is enough to be a concern, but appears to generate
much less error for me than for people using one of the internal sensors.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder
To: vortex-l
Sent: Sun, Feb 17, 2013 1:08 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Is it because you use
ey can test that by adding back additional
> hydrogen pressure. So far that has not been done, so we all await
> patiently.
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Harry Veeder
> To: vortex-l
> Sent: Sun, Feb 10, 2013 10:17 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Nu
10:17 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
My questions, concerns and speculations about method arise because I
find it baffling
that your estimate and MFMP team's estimate of excess Power can be so different.
Harry
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:56 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> Harry,
ard that expectation, but I do not modify the way the program
> operates to achieve that result.
>
> Dave
>
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: Harry Veeder
> To: vortex-l
> Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 3:52 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
>
> On Thu, Feb 7, 201
t that after so many runs with no excess power being
> determined, I am becoming biased toward that expectation, but I do not
> modify the way the program operates to achieve that result.
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Harry Veeder
> To: vortex-l
operates to achieve
that result.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 3:52 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> The questions that are being asked are important and the MFMP g
Harry Veeder wrote:
> This is a learning experience for all of us. Experimental science is a
> form
> > of bondage! Does it ever get better?
> >
> > Dave
>
>
> Doesn't S&M include blindfolds? ;-)
>
Hence the Double Blind experiment, beloved of biologists. They also get off
on torturing mice, f
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM, David Roberson wrote:
> The questions that are being asked are important and the MFMP guys are
> working very hard to answer them. A number of additional measures have been
> taken at various times to root out unusual behavior and to improve the
> accuracy of the r
Jones Beene wrote:
Awkshully - there could a small bit of "justified" finger-pointing - but
> not towards MFMP - towards Celani himself.
If it turns out to be wrong, he has been sloppy. In Korea, McKubre and
others said they thought his calorimetry was totally inadequate.
To wit - Celani told
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha
To: John Milstone
Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:37 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy
James Bowery wrote:
>
> Why are best calorimetric practices not so firmly established by now that
> virtually everyone with any degree of credibility agrees?
>
To some extent it is because no single calorimeter type works for every
kind of experiment. You have to look at the operating temperatur
other out. Is that what you mean?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha
To: John Milstone
Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:37 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy, a fake data
and input that into the program and see if you can h
lusion and then give em hell if you
> are still dissatisfied.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: James Bowery
> To: vortex-l
> Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 1:24 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
>
> Its hard to understand how anyone serio
conclusion and then give em hell if you are
still dissatisfied.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: James Bowery
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 1:24 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Its hard to understand how anyone seriously interested in doing these
experiments, after lo these 2
that what you mean?
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Rocha
> To: John Milstone
> Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:37 am
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
>
> No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy, a fake data and
> input tha
Celani suggests that one day the LENR will begin to
dominate the results and that should be trivial to determine. My program would
yell that out.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 1:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
David
And of course we might find that magnetic interaction causes unusual behavior.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jones Beene
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 12:15 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
I should add that pure ironitself can be very conductive – but even modest
David Roberson wrote:
>
> I reluctantly have to agree with you. I would love to have that run as a
> reference, but just the taking apart of the unit to reinstall a new wire,
> or any changes whatsoever mess up the calibration.
>
This happens to some extent with most calorimeters. Ed and others
experience for all of us. Experimental science is a form of
bondage! Does it ever get better?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 11:55 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Jack C
ction. I am confident that you are aware that I am seeking
confirmation of LENR activity. It is unusual for me to behave as a skeptic.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Edmund Storms
To: vortex-l
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:55 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
55 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
David,
I have not been following your evaluation closely, but I have done a lot of
calorimetry in my life. The ONLY way a calorimeter can be tested is to use
it without any source of excess energy being present. That means you need to
run the calorimeter i
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
> Jack Cole wrote:
>
>> Seems to me like they could do something like that with a calibration run.
>> Heat with the inactive wire, then put 10watts through the active wire. It
>> should then show up as 10W excess if they leave that power input
tex-l
Cc: Edmund Storms
Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:55 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
David,
I have not been following your evaluation closely, but I have done a
lot of calorimetry in my life. The ONLY way a calorimeter can be
tested is to use it without any source of excess energy
That is a good idea. It would show whether a particular method
analsysis can reveal or mask a positive signal.
Harry
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Jack Cole wrote:
> Seems to me like they could do something like that with a calibration run.
> Heat with the inactive wire, then put 10watts thro
It should be added that a stainless steel wire may not be inert.
Depending on the alloy, the wire can contain substantial nickel content -
and also molybdenum - which is the best Mills' catalyst (in terms of most
exact Rydberg fit).
As to what kind of wire (of moderately high resistance sim
Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:55 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
David,
I have not been following your evaluation closely, but I have done a lot of
calorimetry in my life. The ONLY way a calorimeter can be tested is to use it
without any source of excess energy being present. That means you
now both of
us have the proper tools to evaluate the real data. I just hope I find support
for LENR activity soon to help repay their great contributions.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Jack Cole
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:47 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Seems
Edmund Storms wrote:
>
> The ONLY way a calorimeter can be tested is to use it without any source
> of excess energy being present. That means you need to run the calorimeter
> in the planned way with the Celani wire replaced by an inert wire of the
> same resistance.
>
And, unfortunately, Celan
Jack Cole wrote:
Seems to me like they could do something like that with a calibration run.
> Heat with the inactive wire, then put 10watts through the active wire. It
> should then show up as 10W excess if they leave that power input out of the
> calculation.
>
That's what calibrations are fo
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy, a fake data
and input that into the program and see if you can hide a positive,
dummy, signal.
2013/2/7 David Roberson
If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity and thus a
reading of zero
Seems to me like they could do something like that with a calibration run.
Heat with the inactive wire, then put 10watts through the active wire. It
should then show up as 10W excess if they leave that power input out of the
calculation. Just to demonstrate that the method is working conceptuall
test
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
I wish I knew how to answer this line of inquiry. If you are suggesting that
there should be LENR activity and thus a
I am positive that two equal and opposite dummy signals would cancel each other
out. Is that what you mean?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha
To: John Milstone
Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:37 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
No, what I mean is that you could try to
No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy, a fake data and
input that into the program and see if you can hide a positive, dummy,
signal.
2013/2/7 David Roberson
> If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity and thus a
> reading of zero excess power is a false negative
program runs so far I come to the
conclusion that there is no significant excess power being displayed. Label me
a skeptic, but I very much want to see positive results.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha
To: John Milstone
Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 5:53 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP
David Roberson wrote:
I realize that you were just using the sine wave process as an example. I
> pointed out that the time period spanned by the data is important to help
> catch issues of this nature. I acknowledge that it is possible for a very
> long delayed effect to come into play during
Why not doing both? You refer to true positives, that is, a signal actually
being measured. So, why not a false negative, that is, something that
should be there but it isn't.
2013/2/6 David Roberson
> If it does not show up, how could it be measured? [image: :-)]
>
> --
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danie
Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 1:49 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
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
, so things might start looking more reasonable if more can be
obtained. The latest I read is that the multi layer wire might not be
available. The saga continues.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Eric Walker
To: vortex-l
Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 12:07 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null
attempt myself.
>
> Perhaps I do not make a very good skeptic. [image: ;-)]
>
> Dave
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Harry Veeder
> To: vortex-l
> Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 2:35 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
>
> Suppose someone asks you to
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:57 AM, David Roberson wrote:
You mention one of the situations that I have a bit of concern about. The
> curve fit is achieved by using the internal curve fitting routine of Excel
> in its X-Y chart menu. I am fortunate that it is a quadratic equation that
> is require
effects or long term effects depending upon my expectations.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha
To: John Milstone
Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 3:36 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Can't you simulate a few types of dummy systems with extra heat where the extra
heat
Can't you simulate a few types of dummy systems with extra heat where the
extra heat would not show?
2013/2/6 David Roberson
> That is what should be showing up as time progresses. If the calibration
> values are determined by the faster acting phenomena, then a set of values
> is obtained tha
]: MFMP Null Result
What if excess heat a slow igniting process with very soft variations? And
where higher order correction are important but they are distilled by hours?
Say, the effect of excess power follows a slow accumulation of some "potential"
with the subsequen slow relea
>
>> By all means Dan. I hope that the calorimeter shows excess power, but I
>> would not be surprised to see otherwise after reviewing the data.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Daniel Rocha
>> To: John Milstone
>
Daniel Rocha
> To: John Milstone
> Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 2:39 pm
> Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
>
> I guess you did not understand the question or I don't know how to
> express myself well. Either way, let's wait to see the flow calorimetry.
>
>
> 2013/2/6 J
By all means Dan. I hope that the calorimeter shows excess power, but I would
not be surprised to see otherwise after reviewing the data.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rocha
To: John Milstone
Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 2:39 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
I guess you
skeptic.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Harry Veeder
To: vortex-l
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
What if excess heat a slow igniting process with very soft variations? And
where higher order correction are important but they are distilled by
hours?
Say, the effect of excess power follows a slow accumulation of some
"potential" with the subsequen slow release of this potential?
2013/2/6 Davi
6, 2013 1:55 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
That was not my question. I want to know if he is also fitting excess heat with
his curve and thus giving false negatives.
2013/2/6 Jed Rothwell
Daniel Rocha wrote:
How can you tell whether these are falso positives and not false
I guess you did not understand the question or I don't know how to express
myself well. Either way, let's wait to see the flow calorimetry.
2013/2/6 Jed Rothwell
> Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
>
>> That was not my question. I want to know if he is also fitting excess
>> heat with his curve and thus g
Daniel Rocha wrote:
> That was not my question. I want to know if he is also fitting excess heat
> with his curve and thus giving false negatives.
>
I am saying I think it is just a slight instrument bias.
Anyway, even if it is 0.6 W positive, that is not significant.
- Jed
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
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Jed Rothwell
That was not my question. I want to know if he is also fitting excess heat
with his curve and thus giving false negatives.
2013/2/6 Jed Rothwell
> Daniel Rocha wrote:
>
> How can you tell whether these are falso positives and not false negatives?
>>
>
> 0.2 to 0.6 W with this system is zero. N
Daniel Rocha wrote:
How can you tell whether these are falso positives and not false negatives?
>
0.2 to 0.6 W with this system is zero. Not positive or negative. That is
within the noise.
As I said before, no instrument can produce exactly zero.
- Jed
How can you tell whether these are falso positives and not false negatives?
2013/2/6 David Roberson
> I just completed a long time frame program test run for the recent
> downloaded data for one of the Celani cells. I am using the time domain
> curve fit program that I developed recently that
I just completed a long time frame program test run for the recent downloaded
data for one of the Celani cells. I am using the time domain curve fit program
that I developed recently that uses the solution for a non linear differential
equation describing the behavior of these types of cells.
57 matches
Mail list logo
