Bastiaan Bergman <bastiaan.berg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Another reason to require a COP of more than 2.5 is an economical end > technological reason. Because the E-Cat has a high-entropy input > (electricity) and a low-entropy output . . . This is not an issue. The COP can easily be improved. > Measurement of output energy is where problems arise. An IR camera is > used to measure the intensity of IR radiation emitted from the reactor > geometry. They used the "spots" (standard material) and checked the temperature against a thermocouple. I do not think this is a problem. If they had not checked with at thermocouple this *would be* a problem. > No definite word on who was present > during the blanco test. This took 6 hours after the second test. I expect they were all there. If not, I am pretty sure they used the camera so Rossi could not have interfered. Everything was recorded on the video camera. > It is unclear whether the same emissivity was used in the blanco and > the real test and thus whether the blanco was analysed in exactly the > same way. > I think it says that it was. They used the dots and thermocouple in both cases. > Convection calculation requires even more assumptions and a more > careful experimental setup while the contribution of heat dissipation > through convection is insignificant compared to the dissipation > through radiation at the present temperatures. The data tables show that convection is about the same as radiation. See Table 8, for example. I think we can trust conventional engineering textbooks on this. People have studied convection in air carefully for a long time. It is a very important subject, for things like radiators. > None of the authors is truly independent. They all > have a vested interest in at least rehabilitating their reputation as > they have all come out in support of Andrea Rossi's claim of an > That is incorrect. Only one, Levi, endorsed Rossi. Essen, the former head of the Skeptics Society, was neutral before. The other five are new to the field. I had to add them to my author database. > for example Andrea Rossi, plays a clever trick causing all observers > of the test experiment to believe his claims. Possible schemes for > such a fraud are: i) Line power is tampered with and extra power is > feed to the E-Cat as e.g. DC. People familiar with these meters tell me that is impossible. > ii) Measurement equipment is tampered > with to display wrong numbers The authors brought the equipment. It is theirs. Rossi is not capable of tampering with digital equipment quickly enough. No one is. > iii) Power duty cycles are adjusted down > when observers watch and up when they don't . . . The digital camera recorded every minute of both tests. There was never a time when "no one was watching." > , while at the same time > well-thought schemes are used to distract the observers. You cannot distract a time lapse video camera. I think fraud is extremely unlikely. So unlikely, I am not worried about it. Certainly there is no chance everyone involved in every Rossi test is part of conspiracy. - Jed
