Mistakes happen, NASA crashed a Mars probe because they mixed up metric and standard measurements.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:19 PM, leaking pen <itsat...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >> > >
