From: Blaze Spinnaker
Michael Nelson, Alternate Discipline Leader for SLS
Propulsion at NASA’s Propulsion Research and Development Laboratory, notes,
“I was impressed with the work that was done to insure the measurements
claiming a 3.2 to 3.6 COP were accurate. Aside from the fact that this could
not have been produced from any known chemical reaction, the most
significant finding to me is the evidence of isotopic shifts in lithium and
nickel. Understanding this could possibly be the beginning of a whole new
era in both material transmutations and energy for the planet and for space
exploration. This is an exciting time to live in and this is an exciting
technology to witness come about.”
http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/10/10/new-energy-foundation-issues-press-rele
ase-on-e-cat-endorsement-from-nasas-michael-nelson/I agree - on the isotopic shifts – very revealing - but were they endothermic? There is no joy in Mudville for this fan. This is because it is now apparent that there is no real proof of energy gain in the Levi report. There is slight evidence, but no proof. Most of that evidence comes from transmutation, but as we know, transmutation can be endothermic. This paper is fatally flawed, and it goes back to the lead author Levi. Why on earth was he retained? Is he a personal friend of Rossi? The Achilles heel of this paper, and the reason Levi should have been replaced by a more competent researcher is the so-called calorimetry. Not just stupid but bone-headed, given the translucence of alumina. It’s not as bad as using a quartz tube, but almost. A skeptic named Goat Guy (who is 100% correct on this issue): “there is the notion of treating alumina as an opaque radiator of known emissivity (dependent on temperature). I hate to be the guy calling out the Emperor's lack of clothing, but thin walls of alumina, especially sintered alumina, are well known optically transmissive (translucent) barriers. This means, that the actual infrared light output of the Inconel heating wires (which obviously glow, as in their pictures), will make it through the alumina.” In short, the IR being picked up by the camera and then being raised to 4th power by the calculations was a bogus reading, which was essentially the glow of the resistance wires. What about the control, you ask? … then there is the “control” test – which is the emission of the “dummy reactor”, which was done at a few hundred input watts, which is nowhere near the output level of the purported energy generating regime. Why? Of course Levi must have realized that the glow of the resistance would have been seen through the alumina of the control – just as it was seen later in the 6 rods of the insulator. DOH! Slaps forehead ! From: Robert Lynn … Would be easy enough to do a second control run even now to add some confidence to the calorimetry. The alumina + wire will be off-the-shelf all someone need do is ask Rossi for specs of tube and wire - he should be happy to provide them in the interests of clarity. Eric Walker To be honest, the calorimetry left some things to be desired in my opinion. • The calibration run was operated at a much lower temperature than the live run. • The calculations for radiant heat and convection were byzantine. I don't know how anyone could have any confidence in them without some kind of additional check (such as the one they actually did, against the calibration run). Measuring the heat would have been more reliable by running a control at the same temperature as the live run, with heat exchanger and a working fluid, calibrating the power measured against the power delivered to the control and then using the same setup to measure the net power during the live run. The fancy calculations did not add anything and were a distraction. That said, I'm still basically happy with the calorimetry, because I'm not a physicist and at minimum it provides a good back-of-the-envelope number, and it probably a much better number than that.
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
