tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post5323044296033133253..comments2023-05-06T18:18:09.792+02:00Comments on Vetenskap, fakta, och lite politik: The Cat is deadStephan Pomphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01421453006303433908noreply@blogger.comBlogger113125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-87702752635691861142020-02-21T12:57:01.754+01:002020-02-21T12:57:01.754+01:00Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av bloggadministratören.Tips & Trik Main Pokerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07479783342798601833noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-3504947530460137062015-12-03T02:08:53.786+01:002015-12-03T02:08:53.786+01:00If think that the arguments by Stephan et al. abou...If think that the arguments by Stephan et al. about the very inconsistent modifications of the nuclear composition of the fuel with regard to the "ash" are very valid.<br /><br />For those who still believe that the heat is a clear proof, I want to question the employed methodology as some of the previous commenters already did.<br /><br />As mentioned previously, measuring the power only from this very indirect and model depending radiation and convection approach is not the optimal way since it is prone to a lot of systematic uncertainties.<br /><br />There are so-called high-temperature calorimeters which measure measure the heat flow directly in various ways and therefore this should be a prefered method providing more accurate values.<br /><br />Furthermore, a simple double-bind test should be done with a couple of loaded and dummy samples. <br />As done in the medical sciences (or in particle physics aswell) neither the operator nor the Rossi himself must know whether the current sample in the test setup is now a loaded or a dummy one. <br />a) After unblinding one should clearly see whether different heat production can be related to loaded and dummy samples in a consistent way.<br />b) Half of the samples will then be tested in the calorimeter and opened afterwards and the others will be opened unburned. In case unburned loaded cylinders show different isotopic composition, already a manipulation can be assumed. On the other hand burned and unburned isotopic compositions should be different.<br /><br />If this test follows the true rules of a double-blind test then no one of us "narrow minded" scientist would doubt the positive results of this E-Cat.<br /><br />However, until now the tests were performed in a way where manipulation was possible.<br /><br />So why do the inventors of those "technologies" fear these kind of tests, while it could proof there claims for the complete scientific community?M. Schlösserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13495947301049149690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-58897264892324226852014-10-17T15:52:12.688+02:002014-10-17T15:52:12.688+02:00Dear Stephan,
My comment is related to ELFORSK w...Dear Stephan, <br /><br />My comment is related to ELFORSK wanting to do LENR research. They do not mention E-cat as a focus for further research in their press release “Nu går vi vidare med forskning om LENR” . They can easily free themselves from Rossi and continue with some of the many other scientists, like Mitchell Swartz and Peter Hagelstein I mentioned. We need more basic LENR research, and I am sure Hagelstein have many proposals of research that can be done.<br /><br />Rossi is an inventor and engineer, not a phycisist. We need more physicists onboard.<br /><br />And wrt assumptions <br />- You said “try to learn a little about physics”. So you assume I did not know the success story of our present paradigm of physics.<br />- You said LENR will “disable all previous knowledge”. So you assume no new theory can be found that embrace old and new knowledge. That’s a BIG assumption<br /><br />Having seen so many reports on transmutation, transmutations is at least part of the LENR picture. The Japanese have done their own research, both Toyota and Mitsubishi. One paper example (from American Nuclear Society, Vol 107): http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ANS2012W/2012Iwamura-ANS-LENR-Paper.pdf<br /><br />Øystein Landehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12811767422376463600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-68103672372355869242014-10-17T15:50:59.773+02:002014-10-17T15:50:59.773+02:00Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.Øystein Landehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12811767422376463600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-29716569476699325332014-10-17T15:47:48.818+02:002014-10-17T15:47:48.818+02:00Dear Stephan,
My comment is related to ELFORSK w...Dear Stephan, <br /><br />My comment is related to ELFORSK wanting to do LENR research. They do not mention E-cat as a focus for further research in their press release “Nu går vi vidare med forskning om LENR” . They can easily free themselves from Rossi and continue with some of the many other scientists, like Mitchell Swartz and Peter Hagelstein I mentioned. We need more basic LENR research, and I am sure Hagelstein have many proposals of research that can be done.<br /><br />Rossi is an inventor and engineer, not a phycisist. We need more physicists onboard.<br /><br />And wrt assumptions <br />- You said “try to learn a little about physics”. So you assume I did not know the success story of our present paradigm of physics.<br />- You said LENR will “disable all previous knowledge”. So you assume no new theory can be found that embrace old and new knowledge. That’s a BIG assumption<br /><br />Having seen so many reports on transmutation, transmutations is at least part of the LENR picture. The Japanese have done their own research, both Toyota and Mitsubishi. One paper example (from American Nuclear Society, Vol 107): http://newenergytimes.com/v2/conferences/2012/ANS2012W/2012Iwamura-ANS-LENR-Paper.pdf<br /><br />Øystein Landehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12811767422376463600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-64553284177603718592014-10-16T14:10:35.024+02:002014-10-16T14:10:35.024+02:00...And for those unable to understand what it mean......And for those unable to understand what it means, <a href="http://matslew.wordpress.com/2014/10/09/interview-on-radio-show-free-energy-quest-tonight/#comment-3604" rel="nofollow">the author explains it here</a><br />CimPyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08215002882356796540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-77033064997627386002014-10-16T14:01:34.611+02:002014-10-16T14:01:34.611+02:00By the way: even an ex(?) hoper found something wr...By the way: even an ex(?) hoper <a href="http://www.cobraf.com/forum/immagini/R_123566844_1.pdf" rel="nofollow">found something wrong</a> inside lies of TPR2<br /><br />CimPyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08215002882356796540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-68690227736575171622014-10-16T09:38:02.184+02:002014-10-16T09:38:02.184+02:00You keep repeating yourself and I can't but re...You keep repeating yourself and I can't but repeat my arguments....<br />What about the heat? Well what about it? If I can, based on the reported extreme and radiation-free isotopic changes that contradict (!) nuclear physics knowledge (not add but contradict!) draw the conclusion that something fiushy is going on then I do not need to try to read the 25 pages of uninteresting information about the strange method of using a camera (why would you do tahat?) to find out if more is coming out then in. There are many ways one can go wrong here and many option for trickery (also here). Many options about the later have been pointed out by others that are more knowledgeable in this issues than I will ever be.<br />What I know is al lot (but by far not all!) on how nuclear physics works. And to say it again: the reported results would not mean that one adds knowledge, they contradict the research results of the past 100 years. E.g. what we now about induced radioactivity, the capture reaction, the neutron balance etc etc. Please read some nuclear physics 101 and understand!Stephan Pomphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01421453006303433908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-25382067215012240262014-10-16T09:31:41.478+02:002014-10-16T09:31:41.478+02:00I assume to much? The whole (!) problem in this is...I assume to much? The whole (!) problem in this issue is actually that E-Cat lovers assume too much! And I talk about E-Cat here, not LENR!<br />What is it that is assumed? Simply one thing: that Rossi is completely trustworthy and is playing by the same rules as scientists. Well ...<br />Stephan Pomphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01421453006303433908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-47943479259023434302014-10-16T09:14:20.607+02:002014-10-16T09:14:20.607+02:00I think the scientific community would be all over...I think the scientific community would be all over the e-cat trying to understand how it works *if they would be allowed to*. Do you seriously think everybody would go "can't work, won't even bother testing it" if they would be given free hands?Nicklas Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05243566509845940720noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-56978884555717063452014-10-16T09:09:09.594+02:002014-10-16T09:09:09.594+02:00Dear Stephan,
Let me give you another example of...Dear Stephan, <br /><br />Let me give you another example of nature is telling us "look at what I can do", and "Now you tell me how I do it!"<br /><br />And you may answer, " No, I don't have to look at this. It's not according to present theory, so it must be wrong - a measurement error - a magic trick... - by someone....Aliens maybe?”<br /><br />And my example here is gamma rays inside our own atmosphere. <br /><br />Theoretically speaking, ordinary lightning should be at least an order of magnitude too weak to produce a gamma ray burst<br /><br />And - surprise, surprise - something associated with supernova and solar flares taking place in a COLD atmosphere. <br /><br />About 500 of the 4.3 million daily lightning strokes have an associated terrestrial gamma-ray flash.<br /><br />That is 1 out of 8600 lightning strokes, what a joke of “repeatability”! <br /><br />(And by the way, this is far worse than the F&P repeatability. They achieved heat bursts in some 1 of 8 electrolytic cells in 1989, without knowing most of the required conditions)<br /><br />You get antimatter created in the Earth's atmosphere during this interaction, you get energetic neutrons that basically you never see in the quiet atmosphere, that you only associate with nuclear reactions, that are happening in our atmosphere whenever these things go off. That's one of the first fundamental science reasons to study this phenomenon; we don't understand it; we want to understand it.<br /><br />And the last sentence above is just what Martin Fleischmann said of their “cold fusion” experiments.<br /><br />And there you have it. Something nuclear we DON'T understand - at the moment. <br />Probably it's these FU#%&*NG! alien tourists again. The interstellar traffic laws say very specifically they're not supposed to come out of dimensional jumps anywhere near Earth atmosphere. But you try enforcing traffic laws on damned interstellar tourists putting about in their singularity drive Recreational Vehicles ;-)<br /><br />Regards<br />LandeØystein Landehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12811767422376463600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-35557597874744422542014-10-15T21:01:38.759+02:002014-10-15T21:01:38.759+02:00"I do not accuse Levi et al of fraud"
I..."I do not accuse Levi et al of fraud"<br /><br />I find it almost impossible to envision the level of incompetence that would be required to pass these tests of as merely naive. The problems with all "ITPRs" so far are glaringly obvious even to a layman - the first being that a definitive independent demonstration would not involve the same names that are associated with earlier botched experiments.Gralgrathorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14928559772595731772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-63102384545404326642014-10-15T18:23:13.654+02:002014-10-15T18:23:13.654+02:00and the motive?
and the heat...
oh you don't...and the motive?<br /><br />and the heat...<br /><br />oh you don't trust heat... maybe you don't trust the laws of thermodynamic... or you don't master it enough compared to the 2-body free space laws of billiard.<br /><br />Marie Curie did trust it for radium.<br /><br />Sorry but as my domain of competence include semiconductors, seeing people baffled for QM inside a lattice is not a surprise.<br />Seeing people absolutely deluded and sure of their own competence while clearly wrong, is also in my domain of expertise...<br />Just see Enron, IMF facing Roubini... <br /><br />http://www.princeton.edu/~rbenabou/papers/Patterns%20of%20Denial%204l%20fin.pdf<br /><br />so funny...<br /><br />"color blind in a sea of red flags..."<br /><br />and it is so frequent in science... and so quickly erased...<br />I am baffled by the mass of scientist who don't know the real history of transistor, fission, HTSC, DNA,quasicristal...<br />and that this rewriting is documented by Kuhn...<br /><br />I was too optimistic, like for Wright brother planes, it will never be accepted by academic until it is commercial...<br />pigs will take plane before.<br />Alain_Cohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08352476615242858677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-54279135247359433692014-10-15T14:27:13.909+02:002014-10-15T14:27:13.909+02:00Dear Stephan,
You assume too much ;-)
Which par...Dear Stephan, <br /><br />You assume too much ;-)<br /><br />Which part of the "mystery" word I used did you not understand? But let me make it very clear then, or using your own words - "let me try once more":<br />I am fully aware that cold fusion / LENR is IMPOSSIBLE and just CAN NOT HAPPEN within the framework of our 100 previous years of nuclear science. And I do not need to explain why to you.<br /><br />And when Nature teases us and say "see what I can do", we should of course close our eyes for the evidence and protect our paradigm we live inside.<br /><br />Let me assure you: Present Nuclear science theory have proven its success. We should therefore invent LENR theories that fit within the present framework. Likely result is a new branch of nuclear reactions that must be added to the present knowledge, that occur ONLY at very certain conditions in or on the surface of lattices.<br /><br />Then, What theories could be invented?<br />Professor Peter Hagelstein at MIT have been chewing on one candidate since 1989 - "Spin-Boson oscillator theory".<br />Molecular D2 and nuclear lattice-based He4 form two-level systems that contain large transition energy. They become coupled with other D2-He4 systems via resonant phonon excitations (aka low-energy harmonic oscillators) throughout the lattice (aka Spin-Boson Model). Phonon modes are initiated by flux through the near-surface of the cathode. Increased phonon excitation and energy transfer rate is achieved by reduction of interference augmented through a "loss process". This rapid, distributed, small energy quanta exchange is what allows for D-D fusion to occur at lattice sites without correlated radiative effects<br /><br />But another one that has become popular is the Widom Larsen theory. Which proposes that "heavy electrons" formed at the surface of palladium hydride react with a proton in the palladium nucleus in an inverse beta decay process (e- + p+ -> n + neutrino). The required electron mass enhancement is proposed to be the result of very high electromagnetic fields produced by surface plasmon polariton resonance. The neutron produced would have "ultra low momentum," and thus very high capture cross-section. These neutrons can then cause transmutation and energy release.<br /><br />NASA is now looking into the Widom-Larsen theory at their Langley research center. <br /><br />And there are dusins of other candidate theories. <br /><br />And again: Rossi did not invent anything from scratch here. He is standing on the shoulder of giants that boldly went where others didn't.<br /><br />At the moment we have two paradigms; The mainstream science protecting their precious house of nuclear science, and a growing number of bold scientists that look at the evidence and try figure out the house (theory) of the competing paradigm, that will eventually take over, and WILL INCLUDE all "old knowledge".<br /><br />You being an experimental phycisist should be able to relate to Dr. Mitchell Swartz, also an experimental physisist. He has worked together with Hagelstein and produced a number of papers on the issue. Study them and try to learn something new and exciting ;-)<br />Øystein Landehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12811767422376463600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-11261280279642086532014-10-15T11:54:12.040+02:002014-10-15T11:54:12.040+02:00Stephan Pomp:
Levi et al. draw the conclusion th...Stephan Pomp:<br /><br /><br />Levi et al. draw the conclusion that “nuclear reactions have taken place” and that one “can speculate about the nature of such reactions.” However, they “refrain from such discussions.” While the latter seems wise it is totally inexplicable to me, how the authors cannot see the most obvious and by far most likely conclusion of the fuel analysis; that they simply have been fooled. Just realize that obtaining an enriched Li-6 or Ni-62 sample is not too difficult (see, e.g., here, here and here). And yes, the available enrichments in Li-6 do match what is reported …<br /> <br />So for my part the Cat is dead. How others accomplish not to see and obviously are able to keep the Cat alive in their wishful thinking, that is the real mystery.<br /><br /><br />After 23 hours’<br />operation, the<br />dummy reactor was switched off<br />and disconnected from<br />the power cables<br />To allow for one of the caps to be opened and the powder to be inserted. <br />The powder had been previously placed in a small envelope.<br /><br />May be some one put a Rossi Mix of pre determined residuals at this stage......<br /><br />Bengt Sundlöf<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02084031348099202201noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-71078000410670577522014-10-15T08:50:07.094+02:002014-10-15T08:50:07.094+02:00drboblog.com13 oktober 2014 22:09
"It seems p...drboblog.com13 oktober 2014 22:09<br />"It seems pretty obvious to me" - is not a scientific argument <br />It is part of the scientific process to critically judge the trustworthyness of the source. Stephan Pomphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01421453006303433908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-43000264247348252212014-10-14T22:27:18.585+02:002014-10-14T22:27:18.585+02:00Wow .. so you really can reconcile these extreme n...Wow .. so you really can reconcile these extreme new fidnings, Alain? <br />And it doesn't bother you that there was a change from no effect on the isotopes (2011) to a _complete_ change in 2014? My take on this is that Mr. Rossi gradually learns from the critique he is receiving. First there was Cu in there and no other changes in the isotopic composition (and no radioactivity) and critiques complain. Now there is a complete change and critiques complain again. Rossi will learn that he went to far to the other extreme.<br />So my guess: the next test (in 2015 or 2016 ...) will produce a slight change in the isotopic composition and there will be some residual radioactivity ...<br />And then you will say: See! We knew it! Now it works! :-)Stephan Pomphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01421453006303433908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-46155791523183391642014-10-14T22:03:57.616+02:002014-10-14T22:03:57.616+02:00Well, you are right of cause that this is strange,...Well, you are right of cause that this is strange, everybody agrees on that. I just argue from the other side. If we assume that you squeeze an electron matter field that is somewhat flat and connects to the grid of the solid states and the hit of the this plain you would get a very strange environment for a reaction, does anything of our knowledge apply to that environment? no? so unless you sit down and setup that kind of reaction using the standard model deriving suitable approximations I would just say no? you can't use any experience from beforehand for that environment. It would reduce the number of constraint because the electron matter field could transport momenta and energy to the grid. I can't answer how this works because nobody has studied it. What you would expect from thermo dynamics is that because of the less number of constraints on the system, that the number of products would be less than in normal nuclear reactions because there the local quantum invariant's need to be preserved. If this was the only environment that could support a nuclear reaction you would not get any normal reactions, the usual reasons for this is of cause that just because you manage to create this absurdly magical environment, you would not be able to brake the Colomb barrier that is applicable in the normal reactions. In a sense this discussion is purely philosophy, but it contains logic, so it is fun to contemplate. But anyhow there are other reasons for the result. For example the analysis that showed such high concentration of Ni-62, is from a thin surface of the granula at least wikipedia said so when I checked. If you consider that Rossi enriched the fuel with a low concentration of granula with high volume concentration of Ni-62 you would not have a high concentration in the analysis that analyses the composition of the granulate surfaces. If then these high on Ni-62 melt and get''s sputtered all over the other particles you would get this strange result. Also theoretizing of the fuel is very dangerous because the sampling of the ash and fuel is unknown there are so many possible natural explanation for what we see that we need more info from the testers and Rossi himself to start making rigid conclusions.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03468617564362011092noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-4029257054995947152014-10-14T21:36:01.481+02:002014-10-14T21:36:01.481+02:00oops I forgot to say I talk of HTSC
http://www.mos...oops I forgot to say I talk of HTSC<br />http://www.mosaicsciencemagazine.org/pdf/m18_03_87_04.pdf<br />Alain_Cohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08352476615242858677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-76514554987554866102014-10-14T21:33:35.292+02:002014-10-14T21:33:35.292+02:00This will not change the books , it will just ad a...This will not change the books , it will just ad a chapter on multi-body reaction...<br />like Ohm law was corrected by observation of superconductivity, then BCS, then by observation hidden in footnotes in papers, then after much hidden work where replication was hard, shared and replicated with an easier material...<br /><br />don't panic physics laws are not broken.<br />http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/StormsEexplaining.pdf<br />http://lenrexplained.com/<br /><br />you know LASER... it is impossible at first sight.Alain_Cohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08352476615242858677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-67310300747463761272014-10-14T20:50:05.947+02:002014-10-14T20:50:05.947+02:00"AS THESE SCIENTISTS CORRECTLY SAY, I SUPPLIE..."AS THESE SCIENTISTS CORRECTLY SAY, I SUPPLIED THOSE SAMPLES, IN 2011 (TO PROF. SVEN KULLANDER), AND I GAVE A SAMPLE FROM WHICH THE COMPONENTS, THAT AT THOSE TIMES WERE NOT DISCLOSABLE, HAD BEEN EXTRACTED, BECAUSE NOT YET PATENTED. I CLEARLY WARNED PROF. KULLANDER OF THAT. SO WE ALL KNEW THAT TOSE ANALYSIS COULD NOT BE TAKEN AS COMPLETE, BUT JUST AS A FIRST APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM. THE COPPER FOUND WAS PROBABLY AN IMPURITY AND I MADE CLEAR THIS SUSPECT OF MINE . IN THAT CASE THE SAMPLE HAD NOT BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM A REACTOR BY A THIRD PARTY AND I HAVE NO DIFFICULTY TO SAY, AS I DID WHEN I DELIVERED IT, THAT I HAD TAKEN OFF FROM IT THE PARTS THAT I WANTED NOT TO DISCLOSE.<br /><br />ANDREA ROSSI"<br /><br />hmm ... what more needs to be said?Stephan Pomphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01421453006303433908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-27351617526026403562014-10-14T20:47:18.487+02:002014-10-14T20:47:18.487+02:00Just a short one: "why all the neutrons choos...Just a short one: "why all the neutrons choose Ni-62..." well, that IS the very point! Even if a new reaction WOULD exist you can't just disregard from all previous very-well documented experimental facts! Put simply: If there is a bunch of neutrons around, some hit this nucleus, some another! You cannot suddenly avoid e.g. the "normal" capture reaction because, maybe, by some "catalyst" one allows for a new previously unknown type of reaction! Stephan Pomphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01421453006303433908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-63164410814339433682014-10-14T20:40:15.144+02:002014-10-14T20:40:15.144+02:00Well, maybe you should try to understand a bit on ...Well, maybe you should try to understand a bit on nuclear physics. To say it once more (and again and again ..) it is simply NOT POSSIBLE that a claimed new reaction (LENR or whatever) disables all other previously known nuclear reactions! These reactions (like the capture reaction) are known since a long time! This is one of the reasons why you can simple transform in a nuclear reaction a complete gram of natural nickel powder into a sample of pure Ni-62! <br />Please understand: even if there were a new type of previously unknown nuclear reaction our, if you like, "old knowledge" is still there. That is what is meant by stating (in a rhetorical way) one would have to re-write all nuclear physics textbooks. <br />Hence the only (!) reasonable (!) explanation for the reported results is that someone has fiddled with the "fuel" sample. Either after or even already at the insertion ...<br />And note: Rossi now even admits/claims he has done something like that earlier ... Strange that noone really reacts to this surprising (?) confession. Stephan Pomphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01421453006303433908noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-72142238348789432352014-10-14T10:44:37.448+02:002014-10-14T10:44:37.448+02:00Oops, just wanted to edit my post, and ended up de...Oops, just wanted to edit my post, and ended up deleting it! Must brush up on my Swedish :)<br /><br />What I was saying is that the spectral dependence of alumina emissivity will certainly overestimate the power out, even taking emissivity with temperature into account. As the IR cameras are only sensitive between 7.5-13 um, they can only directly measure power up to a few 100 C (Wien's law). At higher T, they have to extrapolate to shorter wavelength. As the spectral dependence of alumina shows it emits significantly below a BB at shorter wavelengths, then that extrapolation is wrong. Plugging in a greybody value will make it worse! This is because the calculation will then overestimate the temperature (as the emissivity at long wavelengths where the camera can sense is high), which would imply even more emission at shorter wavelength, not less. So this is even more wrong!brhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01437566814791149179noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-632274737982741920.post-42548423994385749962014-10-13T22:41:55.692+02:002014-10-13T22:41:55.692+02:00Pomp, I know what you wrote, and I know what you b...Pomp, I know what you wrote, and I know what you believe. But believing you can do in Church, not here.<br /><br />We want facts. ELFORSK suggested LENR research, and did not mention Specifically e-cat as the focus for further investigating. They don't need Rossi to do LENR research. They can go to another LENR researcher to do that. Like Dr. Mitchell Swartz as just one candidate.<br /><br />The original Discovery was made by Professor Martin Fleischmann and Pons. Other added to the Discovery like Piantelli, Celani, Focardi, Mcubre and many more. Rossi claims he started his research shortly after Fleischmann announcement in 1989, so he has been at it for 25 years.<br /><br />There are other scientists that predates Rossi on gas loaded metals producing LENR. But Rossi have obivously discovered a component that enhance LENR above and beyond what others achieved.<br /><br />ELFORSK don't need to research more on the E-cat as such. <br /><br />What ELFORSK need to do is to do research on LENR on broader terms. Others have also achieved Excess heat phenomenon on LENR based systems. Japanese, Italian, American and researchers from other countries.<br /><br />So start with the reports from the LENR science community (Celani, Piantelli, Mckubre, Miles, Peterson, Hagelstein, Swartz...there a hundreds of physisicts and chemists that have done research on this issue)<br /><br />One recent candidate could be Dr Mitchell Swartz and his Nanor using preloaded nanocomposite ZrO2-PdNiD producing LENR based excess heat. An open demonstration was shown at MIT in 2012.<br /><br />Swartz and Hagelstein is at least physicists that may shed some light on what is going on if they had enough resources to do adequate research.<br /><br />And that's the issue; more money is needed to do good research to find out what is happening in these deuterium loaded metals.<br /><br />Nice to see that what started with Professor Martin Fleischmann and Pons in March in 1989, did not end with science saying NO by consensus and hand shaking. It has continued with small economic means, but it's time to step up and Solve the mystery. The SKINR Institute at the University of Missouri was formed a few years back to look into LENR. But more is needed to Solve one of the biggest mysteries of science. And the Nobel price is waiting....<br /><br />Therefore, Go for it ELFORSK !!Øystein Landehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12811767422376463600noreply@blogger.com