We learned recently that a noted "expert" skeptic was quoted in his blog as saying that lower emissivity than 1 would explain the excess heat of Rossi. LOL - he is more dyslexic than I am - it is just the opposite. Low emissivity means more excess heat, not less.
The troubling thing about this issue of emissivity is this: can epsilon ever exceed 1? The reflexive answer is no, but I am not so sure. Greater emissivity, if it is possible, would be due to the following "exception to the rule," which is based on internal fluorescence. Internal fluorescence is expected in one theory for the energy gain. Carborundum is a compound of silicon and carbon with chemical formula SiC and is used as one of the tubes in the Rossi reactor into which the cylinder of active material is placed. Silicon nitride is the external tube. Silicon carbide and nitride both have electronic applications of as light emitting diodes (LEDs). The luminescent and emissive properties are well known, and there is the strong possibility of there being fluorescent light emission which is NOT due to blackbody emission. This would increase the effective emissivity to beyond 1, and could be problematic for the measurement camera in use by the Swedish team. Therefore we need to explore the fact that notably the two ceramics tubes are fluorescent and the energy gain can initiate in the UV spectrum. Fluorescence can be defined as the secondary emission of light (luminescence ) by a material that has absorbed light of a shorter wavelength. The most striking examples of fluorescence occur when the absorbed radiation is in the UV region of the spectrum and the emitted light is in the visible region. This is where Blacklight Power gets its name. Earlier, the hypothesis has been framed for the active energy of the Rossi effect to initiate with a 300 eV photon. This is extreme ultraviolet. Secondary emission via carborundum in the visible range would be intense to the degree that the UV can escape the stainless tube. So the critical factor is the transmittance of the stainless tube for EUV. And there is no doubt that stainless would not allow 300 eV photon emission at ambient temperature. OK after all of this work in framing the emissivity >1 argument in the preceding paragraphs, we finally get down to a critical question which is this: Given that stainless steel (grade 310) does NOT allow transmittance of EUV when at ambient temperature, does this steel nevertheless allow for significant transmittance of EUV when it is heated in excess of 800 C ? If the answer is yes, and I am fairly sure that it is - then the testing procedure used by the Swedes for the Rossi hot cap needs to be changed - since internally generated UV light will indeed create an effective emissivity greater than one. Many of us are once again calling for calorimetry testing. It is almost a no-brainer. Rossi must do this, if he wants wider acknowledgement of his achievement - which could be huge. He should understand that if he can show this kind of gain in accurate testing - he will be in line for awards of the highest level. He may want the recognition more than the money. It does not need to be contact calorimetry. Ahern has offered to design and build the kind of flow-calorimeter which can be accurate with only convection cooling, as is happening now. The calorimeter would not change the thermodynamic performance of the device significantly. There is no good reason not to permit this. If Rossi agrees, then this should erase most doubts, although skeptics who are so ignorant as to imagine that emissivity of less than one would explain away the excess heat need to have their credentials reexamined. Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
