On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
Some recent experimental measurements by the Martin Fleischmann Memorial > Project (MFMP) highlighted a possible error in the Hot-Cat calorimetric > measurement; the calorimetric measurement we are referring to is described > in the document known as “TPR2” or Lugano Report. . . . > Let me see if I can capture the growing consensus concerning the Lugano test: - The Lugano test reported an excess heat of 1.5 MWh over the course of a 32 day run of the HotCat. The excess heat was calculated using the output of an Optiris camera and an emissivity obtained using a single method. This emissivity was fed into the Stefan–Boltzmann formula to obtain a value for the radiated power. - The assumed emissivity was not adequately double-checked, e.g., using a thermocouple, a spot of refractory paint or a table of measured emissivities for various types of alumina. - There is reason to believe that the value that was used for the emissivity in the Lugano report was too low, leading the Stefan–Boltzmann formula to give a radiated power that was significantly higher than was actually seen in the experiment. - A lower radiated power, and, hence, temperature, would be consistent with other observations from the Lugano test, including a lack of failure of different components of the HotCat that might be expected at a temperature of 1400 C, which was reported by the authors. Does this capture the consensus? Does anyone disagree or have reservations about any of these statements? The authors of the Lugano test were largely the same as the ones that put together the initial third-party test for the E-Cat. Does the faulty analysis of the Lugano test cast doubt on the conclusions of the earlier test? What does all of this say about the odd suggestion that the core of the HotCat was so hot and bright that the heating elements cast a shadow? Eric
