It is hard to believe that the video feeds are the best part of a second out of sync. This dereliction of instrumentation would be a mortal sin against science. We must understand that such a problem can get people to follow false leads and waste tons of time trying to figure out a pressure related problem that does not exist or the opposite. This is just as bad as water in the steam type issue that we have spent days and days talking about. This is a shot at process that naysayers can use to discredit LENR experimentation as science.
The video is an important scientific tool to understand what is happening in and experiment. It must be calibrated as rigorously as the heat sensors. At this moment, I trust MFMP has setup the video properly and the fault is a hot spot failure of the core. On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 7:25 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > The video frame of the BANG has 3 different video streams merged into > different sections of the frame. > > It is likely that the video stream containing the VI display was in sync > with the audio and the video stream of the white hot dogbone was ahead of > the audio stream as well as the video stream containing the VI display. > > Yes, if this is the case, someone _really_ screwed up this video - very > badly. > > On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The VI display held stead at 79.7 until the instant of the bang when it >> changed instantly to 76.9. the other field also changed in like sequence. >> This tells me that the sound and video is in sync. These two indicators are >> electrical flows to the heater coil. The heat suffered a shock at bang >> onset. >> >> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 6:04 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Looking at the BANG video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDfRaDY2R_A> >>> starting at 2:29, it seems likely that the sound track is behind the video >>> track. >>> >>> Why? >>> >>> Because the events of 2:29 to 2:30 include a clear mechanical >>> displacement of the right end of the tube that goes so far as to >>> mechanically displace the red-stripped device in the extreme upper right of >>> the video frame -- all before the BANG. It seems likely that this >>> mechanical displacement was the actual BANG event with the sound coming >>> nearly a second later. >>> >>> Given that disparity, it seems pretty likely that any change in the heat >>> profile during 2:29 to 2:30 is the result of the breach, not its cause. >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Axil Axil <janap...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> The devil is in the details. IMHO, the primary cause of the failure was >>>> not pressure related. When the video of the event is viewed at 1/4 speed, >>>> at 2.29 a white spot caused by high heat buildup first appears in the field >>>> of scarlet near the point of failure. This bit of evidence shows that the >>>> power produced at 2.29 is greatly increasing. This overheat reaction is not >>>> caused by a short circuit in the heater element because the power is steady >>>> at that time. As 2:29 progresses the white spot grows in size. >>>> >>>> The area of white expands throughout the 2.30 timeframe and at the end >>>> of that time period, the power to the heater surges as the heater begins to >>>> short out. The exploding sound occurs at the end of 2:30. The area of white >>>> is at its maximum at the end of 2.30 and begins to return to scarlet >>>> stating at 2:31 as hydrogen is venting from the tube. The power going >>>> through the heater is at its maximum at 2:32 until 2.34. The power is >>>> minimized at 2:35. The heater is completely shorted at 2:55 with 0 current >>>> flow. >>>> >>>> There is a fration of a second starting at 2:29 before the tube >>>> fractured as marked by the sound of explosion near the end of 2:30 when >>>> high heat is building up at the point of failure. The hydrogen detection >>>> instrument sounds produced by venting hydrogen does not begin until >>>> 2.30 after the sound of the explosion. This failure was caused by explosive >>>> overheating. >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 4:12 PM, a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Jones Beene wrote: >>>>> >>>>> "If the failure was only pressure-related, it would happen near the >>>>> middle of >>>>> the cavity, which is the region of least structural strength against >>>>> internal >>>>> pressure - but since the failure (apparently) happened at almost exactly >>>>> the >>>>> place where the temperature gradient would be maximized – that explanation >>>>> seems to fit the circumstances." >>>>> >>>>> I find it far more likely to be determined by a defect in the Al2O3 tube. >>>>> The ceramic is very brittle. >>>>> I have had those thermocouple tubes break for no apparent reason when >>>>> inserting them in a furnace. >>>>> They also require handling with reasonable care. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
