Horace Heffner wrote:
I haven't taken the time to look into this in
detail, but my first impression . . .
With all due respect, it is a bad idea to discuss
these things without looking into them in detail,
and a person's first impressions are likely to be wrong.
is that, unless there is
On Feb 25, 2010, at 5:40 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
I haven't taken the time to look into this in detail, but my
first impression . . .
With all due respect, it is a bad idea to discuss these things
without looking into them in detail, and a person's first
Horace Heffner wrote:
is that, unless there is a typo, it makes no sense at all to
attempt to draw the 23.82 MeV line through Fig. 1 . . .
That is an expectation value.
Here you have missed the point entirely. There is no such expected
value of energy per helium atom as a function of
On Feb 25, 2010, at 7:26 AM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Horace Heffner wrote:
is that, unless there is a typo, it makes no sense at all to
attempt to draw the 23.82 MeV line through Fig. 1 . . .
That is an expectation value.
Here you have missed the point entirely. There is no such
I wrote:
You can see that the power levels are really not that varied, and
there is practically no real-time correlation to the helium.
Also bear in mind those are instantaneous power levels, and there is
no telling what it was doing in the instant before they were taken.
For example, data
Jed,
Without seeing a lot more heat data, I have to agree, it is difficult to
derive any meaning from this and that there is, as you say, practically no
real-time correlation to the helium. We also are missing a lot of
information about their method of helium sampling.
Steve
At 08:29 PM
Steven Krivit wrote:
Without seeing a lot more heat data, I have to agree, it is
difficult to derive any meaning from this and that there is, as you
say, practically no real-time correlation to the helium.
I have no difficulty deriving meaning from this. Again, maybe I am
missing something
(I was amused to see a skeptic the other day suggest that when Rob
Duncan visited Energetics Technology, he should have surreptitiously
attached a flask to the cell and taken a sample of helium to see if it
really is fusion. I told the skeptic you have to design the experiment
from the
On Feb 23, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Steven Krivit wrote:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/SRI-Expt-HH/SRI-Experiment-
HH.shtml
Vorts,
I have deliberately not provided any explanation, analysis or
interpretation.
Instead, I'd like to hear your thoughts first.
In particular, I'd like to
I haven't taken the time to look into this in detail, but my first
impression is that, unless there is a typo, it makes no sense at all
to attempt to draw the 23.82 MeV line through Fig. 1, or to draw any
conclusions from the graph as to energy per helium atom produced.
Perhaps I'm misreading
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/SRI-Expt-HH/SRI-Experiment-HH.shtml
Vorts,
I have deliberately not provided any explanation, analysis or interpretation.
Instead, I'd like to hear your thoughts first.
In particular, I'd like to hear your thoughts on the graph drawn by McKubre
as
In reply to Steven Krivit's message of Tue, 23 Feb 2010 10:51:23 -0800:
Hi,
[snip]
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/SRI-Expt-HH/SRI-Experiment-HH.shtml
Vorts,
I have deliberately not provided any explanation, analysis or interpretation.
Instead, I'd like to hear your thoughts first.
In
Regarding the graphs here:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/news/2010/SRI-Expt-HH/SRI-Experiment-HH.shtml
With data from this document, pdf p. 165:
http://newenergytimes.com/v2/archives/1998epri/TR-107843-V1.PDF
I don't see any problem or confusion with this. Maybe I am missing
something. The
Robin van Spaandonk wrote:
It looks to me like they may have a systematic error of +1 ppb. Therefore I
would be inclined to subtract that from all measured values.
1 ppb is at the limits of detection as it says in the document. Obviously
these results are very noisy.
- Jed
I don't see any problem or confusion with this. Maybe I am missing
something. The bottom graph (Krivit's) is a little confusing. It would be
improved with:
1. The error bars.
2. The power on the right y-axis starting at zero.
Good ideas Jed.
Done.
Let me know if that helps clarify.
s
Steven Krivit wrote:
Let me know if that helps clarify.
I think that is clearer. You can see that the power levels are really not
that varied, and there is practically no real-time correlation to the
helium. Actually, the error bars are probably even larger because the
instrument is at the
16 matches
Mail list logo
