests are to confirm. Lately, I have been worried that the excess power being shown on their web site(~5 watts) with the current technique that they have been using to calculate it is far too large to be real. I do not want to see too many folks let down by reality when the calorimeter does is miracles. Another guy, Ascoli, used a technique to adjust their results that compensates for the density changes of the hydrogen. The final curve he determined matches my steady state program output closely. I use the outside glass temperature minus the ambient to calculate the instantaneous power which is more immune to changes within the cell such as gas density. Of course my program takes into account the delay associated with heating of the glass and monitor. The amount of direct hot wire generated IR that escapes through the glass envelop is a potential contributor to inaccuracy. If this drifts, then the power captured and monitored on the outer glass test point will vary. There has been evidence of this effect in the past when goop collected upon the test wires leading to changes in emissivity
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
How can you tell whether these are falso positives and not false negatives? 2013/2/6 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com I just completed a long time frame program test run for the recent downloaded data for one of the Celani cells. I am using the time domain curve fit program that I developed recently that uses the solution for a non linear differential equation describing the behavior of these types of cells. This is the same one that I have posted details on vortex with 4 installments. The MFMP team was very gracious and performed a special calibration run the day before this data began to accumulate allowing me to obtain good solid calibration data. I waited for many days for a step in power that my program can analyze with excellent accuracy but this has not occurred due to various reasons. One good reason is that the team has been watching the excess power climb upwards during that time frame when calculated using an internal monitor point within their cell. This test point was chosen earlier by observations of the cell behavior while I have concentrated upon the outer glass monitor which I suspected is not as influenced by variables such as hydrogen gas pressure and density. Until I actually performed the latest program run, I assumed that the power might be climbing just as the others since the temperature of the mica inside appeared to be ascending steadily. Of course everyone is excited by the potentially positive results. The program run I just completed assumed a dummy transient step in power. This should not constitute a problem, since the transient due to the assumed step rapidly goes to zero as compared to the very large time frame that the data spans. I adjusted the beginning point for the LMS routine to exclude the false transient. I also found that the averaging TC that calculates the delay was not working as it should due to the step times being far larger than the delay, leading to instability. This was not a problem since I am not interested in the rising edge of a dummy event. I obtained what I consider a null excess power calculation once the program cranked out its results. The expected power output should equal the input applied in the absence of internally generated power by the cell. I registered this result with a respectable accuracy. My program claims that the actual input power was about .2 watts lower than the applied power of approximately 105.4 watts. On peaks of the output there might be additional power of +.6 watts on rare occasions, but the overall average during the test time frame is -.2 watts. Negative peaks were actually a bit larger than the positive excursions. Please understand that I am not happy to report these results. I was hoping to be able to state with a degree of certainty that excess power generation by these cells is verified. That is actually what I assumed that I would be writing about with this post. It would have been easier to ignore my findings and just wait longer until more evidence has accumulated, but I know everyone wants to have the naked raw facts placed before them in a timely manner and thus this posting. I hope that my program will be found in error once the air flow calorimeter comes into its own, but there is no assurance that this will happen. So, I submit this information for you to consider and perhaps the future will sort out the truth in this matter. I placed the following statement on the comment section of the MFMP site to offer them feedback. This is one of those rare times when I hope to have made a miscalculation. --- A dummy step run was just completed on the excess power from cell FC0103 beginning just after the last power adjustment step 1/29/2013 at 5:00 through the present time of 2/6/2013 13:45. I had to allow my program to go through a dummy transient since there are no actual ones during this time. I calculated the power using T_GlassOut minus Ambient temperature as always. The calibration values are the same as those generated during the recent special calibration. Unfortunately, I see an average match between the power input and the calculated power to within .2 watts over this time frame. On rare peaks, there may be a small amount of excess power(.6 watts ?), but the average is zero(actually slight negative -.2 watts). The internal temperature monitor points may be subject to drift due to gas density variations as others have suggested. I am reporting my findings even though the results do not match my desires. --- Reluctantly, Dave -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: How can you tell whether these are falso positives and not false negatives? 0.2 to 0.6 W with this system is zero. Not positive or negative. That is within the noise. As I said before, no instrument can produce exactly zero. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
That was not my question. I want to know if he is also fitting excess heat with his curve and thus giving false negatives. 2013/2/6 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: How can you tell whether these are falso positives and not false negatives? 0.2 to 0.6 W with this system is zero. Not positive or negative. That is within the noise. As I said before, no instrument can produce exactly zero. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Suppose someone asks you to calculate the area under y = sin(x) over one wavelength? Since half the curve is above the x -axis and half the curve is below the x-axis you might calculate the net area as zero, but that would be false null result. harry On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: How can you tell whether these are falso positives and not false negatives? 0.2 to 0.6 W with this system is zero. Not positive or negative. That is within the noise. As I said before, no instrument can produce exactly zero. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That was not my question. I want to know if he is also fitting excess heat with his curve and thus giving false negatives. I am saying I think it is just a slight instrument bias. Anyway, even if it is 0.6 W positive, that is not significant. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
I guess you did not understand the question or I don't know how to express myself well. Either way, let's wait to see the flow calorimetry. 2013/2/6 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That was not my question. I want to know if he is also fitting excess heat with his curve and thus giving false negatives. I am saying I think it is just a slight instrument bias. Anyway, even if it is 0.6 W positive, that is not significant. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
You mention one of the situations that I have a bit of concern about. The curve fit is achieved by using the internal curve fitting routine of Excel in its X-Y chart menu. I am fortunate that it is a quadratic equation that is required and not a higher order. If excess heat were an issue I feel confident that it would impact the calibration accuracy with its non linear behavrior versus temperature becoming evident. The closeness of my calculated input power to the actual is an indication that excess power is not having a large impact. Also, there are enough pairs of points covering enough of the axis to rule out luck in obtaining the proper coefficients. As you know a perfect fit is always possible if only 3 pairs of points is available. We used 8 pairs if I recall correctly. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 1:55 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result That was not my question. I want to know if he is also fitting excess heat with his curve and thus giving false negatives. 2013/2/6 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: How can you tell whether these are falso positives and not false negatives? 0.2 to 0.6 W with this system is zero. Not positive or negative. That is within the noise. As I said before, no instrument can produce exactly zero. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
What if excess heat a slow igniting process with very soft variations? And where higher order correction are important but they are distilled by hours? Say, the effect of excess power follows a slow accumulation of some potential with the subsequen slow release of this potential? 2013/2/6 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com You mention one of the situations that I have a bit of concern about. The curve fit is achieved by using the internal curve fitting routine of Excel in its X-Y chart menu. I am fortunate that it is a quadratic equation that is required and not a higher order. If excess heat were an issue I feel confident that it would impact the calibration accuracy with its non linear behavrior versus temperature becoming evident. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
For this to be a problem, the data must be of restricted range. The more sine waves worth of data that are processed, the more closely your result becomes to zero. This is one reason that I believe that the result is so well established. Around a week of data is analyzed during which the relative noise level is low. Of course, it the LENR effect takes a month to show up, then it might still come into play later. I can not rule out that possibility. I felt that it is important to keep others informed of the current state of affairs, especially when some internal indications tend to suggest that several watts of excess power is being generated. Caution is important to exercise to keep form becoming too disappointed at a later time. I will be happy to be proven wrong in this particular case and I plan to make that attempt myself. Perhaps I do not make a very good skeptic. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 2:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result Suppose someone asks you to calculate the area under y = sin(x) over one wavelength? Since half the curve is above the x -axis and half the curve is below the x-axis you might calculate the net area as zero, but that would be false null result. harry On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: How can you tell whether these are falso positives and not false negatives? 0.2 to 0.6 W with this system is zero. Not positive or negative. That is within the noise. As I said before, no instrument can produce exactly zero. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
By all means Dan. I hope that the calorimeter shows excess power, but I would not be surprised to see otherwise after reviewing the data. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 2:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result I guess you did not understand the question or I don't know how to express myself well. Either way, let's wait to see the flow calorimetry. 2013/2/6 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That was not my question. I want to know if he is also fitting excess heat with his curve and thus giving false negatives. I am saying I think it is just a slight instrument bias. Anyway, even if it is 0.6 W positive, that is not significant. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
That was not directed to you, but to Jed... 2013/2/6 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com By all means Dan. I hope that the calorimeter shows excess power, but I would not be surprised to see otherwise after reviewing the data. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 2:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result I guess you did not understand the question or I don't know how to express myself well. Either way, let's wait to see the flow calorimetry. 2013/2/6 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That was not my question. I want to know if he is also fitting excess heat with his curve and thus giving false negatives. I am saying I think it is just a slight instrument bias. Anyway, even if it is 0.6 W positive, that is not significant. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
the experimenters are writing about essential things here: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/follow-2/206-tgoc The Genius of Celani Peter On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That was not directed to you, but to Jed... 2013/2/6 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com By all means Dan. I hope that the calorimeter shows excess power, but I would not be surprised to see otherwise after reviewing the data. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 2:39 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result I guess you did not understand the question or I don't know how to express myself well. Either way, let's wait to see the flow calorimetry. 2013/2/6 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote: That was not my question. I want to know if he is also fitting excess heat with his curve and thus giving false negatives. I am saying I think it is just a slight instrument bias. Anyway, even if it is 0.6 W positive, that is not significant. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
That is what should be showing up as time progresses. If the calibration values are determined by the faster acting phenomena, then a set of values is obtained that is accurate for fast moving changes. The time domain fit to power steps demonstrates that this is happening and fitting the calculation very closely. Now, if the slow later things come around, then the long term watching of the calculated power would show an increase if excess power is generated or a decrease if some form of endothermic action is happening. My program fits fast changes on the rising edge and then becomes flat at a value that depends upon the quasi static calibration points. This type of procedure should be powerful in demonstrating LENR activity. Good questions Dan. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 3:04 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result What if excess heat a slow igniting process with very soft variations? And where higher order correction are important but they are distilled by hours? Say, the effect of excess power follows a slow accumulation of some potential with the subsequen slow release of this potential? 2013/2/6 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com You mention one of the situations that I have a bit of concern about. The curve fit is achieved by using the internal curve fitting routine of Excel in its X-Y chart menu. I am fortunate that it is a quadratic equation that is required and not a higher order. If excess heat were an issue I feel confident that it would impact the calibration accuracy with its non linear behavrior versus temperature becoming evident. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Can't you simulate a few types of dummy systems with extra heat where the extra heat would not show? 2013/2/6 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com That is what should be showing up as time progresses. If the calibration values are determined by the faster acting phenomena, then a set of values is obtained that is accurate for fast moving changes. The time domain fit to power steps demonstrates that this is happening and fitting the calculation very closely. Now, if the slow later things come around, then the long term watching of the calculated power would show an increase if excess power is generated or a decrease if some form of endothermic action is happening. My program fits fast changes on the rising edge and then becomes flat at a value that depends upon the quasi static calibration points. This type of procedure should be powerful in demonstrating LENR activity. Good questions Dan. Dave -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
If it does not show up, how could it be measured? Actually, this can be accomplished in an interesting sort of way with the program. On occasions I intentionally restrict the range of data used in the optimizer. If I want to concentrate upon the rising edge fit, then I do not include the later data in the LMS routine. The output of my optimized variables contains one that corresponds to the input power. This usually matches up to within .2 watts or so and I know at that point that the fast acting effects are taken into account. Now, as time progresses and you look at the error data, you will see any tendency for the excess power to change. It could ramp up or down or stay the same. If instead you are interested in the best overall long term fit to the data, then you can restrict the optimizer input to include the later data to the end of the run if you wish. For this type of test, I leave all of the time variables as well as the initial power set (Kint) fixed and just optimize the Pin. This would muck up the match for fast acting processes, but concentrate on the long term behavior of the cell. Once optimized, the Pin will indicate the effective input power which includes any excess power being generated by LENR. If the error is now flat and you see that Pin is not what you actually know is being applied to the cell, then you have something going on. This simulates what you are thinking I believe. It allows me to concentrate on short term effects or long term effects depending upon my expectations. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com To: John Milstone vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 3:36 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result Can't you simulate a few types of dummy systems with extra heat where the extra heat would not show? 2013/2/6 David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com That is what should be showing up as time progresses. If the calibration values are determined by the faster acting phenomena, then a set of values is obtained that is accurate for fast moving changes. The time domain fit to power steps demonstrates that this is happening and fitting the calculation very closely. Now, if the slow later things come around, then the long term watching of the calculated power would show an increase if excess power is generated or a decrease if some form of endothermic action is happening. My program fits fast changes on the rising edge and then becomes flat at a value that depends upon the quasi static calibration points. This type of procedure should be powerful in demonstrating LENR activity. Good questions Dan. Dave -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:57 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You mention one of the situations that I have a bit of concern about. The curve fit is achieved by using the internal curve fitting routine of Excel in its X-Y chart menu. I am fortunate that it is a quadratic equation that is required and not a higher order. If excess heat were an issue I feel confident that it would impact the calibration accuracy with its non linear behavrior versus temperature becoming evident. The closeness of my calculated input power to the actual is an indication that excess power is not having a large impact. Also, there are enough pairs of points covering enough of the axis to rule out luck in obtaining the proper coefficients. As you know a perfect fit is always possible if only 3 pairs of points is available. We used 8 pairs if I recall correctly. With a setup like the one they're currently using for the USA cell, one wants to see on the order of 10-20 W excess power to have a sense that it is not some threshold effect. So even if we saw evidence for 1-2 W excess power, I doubt this would be convincing for anyone. It would be nice if Celani could find the time to visit the MFMP and help them set their cell up. Eric
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
The area in sine wave example was not intended to represent any particular physical variables. It was just intended as metaphor to show that the conclusions one draws from data are not necessarily transparent or undeniably correct. Harry On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: For this to be a problem, the data must be of restricted range. The more sine waves worth of data that are processed, the more closely your result becomes to zero. This is one reason that I believe that the result is so well established. Around a week of data is analyzed during which the relative noise level is low. Of course, it the LENR effect takes a month to show up, then it might still come into play later. I can not rule out that possibility. I felt that it is important to keep others informed of the current state of affairs, especially when some internal indications tend to suggest that several watts of excess power is being generated. Caution is important to exercise to keep form becoming too disappointed at a later time. I will be happy to be proven wrong in this particular case and I plan to make that attempt myself. Perhaps I do not make a very good skeptic. [image: ;-)] Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 2:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result Suppose someone asks you to calculate the area under y = sin(x) over one wavelength? Since half the curve is above the x -axis and half the curve is below the x-axis you might calculate the net area as zero, but that would be false null result. harry
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Yes, that might be what they need. I am concerned about the calibration used for the earlier Celani publication where a forth order radiation (S_B) assumption was used to calculate the power. The MFMP guys have very clearly demonstrated that this is not happening with their cells. I recently saw something written on their site that suggests that this is still being considered or applied by Celani. If the forth order calculation is used from this point forth, I will question the results until they are proven accurate. To me it is that simple. Use that technique and you will likely experience major errors. Recently a plan has been put into place to use a calorimeter to measure the excess heat. This is the proper procedure and should settle the issue once properly calibrated. They have found that the wire used by Celani had many more layers than the ones they tested, so things might start looking more reasonable if more can be obtained. The latest I read is that the multi layer wire might not be available. The saga continues. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 12:07 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:57 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: You mention one of the situations that I have a bit of concern about. The curve fit is achieved by using the internal curve fitting routine of Excel in its X-Y chart menu. I am fortunate that it is a quadratic equation that is required and not a higher order. If excess heat were an issue I feel confident that it would impact the calibration accuracy with its non linear behavrior versus temperature becoming evident. The closeness of my calculated input power to the actual is an indication that excess power is not having a large impact. Also, there are enough pairs of points covering enough of the axis to rule out luck in obtaining the proper coefficients. As you know a perfect fit is always possible if only 3 pairs of points is available. We used 8 pairs if I recall correctly. With a setup like the one they're currently using for the USA cell, one wants to see on the order of 10-20 W excess power to have a sense that it is not some threshold effect. So even if we saw evidence for 1-2 W excess power, I doubt this would be convincing for anyone. It would be nice if Celani could find the time to visit the MFMP and help them set their cell up. Eric
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
I realize that you were just using the sine wave process as an example. I pointed out that the time period spanned by the data is important to help catch issues of this nature. I acknowledge that it is possible for a very long delayed effect to come into play during or after the samples. The program should show that something unusual is happening unless the excess power comes after the data sample. In the particular test run I am referring to, there is nothing unusual being observed over a multiple day period. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 1:49 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result The area in sine wave example was not intended to represent any particular physical variables. It was just intended as metaphor to show that the conclusions one draws from data are not necessarily transparent or undeniably correct. Harry On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:20 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: For this to be a problem, the data must be of restricted range. The more sine waves worth of data that are processed, the more closely your result becomes to zero. This is one reason that I believe that the result is so well established. Around a week of data is analyzed during which the relative noise level is low. Of course, it the LENR effect takes a month to show up, then it might still come into play later. I can not rule out that possibility. I felt that it is important to keep others informed of the current state of affairs, especially when some internal indications tend to suggest that several watts of excess power is being generated. Caution is important to exercise to keep form becoming too disappointed at a later time. I will be happy to be proven wrong in this particular case and I plan to make that attempt myself. Perhaps I do not make a very good skeptic. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 2:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result Suppose someone asks you to calculate the area under y = sin(x) over one wavelength? Since half the curve is above the x -axis and half the curve is below the x-axis you might calculate the net area as zero, but that would be false null result. harry
