Awkshully - there could a small bit of "justified" finger-pointing - but not towards MFMP - towards Celani himself. He will get over it, in the end.
After all - he will get the lion's share of the credit, when this is finally
replicated, but if it not replicated, then his exuberance in Texas and Korea
are partly to blame for the widespread expectation that this is a robust
phenomenon, when in fact it is probably NOT robust, and instead requires
precision.
To wit - Celani told a number of observers "off-the-record" that he had
witnessed a period of self-power. That was reported on Vortex and elsewhere.
He later retracted that statement. But whatever the truth of it turns out to
be, the claim left a lingering expectation in the minds of those who wanted
to replicate quickly. Since there is less need of great precision - if in
fact the wire, once heated, can undergo a period of infinite COP - you
cannot blame "cutting corners" on MFMP.
Jones
From: James Bowery
I'm asking the question in all sincerity and without
finger-pointing, let alone malice toward anyone.
The absence of widely-publicized and accepted best practices
for LENR calorimetry points out a serious need.
David Roberson wrote:
James, this is a bit too harsh. These guys are learning the
best procedures and that takes a little time. Had the excess power been
large as was expected, then it would not have required the degree of
precision that you imply to achieve their goals.
Let the process continue to its conclusion and then give em
hell if you are still dissatisfied.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: James Bowery
It's 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
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
