James, this is a bit too harsh. These guys are learning the best procedures and that takes a little time. Had the excess power been large as was expected, then it would not have required the degree of precision that you imply to achieve their goals.
Let the process continue to its conclusion and then give em hell if you are still dissatisfied. Dave -----Original Message----- From: James Bowery <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 1:24 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result Its hard to understand how anyone seriously interested in doing these experiments, after lo these 2+ decades of torturous discourse, could make such a fundamental mistake. Why are best calorimetric practices not so firmly established by now that virtually everyone with any degree of credibility agrees? On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]> wrote: 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]
