No. Once again, gray body equations have to reduce to black body equations where there are no reflections.
No, they don't, because you still have an emissivity (which is the same as absorptivity, in a gray body).
You're trying to have it both ways again. There is also a "scattering" term which you're ignoring, which is not the same as reflection.
Jane's power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from chamber walls
NO, it doesn't, and fucking well STOP claiming that it is. If YOU want to assert that, go ahead, but stop putting my name on it. I did not say that, and I do not say that, so stop putting my name on it. DO YOU UNDERSTAND???
Nothing I read shows they took any significant security precautions whatsoever, either in the digital or physical security. It's not that hard to physically alter the device, the monitoring equipment, or the data if you're intent on fraud and there are no experts in physical and digital security constantly monitoring the integrity of the experiment and the equipment used to monitor it.
Oh, for crap's sake. The question isn't whether their security is perfect. The question is "Which is MORE LIKELY: that a bunch of university researchers were fooled by a very, very damned good stage magician, or that a technology (nickel-based LENR) which has been studied for many years by both the U.S. Navy and NASA was finally figured out?"
To me, the answer is pretty clear: the latter is far more likely and plausible.
Since Jane keeps bolding "from the wall" and claiming that "radiative power from the walls through that boundary cancels itself out," Jane seems to be saying:
Jane's power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from chamber walls
Jane's power out = radiative power out from source + radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out
No, that is NOT what Jane is saying. Jane is saying what Jane already actually said, not this distorted nonsense of yours.
If I reply to you further at all on this subject, it will merely to be to publicly deny your false claims about what *I* stated. I have no other reason to reply. And I would only do so for the edification of other readers; it has nothing to do with you.
It's megawatt HOURS. And yes, I damned well do know how much that is. That's very close to 1.5 times the amount of electricity used by an average U.S. home in a year.
That's anything but "tiny".
It's not "power" that matters. It's power times hours, divided by mass.
Your jet engines are in vehicles that way tons. And they go through tons of fuel.
The amount of "fuel" that went into this thing was weighed, and it was about one gram. Nevertheless, they calculated power output for the entire mass of the thing, and still came up with orders of magnitude more power output than any possible chemical reaction.
this thing could have one too because nobody is allowed to get a close enough look to see if any of those tubes running in are carrying fuel.
NONSENSE. Read the goddamned paper. The whole experiment was set up by university researchers. They "got close enough", all right. They held it in their own hands, and wired it up themselves.
Sorry, but no - you need to read the paper better, because you're jumping to conclusions that the paper does not support.
Rossi did not only provide the test cylinders. He provided the pumps, control boxes, cabling and pretty much everything except the meters.
Just like a stage magician provides everything except the eyes.
Sorry, but no. You're not reading the same paper I am. The one titled "Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel".
The word "pump" doesn't even appear in that paper. Not even once.
There are so many ways he could have turned on an electric power source while supervising the insertion and extraction with his fingers, and rigged it so this power drain would not show up on the meters.
What the hell? Nonsense. There is nothing at all here that would indicate that. The researchers themselves set up the equipment. Do you think they were incompetent? And no, there is almost zero likelihood that "extraction with his fingers" would have occurred, as he was being closely watched by several people, and he's a goddamned university professor, not a stage magician.
And no, there is absolutely zero chance that he would manipulate the instruments, because they were being continually used and in some ways adjusted by the researchers. Rossi wasn't even there most of the time.
You're just full of it, man. I am well aware that tricks can be played by clever people, but you're just pulling bullshit out of thin air.
I really have no further reason -- absolutely none -- to have to read this utter nonsense.
That's why radiation re-emitted by the source at temperature T1 is (e*s)*T1^4. There are no other factors involved.
Uh... I hate to tell you this, but this exactly what I have been saying all along. Except for the "re-emitted" part. I'd ask you what the hell you meant by that, if I really cared. (e*s)*T^4 is NOT "re-emitted" radiation. That is the total radiative output per unit area. So... Huh? What? Are you trying to say something here?
The source can't re-emit radiation at (e*s)*T4^4, so those terms in Jane's equation can't cancel. And the last term double-counts radiation emitted by the source, so it's zero.
The source doesn't have to "re-emit" radiation at (e*s)*T4^4, because none (NET) is absorbed in the first place. Again, this is what I have been saying all along. It is reflected or scattered. As I have stated before, this is a requirement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I made one non-thinking slipup a while ago, which I pointed out. Don't try to present that as a genuine claim of mine: we have it here in black-and-white that I was not genuinely making that claim.
But yes, radiation inward from the chamber walls does cancel, because it is reflected or scattered and goes right back out. (A small part of it misses the inner sphere completely.) So no matter how you look at it, it is still a zero sum.
So what is your point here? Are you trying to claim that radiation from the chamber walls is absorbed, and NOT re-emitted? That's a violation of the Second Law, because it would require energy spontaneously flowing from cold to hot.
I don't care how you try to divide it up. Everything you've said ends up a violation of physics in one way or another. In fact you're pretty damned good at dreaming up ways to violate basic physical laws, it seems.
On the other hand, Edison is known for far more than just the lightbulb. We was still a great inventor (or, perhaps more properly, he and his company were great inventors). That doesn't mean Edison was any kind of nice guy. Witness the Edison/Tesla battles; Edison was not above using nefarious means to get his way.
It wasn't Edison who led to Tesla's demise, though. Even though Edison had ripped him off. Because Tesla actually won the big AC/DC war. It was the then-owner of General Electric who really ruined him. I forget the guy's name now.
No, I've repeatedly agreed that radiative power out only depends on emissivity and temperature.
You've repeatedly stated other, contradictory things too.
You've tried to claim that POWER IN to the heat source is somehow magically dependent on the chamber walls. And the justification you gave for this was a heat transfer equation, as I described above.
I really don't care which figure you want to manipulate via magic: the power in or the power out. It's still magic, not physics.
I've already shown you the proper physics to apply. I have at least 4 online and 5 written references to back me up (though I think I've only linked to 3 of them so far).
There is genuinely no legitimate reason for me to be here listening to your BS anymore.
That should ring a warning bell, because it makes it easier to conduct (no pun intended) electric trickery.
Oh, for Christ's sake read the goddamned paper. That's just dumb in this context, as you would know if you'd read it already.
Yes, what you say is theoretically possible, IF somebody set it up that way, but it isn't very damned likely that a bunch of reputable university scientists are going to do that, AND they clearly describe how they DID do it. Just read the paper and spare us the misery of listening to your speculations until then, okay?
I'm not sure I agree 100%. Most people have a tendency to simply read down the page.
Let's say I make a comment at 1:00. Then at 2:00, I realize I have a further reply to the same comment I replied to at 1:00.
But it turns out that at about 1:05 some other people replied to my 1:00 comment. Then other people replied to those.
Next thing you know, my 2:00 comment is completely off the page. Nobody willing to spend a good bit of time investment will even see it.
I've seen it happen quite a lot. In fact I've had a bunch of comments in the past modded "redundant", even though if you look at the timestamps I made the comment before anyone else did. It's just further down the page.
The problem here is the observers are kept from having a close enough look to be able to tell if it really did put out that power or not.
Just no. That was not the case at all. Read the actual paper.
That's at least three things I have seen you write about this so far that have been just plain flat wrong, as anybody who reads TFA and the actual research paper can easily see.
Now you've gone so far off base, I can hardly do anything but laugh.
This is such a hilarious pile of misinformation that besides just recording it for may later writeup, I'm throwing a copy in my joke pile.
Maybe that's why Jane won't even take a few seconds to write down an energy conservation equation before he wrongly "cancels" terms. Deep down, maybe Jane suspects that he's wrong and mainstream physicists are right.
The "mainstream physicists" are the ones who wrote the heat transfer textbooks I used to prove you wrong, dumbass.
Let's cut to the chase.
You insist that the radiant power output calculation of the heat source has to take into account the cooler temperature of the chamber walls. In fact the equation YOU gave for this several times is actually a heat transfer equation:
(epsilon * sigma) * (T1^4 - T2^4)
But that's NOT a power out equation, it's a heat transfer equation. Now, I'm only speculating, but I have a very strong suspicion that HOW you got this wrong, was that you read somewhere that this is how you have to calculate the radiant power output of a body.
THAT'S TRUE, WHEN YOU'RE EXTERNALLY MEASURING RADIANT POWER, BUT NOT WHEN YOU'RE CALCULATING IT FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES.
That's why I say: I suspect you saw this somewhere as a way to calculate radiant power from a measured result in an environment with "ambient" temperature. Because that is the only kind of place this legitimately shows up as a "power out" calculation.
When you measure the radiant output of a source, such as a human body in a colder room, for example, you have to correct for the ambient temperature (as pyrometers in fact do), because your instrument is receiving not just the source, but also the "ambient" radiation. So you have to subtract the ambient to get the radiant power of your body.
But that is not the case in Spencer's experiment. We are calculating the power from first principles, not measuring it externally. There is no "ambient" radiation hitting a measuring device which needs to be subtracted.
You've argued this every which way from Sunday, as the saying goes. You've even argued it rather dishonestly, as I have demonstrated. But as it turns out, you were wrong 2+ years ago, and you're still wrong.
And I still don't think you're a physicist. Or, for that matter, even willing to pick up an actual textbook on heat transfer and understand it.
No, input cannot easily be monitored, unless someone trusted to be impartial can provide and set up the lines.
Uh... excuse me, but did you miss the part where this is a controlled experiment, by reputable university researchers, not some magic show?
This wasn't some "demo" by Rossi. He didn't let them see inside the cylinder, but other than that, it was in their control the whole time.
Well, yes, that's exactly what it's like. The chain of custody is compromised, in that he does not allow the test to be set up in a 3rd party controlled environment, and doesn't allow them to replace any of the outside equipment that isn't part of the "trade secret" core.
Uh... yeah, I guess you did miss it. That's exactly what this was. A 3rd-party controlled environment. The only thing they did not control was what might have been already in the cylinder. They were present when the "fuel" was put in but not allowed to otherwise look inside. Which, if you know anything about physics, is irrelevant to these results.
It could not have been some kind of chemical "cheater" because there isn't any similar mass on Earth that could have produced the same power chemically. And the electrical power was set up and monitored by the researchers, not Rossi.
If this was legit, Andrea Rossi could seal a unit, and send it to independent testing along with instructions for how to test it. It would be reproducible, and he would still keep his trade secrets. But he has refused this.
No, and you show your ignorance by saying so. They first did tests on the SAME, unfueled cylinder, which were necessary for calculating their results. THEN, they witnessed the fueling, and conducted their experiment. If they HADN'T measured the thermal characteristics of the unfueled unit first, they would have been dropping the ball.
So try again, man. You obviously didn't read the paper. Or if you did, you didn't understand it.
Years ago a US embassy was given a gift that did not contain a battery or any other power source. However in the presence of enough of a radio signal on a certain frequency it could induce enough current to drive a microphone and a transmitter, so could be used as a remote listening device.
If I was the hoaxer in question that's the sort of thing I would do with my secret black box since the power supposedly produced by fusion is tiny
And that's exactly where your argument falls down. They reported power output that was orders of magnitude higher than any known chemical source of power. And that means: nuclear.
If the paper can be believed, it wasn't tiny at all. This thing produced one and a half megawatt hours of power over the course of a month.
That's anything but tiny. That's like 80 large American homes worth of electricity, for a year. Give or take.
No, his case is not 100% different. There are ways to fool everyone, including physicists and other professional scientists.
Under some circumstances. But these circumstances do not lend themselves to such manipulation.
After fueling, they had continuous monitoring of the device in isolated conditions. Any tampering would have had to fool not just the scientists, but the continuous monitoring devices as well.
If you give me an object like that, and I monitor it continuously (using many pieces of equipment) and seei it continuously outputting anomalous power for over a month, then by gosh the guy deserves a billion anyway because he's a better fucking magician than any other who ever walked the Earth.
Granted, people can be gullible, but this experiment was well-designed. Granted also that the original data must be made public and examined for any discontinuities.
If it passes that last mentioned test, I'd be inclined to call it credible.
The use of a thermal camera is a fundamental no-no. Such experiments need calorimetry done using you know, calorimeters, not this indirect shit. Heat up a known volume of water in a tank, encased in thermal insulation. There's no other way to do it without making oneself look silly.
The paper itself describes, quite credibly, exactly why they did not do that. Did you read it?
Granted, that will have to be done at some point in the future. But you can't credibly blame them for circumstances over which they had no control. Given what they had to work with, they did what they could.
AND... given their methodology, which I have reviewed myself, it's highly doubtful that their results are off by more than 2 orders of magnitude, which is what it would take to prove them wrong.
DID you actually read the report? I don't think so.
They didn't use just one "watt-meter", but two. And actually the devices they used are capable of measuring a lot more than just that.
The models of their pieces of equipment were identified, as well as the specific, and very detailed, measures they took to both measure and calculate emissivity across the whole range of applicable temperatures.
Quote the paper:
The cameras used were two Optris PI 160 Thermal Imagers
You'll have to do a lot better than that if for some reason you want to "prove" them wrong.
They WERE skeptical, and it is a matter of public record.
For years Scientific American denied that it happened, and actually ended up crediting manned heavier-than-air flight to someone else who did it a few years later. Because the Wrights were very jealous and secretive about their invention, and only gave pre-arranged demonstrations to small audiences, with nobody allowed to closely examine their machine.
It wasn't until they gave a big public demonstration, something like 8 years after their first flight, that SciAm and other skeptics gave them credit.
If he can show a working prototype, and show that it works, he can get a patent. That seems to be what he's aiming at here.
Howard Johnson couldn't get a patent for his "magnetic motor" at first, either, because the patent office claimed it was impossible. He had to actually build and demonstrate working demos before he got his patents.
It isn't like Rossi is claiming "perpetual motion" here. Or violating any other known laws of physics.
A lot of artificial barriers have been put in place to stop us, or anyone other than Rossi, from being able to see which is why it looks a lot like another hoax.
No, that is not correct.
If we accept that this paper is genuine, then we also have to accept that it's NOT a hoax. Because you simply can't fake "orders of magnitude" more power output than any known chemical source.
There is a difference between knowing how it works, and thinking it's a hoax. If it really did put out that power, then it's not a "hoax", no matter how skeptical anyone might be, and no matter how deep their lack of understanding of how it works.
That's ridiculous, Jane. Notice that "net radiative power out" equals negative "net radiative power in". Since Jane seems to agree that "net radiative power out" is positive, "net radiative power in" can't be zero. It has to be negative, which just means more radiative power is flowing out than flowing in.
Now you've just gone off the deep end. And by "deep end" I mean the deep end of the pit full of BS you've dug yourself.
Just no. Any spherical boundary you draw within this system has additional input: your vaunted electrical power.
I'm amazed that you finally got so caught up in your own bullshit that you made a mistake quite THAT fundamental.
Get stuffed, troll.
For that and actually quite a pile of other reasons that have built up over time, I still don't believe you're a real physicist.
Slashdot Mirror
Holy fuck, you're a dimwit.
Which is just my personal OPINION, by the way. But an honest one.
No. Once again, gray body equations have to reduce to black body equations where there are no reflections.
No, they don't, because you still have an emissivity (which is the same as absorptivity, in a gray body).
You're trying to have it both ways again. There is also a "scattering" term which you're ignoring, which is not the same as reflection.
Jane's power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from chamber walls
NO, it doesn't, and fucking well STOP claiming that it is. If YOU want to assert that, go ahead, but stop putting my name on it. I did not say that, and I do not say that, so stop putting my name on it. DO YOU UNDERSTAND???
Holy fuck, you're a dimwit.
Nothing I read shows they took any significant security precautions whatsoever, either in the digital or physical security. It's not that hard to physically alter the device, the monitoring equipment, or the data if you're intent on fraud and there are no experts in physical and digital security constantly monitoring the integrity of the experiment and the equipment used to monitor it.
Oh, for crap's sake. The question isn't whether their security is perfect. The question is "Which is MORE LIKELY: that a bunch of university researchers were fooled by a very, very damned good stage magician, or that a technology (nickel-based LENR) which has been studied for many years by both the U.S. Navy and NASA was finally figured out?"
To me, the answer is pretty clear: the latter is far more likely and plausible.
Since Jane keeps bolding "from the wall" and claiming that "radiative power from the walls through that boundary cancels itself out," Jane seems to be saying:
Jane's power in = electrical heating power + radiative power in from chamber walls Jane's power out = radiative power out from source + radiative power from chamber walls, re-emitted back out
No, that is NOT what Jane is saying. Jane is saying what Jane already actually said, not this distorted nonsense of yours.
If I reply to you further at all on this subject, it will merely to be to publicly deny your false claims about what *I* stated. I have no other reason to reply. And I would only do so for the edification of other readers; it has nothing to do with you.
That's anything but "tiny".
It's not "power" that matters. It's power times hours, divided by mass.
Your jet engines are in vehicles that way tons. And they go through tons of fuel.
The amount of "fuel" that went into this thing was weighed, and it was about one gram. Nevertheless, they calculated power output for the entire mass of the thing, and still came up with orders of magnitude more power output than any possible chemical reaction.
this thing could have one too because nobody is allowed to get a close enough look to see if any of those tubes running in are carrying fuel.
NONSENSE. Read the goddamned paper. The whole experiment was set up by university researchers. They "got close enough", all right. They held it in their own hands, and wired it up themselves.
Sorry, but no - you need to read the paper better, because you're jumping to conclusions that the paper does not support. Rossi did not only provide the test cylinders. He provided the pumps, control boxes, cabling and pretty much everything except the meters. Just like a stage magician provides everything except the eyes.
Sorry, but no. You're not reading the same paper I am. The one titled "Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel".
The word "pump" doesn't even appear in that paper. Not even once.
There are so many ways he could have turned on an electric power source while supervising the insertion and extraction with his fingers, and rigged it so this power drain would not show up on the meters.
What the hell? Nonsense. There is nothing at all here that would indicate that. The researchers themselves set up the equipment. Do you think they were incompetent? And no, there is almost zero likelihood that "extraction with his fingers" would have occurred, as he was being closely watched by several people, and he's a goddamned university professor, not a stage magician.
And no, there is absolutely zero chance that he would manipulate the instruments, because they were being continually used and in some ways adjusted by the researchers. Rossi wasn't even there most of the time.
You're just full of it, man. I am well aware that tricks can be played by clever people, but you're just pulling bullshit out of thin air.
That's why radiation re-emitted by the source at temperature T1 is (e*s)*T1^4. There are no other factors involved.
Uh... I hate to tell you this, but this exactly what I have been saying all along. Except for the "re-emitted" part. I'd ask you what the hell you meant by that, if I really cared. (e*s)*T^4 is NOT "re-emitted" radiation. That is the total radiative output per unit area. So... Huh? What? Are you trying to say something here?
The source can't re-emit radiation at (e*s)*T4^4, so those terms in Jane's equation can't cancel. And the last term double-counts radiation emitted by the source, so it's zero.
The source doesn't have to "re-emit" radiation at (e*s)*T4^4, because none (NET) is absorbed in the first place. Again, this is what I have been saying all along. It is reflected or scattered. As I have stated before, this is a requirement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
I made one non-thinking slipup a while ago, which I pointed out. Don't try to present that as a genuine claim of mine: we have it here in black-and-white that I was not genuinely making that claim.
But yes, radiation inward from the chamber walls does cancel, because it is reflected or scattered and goes right back out. (A small part of it misses the inner sphere completely.) So no matter how you look at it, it is still a zero sum.
So what is your point here? Are you trying to claim that radiation from the chamber walls is absorbed, and NOT re-emitted? That's a violation of the Second Law, because it would require energy spontaneously flowing from cold to hot.
I don't care how you try to divide it up. Everything you've said ends up a violation of physics in one way or another. In fact you're pretty damned good at dreaming up ways to violate basic physical laws, it seems.
I was not aware of the Swan situation.
On the other hand, Edison is known for far more than just the lightbulb. We was still a great inventor (or, perhaps more properly, he and his company were great inventors). That doesn't mean Edison was any kind of nice guy. Witness the Edison/Tesla battles; Edison was not above using nefarious means to get his way.
It wasn't Edison who led to Tesla's demise, though. Even though Edison had ripped him off. Because Tesla actually won the big AC/DC war. It was the then-owner of General Electric who really ruined him. I forget the guy's name now.
"nobody willing" should have been "nobody who isn't willing"
No, I've repeatedly agreed that radiative power out only depends on emissivity and temperature.
You've repeatedly stated other, contradictory things too.
You've tried to claim that POWER IN to the heat source is somehow magically dependent on the chamber walls. And the justification you gave for this was a heat transfer equation, as I described above.
I really don't care which figure you want to manipulate via magic: the power in or the power out. It's still magic, not physics.
I've already shown you the proper physics to apply. I have at least 4 online and 5 written references to back me up (though I think I've only linked to 3 of them so far).
There is genuinely no legitimate reason for me to be here listening to your BS anymore.
That should ring a warning bell, because it makes it easier to conduct (no pun intended) electric trickery.
Oh, for Christ's sake read the goddamned paper. That's just dumb in this context, as you would know if you'd read it already.
Yes, what you say is theoretically possible, IF somebody set it up that way, but it isn't very damned likely that a bunch of reputable university scientists are going to do that, AND they clearly describe how they DID do it. Just read the paper and spare us the misery of listening to your speculations until then, okay?
I'm not sure I agree 100%. Most people have a tendency to simply read down the page.
Let's say I make a comment at 1:00. Then at 2:00, I realize I have a further reply to the same comment I replied to at 1:00.
But it turns out that at about 1:05 some other people replied to my 1:00 comment. Then other people replied to those.
Next thing you know, my 2:00 comment is completely off the page. Nobody willing to spend a good bit of time investment will even see it.
I've seen it happen quite a lot. In fact I've had a bunch of comments in the past modded "redundant", even though if you look at the timestamps I made the comment before anyone else did. It's just further down the page.
The problem here is the observers are kept from having a close enough look to be able to tell if it really did put out that power or not.
Just no. That was not the case at all. Read the actual paper.
That's at least three things I have seen you write about this so far that have been just plain flat wrong, as anybody who reads TFA and the actual research paper can easily see.
This is such a hilarious pile of misinformation that besides just recording it for may later writeup, I'm throwing a copy in my joke pile.
Maybe that's why Jane won't even take a few seconds to write down an energy conservation equation before he wrongly "cancels" terms. Deep down, maybe Jane suspects that he's wrong and mainstream physicists are right.
The "mainstream physicists" are the ones who wrote the heat transfer textbooks I used to prove you wrong, dumbass.
Let's cut to the chase.
You insist that the radiant power output calculation of the heat source has to take into account the cooler temperature of the chamber walls. In fact the equation YOU gave for this several times is actually a heat transfer equation:
(epsilon * sigma) * (T1^4 - T2^4)
But that's NOT a power out equation, it's a heat transfer equation. Now, I'm only speculating, but I have a very strong suspicion that HOW you got this wrong, was that you read somewhere that this is how you have to calculate the radiant power output of a body.
THAT'S TRUE, WHEN YOU'RE EXTERNALLY MEASURING RADIANT POWER, BUT NOT WHEN YOU'RE CALCULATING IT FROM FIRST PRINCIPLES.
That's why I say: I suspect you saw this somewhere as a way to calculate radiant power from a measured result in an environment with "ambient" temperature. Because that is the only kind of place this legitimately shows up as a "power out" calculation.
When you measure the radiant output of a source, such as a human body in a colder room, for example, you have to correct for the ambient temperature (as pyrometers in fact do), because your instrument is receiving not just the source, but also the "ambient" radiation. So you have to subtract the ambient to get the radiant power of your body.
But that is not the case in Spencer's experiment. We are calculating the power from first principles, not measuring it externally. There is no "ambient" radiation hitting a measuring device which needs to be subtracted.
You've argued this every which way from Sunday, as the saying goes. You've even argued it rather dishonestly, as I have demonstrated. But as it turns out, you were wrong 2+ years ago, and you're still wrong.
And I still don't think you're a physicist. Or, for that matter, even willing to pick up an actual textbook on heat transfer and understand it.
No, input cannot easily be monitored, unless someone trusted to be impartial can provide and set up the lines.
Uh... excuse me, but did you miss the part where this is a controlled experiment, by reputable university researchers, not some magic show?
This wasn't some "demo" by Rossi. He didn't let them see inside the cylinder, but other than that, it was in their control the whole time.
Well, yes, that's exactly what it's like. The chain of custody is compromised, in that he does not allow the test to be set up in a 3rd party controlled environment, and doesn't allow them to replace any of the outside equipment that isn't part of the "trade secret" core.
Uh... yeah, I guess you did miss it. That's exactly what this was. A 3rd-party controlled environment. The only thing they did not control was what might have been already in the cylinder. They were present when the "fuel" was put in but not allowed to otherwise look inside. Which, if you know anything about physics, is irrelevant to these results.
It could not have been some kind of chemical "cheater" because there isn't any similar mass on Earth that could have produced the same power chemically. And the electrical power was set up and monitored by the researchers, not Rossi.
If this was legit, Andrea Rossi could seal a unit, and send it to independent testing along with instructions for how to test it. It would be reproducible, and he would still keep his trade secrets. But he has refused this.
No, and you show your ignorance by saying so. They first did tests on the SAME, unfueled cylinder, which were necessary for calculating their results. THEN, they witnessed the fueling, and conducted their experiment. If they HADN'T measured the thermal characteristics of the unfueled unit first, they would have been dropping the ball.
So try again, man. You obviously didn't read the paper. Or if you did, you didn't understand it.
Electricity input can be supplied sneakily. Such as through the earth wire.
This wan't a "demo"! It was a controlled experiment, personally wired up by reputable researchers, who had control of it for the whole time.
And it was monitored by instruments, including electrical instruments and thermal cameras, the whole time.
How are you going to introduce this "earth wire"?
Years ago a US embassy was given a gift that did not contain a battery or any other power source. However in the presence of enough of a radio signal on a certain frequency it could induce enough current to drive a microphone and a transmitter, so could be used as a remote listening device. If I was the hoaxer in question that's the sort of thing I would do with my secret black box since the power supposedly produced by fusion is tiny
And that's exactly where your argument falls down. They reported power output that was orders of magnitude higher than any known chemical source of power. And that means: nuclear.
If the paper can be believed, it wasn't tiny at all. This thing produced one and a half megawatt hours of power over the course of a month.
That's anything but tiny. That's like 80 large American homes worth of electricity, for a year. Give or take.
No, his case is not 100% different. There are ways to fool everyone, including physicists and other professional scientists.
Under some circumstances. But these circumstances do not lend themselves to such manipulation.
After fueling, they had continuous monitoring of the device in isolated conditions. Any tampering would have had to fool not just the scientists, but the continuous monitoring devices as well.
If you give me an object like that, and I monitor it continuously (using many pieces of equipment) and seei it continuously outputting anomalous power for over a month, then by gosh the guy deserves a billion anyway because he's a better fucking magician than any other who ever walked the Earth.
Granted, people can be gullible, but this experiment was well-designed. Granted also that the original data must be made public and examined for any discontinuities.
If it passes that last mentioned test, I'd be inclined to call it credible.
The use of a thermal camera is a fundamental no-no. Such experiments need calorimetry done using you know, calorimeters, not this indirect shit. Heat up a known volume of water in a tank, encased in thermal insulation. There's no other way to do it without making oneself look silly.
The paper itself describes, quite credibly, exactly why they did not do that. Did you read it?
Granted, that will have to be done at some point in the future. But you can't credibly blame them for circumstances over which they had no control. Given what they had to work with, they did what they could.
AND... given their methodology, which I have reviewed myself, it's highly doubtful that their results are off by more than 2 orders of magnitude, which is what it would take to prove them wrong.
They didn't use just one "watt-meter", but two. And actually the devices they used are capable of measuring a lot more than just that.
The models of their pieces of equipment were identified, as well as the specific, and very detailed, measures they took to both measure and calculate emissivity across the whole range of applicable temperatures.
Quote the paper:
The cameras used were two Optris PI 160 Thermal Imagers
You'll have to do a lot better than that if for some reason you want to "prove" them wrong.
Thank you very much for this. You saved me the time of looking it up myself. :)
They WERE skeptical, and it is a matter of public record.
For years Scientific American denied that it happened, and actually ended up crediting manned heavier-than-air flight to someone else who did it a few years later. Because the Wrights were very jealous and secretive about their invention, and only gave pre-arranged demonstrations to small audiences, with nobody allowed to closely examine their machine.
It wasn't until they gave a big public demonstration, something like 8 years after their first flight, that SciAm and other skeptics gave them credit.
Sound familiar?
If he can show a working prototype, and show that it works, he can get a patent. That seems to be what he's aiming at here.
Howard Johnson couldn't get a patent for his "magnetic motor" at first, either, because the patent office claimed it was impossible. He had to actually build and demonstrate working demos before he got his patents.
It isn't like Rossi is claiming "perpetual motion" here. Or violating any other known laws of physics.
A lot of artificial barriers have been put in place to stop us, or anyone other than Rossi, from being able to see which is why it looks a lot like another hoax.
No, that is not correct.
If we accept that this paper is genuine, then we also have to accept that it's NOT a hoax. Because you simply can't fake "orders of magnitude" more power output than any known chemical source.
There is a difference between knowing how it works, and thinking it's a hoax. If it really did put out that power, then it's not a "hoax", no matter how skeptical anyone might be, and no matter how deep their lack of understanding of how it works.
That's ridiculous, Jane. Notice that "net radiative power out" equals negative "net radiative power in". Since Jane seems to agree that "net radiative power out" is positive, "net radiative power in" can't be zero. It has to be negative, which just means more radiative power is flowing out than flowing in.
Now you've just gone off the deep end. And by "deep end" I mean the deep end of the pit full of BS you've dug yourself.
Just no. Any spherical boundary you draw within this system has additional input: your vaunted electrical power.
I'm amazed that you finally got so caught up in your own bullshit that you made a mistake quite THAT fundamental.
Get stuffed, troll.
For that and actually quite a pile of other reasons that have built up over time, I still don't believe you're a real physicist.