DJ Cravens <[email protected]> wrote:
> Jed -interesting comment- As I have told you before I have a seebeck that > is roughly 8 times as sensitive (based on V/watts) as Ed's and was made for > a series of NRL experiments. > That would be okay. But I think people might appreciate an instrument constructed and confirmed by someone else. > But you seem to keep harping on that and your money connections. > YOU keep harping on how old you are and how you can't pick up heavy equipment, and how unfair it is that people have not given you credit. You could have an army of grad students to do the (literal) heavy lifting. You can have credit, fame, and funding, or you can have your present noble, pure-hearted isolation from filthy lucre. But you can't have it both ways. > Again you seem stuck in the: everyone's experiments should be done to > prove the reality of CF and not to gather info for future applications. > You need to prove the reality of *your claim*, not the reality of CF. You need to do this for pragmatic reasons if you want to accomplish anything. I do not think you are not going to succeed on a shoestring. You have not made much progress lately as far as I can tell. You were talking about 1 W reactions many years ago. You may wish to know that a seebeck is nothing but a bunch of > thermoelectric chips and a volt meter (of no real load). > Nothing but? No, not in my opinion. A properly designed Seebeck is a lot more than that. It is also a stable background (perhaps with a water envelope), good internal geometry, proven ability to move the sample around without affecting the output much, well stirred internal air, and carefully selected thermoelectric chips that do not drift and that respond in a linear fashion. It is also carefully and repeatedly calibrated before and after the test, with all the data published so we can have confidence in it. If you have something like that you will impress your audience. - Jed
