And of course we might find that magnetic interaction causes unusual behavior.
Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> 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 amounts of carbon make itresistive. Iron wire is usually 4% carbon or up. This is an important point– if anyone has the numbers handy – please share. From:Jones Beene But Ed – platinum wire would not be resistive enough, wouldit? As you say – it might be wise to use very thin platinumonce; and thereby to compare to see if another kind of higher resistance wire(far cheaper) such as iron is also inert. From:Edmund Storms Dave, I'm glad you are keeping an eye on this measurement. Iagree, the small amount of apparent excess power revealed so far is notimportant because the uncertainty in the behavior of the calorimeter is notknown. Anyone doing calorimetry must first determine theuncertainty in the measurement using a known inert material. Acalibration with the potentially active material in place is not useful becausethe calibration heats the unknown, which might initiate excess energy. But, as Jones notes, what can we accept as inert wire? I think Pt is a good choice. This metal does not react with H2 and hasbeen shown to be inert in past studies. Once the calorimeter is testedwith Pt, other cheaper materials can be tested to see if they are inert. If found inert, these metals can then be used in future tests to avoidthe high cost of Pt. This study is so important that it MUST be donecorrectly and without compromise. This means spending time using an inertmaterial to reveal the strange behaviors that all calorimeters have. Until this has been done, no one has any reason to believe the results. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:25 AM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I reluctantly have to agree with you. I would love to havethat run as a reference, but just the taking apart of the unit to reinstall anew wire, or any changes whatsoever mess up the calibration. A true calorimeter that accurately captures the heat is the onlyabsolute way to determine the facts and that is what they are planning andbuilding now. Until that comes on line we have to do the best that wecan with the tools at our disposal. I consider the first order results that my program supplies to bea good indication, particularly since it matches the input power by curvefitting to within .2 watts out of 105.4 watts. Time domain variations tothe power output also are demonstrated with good accuracy as the temperature ofthe cell heads toward its steady state value. So, my program does a fairlygood job of working with static as well as dynamic change. It would takea very sneaky LENR behavior to escape entirely unless it was tiny in magnitudeor extremely long (many days) in lag. The possibility of excess power is always left open, but that dooris not very wide according to what has been observed in these tests. Thisis my result so far. Tomorrow, I am hoping that things will change towardthe other direction. I am confident that you are aware that I am seekingconfirmation of LENR activity. It is unusual for me to behave as askeptic. Dave -----OriginalMessage----- From: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Cc: Edmund Storms <[email protected]> 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 donea lot of calorimetry in my life. The ONLY way a calorimeter can be testedis to use it without any source of excess energy being present. That means youneed to run the calorimeter in the planned way with the Celani wire replaced byan inert wire of the same resistance. When you do this, you will quicklydiscover how the calorimeter behaves and what is required to achieve a null. Other people are suggesting the same method. As long as the Celaniwire is present, the results will be confused by the potential excess. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, David Roberson wrote: I am positive that two equal and opposite dummy signals wouldcancel each other out. Is that what you mean? Dave -----OriginalMessage----- From: Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> To: John Milstone <[email protected]> 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 dataand input that into the program and see if you can hide a positive, dummy,signal. 2013/2/7 David Roberson <[email protected]> If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity andthus a reading of zero excess power is a false negative, then the programdemonstrates that. It is my philosophy to let the results speak forthemselves regardless of the outcome. The program does that by fittingthe input power variable to the data for the best match. I have no way tochange this once it has been told to optimize unless I intentionally lock itsvalue for other purposes. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ [email protected]
