My argument against what Motl claims (what I wrote on his post): I think Lumo you are wrong on this issue of epsilon. The camera doesn't know about temperatures but can measure power. If you use a higher epsilon (1 being the highest) than the real one you are actually underestimating the temperature (derived from Stephan-Boltzman). The camera gives temperature as a proxy for power. If you use the wrong epsilon in the setting of the camera, let's say 1 instead of 0.1 you are underestimating the temperature by a factor of 10, so 5000 K is reported as 500 K. Then when you use the reading of 500 K to calculate the power using Stephan-Boltzman again (after averaging over many areas) reintroducing the same value for epsilon=1 would overestimate power but because the temperature was underestimated by the same factor, everything is all right and the radiation power is estimated correctly. It is still a lower limit of total power given that some power would be in other forms (like convection).
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that > the power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was > measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power > analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments). > Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the > company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have > defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device, > observing when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency, > overlaid on the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the > PCE-830. This assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been > validated as plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority. > > > On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people >> think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement >> coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a >> single thing I wish they had checked but did not. >> >> In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any >> chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for >> output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even >> though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in >> every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase >> output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they >> know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees >> away from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but >> rather than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if >> all surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first >> set of tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly, >> casting a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into >> account. >> >> Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics and >> others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the nature >> of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no adjustments >> for it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an electrically >> heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It is hands-off >> in the literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the cell, and >> the rest at a distance, including the clamp on ammeter which placed below >> the power supply. You do not have to know anything about the reaction to be >> sure these measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi could possibly do >> to fool these instruments, which the authors brought with them. They left a >> video camera on the instruments at all times to ensure there was no >> hanky-panky. They wrote: >> >> "The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to >> ensure the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a >> nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements >> themselves." >> >> They estimate the extent to which the heat exceeds the limits of >> chemistry by both the mass of the cell and the volume of the cell. In the >> first test, they use the entire weight of the inside cell as the starting >> point, rather than just the powder, as if stainless steel might be the >> reactant. In the second test they determine that the powder weighs ~0.3 g >> but they round that up to 1 g. >> >> They use Martin Fleischmann's favorite method of looking at the heat >> decay curves when the power cycles off. Plot 5 clearly shows that the heat >> does not decay according to Newton's law of cooling. There must be a heat >> producing reaction in addition to the electric heater. >> >> I like it! >> >> - Jed >> >> >
