The area in sine wave example was not intended to represent any particular physical variables. It was just intended as metaphor to show that the conclusions one draws from data are not necessarily transparent or undeniably correct.
Harry On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:20 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > For this to be a problem, the data must be of restricted range. The more > sine waves worth of data that are processed, the more closely your result > becomes to zero. This is one reason that I believe that the result is so > well established. Around a week of data is analyzed during which the > relative noise level is low. Of course, it the LENR effect takes a month > to show up, then it might still come into play later. I can not rule out > that possibility. > > I felt that it is important to keep others informed of the current state > of affairs, especially when some internal indications tend to suggest that > several watts of excess power is being generated. Caution is important to > exercise to keep form becoming too disappointed at a later time. I will be > happy to be proven wrong in this particular case and I plan to make that > attempt myself. > > Perhaps I do not make a very good skeptic. [image: ;-)] > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 2:35 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result > > Suppose someone asks you to calculate the area under y = sin(x) over > one wavelength? > Since half the curve is above the x -axis and half the curve is below > the x-axis you might calculate the net area as zero, but that would be > false "null" result. > > harry > > >
