This has been brought up twice before. Each time I read the relevant course power point, and he does not claim anything "definitive, and real" about "Rossi claims". Just the opposite...he understated, and dismissed the Ecat as most likely a fuel cell. The profs name will remain unspoken, as the matter was dropped and of no consequence.
👏👏👏👏👏
our last several posts suggest that you are frothing at the mouth.
Hmm, why do I get the feeling you're talking about yourself?
The saving rate is up to 50% now/
Sounds like he may have walked that back Axil:
Dear Andrea,
you wrote Aftenposten that you expect SK heat to be 50% cheaper than any other heat source. I thought that you would guarantee only 20%. Does that mean that you guarantee 20% but expect savings to be higher? Or do you mean that you could reach 50% in the future?
Mylan:
This will depend on the specific situations.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
All you need to know about plasmas is in
Plasma Physics and Engineering
By Alexander Fridman, Lawrence A. Kennedy 2004
Beyond my pay-grade, but something LIKE the Stefan-Bolzman calculation (6.260) will probably apply.
I think you'd have to integrate the observed spectrum, giving (effectively) a different value for the S-B coefficient and MOST LIKELY a T^4 term.
There's a table for the emissivity of air at various temperatures and pressures (fig 6.37) varying between 10^-6 and 1 ... so the value for the E-Cat plasma is a BIG unknown.
This book does have a section on handling spectral lines, but google's not showing enough for me to make sense of it.
EDIT : it has lots on glow discharges.
https://books.google.com/books…20body%20emission&f=false
Display MoreAll you need to know about plasmas is in
Plasma Physics and Engineering
By Alexander Fridman, Lawrence A. Kennedy 2004
Beyond my pay-grade, but something LIKE the Stefan-Bolzman calculation (6.260) will probably apply.
I think you'd have to integrate the observed spectrum, giving (effectively) a different value for the S-B coefficient and MOST LIKELY a T^4 term.
There's a table for the emissivity of air at various temperatures and pressures (fig 6.37) varying between 10^-6 and 1 ... so the value for the E-Cat plasma is a BIG unknown.
This book does have a section on handling spectral lines, but google's not showing enough for me to make sense of it.
EDIT : it has lots on glow discharges.
https://books.google.com/books…20body%20emission&f=false
Looks excellent but I don't think we can figure out the total power of the SK by integrating its spectrum because we don't know the solid angle that the spectrophotometer's aperture subtends.
Hi Argon
Interesting! Please expand on the technical details of how you prepared this alternative video.
Well I'm not pro in videoanalysis, just wanted to quickly visualize camera movement vs. movement of actual plasma to check was it just 3 LED flashlights (400K+4000K+2700K) under the bed sheet....
What I did was pretty easy and can even be improved further with same toolset. I used Ubuntu LInux for this (i have to translate names to English so you may find some inaccuracies in naming).
1) Cut the original clip using OpenShot video editor to contain only full screen part of plasma. Shorter video is also faster to process in next steps.
2) In OpenShot drag and drop 'Tresholds' effect from 'Effects'-tab into top of clip in timeline.
3) Right click on clip and select 'properties' and there select 'Effects'-tab. Turn slider, need to click effect name 'Treshods' first, to right up to 1.97 (you may try other values, but this suited best for me)
4) Preview and if you are satisfied, export clip as mp4 with your preferred resolution etc. options.
Actually you are done! In general OpenShot seems simple, but has lots of nice features, like 'greenroom' and 'hanging labels' if you study further.
What I tried also was test 'Deshake' the video using ffmpeg, but video was so shaky that I could not get it stabilized. Didn't want to put time on installing additional plugins that may have been able to do that better.
In general deshaking of video can be done using command if shaking is below certain limits:
ffmpeg -i ECatdemoTreshold097.mp4 -vf deshake ECatdemoTreshold097_20190131_unshaked.mp4
(tried also option 'blocksize 100', but no help)
Finally I converted video to short animated gif, since lenr-forum doesn't let me upload mp4 and didn't want to introduce my cloud storage to whole wide lenr world 
ffmpeg -i ECatdemoTreshold097.mp4 -t 45 ECatdemoTreshold097_15.gif
Finally I converted video to short animated gif, since lenr-forum doesn't let me upload mp4 and didn't want to introduce my cloud storage to wholewide lenr world
Open a free Vimeo a/c -that will host videos for free (though they pester for cash constantly) with gradable privacy settings.
Argon ,
If you watch the full screen segment of the ballerina, the background clearly moves along with the glowy part.
Definitely the camera is moving, and probably almost all, (if not all), of the ballerina movement is caused by camera movement.
This is interesting, because I don't perceive the camera moving at all. Rather I see the the plasma doing a restrained, fairly regular, yet subtly chaotic type of oscillation.
Does anyone know: How tall is the ballerina?
Looks excellent but I don't think we can figure out the total power of the SK by integrating its spectrum because we don't know the solid angle that the spectrophotometer's aperture subtends.
The spectrophotometer's taking a small (angular) sample which is then presumed (in the spherical case) to be the same in all directions.
Integrating over all angles is just a trivial (tho I've forgotten all my undergrad math) geometric problem. I don't think it matters much if one used a sphere, a cylinder or something else.
To me the question is whether black (or partly black) body applies : is the E-Cat plasma dense (in which case there's thermal equilibrium ), and does the exact spectrum matter?
Based on the dancing ballerina, I think it's dense. In which case emissivity is close to 1.
Rather than using Plank/Wien for the spectral formula, I think the spectrum can be integrated (as an approximation, just summed in narrow bands).
I suspect without proof that there will effectively be a T^4 term in the result.
This caltech astrophysics course paper covers some of the same ground -- Panck, Wien etc ....
https://courses.edx.org/c4x/Ca…set/Ay1001x_Chapter04.pdf
But I'm NOT an expert on this, so I'll bow out.
a restrained, fairly regular, yet subtly chaotic type of oscillation.
As true fine art, Rossi's Ballerinametric presentation can evoke different emotions for different philosopher observers, from resplendent subtlety to grotesquely monotonous repetitiveness.
For scientists and engineers, this motion is quantifiable. Can somebody run an FFT on the video so we can look at the motion frequencies? The video frame rate is probably not known though?
The more flowery the language describing the motion, the less the analysis has credibility in my mind. This is why I kind of don't like the term "lovely gammas" making the rounds.
The spectrophotometer's taking a small (angular) sample which is then presumed (in the spherical case) to be the same in all directions.
I'm definitely not an expert either.
But how do you know how small the angle of the sample is? And without knowing how small the angle is, what good does integrating the spectrum do?
Let's suppose that this was not a spectrophotometer in use at all .... just something that measured the intensity of the light across some radiation band. That would basically give you the same information as integrating the spectrum given by a spectrophotometer. Yet you still would not be able to calculate power unless you knew what proportion of the overall energy of the SK was entering the aperture of the device.
This is interesting, because I don't perceive the camera moving at all. Rather I see the the plasma doing a restrained, fairly regular, yet subtly chaotic type of oscillation.
Does anyone know: How tall is the ballerina?
If you look at original video starting around 3:3, it is quite clear that it is camera that is moving around since while area moves (look for example left half of the screen).
It was stated in the video that if you have certain size monitor (was it 22 inch? I don't remember), the ballerina you see is presented as actual size. Or something like that.
This is interesting, because I don't perceive the camera moving at all. Rather I see the the plasma doing a restrained, fairly regular, yet subtly chaotic type of oscillation.
Does anyone know: How tall is the ballerina?
I see the camera moving, and the ballerina repeat the dance sequence dozens of times, independently of the other screen views.
Can one of our video experts select all the sequential small ballerina box frames, string them together into a video, and speed it up maybe 4 times? (10 x ?)
Pretty please?
Head up....head down
Head up....head down
Side to side for a while, with a little up down
A small up down
Side to side for a while, with a little up down
Head up....head down
Head up....head down
Side to side for a while, with a little up down
A small up down
Side to side for a while, with a little up down
something like that
I see the camera moving, and the ballerina repeat the dance sequence dozens of times, independently of the other screen views.
Can one of our video experts select all the sequential small ballerina box frames, string them together into a video, and speed it up maybe 4 times?
Pretty please?
Actually I tried it briefly yesterday and applied deshaker (with no success easily since it is only one part of the frame). Speed is normal, but you can speed it up with your videoplayer.
It is uploading while I have to go for today.
Video will appear within one hour into Vimeo Page (Thanks Alan Smith for the tip!) https://vimeo.com/user20101058/review/315750210/928c1c79fa
Actually I tried it briefly yesterday and applied deshaker (with no success easily since it is only one part of the frame). Speed is normal, but you can speed it up with your videoplayer.
It is uploading while I have to go for today.
Video will appear within one hour into Vimeo Page (Thanks Alan Smith for the tip!) https://vimeo.com/user20101058/review/315750210/928c1c79fa
I have been looking at it sped up by unknown amount, as is.
My guess is that the full screen version is a big part of the main loop of the ballerina shown in the small view, if not the same slice. And it is shown over and over again.
So the shake needs to in, to see the whole movement of the glowy 'ballerina' sequence.
(I could be totally out to lunch on all this...)
If you look at original video starting around 3:3, it is quite clear that it is camera that is moving around since while area moves (look for example left half of the screen).
It was stated in the video that if you have certain size monitor (was it 22 inch? I don't remember), the ballerina you see is presented as actual size. Or something like that.
OK. I just went to the video at http://ecatskdemo.com/vidRaw.html
At about the 17 minute mark the narrator starts talking about the Ballerina dimensions. If the 'screen' is 16 inches the Ballerina will be actual size. My screen is bigger so I made sure the diagonal of the video player screen was 16 inches. I just measured the height of the Ballerina with my ruler and she is 16 cm.
Now let's do a very conservative calculation for the power output of the Ballerina. No spectrometer, no blackbody assumptions, no emissivity assumptions.
Let's say that the Ballerina is only 8cm tall and 4cm across, and is roughly cylindrical.
What is the volume of the Ballerina? The formula for the volume of a cylinder is
πr^2h ; This yields a volume of π*2^2*8 =~ 100cm^3
What is the volume of a candle flame? Let's say such a flame is about 2cm high and 1cm across at the base and is roughly conical in shape. The formula for such a volume is
πr^2*h/3 ; This yields a volume of π*(.5)^2*2/3 =~ .5cm^3.
So the Ballerina has about 200 times the volume of a candle flame.
Most of the energy of light of a candle is in the infrared ; let's assume a candle photon has an average wavelength of 1000nm. Let's assume a Ballerina photon has an average wavelength of 500nm. So the average photon energy of the Ballerina is 2 times that of a candle. Let's assume that the average photon density of the Ballerina to be the same as a candle flame.
A candle flame gives off roughly 50 watts of power. Given the above conservative estimates, the Ballerina is giving off 50 Watts * 200 * 2 = 20kW of power.
Again, the Ballerina is giving off roughly 20kW of power. This is consistent with what Rossi is claiming.
There is a bright glow with a bump to the left, and a switch to the sharper (square?) but duller bump to the right video segments, too.
At 1:47:26 this happens. The up-down repeating part seems mostly to be the above square-ish second focus version.
Display MoreOK. I just went to the video at http://ecatskdemo.com/vidRaw.html
At about the 17 minute mark the narrator starts talking about the Ballerina dimensions. If the 'screen' is 16 inches the Ballerina will be actual size. My screen is bigger so I made sure the diagonal of the video player screen was 16 inches. I just measured the height of the Ballerina with my ruler and she is 16 cm.
Now let's do a very conservative calculation for the power output of the Ballerina. No spectrometer, no blackbody assumptions, no emissivity assumptions.
Let's say that the Ballerina is only 8cm tall and 4cm across, and is roughly cylindrical.
What is the volume of the Ballerina? The formula for the volume of a cylinder is
πr^2h ; This yields a volume of π*2^2*8 =~ 100cm^3
What is the volume of a candle flame? Let's say such a flame is about 2cm high and 1cm across at the base and is roughly conical in shape. The formula for such a volume is
πr^2*h/3 ; This yields a volume of π*(.5)^2*2/3 =~ .5cm^3.
So the Ballerina has about 200 times the volume of a candle flame.
Most of the energy of light of a candle is in the infrared ; let's assume a candle photon has an average wavelength of 1000nm. Let's assume a Ballerina photon has an average wavelength of 500nm. So the average photon energy of the Ballerina is 2 times that of a candle. Let's assume that the average photon density of the Ballerina to be the same as a candle flame.
A candle flame gives off roughly 50 watts of power. Given the above conservative estimates, the Ballerina is giving off 50 Watts * 200 * 2 = 20kW of power.
Again, the Ballerina is giving off roughly 20kW of power. This is consistent with what Rossi is claiming.
How does all the heat in the interior of the volume escape through its surface area?
How does all the heat in the interior of the volume escape through its surface area?
Just like in the Sun ; a larger volume will mean a higher photon flux through the surface. This will be a major reason why the Ballerina requires 14 shade protection ; same type that is required for looking at an eclipse.
