Eric,
My understanding is that +.25W is the 95th percentile for the EU cells and
+.5W is the 95th percentile for the US cells. They are using two sided
confidence intervals (+/-.25W) so this would be +/- 1.96 standard
deviations at .25W. They don't present the actual SD here:
I would also like to add that they should calculate confidence intervals on
the active runs so we would know the 95th percentile lower bounds for those
runs. The standard deviation for the active runs could be different from
the calibration runs.
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Jack Cole
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:44 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:
They don't present the actual SD here:
http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-2/285-us-eu-cell-calibration-results
.
We can get it by working backwards. (.25/1.96=.13)
I was working backwards from 2.5 W at
Eric,
I can see where you would think that, but I think they are saying that
+.25W is at the 95% CI.
They wrote: Both the EU Cells and the US Cells were switched on and BOTH
indicated excess energy as the cells came to equilibrium at higher
temperatures than during the calibration tests. The EU
On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Jack Cole jcol...@gmail.com wrote:
I can see where you would think that, but I think they are saying that
+.25W is at the 95% CI.
Personally, I find it hard to see how they could obtain 2.5 W at 19 sigma
from a 30 W baseline using the Stefan-Boltzmann equation,
Today (June 26, 2013)...
http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/en/follow/follow-2/295-simultaneous-test-runs-eu-us
Update 18:15 UTC -
Both the EU Cells and the US Cells were switched on and BOTH indicated
excess energy as the cells came to equilibrium at higher temperatures than
during the
A live audio/video discussion is happening now on google hangout:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/112746934321590853702/posts/15RhcoJk6de
Harry
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 3:05 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Today (June 26, 2013)...
From: H Veeder
* The US Cell was indicating approximately 1.4 watts excess, again, well
above the ~0.5W confidence interval. Very exciting to see something
positive and especially simultaneous.
Harry,
If you are in contact with them - please ask if they are still using
Jones,
Yes they are using nichrome and are aware of the issues but they are not
using H in control cells.
Harry
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
** **
** **
*From:* H Veeder
** **
**Ø **The US Cell was indicating approximately 1.4 watts
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
If Quantum is serious about showing excess heat – then they must move away
from using a control which is also active !
Or use an absolute method such as flow calorimetry, rather than a
comparative method.
The problem of blanks that are not blank goes
Wire Dimensions:
220micron diameter
20micron active layer
100cm
1m*pi*220um*20um?mm^3
([{1 * meter} * pi] * [220 * {micro*meter}]) * (20 * [micro*meter]) ?
(milli*met
er)^3
= 13.823007 mm^3
Excess power:
2.5W
1m*pi*220um*20um;2.5W?W/cm^3
([{(1 * meter) * pi} * {220 * (micro*meter)}] * [20 *
Jones,
I was listening to the google chat and their control cells are run under
*vacuum* conditions, so the only chance of any H being present is if some
water (liquid or vapor) was present after evacuating the cell. I did not
catch what kind of vacuum they pulled, but I think it is safe to say
Well, that is good - but they should probably use neon instead of helium in
control cells and absolutely fresh nichrome (never exposed to hydrogen),
As mentioned earlier, the first proton in any nickel alloy will bury itself
in the FCC crystal and cannot be removed without actually melting the
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Well, that is good - but they should probably use neon instead of helium in
control cells and absolutely fresh nichrome (never exposed to hydrogen),
Yes. Better a gas than a vacuum. Heat transfer in a vacuum is a whole
different animal.
- Jed
Jones,
you wrote, but they should probably use neon instead of helium in control
cells
What makes you think they used helium??? They said, and I restated, that
they operate their control cells in a *VACUUM*, so I take that to mean that
they assemble the cell, and then attach it to a vacuum pump
Mark - I did not see your message ahead of posting mine.
However, the point stands that no amount of vacuum pumping will ever remove
the alloyed proton from nickel. That proton remains until the nickel is
melted.
Whether or not nickel-hydride with 7% by atomic volume hydrogen will give
much net
On 2013-06-27 00:42, Jones Beene wrote:
Whether or not nickel-hydride with 7% by atomic volume hydrogen will give
much net gain is debatable - but the lack of hydrogen gas in the cell after
vacuum purge may not be enough for a good control (if the nichrome was
previously alloyed with
Jones' point about ANY exposure to H is acknowledged...
That being said, does anyone know the exact procedure by which the material
in the control cell was prepared and the cell assembled??? Obviously, the
nichrome wire was shipped to them, but was it exposed to air (humid air will
supply plenty
On 2013-06-27 00:55, MarkI-ZeroPoint wrote:
Jones' point about ANY exposure to H is acknowledged...
That being said, does anyone know the exact procedure by which the material
in the control cell was prepared and the cell assembled??? Obviously, the
nichrome wire was shipped to them, but was it
-Original Message-
From: Akira Shirakawa
Whether or not nickel-hydride with 7% by atomic volume hydrogen will give
much net gain is debatable - but the lack of hydrogen gas in the cell
after
vacuum purge may not be enough for a good control (if the nichrome was
previously alloyed
On 2013-06-27 01:09, Jones Beene wrote:
No - I was suggesting that in previous experiments to this one - the same
nichrome wire could have been used. Did they start out with a virgin wire
for this experiment or not? Often experimenters cut corners and reuse items
from previous runs.
I haven't
Am I missing something here? Surely if the control cell is producing some
small amount of energy from an LENR process due to contamination but it's
less than that being produced by the experimental cell then while a
baseline might be hard or even impossible to establish wouldn't a
significant
On 2013-06-26 22:37, Jones Beene wrote:
If you are in contact with them – please ask if they are still using
nichrome as a control.
Both cells (Activated [A] and Control [B] - there is one of each both in
EU and in the US, so four in total) have a NiCr wire (for
passive/indirect heating
Hi MarkG,
No, you're not missing anything. a control cell producing some small amount
of heat would result in a *conservative* (i.e., lower) estimate of power
generated in the test cell. assuming that the test cell is at least several
sigma above the control cell so experimental uncertainty was
-Original Message-
From: Akira Shirakawa
I haven't asked but as far as I have seen I'm fairly certain that for
the control cells they used completely fresh materials.
Well, let's face it - like everyone else in LENR they are severely
underfunded.
Therefore it is not a given that
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 7:43 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
Thus - if there is residual hydrogen in the nichrome wire as well, it is
very likely to be gainful as a control, possibly strongly gainful - even
when run at a vacuum... not to mention the possibility of so-called
So, as I understand from the data [1] over the test runs the US cell saw a
gain of about 4.9% (1.49W/30.25W) and the EU Cell saw about 6.1%
(1.82W/30.05W).
[mg]
[1] http://data.hugnetlab.com/
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 4:43 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
Hi MarkG,
No,
On 2013-06-27 02:33, Mark Gibbs wrote:
So, as I understand from the data [1] over the test runs the US cell saw
a gain of about 4.9% (1.49W/30.25W) and the EU Cell saw about 6.1%
(1.82W/30.05W).
That's about what they've written in the 18:15 UTC update here:
More to the point, what is important to note is that the amount is less
important than the reproducibility.
The experimental protocol here is open -- unlike Rossi -- and the
simultaneous appearance of two successes by two separate teams points to
the possibility that they have, indeed, found an
Akira Shirakawa shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it's important to note that this is still preliminary data and
that unexpected measurement artifacts might lurk somewhere.
Yes.
I don't like to be a wet blanket, but over the years I have seen dozens of
results like this come and go.
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 12:05 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
Both the EU Cells and the US Cells were switched on and BOTH indicated
excess energy as the cells came to equilibrium at higher temperatures than
during the calibration tests. The EU cell with the active wire was
On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
For the MFMP calorimeters currently being used, with the glass and the SB
equation, I suspect it will not be that convincing for people until they
see 10-20 W excess heat (integrated excess power, including periods of
32 matches
Mail list logo
