You are making excellent points Jed. I likewise am concerned that the results appear too orderly, but I could modify my thoughts if enough information about calibration were presented. It would be very useful if these guys released the amount and quality of data that is coming from the MFMP. It takes a lot of effort to uncover the hidden processes and without several examples to operate on one is left wondering whether or not this example is an artifact.
I can not help but to wonder why a curve fit was not conducted upon the data since it obviously is not linear. If it can be proven that the device calibrates to a straight line without excess power then perhaps so. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sat, Dec 8, 2012 10:46 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Independent validation of thermal anomalies from Celani's constantan wires Akira Shirakawa <shirakawa.ak...@gmail.com> wrote: Combining data from the table on the left and the new graph (and some plausible assumptions) I managed to plot a graph of input power vs excess power: http://i.imgur.com/L9CV7.png At the highest point it's 21.8% more output power than the input. Good job. Again, this gives me a bad feeling. The curve is too smooth. Too predictable. Cold fusion excess heat never happens in a fixed ratio compared to input, or as a varying function of input. It is not predictable. With powder, you see nothing at low temperatures, and then it appears, but it fluctuates. This kind of smooth, predictable-looking curve is characteristic of an artifact. I am not saying it is an artifact for sure, but it makes me uncomfortable. As I said yesterday, above all, they need calibration data in the same range as the anomalous heat. That would put to rest most of my concerns. - Jed
