A bright analysis, dear Jed! An anticipated answer to the paid killers (only Mary Yugo has surfaced till now, brave girl sui generis) I would gladly invite you to extend this writing to a *guest editorial *for my blog, even if you had not accepted the LENR vs LENR+ dichotomy till now. Cousin Peter
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 5:59 AM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: > I agree Jed. They did this the right way and it will be difficult for > anyone to prove otherwise. > > You mention the cooling time shape not being that associated with > normal processes which agrees with the model that I constructed earlier. > In an ideal world with a very high COP the cooling curve would hesitate at > the maximum temperature point for a relatively long time before beginning > its decline. The trick is to come close to a zero slope at the initial > point but ensure that the curve is always falling after the heating > resistance is un powered. > > Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> > Sent: Mon, May 20, 2013 10:10 pm > Subject: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem > > I just read this paper for the third time. This is a gem. These people > think and write like engineers rather than scientists. That is a complement > coming from me. They dot every i and cross every t. I can't think of a > single thing I wish they had checked but did not. > > In ever instance, their assumptions are conservative. Where there is any > chance of mismeasuring something, they assume the lowest possible value for > output, and the highest value for input. They assume emissivity is 1 even > though it is obviously lower (and therefore output is higher). The add in > every possible source of input, whereas any factor that might increase > output but which cannot be measured exactly is ignored. For example, they > know that emissivity from the sides of the cylinder close to 90 degrees > away from the camera is undermeasured (because it is at an angle), but > rather than try to take that into account, they do the calculation as if > all surfaces are at 0 degrees, flat in front of the camera. In the first > set of tests they know that the support frame blocks the IR camera partly, > casting a shadow and reducing output, but they do not try to take than into > account. > > Furthermore, this is a pure black box test, exactly what the skeptics > and others have been crying out for. They make no assumptions about the > nature of the reaction or the content of the cylinder. They make no > adjustments for it; the heat is measured the same way you would measure an > electrically heated cylinder or a cylinder with a gas flame inside it. It > is hands-off in the literal sense, with only the thermocouples touching the > cell, and the rest at a distance, including the clamp on ammeter which > placed below the power supply. You do not have to know anything about the > reaction to be sure these measurements are right. There is nothing Rossi > could possibly do to fool these instruments, which the authors brought with > them. They left a video camera on the instruments at all times to ensure > there was no hanky-panky. They wrote: > > "The clamp ammeters were connected upstream from the control box to ensure > the trustworthiness of the measurements performed, and to produce a > nonfalsifiable document (the video recording) of the measurements > themselves." > > They estimate the extent to which the heat exceeds the limits of > chemistry by both the mass of the cell and the volume of the cell. In the > first test, they use the entire weight of the inside cell as the starting > point, rather than just the powder, as if stainless steel might be the > reactant. In the second test they determine that the powder weighs ~0.3 g > but they round that up to 1 g. > > They use Martin Fleischmann's favorite method of looking at the heat > decay curves when the power cycles off. Plot 5 clearly shows that the heat > does not decay according to Newton's law of cooling. There must be a heat > producing reaction in addition to the electric heater. > > I like it! > > - Jed > > -- Dr. Peter Gluck Cluj, Romania http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com
