Ed, I'm attacking a different problem: Cost. Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant degree.
Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key. On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected]>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? >> >> >> > >
