Jones -- I can't say your objections to Rossi being present when it was open are unfounded. I think that was a rather stupid move/agreement between the parties. Creates all kind of innuendo which they could/should have avoided. With that said I'm not so sure it really presented him with much chance to "swap the sample", as Mats Lewan wrote:
"I don’t have details minute by minute, but I was told one member of the team together with Rossi and a technician opened the reactor in a closed room. A diamond saw had to be used to cut some part before the end plug could be removed. The team member was allowed to pick 10 mg out of the charge which amounted to about 1 gram. This constraint was supposedly imposed by IH. The sample of used fuel could be chosen freely from the charge inside the reactor, which means that if the material was manipulated, all of it had to be so. Basically I guess you would have needed to swap the reactor for another identical before opening." On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 12:35 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > > Here is a reduction ad absurdum example of why this experiment was > unbelievably poorly designed. > > NOTE: The experiment could still be gainful, but the Levi’s results do not > prove anything, as presented. The thermocouple does not help – it is > admitted by Levi that it was accurate only on the two caps, which were much > cooler. > > Let’s say I claim to have a hundred watt OU lightbulb that I want to sell > to > you for $1 million. If it were a glass bulb, and clear, and I use the IR > camera to measure the filament temperature, and then used that temperature > to compute the emissivity of the entire surface area of the bulb, say 100 > cm^2, then you would cry foul – since the obviously only the surface area > of > the filament is responsible. That filament area could be 1 cm^2 and in > effect, I have computed the power of the bulb with a 25:1 overestimate- > based on an incorrect assumption, but based on a correct reading and a > correct formula. > > Next let’s say the bulb presented is frosted, and you are naïve and do not > know that it contains a hot filament - but I use the camera to focus on an > area of the bulb’s exterior, where from prior experience, I know that the > filament radiates the most photons, even if that reading is diminished in > intensity from a clear bulb … this technique can still result in a 3:1 > over-estimate of the net emissivity of the bulb, since there is a strong > contribution from a hot filament. This can be demonstrated rather easily to > be factual. > > That is the problem with this paper. Levi seems to be telling us only this: > that if one applies 800 watts to a Inconel wire, it will reach 1300 > degrees. > But we already knew that. > > We cannot extrapolate the emissivity of the resistor wire to the entire > surface of the reactor. As for a thermocouple, placement is everything. I > saw NO DATA on calibration of the thermocouple, only that someone who > already screwed up the experiment royally thinks that it verifies what > could > be a grossly incorrect calibration. In fact this is admitted “We also found > that the ridges made thermal contact with any thermocouple probe placed on > the outer surface of the reactor extremely critical, making any direct > temperature measurement with the required precision impossible.” So they > admit the thermocouple reading was not done with any precision on the > exterior of the tube – only on the caps which are much cooler and > consequently the thermocouple verifies nothing! > > $64 question: Was Rossi present at the time the reactor was opened? > > If so, and this has been reported on E-Cat World, then that means the > sample > which Bianchini tested was not independently obtained – and could have been > tampered with by Rossi himself – who is known to have purchased several > grams of Ni-62. > > From: Jed Rothwell > JB: Geeze you are sounding almost as bad as Levi - > in not seeing the obvious ... “about the same” is absurd, given what > happens > later. The difference between 486 and 790 is enormous when the delta-T is > being raised by a formula which includes a fourth power (Stefan–Boltzmann > law) > The temperature was also measured with a thermocouple, as > noted. > > Ah, but your point is that even if the the temperature is > measured correctly, may not reflect the power correctly. > > That would be a rewrite of the textbooks. In any case, a > temperature calibration curve goes down, not up, at higher power levels. > >
