MFMP's instrumentation error is currently of about 10%. If they had excess heat in the last experiment it unfortunately was within the measurement error... What we need (considering keeping the current setup), then, is a high amount of excess heat.
Typically, nuclear reactions need a certain critical mass. In the Lugano report it is said that Rossi have loaded the reactor with about 1 gram of fuel (http://www.sifferkoll.se/.../2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf <http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf>). MFMP used 0.6 grams. Also, the inner diameter (ID) of the alumina tube used in the Lugano report was about 4 mm, while MFMP have used a tube with ID equal to 3.175 mm. I have suggested to them use more fuel and an alumina tube with ID = 3.9624 mm. They mentioned they are planning a new experiment with more fuel. Let's hope they find the right parameters, if there are any... Alberto. On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Alberto De Souza < > [email protected]> wrote: > > It is important to note, though, that this offset was not observed during >> this initial test. >> > > Perhaps obvious to electrical engineers that this kind of thing can > happen. But an excellent lesson for those of us coming up to speed on > scientific instrumentation and measurement. Seems the scales need to be > tared from time to time. I suppose it would have been obvious that there > was artifact had the temperature been systematically lower the second time > around. > > I think of an error that is in one's favor as a "banker's error." If one > discovers the balance in one's bank account is too low, one is likely to > complain to the bank. If one discovers the balance is higher than it > should be, there is less incentive to complain. > > Eric > >
