Dave,
I'm glad you are keeping an eye on this measurement. I agree, the
small amount of apparent excess power revealed so far is not important
because the uncertainty in the behavior of the calorimeter is not
known. Anyone doing calorimetry must first determine the uncertainty
in the measurement using a known inert material. A calibration with
the potentially active material in place is not useful because the
calibration heats the unknown, which might initiate excess energy.
But, as Jones notes, what can we accept as inert wire? I think Pt is
a good choice. This metal does not react with H2 and has been shown to
be inert in past studies. Once the calorimeter is tested with Pt,
other cheaper materials can be tested to see if they are inert. If
found inert, these metals can then be used in future tests to avoid
the high cost of Pt.
This study is so important that it MUST be done correctly and without
compromise. This means spending time using an inert material to
reveal the strange behaviors that all calorimeters have. Until this
has been done, no one has any reason to believe the results.
Ed
On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:25 AM, David Roberson wrote:
Ed,
I reluctantly have to agree with you. I would love to have that run
as a reference, but just the taking apart of the unit to reinstall a
new wire, or any changes whatsoever mess up the calibration.
A true calorimeter that accurately captures the heat is the only
absolute way to determine the facts and that is what they are
planning and building now. Until that comes on line we have to do
the best that we can with the tools at our disposal.
I consider the first order results that my program supplies to be a
good indication, particularly since it matches the input power by
curve fitting to within .2 watts out of 105.4 watts. Time domain
variations to the power output also are demonstrated with good
accuracy as the temperature of the cell heads toward its steady
state value. So, my program does a fairly good job of working with
static as well as dynamic change. It would take a very sneaky LENR
behavior to escape entirely unless it was tiny in magnitude or
extremely long (many days) in lag.
The possibility of excess power is always left open, but that door
is not very wide according to what has been observed in these
tests. This is my result so far. Tomorrow, I am hoping that things
will change toward the other direction. I am confident that you are
aware that I am seeking confirmation of LENR activity. It is
unusual for me to behave as a skeptic.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Edmund Storms <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Cc: Edmund Storms <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:55 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
David,
I have not been following your evaluation closely, but I have done a
lot of calorimetry in my life. The ONLY way a calorimeter can be
tested is to use it without any source of excess energy being
present. That means you need to run the calorimeter in the planned
way with the Celani wire replaced by an inert wire of the same
resistance. When you do this, you will quickly discover how the
calorimeter behaves and what is required to achieve a null. Other
people are suggesting the same method. As long as the Celani wire
is present, the results will be confused by the potential excess.
Ed
On Feb 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, David Roberson wrote:
I am positive that two equal and opposite dummy signals would
cancel each other out. Is that what you mean?
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Rocha <[email protected]>
To: John Milstone <[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:37 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
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]
