Vorts. While Rothwell is trying to squirm out of this latest twist on the thermal gain, but probably will not report his dilemma - another highly qualified expert has turned up on CMNS. I will quote his main point:
“This is a serious error if in fact the authors did not take into account
the much higher emissivity of alumina in the wavelength range of their
camera.”
This, if true, essentially means exactly
what Mitchell says – even though Levi got the temperature right, since did
not calculate the correct thermal power.
Brian did not add much detail. He did not
mention the guy's name. Maybe we can persuade Jones Beene to enlighten us on
that, perhaps by playing him like a harp.
He is a researcher at a top Aerospace company who for
peer-related reasons does not want to be identified with LENR.
He believes the data is accurate and was
conducted in a manner consistent with his experience. The measurements rely
on accurate emissivity data and he says they were indeed accurate."
Not exactly. Since that time, I have heard from Mitchell
Swartz who is highly qualified as well. He says that the person whom Brian
spoke was talking about measured temperature only. Rossi's group did not
calibrate at that high temperature- which they should have done. Thus they
could not account for heat loss (thermal power). I am assuming that this
controversy is not over now that Mitchell brings his expertise into the
fray.
Of course, Rothwell and Swartz have traded barbs and insults
over the years, so the Rossi story continues to bring out all the heavy
artillery.
Anyway - I have always opined that excess heat was there,
but doubted the high COP level only – not the excess.
Now - we move can start to move into next phase. Rothwell
says that Rossi – who had every opportunity to tamper with the sample, did
not because he “has no motive”.
I say that he did because physics does not permit the
results which were seen, they cannot happen, with or without motive. Plus
some other evidence.
The is no way in nuclear science to convert the reactants
seen in the way seen. The most logical answer is to suspect the person with
the financial motive. Follow the buck.
More to come on that.
Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
