reading about the thermal camera:
http://www.optris.com/thermal-imager-pi160?file=tl_files/pdf/Downloads/Infrared%20Cameras/PI_Brochure.pdf
http://www.optris.com/thermal-imager-pi160?file=tl_files/pdf/Downloads/IR-Basics.pdf
Has stated accuracy of +/- 2% which at typical 1000K of Rossi's
Also I note that there is no neutron detection in the radiation measurements
On 9 September 2012 10:29, Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.comwrote:
reading about the thermal camera:
http://www.optris.com/thermal-imager-pi160?file=tl_files/pdf/Downloads/Infrared%20Cameras/PI_Brochure.pdf
If Rossi stayed around 1000K, that means 727C. So, comfortably within the
range..
2012/9/9 Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
reading about the thermal camera:
http://www.optris.com/thermal-imager-pi160?file=tl_files/pdf/Downloads/Infrared%20Cameras/PI_Brochure.pdf
From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com
Hmmm ... they calculate the convection term as 0-900W, so they just
ignore it.(which gives a lower COP)
I'm not sure if the convection would affect the wall temperature from
bottom to top. Probably not by much.
Re-re-re-corrected. The DO use convection
Boltzmann law goes with the 4th power. Since he calculates the output with
that, he'd have to make an error of temperature of (COP)^(1/4). For a COP
of 2, that error is of ~20%. For a temperature of 1000K, that would mean an
overestimation of 200K. I think this is unlikely.
2012/9/9 Alan
Andrea Rossi
September 9th, 2012 at 6:07 PM
Dear Brian:
It is necessary that I repeat the following statement:
THE HOT CAT ( REACTOR AT HIGH TEMPERATURE) HAS NOT BEEN YET VALIDATED, BECAUSE
THE TESTS AND THE MEASUREMENTS HAVE STILL TO BE COMPLETED, AND TO COMPLETE THEM
WILL BE NECESSARY AT
Hello group,
This is via E-CatWorld [1].
Below are three separate documents which comprise the report that Andrea Rossi
has authorized for release. The first document is the main report, the second
is a data file from this report, and the third contains some corrections to the
first report
LOL. Now it appears that Rossi is trying to shoehorn 'cavitation' and 'Casimir'
into the most current mix, to at least confuse things for his followers, if not
leave them hanging in the wind.
These are two factors which AR has not mentioned before AFAIK.
Is this latest lame effort of his to
On 2012-09-09 01:12, Jones Beene wrote:
LOL. Now it appears that Rossi is trying to shoehorn 'cavitation' and 'Casimir'
into the most current mix, to at least confuse things for his followers, if not
leave them hanging in the wind.
[...]
Where, in the documents I linked?
Cheers
S.A.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/105322688/Penon4-1
http://www.scribd.com/doc/105325449/Hot-Cat-Data
http://www.scribd.com/doc/105326231/Corrections
They assume that :
the energy radiated by the INNER cyclinder is identical to that of the OUTER.
I think that
a) They assume it's all radiative
Ha! I should have read the errata before I posted !!! They come to the same
conclusions.
Inner Cylinder Hypothesis
• The inner cylinder hypothesis are wrong when it comes to radiation.
• The inner cylinder will only radiate from the area of the cylinder opening
At least it proves I'm awake !
You can use various on-line charts like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature to guess at the inside
temperature, and this calculator
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html to run
various estimates of the heat radiation of the open end and of the rest of
the black
http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/09/high-temperature-e-cat-report-published/
No glaring problems. Though for the life of me I can't work out where the
reactor is in the arrangement - they detail the outer and inner tubes
(which are not the reactors, their mass is consistent with dense 310 SS,
Just realised, if top of reactor was significantly cooler than bottom then
all power calculations would be bollocks. Were there checks done on this
and could the internals have allowed such an uneven heat distribution?
AR has obviously not been keeping up on Vortex nor the PDGTG web
sites. His explanations are about 3 months behind.
T
On Sat, Sep 8, 2012 at 9:59 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:
AR has obviously not been keeping up on Vortex nor the PDGTG web
sites. His explanations are about 3 months behind.
If I ran PDGTG, I would be vetting my emps.
T
From: Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
Just realised, if top of reactor was significantly cooler than bottom
then all power calculations would be bollocks. Were there checks done
on this and could the internals have allowed such an uneven heat
distribution?
I don't trust their
Also http://kisi.deu.edu.tr/aytunc.erek/Proje2011/konu7.pdf
ps -- These are both for the convection loss, of course. This second paper is
for a cylinder temperature around 50C, not 800
Hmmm ... they calculate the convection term as 0-900W, so they just ignore it.
(which gives a lower COP)
I'm not sure if the convection would affect the wall temperature from bottom to
top. Probably not by much.
I don't understand the conclusion. Was there a control device with the same
electrical input and no active element?
-Original Message-
From: Robert Lynn robert.gulliver.l...@gmail.com
To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sat, Sep 8, 2012 9:37 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:High temperature E
20 matches
Mail list logo
