IR measurements

  • My experience is that temperature measurement from both IR and TC was pretty equal with nearly no difference along whole temp. range.
    Maybe my IR meter is using better algorithms as it is constructed for 2200°C.


    I will do more tests regarding this issue.

    • Official Post

    @me356
    so you say that your IR cam don't need much emissivity adjustment ?


    I know that some pyrometer do that using multiple bandwidth and estimating the variations of emissivity... but Lugano IR can seems to be dumb bolometers... anyway today with processors many things become smart... ;(


    From your experience is reasonable to doubt that the Lugano IR cam was fooled by emissivity error? ?(


    in that case it is Lugano corrections of IR cam measurements that would be causing errors :S in opposite direction ? :crazy:


    that would explain Rossi calling us fool for doubting on the calorimetry.

  • My pyrometer does not needed any emmisivity adjustment during the test. It was just configured for ε of the material.


    I think that if you wish, you can fake nearly anything.
    You only need to know what should be fooled and how this thing is working.
    If you know what devices will be used for the measurement, it is then pretty easy.


    But we have to consider all the tests that were done from 2011. Not just the latest one. There were scientists with their own measurement tools, etc. Conclusion was always, that it just work.


    I believe that there was no fake. There were few tests and demonstrations with LT e-cat and hot-cats. Lot of different setups..
    I think that scientists that watched e-cat checked everything. Nobody was able to find some kind of cheat.


    If so, then Rossi risked incredibly. All in all, there are some characteristics that can't be fooled. For example LENR occurance. I am sure that in the data they have, it must be very visible when LENR started.
    It can't be something linear.


    It is hard to say when we were not there in time of these tests. But those that were are clearly convinced. I do not believe that for example Focardi risks his credibility and worked on some scam together with Rossi.
    Also I dont believe that somebody like G. Levi is not clever enough to distinguish some kind of fake.
    He was present probably in all tests from 2010 and even today, he can't find one reason why it is fake.


    If this is fake, then Rossi constructed good chemical battery and excess heat is just overestimated and all scientists failed totally there.


  • As always, the devil lies in the detail.


    "emissivity" is just not one number for alumina at high temps. Which number you use depends on how you are measuring it.


    A high temp IR cam will use higher frequencies, at which the band emissivity is closer to the total emissivity, but still not the same. If you use emissivity (temperature dependent) as quoted by your IR camera manufacturer for alumina all will be quite good. If you use any material that behaves like a grey body all will be good. If you calibrate the thermometer at the temperature you are using all will be good.


    Some IR thermometers use dual frequency measurement that can work out emissivity and temperature assuming grey body. If both the bands used are in the transparent band of the alumina you will be getting the temperature of whatever underlying material is absorbent (heater coil? metal tube?) and that will be accurate if it is a grey body.


    I guess we'd need more info about exact instrument and how you were using it to say more.

  • OK


    So the GSVIT/MFMP link referenced is
    https://gsvit.wordpress.com/20…-by-means-of-ir-camera-2/


    Which I believe I referenced in my paper. My understanding of this is that they clearly established that the Lugano Prof's methodology was wrong, illustrating this with some examples. However they do NOT calculate what would be the actual alumina temperature to give the claimed results from the Profs, as I do. The factor of 2 is not, as I understand it, the difference between the Prof's calculated temperature and the correctly calculated temperature from the IR measurement.


    So while I agree with all that GSVIT say, and indeed find inspiration from their work, I don't think they establish precisely what the Lugano measurements, correctly interpreted, mean, or how hot would be the Lugano reactor given 900W input.


  • So this device is roughly the same as the Optris (slightly different sensor, maybe, but comparable).


    You can see the effect of entering the wrong emissivity on the apparent temperature by pointing it at a hot object - say 800C, and trying different entered e values


    For alumina the default value of 0.95 should be pretty accurate at all temperatures.