It is worth noting that some F&P cells got hot enough to boil off the electrolytic solution and then remained hot for a while.
Harry On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > Very perceptive and a great insight into why the test was setup the way > that it was. Rossi has not solved his control issues yet. > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Blaze Spinnaker <blazespinna...@gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Brad, I think part of the problem was control. When you use the hot cat >> to actually heat something I suspect it messes with the ability to control >> the reaction. The best they can do is let it radiate, which is why the >> thermal cameras. >> >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Brad Lowe <ecatbuil...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Does anyone know if there will be a press release or Q&A where the >>> experimenters can answer questions? >>> It would be extreme negligence to allow Levi or Rossi to open the >>> reactor or handle the ash. >>> >>> Two things that lends credence to Jones' fear-- Rossi's constant "may >>> be positive or may be negative" mantra, and Rossi's statements that >>> getting actual work accomplished is difficult. If it were a clear COP >>> of 3, it should be pretty easy to "heat a tub of water" or do some >>> kind of obvious work. >>> >>> - Brad >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > Jones -- I can't say your objections to Rossi being present when it >>> was open >>> > are unfounded. I think that was a rather stupid move/agreement between >>> the >>> > parties. Creates all kind of innuendo which they could/should have >>> avoided. >>> > With that said I'm not so sure it really presented him with much >>> chance to >>> > "swap the sample", as Mats Lewan wrote: >>> > >>> > "I don’t have details minute by minute, but I was told one member of >>> the >>> > team together with Rossi and a technician opened the reactor in a >>> closed >>> > room. A diamond saw had to be used to cut some part before the end plug >>> > could be removed. The team member was allowed to pick 10 mg out of the >>> > charge which amounted to about 1 gram. This constraint was supposedly >>> > imposed by IH. The sample of used fuel could be chosen freely from the >>> > charge inside the reactor, which means that if the material was >>> manipulated, >>> > all of it had to be so. Basically I guess you would have needed to >>> swap the >>> > reactor for another identical before opening." >>> > >>> > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> >>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Here is a reduction ad absurdum example of why this experiment was >>> >> unbelievably poorly designed. >>> >> >>> >> NOTE: The experiment could still be gainful, but the Levi’s results >>> do not >>> >> prove anything, as presented. The thermocouple does not help – it is >>> >> admitted by Levi that it was accurate only on the two caps, which were >>> >> much >>> >> cooler. >>> >> >>> >> Let’s say I claim to have a hundred watt OU lightbulb that I want to >>> sell >>> >> to >>> >> you for $1 million. If it were a glass bulb, and clear, and I use the >>> IR >>> >> camera to measure the filament temperature, and then used that >>> temperature >>> >> to compute the emissivity of the entire surface area of the bulb, say >>> 100 >>> >> cm^2, then you would cry foul – since the obviously only the surface >>> area >>> >> of >>> >> the filament is responsible. That filament area could be 1 cm^2 and in >>> >> effect, I have computed the power of the bulb with a 25:1 >>> overestimate- >>> >> based on an incorrect assumption, but based on a correct reading and a >>> >> correct formula. >>> >> >>> >> Next let’s say the bulb presented is frosted, and you are naïve and >>> do not >>> >> know that it contains a hot filament - but I use the camera to focus >>> on an >>> >> area of the bulb’s exterior, where from prior experience, I know that >>> the >>> >> filament radiates the most photons, even if that reading is >>> diminished in >>> >> intensity from a clear bulb … this technique can still result in a 3:1 >>> >> over-estimate of the net emissivity of the bulb, since there is a >>> strong >>> >> contribution from a hot filament. This can be demonstrated rather >>> easily >>> >> to >>> >> be factual. >>> >> >>> >> That is the problem with this paper. Levi seems to be telling us only >>> >> this: >>> >> that if one applies 800 watts to a Inconel wire, it will reach 1300 >>> >> degrees. >>> >> But we already knew that. >>> >> >>> >> We cannot extrapolate the emissivity of the resistor wire to the >>> entire >>> >> surface of the reactor. As for a thermocouple, placement is >>> everything. I >>> >> saw NO DATA on calibration of the thermocouple, only that someone who >>> >> already screwed up the experiment royally thinks that it verifies what >>> >> could >>> >> be a grossly incorrect calibration. In fact this is admitted “We also >>> >> found >>> >> that the ridges made thermal contact with any thermocouple probe >>> placed on >>> >> the outer surface of the reactor extremely critical, making any direct >>> >> temperature measurement with the required precision impossible.” So >>> they >>> >> admit the thermocouple reading was not done with any precision on the >>> >> exterior of the tube – only on the caps which are much cooler and >>> >> consequently the thermocouple verifies nothing! >>> >> >>> >> $64 question: Was Rossi present at the time the reactor was opened? >>> >> >>> >> If so, and this has been reported on E-Cat World, then that means the >>> >> sample >>> >> which Bianchini tested was not independently obtained – and could have >>> >> been >>> >> tampered with by Rossi himself – who is known to have purchased >>> several >>> >> grams of Ni-62. >>> >> >>> >> From: Jed Rothwell >>> >> JB: Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as >>> Levi - >>> >> in not seeing the obvious ... “about the same” is absurd, given what >>> >> happens >>> >> later. The difference between 486 and 790 is enormous when the >>> delta-T is >>> >> being raised by a formula which includes a fourth power >>> (Stefan–Boltzmann >>> >> law) >>> >> The temperature was also measured with a >>> thermocouple, as >>> >> noted. >>> >> >>> >> Ah, but your point is that even if the the >>> temperature is >>> >> measured correctly, may not reflect the power correctly. >>> >> >>> >> That would be a rewrite of the textbooks. In any >>> case, a >>> >> temperature calibration curve goes down, not up, at higher power >>> levels. >>> >> >>> > >>> >>> >> >
