To state it another way:
1) Accurate temperature measurement is NOT the same as power or heat
loss.
2) Levi measured temperature accurately
3) The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a
blackbody
4) Levi then used Stefan-Boltzmann to calculate heat loss, which
includes a fourth power
5) The Rossi device is obviously NOT a blackbody radiator since it
glows in the visible range due to transmissivity in the visible range. The
internal shadows are proof of that
6) It is therefore wrong to use Stefan–Boltzmann without prior
calibration for the difference, which can be substantial
7) No calibration above 500 C was done due to Rossi’s “intervention”
8) Consequently the thermal balance of the Rossi cell has not been
accounted for properly.
With a nod to Mitchell Swartz.
And that is why they should have calibrated for thermal loss
at the higher temperature, if Mitchell Swartz’s argument is accurate.
Everyone seems to be missing this.
Mitch sates: even an accurate temperature measurement is NOT
power or heat loss. The person to whom Brian Ahern spoke was affirming that
they measured temperature correctly, and that is all. Rossi's group did not
calibrate for real heat loss at that high temperature, which they should
have done (since the transmissivity in the visible range, which everyone
acknowledges but then ignores, means that the assumption of blackbody
radiator is wrong). If that assumption is wrong, then a systemic error then
gets raised to the 4th power. Since, they did not account for heat loss
(thermal power) properly – there could be substantial error.
I hope I got that right. Mitch will shortly correct me if
not :-)
From: Alan Fletcher
It has moderate transmissivity in the
visible range, which is what the photograph shows. But it drops to zero by 6
and above, which is what the IR camera is measuring.
So there could be visible shadows / glowing
resistors seen through the ceramic, but the IR calculations are OK.
From: "H Veeder" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:27:44 PM
He commented: "My interpretation of figure 6
is that the tranmissivity of alumina goes down to zero. Hence, this shows
the arguments about alumina translucency are moot."
does this imply the dark bands are not cast
shadows?
Harry
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
