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 <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> 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
