Jones, you are discussing one of the main concerns about the accuracy of the
test as far as I can ascertain. Someone needs to review the behavior of the
alumina when illuminated from within to prove that we are not being confused.
This should not be too difficult since any light source that resembles the
spectrum emitted by the resistor heating elements would work.
I can imagine taking a small laser and shinning it through a piece of alumina
that is viewed by a thermal camera. We know that the laser power is small,
therefore if the camera determines a large power being emitted, then the test
is suspect. Does anyone on the list have the materials and time available to
perform such a test?
Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net>
To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Fri, Oct 10, 2014 12:35 pm
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Nasa scientist endorses report
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.
