"For a double neologolization in a sentence, I am looking to preponderize the evidence towards a temperature range."
Are you keeping in mind the fact that the Optris was uncalibrated for the live runs, and that any data that Bob and Tom have been working with were fitted to some unknown parameters? The only calibration that occurred was at a much lower input power, far away from the operating range of the E-Cat. Bob's and Tom's calculations for the live runs have necessarily been analytical, fiddling only with the emissivity. If there was any parameter in addition to emissivity that was captured by the Optris during the low-power calibration (e.g., intensity, hue, etc.) and then carried over to the live runs, the analytical calculations will simply have assumed that those parameters were correct, which might not have been the case. Or am I mistaken?
How does one quantify this uncertainty? I feel like not enough attention is being paid to the fact that we're working with data from an uncalibrated camera.
@Eric Walker
I am sort of working my way though a morass to get there.
What I am getting to is that the camera is very effective at generating a perfect grey body value, within it's own level of precision.
Notwithstanding the integration work on approximating the bolometer response by Bob Higgins and similar work by Thomas, which I consider as confirmatory, the camera is probably better at it, since it has been tested, calibrated, and designed to do as good a blackbody conversion from raw signal as technically possible, then it converts to grey body for emissivity changes.
So, whatever the camera spits out, at a certain temperature, it can be plotted as a greybody spectral segment in its sensitive range. From there, conversion to another emissivity value is almost a piece of cake. Tools like the NASA radiance calculator make it possible to quickly visualize this, although more complex calculations are needed to really clean it up.
The camera itself is calibrated to the nines, as they say. After that, it is garbage in, garbage out if the emissivity is fed in wrong. The camera is indifferent. So if we know what it gave as a T value at a certain ε, it should be possible to work out alternate T for other ε values. At least that is my plan.
Whatever my hopes for the Lugano device were, and whatever might happen outside the IR range of the camera, we can work out within reason what the camera thought it saw. That is the basis for the T claims in the report, and from there the power. Even if 9 times the power went out in the short wave IR, that would not be accessible to the professors or the camera, and so is irrelevant to the calculations of the professors.
If the professors had some sort of temperature sensitive device to double check their IR values, then that would have established that their IR derived T was or was not close to what the camera said, and this could be fixed up by adjusting the ε to a more appropriate value. So certainly the calibration at 450°C was not transferable to the device working at higher temperatures. If they had stuck to a single ε value for the whole T measurement process (the one they worked out for the dummy, which should be reasonably good at least at 450°C), that would have been one thing. But borrowing ε values for total radiance, and using them for normal radiance, they made an even greater mess.
FWIW, using 0.69 instead of 0.43 for the ε at 1410°C, I end up with a gross estimate of 1000°C. That alone would result in a huge difference in radiant power, just from sticking to the calibration ε.
So, whatever the camera spits out, at a certain temperature, it can be plotted as a greybody spectral segment in its sensitive range. From there, conversion to another emissivity value is almost a piece of cake. Tools like the NASA radiance calculator make it possible to quickly visualize this, although more complex calculations are needed to really clean it up.
Am I correct in inferring that your understanding is that the Optris captures only emissivity as a parameter during a user calibration run, and not any other parameters?
@Eric Walker
The emissivity is solely a user inserted function for the Optris camera. (It is either set at 1.0 or 0.95 from the factory, since this is appropriate for most materials in the long wave IR range. In other words, most materials act like a very efficient grey body in the long wave IR band). There are rotating mirror laser IR devices that can determine ε accurately. They are bulky things, and probably not available outside of some specialized laboratories.
So, to probably complete the thoughts you may be considering, perhaps this ε problem with Lugano could be an example of CCS (if they had stuck with the ε calibration from the dummy).
To possibly throw another weapon into the hands of Shanahan, look up the discussion of the EVE electrodes (SPAWAR?) on ECW. There they (informally) discussed a constant for excess heat with some electrodes, which changed significantly when the EVE electrodes were used. I don't recall the exact details.
So, to probably complete the thoughts you may be considering, perhaps this ε problem with Lugano could be an example of CCS (if they had stuck with the ε calibration from the dummy).
No, not at all. I myself probably will not take the CCS seriously until Kirk Shanahan produces a clear example of it outside of the context of LENR. I feel the burden of evidence is squarely on him. Other people disagree. I'm ok with that. In my discussion with him, I'm just trying to understand it, without getting details mixed up.
What I'm trying to understand about the Optris is exactly what happens during a calibration run. If the emissivity is a user-input value, is nothing stored in the memory of the camera?
@Eric Walker
The radiance detected is stored in the camera from each reading. I'm not sure with what level of complexity it does this, but the images can be reconstructed and adjusted, post-recording, to reflect user-inputted changes to ε. I assume the level of data storage detail is quite high. Lots of other things are recorded as well like ambient temperature, time stamps, etc. These are selectable and can be time-compressable/averaged to some degree (I will go out on a limb and say that the time compressed data cannot be re-expanded). There are other settings. The camera records a lot of information. The ε setting is recorded also, because that is needed to calculate T. The temperature in the newer Optris cameras are outputted in either °C or °F; K temperatures do not seem to be an option, but is probably stored anyways. Earlier models did output K temperatures (See the 2012 E-Cat test data sheet). There is a giant internal look-up matrix inside for bolometer to radiance corrections, with model unit specific adjustments based on actual factory calibrations over the range the unit is built to test.
So, if ε was fixed with real values (from wherever), it is possible to fix the temperatures recorded by the camera, using the Optris software, and re-calculate the entire Lugano data set based on the recordings from the camera. It says so right in the Lugano report, as a matter of fact.
So, if ε was fixed with real values (from wherever), it is possible to fix the temperatures recorded by the camera, using the Optris software, and re-calculate the entire Lugano data set based on the recordings from the camera. It says so right in the Lugano report, as a matter of fact.
And, just to be complete, this can be done independently of having run the calibration through the operating range of the live runs? I.e., the emissivity is the only free parameter?
@Eric Walker
I would say that actually calibrating the device over the temperature range would give greater confidence in values calculated over the range for calculating power, if those values were determined and used appropriately.
There are several other problems, which reduce the effectiveness, even with good calibration techniques, and end up reducing the apparent improved precision and accuracy to the level of a decent estimate.
One of which is that the fuel was not inserted during calibration (but this is nearly impossible to actually do, since a posited reaction of unknown type is supposed to be occurring).
Another is that the actual output power cannot be corroborated without some sort of calorimetry. If for example a large spike in the spectral radiance occurs outside of the camera detection range, it cannot be evaluated because it is not seen.
The use of textbook ε values for both radiant power and for normal radiance (what the camera sees) is a problem if the material deviates from the textbook values in a substantial way.
The decision of where to locally test temperature for comparison to the camera temperatures can cause major changes to the calculations for calibration. If I remember correctly, the MFMP tests showed about 100°C variations from the base to peak of the fins. I have tested wide spaced coils, and individual coils can be detected thermally through 3 mm of dense alumina, using a thermocouple. The alumina often does not heat evenly along the length of a coil tube unless extreme care is made in placing the coil wraps. With colder ends, wider wraps near the center and closer wraps near the ends help considerably in making the tube approximately isothermal. The coils can alternately touch and "float" above the tube, as expansion and contraction affect the coil length, often in unpredictable ways, especially the first couple of hot-cold cycles.
Etc.
Some of these problems may just cause minor deviations from the "fully calibrated" device, and yet some minor deviations may cause major changes due to logarithmic propagation when used to calculate radiant and convective power.
Edit: One final consideration is that even if the Lugano report was done exceptionally well , and no majorly inconsistent things could be found besides excess heat/power, (like dummy to active electrical weirdness, using the wrong ε, lack of calibration to full T, etc.), it is still only one test. We have no idea if it is a one-off excess, or a wildly varying excess compared to other repeat tests (if these were to be done). We cannot say whether this is at all comparable to anything. Even to the dummy, which only performed as it did, once.
If the professors ran five exact copies of the dummy in the same conditions, and fueled only two of them, and ran those using the same conditions, we would have orders of magnitude more certainty about all sorts of particular aspects of the experiment.
I had a look at the full Lugano Report as of October 6, 2014 and calculated the heating power of the fuel. The aim is to get a good guess of the 1MW Plant fuel consumption.
Two assumptions are essential: How much Lithium is contained in the initial sample? How much Ni58,Ni59,Ni60,Ni61 is really converted. Other by products??
Further on the question remains, why no gamma ray emission with 4.798386MeV (Ni59 decay) is measured!
The reduction of Li7 to Li6 consumes a vast amount of energy. If the ratio of Li : Ni(xy) is much greater than one, then no energy at all is produced...
Everthing for 1g of fuel
The result shows an interesting aspect of the 1MW plant running out of fuel. In fact, due to the calculation in the table, the fuel (assuming Ni : Li 1 : 1) is exactly lasting one year. (The Li7/6 mass ratio is not calculated in.)
LuganoFuelEnergy.pdf
Because Lugano mass spectrometry shows a much bigger Li:Ni ratio than 1:1 it is not astonishing that the 1MW reactor terminated early in the experiment.
To continue flogging a dead horse... I would like some comment on the calibration of the dummy and emissivity.
Why did the 235°C tube test work out? Is it because the angled surface was tested (not actually normal to the camera)? The spots are at least in the same angle, so maybe that should cancel. A quick look at IR camera manufacturers suggestions show that about 0.9 to 0.95 should be closer to the correct ε at that temperature. Whereas the report (indirectly) suggests that 0.69 was the value used ("The temperature at the rectangle next to the circle (237.5 °C) is obtained by setting an emissivity value for alumina found in the literature [3.]". (Page 10)
On the other hand, the dummy at a reported 461.64°C local peak temperature (Area 8, Table 3) also uses the total normal ε from the Lugano report Plot 1, not an IR camera spectral ε. So it's temperature is possibly also too high. The camera used in the report showed 366.6°C for an ε of 1.0 .The Shimazdu data shown in Bob's report was done at 450°C, so it should be somewhat close, and this is what Bob used for his bolometer response calculations.
There is no specifc mention that the ε dots used in the report (engineered ε of 0.95) were used at 366.6°C (ε of 1.0). However, the report claims "We therefore took the same emissivity trend found in the literature as reference; but, by applying emissivity reference dots along the rods, we were able to adapt that curve to this specific type of alumina, by directly measuring local emissivity in places close to the reference dots (Figure 7)."
On page 4, we are told that "The IR cameras, on the other hand, were focused on circular tabs of adhesive material of certified emissivity (henceforth referred to as “dots”). The relevant readings were compared to those obtained from a thermocouple used to measure ambient temperature, and were found to be consistent with the latter, the differences being < 1°C.". This means that a thermocouple was available during the test, and was used at least for some portion of the test, if not during the Active Run. It is not entirely clear, but it seems like the quote says that the emissivity test dots were tested by the camera at room temperature and compared to the thermocouple. Re-reading the entire paragraph (page 4), it seems this room temperature test by thermocouple was the only instance the camera was verified against a calibration material, and the only reason a thermocouple was used.
"All the instruments used during the test are property of the authors of the present paper, and were calibrated in their respective manufacturers’ laboratories. Moreover, once in Lugano, a further check was made to ensure that the PCEs and the IR cameras were not yielding anomalous readings. For this purpose, before the official commencement of the test, both PCEs were individually connected to the power mains selected for powering the reactor. For each of the three phases, readings returned a value of 230 ± 2V, which is appropriate for an industrial establishment power network. The IR cameras, on the other hand, were focused on circular tabs of adhesive material of certified emissivity (henceforth referred to as “dots”). The relevant readings were compared to those obtained from a thermocouple used to measure ambient temperature, and were found to be consistent with the latter, the differences being < 1°C."
Excerpt from an Optris IR camera manual "If you monitor temperatures of up to 380°C you may place a special plastic sticker (emissivity dots – part number: ACLSED) onto the measuring object, which covers it completely. Now set the emissivity to 0,95 and take the temperature of the sticker. Afterwards, determine the temperature of the adjacent area on the measuring object and adjust the emissivity according to the value of the temperature of the sticker." (emphasis mine).
@Wyttenbach
Just so you know, I'm not ignoring your comment. It is a bit off topic of this thread.
My main response to your idea above is that the reaction is too unknown to make a fairly simple calculation of that type. How much energy is needed to activate those reactions, or is lost to side reactions? There could be ten things that must happen to go from fuel to ash, etc. Otherwise it might make a nuclear bomb if one were to mix those ingredients and heat them up a bit.
I actually wonder about that.(The first part of your answer)
If they used the book value (total normal ε) from their Plot 1 for the 235°C test, they would have inputted 0.69 for ε. In fact, I would say that it is a data point on the ε plot (it probably is actually 500 K, or 226.7°C). For 0.69 ε, I figure that about 283°C would result if the ε of 0.95 gives 235.0 °C . That is not what we see. We have a screen shot of 237.5°C next to 235°C (Figure 7). So conceivably the alumina indeed has a really weird spectral ε, or the wire behind it is skewing the total normal ε so that a lower spectral ε is required for the camera. Or..? The report claims to have adjusted the Plot 1 pattern to match the alumina, but there is no indication this happened, especially in the dummy range and at 235°C in particular. In that case I would have expected the Plot 1 to show a much higher ε for the ~235°C area, which would have propagated quite differently.
If they used the value in the camera manual for alumina, they would have noticed right away that something was amiss... um,.. I would hope.
They did not do this at higher temps because the cal spots have a limited temp tolerance. Well, that is what they said.
My understanding is that they didn't go higher during the dummy run in order to avoid cracking the ceramic; from pp. 6-7:
QuoteIn fact, it is well known that some Inconel cables have a crystalline structure that is modified by temperature, and are capable of withstanding high currents only if they are operated at the appropriate temperature. If these conditions are not met, microscopic melt spots are liable to occur in the cables. So, there was some fear of fracturing the ceramic body, due to the lower temperature of the thermal generators with respect to the loaded reactor. For these reasons, power to the dummy reactor was held at below 500 W, in order to avoid any possible damage to the apparatus.
I remember being mystified by this justification when I first read it. To be fair, I do not know whether they would have been able to easily obtain a replacement if they broke the test E-Cat. I suppose this would have been a shortcoming in the test protocol, or a limitation made by Rossi.
That is a weird statement indeed.
The wires rely on current to get them hot. It is the resistance to electron flow, not necessarily the power being carried by them that heats them. One could probably manage thousands of Watts at low currents and high voltage, and hardly heat those wires at all. The power level at a specific current sets limits on the rate of Joule heating up to equilibrium, but Joule heating relies on current to do the heating. Design (wire resistance and length) determines the voltage required to push the desired current through the wire of a specific size/resistance to obtain the necessary current to get the expected amount of Joule heat. Insulation and bathing the wires in an independent heat bath (i.e. reaction) will affect the ultimate wire temperature reached at equilibrium.
And those were big wires. They can probably take a lot of current. Maybe ~20 A was a bit of a surprise to the professors for the dummy, let alone nearly 50 A at the maximum test conditions. I wonder what sort of current was flowing when they ran the device hard enough to put the PCE-830 into overload. And when during the experiment demonstration they tried that.
The peak reported current in the August 2012 demonstration was 24.28 A. Those wires look similar to the ones in the Lugano demonstration. They took six hours to get to that point from 1 A, and the reactor was large and mostly metal. Perhaps the tiny Lugano device was a bit scary, barely getting going at 19.7 A, based on the professors' earlier experiences.
If you will have a closer look at the mass spectrometry output in Table 1 Appendix 3, then you will notice a great discrepancy between original Li percentage (fuel) and ash Li percentage. What happened there? (related to Figure 9) Just normalized the wrong way?
If to much Lithium is consumed, then the overall COP may be < 1!!. Its just a nice transmutation process!
Conclusion: The Lugano LENR process works fine. Just the experts have been fooled with fake fuel!
Regarding (3), there is no evidence that they corrected the graph. Perhaps they did not put their corrected version in the report.
I doubt that 0.69 is correct for the dummy at "450 C" also.
Note that the "literature [3]" quoted is the same as the emissivity in Plot 1.
"The temperature at the rectangle next to the circle (237.5 °C) is obtained by setting an emissivity value for alumina found in the literature [3.]"
and
"Plot 1.Alumina emissivity trend as a function of temperature, reproduced from data extracted from the plot in Figure 6 [3]."
and
"Figure 6.Trend of alumina emissivity vs. temperature; from [3]."
Which is
[3] R. Morrell, Handbook of properties of technical and engineering ceramics Part 2, 1985, H.M.S.O.
One cannot get 237.5°C from an ε of 0.69 with that Optris camera if the 0.95 ε calibration sticker gives a reading of 235°C for the same location.
Now, if there was a 50 degree gradient from one location to the other, then maybe that would explain it.
There might be another dot in the Figure 7 image, almost at the middle of the photo.
Paradigmnoia,
In the Lugano report the authors say this about the two Optris cameras used:
The cameras used were two Optris PI 160 Thermal Imagers, one provided with a 30° × 23° lens and 160 ×
120 pixel UFPA sensors, capable of reading temperatures up to 900°C, the other with a 48° ×37° lens,
capable of measuring temperatures up to 1500°C. The spectral range for both cameras is from 7.5 to 13 μm
Although many more qualified than myself wondered, there was never an adequate explanation of what differences, other than lens size, there may be in Optris' "factory settings" of their high, versus low temp models? If so, could that factor into this debate?
When Dr. Clark first put his Lugano rebuttal out, I searched the Optris operating manual and couldn't find anything about it.
You wouldn't know the answer to this, but I always wondered also if the testers were told beforehand that they were getting an alumina body Hotcat. At Ferrara (TPR1) the Hotcat they tested was composed of ceramic enveloping an internal steel sleeve, and painted with an aeronautical paint. If expecting the same type body, but getting something much different, did they call Optris and have them provide a non-blackbody specific camera...if there is such a thing? Or if they knew in advance it was alumina, not ceramic/steel, did they tell Optris to send a camera specifically suited for alumina?
I am guessing not, because both high/low temp cameras read in the 7-15uM range. Yes, I know also that e is manually inputted by the end user, and the testers put in an incorrect value, so it may not matter anyways. You never know for sure though until you ask.
Anyways, if you have any thoughts on the matter I would appreciate them. Like I said, I've seen this mentioned by others -probably too embarrassed to take it any further.
