Good question, Jim. The reason is that people jump into what looks
like an easy measurement to quickly see excess energy, which is the
brass ring. They want to win the game without taking the time to
master the skill. I did this 20 years ago as well. Fortunately, the
excess I detected then was large, which easily exceeded my error. Over
the years, trial and error have taught me lessons that I had not
bother to learn at first. Calorimetry is part science and part art.
It is unforgiving to mistake. Large amounts of heat are easy to
measure but the small amounts being claimed are hard to detect,
especially when power has to be applied to start the process. The
reputation of LENR adds to the difficulty because the results will not
be accepted unless they meet very high standards. I admire the people
who are starting down this path, but I'm saddened by the time wasted
in the process. But, I guess that what makes science at this level
fun. We all hope to discover something new without too much
investment. I know the joy of the process thanks to 23 years of
effort looking at LENR while tying to do the same thing after 40 years
of doing conventional science.
Ed
On Feb 7, 2013, at 11:24 AM, James Bowery wrote:
Its hard to understand how anyone seriously interested in doing
these experiments, after lo these 2+ decades of torturous discourse,
could make such a fundamental mistake.
Why are best calorimetric practices not so firmly established by now
that virtually everyone with any degree of credibility agrees?
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:55 AM, Edmund Storms
<stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
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
