I'm asking the question in all sincerity and without finger-pointing, let alone malice toward anyone.
The absence of widely-publicized and accepted best practices for LENR calorimetry points out a serious need. On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:37 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] >> >> >> >
