[feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/01/mfmp-new-generation-celani-wire-test-show-possible-10-excess-heat/']Here’s a post from the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project’s Facebook Page about a separate experiment they are carrying out with Celani wire. New generation Celani wires in MFC showing evidence of >10% excess? *very cautious note at this stage as the… Posted by Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project on Monday, February 1, 2016[/feedquote]
MFMP New Generation Celani Wire Test Shows Possible >10% Excess Heat?
-
[feedquote='E-Cat World','http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/02/01/mfmp-new-generation-celani-wire-test-show-possible-10-excess-heat/'] [...] *very cautious note at this stage as the calorimeter needs more characterisation* [...] … Posted by Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project on Monday, February 1, 2016[/feedquote]
That is the whole problem guys....
NEVER ever post such a news IF you are not 100 % sure that there are NO systematic errors / offset errors in your calorimeter.
Always take your time to check this for a couple of months.
THAT was the reason why P&F and others lost their reputation.
-
Quote
That is the whole problem guys....NEVER ever post such a news IF you are not 100 % sure that there are NO systematic errors / offset errors in your calorimeter. Always take your time to check this for a couple of months.THAT was the reason why P&F and others lost their reputation.MFMP are only saying that there is a 10% artifact in calculated COP. They are not saying they have calibrated their calorimetry enough to be sure this represents anomalous excess heat.
It is really only LENR believers who have prior expectations such that every such reported artifact is supposed to be quite likely a nuclear reaction. No-one else would reach this conclusion without much much more robust evidence.
So what seems to LENR believers a succession of tantalising near misses will seem to everyone else normal experimental artifacts.
-
NEVER ever post such a news IF you are not 100 % sure that there are NO systematic errors / offset errors in your calorimeter.
I think MFMP were fine in this and similar cases, since in a blog post they're mostly addressing the small group of people who follow their work. They're doing open science, and it is those same people who occasionally chime in and suggest improvements. MFMP do not have scientific credentials which could be misconstrued. They're clearly a small outfit of hobbyists. -
If they didn't "post such news", it wouldn't be open science...right? By doing so, they initiate the internet peer review process that will help determine whether this is legit. It is much quicker this way, rather than suppressing the news until absolutely, 100% certain.
What I find hopeful about this latest from MFMP, is that it is in line with their earlier Celani wire results. If this run stands up to peer scrutiny, as did those prior, and further refinements prove as predictable, and reliable, we may have our first "LENR kit"...which has always been MFMPs goal. That would be huge.
Go MFMP!
-
Great news! Expect the pathoskeps to complain about such a "small" COP, and it's being useless etc., etc. Of course anyone not completely idiotic knows that any energy release coming from a phenomenon which is not known is immense news, and would signify the beginning of the collapse of denial. Obviously this result needs to be verified, reproduced and subject to peer review, so it is no more than a first step, but none the less exciting!
-
Quote
If they didn't "post such news", it wouldn't be open science...right? By doing so, they initiate the internet peer review process that will help determine whether this is legit. It is much quicker this way, rather than suppressing the news until absolutely, 100% certain.
Shane, you are showing LENRitis here.
While we agree MFMP posting all their results as they do them is proper, you can't call this one preliminary result "legitimate" or not. It is just one preliminary result and without proper calibration and control it means nothing. So of course it is "legitimate" but not in the sense of implying some extraordinary new Laws of Physics.
From the way you talk whenever somone fires up a new calorimeter and obtains initial readings we have a candidate for the Nobel prize winning observation that proves 100 years of Physics severely incomplete.
Patience is a virtue - in this case that means not over-interpreting observations. Of course, you are following other LENR watchers and indeed researchers an over-interpreting observations that have not been properly checked. So I guess i should not blame you.
How about I make money from you instead. How much do you want to bet that these wires will prove to be "real" - in the sense of showing reproducible excess heat well beyond possible chemical? I'm up for it. MFMPs involvement mean that we will have an endpoint. Either they give up without reproducible proof or they announce they have this.
-
Quote
Of course anyone not completely idiotic knows that any energy release coming from a phenomenon which is not known is immense news
Indeed. But any decent scientist, or intelligent and open-minded observer, would also note that attributing "phenomena that is not known" is the very last thing that is done after a long and exhaustive process of checking all known possibles. While I realise LENR watchers are fond of experimental artifacts, they would make more accurate judgements if they realised that no researcher's best efforts at checking known phenomena is that good, so that even after such checking the "unknown phenomena" is most likely to be a "known unknown" and not immense.
It does LENR as a research field (if you feel it is that) no favours to signal as "immense news" something that is not that.
-
Man Thomas, what a party pooper! Here we are popping the champagne bottles and you come in and turn the lights off.
Seriously, we here, as do the MFMP volunteers, understand that this is just another step towards that LENR kit. The next step may be the last, but in the meantime I see no harm in a little hooray for the home team...or is that not OK with you skeps? I mean, when you go to a soccer match, and your team scores a goal early on...do you stay silent because there is still a long ways to the end, and "patience is a virtue". Hopefully not LOLs.
This is MFMPs replication of their earlier series of Celani wire tests. Those earlier tests were modeled off of Celani, whom had his own success with his "wires". So it seems we have a replication that has been transported, then successfully duplicated, from one lab to another...or am I wrong? And instead of the "signal" decreasing with better calorimetry, and repetition...as you and JC claim has historically plagued all other LENR experiments, we now have the opposite. A signal that stays the same with multiple runs and better calorimetry.
Mass Flow Calorimetry that even MY should be happy with.
-
Majorana wrote: "THAT was the reason why P&F and others lost their reputation."
That is incorrect. Fleischmann and Pons had been doing these experiments for many years. They were quite certain of the results, and indeed these results were soon replicated by over 100 laboratories worldwide. They were experts in calorimetry. They did make a mistake measuring neutrons, but that had little to do with the claims.
Fleischmann and Pons lost their reputation because they were attacked by Nature and by many scientists. These attacks were scurrilous and totally without basis.
-
I disagree with Shane D. If they i a validly run scientific experiment it should be published even if the results are not 100% to your liking. Even equivocal results might lead to further understanding that will result in big breakthroughs.
-
Nothing to see here, rotate - go home!
-
Quote
Seriously, we here, as do the MFMP volunteers, understand that this is just another step towards that LENR kit.
My point is that it is not a step on the way to LENR.
-
My point is that it is not a step on the way to LENR.
Thomas,
Well...why is it not a step on the way to LENR?
This latest Celani wire test literally just started. It isn't even over yet. MFMP wants to run it for as long as they can, which could be another week or so. Yet, you have already concluded it a failure...or am I missing something?
Over on the other site, you also say that "they" found the earlier Celani tests had errors that when corrected for proved artifact too, which is the first I had heard of that. So who is this: "they", and where did they say that about the older tests?
Seems like you are going off the deep end lately. Stating pretty confidently that all of FPs positive observations were artifact, and all LENR experiments the past 27 years were artifact too. And as I recall, you have only studied a few of these peer reviewed reports? Yet you extrapolate to the other few hundred that they all must be the same.......artifact.
Let me guess; LENR can't be real, so whatever excess heat, He, is measured MUST be artifact! LENR researchers have sure heard that one before, so you wouldn't be the first.
-
As I have written long ago:
Why don’t MFPM simply multiply the signal (and for the most part not the noise) by using TEN wires or dozens of wires? I’ve been asking them that for years and never got a credible response. One heater can heat a large number of wires with the original heater power or just a bit more, while the signal from the larger number of wires should go *way* up. So if the “COP” is 1.2 with one wire, then with ten wires in parallel, it would be something larger than 2.0 which is much more easily measured and from which artifact is much more easily ruled out. But they have never done this and neither has Celani.
I distrust low level gain and low power levels, regardless of how they are measured. It's just very difficult and error prone to make such measurements if you are excellent and have a superb lab and most LENR researchers aren't and don't.
QuoteLet me guess; LENR can't be real, so whatever excess heat, He, is measured MUST be artifact! LENR researchers have sure heard that one before, so you wouldn't be the first.
@Shane: Nonsense as usual. if someone provides high power levels sustained long enough and the measurements are reliable and replicated by trustworthy people, virtually ANYBODY will believe it's anomalous. Celani and MFPM are miles away from those criteria.
-
@Shane: Nonsense as usual. if someone provides high power levels sustained long enough and the measurements are reliable and replicated by trustworthy people, virtually ANYBODY will believe it's anomalous. Celani and MFPM are miles away from those criteria.
True to form, you left yourself plenty of room to stand by your preconceived belief that LENR just can't be real...as usual.
Define what you mean by: "trustworthy", "replicated", "anomalous", and "sustained long enough".
-
If one wire has a COP of 1.2, won't ten wires in parallel still only have a COP of 1.2?
-
Why don’t MFPM simply multiply the signal (and for the most part not the noise) by using TEN wires or dozens of wires?
Because this wouldn't be a "Celani replication" as by definition. Celani also used one wire.When this test shows a promising outcome, I'm sure MFMP will consider "your" idea to see a more clear result.
-
OK. I am struggling to remain polite. Let me help you understand the proposal. Paradigmnoia, the so-called COP, a misnomer, is really the ratio of output power to input power of the entire apparatus. It is NOT a property of the wire. So if the COP is 1.2, and you put 1.0 Watt in from the electrical heater, then you get 1.2 Watts out. One Watt of the output comes from the electrical heater and 0.2 Watts come from the single wire and the reaction it supposedly has. If you use ten wires, you get *ten* times the contribution from the wire, in this case 2 Watts rather than 0.2 Watts.
Now follow this closely please. The one Watt of power from the heater in my example isn't used only to heat the wire. It heats the whole apparatus which has much more mass and therefore much more heat capacity than the wire. Thus, *most* (virtually all) of the electrical input is used to heat the apparatus. If I add one, two, or even ten wires, I am not adding much to the mass of the apparatus and therefore I am not adding much heat capacity. That means that I can heat ten wires with almost the same power as I used to heat one. But ten wires will produce ten times the heat or a total of 0.2 x 10 = 2 watts.
As a first approximation, suppose it take no extra heat to heat ten wires compared to one (they're very thin and light). Then for the same 1.0 Watt power in, you get 2 Watts out, not 1.2. Now, the COP isn't a questionable 1.2. The ratio of power out to power in is now 2.0 / 1.0 = 2. Even if it does take a tiny bit of extra heater power to heat those extra wires, I still get a much larger COP than with a single wire. So the signal to noise ratio is much better. Any small error in output power measurement, which could mess up the experiment with one wire, will be much less noticeable, if it matters at all, when you use ten wires. Or 20 or 100.
Barty, this doesn't change the experiment. And it's hardly my original idea-- it's extremely obvious which makes it hard to understand why Celani and MFPM both missed it. You're still putting heat in and getting heat out. The number of identical wires doesn't determine whether or not the wires make heat! Just because Celani inexplicably failed to do this doesn't mean it shouldn't have been done right from the start. If one wire works, then ten wires work much better. It's simple and obvious. What about it do you and Paradigmnoia not get? Does anyone want to try a simpler or clearer explanation? Thomas?
It's like if I tried to replicate an experiment from Newton's time which involved numerical differentiation. Sure, I could do it laboriously with paper and pencil or on a chalkboard. Or I could do it with a computer much faster and more accurately. Celani's method is pencil and paper. My idea makes it more like the computer version. The experiment has not changed at all.
-
If one wire works, then ten wires work much better.
This is your oppinion.If LENRs exist (what MFMP wants to find out, and you are denying), then we still don't know what's going on on the low level of that reaction.
So why can you expect that more wires will show more excess heat?
What when the reaction process of one wire is neutralizing the reaction of the other wires?To have a clear experimental protocol, MFMP should do this step by step.
When the exerpimental protocol is getting to unclear, you will be the first who's nagging for scam.
