by the way comparative calorimetry can assert proofs. the normal COP if mainstream theory is real, is COP=1, and excess heat~= 0, in any condition, on long term. on short term the excess heap should not be out of +/- chemical energy inside the reactor . Einitial-Echemical<Efinal<Einitial+Echemical
if he prove a difference between two experiments that either prove longterm two COP differences (COPa>COPb) , or any excess heat Ea>Eb on long term, above all error possible, or any short term discrepancy between heat above 2 chemical energy inside the reactor (Ea-Eb>2Echemical), then IT IS A BREAKTHROUGH. comparative is not perfect to measure the detail, but it is enough to eliminate the mainstream theory as factually false. Am I right when I say that we are in that situation where whatever is said, the mainstream theory of COP=1 and |Efinal-Einitial|<Echemical is refuted with many sigma. I think first about the NASA GRC experiments (89 and 2005) that are far enough to refute mainstream theory. Nothing more seems required. Or did I miss something subtle about error margins ? NB: it is not a rhetorical question, since I'm looking for critic to my reasoning, so I don't tell stupidities in public. 2012/8/20 Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> > At 02:02 AM 8/18/2012, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: > >> So I understood, but then the flip side: why the questions about the >> calorimetry? Again, what am I missing? >> > > I've answered before but these responses are delayed. > > What you are missing, Jeff, is that Celani's work isn't conclusive, by any > means. It's investigational, and he is comparing results between his own > experiments. What was demonstrated wasn't even one of these, not really, > though maybe he'll be able to use the data. > > Some enthusiastic "supporters of cold fusion" exaggerate the importance of > such demonstrations. > > Don't get me wrong. I support cold fusion research. Celani's work is > actually quite important, but not for convincing skeptics, or demonstrating > absolute, confident calorimetry. > > That any heat at all is apparent is of interest to most of us. It's an > indication that NiH reactions are possible, one more among many. > > Of course I'd love to see better calorimetry! But it is not Celani's > purpose, which is investigating the materials and their responses under > test. He only needs *relative* calorimetry for that. And he doesn't need > two experimental setups for that. He just runs them all the same and > compares outcomes, serially. > > You may want to see a simultaneous control, but you aren't paying his > bills! >
