Haven't commented here in a while, pretty excited that after a couple of years of Rossi's shenanigans it's all perhaps about to happen. But I come from a hard test and measurement background (mechanical and electrical engineer, specialising in thermodynamics) and am by nature quite skeptical, so while compelling I am still not totally satisfied with this demo in Rossi's own facilities using Rossi's own equipment and setup.
That is singularly because it relies upon Rossi being honest - something of which I am not totally assured given his history (I thought his Mat Lewans demo looked distinctly dodgy, and some of his others weren't great either). And I can think of a number of ways of cheating to get heat into the reactor: Altering the electrical measurement equipment supplied, fiber optic lasers hidden in cable, two-strand wires inside wired clamped ammeters (no net current), infrared, uv, x-ray, or radio frequency heat sources directed at reactor from afar, delivering combustible fuel into reactor via wires/cables (0.05g/s for 2000W). Probably most of these could be ruled out by the observers present, but as they are associates of Rossi I really don't know if they were looking for such. It would have been a far better approach for Rossi to engage aggressively skeptical testers to do the job. <http://www.pce-instruments.com/english/measuring-instruments/installation-tester/power-analyzer-pce-holding-gmbh-power-analyzer-pce-830-1-det_60706.htm> Anyway I look forward to more demos in preferably neutral locations to assuage my concerns. On 21 May 2013 14:44, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote: > > - one way to be wrong would be to make a temperature error. since power in >> in T^4, error is 5^1/4, about 1.5, thus +50%/-33%, assuming no convection. >> > > Yes, temperature measurement is critical. That is why they checked the > surface temperature with a thermocouple to confirm the IR camera is set > correctly. In the previous test, they just assumed emissivity is 1, meaning > as bad as it can be. > > It makes no sense to assume no convection. There has to be convection. > > Also, as you see in Fig. 10, the flange is large and it must be radiating > and convecting a lot of heat. They did not try to measure that. > > On p. 20 they say unaccounted for heat losses were 58 W out of 810 W > during the calibration with joule heating. 7%. Actually, that is remarkably > good accounting for a system like this. > > > >> Am I reasoning well ? >> is COP<=1 ruled out ? >> > > I think so, but actually even if the COP was exactly 1, that would > indicate excess heat. You would not expect it to be better than 0.93 as > shown by the 7% loss during calibration. > > - Jed > >
