QuoteDid you finally agree that for Al2O3 the total emissivity found is correct ?
I've always assumed the Lugano book values for total emissivity are roughly correct. Just remember that for Al2O3 any use of the word emissivity has to be differentiated as total or band. In my comment above I was talking about output power, not IR camera temperature estimation, hence total emissivity must be what I meant.
That is what I said (several times) at the start of the debate here.
Ah ! So tell me My dear self repeating. Why people normally use a camera for mesure temperature and power for.... let's say a brick http://www.icess.ucsb.edu/modis/EMIS/images/clybrkcm.gif and can't for alumina that is also a mineral ?
BTW:
Band emissivities are used when the material and the measuring conditions are not completely known like in Land Surface Temperature measures from space where you have also to know atmospheric conditions and models (we also do that in our Company). It is a completely different technology and measure-
That is NOT the case if you have a known material seen directly by the IR camera.
I've always assumed the Lugano book values for total emissivity are roughly correct.
GOOD !
hence total emissivity must be what I meant.
So that great ! Lugano Authors have done the right job ! 
@randombit0,
Would the emissivity of the reactor change if sunglasses were put over the Optris camera lense? Or a piece of clear plastic?
A piece of glass? A germanium lens? An amorphous silicon lens?
Edit: This is not a silly question. It is very much to the point.
Edit 2: Might as well add these images now.
Edit 3: ..and this paper : http://qirt.gel.ulaval.ca/archives/qirt2014/QIRT 2014 Papers/QIRT-2014-115.pdf
Edit 4: ..and this paper : http://www.academia.edu/212284…_LWIR_apparent_emissivity
For anyone who has not seen the videos I was referencing earlier...maybe we should call it Steamgate lol Skip to about 10:45 in the first video to see the ridiculous steam situation. It puts out about as much steam as a luke warm bathroom sink of water...but according to Rossi it is SOOOO hot that we can't see the steam even in front of Levi's shirt. This steam is so hot that it is invisible yet he grabs the hose as well as one other person without gloves at a different point when the steam was even faked (you can hear it)...and just dumps it down an old sink drain. It is SO ridiculous to take Rossi serious after watching these videos.
Renzz - Do you agree that we are seeing a steam temp of 100.1C on the flip chart from Rossi's handwriting? If yes, then you'll be seeing that again in the near future.
The pinball wizard is way too gleeful during his cameo.
Quote from Hank Mills: “I'm thinking the alpha's may rarely if ever escape the confines of the microcavities. They probably take place where the pressure is the highest -- at the deepest levels of the microcavities -- and then bounce around the walls…
Hank,
You should agree with this (what Peter said if quote is cutoff) as you are after the truth. Anytime we learn something we did not understand before and is in a clear and concise manner on a technical issue we all learn. And this is a good thing. We are lucky to have impartial observers.
Moderator,
I think that the quote system is broken or that several or most of us are using it wrong. I will look at a quote that someone else tried to respond to and find that only half the quote is missing so that the context is completely lost. So I go back several pages and have to find the full quote. Would it be possible to have a decent sticky on your home page that gives concrete examples on how to use it properly? Thanks!
Renzz - Do you agree that we are seeing a steam temp of 100.1C on the flip chart from Rossi's handwriting? If yes, then you'll be seeing that again in the near future.
The pinball wizard is way too gleeful during his cameo.
I do believe you are correct sir!! Don't see no lights a flashing....Plays by sense of smell!!
For anyone who has not seen the videos I was referencing earlier...maybe we should call it Steamgate lol Skip to about 10:45 in the first video to see the ridiculous steam situation. It puts out about as much steam as a luke warm bathroom sink of…
I do see steam when in front of the black shirt. Now I can't tell whether the steam is dry or corresponds to 4900W of steam.
It does seem like Rossi was not superheating the steam back then, hence the 100.1 value. That leaves the door open to critics.
Hopefully Rossi is truthful in saying the steam was superheated this time around. We will see.
Edit to add: I don't see why the video is called the "failure of Rossi". It's a not very professional demo, but I can't make any conclusion from it. Would have needed an ERV to measure flow, pressure, temperature...
Actually, maybe the steam experts will correct me; but isn't steam invisible until it condensates?
Why ridicule Rossi for the lack of steam visibility when that is what you are supposed to see if we are dealing with real steam?
Quote from stephenrenzz: “For anyone who has not seen the videos I was referencing earlier...maybe we should call it Steamgate lol Skip to about 10:45 in the first video to see the ridiculous steam situation. It puts out about as much steam as a luke…
If the steam was super heated there is no way he could hold the hose or even touch it without serious burn. There is almost nothing coming out of the tube...and you can tell Rossi is extremely nervous about the whole issue. Also notice the perfectly timed cuts in the video corresponding to this time. Rossi is seen grabbing the hose briefly and I believe in the second video or it might be another one I have linked, you can see someone else actually holding the hose checking for steam in a bucket. There is no steam...then you hear something in the background...then a little gurgling before the hose is pulled out. Again almost no steam from what should be incredible steam flow or at very least dangerously hot "superheated" steam as the new term flavor of the month. You can see in Rossi's face when the camera comes back to him that he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Completely obvious to me.
Why ridicule Rossi for the lack of steam visibility when that is what you are supposed to see if we are dealing with real steam?
Correct. And this was debate extensively back in 2011/2012. That they are dredging it back now shows some measure of desperation. Wow, does this really need to be rehashed?
Quote from LENR Calender: “Why ridicule Rossi for the lack of steam visibility when that is what you are supposed to see if we are dealing with real steam? ”
Correct. And this was debate extensively back in 2011/2012. That they are dredging it…
If you believe that what you are seeing out of the end of that hose is what you would see from the reactor he CLAIMS we see there, then you have no comprehension of physics even at an elementary school level. Please explain to me how there is almost no steam coming out, and from the very little you see, it is evident there is almost no flow or pressure at all. And if you are going to claim the new Rossi buzzword of the week "superheated" steam, then how were Rossi and another individual able to touch the hose and even hold it with the second individual without getting burned beyond belief? 100.1 will be signficant. The lack of common sense in here blows my mind....
Actually, maybe the steam experts will correct me; but isn't steam invisible until it condensates?
Why ridicule Rossi for the lack of steam visibility when that is what you are supposed to see if we are dealing with real steam?
Unless "superheated" which would cause the hose to be way too hot to touch, the steam should always be visible when it hits the air. Not only is there almost no steam, but from the very little steam there is, you can see how weak the flow/pressure is. You have been fooled. 100.1 will be signficant.
And to your Edit...the devil is in the details....
You have been fooled.
I have followed this story as close as anyone since the initial public demo. You can cry fool all you want, but I base my current position on the accumulation of evidence over the past five or so years. Looking back to some initial tests that were beat to death with debate from the early phases of the e-Cat is not going to be very persuasive, at least with me.
You need to read the LUGANO report in great detail to understand that the nickel was melted.
Perhaps you are referring to the image of particle 1 from Figure 2 on p. 43 of Appendix 3 of the Lugano report. That particle looks sintered to me, but not melted. If it had melted, presumably it would be a blob, which it is not.
Wait, superheated is a buzzword now?
Superheated steam doesn't have to be much hotter than boiling point. So I don't see why it would make the hose that much hotter.
Also please point the exact time in the video where he is holding the hose with his own hands. I just checked and he is using a thick cloth every time.
Moreover, we know the output is around 100C because there is some steam visible. So the whole "too hot for Rossi's hands" argument just falls on itself. Are you saying that he doesn't burn himself at 100C but would burn himself if the steam was at 105C?
Quote from stephenrenzz: “You have been fooled. ”
I have followed this story as close as anyone since the initial public demo. You can cry fool all you want, but I base my current position on the accumulation of evidence over the past five or so…
Should I take this as "no answer"?
