So to continue this line of arithmetic, we have a factor of 10 gain to explain. First of all let's get rid of the Stefan Boltzmann amplification of error by taking the fourth root of 10:
10^(1/4) = 1.7782794 That means if we're looking for error as the source of the gain, we have to plausibly argue an error of 78% in the portion of the IR camera's calibration for Wein's displacement proportionality. Note, it is a proportionality -- a straight linear proportionality -- because we have removed the Stefan Boltzmann fourth power from the equation. Wein's displacement is an approximation of the Plank curve most accurate at higher frequencies -- where photons have higher energy. So if we're looking for errors in power measurement, we need to be most concerned about frequencies below the IR. The problem for those of us who want to find error in the measure is that the peak is in the camera's physical sensor bandwidth where we aren't extrapolating -- and the most likely source of error is in an area of the spectrum that not only has lower luminosity but lower energy per photon. Again, I've never seen one of these emotionally committed "skeptics" do so much as the simple arithmetic to come up with the factor of 10 figure for the November test let alone the "78%" that results from discounting Stefan Boltzmann's sensitivity to error, let alone proceed from there to do the arithmetic to estimate what appears to be an insignificant residual error in the sensor's calibration software. That's why I laugh these people off. There's no point blather with people who refuse to do arithmetic regarding the strongest argument of their opponents. On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 2:39 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > I found the major error: > > The peak wavelength is in the infrared -- as it is with the sun -- and I > intuitively thought that the fact that much of the surface was bright red > thru yellow meant my picking dull red (700nm) was "conservative". This > then fed via Wien's law proportionately into the fourth power of Stefan > Boltzmann's law to produce the 2MW. > > This arose because I simply neglected to go to the next page after page 2 > -- where Figure 3 shows the temperature as 793C or 1066K. > > Recalculating from the substitution for Th: > > q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4) > q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(1291304958736-Tc^4) ; subst(1066, Th) > q=3084.152246988637*pi ; subst(289, Tc) > q=9689W > > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:58 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I can't resist: >> >> What power level is required to get that device to barely enter the >> visible wavelengths (700nm), again, assuming no losses other than black >> body? >> >> again using http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation_t.php at >> 700nm: >> >> blackbody temperature (T) = 4139.6692857143 kelvin >> >> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4) >> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(2.9367203218388994*10^14-Tc^4) ; >> subst(4139.6692857143, Th) >> q=705199.0585641474*pi >> q=2.2154481E6W >> >> Yeah, Rossi had a really high frequency power supply pumping even >> 1/10th of that into the E-Cat HT. >> >> >> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 6:40 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> One final erratum (hopefully): In the November run when the device >>> overheated to visible wavelengths, the input power was 1kW (p2), not 360W. >>> Therefore: >>> >>> 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441) >>> 1000=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441) ; subst(1000, 360) >>> >>> Th=(59549289748750/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4) ; solve(Th) >>> Th=611.17587 Kelvin >>> Th=338.026 Celsius >>> >>> using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php >>> >>> peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 4.741300568689E-6 meter >>> >>> Still deep into the infrared. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:59 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Erratum: I also left out the substitution step for room temperature: >>>> >>>> 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441) ; subst(289) >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Erratum: Strike the "So, what..." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> q=eps*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)*A >>>>>> q=eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*s*(Th^4-Tc^4) ; subst(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r, A) >>>>>> q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*(Th^4-Tc^4) ; >>>>>> subst(5.6703e-8, s) >>>>>> q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(0.11*l*pi+0.00605*pi)*(Th^4-Tc^4) ; subst(.055, >>>>>> r) >>>>>> q=2.40137205*10^-9*eps*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4) ; subst(.33, l) >>>>>> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4) ; subst(1, eps) >>>>>> 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4) ; subst(360, q) >>>>>> Th=(21437744309550/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4) ; solve(Th) >>>>>> Th=483.6006 Kelvin >>>>>> Th=210.451 Celsius >>>>>> >>>>>> using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php >>>>>> >>>>>> peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 5.9920696955297E-6 meter >>>>>> >>>>>> or 6 micrometers >>>>>> >>>>>> That is with no losses other than black body radiation (ie: no >>>>>> convective losses). >>>>>> >>>>>> That is way into the infrared. The excursions into the visible >>>>>> wavelength occurred with 360W. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, what >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jed Rothwell >>>>>> <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is value in pursuing reductio ad absurda when they engage one >>>>>>>> of the strongest arguments that the demonstration is valid: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That the power input could not conceivably have produced the >>>>>>>> radiation wavelengths observed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more >>>>>>> detailed discussion of that, with equations and examples? That would be >>>>>>> helpful. Please post this in a new thread so I can find it easily. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You might also address the fact that the first device melted. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Jed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
