Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> However, given the importance and the skepticism, I would have expected a > thermocouple would have been placed on the device to check the measured > temperature. > They did that. See p. 18, QUOTE: "Various dots were applied to the dummy as well. A K-type thermocouple heat probe was placed under one of the dots, to monitor temperature trends in a fixed point. The same probe had also been used with the E-Cat HT2 to double check the IR camera readings during the cooling phase. The values measured by the heat probe were always higher than those indicated by the IR camera: this difference, minimal in the case of the E-Cat HT2, was more noticeable in the dummy, where temperature readings proved to be always higher by about 2 °C. The most likely reason for the difference is to be sought in the fact that the probe, when covered with the dot securing it the surface, could not dissipate any heat by convection, unlike the areas adjacent to it." The word "dot" is defined earlier in the paper: "Another critical issue of the December test that was dealt with in this trial is the evaluation of the emissivity of the E-Cat HT2’s coat of paint. For this purpose, self-adhesive samples were used: white disks of approximately 2 cm in diameter (henceforth: dots) having a known emissivity of 0.95, provided by the same firm that manufactures the IR cameras (Optris part: ACLSED)." > I would have hoped the device would have been placed in a container from > which the total power generated could be measured. > As I mentioned before, I think the device might melt again if they did that. I would fear that. - Jed
