Yes, I use these often connected to a DVM with appropriate input and
always non-insulated.
(Sometimes I use this heat conducting fluid that is used for
semiconductors to get good thermo conduction)
This is not a problem as long the DVM has no other galvanic connections
to ground, to the grid and to the measured object.
The tip is blank and not oxidized. Nickel oxide is very easy to break,
it doesnt stay on the nickel surface like aluminium oxide.
But even with aluminium you get contact easily with some pressure.
It should give a rather good electrical contact to other metals if some
pressure is applied. Without pressure it has bad thermal contact and
then the heat conduction of the wires must be considered.
Am 23.10.2011 13:15, schrieb Higgins Bob-CBH003:
Regarding the thermocouples and "isolation". I don't believe
electrical isolation is responsible for a noticeable error because
thermocouple measurements, particularly when measured with systems
that accommodate more than one thermocouple, make the measurements
differentially. I.E. the thermocouple voltage assessed is the voltage
difference between the two wires. I think this eliminates the need
for isolation as long as the common mode voltage doesn't saturate the
front end to the A/D or cause it to go noticeably nonlinear.
Another point to consider about such tiny voltages is that making an
electrical contact with thermocouple wires is not like touching two
gold objects. The thermocouple junction will be oxidized when it is
welded and it will not easily make a contact that breaks through the
oxide -- particularly at such low voltages.
It would be worth a verification experiment. Absent that, I believe
that measurement errors from the two thermocouples "touching" the
electrically conductive heat exchanger in two different places and
possibly with two different metals will be lost in the noise for a
meter designed for more than one couple (as was used).
Bob
*From:*David Roberson [mailto:[email protected]]
*Sent:* Saturday, October 22, 2011 7:12 PM
*To:* [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Possible mechanism-Excess Power Reading of ECAT
Why should it be assumed that improper equipment been used in these
tests? The meter used with the thermocouples is listed in Mats
Lewan's report:
* Temperature logger Testo 177-T3 0554 1765 Usb Interface
The specification I read listed the temperature range as -40 to +120
C. Does that suggest that its accuracy goes out of specification if
the temperature is greater than 120? I assume that it keeps working
past that limit. I made an attempt to determine whether or not the
inputs were isolated but did not see reference to that in the
specifications. How can that be determined as this seems to be a
professional meter.
This issue would be resolved if it is determined that the
thermocouples are isolated.
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Heckert <[email protected]>
To: vortex-l <[email protected]>
Sent: Sat, Oct 22, 2011 5:11 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Possible mechanism-Excess Power Reading of ECAT
Am 22.10.2011 22:16, schrieb Peter Heckert:
It is common in science and technics, some people repeat the same
error over and over because they refuse to think and instead judge
from experience and belief. They think if it worked 3 times for then
it will work 1000000 times for others.
But this is junk science,
Just want to add this: If Piantelli and Focardi made their thermic
measurements (that where much more difficult) with the same care as
Rossi, then their research is junk and this all is a waste of time.
If they connected their elements directly to the metal, using a non
insulated multichannel thermoamplifier, then they measured
thermovoltage in the metal and not in the thermoelements and these in
the metal can be influenced by the degree of hydrogen adsorption.
Peter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 10.0.1411 / Virus Database: 1522/3968 - Release Date: 10/22/11
