@dartin
There is a simple thermodynamic argument which says that to achieve COP = infinity all you need is passive temperature-dependent cooling!
Surpised that Rossi has never experimented with this... it give you a higher safety margin against runaway than you can get from controlled additive heating.
Quote: “Looking at at the output of the plasma videos, it's clear that far more energy is being liberated than is used to trigger the reaction. Look at the massive amounts of silver being vaporized. That takes a lot of energy, certainly more than is…
Not sure what reports you are referring to? Are you mixing the Mills and Rossi related discussions?
No I mean these (the second and third)
http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/
No I mean these (the second and third)
<a href="http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/</a>
The 100 J difference for that experiment was well outside of the margin of error according to Glumac who is an expert. But I'm more interested in the high power tests now going on. The plasma ball is like a little 5000 degree star that radiates a lot of power.
Quote from Thomas Clarke: “No I mean these (the second and third)
<a href="http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/</a>”
The 100 J difference…
Glumac is in that case clearly not an expert in experiment error analysis. He is considering the known unknowns - but not the unknown unknowns of which there are a lot. He is also making a number of assumptions. You can tell that it is unclear because the two reports come up with very different figures!
You've probably noted that in IP cases you can find "technical experts" to stand up and say almost anything. The court judges evidence based on the cross-examining of each expert (under technical advice) and the credibility.
That is why you cannot believe this sort of a company-delivered report unless the matter at hand is very simple.
EDIT - looking at Glumac's CV. He is probably not an expert in calorimetry. He is certainly not an expert in electrical measurements or high power EMC issues. One problem with this experiment is it requires multiple competences to analyse it properly. BLP have got themselves an almost un-analysable experiment. You would want a team of experts working together for some time (to iron out communication issues) to get a decent answer!
Quote from Contrarian: “Quote from Thomas Clarke: “No I mean these (the second and third)
&lt;a href=&quot;<a href="http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/&quot" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/&quot</a>; class=&quot;externalURL&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;…
Thomas, Glumac is a University of Illinois professor so I hardly think one can just dismiss his credentials because his work is inconvenient. Your criteria is a moving target that will never be satisfied because you keep thinking up potential mechanisms that cast doubt. In politics they call that throwing mud to see what sticks. One can always do that and by doing so, one is just selectively doubting work they feel doesn't fit in the well established paradigms. In this case, you dismiss Glumac and if that is not enough you dismiss all company related reports are untrustworthy. Really, that's absurd.
We all know the Wright brothers achieved powered flight in 1903 but it took until about 1908 for most people to finally accept the fact that it really happened. What will be the tipping point when Mills convinces you?
Quote from Thomas Clarke: “Quote from Contrarian: “Quote from Thomas Clarke: “No I mean these (the second and third)
&amp;lt;a href=&amp;quot;<a href="http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/&amp;quot" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow"…
I think what sometimes people forget is that professors are very specialised. Occasionally you get somone with all-round competence. But mostly to do well in one field you concentrate on that one little thing. I'm not dismissing his academic credentials, just saying that he is not qualified outside his field. There is no requirement for chemists to know anything about high power EMC issues. And it would be very rare if they did.
Note also that in this report he is giving his personal opinion, and not signing with his university, department and position.
Quote from Contrarian: “Quote from Thomas Clarke: “Quote from Contrarian: “Quote from Thomas Clarke: “No I mean these (the second and third)
&amp;amp;lt;a href=&amp;amp;quot;&lt;a href=&quot;<a href="http://brilliantlightpower.com/validation-reports/&amp;amp;quot&quot" class="externalURL" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">brilliantlightpower.com/valida…eports/&amp;amp;quot&quot</a>;…
All scientific papers are ultimately the work of (opinions) of the scientists writing them and not the position of their bosses. I reject your assertion that Glumac is not competent to say what he said. It's unfounded and based on assumptions on your part. And lets face it, if his report was critical of Mills you would accept it without question.
QuoteAnd lets face it, if his report was critical of Mills you would accept it without question.
His report could not be critical, in that sense. All he could say what that he could not analyse the experiment carefully enough to draw conclusions. Which indeed I would accept.
It is not symmetrical. You might wish it were, but that is the nature of these judgements.
QuoteIt would be a lot of work for me to do that quantitative analysis - perhaps you could post yours? I'm only gpoing from the single short (which should be the same) figures given by the invited and published reports. They are near enough 1 given the high errors in this experiment and the fact that IH will obviously publish the more favourable analyses.
I'm working on gathering the information to make an informed calculation. Basically I need to know from Mills about how much Silver was vaporized so I can calculate how much energy it took to go from melting temperature to being vaporized to being at 5000K which was the temperature of the plasma. But it seems fairly clear from the temperature, based on the measured spectrum, that in the blackbody mode we can estimate the power from the Stephan Boltzmann law based on the size of the plasma ball. For example, if we conservatively assign the emissivity of the silver vapor at 0.15 and we assume a smaller size for the plasma ball of about a 10 cm radius, and only using the top half of the ball, the radiated power is already above 300,000 watts.
You would need dynamic data about plasma ball temperature and size, since it is transient. And more information about emissivity - plasma is unusual. It would be in BLPs interest to release this if it helped their case, so I suspect it does not.
You would need dynamic data about plasma ball temperature and size, since it is transient. And more information about emissivity - plasma is unusual. It would be in BLPs interest to release this if it helped their case, so I suspect it does not.
Why do I need dynamic data? If it were a question of a millisecond process maybe but it's a macro process happening in real time. And I can see the size close enough (I estimate the container to be about 0.5 m across).
We agree plasma is unusual. You watched the videos right? What did you think you were seeing? Did you see how it starts out greenish, turns reddish and then brilliant white? Did you see the measured spectrum over time. Did you see how the initial spectrum is in the EUV and UV range then becomes optical? The blackbody plasma ball becomes intense and large and lasts for over thirty seconds.
Would you believe their plasma data if formally published?
Quote from Thomas Clarke: “You would need dynamic data about plasma ball temperature and size, since it is transient. And more information about emissivity - plasma is unusual. It would be in BLPs interest to release this if it helped their case, so I…
I don't watch videos much because they have little information. I can't see how you can infer much from that. You don't know whether what you see is stable or burst-mode. You don't know what is its emissivity, or what is its temperature. If BLP had evidence of useful heat excess they would easily be able to measure this with calorimetry as they have in the past...
Best wishes, Tom
You would need dynamic data about plasma ball temperature and size, since it is transient.
They will be using a large tungsten cap placed on top of the chamber, if they are not already, in order to thermalize the non-blackbody output (per Mills et al.) within the chamber into a blackbody spectrum suited for photovoltaic cells. Perhaps the integrated power could be estimated from the color temperature of the tungsten cap.
QuoteThomas Clarke wrote: I don't watch videos much because they have little information.
Not much point in having a discussion then if you didn't or won't even bother to spend a few minutes looking at them.
Contrarian, I'm sorry. I'm not competent to judge power emitted from a ball of light by looking at it in a video. it is just not on. If you know how to do this I will with interest follow your working, and comment, but I'd like you to state explicitly all assumptions and if possible justify them.
Good luck!
.
Contrarian, I'm sorry. I'm not competent to judge power emitted from a ball of light by looking at it in a video. it is just not on. If you know how to do this I will with interest follow your working, and comment, but I'd like you to state explicitly…
I've asked Mills to provide more details such as a full blackbody spectrum to get the temperature and the actual photon flux at some distance to get the light power. If he does I'll post them. He has given these in the past for some single shot experiments.
I don't watch videos much because they have little information. I can't see how you can infer much from that. You don't know whether what you see is stable or burst-mode. You don't know what is its emissivity, or what is its temperature. If BLP had evidence of useful heat excess they would easily be able to measure this with calorimetry as they have in the past...
Best wishes, Tom
This recent Paper of Mills uses substances which allow more or less no discussion about additional heat effects. Max gain about 50; Published online - behind a pay wall in:
international journal of hydrogen energy 39 (2014) 11930e11944
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s…cle/pii/S0360319914015821
Available online 25 June 2014
QuoteThis recent Paper of Mills uses substances which allow more or less no discussion about additional heat effects. Max gain about 50; Published online - behind a pay wall in:
international journal of hydrogen energy 39 (2014) 11930e11944
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319914015821
The paper is available for free on the BrLP website.
http://brilliantlightpower.com/publications/
A more recent paper from Jan 2015 is available. The title is "H2O-based solid fuel power source based on the catalysis of H by HOH catalyst".
