That is a good point. I have developed certain beliefs after a lot of test runs and observations and I realize that I may have missed things along the way.
Did you download the latest Excel example file that I ran on the recent MFMP test data? I recommend that you take a look at the close fit that is generated and review the various relationships between the variables that are revealed by the formulas included. I also derived a similar functional relationship that predicts the falling edges when steps are moving in the downward direction. Unfortunately, there is not too many transitions contained within the downloaded data for me to test against, hence the concentration on rising edges. I am currently waiting for results from the new air flow calorimeter with fingers crossed. My fear is that the actual amount of excess power will only be in the 1 watt range on a good day. You may recall my work on surface area comparisons between the Celani wire and Rossi's claims. I hope I screwed up in that analysis, if not, the calorimeter is our only hope of proof. Then again, I hate to screw up! Dave -----Original Message----- From: Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sat, Feb 2, 2013 7:59 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP On Feb 2, 2013, at 16:22, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: My belief is that if much excess power were generated, it would certainly show up at the elevated power inputs more than at the lower power steps. Your curve-fitting analyses are always interesting. But I think we should be careful about adopting this particular assumption. I have read on more than one occasion that a decrease in power-in can trigger anomalous heat. Eric
