Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat
Harry etal-- With all the discussion of the accuracy of the camera heat determination, why is there not a reference to the thermocouple that was used in the test to monitor the internal temperature. It should have been a good check and in effect calibration of the camera at the higher temperatures. I would tend to believe the thermocouple results over the camera results for internal temperature monitoring in andy case. I believe the pictures show the thermocouple lead entering one end of the reactor. I may be mistaken, however. Bob - Original Message - From: H Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 10:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 1:31 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks for the heads up Harry. I wonder if others on the list are seeing my new topics being sent to spam. The question that I am asking is whether or not there are clues to the behavior of the temperature and power output correlation from the latest HotCat tests revealed by greenhouse gas behavior of the Earth. The Earth is warmer than it should be according to normal black body radiation effects. We attribute the reason as being due to incoming visible light energy being converted into heat at the surface and atmosphere which is partially captured. Less radiation power is emitted into space than the temperature suggests for a grey body. An inert body is in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings and its temperature is constant. The only way for it's temperature to change is if it's thermal properties change. This is true if the inert body is black or grey bodies. Does the variation in the shape of the spectrum as the temperature increases effectively destroy the calibration established by the dummy HotCat run? Is there a simple way to take the error into account? If an error has been made then the error resides in the estimate of the thermal properties of the HotCat. If no error has been made, then the HotCat is not an inert body it is an active body. As an active body it is able to elevate its temperature by either generating its own energy or absorbing more energy from its surroundings then it is emitting. The latter scenario is considered impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics. Harry
Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat
Interesting point Eric. The materials needed to build an ECAT are in enormous quantities within the Earth. A small reaction here, another there, and so on can add up to a tremendous effect when considering the entire world. To obtain a calibration, I have read that the rate of fusion energy being generated within the sun is about the same as the amount of heat generated by your body in watts per kilogram. The ECAT is a far superior source when compared to either alternative. Dave -Original Message- From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Oct 17, 2014 1:46 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:58 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I am not sure what you are asking, but the Earth supposedly generates some heat too. The earth does kind of have the composition of a large, spherical E-Cat. And there is a magnetic field that exists due in part to the rotation of the molten core. I would not be surprised if there is something LENR-driven in the internal heat that is observed. The explanation I have heard for the heat, that it goes back to uranium, seems a little wishful. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat
Harry-- I just read an item yesterday in Infinite Energy Sept 2014 issue that the Earth is expanding with a delta r of about 22 mm per year. The explanations did not include the idea that the expansion was due to increasing internal temperatures and the thermal expansion associated with the higher temperatures. There were several other explanations provided. In general it is not well established what the source(s) of the internal heat in the Earth is/are. They may be increasing as part of a harmonic or random characteristic of the energy production. It would be nice to get some good data on the differential temperatures at various distances from the center deep within the crust to get a good handle on the total heat transfer through the surface. I have never seen a correlation of total heat changes with volume changes for the Earth. Such a calculation may exist however.To get a good idea of the overall heat flux would take good statistics with many data points given the known crustal thickness variations and the variable hot spots below the crust and within it confines. Bob - Original Message - From: H Veeder To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 8:58 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat Dave, for some reason when you start a new thread your message appears in my spam folder. I am not sure what you are asking, but the Earth supposedly generates some heat too. I am not sure how much of this heat contributes to the global temperature. Harry On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: A thought occurred to me this morning concerning the temperature measurements and output power calculations from the latest HotCat testing. What if the same general type of effect is working in the CAT test that is revealed by the Earth and the greenhouse gas process? We assume that the Earth is pretty much in equilibrium where the power arriving from the sun is matching the power being radiated from our planet. The reason that we are not frozen at this time is because the radiation spectrum is modified by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which make our temperature a lot warmer than would be expected for a black body in open space. Perhaps something can be learned from this comparison and that is why I open it to discussion amount this group of knowlegible and diverse folks. One might initially ask if the calibration technique used during the testing of the HotCat would correct for the potential problems. Why would a calibration of the heat emitted within the IR region not hold to a reasonable degree at higher temperatures? Could the change in the shape of the spectrum result in a large error? Have mercy on the messenger. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat
Dave-- In a month's time I have had about 75 Vortex-l emails sent to Junk mail by my hotmail system. It's not uncommon. I check junk mail routinely and have to make transfers to my inbox. Bob - Original Message - From: David Roberson To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:31 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat Thanks for the heads up Harry. I wonder if others on the list are seeing my new topics being sent to spam. The question that I am asking is whether or not there are clues to the behavior of the temperature and power output correlation from the latest HotCat tests revealed by greenhouse gas behavior of the Earth. The Earth is warmer than it should be according to normal black body radiation effects. We attribute the reason as being due to incoming visible light energy being converted into heat at the surface and atmosphere which is partially captured. Less radiation power is emitted into space than the temperature suggests for a grey body. Does the variation in the shape of the spectrum as the temperature increases effectively destroy the calibration established by the dummy HotCat run? Is there a simple way to take the error into account? Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Oct 16, 2014 11:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat Dave, for some reason when you start a new thread your message appears in my spam folder. I am not sure what you are asking, but the Earth supposedly generates some heat too. I am not sure how much of this heat contributes to the global temperature. Harry On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: A thought occurred to me this morning concerning the temperature measurements and output power calculations from the latest HotCat testing. What if the same general type of effect is working in the CAT test that is revealed by the Earth and the greenhouse gas process? We assume that the Earth is pretty much in equilibrium where the power arriving from the sun is matching the power being radiated from our planet. The reason that we are not frozen at this time is because the radiation spectrum is modified by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which make our temperature a lot warmer than would be expected for a black body in open space. Perhaps something can be learned from this comparison and that is why I open it to discussion amount this group of knowlegible and diverse folks. One might initially ask if the calibration technique used during the testing of the HotCat would correct for the potential problems. Why would a calibration of the heat emitted within the IR region not hold to a reasonable degree at higher temperatures? Could the change in the shape of the spectrum result in a large error? Have mercy on the messenger. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat
Eric-- I had the same idea about the heat production of the earth. See my recent comment about 15 minutes ago. Bob - Original Message - From: Eric Walker To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 10:46 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:58 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I am not sure what you are asking, but the Earth supposedly generates some heat too. The earth does kind of have the composition of a large, spherical E-Cat. And there is a magnetic field that exists due in part to the rotation of the molten core. I would not be surprised if there is something LENR-driven in the internal heat that is observed. The explanation I have heard for the heat, that it goes back to uranium, seems a little wishful. Eric
Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat
I believe a book has been written about this. It was handed out at ILENR-12 at William Mary College. It may have been written by Bob Pike. I posited that many of the minerals found at plate boundaries were created via LENR as I recall. On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:07 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Interesting point Eric. The materials needed to build an ECAT are in enormous quantities within the Earth. A small reaction here, another there, and so on can add up to a tremendous effect when considering the entire world. To obtain a calibration, I have read that the rate of fusion energy being generated within the sun is about the same as the amount of heat generated by your body in watts per kilogram. The ECAT is a far superior source when compared to either alternative. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat
In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 17 Oct 2014 02:07:30 -0400: Hi, [snip] To obtain a calibration, I have read that the rate of fusion energy being generated within the sun is about the same as the amount of heat generated by your body in watts per kilogram. [snip] Sun:- 0.183 milliwatt / kg Human body:- 400W/80kg = 5000 milliwatt /kg. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat
Well...guess your body is a much better generator of heat than the sun. I don't recall where I read that they were close, but your figures suggest that the sun is no match. The ratio that you found may imply that I should have said a dead body! Dave -Original Message- From: mixent mix...@bigpond.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Oct 17, 2014 4:47 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat In reply to David Roberson's message of Fri, 17 Oct 2014 02:07:30 -0400: Hi, [snip] To obtain a calibration, I have read that the rate of fusion energy being generated within the sun is about the same as the amount of heat generated by your body in watts per kilogram. [snip] Sun:- 0.183 milliwatt / kg Human body:- 400W/80kg = 5000 milliwatt /kg. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat
On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 1:31 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: Thanks for the heads up Harry. I wonder if others on the list are seeing my new topics being sent to spam. The question that I am asking is whether or not there are clues to the behavior of the temperature and power output correlation from the latest HotCat tests revealed by greenhouse gas behavior of the Earth. The Earth is warmer than it should be according to normal black body radiation effects. We attribute the reason as being due to incoming visible light energy being converted into heat at the surface and atmosphere which is partially captured. Less radiation power is emitted into space than the temperature suggests for a grey body. An inert body is in thermal equilibrium with its surroundings and its temperature is constant. The only way for it's temperature to change is if it's thermal properties change. This is true if the inert body is black or grey bodies. Does the variation in the shape of the spectrum as the temperature increases effectively destroy the calibration established by the dummy HotCat run? Is there a simple way to take the error into account? If an error has been made then the error resides in the estimate of the thermal properties of the HotCat. If no error has been made, then the HotCat is not an inert body it is an active body. As an active body it is able to elevate its temperature by either generating its own energy or absorbing more energy from its surroundings then it is emitting. The latter scenario is considered impossible according to the second law of thermodynamics. Harry
[Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat
A thought occurred to me this morning concerning the temperature measurements and output power calculations from the latest HotCat testing. What if the same general type of effect is working in the CAT test that is revealed by the Earth and the greenhouse gas process? We assume that the Earth is pretty much in equilibrium where the power arriving from the sun is matching the power being radiated from our planet. The reason that we are not frozen at this time is because the radiation spectrum is modified by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which make our temperature a lot warmer than would be expected for a black body in open space. Perhaps something can be learned from this comparison and that is why I open it to discussion amount this group of knowlegible and diverse folks. One might initially ask if the calibration technique used during the testing of the HotCat would correct for the potential problems. Why would a calibration of the heat emitted within the IR region not hold to a reasonable degree at higher temperatures? Could the change in the shape of the spectrum result in a large error? Have mercy on the messenger. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat
Dave, for some reason when you start a new thread your message appears in my spam folder. I am not sure what you are asking, but the Earth supposedly generates some heat too. I am not sure how much of this heat contributes to the global temperature. Harry On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: A thought occurred to me this morning concerning the temperature measurements and output power calculations from the latest HotCat testing. What if the same general type of effect is working in the CAT test that is revealed by the Earth and the greenhouse gas process? We assume that the Earth is pretty much in equilibrium where the power arriving from the sun is matching the power being radiated from our planet. The reason that we are not frozen at this time is because the radiation spectrum is modified by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which make our temperature a lot warmer than would be expected for a black body in open space. Perhaps something can be learned from this comparison and that is why I open it to discussion amount this group of knowlegible and diverse folks. One might initially ask if the calibration technique used during the testing of the HotCat would correct for the potential problems. Why would a calibration of the heat emitted within the IR region not hold to a reasonable degree at higher temperatures? Could the change in the shape of the spectrum result in a large error? Have mercy on the messenger. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat
Dave, for some reason when you start a new thread your message appears in my spam folder. I am not sure what you are asking, but the Earth supposedly generates some heat too. I am not sure how much of this heat contributes to the global temperature. Harry On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: A thought occurred to me this morning concerning the temperature measurements and output power calculations from the latest HotCat testing. What if the same general type of effect is working in the CAT test that is revealed by the Earth and the greenhouse gas process? We assume that the Earth is pretty much in equilibrium where the power arriving from the sun is matching the power being radiated from our planet. The reason that we are not frozen at this time is because the radiation spectrum is modified by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which make our temperature a lot warmer than would be expected for a black body in open space. Perhaps something can be learned from this comparison and that is why I open it to discussion amount this group of knowlegible and diverse folks. One might initially ask if the calibration technique used during the testing of the HotCat would correct for the potential problems. Why would a calibration of the heat emitted within the IR region not hold to a reasonable degree at higher temperatures? Could the change in the shape of the spectrum result in a large error? Have mercy on the messenger. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat
Thanks for the heads up Harry. I wonder if others on the list are seeing my new topics being sent to spam. The question that I am asking is whether or not there are clues to the behavior of the temperature and power output correlation from the latest HotCat tests revealed by greenhouse gas behavior of the Earth. The Earth is warmer than it should be according to normal black body radiation effects. We attribute the reason as being due to incoming visible light energy being converted into heat at the surface and atmosphere which is partially captured. Less radiation power is emitted into space than the temperature suggests for a grey body. Does the variation in the shape of the spectrum as the temperature increases effectively destroy the calibration established by the dummy HotCat run? Is there a simple way to take the error into account? Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Thu, Oct 16, 2014 11:58 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat Dave, for some reason when you start a new thread your message appears in my spam folder. I am not sure what you are asking, but the Earth supposedly generates some heat too. I am not sure how much of this heat contributes to the global temperature. Harry On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: A thought occurred to me this morning concerning the temperature measurements and output power calculations from the latest HotCat testing. What if the same general type of effect is working in the CAT test that is revealed by the Earth and the greenhouse gas process? We assume that the Earth is pretty much in equilibrium where the power arriving from the sun is matching the power being radiated from our planet. The reason that we are not frozen at this time is because the radiation spectrum is modified by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere which make our temperature a lot warmer than would be expected for a black body in open space. Perhaps something can be learned from this comparison and that is why I open it to discussion amount this group of knowlegible and diverse folks. One might initially ask if the calibration technique used during the testing of the HotCat would correct for the potential problems. Why would a calibration of the heat emitted within the IR region not hold to a reasonable degree at higher temperatures? Could the change in the shape of the spectrum result in a large error? Have mercy on the messenger. Dave
Re: [Vo]:Greenhouse HotCat
On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 8:58 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: I am not sure what you are asking, but the Earth supposedly generates some heat too. The earth does kind of have the composition of a large, spherical E-Cat. And there is a magnetic field that exists due in part to the rotation of the molten core. I would not be surprised if there is something LENR-driven in the internal heat that is observed. The explanation I have heard for the heat, that it goes back to uranium, seems a little wishful. Eric
