The Playground

  • Interesting to read Para. Where ever you decide to post them, we shall follow.

    What I have been attempting for about 2 years is to make a very simple test device that can demonstrate easily the Lugano emissivity issue, as cheap as possible but still durable, that anyone with a reasonable bit of skill could do. (Much of that time I was occupied with other things, so it is just time passed, not a actually working on such a device.)


    It turned out to be a lot more complicated than I first thought.


    The square-ish Slab versions are fairly easy to make, but have much cooler corners that defy simple heat calculations.

    A cylinder is easy to calculate heat with since the temperature is stable and consistent over larger areas, but a bit finicky to cast with a coil and two thermocouples in it.

    The glowing hot 15 W, off the shelf resistors were fun, but melted down too easily, and were too thin to target properly with a pyrometer. Bundling them up to make a bigger target just made them burn up faster.

    And the darn Optris is sooo expen$ive.

  • The laser indicator on the pyrometer was (from new) pointing parallel to the IR detection lens, so the laser dot was around 4 cm above the center of the actual detection area. The IR detection spot size is 50:1 distance from the lens? nozzle of device? (rated, not verified).

    I re-aimed the laser on the pyrometer to the point where was detected the coolest part of a cast iron frying pan with a new dime in the middle from a distance of 50 cm, and heated on the stove.

    At 50 cm distance from the lens the detection area is 1 cm.

    The laser diode assembly was shimmed as required with a slice cut from a yogurt lid and glued back into the bezel with carpenters glue.

    The Cylinder (2.5 cm in diameter) was a measured 50 cm from the IR pyrometer nosepiece at the IR opening location. (There is about 4 cm of corrugated light diffuser beyond just under a cm of plastic opening void in the pyrometer body, before the first IR detection lens, and the detection surface itself is a few cm behind that.)

  • This is really interesting information. Does it prove that the Optris device was easy to spoof, that it's so complicated that 7 scientists misused it? Because this could become valuable information in a lawsuit against the 7 scientists who published their information and I know of some people who moved money into investments on the basis of that report. It could make Optris legally liable for the losses incurred.


    Once they file the lawsuit and use your information as the basis for moving against Optris, there could be money in it for you as consultants, that kind of thing. But if you're just playing around on a Playground, it would be easy for a counter deposition to show that you really weren't serious about this.


    Why did it take several years to come up with this? Is it real expensive, or is it difficult to generate this spoof?

  • Paradigmnoia : Nice work! Are you actually using an Optris? I'm not clear about that.

    Alan, I have no Optris cameras.

    I do have Optris software and a quite a few MFMP Optris files, but those have nothing to do with the Cylinder.

    I am getting a bit of a collection of IR pyrometers. Each time I see one with a higher T capability and it is not too expensive, I buy it if I can afford it.


    I would to have an Optris IR camera, so if anyone is wondering what to get me for my birthday, Christmas, Anniversaries, etc....😀

    I do scrounge the internet periodically for great deals on a PI160 or better, but no luck so far.

  • This is really interesting information. Does it prove that the Optris device was easy to spoof, that it's so complicated that 7 scientists misused it? Because this could become valuable information in a lawsuit against the 7 scientists who published their information and I know of some people who moved money into investments on the basis of that report. It could make Optris legally liable for the losses incurred.


    Once they file the lawsuit and use your information as the basis for moving against Optris, there could be money in it for you as consultants, that kind of thing. But if you're just playing around on a Playground, it would be easy for a counter deposition to show that you really weren't serious about this.


    Why did it take several years to come up with this? Is it real expensive, or is it difficult to generate this spoof?

    Like any equipment there is a right way and a whole bunch of wrong ways to use it. The Optris can be “spoofed” a whole bunch of ways, but spoofing people is a bit trickier. In the case of a group of people watching/using the Optris the wrong way must look like the right way in order to not be discovered to be wrong.


    In this case the error is substituting the Total normal emissivity (this is a single emissivity value that is equivalent to the integrated emissivity for each wavelength entire IR spectrum for a material, which in this case is alumina) for the camera emissivity setting necessary for the IR camera spectral sensitivity band, which just is a tiny part of the full IR spectrum. The IR camera does not see the entire IR spectrum, just a small window of it. So the emissivity setting for the camera is not the same as the Total emissivity. The Total emissivity value is correctly used and necessary for calculating the radiant Output power, however.


    The camera emissivity setting is only used for the IR camera/pyrometer in order to report the correct temperature of the item, and is not used for calculating power. There are several IR detection bands commonly used for IR cameras and pyrometers, and depending on the shape of the emissivty profile over the entire IR spectrum, the different detection bands could have wildly different camera/pyrometer emissivity settings for the same object. All of these could be different from the total emissivity value. For greybody and blackbody objects, the emissivity is the same at all wavelengths, and in that case the camera settings would be the same for all detection bands and the same as the Total emissivity value used separately for calculating radiant power. This can be a complicated subject and I don’t want to write a book on the explanation now if it can be avoided.


    Anyway, calibration is suggested by Optris (and all IR camera/pyrometer manufacturers) to ensure the IR camera/pyrometer is giving correct temperature information. Textbook values and chart summaries are a guide, not the law, about what emissivity value the IR camera/pyrometer needs in specific cases. A positive temperature error is multiplied 4 times when calculating power, and vice versa. This means that the IR camera/pyrometer can be remarkably accurate when calibrated properly since the device measures radiant power and derives a temperature as a result of 4th root of measured radiant power.


    The Lugano device Dummy was not operated to the temperature levels reported for the Active period. The emissivity problem would have shown up for sure if it had. In fact, I have shown that at about 450 C is where the 4th power really starts kicking in compared to a real dummy unit. (The T4 difference starts really going logarithmic at temperatures above 450 C relative to a real dummy temperature. This means that in Lugano the Dummy, even with wrong emissivity values used for the Optris, did not greatly differ from the power expected for the Dummy. Close enough to explain away the discrepancy in measurement uncertainty. At about 800 C the discrepancy in the Dummy power compared to the input power would have been very noticeable. Unfortunately about 450 C (wrong emissivity used) is as high a reported temperature as the Dummy was operated.


    The MFMP Dogbone experiments actually showed this effect, years ago, but it was not demonstrated to the level that it might have been. If all the Optris measurement boxes for the Dogbone are set to the emissivity settings from Plot 1, Lugano report, as was done at Lugano, and the radiant power calculated as done in the Lugano report, the MFMP Dogbone would have shown a COP of 3.8 (or something like that). The MFMP data and Optris files are there so the public can finish the job, but this doesn’t show up on any video stream so the public just didn’t notice it, or even ignored those that did do the final calculations. (I will have to find my spreadsheet to see what I actually came up with for Dogbone Lugano Style COP.)

  • Digging around for my MFMP Dogbone Lugano Style conversion file I see a problem I had forgotten about.

    Using the 2015_02_03 Dogbone Multi Calibration file, the highest input power setting that can be converted to Lugano Style temperatures is the GMT 20:57:00 row with 704 W input.

    The two higher input W runs exceed the maximum temperature that the Optris Connect software will display when the emissivity is changed to the values from Plot 1, Lugano report. When an emissivity of 0.95 is used, the highest temperature that can be converted is 864.4 C, (which becomes 1524.6 C at an emissivity of 0.394).

    The maximum temperature the software will report is 1524.7 C


    Edit: One could cheat in an average body temperature version using the 23:09:00 row temperature average. Not quite as accurate, but close enough for discussion.

    Edit 2: Using an averaged body T for the 813 W input MFMP Dogbone row gets an easy COP of 3.98. The hottest row (872.67 C average real body T) should get to Lugano Style COP 4.2 without any trouble, except it would require a lot of extrapolation and borrowing temperature-emissivity translation data from other sources... which is a bit questionable. (I used LDM's rib factor of 1.7 for the convection part to convert from a smooth cylinder to a ribbed one).

  • LOL. I have been following Abd's antics, starting with the build up (how dare they do this to me!), and now filing suit. No one is interested in the least about his war with Wikipedia, or all these characters he claims violated his rights. Such a tangled web he has weaved, I gave up trying to understand. Glad you put it in perspective. Wonder if his lawyers have a good grasp of it all?


    I thought he was being paid to promote LENR?, but apparently he has better things to do now. Certainly, he won't save the planet by suing some kid in the UK.

  • Navid


    Here we can complain all what we want about how poor Randy has been victim of a global conspiracy for denying the value of his theory of everything that puts QM to shame (pardon the sarcastic tone).


    I will say here, that I could agree to a great extent that QM and the Standard Model seem to be revered as Dogma and questioning them, or mentioning their shortcomings, is often met with irate lashing out from the defenders of the cult, as you might want to call them. However, you must never forget the QM has been the single most succesfull theory and has greatly allowed our advances during the XXth century. One can argue that QM reached its limits of describing reality and follow pursuing it has caused stagnation of science, and you will be surprised to know this is mucho more thought of than many would openly agree. But from acknowledging that, there's a huge leap to claim that Mills's theory is the holly grail to save us from our institutionalized ignorance.


    Most if not all coming here have read or are familiar with Kuhn's "the structure of scientific revolutions" so we might agree to the general idea that true advances of science are initially met with strong opposition, and we tend to see that reflected on LENR in general as the main topic of interest in this forum.


    So, in that sense, your tale of how great is Randall Mills for facing the stablished paradigm is preaching to the choir here. We all are in some way or in other just for being interested in LENR.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • I could agree to a great extent that QM and the Standard Model seem to be revered as Dogma and questioning them, or mentioning their shortcomings, is often met with irate lashing out from the defenders of the cult


    I'm not saying that never happens. However my experience is that scientists like new ideas and are very open in particular to

    • reformulations of QM (everyone thinks it is somehow unsatisfactory since the multiple interpretations hint at some underlying physics)
    • ideas for alternates to standard model (that is the stuff of theoretical particle physics, and also SM does not explain why that set of symmetries, so deeper explanations are welcome)

    I'm happy to produce vast numbers of papers showing both of these peer reviewed in high impact journals.


    What are your "lashing out" examples?


    THH

  • Quote

    Here we can complain all what we want about how poor Randy has been victim of a global conspiracy


    Meanwhile, "poor Randy (Mills)" has done nothing concrete for almost thirty years except to make constant promises of power plants just a year or two away. Oh, and he also dumps gigantic currents into tiny, uncooled spaces and marvels that fireworks result. Great accomplishments for all the dozens of millions of dollars he has spent. In all that time, not one convincing independent experiment, not one device convincingly making power from hydrinos, and of course, the hydrinos themselves always turn up missing. Maybe hydrinos are the perfect solvent and there is nothing you can contain them with? LOL.

  • I’m referring in specific to a Nobel Laureate’s (Philip Anderson) quote aimed at Mills work full of several instances of the F word.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • I’m referring in specific to a Nobel Laureate’s (Philip Anderson) quote aimed at Mills work full of several instances of the F word.

    Well, there are two kinds of Nobel Laureates: the good ones who say the stuff you want to hear (Brian Josephson and Julian Schwinger) and the bad ones that don’t (pretty much the rest of the lot.)

  • I’m referring in specific to a Nobel Laureate’s (Philip Anderson) quote aimed at Mills work full of several instances of the F word.


    I need the actual comment? Things get taken out of context, etc...


    But, even if this guy was intemperate that would not be in peer reviewed publication, and I'm sure if you look for informal comments you will find a lot of such on any subject under the sun.


    For example, people here who say: THH is biassed about LENR and a drag on the field might perhaps repeat this opinion in stronger terms with expletives on some other occasion.


    And while if on checking this guy is doing irate lashing out, how does that compare with the larger amount of non-irate rational criticism?