So far, I do not detect any significant excess heating, but that will come later with the proper loading I hope.
Sorry about the insane grammar. My solution to the differential equation follows a curve in time that very nearly matches that of the real life cell. I take the difference between the two and plot that as the error which only displays noise since the transients are balanced out. I was referring to the fact that the underlying transient responses do not show up in the error (noise) plot. The transients are typically greater than 20 degrees C for a typical power step while the noise being displayed over time is generally less than +/- .5 degrees. This is a very neat way to view the noise without the large curve. I realize that my latest attempt might not be better than the last, so let me know if this post helps answer your questions. I should mention that I now apply a simple digital filter to the raw noise described above. The process dramatically reduces the spikes in noise to reveal the low frequency components very well. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Jan 3, 2013 5:35 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Simulation of Celani Replication by MFMP David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: On many tests, I find it difficult to detect an indication of the underlying transient curve that is many times greater than the noise surrounding the ideal response. Say again? I don't quite follow your conclusion. Your grammar is a little convoluted in this paragraph. I think you mean that the results follow theory closely and there is no indication of anomalous heat. Right? - Jed
