The Playground

Quote from THHuxleynew

it has convinced every scientist

Not me nor my colleagues. Just as an example in one picture of the "paper" there was a wrong emissivity plot. No material can have en emissivity better than the Black Body. Also all the "band emissivity" theory he propose is wrong. The only factor that be used is total emissivity as Paradigmoia implicitly says proposing his experiment.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Maybe TC was wrong. But then it would be easy for anyone to write a proper rebuttal explaining the error,

Yes he was. "Anyone" is normally busy with his own work ( making research and writing real papers) and have no time to write a rebuttal to TC.

As far as we know the TC paper was not even shown to TC colleagues ( as normal practice) before it was released on the web.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Anyhow, just get your free small sample of dried durapot 810, stick a thermocouple on it, heat it to a mild glow, and give it a go with an IR device with adjustable emissivity.

Wrong material. Durapot 810 has magnesium impurities that make his emissivity quite different from pure Alumina. Lugano reactor body was made by pure Alumina. Proposing this experiment you also imply that the only factor to be used is total emissivity. You not mentioned the band sensitivity of the "IR device" but just the adjustable (total) emissivity factor.

The only fact you can verify is that measured power density has a very weak ( if not NULL ) dependence vs emissivity because that factor cancel in calculus.

This weak dependence together with the use of the emissivity curve they have found in literature for the material that they experimentally verified to be the constituent of the reactor body make the LR quite robust.

Rb0,

The IR camera emissivity setting has nothing to do with total emissivity. The camera, as mentioned many times before and supported by Optris documents, cannot see the total emission spectra, and therefore it is the response to the spectral sensitivity of the camera that is adjusted with the camera emissivity function.

Durapot 810 was used to cast the Lugano device. A sample of the body was analysed and was found to be at least 99% alumina (page 7, Appendix 2 page 37 Lugano report). The emissivity of magnesia is very similar to alumina, and at less than 1% addition to alumina, makes no practical difference at all to the emissivity compared to pure alumina.

If it makes a difference, the rods (presumed to be alumina but not actually tested, "as this is firmer than that of the reactor" [page 9 Lugano report]) were used to "calibrate" the camera even for the body made Durapot, while textbook values for total emissivity of pure alumina were used to determine the total hemispherical emissivity to be used for heat output calculations (in addition to being the source for the wrong Optris camera emissivity settings).

And furthermore, the most stupid part of the emissivity argument presented by RB0 is that a device made the same dimensions and mass of the Lugano device, made of pure alumina (or Durapot 810), can be made to perform identically to the Lugano device, (COP of nearly 4 and all) with no Ni-Li-H fuel whatsoever, if the total emissivity of alumina is used for both the camera emissivity function and total radiant output.

I can't believe the home-made Alumina COP 3+ Challenge videos haven't been going viral already.

Quote

Yes he was. "Anyone" is normally busy with his own work ( making research and writing real papers) and have no time to write a rebuttal to TC.

Ok: so that I understand - you reckon the Lugano paper to be not of the quality or the importance of a "real" paper and therefore not worth defending? Because if it were to be viewed as a "real" paper then defending it against similarly published rebuttal - or at least acknowledging them with a comment and retraction - is only proper.

Quote

Not me nor my colleagues. Just as an example in one picture of the "paper" there was a wrong emissivity plot. No material can have en emissivity better than the Black Body. Also all the "band emissivity" theory he propose is wrong.

There are no pictures in TC's paper. So I'm not quite sure to what you refer.

As for theory being wrong the TC paper merely takes the commonly accepted definition of spectral emissivity and applies it. I wonder whether your colleagues, who you say support you, are familiar with this? If they support you, as you say, I'd happily discuss the matter with them. Or P here could do so. Or TC. I'd offer the same with you except you have on this forum shown an unusual inability to respond to connected argument.

EDIT: if I remember your argument on a previous thread, you believe that a material with total emissivity 0.5 (for example) cannot have spectral emissivity ~1 over a specific band, and hence band emissivity of 1. That flies in the face of many experiments and p has posted the images for you in the post 3 before this. This shows, as used in the TC paper, a spectral emissivity very near to 1 over the Optris camera band for Al2O3.

Maybe I could sell rb0 and colleagues and electric heater guaranteed to have COP > 3? No nasty chemicals, just an alumina heating element with embedded wire heater. The heat output could be measured by rb0 himself with ease using an IR camera and the well known equations for radiation which would dominate over convection here.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Maybe I could sell rb0 and colleagues and electric heater guaranteed to have COP > 3? No nasty chemicals, just an alumina heating element with embedded wire heater. The heat output could be measured by rb0 himself with ease using an IR camera and the well known equations for radiation which would dominate over convection here.

It's not a bad idea. Rossi got 10 milllion selling it to IH. 😀

Yes, but I don't want to spend my time suing anyone to keep the money!

Who says that Durapot 810 cement is 99% alumina besides Levi?

Exactly Alan - 801 is 99% alumina ceramic, 804 and 805 are 96% alumina ceramic and 810 is alumina based cement.

Levi insisted on the Optris camera settings for a reactor that was 99% Alumina for a reactor that was made of 810.

I don't even hear crickets..........

Thanks Alan - I thought that perhaps a vacuum had suddenly taken Planet Rossi. I've got one of the overlord's supersonic listening / monitoring devices

so I'll be okay once the din returns. Do you have any links to sites that track down illicit bulk gold traders?

Quote from Alan Smith

https://www.actiononhearinglos…oducts-and-equipment.aspx

Why not get help from Fabiani's Deaf's Solution instead?

http://search.sunbiz.org/Inqui…cumentNumber=L16000058422

42 is del fuego!!

Quote from Forty-Two

Why not get help from Fabiani's Deaf's Solution instead?

http://search.sunbiz.org/Inqui…cumentNumber=L16000058422

wat

Quote from Alan Smith

810 is (from memory) Alumina and Magnesium Oxide with a trace of Zinc Oxide.

Lugano reactor core was not done with that cement but with pure Alumina.

This was verified by X-Ray diffraction.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The IR camera emissivity setting has nothing to do with total emissivity.

FALSE. This is pure disinformation.

Also.

In the Lugano paper itself is demonstrated that Allumina pipes have an emissivity much lower then the BB.

In that case it was possible for the group of scientists to measure the actual emissivity using reference dots.

The value obtained was compatible with the value of the total emissivity found in literature for pure Alumina the temperature of the pipes.

Quote from THHuxleynew

There are no pictures

There was at least another version around.

The version you are linking looks well printed..... but completely ill based.

You can't do a calculus like TC (? is the real author ) propose.

First all the argument of the band emissivity is wrong ( Paradigmoia I have tried to explain that to you many times )

Second even if you would like to do so you would have to consider the actual band sensitivity of the camera vs wave length (i.e. light "color" in IR band ), that is not a flat ( constant ) function and depends on optics and sensor ( in fact each pixel is different ).

I really think that diffusing this kind of false information could be against law in that case because of the ongoing trial, and I presume that any scientist who may have read that paper had thrown it in the bin in just few seconds.

rb0,

The 'optics' of the Optris sensors are tuned and software-modified to deliver as flat a response as possible to a blackbody, as viewed by the sensor system. Which in this case is in the spectral sensitivity range of the Optris, the industry standard long wave IR band of 7 to 13.5 microns.

The instrument is completely incapable of assessing the entire IR spectrum (AKA the total IR band).

As for your diffusing false information statement, be careful what you wish for...