I find it funny that anonymous GoatGuy is literally one of the best-read "skeptics" out there and get's so much play, but in my view he deserves it because he's pretty good and the "skeptical" community generally sucks. Still don't think his objections discredit the report, but I wouldn't mind seeing them answered.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 5:22 PM, Alain Sepeda <alain.sep...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > among the skeptic argument one of the only that is not laughable is the > one of goatguy... > maybe is it because I don't understand it well... > > He seems to say > - that alumina is not a grey body, but transparent, and that emissivity > must be mixed with translucidity when considering the radiation of heat... > - and maybe that one effect could came from changing resistors that are > more or less hidden "optically"... > > I propose a kind of group work, > > I propose that people with competence, analyse goagguys arguments, and the > report. > > 1- can someone explain first the point of goatguy on the fact that alumina > is transparent... > is it noticeable ? does it change the way radiation equation are computed > or is it simply emissivity change ? > what can be the order of size of the error induced ? > > 2- can someone confirm (I cannot yet reread the report) that some known > emissivity dots were used, but that the surface of the reactor prevented > permanent thermocouple installation... > can someone analyse the report precisely > > 3- can someone confirm or refute my position that > "if the same object is brighter for an IR cam, even with a complex > emissivity curve, it is hotter than the same object that bright less" > the term bright is apparent temperature for an IR cam, or for a blacksmith > > 4- finally what is the possible error that > - translucidity of alumina > - with resistor switching that move heat source > to change : > the observed COP, to higher or to lower ? > 5- > or to make COP possibly =1 > > my position is that because of my naive rule 3, 5 is impossible. > moreover 2 remove the possibility that effect in 1 are noticeable and not > mostly corrected. > > I want to know if I'm wrong. > > and I have other duties... please help ... I'm sorry. >
