I wanted to add that in the dummy run there was a 10% deviation between measured and output, assume that the heat is proportional to the Temperature (which it's not, its T^4) you will get a 10% error in temperature measurement. (3.5% if you think in T^4). Now state that at the higher temperatures the error is from T^4, then you get 40% measurement error in the output energy, but the difference is 350%. So this calculi does not show significant problems. Then we have the issue with transparense, meaning that maybe 10% of the light power get's through there the cam measure power e.g. but output_w = T^4, I get from this that the added error to measured output is 10% and so we land on 50%. Hence the figures does not indicate that you can explain away a COP of 350%. Also the step change speaks the same story of a major COP >> 1. I can be wrong of cause but then try to refine the calculi so that we get somewhere.
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Randy, > > Let me clear. I think that there was thermal gain here. I have said all > along that there is gain but it could be less than claimed, because many > things do not add up, and the extent of gain is not proved by the > thermography… yet. > > And a level of real gain does not mean that the calibration should not have > be done. There is no excuse for not doing it. Maybe the gain would have > been > as claimed, with calibration – who knows? > > The one and only thing which I am sure about is that the Lithium-6 should > not be there. This puts me in a bit of a logical bind, since if there is to > be thermal gain when this is done correctly - then, and as Alain says, does > not the gain itself explain the presence of the isotope? > > No! No! No! Even if the thermal gain is proved, I am fully convinced that > the Li6 was added – and is not a product of transmutation. Same with the > Ni62. There can be no doubt of this unless most of nuclear physics goes > down > the drain as well. > > However – and this is the CAVEAT - it is true that these two expensive and > nearly pure isotopes could have been added by Rossi at the start and not at > the end – which would mean that (Li6 & Ni62) is indeed his “Secret sauce” > and he wanted to make it appear as only a transmutation product. > > Either way they were added – not created. That still falls under the > category of deceit, since it means that he submitted a “raw fuel” sample to > test which he knew did not contain the Li6 nor the Ni62. > > I hope that is crystal clear because it is a fine-line as to where the > deceit came into play. > > Even if we can accept most or all of the heat as valid, then there has been > deceit in the way the isotope analysis was handled. However, Rossi’s many > fans will say that he can be forgiven for that since he was only trying to > protect his secret. > > Which would essentially mean that the secret is to start out with Ni62 and > Li6, making this a very expensive 1.5 MWhr of energy. > > Since that essentially makes the device of little use to solve the energy > crisis, then the deceit is only there to enrich Andrea Rossi. > > _____________________________________________ > From: Randy Wuller > > I understand that concept. But just a quick glance at the > data seems to question your conclusion. Why didn’t the 30w input decrease > between File1 and File 5 cause a much bigger decrease in temperature being > estimated by the TI camera if your assumption is correct? I would have > expected a much bigger difference if you were correct. > > Ransom > _____________________________________________ > From: Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:37 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of > semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures > > > Randy, > > No scientist would calibrate for 500 if they knew that the > reaction is going to 1400. And they should have known in advance, based on > the previous results. > > The reason for this, which you may not be aware of, is that > changes in temperature at the high end get multiplied by an equation called > the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Please look at the curve shown on this site > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law > > You can see in this curve - that small changes > exponentially > increase into huge changes in the power estimate. The technique they are > using does not really measure temperature, it measure photon emission and > plugs that into a formula. However, had they used a platinum thermocouple > or > a pyrometer, there would be no problem. They knew this from the previous > criticism but ignored it (or else the idea was vetoes by AR). > > The result is that calibration to 500 only means what it > says, the active reactor temperature can be trusted up to this level. Near > 1000 however, a small error is multiplied into a huge error. > > _____________________________________________ > From: Randy Wuller > Jones: > > In fairness to this process it also says of > the dummy reactor test that “Rossi gradually brought it to the power level > THEY requested” (emphasis added). It doesn’t say that the test power level > was determined or demanded by Rossi. The fact he turned it off after they > had what they wanted is not the same as saying they didn’t test at a higher > level “ON ORDERS FROM ROSSI”. > > I am not saying the test was adequate or > inadequate, I am not qualified. But some of what is happening here is not > objective and may be driven by other motives, i.e the same as the nonsense > you usually see from Krivit. > > Ransom > > > _____________________________________________ > From: Jones Beene > [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 10:42 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [Vo]:Determining the > transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures > > > You seem to be saying that it is not found > in the “revised” or edited version? There is an edited version of the > report, in which details like this are removed. Rothwell, no doubt, would > chose to only read the edited version. > > From: Blaze Spinnaker > > Care to share where you saw this? > > The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 > PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually brought it to the > power > level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and > in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, > reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. Throughout > the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; > moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the > collaboration > > > They did not calibrate above 450 C and this > was not done ON ORDERS FROM ROSSI > > JR: It does not say that anywhere. > >
