On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 4:58 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote: > In reply to Alberto De Souza's message of Sat, 21 Mar 2015 23:16:09 -0400: > Hi, > [snip] > >I completely agree. But I do not believe we are going to see large > >differences between resistances, except in cases of heater failure. But > >even if we see large variations of resistance between reactors, we can > >measure it and take it into account in the input power. > > The problem with this is that if there is a difference in input power you > then > need to convince people that your power to temperature conversion function > is > correct. And that will be a difficult row to hoe. >
Agreed. But, again, in order to be concern with that, we should see heater resistance variation. Did Parkhomov saw resistance variation? I am not sure, but I believe he did not. I will try and check that in his and MFMP reports. If Parkhomov did not see resistance variation, it is better to eliminate any doubts about the current, since the main idea at the moment is to replicate his results. ... > I think you will find that it is much easier to convince them that two > different > ammeters are accurate, than to convince them that your calculations of > temperature as a function of power are correct. > All that you need do for the former, is allow them to test the ammeters > themselves. > Agreed. But suppose that we do not see resistance variation, but see excess heat. In this case, everybody should be happy. But, in this case, we will have two circuits (so that we have two independent currents), and one of them will have the current (power) controlled by some electronic or manual system. I can see then, in this case, the skeptics invalidating the results completely in the grounds of experimental error or bad faith. They will say that a big lab should do the experiment and we are back zero. > > > > > >> In short each coil needs to be powered and controlled independently, and > >> power > >> consumption of each measured and logged to prove that the power > >> consumption in > >> both remains the same. > >> > > > >It will be hard to convince the skeptics that there were no hidden sources > >of power or errors of measurement in this case... > > There are none so blind as those who will not see. Don't bother trying to > convince them. Just make sure that a reasonable person would be convinced, > and > be prepared to "fill in the blanks" in follow up experiments. > Rossi tryed that and failed, and gave up. And we lost 5 years. > > > > >I believe the assumption that the resistance of the coils will not change > >is not a so hard assumption. The wires used for heater coils are designed > >to withstand large temperatures and other harsh conditions without > >significant variation of resistance. > > True, but they are not normally exposed to the rather extraordinary > circumstances that take place within these cells. > > Better to remove the point of uncertainty to equipment outside the cell, > where > it can easily be verified, than leave it within the cell where it taints > the > results. > If the resistance of the heater of the loaded cell varies this is exciting new physics and should be investigated. Notice that, the method I am proposing will offer a scientific sound approach to show we have this new physics. But, more importantly, the method I am proposing is the Occam Razor in this case. We assume that the resistance of the reactors will vary in accordance with the manufacturer specs, and that we will have excess heat. In this case the resistance of the heaters is just another controlled variable and the experiment is simpler. If we see resistance variation, it is all the better, more new physics. Regards, Alberto. > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > > http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html > >
