May people have made this comment. Some, like Jed, directly to
Rossi. Use of experimental controls is such a basic science concept
it is taught in grade school science. Still, Rossi rejects the
approach.
I've made similar statements about controls myself:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg50706.html
"Meaningful data can be obtained through the performance of well
calibrated, and preferably dual method, calorimetry on the device, as
a black box, that establishes a complete energy balance for each run.
Use of control runs is also a standard method, and useful for
calibrating the calorimetry. A thermal pulse method is also a useful
check on calorimetry functions during run times. Anything less than
this kind of professional calorimetry can not be relied upon. Anyone
who has actually done calorimetry is keenly aware of the difficulty
of getting it right."
The format of the data spread sheet I provided is useful to evaluate
control runs:
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/Rossi6Oct2011.pdf
You run the experiment protocol, and fix problems, until the control
run COP is 1. Then when you run live you know a COP not 1 is a sign
of excess energy. Without a control run, the data is meaningless.
Calorimetry is subject to many kinds of artifacts - about as many as
there are specific calorimeters.
On Oct 10, 2011, at 10:36 AM, Joe Catania wrote:
I made nearly the same post about a week ago.
----- Original Message ----- From: "OrionWorks - Steven V Johnson"
<[email protected]>
To: "vortex-l" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 1:14 PM
Subject: [Vo]:No Control
I'm reminded of something recently stated over at the PESN web site,
author, Hank Mills:
See:
http://pesn.com/2011/10/08/9501929_E-
Cat_Test_Validates_Cold_Fusion_Despite_Challenges/
http://tinyurl.com/6a7zcw2
Specifically:
No Control
One of the most useful tools in the scientific method is a
control. A control is an object or thing that you do not try
to change during the experiment. For example, if you were
giving an experimental drug to a hundred people, you might
want to have a number of additional people who do not receive
the drug. You would compare how the drug effects the people
who consumed it, to those who did not receive the drug at all.
By comparing the two sets of people, those who consumed the
drug and those who did not, you could more easily see the
effectiveness of the drug -- or if it was doing harm.
In Rossi's test, a control system would have been an E-Cat
module that was setup in the exact same way, except it would
have not been filled with hydrogen gas. It would have had the
same flow of water going through it, the same electrical
input, and it would have operated for the same length of time
as the E-Cat unit with hydrogen. By comparing the two, you
could easily see the difference between the "control" E-Cat
(that was not having nuclear reactions take place), and the
"real" E-Cat (that was producing excess heat).
If a control had been used in the experiment, the excess
heat would be even more obvious. It would have been so
obvious, that it could have made the test go from a major
success (with some flaws), to the most spectacular scientific
test in the last hundred years.
Couldn't agree more. Hope someone suggests this to Rossi.
Regards
Steven Vincent Johnson
www.OrionWorks.com
www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
