Re: [Vo]:Near earth asteroid info
Wouldn't blowing up an asteroid merely create a lot of smaller pieces raining down on earth, with only a few deflected into non-collision paths. Maybe a better solution would be a space tug, which would go out, hook up the asteroid and begin tugging it out of the collision trajectory. Another matter to consider is just what constitute a non-collision. Could a football field-sized asteroid zip past at a huge speed, say, 50 miles away from earth (technically, still in "space") and have no damaging effect on human beings, or on our infrastructure, or on other species? Cheers, Lawry On Feb 7, 2013, at 10:28 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > I have read that it would be difficult to stop rocks with nuclear bombs. It > is not practical to fly the bomb at the thing and detonate it the moment they > are close, with a proximity fuse. Large, heavy objects often survived above > ground nuclear explosions intact. > > I think no matter what technique you use, you have to land on the rock and > then deploy something. If you have plenty of time -- several years let us say > -- might as well deploy a bucket of paint or a small laser as a nuclear bomb. > It does not take much to change the trajectory. Most of these objects are not > big. I think the big ones are all detected and accounted for. > > The acute danger is one showing up weeks or months before impact. Perhaps a > "hail Mary" nuclear bomb might stop it. I think you would have to land on it, > dig a hole, and then use the bomb. That would make the rock resemble a > nuclear bomb powered "Orion" rocket. Landing and deploying a bomb in this > manner sounds impossible without a human crew, but the robot explorers on > Mars have remarkable abilities. Perhaps in a generation they will be capable > of this. > > - Jed >
Re: [Vo]:Mayans and Near Earth Asteroid
Actually, I think they actually foresaw the US fiscal cliff, which really reached crisis proportions on exactly December 12, 2012..., uh, or was that Dec 21, 2012? On Feb 7, 2013, at 7:21 PM, Ron Kita wrote: > Vortex-l, > > Did the Mayans forsee the Feb 15th asteroid and merely miscalculate? > > Ron Kita
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Chuck Sites wrote: Heartland is funded by Koch, and other deep pocket anonymous donors. I have to give them some credit -- tactically speaking, they are quite effective at mobilizing public opinion. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Near earth asteroid info
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Vorl Bek wrote: A 'spaceguard' of orbiting nukes, at varying distances from the > earth, at the orbit of the moon and much farther, would give us > the ability to meet the objects at a safe distance from earth. > I think this would be difficult to arrange for, in light of how challenging it has been for the US and NATO to obtain agreement on missile defense in Eastern Europe. I don't imagine any large country would be happy with powerful nuclear weapons in orbit. Eric
[Vo]:Re: subscribe
testing subscribe before I unsubscribe as hellokevin On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:43 PM, wrote: > You have added to the subscriber list of: > > vortex-l@eskimo.com > > the following mail address: > > kevmol...@gmail.com > > By default, copies of your own submissions will be returned. > > > KEEP A COPY OF THIS MESSAGE IN A SAFE PLACE. IT CONTAINS INSTRUCTIONS ON > HOW TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THE VORTEX-L DISCUSSION GROUP. > > This is an automated subscription mechanism. For your verification, a > transcript of the original subscription request is attached below the > section on forum rules. > > If the wrong address has been subscribed and you seem to be unable to fix > it > yourself, reply to this message now (quoting it entirely (for diagnostic > purposes), and of course adding any comments you see fit). > > > * > WELCOME TO VORTEX-L > > * > > WARNING: AT LEAST READ THE RULES! > 1. $10/yr donation > 2. NO SNEERING > 3. KEEP MESSAGES UNDER 40K > 4. DON'T QUOTE ENTIRE MESSAGES NEEDLESSLY > 5. DON'T CC OTHER LIST SERVERS > 6. NO SPAMMERS > > The Vortex-L list was originally created for discussions of professional > research into fluid vortex/cavitation devices which exhibit anomalous > energy effects (ie: the inventions of Schaeffer, Huffman, Griggs, and > Potapov among others.) Skeptics beware, the topics also wander to any > anomalous physics such as "Cold Fusion," reports of excess energy in "free > energy" devices, chemical transmutation, gravity generation and detection, > and all sorts of supposedly crackpot claims. Please see the rules below. > This is a public, lightly-moderated list. Interested parties are welcome > to subscribe. PLEASE READ THE RULES BEFORE SUBSCRIBING. There is no > charge, but donations towards expenses are accepted (see rules below for > suggested donation.) > > Admin addr: vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com > > Mail addr: vortex-L@eskimo.com > > Webpage:http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/weird/wvort.html > > Moderator: bi...@eskimo.com > William J. Beaty > 6632 Corson Ave S > Seattle, WA 98108 > 206-543-6195 USA > > > * > Vortex-L subscription instructions: > > To subscribe, send a *blank* message to: >vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com > Put the single word "subscribe" in the subject line of the header. No > quotes around "subscribe," of course. You will get an automatic > greeting message in response. Once subscribed, send your email to > vortex-L@eskimo.com. > > Unsubscribe: > > To unsubscribe, send a blank message to vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com > with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject line. > > Vortex-L digest mode: > > If you prefer "digest" mode messages, collections of messages up to > 40K total or every 2 days, then subscribe to the vortex-digest > instead of to vortex-L. Send a blank message to: > vortex-digest-requ...@eskimo.com > Put the single word "subscribe" in the subject line of the header. > Vortex-L forwards each received message within minutes or hours of > receipt. Vortex-digest collects messages, then sends them as single > large chunks. Vortex-L and Vortex-digest are two separate lists. It is > possible to subscribe to one or the other, or both. > > Help: > To obtain a copy of this file, send a blank email with the word > "help" in the subject line. Send it to vortex-l-requ...@eskimo.com > > Address Changes: > > If your email address changes, you can email bi...@eskimo.com to fix > things. Or, you can simply send a "subscribe" command while using > your new account. When your old account is turned off, the vortex-L > bounce detector will unsubscribe it. If you still have access to > the older account address, you can unsubscribe yourself using > that address. > > * > > WARNING: THE "UNSUBSCRIBER" MIGHT GET YOU > > Vortex-L software contains a mechanism which might automatically > unsubscribe you. > > This will happen if your email address starts bouncing all vortex-L > email for several days. This is done in order to stop possible > email-loops, and to prevent the eskimo.com software from being > overwhelmed by email-bounce warning messages. > > When the Unsubscriber takes you off, it sends you a message explaining > its action. Unfortunately this message will usually bounce also. From > your viewpoint the message traffic from Vortex-L will suddenly cease. > > If the email server on your internet service has a habit of overloading > or crashing for several days at at time, you will probably encounter the > Unsubscriber. If vortex-L traffic seems to suddenly stop, or if your >
Re: [Vo]:Near earth asteroid info
I have read that it would be difficult to stop rocks with nuclear bombs. It is not practical to fly the bomb at the thing and detonate it the moment they are close, with a proximity fuse. Large, heavy objects often survived above ground nuclear explosions intact. I think no matter what technique you use, you have to land on the rock and then deploy something. If you have plenty of time -- several years let us say -- might as well deploy a bucket of paint or a small laser as a nuclear bomb. It does not take much to change the trajectory. Most of these objects are not big. I think the big ones are all detected and accounted for. The acute danger is one showing up weeks or months before impact. Perhaps a "hail Mary" nuclear bomb might stop it. I think you would have to land on it, dig a hole, and then use the bomb. That would make the rock resemble a nuclear bomb powered "Orion" rocket. Landing and deploying a bomb in this manner sounds impossible without a human crew, but the robot explorers on Mars have remarkable abilities. Perhaps in a generation they will be capable of this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
The current graphs of their live data are looking more interesting to me. I am viewing from 2/1 to 2/7. Cell 1.0 is approaching 8 watts excess (according to their calculation method). If the trend keeps going up with Cell 1.0, we could get to more convincing territory. On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:56 PM, David Roberson 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 > To: vortex-l > 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 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 > > tes
Re: [Vo]:Near earth asteroid info
I believe that the nuclear option is on the table. I think it would be easier to divert the asteroids by digging in the warhead under a large mass of material that can be expelled by the blast. The momentum given to the expelled mass would be matched by that transferred to the remaining asteroid. I visualize a large quantity of water located with the nuclear charge that can be vaporized at the time of the blast, giving a push to the mass that is expelled. I do not know if normal asteroid matter can be vaporized to the required degree, but If it can, leave the water home. Dave -Original Message- From: Vorl Bek To: vortex-l Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 6:52 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Near earth asteroid info If we have the ability to deflect large objects, we would probably have the ability simply to nuke them with a 20 megaton bomb and turn them into gravel (presumably). In fact, my vague impression is that we have that ability now or could have it within a decade. A 'spaceguard' of orbiting nukes, at varying distances from the earth, at the orbit of the moon and much farther, would give us the ability to meet the objects at a safe distance from earth. If they are intercepted at a distance far enough from the earth that the earth is, say, 1/1000th of the sphere of space around the object that it 'sees', then the gravel that hits earth would burn up in the atmosphere. Some satellites might be destroyed, but that would be a trade worth making. The scare-movies I have seen about large nukes portray them as having a fireball larger than Manhattan, so I assume they could make mincemeat out of a 1km-wide asteroid; but even if they left several large chunks, the chances of one of the chunks hitting that 1/1000th bit of of the asteroid's sphere would be miniscule. And why not have followup nukes to make smaller chunks out of the larger chunks? As Swift said: a Flea Hath smaller Fleas that on him prey, And these have smaller Fleas to bite 'em, And so proceed ad infinitum
Re: [Vo]:Near earth asteroid info
If we have the ability to deflect large objects, we would probably have the ability simply to nuke them with a 20 megaton bomb and turn them into gravel (presumably). In fact, my vague impression is that we have that ability now or could have it within a decade. A 'spaceguard' of orbiting nukes, at varying distances from the earth, at the orbit of the moon and much farther, would give us the ability to meet the objects at a safe distance from earth. If they are intercepted at a distance far enough from the earth that the earth is, say, 1/1000th of the sphere of space around the object that it 'sees', then the gravel that hits earth would burn up in the atmosphere. Some satellites might be destroyed, but that would be a trade worth making. The scare-movies I have seen about large nukes portray them as having a fireball larger than Manhattan, so I assume they could make mincemeat out of a 1km-wide asteroid; but even if they left several large chunks, the chances of one of the chunks hitting that 1/1000th bit of of the asteroid's sphere would be miniscule. And why not have followup nukes to make smaller chunks out of the larger chunks? As Swift said: a Flea Hath smaller Fleas that on him prey, And these have smaller Fleas to bite 'em, And so proceed ad infinitum
Re: [Vo]:Near earth asteroid info
David Roberson wrote: If this one was just discovered last February then how many more are > waiting on the sidelines? NASA and others are taking the problem seriously. See their Near-Earth Object Project: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/ http://www.spaceguarduk.com/ Part of the credit for this goes to our late friend Arthur Clarke. He coined the term "Spaceguard" I think, and lobbied for this effort. The first thing to do is to locate as many asteroids as possible. If we have sufficient time I think we can deflect even a large object. I think there is an upper limit to the likely size. I doubt that an object the size of Mt. Everest is likely to appear out of deep space. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Near earth asteroid info
That is scary! Now I know what it feels like to be just out of range of a mad shooter. I fear that one day he will get lucky and we will have a new problem to solve. If this one was just discovered last February then how many more are waiting on the sidelines? Yipes. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 4:20 pm Subject: [Vo]:Near earth asteroid info See: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/150-foot-asteroid-will-buzz-earth-next-week-no-need-to-duck-for-incredibly-close-approach/2013/02/07/29170cf6-715d-11e2-b3f3-b263d708ca37_story.html I don't know why this is in the Business section. Anyway, it is from the AP and it says: CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — An asteroid measuring 150 feet will zip past Earth next week. The megarock will pass within 17,000 miles of the planet — the closest known approach ever for an object of this size. But NASA scientists said Thursday there’s no reason to worry. They insist there is absolutely no chance of a collision next Friday. The asteroid — considered small — will come closer to Earth than many high-flying communication satellites. It will be visible through binoculars or telescopes as it zooms by at 17,400 mph. The best viewing location will be Indonesia. Other prime viewing spots are Eastern Europe, Asia and Australia. The asteroid was discovered last February. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
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 To: vortex-l 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 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 sh
[Vo]:Near earth asteroid info
See: http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/150-foot-asteroid-will-buzz-earth-next-week-no-need-to-duck-for-incredibly-close-approach/2013/02/07/29170cf6-715d-11e2-b3f3-b263d708ca37_story.html I don't know why this is in the Business section. Anyway, it is from the AP and it says: CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — An asteroid measuring 150 feet will zip past Earth next week. The megarock will pass within 17,000 miles of the planet — the closest known approach ever for an object of this size. But NASA scientists said Thursday there’s no reason to worry. They insist there is absolutely no chance of a collision next Friday. The asteroid — considered small — will come closer to Earth than many high-flying communication satellites. It will be visible through binoculars or telescopes as it zooms by at 17,400 mph. The best viewing location will be Indonesia. Other prime viewing spots are Eastern Europe, Asia and Australia. The asteroid was discovered last February. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Harry Veeder wrote: > 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? ;-) > Hence the Double Blind experiment, beloved of biologists. They also get off on torturing mice, fruit flies, and E. Coli. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
David and Fellow Vortexians. I have used a few Ad-homens to describe a class of people that have a stubborn contrary and confounding point of view with respect to anthropogenic global warming. For that I apologize and I will refrain from the short little quips and Ad-homens. For me, AGW is a hot button issue. It really bothers me when people are duped by anti-agw propaganda sites like wattsupwiththat. You do realize that Mr Watt is paid better than $90,000/year by the Heartland Institute to provide counter arguments to make the climate change debate look unsettled even if Mr. Watt just makes it up. Heartland is funded by Koch, and other deep pocket anonymous donors. The also fund ALEC and many other rightwing causes. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute Scroll down to find the link to Mr. Watt. Personally I don't like to be a tool or a fool of a dark money based propaganda machine. David, I've always enjoyed reading your comments. In science, I've changed my mind on a number of held beliefs. For example, an accelerating universe expansion took me a year before I could see that that data was correct and all of the cosmology I studied was relegated to junk. So maybe a good exchange of ideas will make someone see the light, or understand the science a little better. Best Regards, Chuck On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:51 AM, David Roberson wrote: > Chuck, I have reframed from entering this discussion because of the > emotions that become entangled. You should apologize for that comment > since it is out of order. What good would it do if people on the other > side directed the same type of attacks toward you? We recently went > through a long disgusting series of a similar nature and it resulted in > vortex being closed for a week and a couple of members being banned. Do > you want to see that happen again? > > Dave > > > -Original Message- > From: Chuck Sites > To: vortex-l > Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 2:02 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming > > The reality of AGW IS an no-brainer, and it IS the deniers that are plain > stupid. That is a fact jack. Tere are 2 scientist that say so against > your 5.Give it up deniers, you lost this debate in like 2009. > > Chuck > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:28 AM, Harry Veeder wrote: > >> The reality of AGM is often presented as a no-brainer and that deniers >> are just plain stupid. >> However, this shows that global warming is not transparently >> self-evident and that an additional level of >> analysis is required to tease out the proof. I personally think the >> climate scientists speak down to the lay public >> and this attitude fuels denialism. >> >>
RE: [Vo]:Bose-Einstein condensate created at room temperature
Looks like Y.E. Kim's BEC theory for LENR just got a leg up. Criticisms of his theory were that BECs couldn't form at higher temperatures. [PDF] Bose-Einstein Condensate Theory of Deuteron Fusion in Metal http://www.physics.purdue.edu/people/faculty/yekim/YEKim-AIP-PNMBTG.pdf File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View by YE Kim - Cited by 14 - Related articles where ψBEC is the Bose-Einstein condensate ground state (a coherent quantum . Third International Conference on Cold Fusion., October 21-25 Nagoya ... --- On Thu, 2/7/13, Jones Beene wrote: From: Jones Beene Subject: RE: [Vo]:Bose-Einstein condensate created at room temperature To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Date: Thursday, February 7, 2013, 11:12 AM Yes they can. In fact this could be important for LENR, should it be broad enough to include other boson quasiparticles, such as the magnon
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM, David Roberson 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
[Vo]:Billions of earth like plants exist
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/earth-like-planets-are-ri_n_2632324.html Its time for the journal editors to get of the way and start publishing articles on gravitomagnetic propulsion and cold fusion. Frank Z
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Jones Beene wrote: Awkshully - there could a small bit of "justified" finger-pointing - but > not towards MFMP - towards Celani himself. If it turns out to be wrong, he has been sloppy. In Korea, McKubre and others said they thought his calorimetry was totally inadequate. To wit - Celani told a number of observers "off-the-record" that he > had witnessed a period of self-power. Did he!? I don't recall that. He told me he wanted to make it self-powered. After the conference, he tried to do that, but failed. That gave me a bad feeling. Jim Dunn and others pointed out to me that it can be a challenge to do that for a variety of reasons, and the failure does not necessarily mean the heat does not exist. > That was reported on Vortex and elsewhere. > Do you remember who reported this? - Jed
RE: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Awkshully - there could a small bit of "justified" finger-pointing - but not towards MFMP - towards Celani himself. He will get over it, in the end. After all - he will get the lion's share of the credit, when this is finally replicated, but if it not replicated, then his exuberance in Texas and Korea are partly to blame for the widespread expectation that this is a robust phenomenon, when in fact it is probably NOT robust, and instead requires precision. To wit - Celani told a number of observers "off-the-record" that he had witnessed a period of self-power. That was reported on Vortex and elsewhere. He later retracted that statement. But whatever the truth of it turns out to be, the claim left a lingering expectation in the minds of those who wanted to replicate quickly. Since there is less need of great precision - if in fact the wire, once heated, can undergo a period of infinite COP - you cannot blame "cutting corners" on MFMP. Jones From: James Bowery 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. David Roberson 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 It's 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 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 To: John Milstone 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 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 danieldi...@gmail.com <>
RE: [Vo]:Bose-Einstein condensate created at room temperature
Yes they can. In fact this could be important for LENR, should it be broad enough to include other boson quasiparticles, such as the magnon. The definitions are similar: polaritons are quasiparticles resulting from strong coupling of electromagnetic waves with an electric or magnetic dipole-carrying excitation. The magnon could be imagined to be the subset of that - where the coupling is only magnetic. However, it may be only a partial subset with other features included. Polaritons describe the dispersion of light (photons) with an interacting phonon resonance; while the magnon would describe the dispersion of spin current with an interacting resonance. Using the same general terms, superconductivity where the Cooper pair is the boson, would describe the dispersion of charge within an interacting phonon resonance. (the last is my interpretation, which may not be correct). Thus we have a linking of three BEC phenomena which may happen either at room temperature or close- in the case of the RTSC. From: Axil Axil http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/bose-einstein-condensate-created-at-r oom-temperature/ Bose-Einstein condensate created at room temperature Can those interested in LENR draw any lessons from this formulation? Cheers:Axil
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
James Bowery wrote: > > Why are best calorimetric practices not so firmly established by now that > virtually everyone with any degree of credibility agrees? > To some extent it is because no single calorimeter type works for every kind of experiment. You have to look at the operating temperature, the size of the cold fusion device and the absolute power. A glow discharge experiment can only be done with some kind of bomb calorimeter, I think. I do not mean to apologize for sloppy work or for people who do not read the literature before doing experiments. A technique that is perfectly reliable and believable with one device may be useless with another. Rossi and the people who have tested his device independently use conventional, off-the-shelve HVAC tools, such as a shielded thermocouple and the kind of mechanical flow meter in millions of houses worldwide. Because Rossi gets so much heat, with such small input power, these instruments and techniques are perfect. In my opinion, you could not improve on them with a million dollars in high precision equipment. A conventional HVAC thermocouple measures to the nearest 0.1 deg C. I would not be one bit more convinced with one that measures to 0.001 deg C, like the ones McKubre uses. Some people strongly disagree with me about this. Rossi's problem is not the techniques he uses, or even the instruments. It is that he is sloppy. Unbelievably sloppy! I mean that literally: I do not believe he is actually that sloppy, I think he is trying to cover up his results and keep doubt alive. He could have made a few minor adjustments to any of the tests he did in 2011 and made the results so bullet-proof, and convincing, nearly everyone would believe him. For example, he had a 4-probe thermocouple that records on an SD-card. He used only 2 probes and he did not insert a card, so the readings are lost, except for ones written down at random times by poor, put-upon Lewan. If Rossi had lifted a finger to insert the other probes a short distance away in the outlet flow, and taken a moment to insert an SD card, his results would be FAR more convincing. Two minutes of effort. I told him to do this! I and others gave Rossi a list of things he should do to improve his demonstrations. He ignored us. He is a smart person. I assume he did a lousy job on purpose. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Good question, Jim. The reason is that people jump into what looks like an easy measurement to quickly see excess energy, which is the brass ring. They want to win the game without taking the time to master the skill. I did this 20 years ago as well. Fortunately, the excess I detected then was large, which easily exceeded my error. Over the years, trial and error have taught me lessons that I had not bother to learn at first. Calorimetry is part science and part art. It is unforgiving to mistake. Large amounts of heat are easy to measure but the small amounts being claimed are hard to detect, especially when power has to be applied to start the process. The reputation of LENR adds to the difficulty because the results will not be accepted unless they meet very high standards. I admire the people who are starting down this path, but I'm saddened by the time wasted in the process. But, I guess that what makes science at this level fun. We all hope to discover something new without too much investment. I know the joy of the process thanks to 23 years of effort looking at LENR while tying to do the same thing after 40 years of doing conventional science. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 11:24 AM, James Bowery wrote: 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 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 To: John Milstone 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 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 danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
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 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 > To: vortex-l > 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 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 >> To: John Milstone >> 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 >> >>> 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 >> danieldi...@gmail.com >> >> >> >
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
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 To: vortex-l 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 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 To: John Milstone 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 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 danieldi...@gmail.com
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 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 > To: John Milstone > 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 > >> 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 > danieldi...@gmail.com > > >
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
And these guys are planning to build devices that can be shipped to companies and other organizations as proof of LENR to get their attention. This will not work as long as it is this difficult to achieve performance that is beyond question. Jed has a valid point here. The earlier work by Celani suggests that one day the LENR will begin to dominate the results and that should be trivial to determine. My program would yell that out. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 1:09 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result David Roberson wrote: I reluctantly have to agree with you. I would love to have that run as a reference, but just the taking apart of the unit to reinstall a new wire, or any changes whatsoever mess up the calibration. This happens to some extent with most calorimeters. Ed and others have told me that when you take the lid off a Seebeck calorimeter, and then you put it back and bolt it down, the calibration constant comes out measurably different. If the excess heat is so small it might be brought into question because of effects like this, it is too small to believe. I have enormous respect for Ed, and McKubre, Miles, Fleischmann and others who have mastered calorimetry to such an extent they can detect these microscopic changes. I understand why they want extreme accuracy and precision. At the same time, I feel that if you cannot even detect the heat without that precision, I cannot trust it. High precision should be used to explore robust heat when it appears -- if it appears. It should not be used to confirm heat at the extreme low limits of detection. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
And of course we might find that magnetic interaction causes unusual behavior. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene To: vortex-l Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 12:15 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result I should add that pure ironitself can be very conductive – but even modest amounts of carbon make itresistive. Iron wire is usually 4% carbon or up. This is an important point– if anyone has the numbers handy – please share. From:Jones Beene But Ed – platinum wire would not be resistive enough, wouldit? As you say – it might be wise to use very thin platinumonce; and thereby to compare to see if another kind of higher resistance wire(far cheaper) such as iron is also inert. From:Edmund Storms Dave, I'm glad you are keeping an eye on this measurement. Iagree, the small amount of apparent excess power revealed so far is notimportant because the uncertainty in the behavior of the calorimeter is notknown. Anyone doing calorimetry must first determine theuncertainty in the measurement using a known inert material. Acalibration with the potentially active material in place is not useful becausethe calibration heats the unknown, which might initiate excess energy. But, as Jones notes, what can we accept as inert wire? I think Pt is a good choice. This metal does not react with H2 and hasbeen shown to be inert in past studies. Once the calorimeter is testedwith Pt, other cheaper materials can be tested to see if they are inert. If found inert, these metals can then be used in future tests to avoidthe high cost of Pt. This study is so important that it MUST be donecorrectly and without compromise. This means spending time using an inertmaterial to reveal the strange behaviors that all calorimeters have. Until this has been done, no one has any reason to believe the results. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:25 AM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I reluctantly have to agree with you. I would love to havethat run as a reference, but just the taking apart of the unit to reinstall anew wire, or any changes whatsoever mess up the calibration. A true calorimeter that accurately captures the heat is the onlyabsolute way to determine the facts and that is what they are planning andbuilding now. Until that comes on line we have to do the best that wecan with the tools at our disposal. I consider the first order results that my program supplies to bea good indication, particularly since it matches the input power by curvefitting to within .2 watts out of 105.4 watts. Time domain variations tothe power output also are demonstrated with good accuracy as the temperature ofthe cell heads toward its steady state value. So, my program does a fairlygood job of working with static as well as dynamic change. It would takea very sneaky LENR behavior to escape entirely unless it was tiny in magnitudeor extremely long (many days) in lag. The possibility of excess power is always left open, but that dooris not very wide according to what has been observed in these tests. Thisis my result so far. Tomorrow, I am hoping that things will change towardthe other direction. I am confident that you are aware that I am seekingconfirmation of LENR activity. It is unusual for me to behave as askeptic. Dave -OriginalMessage- From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result David, I have not been following your evaluation closely, but I have donea lot of calorimetry in my life. The ONLY way a calorimeter can be testedis to use it without any source of excess energy being present. That means youneed to run the calorimeter in the planned way with the Celani wire replaced byan inert wire of the same resistance. When you do this, you will quicklydiscover how the calorimeter behaves and what is required to achieve a null. Other people are suggesting the same method. As long as the Celaniwire 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 wouldcancel each other out. Is that what you mean? Dave -OriginalMessage- From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone 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 dataand input that into the program and see if you can hide a positive, dummy,signal. 2013/2/7 David Roberson If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity andthus a reading of zero excess power is a false negative, then the programdemonstrates that. It is my philosophy to let the results speak forthemselves regardless of the outcome. The program does that by fittingthe input power variable to the data for the best match. I have no way tochange this once it has been told to optimize unless
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
David Roberson wrote: > > I reluctantly have to agree with you. I would love to have that run as a > reference, but just the taking apart of the unit to reinstall a new wire, > or any changes whatsoever mess up the calibration. > This happens to some extent with most calorimeters. Ed and others have told me that when you take the lid off a Seebeck calorimeter, and then you put it back and bolt it down, the calibration constant comes out measurably different. If the excess heat is so small it might be brought into question because of effects like this, it is too small to believe. I have enormous respect for Ed, and McKubre, Miles, Fleischmann and others who have mastered calorimetry to such an extent they can detect these microscopic changes. I understand why they want extreme accuracy and precision. At the same time, I feel that if you cannot even detect the heat without that precision, I cannot trust it. High precision should be used to explore robust heat when it appears -- if it appears. It should not be used to confirm heat at the extreme low limits of detection. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
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 -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder To: vortex-l Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 11:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Jack Cole wrote: > >> Seems to me like they could do something like that with a calibration run. >> Heat with the inactive wire, then put 10watts through the active wire. It >> should then show up as 10W excess if they leave that power input out of the >> calculation. > > > That's what calibrations are for! > > That's what they are. > > - Jed Calibrations involve a method analysis. Daniel's point is that a method of analysis can be flawed if it generates a false positve signal OR if it masks a positive signal. The method analysis should be capable of detecting both a positive (desired) signal and a negative (null, undesired) signal. To test the method analsysis the system should be fed a "dummy" positive signal and "dummy" negative signal. Harry Harry
RE: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
I should add that pure iron itself can be very conductive - but even modest amounts of carbon make it resistive. Iron wire is usually 4% carbon or up. This is an important point - if anyone has the numbers handy - please share. From: Jones Beene But Ed - platinum wire would not be resistive enough, would it? As you say - it might be wise to use very thin platinum once; and thereby to compare to see if another kind of higher resistance wire (far cheaper) such as iron is also inert. From: Edmund Storms Dave, I'm glad you are keeping an eye on this measurement. I agree, the small amount of apparent excess power revealed so far is not important because the uncertainty in the behavior of the calorimeter is not known. Anyone doing calorimetry must first determine the uncertainty in the measurement using a known inert material. A calibration with the potentially active material in place is not useful because the calibration heats the unknown, which might initiate excess energy. But, as Jones notes, what can we accept as inert wire? I think Pt is a good choice. This metal does not react with H2 and has been shown to be inert in past studies. Once the calorimeter is tested with Pt, other cheaper materials can be tested to see if they are inert. If found inert, these metals can then be used in future tests to avoid the high cost of Pt. This study is so important that it MUST be done correctly and without compromise. This means spending time using an inert material to reveal the strange behaviors that all calorimeters have. Until this has been done, no one has any reason to believe the results. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:25 AM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I reluctantly have to agree with you. I would love to have that run as a reference, but just the taking apart of the unit to reinstall a new wire, or any changes whatsoever mess up the calibration. A true calorimeter that accurately captures the heat is the only absolute way to determine the facts and that is what they are planning and building now. Until that comes on line we have to do the best that we can with the tools at our disposal. I consider the first order results that my program supplies to be a good indication, particularly since it matches the input power by curve fitting to within .2 watts out of 105.4 watts. Time domain variations to the power output also are demonstrated with good accuracy as the temperature of the cell heads toward its steady state value. So, my program does a fairly good job of working with static as well as dynamic change. It would take a very sneaky LENR behavior to escape entirely unless it was tiny in magnitude or extremely long (many days) in lag. The possibility of excess power is always left open, but that door is not very wide according to what has been observed in these tests. This is my result so far. Tomorrow, I am hoping that things will change toward the other direction. I am confident that you are aware that I am seeking confirmation of LENR activity. It is unusual for me to behave as a skeptic. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result 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 To: John Milstone 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 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 danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
But Ed - platinum wire would not be resistive enough, would it? As you say - it might be wise to use very thin platinum once; and thereby to compare to see if another kind of higher resistance wire (far cheaper) such as iron is also inert. From: Edmund Storms Dave, I'm glad you are keeping an eye on this measurement. I agree, the small amount of apparent excess power revealed so far is not important because the uncertainty in the behavior of the calorimeter is not known. Anyone doing calorimetry must first determine the uncertainty in the measurement using a known inert material. A calibration with the potentially active material in place is not useful because the calibration heats the unknown, which might initiate excess energy. But, as Jones notes, what can we accept as inert wire? I think Pt is a good choice. This metal does not react with H2 and has been shown to be inert in past studies. Once the calorimeter is tested with Pt, other cheaper materials can be tested to see if they are inert. If found inert, these metals can then be used in future tests to avoid the high cost of Pt. This study is so important that it MUST be done correctly and without compromise. This means spending time using an inert material to reveal the strange behaviors that all calorimeters have. Until this has been done, no one has any reason to believe the results. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:25 AM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I reluctantly have to agree with you. I would love to have that run as a reference, but just the taking apart of the unit to reinstall a new wire, or any changes whatsoever mess up the calibration. A true calorimeter that accurately captures the heat is the only absolute way to determine the facts and that is what they are planning and building now. Until that comes on line we have to do the best that we can with the tools at our disposal. I consider the first order results that my program supplies to be a good indication, particularly since it matches the input power by curve fitting to within .2 watts out of 105.4 watts. Time domain variations to the power output also are demonstrated with good accuracy as the temperature of the cell heads toward its steady state value. So, my program does a fairly good job of working with static as well as dynamic change. It would take a very sneaky LENR behavior to escape entirely unless it was tiny in magnitude or extremely long (many days) in lag. The possibility of excess power is always left open, but that door is not very wide according to what has been observed in these tests. This is my result so far. Tomorrow, I am hoping that things will change toward the other direction. I am confident that you are aware that I am seeking confirmation of LENR activity. It is unusual for me to behave as a skeptic. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result 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 To: John Milstone 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 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 danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > Jack Cole wrote: > >> Seems to me like they could do something like that with a calibration run. >> Heat with the inactive wire, then put 10watts through the active wire. It >> should then show up as 10W excess if they leave that power input out of the >> calculation. > > > That's what calibrations are for! > > That's what they are. > > - Jed Calibrations involve a method analysis. Daniel's point is that a method of analysis can be flawed if it generates a false positve signal OR if it masks a positive signal. The method analysis should be capable of detecting both a positive (desired) signal and a negative (null, undesired) signal. To test the method analsysis the system should be fed a "dummy" positive signal and "dummy" negative signal. Harry Harry
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Dave, I'm glad you are keeping an eye on this measurement. I agree, the small amount of apparent excess power revealed so far is not important because the uncertainty in the behavior of the calorimeter is not known. Anyone doing calorimetry must first determine the uncertainty in the measurement using a known inert material. A calibration with the potentially active material in place is not useful because the calibration heats the unknown, which might initiate excess energy. But, as Jones notes, what can we accept as inert wire? I think Pt is a good choice. This metal does not react with H2 and has been shown to be inert in past studies. Once the calorimeter is tested with Pt, other cheaper materials can be tested to see if they are inert. If found inert, these metals can then be used in future tests to avoid the high cost of Pt. This study is so important that it MUST be done correctly and without compromise. This means spending time using an inert material to reveal the strange behaviors that all calorimeters have. Until this has been done, no one has any reason to believe the results. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:25 AM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I reluctantly have to agree with you. I would love to have that run as a reference, but just the taking apart of the unit to reinstall a new wire, or any changes whatsoever mess up the calibration. A true calorimeter that accurately captures the heat is the only absolute way to determine the facts and that is what they are planning and building now. Until that comes on line we have to do the best that we can with the tools at our disposal. I consider the first order results that my program supplies to be a good indication, particularly since it matches the input power by curve fitting to within .2 watts out of 105.4 watts. Time domain variations to the power output also are demonstrated with good accuracy as the temperature of the cell heads toward its steady state value. So, my program does a fairly good job of working with static as well as dynamic change. It would take a very sneaky LENR behavior to escape entirely unless it was tiny in magnitude or extremely long (many days) in lag. The possibility of excess power is always left open, but that door is not very wide according to what has been observed in these tests. This is my result so far. Tomorrow, I am hoping that things will change toward the other direction. I am confident that you are aware that I am seeking confirmation of LENR activity. It is unusual for me to behave as a skeptic. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result 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 To: John Milstone 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 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 danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
That is a good idea. It would show whether a particular method analsysis can reveal or mask a positive signal. Harry On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Jack Cole wrote: > Seems to me like they could do something like that with a calibration run. > Heat with the inactive wire, then put 10watts through the active wire. It > should then show up as 10W excess if they leave that power input out of the > calculation. Just to demonstrate that the method is working conceptually. > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: >> >> 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 >>> >>> 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 >> danieldi...@gmail.com > >
RE: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
It should be added that a stainless steel wire may not be inert. Depending on the alloy, the wire can contain substantial nickel content - and also molybdenum - which is the best Mills' catalyst (in terms of most exact Rydberg fit). As to what kind of wire (of moderately high resistance similar to Constantan) could be used as a control - and also be largely inert (at least with no substantial evidence in the literature) that would be an interesting question. Most of the transition metals have some association with putative gain, even iron. It would NOT be stainless of any kind due to the nickel content - and the expensive choices would be vanadium, niobium, tantalum. And even those are not absent from the literature. However, among cheap metal wire - carbon steel wire with no nickel would probably be less likely to show intrinsic gain than anything else. It would be FAR less likely than stainless. In fact, there is a good argument that 316L alloy with high moly content is showing decent thermal gain itself. From: Edmund Storms 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
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Ed, I reluctantly have to agree with you. I would love to have that run as a reference, but just the taking apart of the unit to reinstall a new wire, or any changes whatsoever mess up the calibration. A true calorimeter that accurately captures the heat is the only absolute way to determine the facts and that is what they are planning and building now. Until that comes on line we have to do the best that we can with the tools at our disposal. I consider the first order results that my program supplies to be a good indication, particularly since it matches the input power by curve fitting to within .2 watts out of 105.4 watts. Time domain variations to the power output also are demonstrated with good accuracy as the temperature of the cell heads toward its steady state value. So, my program does a fairly good job of working with static as well as dynamic change. It would take a very sneaky LENR behavior to escape entirely unless it was tiny in magnitude or extremely long (many days) in lag. The possibility of excess power is always left open, but that door is not very wide according to what has been observed in these tests. This is my result so far. Tomorrow, I am hoping that things will change toward the other direction. I am confident that you are aware that I am seeking confirmation of LENR activity. It is unusual for me to behave as a skeptic. Dave -Original Message- From: Edmund Storms To: vortex-l Cc: Edmund Storms Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result 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 To: John Milstone 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 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 danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
They performed something a bit like this for me earlier. First, the Celani wire was given several input power steps up to the max to be used followed by steps of the heating wire. All the average points gathered around these steps was used to establish a quadratic calibration curve. The R^2 fit for these points was in the .+ range. This would not have been so accurate had any of the steps been significantly out of line. I also ran the program with most of these individual steps and the fit was marvelous. After the step process was finished, they then ran two major steps. The first was from zero power to the maximum Celani wire drive. A second step started at that point and proceeded to the maximum total power level. These calibrations were a dream come true for setting up accurate parameters to use with my program. I thanked them profusely for the effort and now both of us have the proper tools to evaluate the real data. I just hope I find support for LENR activity soon to help repay their great contributions. Dave -Original Message- From: Jack Cole To: vortex-l Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:47 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result Seems to me like they could do something like that with a calibration run. Heat with the inactive wire, then put 10watts through the active wire. It should then show up as 10W excess if they leave that power input out of the calculation. Just to demonstrate that the method is working conceptually. On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: 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 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 danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Edmund Storms wrote: > > 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. > And, unfortunately, Celani and ST Micro do not do this. The ST "calibration" was with the same wire in the same gas, run at lower power. That's not how you are supposed to do it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Jack Cole wrote: Seems to me like they could do something like that with a calibration run. > Heat with the inactive wire, then put 10watts through the active wire. It > should then show up as 10W excess if they leave that power input out of the > calculation. > That's what calibrations are for! That's what they *are*. - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
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 To: John Milstone 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 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 danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Seems to me like they could do something like that with a calibration run. Heat with the inactive wire, then put 10watts through the active wire. It should then show up as 10W excess if they leave that power input out of the calculation. Just to demonstrate that the method is working conceptually. On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Daniel Rocha wrote: > 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 > >> 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 > danieldi...@gmail.com >
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
test - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 4:33 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result I wish I knew how to answer this line of inquiry. 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. For all of the runs up through the present, the optimized input power has calculated less than the applied power. There have been a few times when the instantaneous power difference has suggested that slightly more is coming out than in, but the longer term average never has. Most times the average excess power has been quite close to the applied input as in the latest run where it was within -.2 watts out of 105.4 watts. I suspect that the noise riding on the data due to external temperature variation, or etc. has enabled the peaks to exceed the input, but there also may be a small component of true excess power. When I make an objective analysis of the program runs so far I come to the conclusion that there is no significant excess power being displayed. Label me a skeptic, but I very much want to see positive results. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 5:53 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result Why not doing both? You refer to true positives, that is, a signal actually being measured. So, why not a false negative, that is, something that should be there but it isn't. 2013/2/6 David Roberson If it does not show up, how could it be measured? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
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 To: John Milstone 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 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 danieldi...@gmail.com
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 > 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 danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
I wish I knew how to answer this line of inquiry. 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. For all of the runs up through the present, the optimized input power has calculated less than the applied power. There have been a few times when the instantaneous power difference has suggested that slightly more is coming out than in, but the longer term average never has. Most times the average excess power has been quite close to the applied input as in the latest run where it was within -.2 watts out of 105.4 watts. I suspect that the noise riding on the data due to external temperature variation, or etc. has enabled the peaks to exceed the input, but there also may be a small component of true excess power. When I make an objective analysis of the program runs so far I come to the conclusion that there is no significant excess power being displayed. Label me a skeptic, but I very much want to see positive results. Dave -Original Message- From: Daniel Rocha To: John Milstone Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 5:53 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result Why not doing both? You refer to true positives, that is, a signal actually being measured. So, why not a false negative, that is, something that should be there but it isn't. 2013/2/6 David Roberson If it does not show up, how could it be measured? -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Not really, I believe the sun can trigger both of them On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:45 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote: > ChemE Stewart wrote: > >> >> So what causes Volcanoes and El Nino Jed? >> > > I assume that is a joke. > > - Jed > >
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
David Roberson wrote: I realize that you were just using the sine wave process as an example. I > pointed out that the time period spanned by the data is important to help > catch issues of this nature. I acknowledge that it is possible for a very > long delayed effect to come into play during or after the samples. If this system was generating normal cold fusion excess heat, it would be readily apparent. You would not need complex algorithms to tease that heat out of the data. Fleischmann and Miles use complex algorithms to explore the heat in detail, but a first-approximation method shows there is heat. I do not think this system is producing any heat. Fluctuations plus or minus 0.6 W on this scale are noise. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
ChemE Stewart wrote: > > So what causes Volcanoes and El Nino Jed? > I assume that is a joke. - Jed
[Vo]:Solar installations will likely surpass wind installations this year
This surprises me. See: http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/02/us-solar-projects-will-eclipse-wind-this-year-says-duke Quote: "The U.S. may install 3 gigawatts to 4 gigawatts of wind turbines this year, and solar projects will probably exceed that, said Gregory Wolf, president of Duke Energy Renewables. The U.S. added 13.1 gigawatts of wind power last year, beating natural gas for the first time. U.S. wind projects have come to a near-standstill this year on uncertainty over the fate of a federal tax credit that was set to expire Dec. 31. . . ." - Jed
Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result
Why not doing both? You refer to true positives, that is, a signal actually being measured. So, why not a false negative, that is, something that should be there but it isn't. 2013/2/6 David Roberson > If it does not show up, how could it be measured? [image: :-)] > > -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
RE: [Vo]:OT Global Warming -- NO PERSONAL ATTACKS!
Chuck Sites, You need to read the forum RULES again. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS! "The reality of AGW IS an no-brainer, and it IS the deniers that are plain stupid. That is a fact jack. There are 2 scientist that say so against your 5." "Congratulations for proving the point that the deniers are idiots." That now makes several derogatory comments toward any forum members who have a different opinion. I don't think it warrants banning at this time, however, if you can't engage members in a respectful manner then Bill may decide otherwise. CCing Bill. -mark From: Chuck Sites [mailto:cbsit...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2013 11:07 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming Vorl bek says: Look at this authoritive website for answers, and it points to a rightwing funded propaganda machine called whatsupwiththat. Congratulations for proving the point that the deniers are idiots. Best Regards, Chuck On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Vorl Bek wrote: On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 15:40:49 -0500 Jed Rothwell wrote: > Brad Lowe wrote: > > > > It doesn't help that Al Gore's graphs showing a hockey stick increase in > > temperatures (and hurricanes) has been flat-lined for a decade.) > > > > That is incorrect. Temperatures have increased in line with mainstream > global warming predictions. I don't follow. Did the predictions of increased temperature say that there would be no increase for the past 16 years, which is the case? http://tinyurl.com/99osz7m http://tinyurl.com/awha4hp > Please stick to the facts. > > - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
On 02/07/2013 02:19 AM, Chuck Sites wrote: > Hi Craig, and fellow vortexians, > > I'm looking at your graph on temperature anomalies and every data > point is above 0. Shouldn't some of you anomalies be negative. You > have 16 years of positive anomalies but not a single negative. I > think that proves the point that temperatures are trending higher. If > you have positive anomalies for 16 years, that seems to be a trend. Yes, I agree. My issue is, and has been, what is the cause? The issue should resolve itself in the next couple of decades. The solar influence cannot continue to rise as it did during the latter part of the 20th century. The solar influence is trending lower now. So one theory or the other will diverge from the data. Craig
Re: [Vo]:OT Global Warming
Yes Eric, I understand the thought. Deniers should be allowed their opinion like everyone should. There is a danger though in letting the deniers push propaganda as scientific fact. It's propaganda by the big energy corps I fear. I wouldn't be surprised to see a few planted trolls on here just to stifle cold fusion discussion. So, the only way I've learned to defeat this nonsense is to just bring it on. If you look at what is at stake, it's the whole planet that could be baked with just a 2 to 4C rise in global average temp. Sometime you just need to poke the bear to see if it moves. Best Regards, Chuck On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Eric Walker wrote: > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:07 PM, Chuck Sites wrote: > > Congratulations for proving the point that the deniers are idiots. > > > I'm sympathetic to the idea that climate change deniers are in denial. > But everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, and to be honest it > doesn't seem like the matter of the sources of climate change is all that > easy for a nonspecialist (like me, anyway) to sort out. We can troll, > which I derive great satisfaction in doing from time to time; but perhaps > we should troll subtly, so as not to raise the temperature and > inadvertently offend anyone. > > Eric > >
