n=3... 120W... 100W... 50W .. if P cares to examine the recent thread posts
P."I have the 2017 120 W spreadsheet. Indeed it does look look like the measured output exceeds the input. So there is one example, I stand corrected.
Before you get your panties in a knot, I am not trying to disprove Mizuno.
I want to understand the measurement system better.
Sorry, my mistake. Jed posted it in 2017.
Another mistake
Jed posted spreadsheets of 120W input
not an image of 120W xs heat
Before you get your panties in a knot
More rhetoric from P..
as I said ..from frivolous to vexatious
Maybe it is a new one?
The output from the 500W reactor is 800W..
this seems different from the 2017 results
Another mistake
Jed posted spreadsheets of 120W input
not an image of 120W xs heat
The image shows 120 W input (black line). It is from the 2017, 120 W test that the 120 W spreadsheet is for.
That image shows 230 W excess over and above the 120 W input, not 120 W excess heat.
However, only 183 W (peak) was measured.
183/350 = 0.52 . In other words, an estimated calorimeter recovery of 52% at peak power.
I have no idea how the ramp up power is normalized to 100% recovery.
So P constructed this image..
I have no idea where it comes from..
or what relationship it has to anything it certainly does not fit into FIg 29
...120,230 would be way above the top line
That image shows 230 W excess over and above the 120 W input,
And this image shows about 375 W measured peak power, and a loss corrected peak power of about 780 W.
375/780 =0.48 . In other words the estimated calorimeter recovery is about 48% in this example.
So P constructed this image..
I have no idea where it comes from..
or what relationship it has to anything it certainly does not fit into FIg 29
...120,230 would be way above the top line
The only images that I have constructed, I have clearly noted them.
The one labelled 120W excess heat came from Jed, in the link provided twice now. Or click on the above version.
I can't believe it is this complicated to discuss a simple thing.
I f*ing demonstrate the stability of the calorimeter at that time period at the cost of a thousand cuts.
You folks are pissing me off.
I f*ing demonstrate the stability of the calorimeter at that time period at the cost of a thousand cuts.
You folks are pissing me off.
All these years, and first time I have ever seen you get angry.
I f*ing demonstrate the stability of the calorimeter at that time period at the cost of a thousand cuts.
You folks are pissing me off.
P don't get pissed off. Just ignore the gad flies.
Your input over the years is appreciated, as clearly shown by the number of "likes" you have received.
Clearly the path to understanding LENR is long and arduous.
This is one of the more productive threads on this forum, in terms of actual science and actual results.
Many, like the Rossi thread, I hardly bother to read, other than for purely entertainment.
Please explain the images I posted in the quote you replied to.
Can you stop your weird posting?? Try to contribute something useful!
Not all researchers are as stupid as Rossi! Currently it looks like you are behaving closer to Rossi than Mizuno's quality...
What is your problem? Please tell us - missing data??
Please folks, let’s try to keep the discussion here technical.
Even if one doesn’t like it, I think that Paradigmnoia is honestly trying to dissipate his doubts about the air calorimetry, and I think we all know his starting point for his analysis is that excess heat can’t be anything else than measurement error.
I don’t agree with his point of view, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t appreciate being taken to the task of reviewing potential sources of significant error.
Only more data will dissipate the doubts, so meanwhile let’s wait and analyze the available data with patience and courtesy, and respect for the experimenters and analyst, will you?
I f*ing demonstrate the stability of the calorimeter at that time period at the cost of a thousand cuts.
You folks are pissing me off.
Just block them!
Some here cannot have a mature discussion when they cannot answer a valid question. You can tell when you are on to something here with two certain people. They start attacking the poster personally because they cannot defend themselves with mature discussion. So they simply try to deflect and hide by juvenile personal attacks and avoidance. Once they start down this path, they are nothing but flatulence in the wind and not worth the time to type a reply. They will REFUSE to have a mature discussion but only personally attack. More likely they are unable to have a mature discussion. 
Just block them.
I f*ing demonstrate the stability of the calorimeter at that time period at the cost of a thousand cuts.
Sounds painful.. I hope there has been a good recovery from the cuts.. and that the waterworks are fine
I took the liberty to do a few a few cut and pastes , plus colouring in
plus a pixel test at http://www.geotests.net/couleurs/frequences_en.html.
For the P drawing the total energy ouput in orange is very high..7.2 MJ for an input of 2.47MJ.
The ratio O/I = 7.2/2.47= 2.91.. sometimes this is called a COP.
Both JR and I analysed the same spreadsheet and got O/I ratios which were much lower than 2.91
Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results
Mizuno : Publication of kW/COP2 excess heat results
This was back in 2017.. almost three years ago..
JR got 1.55 and I got 1.57...as I said much lower than 2.91
You have analysed the spreadsheet differently from both JR and I
and got a hugely increased energy output..
If Mizuno-San could have got a I/O ratio of 2.91... in 2017 he would have been quite happy.
Which i why I asked you,, where did you get the image..?
I didn’t make up that plot, Jed supplied it in 2017. Technically it is no different than the many other plots showing calorimeter efficiency corrections for output. I am not a big fan of the loss adjustments, since the correction magnifies noise and hides the calorimeter status.
What I would be interested in seeing is calibration profiles in the range of the excess power reported, from the same calorimeter configuration. There were 3 shown in the 2017 pre-print, with a peak input of 248 W. I suspect there are others that are at higher power levels. Comparing a control reactor at the same output level that was recorded for an excess heat experiment is an excellent way to cross check the reported excess heat power levels. It doesn’t have to be exact, but at least +/- 10 % or so would be best.
The excess heat reported for the 2017, 120 W input experiment is contained within a delta T difference ( delta T excess minus delta T control) of about 3.5 C at the peak, so yes I have some concerns when that 3.5 C gets turned into a loss corrected excess of over 200 W when the calorimeter recovery is around 50%. It is not impossible or even unlikely that the 3.5 C in a well characterized calorimeter is enough to show 100’s of watts of excess. Why not show that it is good?
Jed supplied it in 2017.
Jed did not supply that plot
Jed supplied a spreadsheet
Jed did not supply that plot
Jed supplied a spreadsheet
RB, I supplied the link for you twice already to the LF forum post in which Jed supplied the image, plus you can click on the last image of the plot and it will also take you there. It is the last image on Jed’s 2017 post, labelled “figure 5”.
There were 3 shown in the 2017 pre-print, with a peak input of 248 W. I suspect
The relevant Mizuno diagram is here.. as noted before on this thread
the 120W output is shown as peaking at 205W..
whereas P's diagram is peaking at 350W
what factor has P used to in analysing the same spreadsheet to get such a large difference?
