You on touching on one of the fundamental issues with experimental LENR - what do you use for a metric? If you want to progress from no results or poor results in your experiment, you need to have a way to measure whether you are getting better or worse as you introduce changes - you need a metric, a measure of performance. In the early stages of LENR development, using excess heat as your metric is a terrible choice. The reason is that measuring the output heat, and sometimes the input energy are very hard to do with sufficient accuracy to provide a confident measure of performance. What you end up getting from your COP metric is basically noise, tending to steer you in a random direction.
OTOH, radiation measurements are an excellent metric. X-rays, gamma rays, and neutron flux do not come from chemical action. When using starting materials that do not contain radioisotopes, observing radiation is a sure sign of LENR. Test setups can be made that are able to detect radiation (and hence LENR) at very low levels. It is a reasonable plan to use the radiation metric to adjust your experiment until you are confidently creating LENR with every experiment; and once you are, then optimize for excess heat or maximum COP. In the GS5.2 case, LENR occurred. The measured radiation showed that LENR occurred, and the nature of the measured radiation provides another clue to the mechanism of the reaction at the same time. The COP GS5.2 produced was probably in the thermal measurement noise. The question now is, can GS5.2 be repeated? Then, can it be made better? On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:37 AM, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > MFMP performed a great service by collecting and tabulating this data. > > > https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/photos/p.1126094137421284/1126094137421284/?type=3&theater > > What story do you read when you compare the active and null data sets over > time? > > My reading of the active data set begins with the storage of energy > for the first 19 hrs and ends with the periodic release of energy for > the last 9hrs. 'Excess Heat' is not evident. > > Based on this reading, is it possible to explain the amount of energy > stored and released using just chemistry? > > Harry > >
