Does even teach or do research in any public institution anymore? Giovanni
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Andrew <andrew...@att.net> wrote: > ** > 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 <gsantost...@gmail.com> > *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 >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
