Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: On many tests, I find it difficult to detect an indication of the underlying transient curve that is many times greater than the noise surrounding the ideal response. Say again? I don't quite follow your conclusion. Your grammar is a little convoluted in this paragraph. I think you mean that the results follow theory closely and there is no indication of anomalous heat. Right? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
So far, I do not detect any significant excess heating, but that will come later with the proper loading I hope. Sorry about the insane grammar. My solution to the differential equation follows a curve in time that very nearly matches that of the real life cell. I take the difference between the two and plot that as the error which only displays noise since the transients are balanced out. I was referring to the fact that the underlying transient responses do not show up in the error (noise) plot. The transients are typically greater than 20 degrees C for a typical power step while the noise being displayed over time is generally less than +/- .5 degrees. This is a very neat way to view the noise without the large curve. I realize that my latest attempt might not be better than the last, so let me know if this post helps answer your questions. I should mention that I now apply a simple digital filter to the raw noise described above. The process dramatically reduces the spikes in noise to reveal the low frequency components very well. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 5:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: On many tests, I find it difficult to detect an indication of the underlying transient curve that is many times greater than the noise surrounding the ideal response. Say again? I don't quite follow your conclusion. Your grammar is a little convoluted in this paragraph. I think you mean that the results follow theory closely and there is no indication of anomalous heat. Right? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
Jed, I wanted to mention one additional item. Last week I saw the pattern that suggested additional power was being generated but it was small. Most likely less than 1.5 watts was all that I could squeeze out of the shape. I mentioned this to the MFMP gang but did not receive any reply. Of course, I requested information about the exact test that was being conducted and the materials used within the cell. It was important to replicate the measurement under well know conditions to be confident in the results. I think that the pressure was different than any nearby calibration runs so I requested an additional one that they could verify. I realize they are busy so I am having to wait until more calibration is completed with the right wire and gas before I can repeat my simulation with the required confidence. I am expecting to be able to see excess power if any is generated as the temperature sweeps upwards from a beginning value. Additional power added to the cell by LENR should accelerate the rising outer glass temperature curve. The subtraction of my differential equation solution from the real data will not balance under these conditions. There will be no combination of values that I can optimize which will result in a curve match. If the process is endothermic, that should be demonstrated as well. The slope will suddenly slow down and not balance with my solution. The waiting is killing me since I suspect my system will show what we are looking for. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 5:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: On many tests, I find it difficult to detect an indication of the underlying transient curve that is many times greater than the noise surrounding the ideal response. Say again? I don't quite follow your conclusion. Your grammar is a little convoluted in this paragraph. I think you mean that the results follow theory closely and there is no indication of anomalous heat. Right? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Most likely less than 1.5 watts was all that I could squeeze out of the shape. That sounds insignificant. I mentioned this to the MFMP gang but did not receive any reply. Of course, I requested information about the exact test that was being conducted and the materials used within the cell. It was the holiday season. I expect they will answer now. Those people are wonderfully responsive. I love 'em! I wonder where Bill Beaty is? Kind of worrying. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
to Pin plus Pexcess) as well as to obtain a close fit for the displayed curve and the real world. The data solver in Excel does a remarkable job of adjusting the variables so that the calculated curve matches the downloaded one. I just optimize the LMS value toward 0 by allowing solver to vary the Pin, Kint, Cap, and TC. It plugs away for a few seconds and then tells me it can not find a perfect match. Generally the match is quite good however so I accept the values that solver finds and the task is completed. A plot of the error function demonstrates how closely the delayed function matches the real life values and it typically looks flat with the exception of noise that is riding upon the input data. I include a simple one pole RC equivalent filter to smooth the displayed data. The RC can be adjusted to either increase or decrease the smoothing and I generally place the variable below a graph that displays both filtered and raw error signals. I like to plot a second graph which shows the raw temperature data, calculated curve, and the delayed curve versus time. In this manner, it is possible to review how well the program generated fit matches the real life data. If for some reason something looks strange in the output, you have a display that helps debug the operation. It is seldom necessary for me to need to debug the curve fitting, but it is comforting to know that the file performed as required. When the optimization is completed, you will see that the Pin variable has been modified from what you initially entered. A stable calibrated run generally yields a final value that is within a few tenths of a watt from the downloaded data provided the calibration run is accurate and good values determined for a, b, and c. This operation can actually be used to verify that you in fact do have accurate values for the parameters and is thus valuable. If you know that there is no excess power being generated due to the set up, then I would expect an accurate match to Pin. One of the beauties of this technique is that in the future, if the calibration drifts, the program will clearly show that fact. The Pin will not match up to what is known to be used in that case. Once the program is calibrated and matches a calibration step accurately, then you are ready to measure excess power. Just enter the latest downloaded data that might have excess power contained within and let the program do its optimization as described above. The Pin that the program estimates is then modified by the additional power due to LENR and shows up as perturbation away from the ideal curve fit at points in time that correspond to excess power or absorbed power. So, you can see variation in average Pin as the modification to the actual Pin given with the data set, as well as see where the curves divert from each other indicating heat that is produced. Once you have performed several curve fits, you will become comfortable with the best procedure and gain confidence in your usage of the program. There is no substitute for taking the time to learn by trying since supplying the best description for the operation of my program is difficult at best. Ask questions either in private or in this list and I will answer in like fashion. Dave -Original Message- From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: dlroberson dlrober...@aol.com Sent: Sat, Jan 19, 2013 9:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP This is the third installment of my explanation of how to use my simulation program. The last time I left those interested with a task of determining the roots of the primed coefficients. Those primed values are in the last installment which is below this one. The solution to the quadratic equation yields a first root that is positive referred to as R2 = 181.2596. The negative root of the equation yields R1 = -350.751. Next, there is an additional value required to simulate the cell behavior and I refer to it as Wreal. This is the actual real frequency of the fundamental exponential natural response. The solution consists of this fundamental frequency plus an infinite series of its harmonics that all contribute to the time domain response. In actuality, only the first few terms are important as each falls off rapidly due to the affect of the integration constant Kint. You calculate the Wreal with the following terms. Wr= square root of ( b' ^2 - 4 * a' * c'). Using the values given below of a'=-6.4 E-6, b'= -.00109, and c'= .409318 one obtains a Wr = .003425. I have mentioned an exponential time constant that the curves follow in earlier posts which is the inverse of this term, in this case it is 1 / .003425 which is 291.96 seconds. This should not be confused with the delay TC below. Once the 5 values discussed have been determined you can generate the actual time domain curve that the outer glass temperature
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
That's great work. Thanks. Unfortunately I think you and the MFM have demonstrated that Celani is not getting any excess heat. He sent them his own wires and they got nothing. Bupkis. Nada. Zilch. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
That or the wires are torn by too much use and new ones must be provided. 2013/2/2 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com That's great work. Thanks. Unfortunately I think you and the MFM have demonstrated that Celani is not getting any excess heat. He sent them his own wires and they got nothing. Bupkis. Nada. Zilch. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
I'm not sure the MFMP have shown more than a null result -- I doubt it can be taken as a negative result. Celani's P_xs was on the order of many watts, if I remember correctly. It seems like he would have had to have some pretty egregious instrument artifact to get those graphs that have been circulating. Also possible is that MFMP have not succeeded in triggering whatever Celani has been seeing. This is not to say that Celani has necessarily been seeing anything -- he might or he might not be. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
The guys at MFMP are still experimenting on the Celani device. They have a stainless steel version that is just now beginning to be tested and I have my fingers crossed. A new calorimeter is also being perfected and it will be capable of detecting excess power in a sensitive manner if any appears. My program suggests that the results are null at this time, but others may not share that opinion. The MFMP guys are doing a wonderful job and we all should be appreciative of their efforts, and I am confident that they will continue to perform a great service for us. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 1, 2013 10:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP I'm not sure the MFMP have shown more than a null result -- I doubt it can be taken as a negative result. Celani's P_xs was on the order of many watts, if I remember correctly. It seems like he would have had to have some pretty egregious instrument artifact to get those graphs that have been circulating. Also possible is that MFMP have not succeeded in triggering whatever Celani has been seeing. This is not to say that Celani has necessarily been seeing anything -- he might or he might not be. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
Dave, Have you identifided the difference (or error) in MFMP team's program that leads them to find excess power? Harry On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:54 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The guys at MFMP are still experimenting on the Celani device. They have a stainless steel version that is just now beginning to be tested and I have my fingers crossed. A new calorimeter is also being perfected and it will be capable of detecting excess power in a sensitive manner if any appears. My program suggests that the results are null at this time, but others may not share that opinion. The MFMP guys are doing a wonderful job and we all should be appreciative of their efforts, and I am confident that they will continue to perform a great service for us. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 1, 2013 10:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP I'm not sure the MFMP have shown more than a null result -- I doubt it can be taken as a negative result. Celani's P_xs was on the order of many watts, if I remember correctly. It seems like he would have had to have some pretty egregious instrument artifact to get those graphs that have been circulating. Also possible is that MFMP have not succeeded in triggering whatever Celani has been seeing. This is not to say that Celani has necessarily been seeing anything -- he might or he might not be. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Have you identifided the difference (or error) in MFMP team's program that leads them to find excess power? I don't they have found excess power in their most recent analyses. Have they? As I have mentioned here before, what bothers me about Celani's own work is his inability to make it self sustain. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
Harry, I can only say that my program has not calculated any significant excess power during all the trials that I attempted. My current belief is that the amount of infrared radiation compared to heat energy that escapes through the surface varies with time. Unfortunately, IR from the wires is not all captured by the glass envelop so a portion does not leave a heat trace behind. On occasions a deposit of material has been discovered on the Celani wire that likely changes the IR emissivity of that particular wire with time. If less IR is released, then more direct conducted heat through the hydrogen is measured since the sum of these is known. I consider this behavior as a drift in the calibration which then appears to indicate more or in some cases less excess heat. In every program run that immediately follows an accurate calibration, I find very good correlation between the input power calculated by my curve fit and the actual known value. Now, if excess power were generated, it would likely depend upon temperature of the cell and its contents. This additional power pulse should impact the behavior of the temperature versus time curve that my program produces. More excess power should increase the slope of the curve when it happens while any absorption should do the reverse. So far, I have not seen clear evidence of this effect. Additional evidence that only a small amount of excess power is generated is demonstrated by the excellent quadratic curve fit that I obtain with a test run that uses well defined power steps. This very close curve fit has so far always been observed. My belief is that if much excess power were generated, it would certainly show up at the elevated power inputs more than at the lower power steps. If this actually were to occur the curve fit would be poor. I have simulated an escaping radiation system that appears to behave in a like manner. The forth order power radiation from the wire was made to vary in my simulation. A significant portion of this was captured within the simulation along with all of the conduction equivalent heat energy. At the outer glass equivalent test point, I noticed that it was easy to get an excellent quadratic curve fit with just a little distortion caused by the escaping forth order radiation effects. I was amazed that I could choose values for the radiation escape process that resulted in a curve fit which came close to the R^2 values that I typically observe. Much of this could be coincidence, but at least it appeared to come close to what I see. And, of course, as I adjusted the effective radiation, the calibration appeared to drift similar to what I think might be happening in the real testing. So Harry, my program seems to be capable of weeding out the behavior of the Celani replication device in real time provided the calibration does not drift too quickly. But you should also consider that it might not capture the excess power generation if it comes into existence in some very slow manner. Of course, the program would display any slowly rising excess power after the transient step response has settled down. This is very much like shooting at a moving target. It is apparent that a better method of capturing and measuring the excess power is required if we are to have confidence in our determination. The MFMP guys are testing a much improved calorimeter that everyone hopes will achieve that goal. This does not appear to be such an easy task, but they are working hard toward that end. After the calorimeter is completed and calibrated, I hope that we can gain confidence in any conclusions that are made. For now, there is a lot of speculation that needs to be proven one way or the other. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 2, 2013 3:57 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP Dave, Have you identifided the difference (or error) in MFMP team's program that leads them to find excess power? Harry On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:54 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The guys at MFMP are still experimenting on the Celani device. They have a stainless steel version that is just now beginning to be tested and I have my fingers crossed. A new calorimeter is also being perfected and it will be capable of detecting excess power in a sensitive manner if any appears. My program suggests that the results are null at this time, but others may not share that opinion. The MFMP guys are doing a wonderful job and we all should be appreciative of their efforts, and I am confident that they will continue to perform a great service for us. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Feb 1, 2013 10:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP I'm not sure
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
I agree Jed, you would think that the Celani device should be capable of self sustaining operation with insulation applied if the actual excess power were accurately measured. I worry that the application of the forth order radiation estimation is not working as expected. All of the calibrations that I have performed on the replication device show a very good fit to a quadratic function instead. It is not obvious why this difference exists between the two test systems. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 2, 2013 4:56 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Have you identifided the difference (or error) in MFMP team's program that leads them to find excess power? I don't they have found excess power in their most recent analyses. Have they? As I have mentioned here before, what bothers me about Celani's own work is his inability to make it self sustain. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
On Feb 2, 2013, at 16:22, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: My belief is that if much excess power were generated, it would certainly show up at the elevated power inputs more than at the lower power steps. Your curve-fitting analyses are always interesting. But I think we should be careful about adopting this particular assumption. I have read on more than one occasion that a decrease in power-in can trigger anomalous heat. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
That is a good point. I have developed certain beliefs after a lot of test runs and observations and I realize that I may have missed things along the way. Did you download the latest Excel example file that I ran on the recent MFMP test data? I recommend that you take a look at the close fit that is generated and review the various relationships between the variables that are revealed by the formulas included. I also derived a similar functional relationship that predicts the falling edges when steps are moving in the downward direction. Unfortunately, there is not too many transitions contained within the downloaded data for me to test against, hence the concentration on rising edges. I am currently waiting for results from the new air flow calorimeter with fingers crossed. My fear is that the actual amount of excess power will only be in the 1 watt range on a good day. You may recall my work on surface area comparisons between the Celani wire and Rossi's claims. I hope I screwed up in that analysis, if not, the calorimeter is our only hope of proof. Then again, I hate to screw up! Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sat, Feb 2, 2013 7:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP On Feb 2, 2013, at 16:22, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: My belief is that if much excess power were generated, it would certainly show up at the elevated power inputs more than at the lower power steps. Your curve-fitting analyses are always interesting. But I think we should be careful about adopting this particular assumption. I have read on more than one occasion that a decrease in power-in can trigger anomalous heat. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Have you identifided the difference (or error) in MFMP team's program that leads them to find excess power? I don't they have found excess power in their most recent analyses. Have they? As I have mentioned here before, what bothers me about Celani's own work is his inability to make it self sustain. - Jed My understanding of their analysis is that the reputed excess power comes and goes and is much less than it was when they first began the experiment(s). Harry
RE: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
Hello Dave, Your tool is powerful! Did you make also the calibration and exercises with the EU cell? They have reported about ~6W excess heat when direct current applied. The cell reports ~2.5W excess heat with an indirect heating. US cells have been disappointing up to now. But EU cell shows better results, so it would be nice to use your tool on this cell as well if not been done yet. Arnaud
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
I have concentrated upon the US cells so far. I looked at the calibration information at an earlier time and decided that it was not well enough defined for the EU cell. Once that decision was made, I kept working toward improving the program one major step at a time with US data until it reached its latest level. Perhaps it is time to go back and apply it to the EU cell as you suggest. I will take a look at the live stream and see if I feel that the needed information is present. Now that the program is relatively stable, I can apply it quickly to new data. I found developing my process to be much like constructing a house. Each part contributes to the whole and at some points of time during the design it functions well, but not quite as good as I wished. Now, it does a very good job but I always can get it to do more if I decide that it is needed. For instance, it would be easy to output a variable that represents the stored internal cell energy since at one time I was calculating that accurately. It is important to set goals that can be met since one can always improve the capabilities and I feel that I have reached an acceptable performance level for now. Dave -Original Message- From: Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 3, 2013 6:04 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP Hello Dave, Your tool is powerful! Did you make also the calibration and exercises with the EU cell? They have reported about ~6W excess heat when direct current applied. The cell reports ~2.5W excess heat with an indirect heating. US cells have been disappointing up to now. But EU cell shows better results, so it would be nice to use your tool on this cell as well if not been done yet. Arnaud
Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
I just took a quick look at the calibration conditions for the EU cell and am not convinced that it is recent and quiet enough to allow my program to accurately estimate the performance. If they decide to perform a careful test run such as the recent one for the USA cell, then perhaps that will be the time to re evaluate it. I am concerned about the apparent large variation in temperature that most likely is a result of outside factors. It is difficult to maintain control of the environment as the guys working in the US have found. They have labored endlessly to smooth out the cells performance as nature has thrown hard balls in their direction. If further evidence appears that suggests that the EU experiment is under much tighter control, then we can process the raw data productively. I am currently awaiting information from the US team regarding the AFC operation which might be what is needed in order to accurately verify excess power. If you believe that I have rushed to judgement please help me to find the information that is needed for us to work with the EU data. The more experiments that are performed, the more likely it is that excess power can be accurately determined. Arnaud, have you experimented with my program yet? It has the formula references used to calculate the various cells from the time input parameter as well as a copy of the actual data for comparison. I realize that it is difficult to explain a process of this complexity, but I suspect that you would be able to use it effectively after a learning experience. Dave -Original Message- From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 3, 2013 9:43 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP I have concentrated upon the US cells so far. I looked at the calibration information at an earlier time and decided that it was not well enough defined for the EU cell. Once that decision was made, I kept working toward improving the program one major step at a time with US data until it reached its latest level. Perhaps it is time to go back and apply it to the EU cell as you suggest. I will take a look at the live stream and see if I feel that the needed information is present. Now that the program is relatively stable, I can apply it quickly to new data. I found developing my process to be much like constructing a house. Each part contributes to the whole and at some points of time during the design it functions well, but not quite as good as I wished. Now, it does a very good job but I always can get it to do more if I decide that it is needed. For instance, it would be easy to output a variable that represents the stored internal cell energy since at one time I was calculating that accurately. It is important to set goals that can be met since one can always improve the capabilities and I feel that I have reached an acceptable performance level for now. Dave -Original Message- From: Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 3, 2013 6:04 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP Hello Dave, Your tool is powerful! Did you make also the calibration and exercises with the EU cell? They have reported about ~6W excess heat when direct current applied. The cell reports ~2.5W excess heat with an indirect heating. US cells have been disappointing up to now. But EU cell shows better results, so it would be nice to use your tool on this cell as well if not been done yet. Arnaud
RE: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP
Dave, The room temperature of the EU cell environment isn't constant as it is for the US cell. This variation might as well also contribute to excite the excess heat to occur. Problem with US cell is that, in my opinion, they put too much current on the active wire which is then fried. But that's only my point of view. I had a look on the excel tool you had made. I understand well the a, b, and c constants and also the time delay constant. I've a bit more difficulty to understand the rest of the computation of the other constants. To be honest, I didn't get in deeper. Arnaud From: David Roberson [mailto:dlrober...@aol.com] Sent: dimanche 3 février 2013 18:05 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP I just took a quick look at the calibration conditions for the EU cell and am not convinced that it is recent and quiet enough to allow my program to accurately estimate the performance. If they decide to perform a careful test run such as the recent one for the USA cell, then perhaps that will be the time to re evaluate it. I am concerned about the apparent large variation in temperature that most likely is a result of outside factors. It is difficult to maintain control of the environment as the guys working in the US have found. They have labored endlessly to smooth out the cells performance as nature has thrown hard balls in their direction. If further evidence appears that suggests that the EU experiment is under much tighter control, then we can process the raw data productively. I am currently awaiting information from the US team regarding the AFC operation which might be what is needed in order to accurately verify excess power. If you believe that I have rushed to judgement please help me to find the information that is needed for us to work with the EU data. The more experiments that are performed, the more likely it is that excess power can be accurately determined. Arnaud, have you experimented with my program yet? It has the formula references used to calculate the various cells from the time input parameter as well as a copy of the actual data for comparison. I realize that it is difficult to explain a process of this complexity, but I suspect that you would be able to use it effectively after a learning experience. Dave -Original Message- From: David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 3, 2013 9:43 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP I have concentrated upon the US cells so far. I looked at the calibration information at an earlier time and decided that it was not well enough defined for the EU cell. Once that decision was made, I kept working toward improving the program one major step at a time with US data until it reached its latest level. Perhaps it is time to go back and apply it to the EU cell as you suggest. I will take a look at the live stream and see if I feel that the needed information is present. Now that the program is relatively stable, I can apply it quickly to new data. I found developing my process to be much like constructing a house. Each part contributes to the whole and at some points of time during the design it functions well, but not quite as good as I wished. Now, it does a very good job but I always can get it to do more if I decide that it is needed. For instance, it would be easy to output a variable that represents the stored internal cell energy since at one time I was calculating that accurately. It is important to set goals that can be met since one can always improve the capabilities and I feel that I have reached an acceptable performance level for now. Dave -Original Message- From: Arnaud Kodeck arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Feb 3, 2013 6:04 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP Hello Dave, Your tool is powerful! Did you make also the calibration and exercises with the EU cell? They have reported about ~6W excess heat when direct current applied. The cell reports ~2.5W excess heat with an indirect heating. US cells have been disappointing up to now. But EU cell shows better results, so it would be nice to use your tool on this cell as well if not been done yet. Arnaud
