My questions, concerns and speculations about method arise because I find it baffling that your estimate and MFMP team's estimate of excess Power can be so different.
Harry On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 5:56 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > Harry, I use a blindfold when the data is being optimized. :-) The LMS > routine takes the raw data and makes my simulated curve match it. I do not > have any idea what the result will be and it could be either positive or > negative. An earlier calibration sets the rules that the data is compared > against. > > Most of the time I download the live data from the MFMP site and evaluate > one of the power steps. If there is a problem with the collection of the > data, then that shows up in such a way as to generate a visual flag which I > can review to determine why it is behaving in a strange manner. That is a > rare occurrence. > > How would you handle the evaluation in the absence of a calorimeter? Time > domain transient analysis is the best that I can do under the current > restrictions. I am open to suggestions provided they are possible to > achieve, but do keep in mind that I can only request special tests by the > MFMP group and I have no control over their decisions. > > I believe that it is preferable to do something instead of wait for someone > else to spoon feed me. I chose to post the results of my program runs to > ensure that the vortex group is aware of any progress. > > If you are serious about blind analysis being useful and not kidding then I > will answer. Of course it is important and is essentially conducted every > time I run a set of data through my program. Initially, I was expecting to > see positive results, but that is not what the program produced. Any new > data that I download might demonstrate either positive or negative excess > power since I do not have a clue about what will be found. I must admit > that after so many runs with no excess power being determined, I am becoming > biased toward that expectation, but I do not modify the way the program > operates to achieve that result. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 3:52 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: >> The questions that are being asked are important and the MFMP guys are >> working very hard to answer them. A number of additional measures have >> been >> taken at various times to root out unusual behavior and to improve the >> accuracy of the results. Everyone realizes how important this is to get >> right. >> >> One test that they ran last month was per a request I made that is quite >> similar to what is suggested by Jack. First the cell was stabilized with >> all of the power being applied to the test Celani wire. At a specific >> point >> in time, the power was quickly shifted to the heating wire which is NiCr. >> The input powers were matched to a close degree. I noted that the >> apparent >> excess power changed by about .4 watts if I recall. That actual value for >> this discussion is not important, but if you need I can look it up. The >> source of the difference was not determined at that time, but both wires >> were exposed to helium instead of hydrogen for that test. A vacuum and >> other attempts had been recently performed to remove any LENR activity >> that >> might be normally there. The details are written in a log on their site. >> >> This lack of power output correlation concerned me then and still does. >> There are numerous variables to contend with and it is apparent that >> control >> of the accuracy is not trivial. Everyone is getting a good education as >> to >> how difficult these tests are to confirm. >> >> Lately, I have been worried that the excess power being shown on their web >> site(~5 watts) with the current technique that they have been using to >> calculate it is far too large to be real. I do not want to see too many >> folks let down by reality when the calorimeter does is miracles. Another >> guy, Ascoli, used a technique to adjust their results that compensates for >> the density changes of the hydrogen. The final curve he determined >> matches >> my steady state program output closely. I use the outside glass >> temperature >> minus the ambient to calculate the instantaneous power which is more >> immune >> to changes within the cell such as gas density. Of course my program >> takes >> into account the delay associated with heating of the glass and monitor. >> >> The amount of direct hot wire generated IR that escapes through the glass >> envelop is a potential contributor to inaccuracy. If this drifts, then >> the >> power captured and monitored on the outer glass test point will vary. >> There >> has been evidence of this effect in the past when goop collected upon the >> test wires leading to changes in emissivity. That is the current theory I >> apply to calibration drift. Amazingly, the recent calibration factors >> appear to be holding well after many days of burn. >> >> This is a learning experience for all of us. Experimental science is a >> form >> of bondage! Does it ever get better? >> >> Dave > > > Doesn't S&M include blindfolds? ;-) > > Early you also said you believe in "letting the data speak for itself." > In that case, you should also be blind as to whether the data set contains > an expected positive or negative signal. In other words you should be > analysing > data sets without knowing what exactly is being tested in each set. > > Do you think in principle a blind analysis can be informative even > without calibration data? > One could choose any data set as their baseline and see how the data > sets *compare*. > > > Harry >
