FP's experiments discussion

  • Eric said:

    Quote

    You and Ed are talking past one another. Ed agrees with you that what he identifies as fractofusion, suggesting that ions are being accelerated across crack walls and so on, is not LENR.


    I am under the impression that Ed's LENR is living in the cracks. So how does it work? At first a crack opens, creating a micro accelerator that causes a micro fusion explosion and why not some X rays too. But this is not the real LENR, you say. Then the real LENR must come later, but how does that happen? Now the crack is just like any old crack, it has had its nanosecond as a sun. What more can a little crack ask for?


    (Of course I did not mean that voltage is the same as temperature. But accelerating an electron over a 1 V potential step will give it about the same energy as the thermal energy it would have in a place where the temperature is over 10000 K.)

  • The suggestion has been made that preponderance of (weak) evidence is not a valid argument. Although I think the argument has not been fully appreciated, I also agree that the point that is being made is a good one. Presumably experiments do face a multi-headed hydra, and it is not sufficient to cut off a single head; a good experiment will have dealt with all of the heads. In a typical case there are a finite number of heads, and once you've dealt with them, the experiment stands. Arguing that there is a preponderance of evidence on the basis of a large collection of experiments in which there are hydra heads that have not yet been cut off is not a winning strategy.


    I still think the preponderance of evidence argument has a place. Although I don't want to attempt to defend the argument in any detail at this point, I would like to address one aspect of the hydra-head account. When we're looking at experiments, we put them in different categories. I use a scheme that is something along the following lines:

    • "bad" — experiments that are obviously compromised by some kind of error.
    • "weak" — experiments that failed to control for a known source of error: "that's suggestive, but you need to show that such-and-such isn't happening."
    • "moderate" — experiments that controlled for known sources of error but which purport to show something whose implications are difficult to integrate with the rest of known physics: "that's pretty interesting, and I don't know what's going on with it"; or "there must be something wrong."
    • "strong" — experiments that can be carried out in the labs of skeptical scientists and which, once this happens, will result in a change of heart, repentance and contrition.

    For experiments falling into (2) or (3), the empirical method requires that more work be done. When an experiment falls in (2), the burden of evidence is on the researchers to go back and show that known sources of artifact can be ruled out. When an experiment falls into (3), the researchers are not out of the clear, because we're not at (4) yet, but they cannot be faulted if after continuing to search for error, they find no obvious source.


    A significant number of LENR experiments fall into (3), and so are not straightforward to dismiss. That does not prevent people from doing so, of course. But the arguments at this point typically drop back to a meta-historical mode, suggesting that there is a historical trend of decreasing signal with increasing precision; i.e., the arguments address LENR research as a whole rather than that experiment specifically.


    The multi-headed hydra argument is making a different case than the usual meta-historical one. It's saying that you cannot argue from a preponderance of weak evidence. In doing so it's conflating categories (2) and (3) and calling all such evidence weak. It is at this point that the argument loses me a little, and I have a hard time following it to its conclusion. Although evidence in (3) is not what we would like it to be, it is also, one's intuition says, not something that can summarily be set aside (and indeed neither can experiments in (2)). Sometimes the discussion will switch over to the meta-historical case at this point. But no matter how many sweeping generalizations are made about the course of history, about the progression of physics over hundreds of years, about the mindsets of famous physicists, and so on, there continues to be the niggling problem of some excess heat that was reported in such-and-such an experiment, which has not yet been dealt with. That is not to say that the researchers are in the clear, of course, which no one being level-headed would argue.

    • Official Post

    I am under the impression that Ed's LENR is living in the cracks. So how does it work? At first a crack opens, creating a micro accelerator that causes a micro fusion explosion and why not some X rays too. But this is not the real LENR, you say. Then the real LENR must come later, but how does that happen? Now the crack is just like any old crack, it has had its nanosecond as a sun. What more can a little crack ask for?



    Well, H-G, that cracked me up! :)

  • I am under the impression that Ed's LENR is living in the cracks. So how does it work? At first a crack opens, creating a micro accelerator that causes a micro fusion explosion and why not some X rays too. But this is not the real LENR, you say. Then the real LENR must come later, but how does that happen? Now the crack is just like any old crack, it has had its nanosecond as a sun. What more can a little crack ask for?


    Ed's theory is very different than fractofusion, although cracks are also involved. I should say upfront that I'm persuaded that it's profoundly unphysical; but I feel that way about nearly all LENR theories, so it is not different in that specific respect. He proposes a so-called "hydroton," which is formed in cracks. Although I could attempt a summary, probably better to point to his description.

  • Ed posted this yesterday 2/22/16, and subsequently claimed he had 'quoted you exactly'.
    I don't think so...


    "Let me try to summarize the skeptical arguments made previously:


    1. The claimed excess energy results from a calibration error or from a normal chemical reaction.
    2. The detected helium results from an air leaking into the system,
    3. The detected tritium results from contamination by tritium in the local environment,
    4. The transmutation products result from contamination by normal impurities,
    5. The detected radiation results from poor measurements,
    6. Observations that cannot be explained using these conclusions must result from fraud
    or incompetence."


    Let me try to express the arguments more correctly:


    0.) To confirm a low energy nuclear reaction, first a reproducible, which implies
    controllable, experimental methodology must be specified and reproduced in detail
    at several laboratories under essentially independent conditions. (Singular reports
    that are not replicable are not sufficient to eliminate 'error' as the cause.)


    1.) A simple calibration constant shift which shows systematic characteristics has
    'zeroed out' a claimed excess heat of up to 780 mW. This is understood in terms of a
    known chemical reaction occurring in an unexpected place. Examination of excess heat
    literature results has uncovered no report containing adequate information to allow
    evaluation of the possibility of said reaction occurring in those instances. However,
    'educated guesses' for the missing information suggest that it is probable. Therefore,
    cold fusion researchers must report all necessary and relevant details of their work to
    be able to assess whether a true cold fusion event has occurred or not. To date
    (2/23/16), this author is aware of no such reporting.


    2.) The bulk of detected He results do not eliminate the mundane suspected cause - air
    leaks. This is either due to results being less than the nominal air 4He content (which
    is really not relevant given the experiments occur in scientific laboratories), no
    reporting of concurrent lab air 4He levels, and/or no reproducibility. Also, frequently
    the actual methodologies used to measure 4He are not adequately described, or when
    described show procedural errors that normally are to be avoided.


    3.) Even if assumed true, the total of tritium results is not conclusive. Usually, the
    analytical method used in incompletely described, leaving room for method errors to be
    present.


    (BTW, I don't believe I have ever commented on the tritium work but I may be forgetting some
    discussion somewhere...)


    4.) Heavy metals detected in cold fusion experiment post-run analyses have been interpreted
    as the results of transmutation, but contamination and contamination concentration have
    not been eliminated as a possible cause (even though some efforts have been made to
    address this issue).


    5.) (I personally have never commented on radiation detection by 'standard' methods like
    nuclear counting via Si detectors, etc. (essentially, electronic detection). I have
    only commented recently on the use of CR-39 plates, and previously on the use of
    dental X-ray film. Thus this point largely is not related to my comments, since many
    more papers have been published on the electronic methods compared to CR-39 and xray
    film.).
    5.a) With respect to CR-39 and dental x-ray film, the results presented are easily
    interpreted via mundane processes and thus offer no strong evidence of LENRs.


    6.) No...I have never used those words. This is where Ed's bias comes through. There's
    either good-guys or bad-guys, depending on whether they support LENRs. And all
    'bad-guys' are evil and mean and despicable and pathological.... Please...



    "Therefore, the LENR claim is not correct. Continued efforts to support the LENR claim
    demonstrate an unwillingness to address what is real. This is an example of an unwillingness
    to apply good science."


    Therefore the LENR claim is not exclusive at this time. Mundane explanations for the results
    exist that have not been adequately addressed by cold fusion researchers. This seems to be
    due to an unwillingness on the part of the cold fusion researchers to consider any
    non-nuclear explanation seriously, even when the non-nuclear explanations are reasonable.



    "These conclusions also imply the following:
    1. Hundreds of otherwise competent scientists become incompetent when they study LENR, even
    after 27 years,
    2. Calorimetry is not correctly understood after 200 years of application in the field of
    chemistry,
    3. Only skeptics correctly understand nature."



    The above comments are basically garbage for a variety of reasons. in point 3, I believe
    Ed was doing the 'contrarian' thing again, implying that I thought he and other cold
    fusioneers couldn't get good results, etc., but he unknowingly hit the nail on the head.


    1.) 'otherwise competent' - what does that mean? How do we *know* they were competent
    before? How do we know they are competent in the cold fusion field even?


    In fact what has happened is that cold fusion results are analyzed without regard
    for their source, and unfortunately found lacking in several arenas. No one can know
    everything, so this was not unexpected. What was unexpected was the withdrawal of these
    scientists from the general scientific process in favor of forming a closed community with
    clearly flawed approaches to 'doing science'.


    2.) (As noted elsewhere,) F&P calorimetry is conducted in an unusual experimental configuration
    not used extensively anywhere else. In that situation it is not unusual to have problems
    develop specific to the experimental configuration. A proposition has been put forth that
    explains these specific issues and presents suggestions as to how to ameliorate them.


    3.) Skepticism forms the base of modern science. Every scientist who wishes to be called
    'good' needs to do what Feynman has said, try their hardest to find the problems with their
    results and explanations. Those who don't tend to reach conclusions prematurely and without
    adequate justification. Those who retain their skepticism even when they think they are on
    the right track tend to find the buried truth in their results by conforming to the modern
    precept of reproducibility and the control implied by it.


    Ed, your 'attempt' at 'restating' my (and obviously others') claims clearly shows that you
    instead chose to try to paint 'us' as ignoramuses who try to use their presumed authority
    to force 'you' to a place that you should never have to go. Nothing could be further from
    the truth. Remember, in science your worst critic is your best friend.

  • Ed wrote:
    "The basic argument you make seems clear, but I want to be certain. The reasons behind the conclusions you give are less clear. I'm simply trying to get you to state your conclusion clearly. Do you claim that the claimed excess heat energy results only from a calibration error or not? The details are not the issue here, only your basic claim is being questioned. A yes or no answer is required. You have not discussed the helium, tritium, transmutation, and radiation evidence so you would have nothing to say abut this aspect of the discussion - so I do not expect you to comment on these issues."


    No, I do NOT claim that a CCS is the ONLY POSSIBLE cause of apparent excess heat signals. I DO claim that the CCS explanation offers a high probability of being correct in the cases I have examined. However, that is a
    finite number of cases, wherein the necessary information to truly decide if a CCS is the cause is mostly absent. Thus I can NOT conclusively state anything, except that i ZEROED out your 780mW signal and showed a SYSTEMATIC trend in the experiments. (In fact, in the Patterson Power Cell case, while a CCS might be present, I personally think there is another overriding problem. ) Those results are what justifies further consideration of the 'CCSH'. But instead, you and your co-authors resort to illegitimate logical practice to try to argue away my results. It won't work.

  • Storms wrote:

    Quote

    A voltage is a force: it is not energy.


    Gasp!


    A freshman error from a PhD cold fusion researcher. Do you think this because electromotive force is measured in volts? The first thing you learn about the electromotive force is that it's not a force. It's a misnomer.


    Force is measured in newtons (N).


    Energy is measured in joules (J).


    Voltage is measured in volts, and volts are joules/coulomb (V = J/C).


    Voltage is energy per unit charge.


    It's a potential difference, which is the difference in potential energy per unit charge.


    A charge q that travels unimpeded across a potential difference (voltage) V gains an energy qV.

  • Shane wrote:
    [quoting me]""personal and corporate safety,no money, no time, not my job, no desire, confidence in mathematics, understanding chemistry, better things to do""



    "Kirk,Oystla asked the question "why is not Shanahan getting his hands dirty and prove his own hypothesis?".


    Your answer I quote above is basically that; you are too lazy, and lack the math and chemistry skills to prove your hypothesis. I can't believe that was your response. Did I really read that right? "


    Of course not. Do you really think *anyone*, pro or anti-CF, would say that about him/herself? No Shane, you are betraying your own bias here. You have adopted Ed's contrarian idea. You should stop, back up, and start over."


    For the record (again...I've done this many times before in other places...), let me expand on my comment a bit.


    personal and corporate safety - I work as a support to a chemical process that uses Pd, Ti, U, La-Ni-Al alloys, and many more hydrideable materials. *All* of these materials are used in closed containers of varying volumes. The cold fusion premise means that it may be possible that at any time, these materials could suddenly become self-heating. Runaway heaters is one of our biggest safety concerns. The potential presence of such is of great concern, to me personally, since I personally work with them, and corporately, since many
    people in the chemical process do also. We need to know if there is a real concern.


    That being said, what I meant was that the F&P configuration is inherently dangerous since explosive mixes are routinely produced. People have already died, and others have missed so by inches or minutes. Where I work, that almost completely precludes doing these experiments. It certainly makes them at least 3X more expensive to do than what the CFers talk about.


    no money - do I need to explain that? Sure, I could pursue funding like any other CFers, but the personal cost-benefit analysis says I could spend my time more wisely


    no time - essentially the same as no money. If I had money, I would be able to make the time, but I don't.


    not my job - In the overview, my 'job' if you will is to point out flaws I see in the LENR experiments. That's what a 'critic' does. It's not my job to stop what I am doing and go do LENR experiments. As well, my job is defined by the company I work for, so it literally is not my job.


    no desire - see above, I don't have the desire to drop what I am doing now and go and try to do LENR work.


    confidence in mathematics - The CCS is a mathematical fact. I don't have the need to 're-prove' it.


    understanding chemistry - I trust that my proposed mechanism is essentially what is happening. If someone proves me wrong, that's ok. But right now, I have (see next phrase)


    better things to do - see above to realize what I would have to do to work in this area. As I said, I feel that my time is better spent elsewhere.


    "If so, may I ask why anyone in the LENR community should give you, and your hypothesis any more attention than they already have? "


    It isn't so, so I don't have to consider the second part of your implied IF-THEN statement.


    "Afterall, most of those you have dogged all these years, including Ed, have skills in everything you confess to lack, although they generally have one thing in common with you...lack of money.""


    You fail to understand. If I desired to, I could easily do LENR work. I have the skills, or I have the ability to learn the skills rapidly. I also have skills most of the LENR folks don't, such as dynamic chemical process modeling, chemical process troubleshooting, statistical process and quality control, explosives handling knowledge, and more.

    • Official Post

    That's fine Kirk. I was wondering how you could be so flippant to admit such a thing, and it turns out you were just explaining that you DO have the skills to do the work. In my book that makes you qualified to "respectfully" critique the field. The other parts...time, money, the will, makes sense to me.


    I actually think you, Josh and Thomas make some good points. Should this turn out to be a pseudoscience, it will probably be due a mix of all those reasons. The one I think most likely in that case, would be the siege, or circle-the-wagon mentality brought on by the hostile environment LENR was born into. A safety zone so to speak, where true peer review breaks, and simple errors compound over the field, becoming systemic.


    But I also believe Ed has some good ideas too. I also liked Erics one comment about skeps focusing on "marginal", or small effects, and instead should be looking for signals well above the noise level, how ever small the signal may be. This is accomplished of course, only through very tight calorimetry . That comes only from, and by those, spending a lot of time in the lab (lab rats), and have the funding for the right equipment to accomplish. One good example would be SRI, which has perfected their methods for many, many years. Even Garwin couldn't find a flaw with their apparatus way back in 1993, and since then, they have improved it even more. I think they convened a group about 5 years ago, to iron out a standard LENR calorimetry protocol for others to follow.


    Which is one of the reasons I believe in those like FPs, Storms, Miles, McKubre, SKINR, BARC, NRL, Los Alamos, ENEA, and on and on. These guys live in labs. They are good at what they do. Not only the science aspect, but...I always remember early on Rothwell mentioning how there is an art to running calorimetry...and they have that too. It is not easy to get accepted in the first place to these institutions, let alone be allowed to stay on if they don't do professional work. So they are smart, and capable in a lab.


    And keep in mind, most of the LENRists initially made their discovery as the head of a team. Research teams generally play a good cop bad cop routine, where I would think/hope?, one will play Dr. Shanahan, ;) another Dr. Miley, and argue the set-up, protocol, operation, data analysis...minimizing chances of an error mode creeping into the process.


    So am I really biased? Or following the metadata as I read it...applying a good dose of common sense along the way? So I believe, because I trust the people doing the work. That simple.


    I just don't feel it reasonable to believe that this many are each, in their own way, with their own approach -or duplicating others, could be screwing it up this bad. I mean, what are the odds of that? Some yeah obviously, but all!


    Take care

  • "The one I think most likely in that case, would be the siege, or circle-the-wagon mentality brought on by the hostile environment LENR was born into. "


    It is true that the environment got hostile but that was before my time. I never attended an ACS or APS meeting on cold fusion, I just studies it from the papers. The CFers need to realize that by not participating they invalidate themselves, no matter how hard it is to participate.


    "I also liked Erics one comment about skeps focusing on "marginal", or small effects, and instead should be looking for signals well above the noise level, how ever small the signal may be. This is accomplished of course, only through very tight calorimetry ."


    The CCS problem is a massive one. It totally wiped out Ed's results, a repeated excess heat event sequence with maximum values of 780mW. It has the *potential* to explain all results, if none of them fall outside the possible range of the CCS error, tight calorimetry or not.



    "One good example would be SRI, which has perfected their methods for many, many years."


    ummm...


    The SRI calorimetric results from the late 1993-1994 time period were covered in the Technical Report McKubre put out in late 1998. The strongest signal in that 450+ page report was from the 'M4' run, and was 360 mW (or was it 380...). I looked at it both before and after I did Ed's data, and concluded it could just as easily be a CCS. McK got stronger signals earlier on, put some results in a technical report and published some others, but never put out any data I could actually examine. I seem to recall his strongest excess heat signal was on the order of 1.7W. The papers by W. Brian Clarke suggest their He measurements were off too.



    "Even Garwin couldn't find a flaw with their apparatus way back in 1993, and since then, they have improved it even more. "


    Garwin didn't know about the CCS either. Hard to improve on 99% efficient, which is what the M4 run's calorimeter came in at (approximately).


    "I think they convened a group about 5 years ago, to iron out a standard LENR calorimetry protocol for others to follow."


    Could be. They all retreated to their private mailing list to discuss things, and they try to never let any 'critic' know waht's going on...we're all evil you know.


    "Which is one of the reasons I believe in those like FPs, Storms, Miles, McKubre, SKINR, BARC, NRL, Los Alamos, ENEA, and on and on. These guys live in labs. "


    So do I. I started research in 1975, and I've never stopped.


    "They are good at what they do." Unless you count responding to critics...(hint: random != systematic)


    "Not only the science aspect, but...I always remember early on Rothwell mentioning how there is an art to running calorimetry...and they have that too. "


    Rothwell is the acknowledged 'head groupie'. Like oystia he rarely says anything but what he hears from the 'heroes' of CF. I butted heads with him many times back in the spf days. He admitted many times that 'he wasn't a technical guy', but that never stopped him from trying to making technical points.


    "It is not easy to get accepted in the first place to these institutions, let alone be allowed to stay on if they don't do professional work. So they are smart, and capable in a lab.And keep in mind, most of the LENRists initially made their discovery as the head of a team. Research teams generally play a good cop bad cop routine, where I would think/hope?, one will play Dr. Shanahan, another Dr. Miley, and argue the set-up, protocol, operation, data analysis...minimizing chances of an error mode creeping into the process. So am I really biased? Or following the metadata as I read it...applying a good dose of common sense along the way? So I believe, because I trust the people doing the work. That simple."


    There's a couple of problems with your picture. You should never derive certainty simply from the fact that a particular person works at a good place. Bad people get hired, and then can be very difficult to get rid of if they are careful. Good people can work anywhere.


    It's doubtful they will do what you describe, since they all jointly decided to try to do an end run around the problem I brought up.


    Someone once said: "Trust but verify."


    "I just don't feel it reasonable to believe that this many are each, in their own way, with their own approach -or duplicating others, could be screwing it up this bad. I mean, what are the odds of that? Some yeah obviously, but all!Take care"


    That's the nightmare of systematic errors...

  • After the input power is terminated and the LENR reactor enters a state of self sustain mode(SSM), this behavior nullifies the possibility of any chemical based heat production mechanism. After a few seconds of SSM, the only reaction path that can apply is based solely on the LENR reaction. When a LENR application demonstrates SSM continuing for a few seconds after input power shutdown,


    If I remember correctly, the first third party test of Rossi's reactor showed SSM.


  • To be clear, the Rossi reactor is not an F&P cell,


    The naysayers have a productive function if they conduct their scepticism properly. Using the same tired and trite criticisms of a 25 year old technology is tiresome and boring.


    To be of any value at all, study the latest LENR technologies and work in that arena. Tom Clarke has done so with Lagano, but for some reason, he has gotten himself stuck in a rut on that old and tired subject.


    There is a lot of hard work and dedication required of the naysayer to keep themselves current as the technology of the LENR reaction marches relentlessly forward and with accelerating speed.

  • Quote

    There is a lot of hard work and dedication required of the naysayer to keep themselves current as the technology of the LENR reaction marches relentlessly forward and with accelerating speed.


    I'm sure all the naysayers here will be interested when this accelerating march leads to the first ever convincing LENR result - whether that be demo or research paper.


    There is a difference between wishful thinking and reality.


    Quote

    Using the same tired and trite criticisms of a 25 year old technology is tiresome and boring.


    I'm inclined to agree, but it is also correct, if they apply. This thread provides ample evidence that they do.

  • "To be of any value at all, study the latest LENR technologies and work in that arena."


    I have to disagree with your assessment. Finding out if the excess heat claims of various labs really do conform to a CCS is a valuable piece of information.


    Also, I reiterate, the Rossi thing is too non-scientific for me to spend significant time on. I did that for the Patterson Power Cell to no avail. Don't need to repeat that here.


    You did remind me of a question for Thomas though. Did you (Thomas) use the paper by Manara, Keller, et al that showed the alumina emissivity as a function of temp? It is clearly a non-Plankian emitter. I would think that would make the use of the Optris very questionable.

  • I'm trying to understand the attitudes operating during these discussions, assuming the people have a sincere belief. The responses give me an impression, which seems to be shared by other observers. Several of the people who are most active share a common belief and goal I will try to describe. I will not identify these people but allow them to identify themselves if they wish.


    They believe that LENR represents a variety of real phenomena of Nature and that the behavior attributed to LENR results from a variety of unspecified and unprecedented and inconceivable nuclear reactions. They believe they have the duty to educate people about the phenomena so that additional time is not wasted studying and advocating other sources of energy. They believe they are sincere and are using the highest standards required of science to make this understanding known. They believe the people skeptical of LENR, including many Nobel laureates, are delusional, stubborn, and perhaps incompetent, but wrong. They believe a complex series of nuclear reactions occur in the various experiments that must exist even when they are hard to identify and contradict much of what has been learned about nuclear science in the past century. They believe that the skeptics' unwillingness to make the search for nuclear reactions results from a siege mentality. They believe that when nuclear reactions are claimed by someone, failure to acknowledge the nuclear reaction results from an unwillingness to apply the scientific method. They are absolutely sure they are right and will accept no evidence or argument that conflicts with this belief. They believe they are showing great patience in their effort to educate people about this wide variety of unspecified and unprecedented nuclear reactions.


    No matter what I say, the response is always a rejection or a distortion of what I said.

  • Shanahan: "To be clear, the Rossi reactor is not an F&P cell,"


    And to be even clearer: should "God forbid" Rossi have something, then Brulloiun Ni-H reactor has it, then Piantelli Ni-H system has it, then Celani H-Ni alloy wire system has it, then Focardi was right, then LENR is a reality, then F&P was right and all other wet Pd-D CF cells, and then the critics wasted a lot of energy being wrong all along, and wasted a lot of assuming valuable time- for what purpose?


    It's easy to be a critic and use a lot of words. It's harder to be a real scientists and get your hands dirty doing trying to do real experiments.


    It is easy to make empty hypothetical claims of artifacts and errors. But the competent CF scientists have heard it all before, it's old news, repeated critisism, They have been there, done that, Checked it ALL, And LENR have moved on.


    No need for CF scientists to Waste time on critics that just repeated old critisism of what has allready been evaluated and answerred many times in the past.


    The world needs dreamers and the world needs doers. But above all, the world needs dreamers who do.


    Professors Martin Fleischmann and Pons said it started with an idea, a dream.


    And we noted then and now the sceptics that likes to talk.


    Unfortunately, talkers are usually more articulate than doers, since talk is their specialty.


    But talkers have never been good doers. It's the doers that change this world.


    And These are just a few of the good ones:


    http://www.currentscience.ac.i…mes/108/04/0491-suppl.pdf

  • Did you (Thomas) use the paper by Manara, Keller, et al that showed the alumina emissivity as a function of temp? It is clearly a non-Plankian emitter. I would think that would make the use of the Optris very questionable.


    (Sorry to answer for Thomas. He can add anything to this, if wants.)
    We have figured that out ages ago.
    In fact, since the Christiansen wavelength for alumina is right in the Optris sensitivity range, it makes the Optris camera used in Lugano ideal for measuring the temperature of alumina, if the appropriate (camera specific spectral) emissivity value is plugged in (near 0.95). As far as the camera can see, the spectrum for alumina looks very much Planckian.
    The Lugano T problem lies in the conflation of the emissivity for the Optris camera with the total normal emissivity value (which with rough alumina is close enough to the total hemispherical emissivity value to be effectively the same thing).
    Conflation of these emissivity values leads to overestimation of the temperature (by greatly lowering the camera emissivity value), which leads to overestimation of power.
    Assuming that the tube acts like pure alumina, and is not (semi)transparent to other wavelengths of IR outside of the camera sensitivity range (from glowing wires etc.) might affect power calculations also, but these considerations cannot be quantified, due to lack of measurement.