Calorimetry is always a problem in LENR context because it is being used to try and prove that LERN is real. But it is very hard to use it for that. Calorimetry is good for evaluating how much one would gain with LENR, once it is proved that we have excess heat (one might argue that this was already proved, but the current scientific establishment does not think so).
The LENR community must first focus on this binary hypothesis: "A reactor loaded with LENR fuel produces excess (non-chemical) heat" (true/false). To test this hypothesis one has to run an experiment to test exactly that: is the reactor with fuel hotter? This simplifies the problem a lot. To eliminate the variables that are not relevant to the test, one has to run two identical reactors in the same room, at the same time, with identical heating coils in series; one with the variable of interest (the LENR fuel) and one without. Parkhomov has observed COP 3 in his reactors using calorimetry. A hypothesis test as suggested above, performed live by the MFMP, will show large differences (hundreds of degrees) in temperature between the reactors, leaving little doubt (if any) that we have excess heat. Alberto. On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Robert Lynn <robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com > wrote: > *delurks* > > Frustrating that with COP's >2 and output powers of 100's to 1000's of > watts that simple calorimetry cannot be used to remove doubt, instead we > have 5-10 equivocal demonstrations from Rossi over last 4 years, > (supposedly a genius, yet not competent or willing to do this relatively > minor part right, and endless excuses and supporter rationalisations about > why he doesn't need to do it well - which stink). Still awaiting combined > big COP+bullet proof calorimetry from newer replications. At these outputs > simple <20% error flow calorimetry setup is probably only $1-200 in parts > and 1-2 days in build time (aquarium pump, couple of buckets and > thermocouples). > > Might it be that when better calorimetry is applied good news disappears > (eg MFMP)? In which case sloppier calorimetry would be more rewarding and > get more traction given the illusion of success. > > I've given up on Rossi (Lugano sunk him in my eyes), and my hope for > others will probably not last into 2016 without some good results. Looking > forward to better demos and calorimetry from multiple sources. > > *relurks* > > On 20 March 2015 at 10:40, Blaze Spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> For that matter, without the calorimetry we don't really know if it's 3 >> COP. It could be < 1 COP and the run without the fuel was just < 1/3 COP. >> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 7:38 PM, Blaze Spinnaker < >> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> That being said, is it possible that the the first run just burned up >>> the shell of the tube / insulation and is now radiating heat more easily. >>> >>> At some point Alexander is going to have to remove the fuel and re-run >>> the test. >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 7:27 PM, Blaze Spinnaker < >>> blazespinna...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> .. that wants the replication to be real so that the global energy / >>>> scientific revolution starts in some old fringe Russian scientist's living >>>> room?? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
