I just took a quick look at the calibration conditions for the EU cell and am 
not convinced that it is recent and quiet enough to allow my program to 
accurately estimate the performance.  If they decide to perform a careful test 
run such as the recent one for the USA cell, then perhaps that will be the time 
to re evaluate it.  I am concerned about the apparent large variation in 
temperature that most likely is a result of outside factors.


It is difficult to maintain control of the environment as the guys working in 
the US have found.  They have labored endlessly to smooth out the cells 
performance as nature has thrown hard balls in their direction.


If further evidence appears that suggests that the EU experiment is under much 
tighter control, then we can process the raw data productively.  I am currently 
awaiting information from the US team regarding the AFC operation which might 
be what is needed in order to accurately verify excess power.


If you believe that I have rushed to judgement please help me to find the 
information that is needed for us to work with the EU data.  The more 
experiments that are performed, the more likely it is that excess power can be 
accurately determined.


Arnaud, have you experimented with my program yet?  It has the formula 
references used to calculate the various cells from the time input parameter as 
well as a copy of the actual data for comparison.  I realize that it is 
difficult to explain a process of this complexity, but I suspect that you would 
be able to use it effectively after a learning experience.


Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sun, Feb 3, 2013 9:43 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP


I have concentrated upon the US cells so far.  I looked at the calibration 
information at an earlier time and decided that it was not well enough defined 
for the EU cell.  Once that decision was made, I kept working toward improving 
the program one major step at a time with US data until it reached its latest 
level.  Perhaps it is time to go back and apply it to the EU cell as you 
suggest.


I will take a look at the live stream and see if I feel that the needed 
information is present.  Now that the program is relatively stable, I can apply 
it quickly to new data.  I found developing my process to be much like 
constructing a house.  Each part contributes to the whole and at some points of 
time during the design it functions well, but not quite as good as I wished.  
Now, it does a very good job but I always can get it to do more if I decide 
that it is needed.  For instance, it would be easy to output a variable that 
represents the stored internal cell energy since at one time I was calculating 
that accurately.


It is important to set goals that can be met since one can always improve the 
capabilities and I feel that I have reached an acceptable performance level for 
now.


Dave



-----Original Message-----
From: Arnaud Kodeck <arnaud.kod...@lakoco.be>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Sun, Feb 3, 2013 6:04 am
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP


Hello Dave,

Your tool is powerful! Did you make also the calibration and exercises with
the EU cell? They have reported about ~6W excess heat when direct current
applied. The cell reports ~2.5W excess heat with an indirect heating.

US cells have been disappointing up to now. But EU cell shows better
results, so it would be nice to use your tool on this cell as well if not
been done yet.

Arnaud


 

 

Reply via email to