The 7 professors who wrote the TIP report are supposed to be answering such criticisms. They should have set up a website for just that purpose. Rossi did.
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 2:31 PM, Foks0904 . <foks0...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. >> > >
