Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: The Fleischmann-Pons Heat effect is the result of the conversion of deuterium to helium, at least primarily. Probably. Look, this is not complicated. As you say, it seems likely that Pd-D is a fusion reaction. McKubre and I believe that whatever the other reactions are, they are probably related. It seems unlikely there are multiple unrelated ways of producing heat with hydrides that of all been discovered recently. We call this the conservation of miracles which is a humorous way to express a serious idea. It is not rigorous proof but it seems logical to us. You disagree. Okay. We got it. The fact that hydrogen fusion is more difficult than deuterium fusion strikes me as unimportant. Both of them are extremely unlikely according to conventional theory. Who cares if one is extremely unlikely and the other is superduper extraordinarily extremely unlikely? Theory goes out the window either way. - Jed
[Vo]:Fw: Something Wrong With The Sun Moon Earth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYglbymnihQ Uploaded on Nov 18, 2010 Something Wrong With The Sun Moon Earth Sun Moon Earth out of kilter 01.55 Hrs 19th November 2010 Wiltshire UK. STOP PRESS !! !! . View New OFFICIAL Info: 4 Magnetic Poles Forming On The Sun In May 2012 PLEASE Click Here http://youtu.be/lxLcDiiFfCM HERE The Inuit People tell Us Of Their Observations of the Sun Moon Stars Earth http://www.isuma.tv/hi/en/inuit-knowledge-and-climate-change So what has happened To The Moon it looks to be 90 degrees out of kilter ! IF the Moon does not Rotate more than we're told, but in sync with the Earth, keeping it's known face in our direction, and the Sun is always at the centre of our little corner of the Universe, what does this say about the orbit of The Earth, it's Rotation ? Something Strange Unusual has happened Or is Happening ! The Sun has been in the wrong place for the last 2 years that I've/We have noticed, and is lower on the Southern horizon again this winter, this we know and can tell from our roof shadow cast in our north facing garden.! Here, the Sun is almost as low as it would be around Mid December that's 4 weeks or so out of sync ! Many good friends have confirmed their observations of the Sun in that, around the globe, we are definitely receiving the Sun's Rays from a differing angle over the past 2 years or so, this then helps us to understand my Moon observations as being in step with some form of Change within Our Galaxy We have confirmation in another video ( In My Favs) some positive viewers observations, and some contradictions, which is what we expect on any issue., thanks for taking part. As Reported by many friends from differing parts of the globe, the Sun Has been off track for at least 2 years.. I'd like to offer these few lines .. 1 .. From around the globe, folk agree that the Sun Is Not doing it's usual thing, reports going back two years tell us this ... anyone looking for a change in tidal patterns would have to look back in time to find any change, when the Earth must have tilted. There was a suspected Tilt of 3 degrees or so following the Tsunami of 2004. Images of our Moon at this time show without doubt that: it has rotated slightly ! Why? .. Has something smashed into it ??? our friend from Hawaii http://www.youtube.com/mrgalleria observes a strange secondary glow about the Moon, which could be Ejecta from the bombing a while back?.. as well as capturing Similar images to mine !** 2 .. As the Sun is out of it's trajectory, this indicates that the Earth has Tilted slightly. 3 .. The Moon does not spin certainly not on an north east to south west axis ! Though it rotates once in every revolution around the Earth, Thus, We Always see the same face, well we used to that is.! 4 .. The position of the Sun Moon combine to create our ocean's tidal patterns 5 .. If the distance between the Sun, Moon Earth remains the same a good guess would be that tides would have changed slightly allowing for Earth's slight Tilting. Then settling. 6 .. Tidal observations show that: In 2008 all around the globe there Were Unusual Unexplained Tidal Changes many low high tides in a short space of time on the same day !!. 7 .. Does anyone KNOW the date the Earth Tilted ? .. Without a doubt, it was more than 2 years ago ! The Earth orbits the Sun in an elliptical orbit being closest to it on 3rd January 2011 in this cycle. I could not find one image on the internet that shows the Same image as captured here in This video. If anyone can find an image please Do Post the URL for All to see. Peace.
Re: [Vo]:Fw: Something Wrong With The Sun Moon Earth.
One more thing to worry about! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Fw: Something Wrong With The Sun Moon Earth.
No worries, just all the black hole nuclei realigning magnetic poles, flexing their dark matter muscles and shaking loose a little ordinary matter... Stewart darkmattersalot.com On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:19 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: One more thing to worry about! - Jed
[Vo]:MFM explains EU cell baselines (calibration and apparent excess heat)
Today's Follow logbook entry, Stardate 12/14/12: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/177-write-up-of-eu-cell-baselines Impressive. - Jed
[Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
The excess power estimate of the test run is based on a higher temperature reading of the outer surface of the glass as compared to a lower temperature reading during the calibration runs However, someone named ECCO has noticed that the temperature of the inner glass surface is the same in the both the test run and the calibration runs: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/177-write-up-of-eu-cell-baselines If the higher temperature on the outer surface is not an artifact, wouldn't you expect the inner surface temperature to be somewhat higher as well? harry
Re: [Vo]:Fw: Something Wrong With The Sun Moon Earth.
If anyone can find an image please Do Post the URL for All to see. Peace. It's the same image; the camera has just been turned about 80 degrees or so. If the axis of the Moon had tilted then the shadow would not be in the same relative place on the image. If the orbit of the Earth had changed then again, the shadow would have moved. Craig
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/177-write-up-of-eu-cell-baselines If the higher temperature on the outer surface is not an artifact, wouldn't you expect the inner surface temperature to be somewhat higher as well? Yup. I am sure it should be higher. Sigh . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFM explains EU cell baselines (calibration and apparent excess heat)
5 watts. I think that's the equivalent in volume for gasoline every 6 minutes. If they run that thing for 10 hours, that's 100 times the excess in gasoline. That's surely enough to colonize the solar system and solve the world's energy problems. 2012/12/14 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Today's Follow logbook entry, Stardate 12/14/12: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/177-write-up-of-eu-cell-baselines Impressive. - Jed -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
I'm not seeing the problem. The highest temperature in the calibration runs for T-GlassIn, at this power level, was about 125C. During this live run, the temperature appears to be about 5 C above that. Craig On 12/14/2012 03:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/177-write-up-of-eu-cell-baselines If the higher temperature on the outer surface is not an artifact, wouldn't you expect the inner surface temperature to be somewhat higher as well? Yup. I am sure it should be higher. Sigh . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
Correction! I didn't realize that they had upped the power to 54 watts. Craig On 12/14/2012 03:14 PM, Craig wrote: I'm not seeing the problem. The highest temperature in the calibration runs for T-GlassIn, at this power level, was about 125C. During this live run, the temperature appears to be about 5 C above that. Craig On 12/14/2012 03:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/177-write-up-of-eu-cell-baselines If the higher temperature on the outer surface is not an artifact, wouldn't you expect the inner surface temperature to be somewhat higher as well? Yup. I am sure it should be higher. Sigh . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
In their 12/12/12 Progress Blog posting, MFMP stated that there was a dleliberate error in the data viewer, and challenged people to spot it. *We have a “deliberate mistake” in the data viewer, if you are sober enough at this time in the day, we challenge you to spot it. * Did anyone ever find it? Jeff On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: Correction! I didn't realize that they had upped the power to 54 watts. Craig On 12/14/2012 03:14 PM, Craig wrote: I'm not seeing the problem. The highest temperature in the calibration runs for T-GlassIn, at this power level, was about 125C. During this live run, the temperature appears to be about 5 C above that. Craig On 12/14/2012 03:00 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/177-write-up-of-eu-cell-baselines If the higher temperature on the outer surface is not an artifact, wouldn't you expect the inner surface temperature to be somewhat higher as well? Yup. I am sure it should be higher. Sigh . . . - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
On 2012-12-14 21:24, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: Did anyone ever find it? It's Power (Red) (bar) instead of Power (Red) (W). Bars instead of watts. Red is the active wire. Cheers, S.A.
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
On 12/14/2012 03:24 PM, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: In their 12/12/12 Progress Blog posting, MFMP stated that there was a dleliberate error in the data viewer, and challenged people to spot it. *We have a “deliberate mistake” in the data viewer, if you are sober enough at this time in the day, we challenge you to spot it. * Did anyone ever find it? Is it something as simple as labelling the Power (Red) variable as (bar) for pressure, instead of (W) for watts? Craig
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
On Dec 14, 2012, at 7:08, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: The fact that hydrogen fusion is more difficult than deuterium fusion strikes me as unimportant. Interestingly, and relevantly it seems to me, p+d is preferentially consumed over d+d (whatever path is taken, I assume). My own favorite lead to be investigated is that Ni/H involves p+d. That, too, would be a fusion-like process. Eric
Re: [Vo]:MFM Project
Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com wrote: Interestingly, and relevantly it seems to me, p+d is preferentially consumed over d+d (whatever path is taken, I assume). My own favorite lead to be investigated is that Ni/H involves p+d. I assume that would gradually deplete the D in the gas, making it less than 1 part in 6000. That should not be as difficult to detect as some other potential products. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/177-write-up-of-eu-cell-baselines If the higher temperature on the outer surface is not an artifact, wouldn't you expect the inner surface temperature to be somewhat higher as well? Yup. I am sure it should be higher. Sigh . . . - Jed Then again maybe the behaviour is analogous to the sun's corona. The corona sphere is at a higher temperature then the surface of the sun which is the opposite of what you would expect from a straightforward application of thermodynamics. harry
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
Is everyone taking into account the fact that the graphs for T_Glassout are actually (T_Glassout - T_Ambient), while the graph for T_Glassin is the raw T_Glassin and is not corrected for ambient? Or at least so they are labeled. Jeff On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/177-write-up-of-eu-cell-baselines If the higher temperature on the outer surface is not an artifact, wouldn't you expect the inner surface temperature to be somewhat higher as well? Yup. I am sure it should be higher. Sigh . . . - Jed Then again maybe the behaviour is analogous to the sun's corona. The corona sphere is at a higher temperature then the surface of the sun which is the opposite of what you would expect from a straightforward application of thermodynamics. harry
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
On 12/14/2012 03:53 PM, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: Is everyone taking into account the fact that the graphs for T_Glassout are actually (T_Glassout - T_Ambient), while the graph for T_Glassin is the raw T_Glassin and is not corrected for ambient? Or at least so they are labeled. Jeff I don't think that's relevant for this issue. The temperature of the inside of the glass appears to be the same in both the calibration runs and this current test, for the same power level applied. This implies that the extra temperature on the outside of the glass is some sort of artefact. Craig
Re: [Vo]:Fw: Something Wrong With The Sun Moon Earth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y7rtUHSolI harry
Re: [Vo]:Fw: Something Wrong With The Sun Moon Earth.
I wonder how they were able to alter every star chart to avoid amateur astronomers from spilling the beans?
[Vo]:Fw: Biggest con jobs in the history of mankind.
When I was a kid in the Cleveland area, we rushed home from school (in the
early 60's) to see Captain Penny and his bullwinkle show and assorted cartoons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Penny
Captain Penny would say at the end of every show, You can fool some of
the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you
can’t fool Mom. (Actually a quote from Little Rascals expunged from a President
Lincoln saying???
Remembering this and checking the site out, I have to agree us sheeple gets
hoodwinked everytime, and this is why no planes hit the World Trade Center. It
is positively amazing as to what big brother can do in the terms of
manipulation of beliefs, and the underlying scientific scandal that comes with
the package. After extra review of this problem and the following info;
A closely related concept are the Lagrangian or L points.
Joseph-Louis Lagrange was a mathematician who lived between Jan. 1736 and
April 1813. During this time a considerable amount of work was done on
the orbits of the Moon and planets. One of the key concepts was the mathematical
description of the motion of a three body problem, i.e., the Earth, the
Moon and the Sun. His work showed that there are places 60° in front
of and behind a planet in its orbit where the gravitational forces between
the Sun and the planet cancel each other out. These became known as the
Lagrangian or L points. While Lagrange did not believe these points had
any special significance in the Solar System, astronomers have since discovered
several asteroids in the Lagrangian points for the Earth and Jupiter. The
ones for Jupiter are called the Trojan asteroids. Achilles was the first
one discovered in 1908.
The Lagrangian points also exist in the Earth-Moon
system as well. They move about a central point as the Earth and Moon orbit
one another and rotate on their axes. The Lagrangian points may become
important in the future as they are excellent places to build communication
satellites and potentially even space colonies. Several of the L5 Societies
and related organizations can be accessed through the National Space Society.
Knowing that the ratio of the masses of the Earth and Moon is approximately
81:1 and the gravitational forces vary inversely with the square of the
distance, the approximate neutral point can be calculated.
So the gravity on the moon is approximately .64 that of earths gravity or
almost two thirds. Now we understand why the Apollo astronauts were making
those pitiful 6 inch hops on the moon.
That the gravity on the Moon is one sixth that of earths is one of the biggest
con jobs in the history of mankind.
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Neutral_Point.html
Now looking at the graph near the start of article we have a red line that
represents the summation of both the gravitational forces, when in fact if the
object was in between the earth and the moon, we would instead be subtracting
those quantities to obtain a zero result. Why do we need to know the quantity
when those forces are acting together, when actually we are looking for the
quantity acting when they are in opposition? Aha. they must be referring to
the point in the orbit 60 degrees BEFORE that midway point! In that case then
the neutral point would be 43,000 miles from the moon. And actually only ONE
component of each vector would be acting together, and the remaining ones in
cancellation. The issue becomes even more confusing to say the least because
the moons vector angle will be smaller then the earths vector angle because
these are not equidistant pathways. Even though we specify 60 degrees in the
orbit, this does not imply that
the force vectors themselves will be at 60 degrees! {or was this the original
intention of the skeptics viewpoint?}And right now the sun is setting, but it
actually is already behind the earth, (because of light speed), and I am too
tired to think anymore about the issue except to repeat my assertion that I
believe we have been hoodwinked! Why did not the skeptic say that one case
involves vectors and the other does not! Think about
it! http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoDP1RaUX3PSxqYNJfJlMLDty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20120214151338AAL3xme
A) What will an object weigh on the Moon's surface if it weighs 170 N on
Earth's surface?
b) How many Earth radii must this same object be from the
center of Earth if it is to weigh the same as it does on the Moon?
please EXPLAIN how you found the answer. Thanks!
10 months agomy answer;It was Sir Isaac Newton who had first
calculated
the Earth-Moon neutral point using his theory of gravitation. That
theory gave him an average Earth- Moon distance of 238,900 miles, and
the neutral point thus occurred at ~ 23,900 miles from the moon(1). This
of course gave the familiar figure that the Moon's gravitational
attraction was about 1/6th that of Earth.
But then came a 1969
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
The difference between T_Mica and T_GlassIn seems to be about 5 degrees larger than it was during calibration. I put the details in the progress blog comments. Jeff On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com wrote: On 12/14/2012 03:53 PM, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: Is everyone taking into account the fact that the graphs for T_Glassout are actually (T_Glassout - T_Ambient), while the graph for T_Glassin is the raw T_Glassin and is not corrected for ambient? Or at least so they are labeled. Jeff I don't think that's relevant for this issue. The temperature of the inside of the glass appears to be the same in both the calibration runs and this current test, for the same power level applied. This implies that the extra temperature on the outside of the glass is some sort of artefact. Craig
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
On 12/14/2012 05:17 PM, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: The difference between T_Mica and T_GlassIn seems to be about 5 degrees larger than it was during calibration. I put the details in the progress blog comments. Jeff Where do you see T_Mica for the calibration runs? Craig
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
I spotted it, but I just thought it was a mistake made in haste. Dave -Original Message- From: Craig cchayniepub...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2012 3:29 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface. On 12/14/2012 03:24 PM, Jeff Berkowitz wrote: In their 12/12/12 Progress Blog posting, MFMP stated that there was a dleliberate error in the data viewer, and challenged people to spot it. We have a “deliberate mistake” in the data viewer, if you are sober enough at this time in the day, we challenge you to spot it. Did anyone ever find it? Is it something as simple as labelling the Power (Red) variable as(bar) for pressure, instead of (W) for watts? Craig
Re: [Vo]:Fw: Biggest con jobs in the history of mankind.
I have read this before.
Surely the answer could be established (if not by any other means) by
studying the rate of acceleration and deceleration of rising and falling
objects in video on the moon.
Besides the bunny hoping astronautics there are various other things,
the trajectory of the sand kicked up by the lunar buggy if it can be seen
clearly enough.
So it should be easy albeit it does require someone with some mathematical
skill which I don't have.
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Harvey Norris harv...@yahoo.com wrote:
When I was a kid in the Cleveland area, we rushed home from school (in the
early 60's) to see Captain Penny and his bullwinkle show and assorted
cartoons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Penny
Captain Penny would say at the end of every show, You can fool some of
the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you
can’t fool Mom. (Actually a quote from Little Rascals expunged from a
President Lincoln saying???
Remembering this and checking the site out, I have to agree us sheeple
gets hoodwinked everytime, and this is why no planes hit the World Trade
Center. It is positively amazing as to what big brother can do in the terms
of manipulation of beliefs, and the underlying scientific scandal that
comes with the package. After extra review of this problem and the
following info;
*A closely related concept are the Lagrangian or L points. Joseph-Louis
Lagrange was a mathematician who lived between Jan. 1736 and April 1813.
During this time a considerable amount of work was done on the orbits of
the Moon and planets. One of the key concepts was the mathematical
description of the motion of a three body problem, i.e., the Earth, the
Moon and the Sun. His work showed that there are places 60° in front of and
behind a planet in its orbit where the gravitational forces between the Sun
and the planet cancel each other out. These became known as the Lagrangian
or L points. While Lagrange did not believe these points had any special
significance in the Solar System, astronomers have since discovered several
asteroids in the Lagrangian points for the Earth and Jupiter. The ones for
Jupiter are called the Trojan asteroids. Achilles was the first one
discovered in 1908.*
*The Lagrangian points also exist in the Earth-Moon system as well. They
move about a central point as the Earth and Moon orbit one another and
rotate on their axes. The Lagrangian points may become important in the
future as they are excellent places to build communication satellites and
potentially even space colonies. Several of the L5 Societies and related
organizations can be accessed through the National Space Society.*
*Knowing that the ratio of the masses of the Earth and Moon is
approximately 81:1 and the gravitational forces vary inversely with the
square of the distance, the approximate neutral point can be calculated.*
**
*So the gravity on the moon is approximately .64 that of earths gravity
or almost two thirds. Now we understand why the Apollo astronauts were
making those pitiful 6 inch hops on the moon.*
**
*That the gravity on the Moon is one sixth that of earths is one of the
biggest con jobs in the history of mankind.*
http://www.thelivingmoon.com/47john_lear/02files/Neutral_Point.html
Now looking at the graph near the start of article we have a red line that
represents the summation of both the gravitational forces, when in fact if
the object was in between the earth and the moon, we would instead be
subtracting those quantities to obtain a zero result. Why do we need to
know the quantity when those forces are acting together, when actually we
are looking for the quantity acting when they are in opposition? Aha. they
must be referring to the point in the orbit 60 degrees BEFORE that midway
point! In that case then the neutral point would be 43,000 miles from the
moon. And actually only ONE component of each vector would be acting
together, and the remaining ones in cancellation. The issue becomes even
more confusing to say the least because the moons vector angle will be
smaller then the earths vector angle because these are not equidistant
pathways. Even though we specify 60 degrees in the orbit, this does not
imply that the force vectors themselves will be at 60 degrees! {or was this
the original intention of the skeptics viewpoint?}And right now the sun is
setting, but it actually is already behind the earth, (because of light
speed), and I am too tired to think anymore about the issue except to
repeat my assertion that I believe we have been hoodwinked! Why did not
the skeptic say that one case involves vectors and the other does not!
Think about it!
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AoDP1RaUX3PSxqYNJfJlMLDty6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20120214151338AAL3xme
A) What will an object weigh on the Moon's surface if it weighs 170 N on
Earth's surface?
b) How many Earth radii must this same object
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: The difference between T_Mica and T_GlassIn seems to be about 5 degrees larger than it was during calibration. I suppose . . . if all of the temperature sensors show an increase except T_Glassin, that sensor might be malfunctioning. But I doubt it. When a sensor malfunctions it generally drifts, or it shows zero, or some random number. It does not usually show the same value it did during calibration. In this case, if the thing is malfunctioning it is too low. Meaning it drifted down. It should keep going down, lower and lower. This is not good news. In calorimeters of this general design that I know of, such the ones Mel Miles made where he measured the temperature at the cell wall, temperatures everywhere rise when heat increases. They may not all rise the same degree, but they rise proportionally. You do not see one sensor showing the same temperature as before. I have no idea why it might be doing this, but it does seem like an artifact. As I said before, the highly stable output that turns on right away also makes me think it is an artifact. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
They need to run the power into each wire sequentially at the same level for long enough to see if there is a difference between the two. I suggested a 1 hour run into the inactive, immediately followed by 1 hour of active wire drive, then followed up by 1 hour of inactive again at the 48 watt level. If they do not run this, then it will be very easy to assume calibration problems. It is so simple to perform this quick check. If we get the extra heating with the active wire and then the temperature returns afterwards there will be good evidence for excess power. The same power input to the cell should result in very similar heating of the outer glass. The main difference will be a large change in the active wire temperature which should significantly effect the power generation mechanism. I expect to see excess power visible between two equal lower power levels as reflected in the outer glass temperature. Dave -Original Message- From: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2012 3:40 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface. On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.quantumheat.org/index.php/follow/177-write-up-of-eu-cell-baselines If the higher temperature on the outer surface is not an artifact, wouldn't you expect the inner surface temperature to be somewhat higher as well? Yup. I am sure it should be higher. Sigh . . . - Jed Then again maybe the behaviour is analogous to the sun's corona. The corona sphere is at a higher temperature then the surface of the sun which is the opposite of what you would expect from a straightforward application of thermodynamics. harry
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: They need to run the power into each wire sequentially at the same level for long enough to see if there is a difference between the two. I suggested a 1 hour run into the inactive, immediately followed by 1 hour of active wire drive, then followed up by 1 hour of inactive again at the 48 watt level. If they do not run this, then it will be very easy to assume calibration problems. Good idea. Add this to their on-line comments if you have not done so already. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
I added it to the comment section yesterday but do not see any evidence that it is planned. It is simple and does not take much time for the payoff. I would be fairly well convinced that they have achieved the goal if this test is performed and the results are in agreement with their calibration runs. I recall reading about the old vacuum tube computers where the operators would run a test program before and then after a critical program run. If the bracket tests came out correct then they knew the tubes held up. It is hard to find a test that is more convincing. Dave -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Fri, Dec 14, 2012 5:45 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface. David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: They need to run the power into each wire sequentially at the same level for long enough to see if there is a difference between the two. I suggested a 1 hour run into the inactive, immediately followed by 1 hour of active wire drive, then followed up by 1 hour of inactive again at the 48 watt level. If they do not run this, then it will be very easy to assume calibration problems. Good idea. Add this to their on-line comments if you have not done so already. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP: Temperature of inner glass surface.
Agree. No idea what's really going on. For example, the calibration numbers I posted came from a 1-bar 100% H calibration run. Are they now running 100%H or 75%H / 25%Ar in the cell? If the latter, is it enough to account for the apparent 5C degree difference? I'm not making any claims, that is for sure. Just posting data. Jeff On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Jeff Berkowitz pdx...@gmail.com wrote: The difference between T_Mica and T_GlassIn seems to be about 5 degrees larger than it was during calibration. I suppose . . . if all of the temperature sensors show an increase except T_Glassin, that sensor might be malfunctioning. But I doubt it. When a sensor malfunctions it generally drifts, or it shows zero, or some random number. It does not usually show the same value it did during calibration. In this case, if the thing is malfunctioning it is too low. Meaning it drifted down. It should keep going down, lower and lower. This is not good news. In calorimeters of this general design that I know of, such the ones Mel Miles made where he measured the temperature at the cell wall, temperatures everywhere rise when heat increases. They may not all rise the same degree, but they rise proportionally. You do not see one sensor showing the same temperature as before. I have no idea why it might be doing this, but it does seem like an artifact. As I said before, the highly stable output that turns on right away also makes me think it is an artifact. - Jed
