The highest average temperature of the external surface was found to be 1074.13 deg K, equivalent to 800.98 deg C. This result was gathered from the 5:49:00 PM frame (frame 17h49).
At this temperature, the E-cat module irradiates 9.0033 kW according to the first hypothesis, and 13.39 kW according to the second hypothesis.
Power input to the resistors (resistively heaters added by me JC) at 5:49:00 PM was 3.56 kW.
So, instead of direct measurement of heat these "experimentators" and "certificators" have chosen indirect method of measurement, by which device having only 2% measurement error they've got 30% error.
I have the third hypothesis that everything there again was falsified.
As there are many more reliable heat measurement methods without necessity to use any assumptions (hypothesis) in experiment.
Also coordination of current heating capacity with radiating capacity is not quite correctly too. As we can switch off for a while a heating element and irradiation would remain.
My impression that these people have a technical skill but are less skilled in theory. They can conduct experiment only under supervision of another person who has a skill or experiment planning.
Thanks for this.
It makes (7) in my list above. There is too little detail. But it seems likely that measurement of BB temperature from IR power is flakey at high temperatures, because much of the power is not IR. Certainly the T^4 in temperature to power means 2% on temperature corresponds to 10% on power. It is a rubbish experiment. That would be alright except the scientist reporting on it is a rubbish experimenter and so does not comment on the many issues.
But given NDAs under which tests are conducted Rossi can suppress any results he does not like, and not all "nuclear radiation specialists" are good experimenters.
EDIT - at the relevant temperatures power peaks in infra-red, so how accurate the IR camera would be depends on many factors.
Last edited by tomclarke on Sun Sep 09, 2012 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Second point is that this method of measuring power is distinctly flakey"
Is this the best you can do?
How about "Using a IR camera to do calorimetry is far worse than flakey - its beyond bizarre and deliberate incompetence of the highest order.", or say "it's a deliberate choice to scam the unwashed."
Tom, I am sure you can redeem yourself here and find some 'proper' adjectives.
"Second point is that this method of measuring power is distinctly flakey"
Is this the best you can do?
How about "Using a IR camera to do calorimetry is far worse than flakey - its beyond bizarre and deliberate incompetence of the highest order.", or say "it's a deliberate choice to scam the unwashed."
Tom, I am sure you can redeem yourself here and find some 'proper' adjectives.
English understatement. Though I don't see how you can extrapolate safely from lousy experiment to scam - if you could 1/2 the scientists in the world would be scammers. Oh, sorry, the US anti-AGW lobby probably believes this...
I just can't see how rossiphiles like parallel can post this stuff as validation! Maybe he does not read it?
You said extraordinary claims should be disbelieved before proof and you are sticking to your philosophy with a fully closed mind.
PS.
Knowing the reluctance of some here to follow links I copy that post here.
Rossi requested this note to be attached to the announcement.
Quote:
“This report comes from two separated tests made on the 16th of July and the 7th of August, made by the Certificator and professors from 2 Universities. We are under NDA with both, but I want to make very clear that this is not a final report, because all the measurements have to be repeated many times before reaching the reliability necessary to a product. Therefore all the measurements have to be repeated many times more. We are on the right way to make a very important product, but much R&D work has still to be done.”
The point the usual naysayers overlook is that the anomalous heat generated is way beyond instrument error. Just like it has been in previous demonstrations with the regular E-Cats. There is only a limited time that tomclarke can continue to dismiss LENR as measurement error.
Rossi said the more detailed tests will be carried out in October. The group think skeptics, who have filled the last 312 pages with their certainty Rossi is a fraud, will not accept that either. All they achieve is proof of their stupidity and Rossi's prediction that only the sale of working units will prove sufficient.
Report from day 1 of the ECat Convention in Zürich (From Haiko at Vortex)
Andrea Rossi presented a report by „independent parties“ („professors of
universities“ and „engineers from military environments“), signed by nuclear
engineer Fabio Penon. All parties that participated in the report are still
operating to complete their analyses and operations. The document will soon be
online. Here's a few things I noted:
- The classic ecat is stable at low temperature. „it has been safety certified
from SGS for all Europe“. But applications require hot temperatures: the „hot
cat“
- hot cat: analysts were allowed to dismantle the whole reactor system before
and after operation. Rossi said he was only a observer and did not operate the
system. But Fulvio Fabiani operated the security and control systems, as the
report states.
- It's problematic to store hydrogen in such a system (especially if you want
to receive a safety certificate). Therefore, they had to develop a storage
device that takes up hydrogen and releases it at a certain temperature.
- Calorimetry: infrared camera (military devp for missiles). Therefore, the
reactor must be ablack body. Paint had to be developed that stays black at
1200°C and was developed with the help of a company that produces paint for
fighter engines.
- Convection energy was measured (with border pixels) and corrected for.
- All in all, Rossi was flowing, didn't have to think what to say, told an
anecdote. „the hot cat is a war ship, not a cruise ship“. „I'm investing in it
and I believe in this product“
That comment you made is clearly, on analysis of the experimental report as above, wrong.
So you say. No ifs, buts or maybes, just plain wrong. The scientists actually doing the experiments don't agree, but you think you can tell more from a distance using blog reports.... Very scientific.
At the moment Andrea Rossi is answering questions from the audience. I did not catch it all but he did mentions working with someone from Siemens
On transmutation from nickel to copper — when they started work, Rossi and Focardi thought that this transmutation was at the heart of this process, now they have changed their thinking. Rossi is convinced this is a side effect that comes from the production of low energy gamma rays. Copper is produced in only tiny amounts — ‘picograms’. Transmutation is not the main process. His theory has ‘substantially changed’.
Now they are extremely focused on producing electric power — not doing primary research on using materials other than nickel. He says if they can make electricity they will be able to adapt the system so they can create an infinite COP — fulfil Nikola Tesla’s dream. He wants to make a difference in combating poverty as soon as possible.
That comment you made is clearly, on analysis of the experimental report as above, wrong.
So you say. No ifs, buts or maybes, just plain wrong. The scientists actually doing the experiments don't agree, but you think you can tell more from a distance using blog reports.... Very scientific.
No parallel, I know I can tell more by reading the details of the "nuclear radiation specialst"'s report. So could you, if you applied yourself.
“This report comes from two separated tests made on the 16th of July and the 7th of August, made by the Certificator and professors from 2 Universities. We are under NDA with both, but I want to make very clear that this is not a final report, because all the measurements have to be repeated many times before reaching the reliability necessary to a product. Therefore all the measurements have to be repeated many times more. We are on the right way to make a very important product, but much R&D work has still to be done.”
What does this Rossi quote say to us?
I rise in support of Rossi on this one. Rossi had no control or responsibility over this series of tests. Rossi was strictly hands off, and had no inputs into or participation in this evaluation exercise. The intent of this test series was to begin a certification of a product by a testing organization as safe and in conformance to a set of European regulatory standards for a commercial product.
This LENR product certification process is just beginning and the results presented are preliminary. The intent of this customer conference is strictly commercial in nature. Its purpose is limited and may well be to inform and assure Rossi’s customer base that sufficient progress is being made in product development and safety assurance as witnessed by an internationally known and well respected third party product certification organization and is not intended in any way to meet any scientific standards or peer review expectations.
Any faults in the testing process must be laid exclusively at the feet of the testing agent. It might be possible that this type of certification process is not appropriate for a nuclear reactor. Rossi is breaking new ground in this area so some testing and certification problems are to be expected. As with any new class of energy production process, this is an all new experience and the new LENR industry must go through this process sooner or later.
“This report comes from two separated tests made on the 16th of July and the 7th of August, made by the Certificator and professors from 2 Universities. We are under NDA with both, but I want to make very clear that this is not a final report, because all the measurements have to be repeated many times before reaching the reliability necessary to a product. Therefore all the measurements have to be repeated many times more. We are on the right way to make a very important product, but much R&D work has still to be done.”
What does this Rossi quote say to us?
I rise in support of Rossi on this one. Rossi had no control or responsibility over this series of tests. Rossi was strictly hands off, and had no inputs into or participation in this evaluation exercise.
Strange. The test with an IR camera is a replica of that made by Rossi. The methodlogy is therefore equally flawed.
It does not matter that Rossi was not pressing the buttons. The people who were doing so did nothing to close up the inherent flaws in the methodology.
The intent of this test series was to begin a certification of a product by a testing organization as safe and in conformance to a set of European regulatory standards for a commercial product.
It would surely be worthwhile to have one test, at least, that shows indisputable heat generation, before the expense of certification.
So far we do not have this. Nor, as far as we know, does Rossi. He obviously thinks this flawed test conclusive.
As with any new class of energy production process, this is an all new experience and the new LENR industry must go through this process sooner or later.
I'm sure that would be true. But we are currently stuck with Rossi having no device that generates energy, and therefore no industry. The test described here does not change that.
Last edited by tomclarke on Sun Sep 09, 2012 6:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tomclarke wrote:No parallel, I know I can tell more by reading the details of the "nuclear radiation specialst"'s report. So could you, if you applied yourself.
Is that "nuclear radiation specialist" really sure that measuring the outer temperature by the certain device (thermal camera) the temperature inside "reactor" is uniform?
As weighing reactor components and listing their masses he meant only this - uniformity of temperature.
And for example for this device outer temperature is higher than inside: http://www.google.com/patents/US4631392
And this patent is only one example but we can find a lot of such designs with higher outer temperature.
And so, the calculated energy content on base of outer temperature for such devices would be much higher than real number.
There is no question that anomalous heat was found beyond any possible measurement error. No one is suggesting the measurements were particularly accurate. This was simply a first look.
parallel wrote:
There is no question that anomalous heat was found beyond any possible measurement error. No one is suggesting the measurements were particularly accurate. This was simply a first look.
OK. So your (or Rossi's?) definition of validation is an experiment which does not show excess heat beyond experimental error? That explains a lot!
It makes you wonder why Rossi causes such an experiment to be repeated - he has done it once before as a demo. The wholly inadequate methodology ws commented on at the time.
1331 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach, Florida-33139 listed as the address of the factory. a residential area on google maps. a nice neighborhood by the looks of it