Re: [Vo]:SRI Experiment HH

[Horace Heffner]

On Feb 25, 2010, at 7:26 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Horace Heffner wrote:

is that, unless there is a typo, it makes no sense at all  to  
attempt to draw the 23.82 MeV line through Fig. 1 . . .


That is an expectation value.



Here you have missed the point entirely.  There is no such  
"expected value" of energy per helium atom  as a function of  
excess heat power.


Obviously I meant that. Please do not nitpick.


That shows how much helium there would be if the ratio of helium  
to heat was 23.82 MeV per reaction, and if every atom of helium  
were recovered.


Apparently it does not.  It shows a ratio of helium to excess  
power, not excess heat.


I meant that was the power (or I guess the average power) during  
the time it takes to collect the sample of effluent gas. They let  
the collection cylinder fill up many times, to purge atmospheric  
helium.


If this were Arata he would list the energy and time unit, with  
some unit that is hard to translate back into power, such as  
kilojoules per hour. This is technically correct because of course  
helium is proportional to energy not power, but I find it  
confusing. 60 minutes time 60 seconds and so on . . . As I recall  
we have the Mesopotamians to thank for that. Why we can't have time  
in base-10 I do not know. They tried it after the French Revolution  
but people didn't buy it. But I digress.



Those are instantaneous power readings taken at different times,  
arranged in ascending order.

.
This makes the graph seem nonsensical.


It doesn't seem nonsensical to me. Maybe those are average power  
readings during the time they collected the sample. Excess power  
does not fluctuate quickly with a Fleischmann Pons bulk palladium  
cell, so it could be both.




Quoting the paper, p. 2 and 3:

"Figure 1 presents the results of concurrent excess power and  
helium measurements performed during open cell electrolysis using  
two different Pd and Pd-alloy cathodes. In three instances where  
excess power was measured at statistically significant levels,  
4He also was found to be conveyed out of the cell in the  
electrolysis gases (D2 + O2).


This makes total sense.


Good. Next time read the paper before commenting.



Never!!  8^)  Well, maybe sometimes.

Jed, that is only one sentence that makes sense without further  
explanation, not the whole paper or even just the graph.


I think this issue was well worth discussing, and I feel totally  
justified in discussing it at even a superficial level since the  
question had been put the list.  It seemed to me reasonable to  
comment on the obvious elephant in the room because it appeared there  
was a present tendency to ignore it.







This is the part that needs clarification.   There is no clear  
link established between helium concentration and power produced.


Well, it isn't clear, because helium production is so complicated,  
but I think it is a pretty strong case.


Again I think you miss my point, or I didn't make it clear.  I agree  
there is a good case for helium production.  There is even some  
support for sporadic proportional heat to helium production.  The  
point was in regard to the sensibility of the graph axes and the  
green line.  The complexity of helium production and even measurement  
is a side issue.



I would say the whole paper is an attempt at clarification. A  
pretty good one at that, but you can't expect much detail from only  
9 pages.


- Jed


So true.  It seems to me most scientific papers leave out critical  
details or explanations.  I think writers are too close to their own  
thoughts, assumptions, and expectations, and don't even realize what  
has been left out or what help the reader might need for easy  
comprehension.  When I read my stuff after it has aged I'm amazed at  
the critical things I left unsaid, how far what I actually said was  
from the meaning I intended to convey, and how many ways my remarks  
could be easily misinterpreted.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:SRI Experiment HH

[Jed Rothwell]

Horace Heffner wrote:

is that, unless there is a typo, it makes no sense at all  to 
attempt to draw the 23.82 MeV line through Fig. 1 . . .


That is an expectation value.



Here you have missed the point entirely.  There is no such "expected 
value" of energy per helium atom  as a function of excess heat power.


Obviously I meant that. Please do not nitpick.


That shows how much helium there would be if the ratio of helium to 
heat was 23.82 MeV per reaction, and if every atom of helium were recovered.


Apparently it does not.  It shows a ratio of helium to excess power, 
not excess heat.


I meant that was the power (or I guess the average power) during the 
time it takes to collect the sample of effluent gas. They let the 
collection cylinder fill up many times, to purge atmospheric helium.


If this were Arata he would list the energy and time unit, with some 
unit that is hard to translate back into power, such as kilojoules 
per hour. This is technically correct because of course helium is 
proportional to energy not power, but I find it confusing. 60 minutes 
time 60 seconds and so on . . . As I recall we have the Mesopotamians 
to thank for that. Why we can't have time in base-10 I do not know. 
They tried it after the French Revolution but people didn't buy it. 
But I digress.



Those are instantaneous power readings taken at different times, 
arranged in ascending order.

.
This makes the graph seem nonsensical.


It doesn't seem nonsensical to me. Maybe those are average power 
readings during the time they collected the sample. Excess power does 
not fluctuate quickly with a Fleischmann Pons bulk palladium cell, so 
it could be both.




Quoting the paper, p. 2 and 3:

"Figure 1 presents the results of concurrent excess power and 
helium measurements performed during open cell electrolysis using 
two different Pd and Pd-alloy cathodes. In three instances where 
excess power was measured at statistically significant levels, 4He 
also was found to be conveyed out of the cell in the electrolysis 
gases (D2 + O2).


This makes total sense.


Good. Next time read the paper before commenting.


This is the part that needs clarification.   There is no clear link 
established between helium concentration and power produced.


Well, it isn't clear, because helium production is so complicated, 
but I think it is a pretty strong case. I would say the whole paper 
is an attempt at clarification. A pretty good one at that, but you 
can't expect much detail from only 9 pages.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:SRI Experiment HH

[Horace Heffner]

On Feb 25, 2010, at 5:40 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:


Horace Heffner wrote:

I haven't taken the time to look into this in detail, but my  
first  impression . . .


With all due respect, it is a bad idea to discuss these things  
without looking into them in detail, and a person's first  
impressions are likely to be wrong.


If I were afraid of being wrong it would destroy my creativity,  I  
would learn little, and I would post nothing at all.   That of course  
might be a good thing from your perspective, but not mine.  8^)In  
this particular case,  for example, I would have no excuse for  
procrastinating on doing my tax return!







is that, unless there is a typo, it makes no sense at all  to  
attempt to draw the 23.82 MeV line through Fig. 1 . . .


That is an expectation value.



Here you have missed the point entirely.  There is no such "expected  
value" of energy per helium atom  as a function of excess heat  
power.  There is an expected value of energy per helium atom as a  
function of excess heat *energy*.




That shows how much helium there would be if the ratio of helium to  
heat was 23.82 MeV per reaction, and if every atom of helium were  
recovered.



Apparently it does not.  It shows a ratio of helium to excess power,  
not excess heat.



Obviously, not every atom is -- or can be -- recovered. As the text  
points out a lot of the helium is stuck in the cathode and can only  
be recovered after the experiment.




Perhaps I'm misreading the x axis labeling "Excess Power/Current
(mW / A)", or the intended meaning of the x axis values.  To be
sensible the x axis should simply be excess energy, i.e. the integral
of mW over time.


Those are instantaneous power readings taken at different times,  
arranged in ascending order.

.
This makes the graph seem nonsensical.
.

The helium does not stay in this cell; it is open, like the Miles  
cell, and the helium is collected from the effluent gas. This is  
not a time graph of the run, and that is not the integrated energy.

.
Then the green line makes no sense at all without a further explanation.
.

In other words, at one point when the cell was producing about 70  
mW the helium reading came out 2.4 +/- 0.8, and another time when  
power was ~100 mW, a helium reading came out 2.8 +/- 1.2.


These numbers do not relate to


The points at the bottom are either experimental error or caused by  
helium being trapped in the cathode. It is difficult to say which.  
Quoting the paper, p. 2 and 3:


"Figure 1 presents the results of concurrent excess power and  
helium measurements performed during open cell electrolysis using  
two different Pd and Pd-alloy cathodes. In three instances where  
excess power was measured at statistically significant levels, 4He  
also was found to be conveyed out of the cell in the electrolysis  
gases (D2 + O2).


This makes total sense.


The solid line in Figure 1 plots the regression fit of these data  
to a line passing through the origin;
the dashed line is that expected for 4He generation according to  
the reaction:


d + d --> 4He + 23.82 MeV (lattice) [1]


This is the part that needs clarification.   There is no clear link  
established between helium concentration and power produced.





It is clear from the slopes of these two lines that the observed  
4He constitutes only 76 ± 30% of the 4He predicted by equation [1].



The helium concentration is not predicted by equation 1.  Equation 1  
only establishes a relationship between helium atoms created and  
excess *energy* produced.  It has nothing to do with power.



A more significant problem in Figure 1 is that three further 4He  
samples, taken at times of non-zero excess power (open diamonds),  
exhibited helium concentrations only at the level of the analytical  
uncertainty, as did numerous samples taken in the apparent absence  
of excess power production. Clearly if 4He is produced in  
association with excess power, it is not released to the gas phase  
immediately, or completely."


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHtheemergen.pdf

That seems pretty clear to me. I do not understand why people here  
are confused by it.




Maybe if someone took the time to look deeper into this they could
make some sense of it.


I didn't have to look very deeply.


And you didn't make any sense.





Look folks: An author may not present data the way you would choose  
to present it. I often find that a graph shows something other than  
what I assumed; i.e., it shows power rather than integrated energy.  
Oops. I usually have to read a paper several times to figure out  
what's what. So let's not jump to conclusions about these things,  
or assume that X or Y "doesn't make sense." You need to cut the  
authors some slack. It is tough writing papers and explaining  
things. Someone once complained to Oliver Heaviside that his papers  
were very difficult to read. He responded, "That may well be -- but  
they were much more difficult to wri

Re: [Vo]:SRI Experiment HH

[Jed Rothwell]

Horace Heffner wrote:

I haven't taken the time to look into this in 
detail, but my first  impression . . .


With all due respect, it is a bad idea to discuss 
these things without looking into them in detail, 
and a person's first impressions are likely to be wrong.



is that, unless there is a typo, it makes no 
sense at all  to attempt to draw the 23.82 MeV line through Fig. 1 . . .


That is an expectation value. That shows how much 
helium there would be if the ratio of helium to 
heat was 23.82 MeV per reaction, and if every 
atom of helium were recovered. Obviously, not 
every atom is -- or can be -- recovered. As the 
text points out a lot of the helium is stuck in 
the cathode and can only be recovered after the experiment.




Perhaps I'm misreading the x axis labeling "Excess Power/Current
(mW / A)", or the intended meaning of the x axis values.  To be
sensible the x axis should simply be excess energy, i.e. the integral
of mW over time.


Those are instantaneous power readings taken at 
different times, arranged in ascending order. The 
helium does not stay in this cell; it is open, 
like the Miles cell, and the helium is collected 
from the effluent gas. This is not a time graph 
of the run, and that is not the integrated 
energy. In other words, at one point when the 
cell was producing about 70 mW the helium reading 
came out 2.4 +/- 0.8, and another time when power 
was ~100 mW, a helium reading came out 2.8 +/- 
1.2. The points at the bottom are either 
experimental error or caused by helium being 
trapped in the cathode. It is difficult to say 
which. Quoting the paper, p. 2 and 3:


"Figure 1 presents the results of concurrent 
excess power and helium measurements performed 
during open cell electrolysis using two different 
Pd and Pd-alloy cathodes. In three instances 
where excess power was measured at statistically 
significant levels, 4He also was found to be 
conveyed out of the cell in the electrolysis 
gases (D2 + O2). The solid line in Figure 1 plots 
the regression fit of these data to a line 
passing through the origin; the dashed line is 
that expected for 4He generation according to the reaction:


d + d --> 4He + 23.82 MeV (lattice) [1]

It is clear from the slopes of these two lines 
that the observed 4He constitutes only 76 ± 30% 
of the 4He predicted by equation [1]. A more 
significant problem in Figure 1 is that three 
further 4He samples, taken at times of non-zero 
excess power (open diamonds), exhibited helium 
concentrations only at the level of the 
analytical uncertainty, as did numerous samples 
taken in the apparent absence of excess power 
production. Clearly if 4He is produced in 
association with excess power, it is not released 
to the gas phase immediately, or completely."


http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHtheemergen.pdf 



That seems pretty clear to me. I do not 
understand why people here are confused by it.




Maybe if someone took the time to look deeper into this they could
make some sense of it.


I didn't have to look very deeply.

Look folks: An author may not present data the 
way you would choose to present it. I often find 
that a graph shows something other than what I 
assumed; i.e., it shows power rather than 
integrated energy. Oops. I usually have to read a 
paper several times to figure out what's what. So 
let's not jump to conclusions about these things, 
or assume that X or Y "doesn't make sense." You 
need to cut the authors some slack. It is tough 
writing papers and explaining things. Someone 
once complained to Oliver Heaviside that his 
papers were very difficult to read. He responded, 
"That may well be -- but they were much more difficult to write."


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:SRI Experiment HH

[Steven Krivit]

I haven't taken the time to look into this in detail, but my first
impression is that, unless there is a typo, it makes no sense at all
to attempt to draw the 23.82 MeV line through Fig. 1, or to draw any
conclusions from the graph as to energy per helium atom produced.
Perhaps I'm misreading the x axis labeling "Excess Power/Current
(mW / A)", or the intended meaning of the x axis values.  To be
sensible the x axis should simply be excess energy, i.e. the integral
of mW over time.  It looks like voltage was roughly uniform, so the
(input) mW/A should roughly be a constant, given power P = I * (V -
v0).  So, basically, the x axis is a constant times excess power.  It
should be a constant times excess energy to make any sense, or to
plot the green line on it.

Alternatively, at a constant power the helium could be measured over
equally spaced intervals, and then the green line should be
horizontal, i.e.  fixed amount of helium produced per interval of
time corresponding to the mean excess power for the interval.

Maybe if someone took the time to look deeper into this they could
make some sense of it.

Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/



Horace,

You are not misreading the X axis label. I too have great difficulty 
understanding a) the rationale of displaying power/current for the x axis 
and b) relating power/current to heat (energy) which is what the green line 
allegedly represents.


I've inspected the 300+ page EPRI report and I cannot find mention of 
calorimetry data for these two runs. (HH Sept. and HH Nov/Dec.) Maybe they 
somehow derived heat (energy) from power/current???


Jed - You said you didn't find anything confusing. So maybe you can explain 
what power/current (on the x axis) has to to with heat/4He?



Steve

Re: [Vo]:SRI Experiment HH

[Horace Heffner]

On Feb 23, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Steven Krivit wrote:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/SRI-Expt-HH/SRI-Experiment- 
HH.shtml


Vorts,

I have deliberately not provided any explanation, analysis or  
interpretation.


Instead, I'd like to hear your thoughts first.

In particular, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the graph drawn by  
McKubre as compared to the graph I drew.


I'd also like to hear your thoughts and analyses on the green and  
blue lines.


Steve


I haven't taken the time to look into this in detail, but my first  
impression is that, unless there is a typo, it makes no sense at all  
to attempt to draw the 23.82 MeV line through Fig. 1, or to draw any  
conclusions from the graph as to energy per helium atom produced.   
Perhaps I'm misreading the x axis labeling "Excess Power/Current  
(mW / A)", or the intended meaning of the x axis values.  To be  
sensible the x axis should simply be excess energy, i.e. the integral  
of mW over time.  It looks like voltage was roughly uniform, so the  
(input) mW/A should roughly be a constant, given power P = I * (V -  
v0).  So, basically, the x axis is a constant times excess power.  It  
should be a constant times excess energy to make any sense, or to  
plot the green line on it.


Alternatively, at a constant power the helium could be measured over  
equally spaced intervals, and then the green line should be  
horizontal, i.e.  fixed amount of helium produced per interval of  
time corresponding to the mean excess power for the interval.


Maybe if someone took the time to look deeper into this they could  
make some sense of it.


Best regards,

Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/

Re: [Vo]:SRI Experiment HH

[Steven Krivit]

(I was amused to see a "skeptic" the other day suggest that when Rob 
Duncan visited Energetics Technology, he should have surreptitiously 
attached a flask to the cell and taken a sample of helium "to see if it 
really is fusion." I told the skeptic you have to design the experiment 
from the ground up to do this, and it takes hours or days to collect the 
sample. These people get their notions of experimental science from 
Hollywood movies.)


- Jed


There are skeptics and there are skeptics.

Re: [Vo]:SRI Experiment HH

[Jed Rothwell]

Steven Krivit wrote:

Without seeing a lot more heat data, I have to agree, it is 
difficult to derive any meaning from this and that there is, as you 
say, "practically no real-time correlation to the helium."


I have no difficulty deriving meaning from this. Again, maybe I am 
missing something but it seems pretty clear to me. The reasons why 
there is little real time correlation are obvious.



We also are missing a lot of information about their method of 
helium sampling.


Well it seems pretty clear to me, but I have read other papers and 
descriptions from SRI, and heard lectures. Anyway, the 1994 helium 
tests were done at much higher power levels, and they are described 
more comprehensively on pages 349 - 357. This discusses the history 
of  the cell, when the cell was flushed with D2 gas, how long it took 
them to collect the sample, the diffusion rate, and so on. The 
spectroscopy at the U.S. Bur. of Mines is described elsewhere.


Frankly, I don't see what bothers you about this work, apart from the 
inherent complexity. No one ever said helium studies are easy.


(I was amused to see a "skeptic" the other day suggest that when Rob 
Duncan visited Energetics Technology, he should have surreptitiously 
attached a flask to the cell and taken a sample of helium "to see if 
it really is fusion." I told the skeptic you have to design the 
experiment from the ground up to do this, and it takes hours or days 
to collect the sample. These people get their notions of experimental 
science from Hollywood movies.)


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:SRI Experiment HH

[Steven Krivit]

Jed,

Without seeing a lot more heat data, I have to agree, it is difficult to 
derive any meaning from this and that there is, as you say, "practically no 
real-time correlation to the helium." We also are missing a lot of 
information about their method of helium sampling.


Steve



At 08:29 PM 2/23/2010, you wrote:

I think that is clearer. You can see that the power levels are really not 
that varied, and there is practically no real-time correlation to the 
helium. Actually, the error bars are probably even larger because the 
instrument is at the limits of detection. At higher levels both accuracy 
and precision improve. That's true of most instruments. Plus, I have no 
doubt the helium levels really do vary, and this is not just an instrument 
artifact, for the reasons given in the document: different amounts of 
helium are captured in the near surface layers of the metal, depending on 
complex factors. That is well established. You have to go to great lengths 
to recover all of the helium. During the run the stuff will suddenly vent 
at odd times, presumably when a crack forms.


This is how marginal experimental data looks. If the correlation was 
better than this I would begin to suspect someone doctored the data. With 
an instrument that can detect 1 ppb minimum, the difference between 1 and 
3 ppb is hardly meaningful. On the other hand the difference between 100 
ppb and 101 ppb is more significant and reliable.


- Jed



At 07:10 AM 2/24/2010, you wrote:

I wrote:

You can see that the power levels are really not that varied, and there 
is practically no real-time correlation to the helium.


Also bear in mind those are instantaneous power levels, and there is no 
telling what it was doing in the instant before they were taken. For 
example, data point #2, 11-29-93 is 35 mW. It might have been 50 mW 
sometime earlier, which would explain why there is more helium in the cell 
than there was with data point #1 even though the power level is the same. 
Cold fusion power does not fluctuate wildly, but it does fluctuate. Also, 
as I said, the helium you measure at any given moment might have been 
generated hours or days before, and it is just escaping now through a 
newly opened crack.


You need much higher, more steady power to establish the ratio of helium 
to heat more accurately.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:SRI Experiment HH

[Jed Rothwell]

I wrote:

You can see that the power levels are really not that varied, and 
there is practically no real-time correlation to the helium.


Also bear in mind those are instantaneous power levels, and there is 
no telling what it was doing in the instant before they were taken. 
For example, data point #2, 11-29-93 is 35 mW. It might have been 50 
mW sometime earlier, which would explain why there is more helium in 
the cell than there was with data point #1 even though the power 
level is the same. Cold fusion power does not fluctuate wildly, but 
it does fluctuate. Also, as I said, the helium you measure at any 
given moment might have been generated hours or days before, and it 
is just escaping now through a newly opened crack.


You need much higher, more steady power to establish the ratio of 
helium to heat more accurately.


- Jed

Re: [Vo]:SRI Experiment HH

[Jed Rothwell]

Steven Krivit wrote:

Let me know if that helps clarify.
>

I think that is clearer. You can see that the power levels are really not
that varied, and there is practically no real-time correlation to the
helium. Actually, the error bars are probably even larger because the
instrument is at the limits of detection. At higher levels both accuracy and
precision improve. That's true of most instruments. Plus, I have no doubt
the helium levels really do vary, and this is not just an instrument
artifact, for the reasons given in the document: different amounts of helium
are captured in the near surface layers of the metal, depending on complex
factors. That is well established. You have to go to great lengths to
recover all of the helium. During the run the stuff will suddenly vent at
odd times, presumably when a crack forms.

This is how marginal experimental data looks. If the correlation was better
than this I would begin to suspect someone doctored the data. With an
instrument that can detect 1 ppb minimum, the difference between 1 and 3 ppb
is hardly meaningful. On the other hand the difference between 100 ppb and
101 ppb is more significant and reliable.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:SRI Experiment HH

[Steven Krivit]

I don't see any problem or confusion with this. Maybe I am missing 
something. The bottom graph (Krivit's) is a little confusing. It would be 
improved with:


1. The error bars.
2. The power on the right y-axis starting at zero.


Good ideas Jed.
Done.
Let me know if that helps clarify.

s 

Re: [Vo]:SRI Experiment HH

[Jed Rothwell]

Robin van Spaandonk wrote:


> It looks to me like they may have a systematic error of +1 ppb. Therefore I
> would be inclined to subtract that from all measured values.
>

1 ppb is at the limits of detection as it says in the document. Obviously
these results are very noisy.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:SRI Experiment HH

[Jed Rothwell]

Regarding the graphs here:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/SRI-Expt-HH/SRI-Experiment-HH.shtml


With data from this document, pdf p. 165:

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/1998epri/TR-107843-V1.PDF

I don't see any problem or confusion with this. Maybe I am missing
something. The bottom graph (Krivit's) is a little confusing. It would be
improved with:

1. The error bars.
2. The power on the right y-axis starting at zero.

With the power starting at zero it is apparent that the power is almost the
same in every case, and the helium fluctuates from 1 (or possibly 0) to 3.5.
It only starts to correlate with the heat in the last, highest power level.
The text on p. 166 explains why. It seems clear to me:

"These results while not always showing helium with the appearance of excess
power, in NOT CASE show helium in the ABSENCE of excess power. Thus
artifacts such as from air inleakage are not observed within the limits of
He-4 detection of 1 ppb by volume. The absence of helium in 3 of the 5
samplings with the palladium alloy deserve some comment.

The appearance of helium in the vapor phase of the cell implies a reaction
at or extremely near the cathode surface. If not right at the surface, the
absence of microcracks could be expected to trap produced helium in the
metal phase. It has been observed that the alloy of Pd*Ce*Sm exhibits far
fewer microcracks than the nominally pure palladium of the two Englehardt
batches studied here. Hence depending upon the active cathode regions
juxtaposition relative to microcracks could determine capture or release of
the helium produced . . ."

In other words it is so close to the noise it is more of a presence or
absence test than anything else, and the likely reason why the helium is
all-but-absent in some cases is clear. It is trapped in the palladium. In
other studies they went to great lengths to release it from the palladium,
by dissolving the metal for example, and they usually recovered the expected
amount.

This is not a study of cumulative helium like the Case cell. Based on Miles,
my guess is that for this technique to produce a clear correlation you need
100 or 200 mW. Otherwise it is just a presence or absence test.

The absolute amounts are so small that contamination from the atmosphere is
ruled out, as Miles often points out. It would be far above this level.



(Note: You cannot copy the text directly from the EPRI copy of TR-107843. It
comes out garbled. I'll fix that tomorrow.)

- Jed

Re: [Vo]:SRI Experiment HH

[mixent]

In reply to  Steven Krivit's message of Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:51:23 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
>http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/SRI-Expt-HH/SRI-Experiment-HH.shtml
>
>Vorts,
>
>I have deliberately not provided any explanation, analysis or interpretation.
>
>Instead, I'd like to hear your thoughts first.
>
>In particular, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the graph drawn by McKubre 
>as compared to the graph I drew.
>
>I'd also like to hear your thoughts and analyses on the green and blue lines.
>
>Steve

It looks to me like they may have a systematic error of +1 ppb. Therefore I
would be inclined to subtract that from all measured values.
(or perhaps they had a digital readout which couldn't decide whether to indicate
a 0 or a 1).
Were they taking measurements at the limit of the capability of their equipment?

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html

[Vo]:SRI Experiment HH

[Steven Krivit]

http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/SRI-Expt-HH/SRI-Experiment-HH.shtml

Vorts,

I have deliberately not provided any explanation, analysis or interpretation.

Instead, I'd like to hear your thoughts first.

In particular, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the graph drawn by McKubre 
as compared to the graph I drew.


I'd also like to hear your thoughts and analyses on the green and blue lines.

Steve