The current graphs of their live data are looking more interesting to me. I am viewing from 2/1 to 2/7. Cell 1.0 is approaching 8 watts excess (according to their calculation method). If the trend keeps going up with Cell 1.0, we could get to more convincing territory.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:56 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > Harry, I use a blindfold when the data is being optimized. :-) The LMS > routine takes the raw data and makes my simulated curve match it. I do not > have any idea what the result will be and it could be either positive or > negative. An earlier calibration sets the rules that the data is compared > against. > > Most of the time I download the live data from the MFMP site and > evaluate one of the power steps. If there is a problem with the collection > of the data, then that shows up in such a way as to generate a visual flag > which I can review to determine why it is behaving in a strange manner. > That is a rare occurrence. > > How would you handle the evaluation in the absence of a calorimeter? > Time domain transient analysis is the best that I can do under the current > restrictions. I am open to suggestions provided they are possible to > achieve, but do keep in mind that I can only request special tests by the > MFMP group and I have no control over their decisions. > > I believe that it is preferable to do something instead of wait for > someone else to spoon feed me. I chose to post the results of my program > runs to ensure that the vortex group is aware of any progress. > > If you are serious about blind analysis being useful and not kidding > then I will answer. Of course it is important and is essentially conducted > every time I run a set of data through my program. Initially, I was > expecting to see positive results, but that is not what the program > produced. Any new data that I download might demonstrate either positive > or negative excess power since I do not have a clue about what will be > found. I must admit that after so many runs with no excess power being > determined, I am becoming biased toward that expectation, but I do not > modify the way the program operates to achieve that result. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Thu, Feb 7, 2013 3:52 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]: MFMP Null Result > > 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 > > >
