Akira Shirakawa <shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think it's important to note that this is still preliminary data and > that unexpected measurement artifacts might lurk somewhere. > Yes. I don't like to be a wet blanket, but over the years I have seen dozens of results like this come and go. The percent of excess heat here is small, and the absolute value of the heat in watts is small compared to the capacity of the calorimeter. You really have to be cautious with something on this scale. >From the first message, this is "2.5 W of excess power over the 30.4 W input power (~6% excess)." 2.5 W would be a huge signal if this were McKubre's calorimeter, or one of Storms', but in a calorimeter with a minimum threshold of 0.25 W this is not much. This is FAR less than Rossi's power levels or input to output ratio. That makes it much easier to believe his results, as measured by Levi, simply because they are so big. This illustrates the fact that there is no single "best method" that applies to all experiments. It would be impossible to measure the difference between 30.4 W and 32.9 W with something like an IR camera. That's unthinkable. The errors are 10% (albeit conservatively) so 6% would be in the noise. Levi's method is crude but it is ideal for 300 W in 900 W out. It would be ridiculous to try it with this. - Jed
