But, I must say that your allusion to "the fact that two calorimetric methods were in reasonable agreement" is just hogwash. The secondary calorimetric observations cited previously were entirely contingent upon the acceptance of the first. This is a circular argument.
From: robert.leguil...@hotmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 16:51:40 -0600 This appears to be the Houkes data that you're referring to: http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx I cannot open this file. I get a zip with dissociated .xml's. I know that I'd quickly discounted it in the past, as it seemed to ignore the conductivity between the probe and the nut and the hot air pocket formed underneath the foil insulation. Maybe I'd discounted it too quickly. Alan Fletcher's SPICE models were interesting, and showed that the thermocouple placement WAS important. I assumed that you ignored those results because they were detrimental to Rossi. Alas, he's announced that he's given up the model; the result was very sensitive to the coupling between water and copper -- and he could get any value he wanted for a delta-T error between zero and +10 (and beyond) : twice the value of delta-T itself. So, let's review Haukes analysis if you have it in a useable form... Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 17:14:22 -0500 Subject: Re: [Vo]:a long paper about and mainly against the E-cat From: jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Mary Yugo <maryyu...@gmail.com> wrote: Also how you feel about the lack of a blank/calibration run ahead of the test, using the electrical heater as a calibrating energy source before hydrogen was added to the E-cat. Wouldn't that rule out such issues as thermocouple placement? The best way to rule out problems with the thermocouple placement is to use additional thermocouples placed elsewhere. That is what I urged Rossi to do, before the test. He did not want to. There was actually no problem with the placement, as shown by Houkes and by the fact that two calorimetric methods were in reasonable agreement. But Rossi should have proved there was no problem, by using multiple instruments at various different locations. - Jed