How can you tell whether these are falso positives and not false negatives?
2013/2/6 David Roberson <[email protected]> > 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. This is the same one that I have posted details on vortex with 4 > installments. The MFMP team was very gracious and performed a special > calibration run the day before this data began to accumulate allowing me to > obtain good solid calibration data. > > I waited for many days for a step in power that my program can analyze > with excellent accuracy but this has not occurred due to various reasons. > One good reason is that the team has been watching the excess power climb > upwards during that time frame when calculated using an internal monitor > point within their cell. This test point was chosen earlier by > observations of the cell behavior while I have concentrated upon the outer > glass monitor which I suspected is not as influenced by variables such as > hydrogen gas pressure and density. Until I actually performed the latest > program run, I assumed that the power might be climbing just as the others > since the temperature of the mica inside appeared to be ascending steadily. > Of course everyone is excited by the potentially positive results. > > The program run I just completed assumed a dummy transient step in > power. This should not constitute a problem, since the transient due to > the assumed step rapidly goes to zero as compared to the very large time > frame that the data spans. I adjusted the beginning point for the LMS > routine to exclude the false transient. I also found that the averaging TC > that calculates the delay was not working as it should due to the step > times being far larger than the delay, leading to instability. This was > not a problem since I am not interested in the rising edge of a dummy event. > > I obtained what I consider a null excess power calculation once the > program cranked out its results. The expected power output should equal > the input applied in the absence of internally generated power by the cell. > I registered this result with a respectable accuracy. My program claims > that the actual input power was about .2 watts lower than the applied power > of approximately 105.4 watts. On peaks of the output there might be > additional power of +.6 watts on rare occasions, but the overall average > during the test time frame is -.2 watts. Negative peaks were actually a > bit larger than the positive excursions. > > Please understand that I am not happy to report these results. I was > hoping to be able to state with a degree of certainty that excess power > generation by these cells is verified. That is actually what I assumed > that I would be writing about with this post. It would have been easier to > ignore my findings and just wait longer until more evidence has > accumulated, but I know everyone wants to have the naked raw facts placed > before them in a timely manner and thus this posting. > > I hope that my program will be found in error once the air flow > calorimeter comes into its own, but there is no assurance that this will > happen. So, I submit this information for you to consider and perhaps the > future will sort out the truth in this matter. > > I placed the following statement on the comment section of the MFMP site > to offer them feedback. This is one of those rare times when I hope to > have made a miscalculation. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > A dummy step run was just completed on the excess power from cell FC0103 > beginning just after the last power adjustment step 1/29/2013 at 5:00 > through the present time of 2/6/2013 13:45. I had to allow my program to > go through a dummy transient since there are no actual ones during this > time. > > I calculated the power using T_GlassOut minus Ambient temperature as > always. The calibration values are the same as those generated during the > recent special calibration. > > Unfortunately, I see an average match between the power input and the > calculated power to within .2 watts over this time frame. On rare peaks, > there may be a small amount of excess power(.6 watts ?), but the average is > zero(actually slight negative -.2 watts). > > The internal temperature monitor points may be subject to drift due to > gas density variations as others have suggested. > > I am reporting my findings even though the results do not match my > desires. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Reluctantly, > > Dave > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ [email protected]
