what impact does it have about the question whether the blank when powered with more energy, is brighting much less than the one with one gram more of magic powder ?
to the point that the things inside the reactor bright more than the resistors ... if the skeptics are really skeptic, they have to address that question. first answer if the powder produce heat more that it receive... for the rest I'm ready to follow expert opinion. moreover there is the calibration by others mean? note that they used black points that confirmed the emissivity of the surface as interpreted by the IR cam. is there also comments on the black dot that are compatible with that theory... it is maybe a key to rule out GG theory 2014-10-10 21:34 GMT+02:00 Stefan Israelsson Tampe <[email protected]> : > If there is a real transparancy issue as GoatGuy suggest then the inner > must be of much higher temperature then the surface. > To get a feeling of this issue I tried to look at the published picture of > the cat and see if there was a region of lower temperature > at the upper part of the ecat in the heat picture. I could just see a > sharp interface. My take is that the time constant in the variation > is so low that the inner part and the surface have approximately the same > temperature and hence I think that GoatGuy's point is a bit > moot. > > WDYT? > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Axil Axil <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Very perceptive and a great insight into why the test was setup the way >> that it was. Rossi has not solved his control issues yet. >> >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Blaze Spinnaker < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Brad, I think part of the problem was control. When you use the hot >>> cat to actually heat something I suspect it messes with the ability to >>> control the reaction. The best they can do is let it radiate, which is >>> why the thermal cameras. >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Brad Lowe <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Does anyone know if there will be a press release or Q&A where the >>>> experimenters can answer questions? >>>> It would be extreme negligence to allow Levi or Rossi to open the >>>> reactor or handle the ash. >>>> >>>> Two things that lends credence to Jones' fear-- Rossi's constant "may >>>> be positive or may be negative" mantra, and Rossi's statements that >>>> getting actual work accomplished is difficult. If it were a clear COP >>>> of 3, it should be pretty easy to "heat a tub of water" or do some >>>> kind of obvious work. >>>> >>>> - Brad >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Foks0904 . <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> > Jones -- I can't say your objections to Rossi being present when it >>>> was open >>>> > are unfounded. I think that was a rather stupid move/agreement >>>> between the >>>> > parties. Creates all kind of innuendo which they could/should have >>>> avoided. >>>> > With that said I'm not so sure it really presented him with much >>>> chance to >>>> > "swap the sample", as Mats Lewan wrote: >>>> > >>>> > "I don’t have details minute by minute, but I was told one member of >>>> the >>>> > team together with Rossi and a technician opened the reactor in a >>>> closed >>>> > room. A diamond saw had to be used to cut some part before the end >>>> plug >>>> > could be removed. The team member was allowed to pick 10 mg out of the >>>> > charge which amounted to about 1 gram. This constraint was supposedly >>>> > imposed by IH. The sample of used fuel could be chosen freely from the >>>> > charge inside the reactor, which means that if the material was >>>> manipulated, >>>> > all of it had to be so. Basically I guess you would have needed to >>>> swap the >>>> > reactor for another identical before opening." >>>> > >>>> > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> Here is a reduction ad absurdum example of why this experiment was >>>> >> unbelievably poorly designed. >>>> >> >>>> >> NOTE: The experiment could still be gainful, but the Levi’s results >>>> do not >>>> >> prove anything, as presented. The thermocouple does not help – it is >>>> >> admitted by Levi that it was accurate only on the two caps, which >>>> were >>>> >> much >>>> >> cooler. >>>> >> >>>> >> Let’s say I claim to have a hundred watt OU lightbulb that I want to >>>> sell >>>> >> to >>>> >> you for $1 million. If it were a glass bulb, and clear, and I use >>>> the IR >>>> >> camera to measure the filament temperature, and then used that >>>> temperature >>>> >> to compute the emissivity of the entire surface area of the bulb, >>>> say 100 >>>> >> cm^2, then you would cry foul – since the obviously only the surface >>>> area >>>> >> of >>>> >> the filament is responsible. That filament area could be 1 cm^2 and >>>> in >>>> >> effect, I have computed the power of the bulb with a 25:1 >>>> overestimate- >>>> >> based on an incorrect assumption, but based on a correct reading and >>>> a >>>> >> correct formula. >>>> >> >>>> >> Next let’s say the bulb presented is frosted, and you are naïve and >>>> do not >>>> >> know that it contains a hot filament - but I use the camera to focus >>>> on an >>>> >> area of the bulb’s exterior, where from prior experience, I know >>>> that the >>>> >> filament radiates the most photons, even if that reading is >>>> diminished in >>>> >> intensity from a clear bulb … this technique can still result in a >>>> 3:1 >>>> >> over-estimate of the net emissivity of the bulb, since there is a >>>> strong >>>> >> contribution from a hot filament. This can be demonstrated rather >>>> easily >>>> >> to >>>> >> be factual. >>>> >> >>>> >> That is the problem with this paper. Levi seems to be telling us only >>>> >> this: >>>> >> that if one applies 800 watts to a Inconel wire, it will reach 1300 >>>> >> degrees. >>>> >> But we already knew that. >>>> >> >>>> >> We cannot extrapolate the emissivity of the resistor wire to the >>>> entire >>>> >> surface of the reactor. As for a thermocouple, placement is >>>> everything. I >>>> >> saw NO DATA on calibration of the thermocouple, only that someone who >>>> >> already screwed up the experiment royally thinks that it verifies >>>> what >>>> >> could >>>> >> be a grossly incorrect calibration. In fact this is admitted “We also >>>> >> found >>>> >> that the ridges made thermal contact with any thermocouple probe >>>> placed on >>>> >> the outer surface of the reactor extremely critical, making any >>>> direct >>>> >> temperature measurement with the required precision impossible.” So >>>> they >>>> >> admit the thermocouple reading was not done with any precision on the >>>> >> exterior of the tube – only on the caps which are much cooler and >>>> >> consequently the thermocouple verifies nothing! >>>> >> >>>> >> $64 question: Was Rossi present at the time the reactor was opened? >>>> >> >>>> >> If so, and this has been reported on E-Cat World, then that means the >>>> >> sample >>>> >> which Bianchini tested was not independently obtained – and could >>>> have >>>> >> been >>>> >> tampered with by Rossi himself – who is known to have purchased >>>> several >>>> >> grams of Ni-62. >>>> >> >>>> >> From: Jed Rothwell >>>> >> JB: Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as >>>> Levi - >>>> >> in not seeing the obvious ... “about the same” is absurd, given what >>>> >> happens >>>> >> later. The difference between 486 and 790 is enormous when the >>>> delta-T is >>>> >> being raised by a formula which includes a fourth power >>>> (Stefan–Boltzmann >>>> >> law) >>>> >> The temperature was also measured with a >>>> thermocouple, as >>>> >> noted. >>>> >> >>>> >> Ah, but your point is that even if the the >>>> temperature is >>>> >> measured correctly, may not reflect the power correctly. >>>> >> >>>> >> That would be a rewrite of the textbooks. In any >>>> case, a >>>> >> temperature calibration curve goes down, not up, at higher power >>>> levels. >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
