I doubt that this effect has anything to do with the latest ECAT measurements. Unfortunately, it appears that measuring the spectral energy contained within the IR range may not be directly associated with the amount of heat energy being generated since a significant portion of the energy resides within the other bands. A calorimeter will likely be the only way to prove to all the skeptics that the gain is greater than unity.
I remain convinced that the ECAT is generating plenty of extra energy due to the step input power measurement that was conducted. A passive system would not be able to demonstrate such a large change in output with the much smaller input step. In the previous test this same effect showed up as the waveform variation that was discussed at length by the testers. The skeptics attempted to explain why the waveform was different than that expected from a resistive load as being due to phase shifting of the response signal. That hand waving has now been proven wrong since the latest effect has nothing to do with time domain signal variations. We see that the power output changes at a DC rate which is immune to phase shifting. Virtually every concern of the skeptics of the earlier test have been shown in error now but they keep insisting that they are correct. Remember the DC question regarding the input power? That was pure BS, but it gave them a tiny island upon which to build. The only issue left is the question about the accuracy of the temperature and the spectral shape of the radiation. Once this question has been laid to rest, what will be their next issue? The previous ECAT was constructed with a black paint coating the exterior of the device. That one should have been a much better black body radiator and it also revealed extra heat production. In my opinion there is more than adequate evidence that the COP is significantly greater than unity. As Rossi has stated on many occasions, only the market can convince some folks of reality. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Thu, Oct 23, 2014 10:18 am Subject: RE: [Vo]:Negative Luminescence and the HotCat From: H Veeder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_luminescence > Negative luminescence is a physical phenomenon by which an electronic device > emits less thermal radiation when an electric current is passed through it > than it does in thermal equilibrium (current off)… When viewed by a thermal > camera, an operating negative luminescent device looks colder than its > environment. This is a good find, Harry … wish it had come up earlier. It could salvage some of the Levi report, as obviously it would partly explain the color temperature variance. We need that thermocouple data. I was unaware of the phenomenon. Below is more from the entry with comments interspersed - which makes negative luminescence sound like it is expected from the “exciton” segment of our prior explanation which would be a part of” triple coherency” in laser-like device (along with photos and phonons): “Negative luminescence is most readily observed in semiconductors. Incoming infrared radiation is absorbed in the material by the creation of an electron–hole pair. An electric field is used to remove the electrons and holes from the region before they have a chance to recombine and re-emit thermal radiation. This effect occurs most efficiently in regions of low charge carrier density.” [as to the caveat that alumina is not a semiconductor, but does have low charge carrier density - it can be noted that alumina is dielectric at moderate temperature but becomes more and more conductive at elevated temperature] “Negative luminescence has also been observed in semiconductors in orthogonal electric and magnetic fields. In this case, the junction of a diode is not necessary and the effect can be observed in bulk material. A term that has been applied to this type of negative luminescence is galvanomagnetic luminescence.” “Negative luminescence might appear to be a violation of Kirchhoff's law of thermal radiation. This is not true, as the law only applies in thermal equilibrium.” “Another term that has been used to describe negative luminescent devices is "Emissivity switch", as an electric current changes the effective emissivity.” [negative luminescence would probably not effect 7 micron IR] Given that Levi did know of this phenomenon – and that it could be helpful in the context of the experiment – all he needs to do is release the thermocouple data which may not support the highest gain, but probably is more accurate than the IR calculations (thermography). Better to salvage something than have everything perceived as wrong.
