And these guys are planning to build devices that can be shipped to companies and other organizations as proof of LENR to get their attention. This will not work as long as it is this difficult to achieve performance that is beyond question. Jed has a valid point here.
The earlier work by Celani suggests that one day the LENR will begin to dominate the results and that should be trivial to determine. My program would yell that out. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 1:09 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: 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. This happens to some extent with most calorimeters. Ed and others have told me that when you take the lid off a Seebeck calorimeter, and then you put it back and bolt it down, the calibration constant comes out measurably different. If the excess heat is so small it might be brought into question because of effects like this, it is too small to believe. I have enormous respect for Ed, and McKubre, Miles, Fleischmann and others who have mastered calorimetry to such an extent they can detect these microscopic changes. I understand why they want extreme accuracy and precision. At the same time, I feel that if you cannot even detect the heat without that precision, I cannot trust it. High precision should be used to explore robust heat when it appears -- if it appears. It should not be used to confirm heat at the extreme low limits of detection. - Jed
