On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:47 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
So, do you need help with that spice model?
You're just repeating your arguments and ignoring the responses I've
already given to them. Obviously I have no proof. How could I? True
believers insist on an explanation of
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
The tactic of the obstructionist is to avoid dealing with the case
The avoidance here is from the true believers who insist that any
alternative explanation must described in detail, whereas they refuse to
explain the
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
It is apparent that Mr. Cude does not have a valid case and is not willing
to discuss the issues.
I've written a lot of words, so obviously I'm willing to discuss. I'm kind
of outnumbered here, so it's not possible to
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
Put yourself in the shoes of those 7 scientists who have placed
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, Jun 4, 2013 11:53 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 11:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
It is apparent that Mr. Cude does not have a valid case and is not willing to
discuss the issues
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:12 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:50 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
The tactic of the obstructionist is to avoid dealing with the case
The avoidance here is from the true believers who insist that any
alternative
*…whereas they refuse to explain the thermodynamics of a power density 100
times that of uranium in a fission reactor without melting,…*
The fission reactor is extremely inefficient in its use of nuclear fuel.
The limiting factor in the nuclear fuel utilization is the zirconium
cladding that
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
It is not clear to me that CF works best in a completely solid
environment. Melting may accelerate the effect, but if the melting
occurs just beneath the surface like magma, pressure will build and
volcanic like
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote:
It is like explaining how a rocket works to a muleskinner.
Note, however that the astronomer Milton Humason began his career as a
muleskinner during the construction of the Mt. Wilson observatory. Then he
became the janitor in 1917. Then in 1919 he was
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:
Bring on your proof that what I have
Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com wrote:
people have to see that the pretended skeptics are in fact conspiracy
theorist of the worst species.
I agree. Plus they judge everything by personality and their own
assumptions, and they see only one side to a personality. They point to
Rossi's odd
I meant to write that Edison was called a disgrace, who takes
*us*backwards. Us meaning people working on electrical engineering
and
incandescent lighting. As I recall, one of Edison's commercial rivals said
that. You will find similar quotes from Rossi's jealous rivals in cold
fusion.
That was
In reply to Robert Lynn's message of Fri, 31 May 2013 11:44:44 +0100:
Hi,
[snip]
Killing off opposing views like Abd, Andrew and others does not improve the
quality of the discourse. I like that imagination, wild ideas and hope
have free rein here, but I also think it is essential to temper that
?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:
Bring on your proof
. Is that asking too much?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:
Bring on your
vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Jun 1, 2013 11:00 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Well, that's the general strategy of group selection: Get the group on your
side and go after the individual, or, failing that, after the smaller group.
It isn't the human condition so much
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.comwrote:
Put yourself in the shoes of those 7 scientists who have placed their
reputations on the line.
I don't think it's a big risk. They can
On Sat, Jun 1, 2013 at 9:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
It is apparent that Mr. Cude does not have a valid case and is not willing
to discuss the issues. We can show that every one of his positions is
nothing more than speculation with absolutely no substantiation.
He
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I thought that the DC issue was put to rest.
Only according to the credulous true believers. Essen said they excluded
it, but he didn't say how. If we're just going to accept what they say
without scrutiny, then why
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:
I thought that the DC issue was put to rest.
Only according to the credulous true believers.
you want it to be true.
***Sneering.
Kevin, that doesn't look like sneering to me, more like simply Joshua's
assessment of the motivations for positions that others are taking, without
invective or nastiness that I can see.
I am generally saddened to see the recent witch-hunt/culling of
dissent/heresy in the Vort. The 'sneering'
Hi,
On 31-5-2013 12:44, Robert Lynn wrote:
I am generally saddened to see the recent witch-hunt/culling of
dissent/heresy in the Vort. The 'sneering' rule is being applied
asymmetrically, and frankly of late it is becoming more like a
doctrinal church.
Killing off opposing views like Abd,
On May 31, 2013, at 11:18 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
There's various ways to create illusions, and I don't necessarily know how it
might have been done.
That is very healthy attitude. Many people often forget how easy it is to
create illusions and how hard it is expose them
Robert Lynn wrote:
Killing off opposing views like Abd, Andrew and others does not
improve the quality of the discourse.
Bill Beaty told me he did not precipitously throw out Andrew. They
discussed the rules, and concluded that this forum is not the best fit
for Andrew at this time.
- Jed
, May 31, 2013 4:19 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
I thought that the DC issue was put to rest.
Only according to the credulous true believers. Essen said they excluded it,
but he didn't say
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote:
Put yourself in the shoes of those 7 scientists who have placed their
reputations on the line.
I don't think it's a big risk. They can plausibly claim ignorance. In fact
their ignorance is the most plausible
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:58 AM, Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.comwrote:
What is the best thing about this new demonstration that it excludes
definitely steam based tricks from the possible repertoire. So from the
beginning it was all about the feeding extra input power via hidden
demonstrate a lack of understanding of basic EE knowledge.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 4:19 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 3:35 PM, David Roberson
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Fri, May 31, 2013 2:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Bring on your proof that what I have
, May 31, 2013 2:01 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:59 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.comwrote:
Bring on your proof that what I have pointed out is not true. Take a
few moments to show how DC flowing into the control box due to its internal
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
But when they use 3-phase, when single would do, when the wiring is in
place ahead of time, when close associates chose the instruments which
: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, May 30, 2013 1:35 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 10:07 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
Oh, and I haven't seen any links to videos. Any chance you could post
them again? Is this cheese power, perchance? If so, I've seen them, and I
have
On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:51 AM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
Regardless of how it's done, or whether Rossi used the same method, the
demonstration is very nice illustration that meters can be fooled quite
easily when there is a little infrastructure to hide things, and that when
Andrew wrote:
Do you believe that, by fiddling with the exponent n and the
emissivity e, you can show that P could be in actuality 3 times lower
(roughly) than is calculated in the report? For if you can, then
you've reduced COP to unity.
This assertion is nonsensical. You have forgotten
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:14 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
Do you believe that, by fiddling with the exponent n and the emissivity e,
you can show that P could be in actuality 3 times lower (roughly) than is
calculated in the report? For if you can, then you've reduced COP to unity.
What simple deception are you describing? DC, RF or hidden wire in the cable?
Something else?
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Joshua Cude
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:53 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013
: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
What simple deception are you describing? DC, RF or hidden wire in the
cable? Something else?
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Joshua Cude
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May
they're done. Should I give that out?
Andrew
- Original Message -
*From:* Andrew andrew...@att.net
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:57 AM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
What simple deception are you describing? DC, RF or hidden wire
- Original Message -
From: Joshua Cude
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Yes, it's the cheese power videos. I have a theory too, but the point is,
many people without a theory would still not believe
AM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
You and I are thinking along the same lines. And yes, the real modulation of
the output power by the pulses has to be acknowledged. As I've already
mentioned, if there's any power being snuck in, it would have to be occuring
during
will be respected.
Can we count on you to be objective?
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 12:07 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Yes, it's the cheese power videos. I have a theory
what ever does the clamp, if bellow 32kHz, the power meter catch it and
compute the real power.
modern powermeter (and even old analog like the one I used in the 80s)
don't care of the shape of the signal. it make the integral of the U*I
product over time...
only problem is bandwidth, high and
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:19 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote:
Please take a careful look at the modulated output power that we discussed
the other day. You will notice a strong correlation between the input
power as registered on the power meter and the shape of the output power.
Joshua, I hope that you will attempt to find the truth instead of continue to
play games.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 1:42 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Tue, May
once and for all?
Kicking a dead horse does no good Andrew.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Andrew andrew...@att.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tue, May 28, 2013 1:06 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
I also am pretty sure that most here haven't understood
It's the band thing.
If e = 1 in the band which the camera can see, and significantly lower
in the rest of the spectrum, then the equations they used will show a
(perhaps markedly) higher power than was actually generated.
Or do I have it backward? Damn! this stuff is confusing.
Anybody
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
Oh, and I haven't seen any links to videos. Any chance you could post them
again? Is this cheese power, perchance? If so, I've seen them, and I have a
theory about how they're done. Should I give that out?
I already sussed
Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in
a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder' by Giuseppe Levi
et al.
Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund University
http://nuclearphysics.nuclear.lu.se/lpe/files/62739576.pdf
This document stands as
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20:43 AM
Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy
production in a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel
powder' by Giuseppe Levi et al.
Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund
Motl's blog (apologies but I don't remember who that was). And I
remember Jed agreeing with me, so there's at least 3 of us who had it wrong.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique
would yield COP=1?
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Andrew
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Ekstrom's critique made me think about the output side more. I've been making
a mistake about
internal heat.
Dave
-Original Message-
From: Andrew andrew...@att.net
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Mon, May 27, 2013 3:15 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Ekstrom makes the same point as I have failed to make with Dave (and upon which
nobody else here
of us who had it wrong.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a
reactor device
No. Good grief. You seem to have a Ph.D. in furious misunderstanding.
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Yes. I assume that you refer to drive
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:34 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
The thermal scanning adjusts calculated temperature based on emissivity. You
can't adjust it twice, that is what Motil did. That is nonsense. It was also
tested (emissivity
?
Andrew
- Original Message -
*From:* Andrew andrew...@att.net
*To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
*Sent:* Monday, May 27, 2013 12:10 PM
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Ekstrom's critique made me think about the output side more. I've been
making a mistake about emissivity.
P
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a
reactor device containing
:* [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
** **
Comments on the report 'Indication of anomalous heat energy production in
a reactor device containing hydrogen loaded nickel powder' by Giuseppe Levi
et al.
** **
Peter Ekström, Department of Physics, Lund University
http
agreeing with me, so there's at least 3 of us who had it wrong.
Andrew
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 11:20 AM
Subject: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Comments
I'm putting the Optris calculations into a spreadsheet -- the following is
documentation of the formulae used in readable form
From the Optris IR Basics documentation (Page 7)
@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
No. Good grief. You seem to have a Ph.D. in furious misunderstanding.
- Original Message -
From: David Roberson
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 12:29
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
It seems likely that Rossi may be using cheese power for his energy. Check
out these two videos, where equal power is obtained without any
registration of current with a clamp-on or in-line ammeter. I don't know
how it
Keep in mind the possibility that the value of n depends on the wavelength,
and therefore presumably on the final calculated temperature, and so an
iterative procedure may be needed. In other words, the comparison will not
be between 2 emissivities for the same n, but for different n's, and the
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
The camera which calculates the temperature of HotCat is based on
converting radiance into a corresponding temperature – and that camera has
a setting for blackbody emissivity, which is usually near one at higher
temperature.
** **
Levi the
Andrew,
It is worth of comment. You haven’t been paying attention apparently… probably
due to an imbalance of the ratio between posting vs. listening.
There is a common phenomenon in LENR known as temperature ratcheting. Other
names are used.
And yes, the “magic” does seem to occur
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
It seems likely that Rossi may be using cheese power for his energy.
Check out these two videos, where equal power is obtained without any
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
There are 3 cases:
1. Pulse ON state, 35% of the time. COP=1 during this time
No, it is probably higher, but it cannot be measured with certainty because
we do not know the recovery rate. (This is not a calorimeter.)
2. Pulse OFF state, 65% of the
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:42 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote:
The camera which calculates the temperature of HotCat is based on
converting radiance into a corresponding temperature – and that camera has
a setting for blackbody emissivity,
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
It is positive in that case, but it's not obvious that it's always
positive, because the way they choose the effective exponent is not given
quantitatively. The paper does not report trying the same thing at lower
emissivity like 0.2.
This is an
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
You're saying that the measured emissivity value is trustworthy, and I'm
willing to buy that . . .
Then you completely misunderstand. In the first test, the number is
*not*trustworthy. It is arbitrary. It is set to the lowest possible
value.
In the second
For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the e
(emissivity) ratio. He wrote:
The emissivity for stainless steel could have any value from 0.8 to 0.075
[2]. The lower value would
obviously yield a much lower net power, in fact it could easily make COP=1.
He has this
Andrew, remember the cop is a conservative estimate so it is just a
coincidence that the numbers happen to have those ratios.
Harry
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:15 PM, Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
**
Ekstrom makes the same point as I have failed to make with Dave (and upon
which nobody else
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:12:49 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the
e (emissivity) ratio. He wrote:
The emissivity for stainless steel
line of reasoning; or was
it Gary Wright?
-Mark Iverson
From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:jedrothw...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:13 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the e
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
Plot 9 shows COP and the ON/OFF status of the resistor coils. Is it a
coincidence that zero feeding for two thirds of the time results in COP=3,
but constant feeding would yield COP=1?
No, it is not a coincidence. The red curve is normalized to fit the graph.
An interesting point worth pursuing, at some point - is what nickel alloy has a
Curie point in the range of the HotCat core, and is also known to be active
with hydrogen? Is there a high temperature alloy with high CP which is also
hexavalent?
The common alloys for high temperature Curie
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
It is positive in that case, but it's not obvious that it's always
positive, because the way they choose the effective exponent is not given
quantitatively. The paper does not
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
And just in case you're wondering how e effects the calculated power
P = a . e . (T1^4 - T0^4) -- T1 actual, T0 ambient
ae Tc Tk P
area 18 1.00E-100.8 564.1 837.1
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:33 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
Jed:
More importantly, why is he using the emissivity of stainless steel, when
the outer cylinder is painted ceramic, NOT stainless steel!!!
Since it's painted, it doesn't make any difference what was painted.
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:41:34 PM
And just in case you're wondering how e effects the calculated power
P = a . e . (T1^4 - T0^4) -- T1 actual, T0 ambient
a e Tc Tk P
area 18 1.00E-10 0.8 564.1 837.1 38.84 === lower e OVER-estimates the power
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
For people not following the discussion, Ekström misunderstood the e
(emissivity) ratio. He wrote:
The emissivity for stainless steel could have any value from 0.8 to 0.075
[2]. The lower value would
obviously yield
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:41:34 PM
And just in case you're wondering how e effects the calculated power
P = a . e . (T1^4 - T0^4) -- T1 actual, T0 ambient
a e Tc Tk P
Jed:
There are really 2 issues regarding the emissivity. When the Thermal Scanner
takes a reading it is imaging from the object. In order to convert that image
to temperature one must know the emissivity. The scanner has a formula based
on the emissivity. You are absolutely right that by
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:59:16 PM
And we don't know what this would be for an emissivity of 0.2.
Who cares? It's NOT metal. There's no way that BLACK PAINT can have an
emissivity of 0.2
...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:45 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:33 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.net
wrote:
Jed:
More importantly, why is he using the emissivity of stainless steel, when
the outer
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the December
test was, nor whether it was wavelength dependent. There may be a paint
for which an assumption of emissivity of 1 greatly overestimates the
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 3:18 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
Why not the same critical comments from you about those so-called
‘experts’ who make such an obvious mistake???
Confirmation bias. ;)
Eric
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:02:02 PM
I'm talking about the December test, when a different paint was used.
I don't think we know anything about the emissivity of that paint,
nor it's dependence on wavelength.
Then forget about the December test.
From: Randy Wuller rwul...@freeark.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:13:36 PM
The bottom line using a different emissivity in the 2 estimates
(calculations) would be crazy and in actuality for all intents they
most likely offset each other.
See my post on the P = a . e . T^4 calculation.
2nd test it's trustworthy was the meaning
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:04 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
Andrew andrew...@att.net wrote:
You're saying that the measured emissivity
I got it right first, and today, briefly, I believed Ekstrom. Then I returned
to sanity
- Original Message -
From: Jed Rothwell
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
For people not following
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:59:16 PM
And we don't know what this would be for an emissivity of 0.2.
Who cares? It's NOT metal. There's no way that BLACK PAINT can have an
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:18 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint zeropo...@charter.netwrote:
So Josh,
Why do you **ignore** the FACT that Ekstrom and others are using the
emissivity of stainless when that is irrelevant???
Why not the same critical comments from you about those so-called
‘experts’
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the December
test was, nor whether it was wavelength dependent. There may be a
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.comwrote:
This document stands as its own rebuttal.
I think that overstates things. After reading through the comments,
Ekstrom brings up a number of details that could plausibly be remedied in
any followup test. I think we have
Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 3:02 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al.
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote:
From: Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:41:34 PM
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
If they take emissivity = 1 then they are assuming the worst value for
emissivity at all wavelengths. How will a lower emissivity in any
range lead to an over estimation of power?
Joshua's position is that in the
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Joshua Cude joshua.c...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:22 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude
1 - 100 of 107 matches
Mail list logo
