I appreciate the analysis Haiko did of the data I list in my book.
Before too much effort is spent on deciding what the power law Haiko
found means, we should consider several facts.
The values I listed are the maximum excess energy reported by each
listed study. This energy is based on a variety of temperatures of the
cathode, applied current density, simple size, and amount of NAE that
might have formed on the sample. Each of these variables is known to
affect the amount of excess energy produced. Therefore, the data do
not describe the same conditions. When a power law is applied, the
same conditions are assumed to exist. For example, if a phase
transition is being examined, the transition is always between the
same two phases. Instead, the CF reaction is occurring under a
variety of conditions.
Nevertheless, the data appear to fit a power law. What can this mean
when these considerations are applied? I would like to suggest the
relationship means nothing. I suggest the same relationship could be
obtained by plotting many conditions in nature. For example, I expect
the same relationship can be obtained by plotting the number of
gasoline engines in service vs their horse power. Many small engines
would be found to exist and the number would drop as the size
increased. A few spikes might exist in the relationship at the popular
sizes. Such a relationship, although interesting, gives no basic
understanding about how gasoline engines work or why the different
sizes were created.
The challenge no longer is to prove CF is real, which was the intent
behind making this list. The challenge now is to discover the
characteristics of the NAE. I don't think this relationship gives any
insight about how this can be done or how the NAE behaves under
various conditions.
Ed
On Oct 25, 2008, at 2:05 AM, Haiko Lietz wrote:
Dear colleagues,
I've taken a closer look at the 157 excess heat experiments
collected by
Ed Storms in his 2007 book. The collective body of experiments
represents 1/f noise: many small events, few large ones. Kozima et al.
have found the same result for individual experiments. Now I want to
discuss the meaning of it. A short description of my analysis and my
questions are here:
http://complexity.haikolietz.de/?p=38
The website is public, so you may forward this to anyone who might
have
something to contribute (or let me know who). This is a rather new
type
of analysis and I hope to tap the "wisdom of the crows."
We can discuss this here on the list.
Many thanks
Haiko
--
Haiko Lietz
Science Reporter & Sociologist
complexity.haikolietz.de
www.haikolietz.de
Germany
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "CMNS" group.
To post to this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cmns?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
