the alumina is outside the resistors and the reactor. On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rossi would nave used alumina that is transparent to infrared in his > reactor design because he wants the heat from his primary heater that is > imbedded in the alumina to get to the nickel powder. An infrared insulator > is not good reactor design. > > 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. >>> >> >> >
