"Motl is deleting my comment" That doesn't surprise me.
I too posted a comment. we'll see if he deletes it as well. Here is my post: ---------------------------- It is patently obvious that you have NOT read the paper, or only skimmed it due to your *belief* that this is a scam. 1) you state, "Emissivity of nickel starts at 0.04 or 0.05 and even black nickel has epsilon below 0.5." The emissivity of Nickel has nothing to do with it. The outer cylinder is steel, not Nickel. So why even mention the emissivity of nickel here? You are either ignorant of the details of the test, or are intentionally misleading people. 2) In addition, the steel cylinder is PAINTED, as was CLEARLY stated in the paper on pg16: "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..." These disks are used as CONTROLS to help validate the emissivity values used. I would think that a scientist would at least read the paper CAREFULLY before attempting to criticize it. ------------------------------ I suppose I could have been a bit more 'diplomatic', but frankly, this 'physicist' doesn't deserve it. He probably works at CERN. -Mark Iverson From: Giovanni Santostasi [mailto:gsantost...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:49 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem Motl is deleting my comment, lol. Funny Giovanni On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <gsantost...@gmail.com> wrote: My argument against what Motl claims (what I wrote on his post): I think Lumo you are wrong on this issue of epsilon. The camera doesn't know about temperatures but can measure power. If you use a higher epsilon (1 being the highest) than the real one you are actually underestimating the temperature (derived from Stephan-Boltzman). The camera gives temperature as a proxy for power. If you use the wrong epsilon in the setting of the camera, let's say 1 instead of 0.1 you are underestimating the temperature by a factor of 10, so 5000 K is reported as 500 K. Then when you use the reading of 500 K to calculate the power using Stephan-Boltzman again (after averaging over many areas) reintroducing the same value for epsilon=1 would overestimate power but because the temperature was underestimated by the same factor, everything is all right and the radiation power is estimated correctly. It is still a lower limit of total power given that some power would be in other forms (like convection). On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that the power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments). Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device, observing when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency, overlaid on the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the PCE-830. This assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been validated as plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a single thing I wish they had checked but did not. In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees away from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but rather than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if all surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first set of tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly, casting a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into account. Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics and others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the nature of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no adjustments for it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an electrically heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It is hands-off in the literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the cell, and the rest at a distance, including the clamp on ammeter which placed below the power supply. You do not have to know anything about the reaction to be sure these measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi could possibly do to fool these instruments, which the authors brought with them. They left a video camera on the instruments at all times to ensure there was no hanky-panky. They wrote: "The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements themselves." They estimate the extent to which the heat exceeds the limits of chemistry by both the mass of the cell and the volume of the cell. In the first test, they use the entire weight of the inside cell as the starting point, rather than just the powder, as if stainless steel might be the reactant. In the second test they determine that the powder weighs ~0.3 g but they round that up to 1 g. They use Martin Fleischmann's favorite method of looking at the heat decay curves when the power cycles off. Plot 5 clearly shows that the heat does not decay according to Newton's law of cooling. There must be a heat producing reaction in addition to the electric heater. I like it! - Jed
