The continued use of these two remote IR temperature sensors leads me to suspect a large output of IR radiation witch would have interfered with directly wired instrumentation
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Brad Lowe <ecatbuil...@gmail.com> wrote: > Does anyone know if there will be a press release or Q&A where the > experimenters can answer questions? > It would be extreme negligence to allow Levi or Rossi to open the > reactor or handle the ash. > > Two things that lends credence to Jones' fear-- Rossi's constant "may > be positive or may be negative" mantra, and Rossi's statements that > getting actual work accomplished is difficult. If it were a clear COP > of 3, it should be pretty easy to "heat a tub of water" or do some > kind of obvious work. > > - Brad > > > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > >> > > > >
