No, its very laughable. He uses phrases like, well know that. as in, we should all know this. but... he gives no sources, no numbers, and has failed to notice that there are DIFFERENT types of sintered alumina, some of which are DESIGNED to be transparent (sapphire shielding), and some which aren't. He mentions that the experiment had calculations that ASSUMED transmission of infrared, but tied it at a 25 percent transmission rate. What we havent seen are any numbers of the transmission rate of infrared light through that particular size and type. Now, knowing that a lot of the armor alumina that is transparent in visible light has a quick drop off in the infrared spectrum, who wants to bet that the scientists running the experiment, who designed the numbers to calculate the energy loss, actually TESTED and MEASURED the alumina they used? I know I would in that instance. Suggesting that they couldn't possibly have thought of it is, frankly, insulting, unless hes got numbers from actual bench tests of the variety of alumina they used.
In addition, the fact that it heated up to such a level is STILL more energy out than is being put in. Even if you account for the resistors heating more inside the block and reaching a higher termperature, the temp reached and the LENGTH OF TIME it was that hot ismore than is possible from that setup. That, or Rossi has at the very least created the most efficient electric heater know to man! On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > among the skeptic argument one of the only that is not laughable is the > one of goatguy... > maybe is it because I don't understand it well... > > He seems to say > - that alumina is not a grey body, but transparent, and that emissivity > must be mixed with translucidity when considering the radiation of heat... > - and maybe that one effect could came from changing resistors that are > more or less hidden "optically"... > > I propose a kind of group work, > > I propose that people with competence, analyse goagguys arguments, and the > report. > > 1- can someone explain first the point of goatguy on the fact that alumina > is transparent... > is it noticeable ? does it change the way radiation equation are computed > or is it simply emissivity change ? > what can be the order of size of the error induced ? > > 2- can someone confirm (I cannot yet reread the report) that some known > emissivity dots were used, but that the surface of the reactor prevented > permanent thermocouple installation... > can someone analyse the report precisely > > 3- can someone confirm or refute my position that > "if the same object is brighter for an IR cam, even with a complex > emissivity curve, it is hotter than the same object that bright less" > the term bright is apparent temperature for an IR cam, or for a blacksmith > > 4- finally what is the possible error that > - translucidity of alumina > - with resistor switching that move heat source > to change : > the observed COP, to higher or to lower ? > 5- > or to make COP possibly =1 > > my position is that because of my naive rule 3, 5 is impossible. > moreover 2 remove the possibility that effect in 1 are noticeable and not > mostly corrected. > > I want to know if I'm wrong. > > and I have other duties... please help ... I'm sorry. >
