Third Party Tests Conducted

[P E Schoen]

"George Herold" wrote in message

[snip]

Measure the surface temperature some other way (a thermal couple).

Is that two hot, horny teenagers getting' it on?

The nominal amount of power for a human body at rest is about 50 watts. Sex
probably peaks at about 200 watts or 1/4 HP. I wonder how the black body
calculations and radiated energy and convection cooling from sweating
correspond to skin temperature during and after coitus?



Paul

 

[Martin Brown]

"amdx" wrote in message





I was perhaps a bit quick to accept this as legitimate and convincing,

Surely you jest. Fleischmann and Pons were convincing - they had an
excellent track record of previous electrochemistry research and made a
claim which although it subsequently turned out to be incorrect but was
described in a way that anyone who wanted to could try and reproduce it.

A part of me still wants to believe that they (F&P) were actually onto
something but that it required a very peculiar set of circumstances to
actually make it fly. Sadly it was not to be. There are still a few
stubborn groups around the globe trying to reproduce it even now.

This e-Cat thing screams "free energy scam" louder than a jet engine!

but I still think it may have some validity. I did some searching of the
Cornell University papers and found some more theoretical and probably
more realistic analyses of "cold" fusion and low energy nuclear
reactions of heavy nuclei such as Nickel. The probability of such
reactions according to classical physics is in the order of 10e-2682,
but quantum mechanical effects may have a more realistic probability. I
posted a large number of links in a discussion in the DIYelectricCar forum:

http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/rossi-e-cat-cold-fusion-device-86033.html

I am sure DIY electric car fans are all experts in nuclear physics.

Even if QM makes it 10^2600 times more likely you are still on a hiding
to nothing with a reaction cross section of 10^-82 in a lab reactor.

But the paper that seemed most relevant was:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1211/1211.1243.pdf

I am not a physicist by any means but it does seem that nuclear fusion
as observed in Rossi's tests is at least possible. I doubt that the
simple apparatus he has built can actually produce the results he
claims, and I agree that many of the experimental methods are highly
suspect, but I try to avoid knee-jerk rejection of such presentations
and keep an open mind.

If you do that your brains may well fall out.

Nickel and iron are close to the global maximum of binding energy per
nucleon. It would be very hard to think of a less likely substrate.

Palladium at least had a plausible mechanism whereby it might just be
able to get deuterium to fuse. This e-Crap stuff is pure hocus pocus.

There are any number of national standards labs in the world that could
settle this once and for all. Instead he takes it to a bunch of guys in
a shed and tries to pass off their dodgy "experiment" as a confirmation.

That "paper" will never see the light of day in a mainstream journal.

 

[amdx]

Hmm... well I didn't read the whole thing. But if you measure the
temperature and then from that you want to get the energy that is
radiated. Then higher emissivity means more radiated energy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissivity

If the 'conservative' estimate of emissivity is just to get the
calibration of their pyrometer... then I just throw up my hands.
Measure the surface temperature some other way (a thermal couple).

So if the calibration of the pyrometer is a bit 'flaky', giving an
uncertainty in the temperature... and the energy radiated goes as T^4,
then that's an even bigger error.

As others have said, there are lots of ways it could have been done
better.

Why do you want so much for this to be true? I tend to be skeptical
about science claims... even in a peer reviewed journal.

George H.

I would like it to be true, but I'm also skeptical of it.
I've been watching it to long without any source that we would all
believe, come out and say they we verified excess energy from this.

But if they truly had 360 watts delivered to the unit, it would not
glow like the pictures show.

Also, it is not just Rossi that says he has a working model.

What reasons do Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Torbjörn Hartman, Bo
Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér, Hanno Essén have to make up
a story or falsify results?
Sceptically hopeful, Mikek

 

[George Herold]

"George Herold"  wrote in message


[snip]

Measure the surface temperature some other way (a thermal couple).

Grin... I knew something didn't look right, but I couldn't quite see
it.

George H.

 

[George Herold]

They are using some mysterious trade-secret waveforms from some magic
controller box. The DC component may be deliberate fakery, or could be
self-delusion. Lots of folks start fooling people by fooling
themselves first.

A healthy slug of DC can saturate a cheap CT and even make the AC
component read low.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc

jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot comhttp://www.highlandtechnology.com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom laser drivers and controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME thermocouple, LVDT, synchro   acquisition and simulation

I like it.. the fancy signal is DC.

George H.

 

[Martin Brown]

I would like it to be true, but I'm also skeptical of it.
I've been watching it to long without any source that we would all
believe, come out and say they we verified excess energy from this.

But if they truly had 360 watts delivered to the unit, it would not
glow like the pictures show.

Also, it is not just Rossi that says he has a working model.

What reasons do Giuseppe Levi, Evelyn Foschi, Torbjörn Hartman, Bo
Höistad, Roland Pettersson, Lars Tegnér, Hanno Essén have to make up
a story or falsify results?
Sceptically hopeful, Mikek

Like you they want to believe in it and they have not been careful
enough about instrumenting for calorimetry a black box (cylinder in this
case) that is cunningly designed to deceive. They are reporting what
they thought they saw but that isn't the whole story.

Not really any different to the spoon bender Uri Geller doing paranormal
things beating Prof John Taylor but unable to defeat Randi.

 

[P E Schoen]

"John Larkin" wrote in message

I've wondered if a household disk-type power meter actually meters a
half-wave rectified load accurately.

According to Wiki as well as the principles of operation, a DC component
will not register accurately with an induction type watt-hour meter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_meter

The newer electronic types, and most professional power analyzers, use Hall
effect sensors and instantaneous V*A readings to give true RMS voltage,
current, and power readings as well as VA (apparent power or Volt-Amps
Reactive), and thus power factor. Such a system can be purchased for under
$3000 or rented for about 1/10 that:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/DRANETZ-DBEP500-4-Power-Analyzer-Datalogger-10-to-500A-/321129602939

Many are even much less:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/FLUKE-41B-Power-Harmonics-Analyzer-With-Everything-Included-/251277365666
($750)
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Valhalla-Sc...zer-True-Watt-Meter-4-1-2-Digit-/300891678515
($200)

If they did not use something comparable to these instruments, then I think
it can be safely concluded that they are either promoting a scam or are
clueless about power, and their credibility ranks among those deluded
denizens of the over-unity ilk who expose their ignorance on YouTube and
elsewhere on the web.

Paul

 

[rickman]

If they did not use something comparable to these instruments, then I
think it can be safely concluded that they are either promoting a scam
or are clueless about power

Or BOTH!