This appears to be the Houkes data that you're referring to:
http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx
I cannot open this file. I get a zip with dissociated .xml's.
I know that I'd quickly discounted it in the past, as it seemed to ignore the
conductivity between the probe and the nut and the hot air pocket formed
underneath the foil insulation. Maybe I'd discounted it too quickly. Alan
Fletcher's SPICE models were interesting, and showed that the thermocouple
placement WAS important. I assumed that you ignored those results because they
were detrimental to Rossi.
Alas, he's announced that he's given up the model; the result was very
sensitive to the coupling between water and copper -- and he could get any
value he wanted for a delta-T error between zero and +10 (and beyond) : twice
the value of delta-T itself.
So, let's review Haukes analysis if you have it in a useable form...
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 17:14:22 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat
From: jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Also how you feel about the lack of a blank/calibration run ahead of the test,
using the electrical heater as a calibrating energy source before hydrogen was
added to the E-cat. Wouldn't that rule out such issues as thermocouple
placement?
The best way to rule out problems with the thermocouple placement is to use
additional thermocouples placed elsewhere. That is what I urged Rossi to do,
before the test. He did not want to.
There was actually no problem with the placement, as shown by Houkes and by the
fact that two calorimetric methods were in reasonable agreement. But Rossi
should have proved there was no problem, by using multiple instruments at
various different locations.
- Jed
