On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > The questions that are being asked are important and the MFMP guys are > working very hard to answer them. A number of additional measures have been > taken at various times to root out unusual behavior and to improve the > accuracy of the results. Everyone realizes how important this is to get > right. > > One test that they ran last month was per a request I made that is quite > similar to what is suggested by Jack. First the cell was stabilized with > all of the power being applied to the test Celani wire. At a specific point > in time, the power was quickly shifted to the heating wire which is NiCr. > The input powers were matched to a close degree. I noted that the apparent > excess power changed by about .4 watts if I recall. That actual value for > this discussion is not important, but if you need I can look it up. The > source of the difference was not determined at that time, but both wires > were exposed to helium instead of hydrogen for that test. A vacuum and > other attempts had been recently performed to remove any LENR activity that > might be normally there. The details are written in a log on their site. > > This lack of power output correlation concerned me then and still does. > There are numerous variables to contend with and it is apparent that control > of the accuracy is not trivial. Everyone is getting a good education as to > how difficult these tests are to confirm. > > Lately, I have been worried that the excess power being shown on their web > site(~5 watts) with the current technique that they have been using to > calculate it is far too large to be real. I do not want to see too many > folks let down by reality when the calorimeter does is miracles. Another > guy, Ascoli, used a technique to adjust their results that compensates for > the density changes of the hydrogen. The final curve he determined matches > my steady state program output closely. I use the outside glass temperature > minus the ambient to calculate the instantaneous power which is more immune > to changes within the cell such as gas density. Of course my program takes > into account the delay associated with heating of the glass and monitor. > > The amount of direct hot wire generated IR that escapes through the glass > envelop is a potential contributor to inaccuracy. If this drifts, then the > power captured and monitored on the outer glass test point will vary. There > has been evidence of this effect in the past when goop collected upon the > test wires leading to changes in emissivity. That is the current theory I > apply to calibration drift. Amazingly, the recent calibration factors > appear to be holding well after many days of burn. > > This is a learning experience for all of us. Experimental science is a form > of bondage! Does it ever get better? > > Dave
Doesn't S&M include blindfolds? ;-) Early you also said you believe in "letting the data speak for itself." In that case, you should also be blind as to whether the data set contains an expected positive or negative signal. In other words you should be analysing data sets without knowing what exactly is being tested in each set. Do you think in principle a blind analysis can be informative even without calibration data? One could choose any data set as their baseline and see how the data sets *compare*. Harry
