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
Believers of JoNP are courtiers.
Intellectually honest people do not live in that Blog or ECW.
Quote from JarovnakThomas what think you of dual element inline current test data with fuel & un-fueled powered in series where COP estimate is only Temp difference? Eliminates calibration error on IR or TC data more or less - still LENR present, No?
You can see in the amount of work in this Lugano recalculation that considering the significance of an experiment takes effort and details. In the case you describe any difference between fuelled and unfuelled halves could cause an artifact, so you'd need to look carefully at the results to rule all such out before thinking there was an anomaly, let alone and LENR anomaly.
Differences:
differing core thermal characteristics due to fuel
differing winding characteristics altering radiation or convection
different position or close objects resulting in altered radiation or convection
different end fastening resulting in different conduction
slightly different TC position resulting in anomaly from thermal gradient
The problem is that none of these effects can be ruled out as causing difference without care. Of course, a lot depends on the magnitude of the claimed discrepancy. Large differences would most likely come from TC position issues. As always, details matter.
I'm all for thinking - there tends to be too little of this in evaluating tests.
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
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
Think about what?
"She visited us...", what???
After 5 years again same song... wait for another soap, fiction or hoax, up to now it looks like just chatter here.
Dear Thomas,
I am revisiting the Lugano report and I stumbled upon a doubt:
In Fig. 7 of the report the comparison with the emissivity of a known target (rutile on Kapton film) gives the correct temperature, when using an alumina emissivity, I believe, of 0.71 (the value is not precisely stated ...). Since the equivalent emissivity of alumina at this temperature is about 0.882, the temperature of the rutile target and alumina should not give precisely the same temperature.
How would you explain the remarkable match (235 vs 237.5 [C])?
Dear Thomas,
I am revisiting the Lugano report and I stumbled upon a doubt:
In Fig. 7 of the report the comparison with the emissivity of a known target (rutile on Kapton film) gives the correct temperature, when using an alumina emissivity, I believe, of 0.71 (the value is not precisely stated ...). Since the equivalent emissivity of alumina at this temperature is about 0.882, the temperature of the rutile target and alumina should not give precisely the same temperature.
How would you explain the remarkable match (235 vs 237.5 [C])?
I don't explain this, nor do I need to! If they have anomalies in their measurements of this sort that is something only they can resolve.
It is surprisingly easy, when looking for validation (in this case that temperature readings are OK) to make mistakes that generate it. When you get an "error" you double-check everything or redo the measurement. If mistakes are possible they can be ignored when the "right" result is reached. Note that this temperature is so far from the active temperatures that if it were correct, it would not provide any validation for them.
I would note that the rutile patch is mounted on the high temperature side of a thermal gradient compared with the reference patch, which would perhaps explain the readings. Strange not to choose a reference an equal distance from the reactor to the dot.
I would wonder what were the characteristics of this reference patch at 250C. (I can't find data on it).
I realise that is not an explanation, and it would be presumptuous for me to give one, there is not enough data.
There are possible errors in equiv emissivity, since it does depends on the precise alumina characteristics, but I don't think that is enough for this, though as always I could not rule that out. The expected discrepancy here is around +20C. We then have a known difference of +2.5C +?C (for the temperature gradient).
I wonder also who did the patch calibration.
I find it amazing, how Thomas Clarke has such enduring patience to post with the voice of reason. Equally amazing is, how little that reason affects the acolytes of the great LENR. I still hope it does help others to understand what a ridiculous affair this new rising of cold fusion really is.
Dear Thomas,
today I wrote a long post to the JoNP explaining the emissivity mistake in the Lugano report, calling for comments.
The comment didn't get published, while more recent comments were and Rossi replied to them.
I will wait tomorrow, if nothing appears I will post here my long comment.
Dear Thomas,
Andrea Rossi so far did not publish my comment, nor answered to a direct e-mail with the text attached. Consider that so far he had answered to all my previous e-mails and published all my comments.
But I guess it is worse than that ...
Andrea Rossi, after receiving my e-mail, commented yesterday to Franco Occhipinti:
"I think Umberto Eco is right. I have seen persons that, as you write, have no education at all in any matter polemize with Professors and teach to them how a measurement has to be done, not to mention the clownesque theories that deal with elementary particles as if they were balls of a pin-ball. I have seen persons without elementary mathematical bases polemize with a Nobel Prize laureate, lecturing him in a matter for which he got the Nobel Prize; internet has been a very important revolution, with enormous positive consequences, but this is a negative “counterindication”: the fact that an imbecile, without studying, let alone working, can write stupidities on a matter that most of the readers do not know and consequently make for himself a qualification of expert of that matter, polemizing with Professors even if he knows absolutely nothing of that matter. LENR, with their appearent simplicity, attract many of these clowns. The best thing to do is just ignore them, also because they count nothing, tactically and strategically."
Well I can say that I agree about the presence of many people who criticize about anything ... without knowing what they do ... yes, I experienced that too, even recently ...
But I suspect that among Bob Higgins, you and me there could be someone who is trying to teach Professors (capital letter!) how a measurement has to be done! However let me steal the show for a brief moment because the one with "clownesque theories" about particles could only be me! Hehehe. May be together with Norman Cook and Valerio Dallacasa.
I don't know about you, but in my case I had many IR camera measurements done for me, that I carefully evaluated for the validation and the calibration of industrial numerical models of objects that reach temperature above 1,200 [C] and the thermal history of which depends critically on radiation. In my work I examined many issues like vapour interposition, emissivity, reflections, and so on. And I was at INRIM in Tourin for IR measurement issues on oxides. Similar subject, possible inhomogeneous spectral emissivities. In my work I deal all the time with real and numerically simulated objects that heat up well above 1000 [C], in some cases with speeds of thousands degrees per second. I know quite well how a hot surface looks like.
So if Rossi says: “ ...an imbecile, without studying, let alone working, can write stupidities on a matter that most of the readers do not know and consequently make for himself a qualification of expert of that matter, polemizing with Professors even if he knows absolutely nothing of that matter” and is thinking about me, … well, he is quite wrong. But may be I am too egocentric … hahaha.
In this specific case I would not be surprised to have more experience than some of the Professors of the Lugano test.
And let me comment about the authority of someone with capital letter: Professor. If you argument that you need a Professor to be sure of the correctness of a procedure it means you do not master the subject yourself. I won’t add details of what I know for sure … Pordenone … radiation ...I will just smile alone …
Let us see what happens.
Andrea Calaon
Dear Thomas and readers,
here is the text of my unpublished comment for the JoNP.
If you see mistakes, please tell me.
QuoteDisplay More
Dear Andrea Rossi, dear JoNP readers,
this time I would like to draw your and the JoNP readers’ attention to the recent work of Thomas Clark, who examined very carefully the the radiation measurement in the Lugano report. His work is in form of an article accompanied by the python code he used to perform all numerical staff, and can be found on LENR-CANR.org:
lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=1589
Actually his work is a sort of completion of what Bob Higgins had done about the radiation measurement, and which was published on E-Cat World:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2015…o-e-cat-test-bob-higgins/
One of the conclusions of Thomas Clarke is that the temperature of 1400 [C] of the reactor surface (of the Lugano report) was wrong and largely overestimated. I have redone myself part of the calculations of Higgins and Clarke and I confirm this. The correct temperature should be less than 800 [C], something around 780 [C]. The numbers are robust and it is not a matter of a slight change in a curve or a rounding error … All necessary data come from “official” sources, and even the ridges on the alumina surface were taken into consideration; and this is something that is missing in the Lugano report.
I will try to repeat here qualitatively the argument and make it as simple and intuitive as possible, so that everyone can understand.
Any body radiates power through its surface (and receives radiated power as well). Almost all radiated power, for the temperature range between 20 to 1,500 [C], has a wavelength that lies between 1 and 25 micrometers.
The infrared camera Optris PI 160 used in the Lugano test (as any infrared camera) can instead measure power only in a limited range of wavelengths: In this case between 7.5 and 13 micrometers.
Now I add a fact of physics: for any surface, as temperature increases, the majority of the thermal power gets emitted in a range that moves towards lower wavelengths. Let us make an example: At 50 [C] the ideal emitter radiates the majority of the thermal power around a wavelength of 9 micrometers, inside the camera range. While at 1,000 [C] the ideal emitter radiates the majority of the power in a range around 2 micrometres, therefore far off the camera range. Of course some small part of the thermal power will in this latter case still be emitted in the camera range, but it will be a small portion of the total power.
Another ingredient is that there is an upper limit to the power that a surface can radiate, and this limit depends solely on the temperature. The hypothetical surface that emits the maximum possible power is commonly called “black surface”, and is what I called “ideal emitter” in the previous paragraph.
Real surfaces are not “black” and we need a number that says which percentage of the maximum theoretical value the body really emits. Emissivity is precisely this percentage. Emissivity (this is the spectral emissivity) depends on wavelength because the percentage changes at different wavelengths. However, to make things practical, what everyone uses are equivalent emissivities, which are AVERAGES of the emissivity over a given wavelength range or most often over the whole thermal range. The so called “weight” used for averaging is the power of the ideal emitter at each wavelength. In this way it becomes easy to know how much a body is radiating in any wavelength range. It will be the black surface power multiplied by the equivalent emissivity. It is however important to know the wavelength range corresponding to the equivalent emissivity we use.
Now let us go back to the present case:
In the range seen by the Optris PI 160 alumina happens to emit very well, with an equivalent band emissivity (average over the restricted wavelength range) that is near to 0.9. The precise curve is shown on Figure 8 on page 3 of Bob Higgins’ article.
Instead the value of the equivalent TOTAL emissivity of alumina (average over the WHOLE thermal wavelength range) goes down towards 0.4 for temperatures approaching 1,400 [C]. Plot 1 (page 9) of the Lugano report shows the values of this total equivalent emissivity. Bob Higgins calculates the same total equivalent emissivity from other sources and comes up with the curve on Figure 10 of his article. The two graphs are not too different, confirming the substantial correctness of the numbers in the works of Higgins and Clarke.
The decrease of the total emissivity of alumina at high temperatures is due to the fact that the wavelength dependent emissivity (or spectral emissivity) of alumina decreases to very low values for low wavelengths (see Figure 4 of Higgins’ article). Since higher temperatures mean an averaging weight that moves towards lower wavelengths, when temperature increases the total average emissivity decreases.
At this point we have all the elements to understand the important mistake pointed out by Thomas Clarke in the methodology adopted for the estimation of the radiated power in the Lugano report.
The emissivity values that were input in the camera software at each temperature were values of equivalent TOTAL emissivity, i.e. the average over the whole thermal range (1 to 25 micrometers), shown graphically on Plot 1. However the camera was measuring only the portion of the power emitted in its measuring range. The correct emissivity that should have been input in the camera software is instead that on Figure 8 on page 3 of Higgin’s article. Since this curve is always higher than the total emissivity used, the temperature that the camera software declared were always overestimations of the real temperature.
While the difference between the two emissivities is minimum in the temperature range between 300 and 400 [C] , it grows to its maximum at 1,400 [C]. At this high temperature the correct emissivity that should have been used is 0.902, while the used values was 0.39.
Thomas Clarke (and I independently replicated it) estimated that real temperature of the alumina when the camera was saying 1,400 [C], should have been around 780 [C].
I would add a qualitative comment about the images of the alumina of figure 12a of the Lugano report. Despite the fact that digital cameras can give different colours depending on many conditions and filters adopted, the colours of this image match much better 780 [C] than 1,400 [C]. In fact at 1,400 [C] alumina should be blinding as an old fashioned tungsten light bulb, more similar to the pictures of the replications attempts, which did not even reach 1,250 [C]! No to mention that at 1,400 [C] alumina becomes progressively more transparent and it should let through some infrared radiation coming from the even hotter resistance beneath it.
In his article Thomas Clarke goes on and estimates the COP coming from an alumina rod at 780 [C]. The number is only slightly higher than 1. I will try to replicate this part of his work too.
I hope someone else will check what Thomas Clarke said.
I hope also that the authors of the Lugano report will comment on this, which is anyway a fundamental point for their further work with their own reactor.
Andrea Calaon
From that estimated temperature, it is time to reevaluate emitted energy, at 450W and 800-900W.
There is a sure reduction of COP but question is if it is about 1, or clearly above.
Other point raised by some people is that surface roughness and fins may change the effective emissivity. (does it?)
Another is that transmissivity for short wavelength is noticeable in the official emissivity, but in our case, since the inner core is metallic, opaque, and darker and hotter, the radiated energy in low wavelength may in fact be higher than the one estimated from average theoretical emissivity and surface temperature...
I cannot be sure myself, but maybe you can tell us what is possibly happening ?
the lesson is that full range calibration was required.
Anyone want to make a bet on whether or not Rossi lets this see the light of day on his JONP blog? And in the unlikely possibility that he does, what his reaction will be? Will it be CLOWN or SNAKE?! 
@Alain: It doesn't matter. It was the wrong experiment done the wrong way without adequate controls, input power monitoring, blanks and surface temperature measurements with thermocouples. It was a horribly badly done experiment which discredits the scientists who permitted it to proceed with their names on that report. You're correct (for once) about full range calibration but notice that in all the years he's been showing the ecat, Rossi has NEVER permitted that-- not even ONCE. Why do you think that is?
Alain, I would guess the evaluation of Thomas is correct. When I will have time I will try to go through it.
Thomas explained that ridges can cause an apparent higher emissivity, it is true. With ridges the surface not only emits, but it also reflects part of the emission coming form the opposite side of the ridges. The view for the whole surface is F. Moreover the radiation coming from the face in front is in part coming from the reflection of the emission of the first surface itself, and so on ... this is the reason for the series. You see from the formula of the effective emissivity that if the ridge angle goes to 0, the view factor F grows towards 1, and the effective emissivity epsilon' grows towards 1, no matter what epsilon was. In fact with low ridges angles the spaces in side the ridges becomes more and more similar to a cavity, i.e. a black body. This is the reason why beach sand gets so hot in summer: it is full of cavities that trap all incident radiation. For moderate angles the effect is stronger for intermediate emissivities. Near 1 there is no significant change anyway.
In the camera range alumina is never transparent so 780 [C] is not too wrong. At 780 [C] alumina is NOT transparent so the transparency argument is not valid. It it WERE at 1,400 you would benefit from high emissivity of the underlying surfaces.
ok, transparency won't change the result.
note that if ridge increase emissivity of the IR measured by the cam, it also increase the emissivity used to compute the output...
in my rough computations, I join your result on temperature (I'm even more pessimistic with a peak at 750C) , but it also have impact on the 450W baseline, and on the output sensitivity
if you integrate emissivity error on both side of the balance, something real remain, which may explain the transmutations.
It appear if you simply compare the input power change with temperature change...
only excuse to reach COP=1 is to have a lower emissivity than assumed already, which is not coherent with the initial hypothesis and corrections.
QuoteDisplay More
quickly computin
with 1450C estimated, if emissivity in the 7.5-13µm is not 0.4 but 0.9 (x2.25 more) then temp is 744C 1017K. e~0.53. T^4 ~ 1.07e12 -> p~.57
with 1250C estimated, if emissivity in the 7.5-13µm is not 0.4 but 0.9 then temp is 675C 948K.e~0.57. T^4 0.81e12 -> p~0.46
the ratio of power is 1.23, while for electricity it is +12% from 800 to 900W
during the calibration at 450W if emissivity was 0.9 instead of 0.7 , temperature would be 400C 673K. e~0.75. T^4 ~ 0.205e12 -> p~.15
compared to 900W the change in eT^4 power is x3.7, while power in x2
compared to 800W the change in eT^4 power is x3.06 while power is x1.72
there is many things to account :
- first change the calibration temperature with the same algorithm. here this decrease calibration temp by 50C
- estimate change in power between the various stable states and compare with electric power.
- intégrate convection (I did not do that her...)
- integrate temperature difference on the body (I did not do)
with that simplified computation there are incoherence that appear :
- the change from 450W to 900W seems to cause x3.7 instead of x2 power increase, from 400 to 745C, implying a COP of 1.85
- the change from 450W to 800W seems to cause x3.06 instead of x1.72 power increase, from 400 to 675C, implying a COP of 1.71
- the change from 800 to 900W seems to cause 23% increase instead of 13% with a 70C change in temperature from 675 to 745C
another source of question is that calibration looked correct at low temperature, which seems incoherent with initial hypothesis (why emissivity would increase with temperature from 400 to 800C).
Alain, I would guess the evaluation of Thomas is correct. When I will have time I will try to go through it.
Thomas explained that ridges can cause an apparent higher emissivity, it is true. With ridges the surface not only emits, but it also reflects part of the emission coming form the opposite side of the ridges. The view for the whole surface is F. Moreover the radiation coming from the face in front is in part coming from the reflection of the emission of the first surface itself, and so on ... this is the reason for the series. You see from the formula of the effective emissivity that if the ridge angle goes to 0, the view factor F grows towards 1, and the effective emissivity epsilon' grows towards 1, no matter what epsilon was. In fact with low ridges angles the spaces in side the ridges becomes more and more similar to a cavity, i.e. a black body. This is the reason why beach sand gets so hot in summer: it is full of cavities that trap all incident radiation. For moderate angles the effect is stronger for intermediate emissivities. Near 1 there is no significant change anyway.
In the camera range alumina is never transparent so 780 [C] is not too wrong. At 780 [C] alumina is NOT transparent so the transparency argument is not valid. It it WERE at 1,400 you would benefit from high emissivity of the underlying surfaces.
Andrea - it is good to get some informed evaluation of my work, especially because I am an amateur - in the sense that I've never myself done IR thermography - on the other hand i've done quite a wide range of physics and engineering.
The power calculation from temperature is certainly, as Alain says, much less certain. Where I'd disagree with him is taking uncertainty as an indication of excess heat. If that were true any badly designed experiment could show LENR!
A few points about power. The Profs calculate radiation and convection based on a simple geometric model and a few ideal equations. I think it works well (with the ridge correction) for radiation. I'm less sure about convection - I don't know enough to validate the Prof's equations which in any case are approximate. Luckily, for the active results, convection is a small part of teh whole so errors in this don't much matter.
Finally, the calculation is imprecise because it should be done separately for each area element using a different temperature. I am using average approximations with some (gross) approximations for the rods, which vary in temperature. My work is less accurate here than that of the Profs because I do not have the source data. So there is an error from this (+/- 10%?). Also an error from unknown emissivity, and from possible transparency (+/- 20%?)
That is why I note high total errors in my paper. This is not a good way to measure heat output!
Where i expect I'll disagree with some is that when a Rossi device tests with heat output as expected for COP=1, but with large errors in measurement possible, I would not jump to the conclusion that it actually had a COP of 1.5 - even though this is not ruled out by the temperature measurements.
another source of question is that calibration looked correct at low temperature, which seems incoherent with initial hypothesis (why emissivity would increase with temperature from 400 to 800C).
This was a relatively small error (approx 17.5C), and could maybe be accounted for by the thermal gradient clearly visible in the photo, or a mistake in the quoted emissivity (I have no data on this), or an error in convection (which I cannot easily check, but which is not very significant in the high temperature tests). In any case inconsistent results are not a reason to expect extraordinary evidence of LENR - rather they are a case to suspect that the testers have not got a solidly worked out testing regime.
I suppose if you a priori believe that Rossi has working devices, arguing now that the Lugano tests are essentially null because they are badly conducted is your best bet to maintain your initial assumption. Given these were undoubtedly the best and most independent of Rossi's tests it is not a good bet.
Display More
note that if ridge increase emissivity of the IR measured by the cam, it also increase the emissivity used to compute the output...
in my rough computations, I join your result on temperature (I'm even more pessimistic with a peak at 750C) , but it also have impact on the 450W baseline, and on the output sensitivity
if you integrate emissivity error on both side of the balance, something real remain, which may explain the transmutations.
It appear if you simply compare the input power change with temperature change...
only excuse to reach COP=1 is to have a lower emissivity than assumed already, which is not coherent with the initial hypothesis and corrections.
If you claim the transmutation is partial (say 0.1% of total) then there is no heat excess to speak of. If you claim the transmutation what it appears - total - you need a power out 10X what a 50% error here could give. Obviously too large. So either way COP 1.5 or COP 1 makes no difference explaining the transmutation.
My code used the ridge correction on all the emissivities. In any case the known errors here are quite large, so I don't understand this comment.
few point .
First I agree that the report calorimetry does not allow to be sure of a positive result, but- i add it does not even allow to say it is negative.
The steps in power from 800 to 900W are even more convincing that the COP is above 1...
about the isotopic shift, it is a sampling and saying that this precise sample is the only part that is transmuted is claiming a statistic miracle.
It is very common when opposing LENR evidence to claim never observed or improbable process, super chemistry, super heat transfer anomalies, but here it is quite above average.
even few transmutation, observed at this purity, is the sign of a nuclear phenomenon.
Fractionation here, at this purity is a major discovery that was never made before. This would interest nuclear industry, and isotopes selling companies.
This is to compare to long list of LENR evidence that show transmutations of heavy nucleus, and I prefer to bet on a variation of a known phenomenon than on a never observed phenomenon of intense surface fractionation, that strangely does not interest any specialist of isotopic sorting.
the isotopic shift may however be caused by a tiny reaction that may cause a COP around 1, a bit like the dark trace of burning of wood when failing to start a barbecue with matches. This mean that wood can burn, but not that you started the fire.
let us be serious and criticize the bad calibration, and the questionable theoretical assumptions that you report very well.
the isotopic shift may however be caused by a tiny reaction that may cause a COP around 1, a bit like the dark trace of burning of wood when failing to start a barbecue with matches. This mean that wood can burn, but not that you started the fire.
Alain, the isotopic shifts, if true, must have generated the energies everyone can calculate from the mass differences, not less. The sample could be not representative.
So if the isotopic shifts took place, a certain energy was released, which, divided by the time of the experiment would be a certain minimum constant power. The nuclear energy that one would calculate is already in excess of the measured heat, that declared in teh report with the probably overestimated temperatures. I do not have a solution for this puzzle.
One science fiction possibility would be that most of the nuclear energy exited the device not as heat through IR. Since it was not gamma, neutrons, protons or alphas, it would be somehow scary.
I don't know what to say.
