Andrew I thought about the same thing about a way to send power via RF to the device. The only issue with that is we are talking about a lot of power and a power source would have to emit it in every direction. So much RF power should interfere easily with the electronics and it should be indirectly detectable. If there is a trick it is most likely in the modulation of the input power.
Giovanni On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <[email protected]>wrote: > Does even teach or do research in any public institution anymore? > Giovanni > > > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Andrew <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ** >> I could have predicted that, Giovanni, which is why I, having raised the >> issue here, chose not to do that. He is an egomaniac, and you attempted to >> beard the lion in its own den. The man has little integrity, quite frankly. >> However, he is IMHO a quite talented physicist. >> >> Andrew >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* Giovanni Santostasi <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:48 PM >> *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem >> >> Motl is deleting my comment, lol. >> Funny >> Giovanni >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Giovanni Santostasi < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
