Craig <[email protected]> wrote:
> The original poster at MFM clarified this when he said that the > amplitude of T_GlassOut had changed. It wasn't the cycle that was no > longer correlated, but rather the amplitude was much different. > Ah, I see. My hunch is that the cell is exposed to random currents of ambient air, and sometimes it is cooled more than other times. Maybe not though, because this would show up during calibration. Anyway, regarding the original problem with the sensor on the inside of the glass, I am pretty sure all sensors move up and down in lockstep during calibration. When you add 5 W to the power, they all go to a higher temperature. (I would check the curve for the inner sensor but I have a rotten cold and I am not firing on all cylinders at the moment.) With Miles' calorimeter, where he measures temperature at the wall in several locations, the sensors remain with 0.001 deg C of one another, as I recall. The inner portion of the cell is wrapped in a copper sheet, which conducts heat evenly. 2 or 3 sensor are attached to the outside of the sheet. There is another boundary between the sensors and the outside. See p. 55: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MilesManomalousea.pdf That, by golly, is how you build a calorimeter. I hate to be a wet blanket, but I am not impressed by these results or by the results from STmicroelectronics. Mastromatteo did not calibrate at the power level of the apparent excess heat. He calibrated up to 0.5 W and then got heat above that. I understand he did this because he only used the active wire, and he thinks the heat turns on at power levels and heating above 0.5 W. I get that. But it is still a half-assed method. Sorry, but it could just as easily be a non-linear response to input. You have to prove the instrument works. Granted, in most cases when an instrument is not linear, it produces a lower temperature in response to higher power, and this seems to be doing the opposite. It is strange, but without a proper calibration it means nothing. - Jed
