I belive it would be better to do a comparison between cells. The idea is to build four cells: 2 exactly as Celani's; and 2 again exactly as Celani's, but without active wires. With proper mounting, the four cells can have wires almost identical (size and initial resistance). Therefore, they could be powered up in series (only the wires used for heating). In this case, all cells would receive the same amount of power and should show about the same internal and external temperatures. Unless of course, as many would expect, the active cells show excess heat. In this case, considering the amount of excess heat Celani saw (~12W of excess heat from 48W of input heat), it would be easy to spot the temperature differences and, therefore, prove that the excess heat came from LERN in the cells with active wires.
By using two active and two inactive cells, one could rule out other factors if the inactive cells show the same internal and external temperatures and the active cells, at the same time, show significantly higher temperatures in accordance with Celani's calorimetric formulation. To avoid problems with pressure and gas composition, the cells could also be connected in series with tubes and receive the gases in series at the same time. Before power on, valves between cells (open during gas load) could be used to isolate then to avoid heat transfer via gas. I believe this approach is much easier and cheaper than flow calorimetry... Alberto F. De Souza. On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com>wrote: > At 04:47 PM 12/12/2012, Craig wrote: > >> The have 48 watts of input power now and are getting out 52 - 54 watts on >> their conservative estimate. Their optimistic estimate shows them at >> around 67 - 70 watts out. >> > > This may be unfair, because it's a reaction to Craig's comment and not the > MFM results, but "conservative" and "optimistic" don't really have a place > in scientific reports. What we want to know is the measure of output power, > the error bar. It's sounding like it's 52-70 watts, which would be > amazingly imprecise. (Pons-Fleischmann were measuring in milliwatts, if I'm > correct, using complex isoperibolic calorimetry, and the accuracy of SRI > flow calorimetry, solid and much simpler but less precise, was, as I recall > +/- 50 mW.) > > With that much imprecision, the input power of 48 watts is only slightly > outside the error, and some relatively small unidentified effect might > explain it. > > I'm hoping it's unfair.... >
