When I said "To my knowledge, no one in history have yet presented an experiment showing significant excess heat side by side with its null hypothesis." I meant "To my knowledge, no one in history have yet presented an experiment showing large excess heat side by side with its null hypothesis."
On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 7:03 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > If I not remember wrong, Swartz had serial tests of nanors. > > > > > > On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 17:25:40 -0400, Alberto De Souza < > [email protected]> wrote: > > I mean "(very truthful, but we need two ammeters, therefore, problems with > skeptics)". > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Alberto De Souza < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> If we put the heaters in series, we are sure the current is the same in >> both. It is easy to measure the voltage on each one of them with a hand >> voltimeter. With current and voltage, we can compute the resistance of each >> one and the power each one is dissipating. >> >> Conversely, if we put them in parallel, the voltage is the same. But we >> have to measure the current on each one of them. One can do that with a >> series ammeter (very truthful, but we need to ammeters, therefore, problems >> with skeptics) or with a inductive one (not so much truthful because the >> measurement is indirect; problems with skeptics). I would go with the >> series circuit. One just need more voltage from the variac transformer to >> power two reactors. >> >> Alberto. >> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:06 PM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> The resistance of the two legs of the circuit components will change >>> as a function of temperature. Thus, if power input is to be the same or >>> even predictable, the resistances of the coils along their length as a >>> function of temperature should be known. This bit of information is not >>> trivial. >>> >>> Bob >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- >>> *From:* Axil Axil <[email protected]> >>> *To:* vortex-l <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Friday, March 20, 2015 1:57 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:fast LENR news about Parkhomov, etc., >>> Series and parallel circuits >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_and_parallel_circuits >>> In a series circuit, the current through each of the components is the >>> same, and the voltage <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage> across the >>> circuit is the sum of the voltages across each component.[1] >>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_and_parallel_circuits#cite_note-R.26H321-1> >>> In a parallel circuit, the voltage across each of the components is the >>> same, and the total current is the sum of the currents through each >>> component.[3] >>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_and_parallel_circuits#cite_note-R.26H324-3> >>> >>> We would also need to show that the current to the two reactors was the >>> same using two ammeters connected to the heater coil of each reactor. >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Would we not want to wire the reactors in parallel to avoid a voltage >>>> drop between the two reactors if they were connected in series? >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Alberto De Souza < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Alain, you are right in your analysis. A skeptic may point out all >>>>> the problems you have mentioned. But we have something new now: MFMP and >>>>> their live science approach. If they show (live) the complete process of >>>>> puting the two reactors in series and the reactor with fuel shows >>>>> significantly higher temperature for enough time, it is done. No skeptic >>>>> whining will be strong enough to change the tide. All big-funded >>>>> laboratories in world will try and replicate the results in the following >>>>> few days (all relevant data for replication will be in the Internet). MFMP >>>>> is doing everything right, and they are using the weapons of today - >>>>> immediate socialization of information. If they are successful in a >>>>> experiment as I have suggested, i.e. a live experiment with a clear null >>>>> hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis), they will >>>>> make history. >>>>> >>>>> To my knowledge, no one in history have yet presented an experiment >>>>> showing significant excess heat side by side with its null hypothesis. >>>>> Either the experimenters try to show excess heat with calorimetry (too >>>>> hard) or they do the experimental test and the null hyposthesis in >>>>> different moments and not taking proper care with the control variables. >>>>> >>>>> Alberto. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Alain Sepeda <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> hidden wire, RF supply, solar cell, can explain an apparent >>>>>> self-sustain. >>>>>> David have a good idea, that skeptic do the experiment themselves. >>>>>> some have done in their time and now they are here ;-) accused of >>>>>> fraud an delusion. >>>>>> moreover most skeptic refuse to experiment, and when experimenting >>>>>> have a tendency to reject any success and not to try long. >>>>>> It have to be easy. >>>>>> easy, with a theory, with a practical interest. >>>>>> I'm shocked today by the fact that most people instead of saying >>>>>> "it is unreal", say me "show me the reactor in home depot"... >>>>>> either a theory or an application. >>>>>> there is no room in Science for unexplained phenomenon that are not >>>>>> on the market. >>>>>> >>>>>> 2015-03-20 16:50 GMT+01:00 Daniel Rocha <[email protected]>: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Alain, all of these difficulties can be overcome by a self >>>>>>> sustained system. 3.2x system can vaporize, condense at certain hight, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> use the fall of water to generate power. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >> >
