Lugano performance recalculated - the baseline for replications


  • Alain,


    I'm not quite sure how you are re-estimating temperature - but you are getting this wrong.


    For a rough calculation:


    1401C = 1624K
    the total (entered by profs) / band emissivity is 0.4/0.9 => the real temp is 449C if Rayleigh-Jeans applies


    This is too low because of various approximations in the above (Rayleigh -Jeans does not exactly apply) which underestimate the effect, and ignore other issues.


    However my calculations are more accurate, with numerical integration from exact Planck curve, etc, and give COP=1.07.


    When you estimate the "acceleration" because teh difference here is small you need to do the estimation accurately, and incorporate the fact that the adjustment based on diffeence in emissivity is larger for the higher temperature than the lower one. This exactly cancels with your difference.


    If you agree with this all is good. If you disagree could you say how?


    Now I agree with you there are many uncertainties in this calculation, which I summarise in my paper. If you expected a priori that this experiment would give extraordinary results you could use the uncertainties to justify COP > 1, maybe max COP = 1.5.


    However what is the point of that? You might as well not look at the experiment and keep your a priori idea that COP > 1. The experiment has not in anyway validated this.


    In fact the experiment excludes COP > 1.5.


    There are then problems.
    (1) Would Rossi really have given to the profs a device with COP of only 1.5 if he had usable e-cats? Why would he do this? He wanted positive results for a patent application.
    (2) The COP is not temperature dependent (see my calculations). This makes it much more likley this COP is in fact due to errors


    This reactor was supposed by the Profs and Rossi to be a definitive test of whether (or not) his stuff works. Rossi himself has often said he is not yet sure whether his stuff works. The results of this experiment are negative. You could get a higher possible COP from an experiment with a non-working device just by making the experiment more innacurate!


  • Rical, you will note, if you read my paper, that I address exactly the matter that you raise above. As did the Profs, who agree with me at least that it is not an adequate control. The dummy measurement was at a (claimed) temperature of 450C. the active test was at a (claimed ) temperature of 1400C.


    You can probably see that the very large difference in temperatures means that a match at 450C says nothing about a match at 1400C. In fact the real difference in temperature is much smaller, but due to the nonlinearity in the adjustment equations enough to make a very large difference. Specifically, just one example, the low temperature tests have convection and radiation roughly equal. The high temperature tests have radiation by far more dominant.


    I'm glad you note the 700W "acceleration' in output for 100W input. My work shows very neatly that this is entirely due to the wrong temperature estimation. It is an artifact, and in fact the two active COPs are the same to within 1%. That is actually a very good validation of my work. I'd happily explain to you the precise calculations, and reasons for them - note that my code is provided for anyone to check.


    I suggest, if you think there are errors in my paper but do not wish to critique it yourself, that you tell Frank Acland on ECW (I bet he will let you post) to link my paper - or this thread - there. Then the poeple on ECW can crawl all over my equations and the exact code I used to get the results. There are many matters to check which competent people could do, and I will answer questions, and given criticism I will either admit error or show why the criticism is wrong.


    It is a shame that Frank A does not allow this (I actually sent my paper to him first, but received no reply except that I was banned from ECW) since I think ECW readership is greater numerically than readers here, and I know there are a few people on ECW capable of checking this. Of course there are also people here who can do that!


    Finally, may I recommend Carl Sagan's "baloney detection kit".
    http://www.brainpickings.org/2…detection-kit-carl-sagan/
    You might like to read through and consider your post and mine in the light of it.


    best wishes, Tom

  • Quote from Rical


    Then Barty and Frank Acland on ECW "for some reason", for these excellent reasons, do not publish your spam which is pseudo-scientific.


    This is not very polite, but I cannot resist laughing at this. You will not get much support for the view that my paper is "pseudo-science". Of course it might be wrong - but exactly because it is written as science it can be checked and critiqued. It has definite conclusions, with definite arguments, all of which can be reconsidered and perhaps improved. And it is transparent, I publish all my code ion an accessible form.


    Tom

  • This is not very polite, but I cannot resist laughing at this. You will not get much support for the view that my paper is "pseudo-science". Of course it might be wrong - but exactly because it is written as science it can be checked and critiqued. It has definite conclusions, with definite arguments, all of which can be reconsidered and perhaps improved. And it is transparent, I publish all my code ion an accessible form.


    Tom


    Don't worry Tom, this is standard censure from believers, it's a very common method on ECW to manipulate facts.
    Believers are a bit hypocrites, they would like to be accepted by GAS but reject any criticisms about their claims and alleged "evidences".

    • Official Post

    Then Barty and Frank Acland on ECW "for some reason", for these excellent reasons, do not publish your spam which is pseudo-scientific.


    Sorry Rical, but I have nothing to do with ECW! And I've nothing censored here at LENR Forum!
    As I said in one of the first postings in this thread: We at LENR Forum also accept sceptical oppinions.
    This is necessary for a balanced community and real science!


    Only when someone is using insults against others we will intervene in the discussion, because then it is not a cultivated [lexicon]conversation[/lexicon] anymore!

  • This has become one big fiasco. If the Italians had only stuck to what they do best. I'm talking about making pizzas. IR cams aren't used so calibration can't be questioned.


    Perhaps ogfusionist is now channeling FrankCensor? What happened? Or maybe ogfusionist is not the former fusionist, or OEL or GAR.....

  • Some form of delusional grandeur when first witnessing the NiO/FiberFrax meltdown and thinking that this must have been like the caveman striking flint to produce fire, with the added implication that this effect dwarfs the usefulness of fire. Now the cold light of reality shows that the heat was probably an exothermic effect of NiO reduction. It's hard to let go of this delusion because of its hypnotic appeal. I'll relax and have a slice of pizza and wait to see if others can repeat the fusion experiment.

  • Some form of delusional grandeur when first witnessing the NiO/FiberFrax meltdown and thinking that this must have been like the caveman striking flint to produce fire, with the added implication that this effect dwarfs the usefulness of fire. Now the cold light of reality shows that the heat was probably an exothermic effect of NiO reduction. It's hard to let go of this delusion because of its hypnotic appeal. I'll relax and have a slice of pizza and wait to see if others can repeat the fusion experiment.


    It will take awhile, but a preliminary trial would not be difficult. Please lay out any facts you may recall about the lead up to the meltdown.


    How was the heating done? (furnace, muffle furnace, nichrome, gas flame)


    Here is what I currently recall, interspersed with other questions:


    NiO ceramic ball milled for at least a week, and more likely months. What was the ceramic-- SiC? I imagine nano-particles of that may incorporate into the NiO.


    Size, small enough to colloidally suspend in amyl acetate / acetone.


    Binder used methyl acrylate (methyl methacrylate plastic? dissolved in the solvents above. Another read on it was that the binder
    was nitrocellulose (?).


    Fiberfrax pre-fired in a vacuum oven at 1000 C for some time (how long?)


    Fiberfrax then fired in hydrogen (at 1000 C? Also how long?)


    Then Fiberfrax infused with the colloidal NiO (was the excess drained off or vacuum suctioned away?)


    I suppose next was a sort of pre-firing to burn off the binder and incorporate the NiO into the ceramic fiber surfaces.


    Then back with full hydrogen--- but I recall that it might not have been at atmospheric pressure? And I guess that is where the runaway occurred?

    • Official Post

    For a rough calculation:


    1401C = 1624K
    the total (entered by profs) / band emissivity is 0.4/0.9 => the real temp is 449C if Rayleigh-Jeans applies


    This is the key point where we disagree.


    Maybe there is a computation error, but I have integrated the Plank law (not sure the name, but that is energy density by wavelength) over the 7.5-13µm bandwidth (flat, but I've seen shape does not change much),


    and this led to a nearly linear/affine function of temperature.
    EDIT: after checking this formula is made to be integrated over lambda, so my morning correction is unjustified...





    sigBolometer=~ k . (Temp-218C) . emissivity


    the Optris could roughly estimate temp that way


    Temp ~= sigBolometer/k/emissivity + 218C


    anyway, having to guess how a bolometer react is a pity.


    EDIT: I've added my quick spreadsheet that integrate planck law over 7.5-13µm
    Maybe I screw up


    The key question is if the irradiance I compute have the good relative shape depending on temperature and wavelength (absolute value is not interesting).
    It seems the integration details are not essential.


    the kind of error could be to have mixed units in the exponential e(a/lambda.T)-1, or to have made a typo in the formulas.


    only two question are important :
    - is bolometer response nearly affine to temperature
    - is the affine constante about 220C+/-10C


    if refuted, my position is broke.


  • We agree about that. The nearly linear relationship is because at this wavelength much higher than peak Planck approximates to Rayleigh-Jeans. Integrating over a band does not change this linear relationship.

  • Dear Thomas,
    I am taking the parts of your code and reproduce bit by bit the steps towards the evaluation of the real temperature of the Hot Cat experiment. I am VEEEERY slow and haven’t finished yet because I do not have much time for these things.


    I did a series of changes to the code that do not modify the message you gave. The results so far agree with what you say. In fact the result is that the correct temperature in the second part of the Lugano experiment (using the data of the Lugano report, the spectral emissivity of Alumina and the bolometer sensitivity) was not 1,400 [C], but around 780 [C].
    What I did so far to you original code was:

    • improving a bit the input data (I digitized the graphs),
    • added precision to the constants (not needed, but anyway …),
    • limit the highest frequency of the camera band to 13 instead of 14 microns,
    • “corrected” the planck function by eliminating the 1E6 multiplier for the wavelength (the input wavelengths are in meters and the planck() function converts to micrometers); this does not change the result.
    • modified the integration to the trapezoidal rule,
    • add the possibility to modify the angle of the ridges,
    • remove all sensitivity parameters for simplicity,
    • modified the function fun_to_pts() to include the extreme point ( delta=(b-a)/float(NUM_PTS-1) ).


    I haven’t reached the estimation of the actual COP yet. But definitely the temperature of the alumina in the Lugano report was wrong and largely overestimated.

  • Dear Thomas,
    I am taking the parts of your code and reproduce bit by bit the steps towards the evaluation of the real temperature of the Hot Cat experiment. I am VEEEERY slow and haven’t finished yet because I do not have much time for these things.


    I did a series of changes to the code that do not modify the message you gave. The results so far agree with what you say. In fact the result is that the correct temperature in the second part of the Lugano experiment (using the data of the Lugano report, the spectral emissivity of Alumina and the bolometer sensitivity) was not 1,400 [C], but around 780 [C].
    What I did so far to you original code was:

    • improving a bit the input data (I digitized the graphs),
    • added precision to the constants (not needed, but anyway …),
    • limit the highest frequency of the camera band to 13 instead of 14 microns,
    • “corrected” the planck function by eliminating the 1E6 multiplier for the wavelength (the input wavelengths are in meters and the planck() function converts to micrometers); this does not change the result.
    • modified the integration to the trapezoidal rule,
    • add the possibility to modify the angle of the ridges,
    • remove all sensitivity parameters for simplicity,
    • modified the function fun_to_pts() to include the extreme point ( delta=(b-a)/float(NUM_PTS-1) ).


    I haven’t reached the estimation of the actual COP yet. But definitely the temperature of the alumina in the Lugano report was wrong and largely overestimated.


    That sounds fine.


    One note about the 1e6. I added it to keep all numbers within valid floating point range. So if you remove it (it cancels) be careful with this!


    One thing you see with this is that there are lots of slight approximations etc but they make no difference to the results! It is useful to play with the code to get a feel for this.


    Tom

  • I sent them the paper 4 weeks ago - and received no reply.


    I don't think bombarding them with e-ms will help if they don't want to respond.


    It won't register much with people at ECW since this report is not allowed there.


    Just a thought Thomas, Henry & those who still doubt? Jim The lady has visited us many times & we have many more test in the future to examine what she looks like & responds too, be patient fellows & don't anger needlessly, Huh? THINK

  • Thomas,
    do you mind if I comment about your findings to Andrea Rossi on the JoNP?
    I would try to put thinks as simple as possible making a summary of the origin of the mistake and ask for comments. Rossi will surely say he can not comment, but probably many will react and consider the "emissivity mistake". Intellectually honest people will consider it.
    Andrea

  • Thomas,
    do you mind if I comment about your findings to Andrea Rossi on the JoNP?
    I would try to put thinks as simple as possible making a summary of the origin of the mistake and ask for comments. Rossi will surely say he can not comment, but probably many will react and consider the "emissivity mistake". Intellectually honest people will consider it.
    Andrea


    Not at all, you can reference the paper from lenr-canr:


    http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1589


    But - I don't expect a helpful result.


    You should perhaps note that Bob Higgins first noted this mistake - but did not fully evaluate its consequences. The key convincing thing is that the correct equations show constant COP to within 1% between the 800 & 900W tests, showing the "acceleration" to be an artifact.