Antonio, Mario, Franco, Ilio, Giancarlo ecc., è arrivata la risposta per voi! E notate bene che "Kwatz!" è il tipico urlo del Maestro Zen: rappresenta/sostituisce la bastonata data all'allievo che ha appena sbagliato ad interpretare un koan!
Ad essere sincero mi aspettavo poche righe, invece il buon "Bert Abbing" gli è andato giù pesante. Anche troppo, perché personalmente non credo che tutti voi siate in mala fede, ma qualcuno sì, a questo punto mi viene proprio di crederlo.
***
Bert Abbing
Dear Dr. Rossi,
maybe you are interested about the short email note that we have sent today to Mats Lewan, Frank Akland and daniele Passerini. We can’t stand that a work like yours is denigrated in a blog I have discovered today in the most possible unscientific way. Here is the thread.
Dear Dr. Lewan I have written this letter to Daniele Passerini and in CC to Frank Akland regarding the horrible blog page by “GSVIT”
appeard today. I think that this short considerations could interest also you.
Regards,
Bert
Dear Daniele, Dear Frank
I (we) write here some observations about the disgusting blog page you (and Levi) have have indicated to me.
Those pages (and all the site) are purposely designed to appear as scientific to a layman so to divulge disinformation and ill formed concepts.
They pretend to be written by an “official institution” that should appear seroius and scientific for the outsider and the common man.
In fact the “institution” ins NOT a research institute and does non have any contact with internationally recognized research institutions or any University.
No surprise if they received NO answer from any of the research group.
The most disgusting thing is that their page appear purposely written in a way, mixing up real information from literature, omitted information and absolutely FALSE statements so to “demonstrate” a (false) conclusion. This demonstrate that the group that have written this pages is far to be scientific but has an agenda and a precise goal.
Let us review just some of the points:
The main FALSE information they try to transmit is that when measuring a temperature with a non contact thermometer one should use the “Spectral emissivity” and NOT the total normal emissivity.
This statement is absolutely WRONG. Due to the fact that detector sensitivity is far to be a flat function and usually differs from pixel to pixel in an IR camera all that information is handled by the internal software of the instrument and to the user is requested ONLY to input the value of the TOTAL NORMAL EMISSIVITY which is “the ratio of the energy radiated by the material at a temperature T and the energy radiated by a black body at the same temperature” over ALL wavelengths. (you can find that in ANY textbook! eg: G. Gaussorgues Infrared Thermography)
So all the argumentations in the blog page about integrating only in the “measurement window” are ILL-FORMED, wrong and misleading!
Note also that is just by chance that Allumina has a constant spectral emissivity in the window of sensitivity of the detector. Many other materials have not! And the “spectral emissivity” is NOT available for many materials. This would limit tha use of non contact thermometers just to few special cases, and this is not true! Total Normal Emissivity tables for materials are available from many vendors showing similar values independently from the detector!
The authors of the also MISS to explain WHY if the AA of the TPR2 would have done such a tremendous error (they have NOT) all the measures done with the DUMMY (uncharged) reactor match the input power! THIS was in fact a calibration and a confirmation that the method was good.
Another point they MISS to cite is that when they have measured the emissivity of the with the reference dots of the external allumina pipes the have found a values (0.69…. 064) that are in PERFECT agreement with the literature. Note that is even possible for the TPR reader note that the reference dots have a higher emissivity then the pipe because the are much britgher that that.
Is NOT surprising on the other hand that MFMP have obtained different values. Cement materials, even if they have a high percentage of alumina can have a very different emissivity because the presence of metals (Mg).
The TPR authors have analyzed the material by X-ray spectroscopy and found that was pure alumina, so they applied correctly the data for that material.
Is quite WIERD that the blog page authors have found an emissivity near to 1 (in contrast to any emissivity table!) at that low temperature. Or the material was not pure or they have done an error! (bad thermal contact of the PT100 or K probe could eventually lead to that!)
In conclusion.
We have found that blog page far to be scientific and probably part of a “disinformation plan”. They make evident theoretical and experimental errors probably on pourpose.
We will ignore it and go on working.
Bert Abbing
***
Vorrei a questo punto fare notare anche le parole con cui Andrea Rossi ha commentato tutto ciò, perché lascia qualche indizio sulla vera identità-plurale di "Bert Abbing", che non lavora per lui, non è uno degli autori del TPR2 né fa parte delle istituzioni scientifiche a cui essi appartengono, però fa parte di altre...
Dear Prof. Bert Abbing:
I think you are right, but I prefer not to participate to this discussion, because the measurements of the Lugano Test have been designed and made by the Independent Third Party. I was away for most of the time and I never participated to the measurements. I did not participate at all to the work of analysis, evaluations, discussions about the measurements that the Professors of the ITP made after the test in Lugano and before the publication. As a consequence of these facts, I do not think it is proper for me to participate to this discussion.
Thank you for the important attention of yours and your group.
Warm Regards,
A.R.
La lettura di G.S.V.I.T. come Gran Sapientoni Vs Inarrestabili Tecnologie (che per inciso è il "memo-trucco" che uso per ricordare una tanto poco eufonica sigla) appare sempre più evidente! Fortunatamente, dentro molte grandi istituzioni scientifiche, si continua a lavorare - fuori dai riflettori dei blog e dei disinformatori di professione, ma ben dentro la luce della vera Scienza - per confermare le scoperte di Flieschmann, Piantelli, Focardi, Rossi e tanti altri ricercatori LENR... qui Nobel ci cova!
