I could have predicted that, Giovanni, which is why I, having raised the issue
here, chose not to do that. He is an egomaniac, and you attempted to beard the
lion in its own den. The man has little integrity, quite frankly. However, he
is IMHO a quite talented physicist.
Andrew
----- Original Message -----
From: Giovanni Santostasi
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Levi Hot Cat paper is a gem
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
