ZERO INPUT, 10 degrees thermal output...Yes,...genuine free energy

[tinman]

Inconclusive? What was the actual hypothesis under test, that you would have stated before testing began? Your reported data seem to indicate to me that any measured temperature rise is in the "noise floor", rather than indicating an actual temperature rise. Your data from the "coffee rock" supports this conclusion as well. So I think what you have reported is far from "inconclusive". If your hypothesis was that a magnet will be measurably warmer than its surroundings... you have falsified that hypothesis pretty soundly, I think. You have been unable to measure a definite, non-artifactual temperature above ambient from your test magnet.

You may find the following article of interest:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissivity

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LesliesCube.png

All faces and objects mounted on the cube are at the same actual temperature; only the emissivities are varied.

Inconclusive as in ,the coffee rock is darker in color and would absorb ambiant heat better than the shiny neo magnet that would reflect heat.So if the neo magnet was flat black,or coffee rock brown,it may well have a higher temp than the coffee rock. So in order for the test to be conclusive,the magnet would have to be the same color as the coffee rock,and be above ambiant temp. As i have not done that test,that means that the result's i have so far are indeed inconclusive.

[TinselKoala]

Inconclusive as in ,the coffee rock is darker in color and would absorb ambiant heat better than the shiny neo magnet that would reflect heat.So if the neo magnet was flat black,or coffee rock brown,it may well have a higher temp than the coffee rock. So in order for the test to be conclusive,the magnet would have to be the same color as the coffee rock,and be above ambiant temp. As i have not done that test,that means that the result's i have so far are indeed inconclusive.

Rather than the same _color_  for IR testing you need to have the same _emissivity_ which is not always the same thing, as the Leslie Cube demonstration shows. The black and the white surfaces turn out to have the same emissivity so they look the same to the FLIR imager.

Check out the wiki article for the Leslie cube. It has some interesting stuff in there, particularly in the old references.

The conclusions you can draw depend on your initial hypothesis, which is why it needs to be stated _in advance_ of performing the experiment. If it is stated as I put it above, then the experiment is indeed conclusive: you weren't able to _measure_ a consistent temperature increase using the techniques you used.

This may seem like nitpicking, but that is what the scientific method actually is: nitpicking to the bone, until every nit is picked and you have a completely "clean" and bulletproof experiment. So your experiment, giving a conclusive falsification of the hypothesis _as I stated it_, suggests further, better controlled, experiments that will have slightly different initial hypotheses. This is how science progresses and eventually arrives at (relative) certainty. Your experiment is "inconclusive" as regards the over-arching "theory" that generated the particular hypothesis that I stated. Note that the hypothesis itself is "theory-neutral", it doesn't say anything about what may or may not have caused the measurement difference, if any. The overarching theory can generate many testable hypotheses that are all slightly different; each one allows design of an experiment to test that particular hypothesis, and the results of the experiment allow one to refine one's hypothesis until all the nits are picked away and you arrive at a result that you can be sure of, and which can be generalized to the overarching theory. Your experiment has now generated a new hypothesis that you can test: If you can equate or control for emissivity differences then you will (or will not) find a true temperature difference. (Note the form of the hypothesis: it is an "if-then" statement.)

One thing I haven't mentioned is "operationalization of constructs". This long technical phrase means that you should assign actual numerical, measureable values to your variable constructs like "warmer" or "higher temperature" before you actually perform the experiment . How warm is "warmer"? Some people might accept a difference of 0.2 degrees C as enough to say it is "warmer" and others may not. But if you state, before the experiment, that you will call "warmer" a difference of 0.2 degrees C or more, then you have "operationalized" that variable into something definite. You now can calibrate your thermometry to see if it will reliably and precisely detect such a difference in reality, what effects emissivity may have on your measurement apparatus, etc.  These things that I am talking about are not made up, they are widely accepted parts of bulletproof experimental design and are there to prevent "hand waving" and "post-hoc" explanations of results obtained. Only properly designed and performed experiments can actually reliably determine cause and effect relationships among the variables and constructs tested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operationalization

There are lots of ways you can control for emissivity when using an IR or FLIR measurement system. You could grind a flat face on the coffee rock and stick a piece of opaque tape onto it, and stick a piece of the same tape onto the magnet face, for example. Perhaps the best thing to do is to ditch the IR measurement altogether and use a sensitive thermocouple making a contact measurement, rather than depending on IR which is subject to many errors and artifacts. You could also use a heat-transfer fluid of known emissivity, like water or oil, and let the magnet heat that up... if it can.

[MarkE]

Rather than the same _color_  for IR testing you need to have the same _emissivity_ which is not always the same thing, as the Leslie Cube demonstration shows. The black and the white surfaces turn out to have the same emissivity so they look the same to the FLIR imager.

Check out the wiki article for the Leslie cube. It has some interesting stuff in there, particularly in the old references.

The conclusions you can draw depend on your initial hypothesis, which is why it needs to be stated _in advance_ of performing the experiment. If it is stated as I put it above, then the experiment is indeed conclusive: you weren't able to _measure_ a consistent temperature increase using the techniques you used.

This may seem like nitpicking, but that is what the scientific method actually is: nitpicking to the bone, until every nit is picked and you have a completely "clean" and bulletproof experiment. So your experiment, giving a conclusive falsification of the hypothesis _as I stated it_, suggests further, better controlled, experiments that will have slightly different initial hypotheses. This is how science progresses and eventually arrives at (relative) certainty. Your experiment is "inconclusive" as regards the over-arching "theory" that generated the particular hypothesis that I stated. Note that the hypothesis itself is "theory-neutral", it doesn't say anything about what may or may not have caused the measurement difference, if any. The overarching theory can generate many testable hypotheses that are all slightly different; each one allows design of an experiment to test that particular hypothesis, and the results of the experiment allow one to refine one's hypothesis until all the nits are picked away and you arrive at a result that you can be sure of, and which can be generalized to the overarching theory. Your experiment has now generated a new hypothesis that you can test: If you can equate or control for emissivity differences then you will (or will not) find a true temperature difference. (Note the form of the hypothesis: it is an "if-then" statement.)

One thing I haven't mentioned is "operationalization of constructs". This long technical phrase means that you should assign actual numerical, measureable values to your variable constructs like "warmer" or "higher temperature" before you actually perform the experiment . How warm is "warmer"? Some people might accept a difference of 0.2 degrees C as enough to say it is "warmer" and others may not. But if you state, before the experiment, that you will call "warmer" a difference of 0.2 degrees C or more, then you have "operationalized" that variable into something definite. You now can calibrate your thermometry to see if it will reliably and precisely detect such a difference in reality, what effects emissivity may have on your measurement apparatus, etc.  These things that I am talking about are not made up, they are widely accepted parts of bulletproof experimental design and are there to prevent "hand waving" and "post-hoc" explanations of results obtained. Only properly designed and performed experiments can actually reliably determine cause and effect relationships among the variables and constructs tested.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operationalization

There are lots of ways you can control for emissivity when using an IR or FLIR measurement system. You could grind a flat face on the coffee rock and stick a piece of opaque tape onto it, and stick a piece of the same tape onto the magnet face, for example. Perhaps the best thing to do is to ditch the IR measurement altogether and use a sensitive thermocouple making a contact measurement, rather than depending on IR which is subject to many errors and artifacts. You could also use a heat-transfer fluid of known emissivity, like water or oil, and let the magnet heat that up... if it can.

For temperature differences less than 2C I recommend using thermistors instead of thermocouples.  For a couple of dollars you can build an amplified thermistor bridge with a stable reference that gives lots of resolution against ambient and resolves temperature difference well down to a few hundredths of a degree C.  Unamplified a divider made from a pair of garden variety 10K NTC thermistors changes by 20,000ppm/C.  Used with a stable reference like the venerable TL431, or better an LM4040, and any half way decent DVM and one can reliably, and repeatably sense small temperature differences.

[CANGAS]

NO SUCH THING EXISTS.  




You might as well deduce from ignorance that the earth is perfectly still when you are laying out in a green valley somewhere.

It would certainly be generous of you to characterize the motion of the field of your "stationary" magnet. 

Twirling round, jumping up and down, pulsating, what?

Thank you so much, in advance.


Kindest
CANGAS 112

[CANGAS]

..... the double flower pot heater design that people use to heat a room up from a tealight candle.

The what? Sounds interesting. Where can i find a picture of such a heater?


Thanks in advance
CANGAS 113