James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust and 
that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice demonstration but 
it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job much better and 
give absolute values for power.  No need exists to reinvent. 

Ed Storms
On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote:

> If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control experiment 
> with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature difference 
> economically are vastly improved.  Basically you just integrate the voltage 
> out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated material 
> from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a small amount 
> of gas communication between the chambers for pressure equalization.  This is 
> not an expensive device.
> 
> 
> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right 
> size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will 
> not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to 
> detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active 
> sites.  However, these methods have not been used very often, probably 
> because the tools and skill are not common.
> 
>  Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear.  As a result, 
> production of LENR is unstable.  This makes the effect occur for brief times, 
> but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than a 
> random event. 
> 
> Ed Storms
> 
> On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at the 
>> require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, but 
>> getting the right size is the problem.
>> 
>> Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack 
>> sizes? 
>> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to