Motl is deleting my comment, lol. Funny Giovanni
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Giovanni Santostasi <gsantost...@gmail.com>wrote: > My argument against what Motl claims (what I wrote on his post): > > I think Lumo you are wrong on this issue of epsilon. The camera doesn't > know about temperatures but can measure power. If you use a higher epsilon > (1 being the highest) than the real one you are actually underestimating > the temperature (derived from Stephan-Boltzman). The camera gives > temperature as a proxy for power. If you use the wrong epsilon in the > setting of the camera, let's say 1 instead of 0.1 you are underestimating > the temperature by a factor of 10, so 5000 K is reported as 500 K. Then > when you use the reading of 500 K to calculate the power using > Stephan-Boltzman again (after averaging over many areas) reintroducing the > same value for epsilon=1 would overestimate power but because the > temperature was underestimated by the same factor, everything is all right > and the radiation power is estimated correctly. It is still a lower limit > of total power given that some power would be in other forms (like > convection). > > > On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that >> the power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was >> measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power >> analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments). >> Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the >> company licensing the technology EFA srl, therefore Rossi could have >> defrauded the investigators by hidden camera, or other spy device, >> observing when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency, >> overlaid on the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the >> PCE-830. This assertion about the PCE-830's limitations has not been >> validated as plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority. >> >> >> On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >
