Posted on 10/08/2014 11:12:32 AM PDT by toast
The visual aids have now confused you?
Here, try this ----http://webphysics.iupui.edu/webscience/physics_archive/colorandtemperature.html
ALUMINA!?!?! WHAT? You've got to be kidding, no wait, the Rossi frauds have got to be LYING. Again.
What a bad joke.
Knowing the value of ε is of prime importance, both for the calculation of power emitted, and for reading temperatures with an IR camera, an instrument which does not measure the relevant parameter directly, but deduces it by means of a formula having several variables which must be supplied. Every thermal camera contains a detector where sensitive components generate an electric signal proportional to the IR radiation received. This signal is then amplified and processed by the device’s electronics, and converted into an output signal proportional to the temperature of the object. This proportionality is expressed by an algorithm dependent on several parameters, such as the internal temperature of the detector (read directly by the camera sensors), ambient temperature, and the emissivity of the radiant body. The user sets the last two parameters before acquiring the data, but they may be also modified in the course of the analysis, because the camera software is capable of re-elaborating stored results and re-adapting them to new settings. For an in-depth description on how the cameras used by us work, see [2].
Why don't you go look up 'alumina', then get back to me about it, in light of the rest of the information I already supplied some links to.
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/191754-cold-fusion-reactor-verified-by-third-party-researchers-seems-to-have-1-million-times-the-energy-density-of-gasoline
You left out that word, previously.
Alumina itself is but a powder.
If you had read the report you would have known that already.
The issue is the heat levels themselves.
From a link previously supplied to you;
Color is related to the frequency (or wavelength) of light. The visible spectrum runs from red, wavelength = 700 nm and f = 4.3 x 1014 to blue, wavelength = 400 nm and f = 7.5 x 1014.No go back to some of the other info regarding heat and metals.But temperature is also related to color. This is because hot things radiate light (for instance, the filament in an incandescent bulb). The temperature of the object affects the color of the light that is radiated. "Red hot" things glow red, "white hot" things glow white. How does this work? There are some complicated details, but here is the basis: as we discussed in class, temperature is a measure of the internal energy of a material. The hotter a material is, the faster its atoms are moving. But light is emitted when charged particles vibrate. If an electron or an ion (the core of an atom, including its inner electrons but not those involved with bonding) is vibrating fast enough, it may emit light. Clearly, the hotter an object is, the more often this will happen, and the higher the frequencies involved will be. Thus, a hot object that appears a dim red is cooler than one which is bright orange. An even hotter object will be emitting radiation across the whole visible spectrum resulting in a white appearance(for instance, the filament in an incandescent bulb). The exact distribution of colors emitted by a material at a given temperature depends a bit on the composition of the material. However, to a great extent it does not.
Then ask yourself -- what of the contents which were being heated? How would those react to the heat itself(?) irregardless of any imagined nuclear reaction.
Did you know that metal when heated -- can increase in temperature immediately after be taken out of the heat of a forge?
The raise in temp doesn't last long, but it is measurable.
Rossi may not be front and center in the picture, but his "style" still is!
Has anything changed other then a longer so-called test run?
Still with unstated "additives" BUT to which there are supposed changes in end result -- yet everyone must still take their word on that for it.
Measurements and end result energy use and production are subject to calculations which are derived from formula -- and there are several steps along the way to reach the end [alleged] result of "extra" energy produced.
It's all a crafty, moderately complex game of smoke & mirrors.
I know I am being a bit condescending and a little insulting. I am sorry. I am only doing it because you refuse to actually click on the link and read the report.
I was once where you are. I am very familiar and very wary of science scammers looking for dolts ready to hand over their cash. There are plenty out there.
The amount of energy sounds way to good to be true.
Coulomb barrier prevents the possibility, etc.
But I actually read the reports. I am an engineer. I know how to read and write test reports. This is a very good one.
Please read the report.
Believe what you want to.
I'll take G.Levi up on one his previous replies when fending off questions as to the numbers;
"...When Krivit asked Giuseppe Levi, a physics professor at the University of Bologna who has been checking Rossi’s work, for data, he had a surprising response:“People will start to make any kind of funny analysis on it, and then I will have to answer this funny analysis…If you don't want to trust these numbers, don't trust them! It's very simple.”
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2011-08-controversial-energy-generating-lacking-credibility-video.html#jCp
Yes, it was good advice. Levi got tired of answering the questions and said “Believe it or not.”
Kind of like me and man made global warming. I have not yet been convinced.
BTW, my second comment to you had “extra jerk” included. Sorry. Was in a grumpy mood.
Hmmm, I think that I misunderstood what you meant with that comment. Sorry for the terse response. My bad.
Maybe it’s Stockholm Heights Institute of Technology.
(Thanks to The Simpsons)
Bump
Rossi got bought out in January by a VC who raised over $10M for development.
45 gallons of fuel over a thirty day period or 1500kwh of low quality heat. at best you may be able to get 30% efficiency more likely 20%. So in the end you get 350kwh at a rate of a little over 500W. Seems like solar cells would be more cost effective and you can save the nickel, Li and H for other fun things.
How much does this gizmo cost?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.