That is a good idea. It would show whether a particular method analsysis can reveal or mask a positive signal.
Harry On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Jack Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > Seems to me like they could do something like that with a calibration run. > Heat with the inactive wire, then put 10watts through the active wire. It > should then show up as 10W excess if they leave that power input out of the > calculation. Just to demonstrate that the method is working conceptually. > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Daniel Rocha <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy, a fake data and >> input that into the program and see if you can hide a positive, dummy, >> signal. >> >> >> 2013/2/7 David Roberson <[email protected]> >>> >>> If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity and thus a >>> reading of zero excess power is a false negative, then the program >>> demonstrates that. It is my philosophy to let the results speak for >>> themselves regardless of the outcome. The program does that by fitting the >>> input power variable to the data for the best match. I have no way to >>> change this once it has been told to optimize unless I intentionally lock >>> its value for other purposes. >> >> -- >> Daniel Rocha - RJ >> [email protected] > >
