On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 6:39 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....
Unless one is trying to see if the data points are consistent with a *predicted* curve, I don't think error bars are particularly instructive at this time. Harry
