> Mówił też coś o węglu. Wspominał zdaje się że węgiel może być
> katalizatorem. Po mojemu może być tak jak napisałeś. Człowiek niedawno
O weglu zdaje sie ktos spekulowal, probujac odgadnac czym moze byc ten
tajemniczy dodatek.
> Jednak nie znam się na jądrówce i niczego nie jestem w stanie więcej
> powiedzieć. Trzeba by uczestniczyć w eksperymentach i robić dodatkowe
> badania osobiście tyle że nie wiadomo czy nie okazało by się to stratą
> czasu nad jakimś trywialnym rozwiązaniem.
Nawet jesli tu zachodza reakcje jadrowe to w jakis inny sposob, niz do tej
pory znany, co wydaje sie malo prawdopodobne.
Ja mialbym takie pytania:
1. dlaczego zawartosc proszku jest az tak niska 0,3 g? Skoro jest go tak
malo to po co taki wzglednie duzy reaktor (ten wewnetrzny w ktorym jest
proszek Ni)? Dlaczego nie pokazano jego zdjecia, a jedynie opis?
2. jesli caly egzoenergetyczny / egzotermiczny proces zachodzi w
wewnetrznym reaktorze to powinno byc w termokamerze wyraznie widac, ze
wewnetrzny reaktor w ktorym zamkniety jest proszek Ni z H2 grzeje sie
znacznie bardziej niz obudowa, albo przynajmniej, ze srodkowa czesc
obudowy jest znacznie cieplejsza, niz krawedzie, ale raczej nic takiego
nie widac, reaktor wewnetrzny nie wyroznia sie termicznie od obudowy (moze
obudowa zbytnio izoluje to co dzieje sie wewnatrz, ale w listopadowym
eksperymencie widac nawet spirale grzejne, wiec chyba jednak nie).
3. dlaczego slepa proba byla wykonana z innym rodzajem zasilania niz test
wlasciwy?
4. Czy gdy w listopadowym ekepserymencie stopil sie stalowy reaktor z
otaczajaca go ceramika, stopil sie takze proszek niklu? Jesli tak, to czy
wowczas na skutek stopienia sie proszku niklu reakcja sie zatrzymala czy
przebiegala dalej?
Inni spekuluja, ze moze po kryjomu dodatkowo Rossi zasilal spirale grzejne
pradem stalym, wowczas klamrowe mierniki nie wylapalyby tego pradu.
Wzglednie ze zdalnie zasilal to urzadzenie falami elektromagnetycznymi.
Ktos w komentarzu pod artykulem w Forbsie luzno spekuluje, ze moze mamy do
czynienia z energia punktu zerowego lub spojnoscia kwantowa:
"Stefano Quattrini 20 hours ago
I hope soon the criticism over the E-Cat being an HOAX will fade
definitely.. But
I really understand the deep doubts of the scientific community and people
in general about the E-Cat energy production. The energy produced by e-Cat
is not due to any possible nuclear reaction or Chemical reaction, though
the energy density output is very close to a nuclear reaction.
Nuclearly speaking there is no way to transform Nickel to Copper (what is
said to occur in the E-Cat) unless somebody puts energy in the nuclear
reaction process. That´s because Nichel is nuclear-wise the most stable
element in the periodic table. The only way to produce Copper is to add
energy. This is why the energy coming out may not have a nuclear origin...
In this framework the Nuclear trasmutation has to be only a secondary
outcome of an unknown process of energy production (QUANTUM COHERENCE on
ZPE?? who knows).
So the energy production process is not properly defined as LENR (low
energy nuclear reaction) , because it is not caused by a nuclear reaction
at low temperature. The FP D+D=He+energy (Cold Fusion) instead, can be
defined as a LENR since it is a known nuclear reaction with an impressive
energy output. The LENT, low energy nuclear transmutation, which happens
there is very likely a consequence of the energy produced in the box ...
that is why it´s even more difficult to accept..."
Kolejne uwagi co do eksperymentu:
"Ok. I've done a first pass reading of the report and seriously caution
excitement. I looked at the report as I would as a peer reviewer (I am not
aware of the academic credentials of the authors, but will look that up),
which I've done dozens (a hundred?) of times. There are 3 major issues
which would cause me to reject this submission. I will be happy to respond
in more detail if anyone would like but here would be my comments for a
journal submission
1. While the author(s) provide Information regarding the thermal imager,
no information is provided as to the calibration of the instrument prior
to the measurement. As detailed in future comments, a small change in
measured temperature will result in a large change (T^4) power
calculation.
2. Given the relative uniformity in measurement of the horizontal pixels,
an R/S/T type thermocouple mounted on the system would provide more
confidence in the measurement.
3. The author(s) have fundamental mistake in the calculation of the
radiative power. On page three, they state "if one relates the length of
the verticle line (32 pixels) to the diameter of the device (11 cm)....."
This is a very large source of error in the computed temperature and
power. Given the cylindrical geometry of the device, a 1 cm wide
horizontal slice of the image will actually correspond to 17.27 cm^2 of
radiative area. By the numbers provided by the author(s). They have
computed only 11 cm^2, which is error. This can also be seen in the image
itself. The homogeneity of the image should not be see if one calculates
the radiative intensity of a thermal device with the apparent area. That
is, the image appears to be at the same temperature even though there is
additional area.
I think I ran out of space. I could not make this comment. An order of
magnitude power calculation is approximately a 14% increase in temperature
at 700 kelvin. Given concerns 1 through 3, the conclusion can not be
substantiated by the measurements provided. Recommendation "reject for
publication pending response to comments 1,2 and 3."
May 21, 2013 8:55 PM Mountain
Here is my very preliminary re-assessment of my previous comments
Greetings All,
As I said before, I took a look at this report from the standpoint of a
peer reviewer. I also said that my conclusions were based upon a "first
pass" of the paper. Just to frame the situation, I work as a scientist
and, as a member of several scientific organizations, I peer review many
papers. That being said, I have had the chance to take a second, more
thorough, look at the paper and would make the following modifications of
a review report;
1. It does appear that there was a calibration of the optical pyrometer
with respect to a thermocouple (P18 Paragraph 3)
2. Addressed by comment #1
3. The actual area is accounted for in equations 3-6. This also answers
questions regarding the apparent intensity measured by the 2D camera
matrix
The statements presented in this paper are rather profound and require a
further review before any serious assessment of the accuracy of the
conclusions can be performed. However, at this point, I would be willing
to state that the temperature measurements, as presented, appear to be
accurate.
There does remain a large amount of analysis regarding the input power to
the system that must be performed. I would caution that any assessment of
the COP reflected in the paper be held in reserve pending further review
of the design of experiment and measurements made.
You may publish this under "scienceguy" Please refrain from using my real
name until I have further guidance. It is always better to err on the side
of caution
I will review the power input section and get back to you... You may also
make a statement regarding that... I need to consult with my materials
experts and EE's to get a better understanding of the power input as
presented in the paper.
Best regards
(Scienceguy) Ph.D"
http://pesn.com/2013/05/20/9602320_VINDICATION--3rd-Party-E-Cat_Test-Results-show-at-least-10x-gain/
|