Is your biggest concern, then, quantitative rather than qualitative? (ie: You are convinced that they measured excess heat but are concerned about the degree of accuracy with which excess heat was measured.) It seems this must be the conclusion from the first of the two, proposed, blank runs given that the input power, ambient temperature of the room, color of the device and surface area are all known to a degree within the capability of even amateur scientists given instruments that were used for the measurements.
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Alan Fletcher <[email protected]> wrote: > > From: "Edmund Storms" <[email protected]> > > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 8:09:29 AM > > Subject: Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released > > > Before we get too excited. .... > > My biggest concern is with the resistive "blank" test. > > They should have done TWO blank runs > > a) (Which they did) -- run the resistor at full power to bring it to a > similar temperature. > b) Run the resistor with the same on-off cycle as the main run > > Remarks section : > > Their comparison of the shape of the heating/cooling curve with an RC > resistor/capacitor circuit is WRONG because that assumes a linear resistor. > But the radiation loss goes as T^4 --- I would be VERY surprised to see a > shape like an RC exponential. > > They should just have given the curves with no comparison. > >
