[Technical Thread] Brightness of the reactor glow in the Lugano pictures and reactor temperature

  • Hello all,


    I'm new to the forum but I noticed that it is hard to have a focused technical discussion when the topic involves Rossi's reactors.
    As I'm interested in discussing the brightness issue I asked the moderators for some help.
    They have kindly suggested the concept of "technical threads":


    LENR-Forum wrote:

    Consider this as "Technical thread".
    It starts with some assumptions and try to dig in some technical problems with bounded scope. Debate should be in the topic, and disagreement can be deep but should be kind and in-topic.


    Moderators will remove/move any off topic post, like those discussing of general question, conspiracies, off-topic theories, side questions... Any aggressive, repetitive, annoying comment too, not simply insults.


    For off-topic exchanges, a parallel [Debate Thread] will be created, with usual rules.
    See here:
    [Debate Thread] Brightness of the reactor glow in the Lugano pictures and reactor temperature


    Thus, for this first technical post, the subject is the use of the pictures of the glowing reactor included in the Lugano report to derive constraints on the reactor temperature.


    As we are all aware, the thermal camera measurements have been widely criticized for using the wrong emissivity. Bob Higgins suggests that the real temperatures were closer to 1130 C while Thomas Clarke gives re-calculated temperatures ranging from 713 to 779 C.


    The reactor appears in figure 2 where it doesn't seem to be glowing, although the heater wires within the insulating hollow alumina tubes are faintly glowing. In figures 12a and 12b it is clearly glowing.


    Unfortunately the lighting conditions of figures 2, 12a and 12b are all different.


    The illumination in figure 2 includes at least two point sources, as can be deduced from the shadows of the metal framing on the wall and of the tripod leg on the framing.


    Figure 12a, which is taken from almost the same point of view of figure 2, lacks any obvious point sources.


    Figure 12b appears to have been taken in the dark.


    Of course this is an ill-posed problem and a number of assumptions have to be made, and this is why discussion on a forum is likely to be helpful.


    I propose the following approach:


    - (1) Make assumptions about the spectral responsivity of the three camera channels (R, G, B)
    - (2) Estimate the radiance of different objects, based on reasonable assumptions on the illumination conditions and on the radiance of self-lit devices in the three bands
    - (3) Average the sensed intensities in the three channels from the images over objects for which the radiance is estimated, and over the reactor areas
    - (4) Deduce per-channel radiometric conversion coefficients for each image
    - (5) Use radiometric conversion coefficients to convert the sensed intensities over the reactor areas to radiances
    - (6) Calculate the predicted integrated reactor radiances for the three R, G and B channels at different reactor temperatures and emissivities
    - (7) Deduce the range of plausible temperatures.


    I have some results for (1) and have performed some work on (3) and (6), but it's work in progress. I think (2) is the most difficult and most error-prone part. Steps (5) and (7) should be routine.


    The goal is to obtain a plot like the following:



    (EDIT: V2 of the plot attached. Predictably, there was a silly mistake in the previous plot in the K→T conversion where I added instead of substracting, resulting in a large error.)


    The biggest problem with that plot is that the dashed reference line is quite arbitrary (in addition to possible calculation errors.)
    I have assumed that a 200 W blackbody 3300 K source illuminates a wall having a reflectivity of 0.7.


    Also, any auxiliary information such as the following will be welcome:


    - Information on the model of camera used for the Lugano report
    - Information on the spectral sensitivity and particularly the near-infrared sensitivity of various commercial cameras
    - Information on the room or its lighting
    - Information on the backlight radiance of the PCE-830s or the scale used in fig. 1


    Hopefully this thread will be a productive one and we'll settle this question; there is a chance that the outcome won't be indeterminate.

  • Reference:


    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1504/1504.01261.pdf
    On the Nuclear Mechanisms Underlying the Heat Production by the E-Cat
    Norman D. Cook1 and Andrea Rossi2


    and


    http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf
    Observation of abundant heat production from a reactor device and of isotopic changes in the fuel Giuseppe Levi


    Quote

    At the temperature of operation of the ECat used in the Lugano test, the Lithium contained in the LiAlH4 is vaporized, and consequently was distributed evenly within the volume of the E-Cat. In contrast, the Nickel fuel remained in a solid or liquid state. At the time of sampling after one month of operation, Nickel was found to be encrusted on the internal surface of the reactor, from which a 2 mg sample of “ash” was obtained near to the center of the charge. Starting with an initial charge of approximately 1 gram,


    The large amount of nickel as represented by particle one on page 45 of the Lugano report was completely melted. This indicates that the reactor's core reached a temperature of over 1450C since this nickel particle was very large at over 600 microns wide and an estimated 900 microns long. such a large amount of metal is not subject to the lowering of the melting point that is imposed by nanoscopic dimensions. As the micrograph of particle one clearly shows, particle one was completely resurfaced and the entire feedstock of 5 micron particles was reduced by melting into an aggregation of the totality of that nickel pooled in the center of the reactor's core. The temperature of the core of the Lugano reactor reached a temperature in excess of those readings produced by the Lugano optical temperature probes indicating that these optical probes were well calibrated to the determine the temperature of the central core of the Lugano reactor. quod erat demonstrandum


    As a confirming observation, the the Lithium contained in the LiAlH4 is vaporized indicating that the core of the reactor reached a temperature substantially above 1330C.

  • Attached is a useful picture provided by Eric Walker on the "Experimental evidence on Rossi devices" thread. It was a Facebook link, I have copied it to imgur for convenience (hope this is OK with Eric.)



    The description was:



    EDIT: Additionally, I found this document:
    http://www.image-engineering.d…uer_spectral_response.pdf


    It provides carefully measured spectral response curves for a number of different camera models, but not for the 560 UZ (although I came accross that document while searching for Olympus 560 UZ).


    Also, the 560 UZ is an older camera (from about 2007) that has a CCD sensor according to http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olympussp560uz
    The Lugano images seem to have been taken with a compact handheld (based on the reflection of the photographer's hand in the PCE-830 screen) and it may therefore have a CMOS sensor (as is also suggested by the fixed pattern noise in the blue channel of the "dark" reactor picture.)

  • @Antoine10FF


    In the "Experimental evidence on Rossi devices" thread example above, how is the shadow effect of the heater coils shown in figure 12a and 12b in the Lugano report produced? I do not see coil shadow depicted. Such simulation might be done by using a tungsten rod heater inside the coil to simulates the hot opaque core. Such a configuration properly displays the solid black body heat generating properties of a solid emitting black body that the reactor core would produce. From the Cook report, we know that the core of the Lugano reactor was cemented into a solid aggregation of the fuel. The solid core of the reactor has no transparent emissivity issues associated with alumina. This blackbody radiation behavior does not change between a complete solid filling the core or a tube like coating forming on the inside of the core's surface.

  • @Antoine10FF


    In the "Experimental evidence on Rossi devices" thread example above, how is the shadow effect of the heater coils shown in figure 12a and 12b in the Lugano report produced? I do not see coil shadow depicted. Such simulation might be done by using a tungsten rod heater inside the coil to simulates the hot opaque core. Such a configuration properly displays the solid black body heat generating properties of a solid emitting black body that the reactor core would produce. From the Cook report, we know that the core of the Lugano reactor was cemented into a solid aggregation of the fuel. The solid core of the reactor has no transparent emissivity issues associated with alumina. This blackbody radiation behavior does not change between a complete solid filling the core or a tube like coating forming on the inside of the core's surface.


    Hi Axil,


    Those plots make the simplistic assumption that all we have is a glowing blackbody of unit emissivity. Thus there is nothing about coil shadows.
    This would be valid if the whole reactor core was glowing as a grey body at the reported temperatures.


    I like your suggestion of having a blackbody inside an alumina tube. I have no facilities to perform such experiments myself, however I can set up a better model. And, for that, the information you provide on the reactor structure is much appreciated.


    Do you think you can correct or complete the diagram below of the reactor?



    I also found some data about alumina's spectral emissivity in the visible region at different temperatures, and it looks like the visible emissivity increases with temperature. This will also have to be taken into account.


    http://web.archive.org/web/200…logies/pdf/1999crd128.pdf


    Is anyone able to quickly set up a radiative transfer simulation based on the geometry and the alumina emissivity? If not I may attempt to kludge something myself.

  • I looked up the dimensions of a commercially available alumina tube closest to the 2 cm alumina tube used in the Rossi reactor. It was in millimeters 19.05OD x 14.30ID. The Lugano reactor was also covered with alumina heat fines and pure alumina cement which complicates things.


    See


    http://www.sifferkoll.se/siffe…10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf


    The temperature of the surface of the reactor refected the temperature of the heater wire more than the core of the reactor. The wire cast a shadow from the light produced by the core so the core was hotter than the heater wire. If the surface was just 750C approximately as some have calculated, then the heater wire was also in that range because the heater wire was near the surface of the reactor. The heat from the heater must get through the heat radiators which dissipates the heat from the heater coil and the outside of the alumina tube. But we know that the core was at or over 1450C becuase large amount of the nickel melted and the lithium vaporized. Therefore, the excess energy produced is increased proportionally to the lower measurement of the surface temperature of the reactor because the heater wire was closer to the surface then was the core.


    Excess energy produced is proportional the the delta between 1450C that we know existed in the core and the temperature of the reactor surface. The lower the temperature of the reactor surface was, then the greater was the COP.

  • @axil


    I suspect this has been mentioned before: a binary or ternary alloy does not have the melting point of its constituents, nor is the actual alloyed melting point a simple intermediate value. Eutectic and other variations from simple expectation are seen. Further boiling points are not necessarily as simple as might be imagined. Binary and ternary azeotrope behavior once again emphasizes further differences, including those in condensed matter and gas phase interaction.

  • Focussing on what we do and don't know:


    (1) We know, if the data taken by the profs is correct, and the input power is not spoofed, that the akumina surface temperature is as I calculated. Bob's work was before mine and you can, comparing the two, see what he got right and what he left out.


    (2) We don't know what is the power out (except that it is 100% compatible with the expected COP=1) because of alumina translucency introducing some uncertainty. This is not possible to calculate (for example the emissivity of Inconel wires could be almost anything according to surface state).


    (3) Inasfar as the direct radiation from the wires goes, they will be hotter than the alumina surface. This can be calculated if you know the inner/outer radius of the enclosing alumina surface, the thermal resistance of alumina, and the power flux. Given the wires are quite close to the surface it is not going to be more than 50C I'd reckon. I'm not motivated to dredge up the figures and do it again - but could if anyone thinks it important.


    (4} As Longview points out the temperature cannot be deduced from the Ni having sintered:
    (a) There can be intense local transient heating from the various chemical reactions
    (b) The Ni is not pure but mixed, and eutectics often have lower MPs than pure metals



    For me, there are too many unknowns here to deduce much.

  • @axil


    I suspect this has been mentioned before: a binary or ternary alloy does not have the melting point of its constituents, nor is the actual alloyed melting point a simple intermediate value. Eutectic and other variations from simple expectation are seen. Further boiling points are not necessarily as simple as might be imagined. Binary and ternary azeotrope behavior once again emphasizes further differences, including those in condensed matter and gas phase interaction.


    The nickel in the particle was assayed to be comprised of very pure nickel isotope Ni62. See the appendices in the Lugano report.


  • Axil, how can you believe this? Look at the few centimeters of the heating wires that are sticking out from the dogbone end caps. They are producing an intense heat glowing like incandescent lamps. They produce the same heat per length unit inside the dogbone but there they are in a more compact spiral configuration. But you believe that they appear as shadows. Just because the stupid Lugano report said so or what?


    I see the shadows of the wires with my own eyes in figures 12A and 12B of the Lugano report.

  • (4} As Longview points out the temperature cannot be deduced from the Ni having sintered:
    (a) There can be intense local transient heating from the various chemical reactions
    (b) The Ni is not pure but mixed, and eutectics often have lower MPs than pure metals



    For me, there are too many unknowns here to deduce much.


    About 4 --- It seems straightforward to configure a aggregation of micron sized nickel particles sized to produce a large nickel particle the size of that observed in the Lugano report. Supply heat to a level that will melt that aggregation of nickel particles so that it forms a pool of liquid nickel with the dimensions observed in the Lugano report and keep that particle molten over an extended period of time.


    About 4a --- After 32 days of reactor operation, all the chemical reactions that were going to happen had in fact happened so at that late juncture the chemical environment would have been constant. Any heat produced at that late point would have been produced by the LENR reaction.


    About 4b --- The chemical composition of the Nickel ash particle is precisely known after multiple isotopic tests and recorded in the appendices therein.


    See page 45 and 53.

  • Antoine10FF,
    The cross section diagram should have an air gap where the "alumina?" arrow points, surrounding the inconel. Whether it is actually air is open to some debate. At high temperature, it may be rather rarified in there, or H could be in there to some degree, etc.


  • OK so let's try to have a model with a hot core and wires. The thing I'm not sure about is this. The heater wires seem to be wound in a spiral configuration, but are they embedded in alumina? I would tend to think yes, but I'm not sure.


    Also, once a model is running, it is easy to change the temperature of the course to test different hypotheses, including the 1450 C.


    you drew the fuel core that touch reactor core, instinctively..
    Therefore, the fuel is never drawn as touching the wall in Rossi's patent..
    May be it is a central powder pellet...?


    Good point, the label should be changed by replacing "fuel" with "reaction chamber" to avoid making unsupported assumptions.



    Axil, how can you believe this? Look at the few centimeters of the heating wires that are sticking out from the dogbone end caps. They are producing an intense heat glowing like incandescent lamps. They produce the same heat per length unit inside the dogbone but there they are in a more compact spiral configuration. But you believe that they appear as shadows. Just because the stupid Lugano report said so or what?


    That's interesting but you are forgetting the thickness of the alumina. Let L_w be the radiance of the glowing wires. This depends on their emissivity and temperature.


    Inside the reactor, you have (to appease skeptics, allegedly) a source of heat that glows with a radiance L_r, some thickness x1 of alumina, then glowing wires of thickness x2, then some thickness x3 of alumina.


    Ignoring scattering within the alumina, at the surface of the reactor, regions where the reactor glow is not shadowed by the heater wires have radiance


    L1 = L_r (1-R)^2 exp(-C (x1 + x2 + x3))


    where R is the reflectivity and C [cm^-1] is the effective scattering coefficient of alumina,
    and x1 + x2 + x3 is the thickness of alumina, from the glowing reactor core to the surface.


    In the shadowed region, we assume that we only see the hot wires thru a thickness x3 of alumina so that the radiance is


    L2 = u L_w (1-R)^2 exp(-C x3)


    where u is a parameter that varies from 1 to 3 to describe the extent to which the three heaters contribute to the unshadowed radiance; if there was no scattering, because the wires do not overlap, we would have c equal to one. But we can adjust c to partially account for scattering, although c cannot exceed three because there are only three wires. I think u would be closer to 1 than 3.


    Let S = L2 / L1 (< 1) be the shadowing ratio.


    By looking at the red channel of the image from fig. 12a in the Lugano report, I have measured that the wire shadows cause a dip from 1.00 to 0.75 in the signal; the background level measured from alumina nearby at approximately the same illumination angles is about 0.72, so that the signal goes from 0.25 to 0.03, implying S ~ 0.12.


    We have


    S = L2 / L1 = u L_w (1-R)^2 exp (-C x3) / L_r (1-R)^2 exp(-C (x1 + x2 + x3))
    = u L_w / L_r (exp (-C (x3 + (+x1 +x2 +x3)))))
    = u exp(C(x1 + x2)) L_w / L_r


    Therefore


    ln (S L_r / (u L_w)) = C(x1 + x2)


    And thus the first constraint is S L_r / u L_w >= 1.


    Hence L_r/L_w >= u / S


    For u=1 we need L_r/L_w > 8.4 but if we take u=3 we need L_r/L_w >= 25.


    (This is the ratio of integrated, excess radiances in the red channel.)


    If we assume that the wire and the core have the same emissivity, a 75 degree difference if the wire is at 450 degrees, to a 150 degree difference if the wire is at 1000 degrees is necessary to give an 8.3:1 ratio, while these numbers go up to 150 degrees at 450 to 300 degrees difference at 1000 degrees for a ratio of 25.


    According to the latest plots aboveplot below, a 50 degree difference is sufficient to cause a factor of 4× change in the radiance in any of the visible bands.


    For the second constraint, we have x1 + x2 = ln (S L_r / (u L_w))/C
    Based on Yamashita 2008, around 600 nm we have C ~ 2.0.


    A minimum possible value for x1 + x2 would be x12_min = 2 mm.
    Thus


    ln (S L_r / (u L_w)) / C > x12_min


    which is


    u > exp(C x12_min) / (S L_r/L_w)


    For u=1 we get 1.5 / (0.12 * 8) = 1.56 so it is true, and for u=3 we have 1.5 / (0.12 * 25) = 0.5 and it is true by default


    In fact we can solve for L_r/L_w and what we really need is exp(C x12_min)/S = L_r/L_w ~ 12.5


    Therefore wire shadows having a contrast of 8:1 as seen in the Lugano fig 12.a images are possible provided the temperature differential between the heater wires and the core is on the order of 100-200 C.


    EDIT: Black body band radiance ratio plot.


  • Antoine10FF,
    The cross section diagram should have an air gap where the "alumina?" arrow points, surrounding the inconel. Whether it is actually air is open to some debate. At high temperature, it may be rather rarified in there, or H could be in there to some degree, etc.


    Hi Paradigmnoia,


    Is this a known fact, a good supposition or a guess?


    I think that won't change my calculation above. It would be something to take into account for a finite element model.

  • Raising some questions, more than answers.
    EDIT: it seems Antoine is many level above me on the subject so my question may just be naive and redundant.


    Does the color change with emissivity ?
    If it is flat in the visible range, only effect of emissivity is to change the dissipation, thus the temperature indirectly. however given a temperature, flat emissivity should only change emitted power? is it?


    Axil raise the point that nickel was melted. Maybe a slow process can do that (slow viscosity?) ?
    Note also that high temperature in the reactor may be compatible with modest temperature outside, and outside is responsible of the emissivity induced part of radiation.
    However transparency may allow internal blackbody, eventually hotter, to radiate some more.


    add to that that fins and surface roughness should reduce effective reflectivity, thus increase emissivity, and it is very complex...


    Anyway color as propose antoine may give a hint on the temperature of the core, which is probably not far from a blackbody in the visible spectrum (is it?).


    all i say to be confirmed or refuted.

  • Has this been discussed, or anyone with thoughts on the matter?


    One would Expect that LENR have a different energy emission spectrum than electrical heated alumina.


    Alumina transmittance and LENR energy spectrum is unkown parameters in the Lugano test.


    The alumina is transparent for certain part of the electromagnetic spectrum, which will not be absorbed by alumina and next the IR camera.


    The IR camera was detecting in the 7-13 um spectrum, and the assumption would be that the energy spectrum from El.heating, and LENR are somewhat equal...


    We don't know the LENR energy emission spectrum, since it has not been quantified.


    If there are high energy emission in a part of the spectrum of high alumina transmittance, then this would not be picked up as heat signal, and energy production may actually be underestimated by the Lugano report.

  • Has this been discussed, or anyone with thoughts on the matter?


    One would Expect that LENR have a different energy emission spectrum than electrical heated alumina.


    The way I think of this is that whatever the LENR emission spectrum is, it is produced inside the reactor core, which I assume is some pressure and heat-resistant material, say some kind of steel. The reactor core would then thermalize the emissions. In the visible, IIRC steel's spectral emissivity is more or less flat, thus we would have a grey body spectrum.


    Quote


    Alumina transmittance and LENR energy spectrum is unkown parameters in the Lugano test.


    [...]


    If there are high energy emission in a part of the spectrum of high alumina transmittance, then this would not be picked up as heat signal, and energy production may actually be underestimated by the Lugano report.


    Yes but let's try to keep the topic on the visible emissions.


    Even in the visible, alumina's optical properties are temperature-dependent, and it is hard to come by data that covers the visible range and the temperature range we're interested in.

  • Antoine,


    according to the information I've read there was no steel container inside the Alumina sylinder. Reactor core was found "encrusted" on the inside alumina wall, I read somewhere.


    So my comment / question is valid.