I should add that pure iron itself can be very conductive - but even modest amounts of carbon make it resistive. Iron wire is usually 4% carbon or up.
This is an important point - if anyone has the numbers handy - please share. From: Jones Beene But Ed - platinum wire would not be resistive enough, would it? As you say - it might be wise to use very thin platinum once; and thereby to compare to see if another kind of higher resistance wire (far cheaper) such as iron is also inert. From: Edmund Storms Dave, I'm glad you are keeping an eye on this measurement. I agree, the small amount of apparent excess power revealed so far is not important because the uncertainty in the behavior of the calorimeter is not known. Anyone doing calorimetry must first determine the uncertainty in the measurement using a known inert material. A calibration with the potentially active material in place is not useful because the calibration heats the unknown, which might initiate excess energy. But, as Jones notes, what can we accept as inert wire? I think Pt is a good choice. This metal does not react with H2 and has been shown to be inert in past studies. Once the calorimeter is tested with Pt, other cheaper materials can be tested to see if they are inert. If found inert, these metals can then be used in future tests to avoid the high cost of Pt. This study is so important that it MUST be done correctly and without compromise. This means spending time using an inert material to reveal the strange behaviors that all calorimeters have. Until this has been done, no one has any reason to believe the results. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:25 AM, David Roberson wrote: Ed, I reluctantly have to agree with you. I would love to have that run as a reference, but just the taking apart of the unit to reinstall a new wire, or any changes whatsoever mess up the calibration. A true calorimeter that accurately captures the heat is the only absolute way to determine the facts and that is what they are planning and building now. Until that comes on line we have to do the best that we can with the tools at our disposal. I consider the first order results that my program supplies to be a good indication, particularly since it matches the input power by curve fitting to within .2 watts out of 105.4 watts. Time domain variations to the power output also are demonstrated with good accuracy as the temperature of the cell heads toward its steady state value. So, my program does a fairly good job of working with static as well as dynamic change. It would take a very sneaky LENR behavior to escape entirely unless it was tiny in magnitude or extremely long (many days) in lag. The possibility of excess power is always left open, but that door is not very wide according to what has been observed in these tests. This is my result so far. Tomorrow, I am hoping that things will change toward the other direction. I am confident that you are aware that I am seeking confirmation of LENR activity. It is unusual for me to behave as a skeptic. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Cc: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result David, I have not been following your evaluation closely, but I have done a lot of calorimetry in my life. The ONLY way a calorimeter can be tested is to use it without any source of excess energy being present. That means you need to run the calorimeter in the planned way with the Celani wire replaced by an inert wire of the same resistance. When you do this, you will quickly discover how the calorimeter behaves and what is required to achieve a null. Other people are suggesting the same method. As long as the Celani wire is present, the results will be confused by the potential excess. Ed On Feb 7, 2013, at 8:42 AM, David Roberson wrote: I am positive that two equal and opposite dummy signals would cancel each other out. Is that what you mean? Dave -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> To: John Milstone <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 10:37 am Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result No, what I mean is that you could try to make a dummy, a fake data and input that into the program and see if you can hide a positive, dummy, signal. 2013/2/7 David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> If you are suggesting that there should be LENR activity and thus a reading of zero excess power is a false negative, then the program demonstrates that. It is my philosophy to let the results speak for themselves regardless of the outcome. The program does that by fitting the input power variable to the data for the best match. I have no way to change this once it has been told to optimize unless I intentionally lock its value for other purposes. -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
