> From: "Joshua Cude" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 7:47:48 AM > I think Pekka is right. If the camera samples above the peak > wavelength, and it is a grey body, then an emissivity of 1 seems to > be always conservative. ...
> So, the only way the camera could give an overestimate of the power > is if the emissivity has some kind of strong wavelength dependence, > and I rather doubt a material exists that would give a factor of 3 > or more error. > > > So, the upshot is that I can't explain the power gain with an error > in emissivity in either experiment. I conceded as much for the March > experiment from the beginning, where they measured the emissivity, > and that is presumably the more significant run anyway. So, we are left with a) Fraud by Rossi and/or those in cahoots with him b) DC http://www.e-catworld.com/2013/05/discovery-article-pours-doubt-on-rossis-cold-fusion/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=discovery-article-pours-doubt-on-rossis-cold-fusion May 28, 2013 at 2:26 AM <http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2013/05/ethics-of-e-cat.html?showComment=1369733204626#c7691737630487135094> Earlier statement : Prof. Essén wrote this paragraph as a comment to this piece of interview that appeared on http://www.pureenergyblog.com/?p=1232 : -------------------------------- Interviewer: Have you tried to test the output of the power supply to exclude that also a DC current is supplied to the device, which clamp amperometers could not detect? Prof. Essén: No, we did not think of that. The power came from a normal wall socket and there did not seem to be any reason to suspect that it was manipulated in some special way. Now that the point is raised we can check this in future tests. -------------------------------------------- Later statement (from Cassandra) The only response for which Prof. Essén authorises publication is the following: "In the intervju I answered that there was no direct measurement of dc (since the clamps could not detec such). This was a bit hasty. In future I will not answer such technical questions without conferring with all coautors. After analysing what we checked and measured (which were many more variables that those from the clamps) we can definitely exclude dc-current. (This is what comes from being nice to journalists.)" [ cleaned up on another blog : ] “In the interview I answered that there was no direct measurement of dc (since the clamps could not detect such). This was a bit hasty. In future I will not answer such technical questions without conferring with all coauthors. After analysing what we checked and measured (which were many more variables that those from the clamps) we can definitely exclude dc-current. (This is what comes from being nice to journalists.)” I suspect that there may be a revised version of the paper with an analysis of this. So we are left with : a) The input AND output measurements are valid b) It's all a fraud by Rossi, Levi .... The latter, of course, is outside of science, and in the field of conspiracy theorists.
