So am I. A person gets what they pay for. It proves nothing if a person claims to see heat using a method that no one will accept as showing excess energy no matter how cheap the method. That has been a major problem in getting LENR accepted in the first place. If heating power is sought, it MUST be measured with accuracy and confidence no matter the cost. On the other hand, radiation is easy to measure with confidence and very cheeply. However, this requires a change in attitude, which is not easy.
Ed Storms On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:56 PM, James Bowery wrote: > Ed, I'm attacking a different problem: Cost. > > Since we're in a quasi-Edisonian phase of scientific research, keeping the > cost per experiment as low as possible seems to be the bottleneck to getting > a protocol that has reproduces the FPE to any statistically significant > degree. > > Developing a different kind of experimental set up may be the key. > > > On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: > James, I feel much more comfortable using a calorimeter design I can trust > and that has been used in the past. The Cravens device is a nice > demonstration but it proves nothing. I have made calorimeters that do the job > much better and give absolute values for power. No need exists to reinvent. > > Ed Storms > > On Mar 22, 2014, at 12:27 PM, James Bowery wrote: > >> If you are running a Cravens style simultaneous, colocated control >> experiment with infinite COP your odds of detecting a tiny temperature >> difference economically are vastly improved. Basically you just integrate >> the voltage out of a bimetallic (thermocoupling) wall separating the treated >> material from the untreated material in a common vessel that provides a >> small amount of gas communication between the chambers for pressure >> equalization. This is not an expensive device. >> >> >> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 12:46 PM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> >> wrote: >> Yes, getting a wide variety of sizes is easy. Getting enough of the right >> size in this distribution is the problem. Only a few of the right size will >> not give enough energy to be detected. When radiation or tritium is used to >> detect the occurrence of LENR, the effect can be seen using fewer active >> sites. However, these methods have not been used very often, probably >> because the tools and skill are not common. >> >> Cracks either want to grow larger or sinter and disappear. As a result, >> production of LENR is unstable. This makes the effect occur for brief >> times, but not long enough to be sure LENR is actually happening rather than >> a random event. >> >> Ed Storms >> >> On Mar 22, 2014, at 11:28 AM, James Bowery wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 22, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Based on my theory, the active material are nano-cracks. Making these at >>> the require size is the challenge. Cracks can be made many different ways, >>> but getting the right size is the problem. >>> >>> Might there be a technique that generates a wide distribution of crack >>> sizes? >>> >> >> > >
