The Playground

Quote from Alan Smith

For alumina, ir band e is high, total power e is low. So your argument fails because with e=1 you get the temperature roughlt right, but overestimate the output power at that temperature by a factor of 2 (in this case)

Clear as mud. Thank you.

That is discourteous. It is quite a complex issue, though very possible for you to understand, and for a long explanation you need to go over the previous thread reading the long replies from both me and paradigmnoia to randombit0. Or you could go over the original thread on here where I and others discussed the issue and why it exactly explained the cop acceleration, as well as the artificial cop=3.

It would I think not be fair to everyone else to go over things again on this thread, but if you are interested and make a new thread I can answer all challenges, as can Paradigmnoia if he has not lost the will to live over repetitions of this issue!

@Alan Smith
If the object in the view of the IR camera is a blackbody or grey body, then ε is the same for the camera and for calculating total power.
When the object is a selective emitter, the camera ε is not representative of the ε to be used for calculating total power.

The IR camera bolometer is also a selective emitter, which means that it is also a selective absorber in the same bands (or the reverse if you prefer).
Since the IR camera is not hot, it's selective IR emission (and therefore absorption) properties are not immediately obvious.

Regarding IR thermography...

IR thermography might not be valid to use in high temperature LENR because the LENR reactor might radiate power in the infrared, visible and XUV ranges that do not conform to the temperature based IR thermography profile. The dummy reactor method might be the only way to make a side by side comparison of the LENR reactors power output using thermocouples. MFMP is doing their experiments correctly in that a unfueled reactor is the comparative baseline for temperature and gainful power production.

Something is off in the LUGANO test because the core of that reactor contained melted nickel which was never indicated by the IR thermography readings thus indicating the these readings were lower than they should have been.

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 impacting more lithium. If they do escape, they have bounced around enough that their kinetic energy is much lower.

No, your theory is not valid. You cannot lock alphas like that, and if they "bounce" they interact with a nucleus which will then decay with gammas. The alphas will interact with the fuel material. Sometime we may have a look with accelerated alphas on Rossis powders from 2011. But there is no doubt what the result will be, it has been done many times before.

Quote from axil

Regarding IR thermography...

IR thermography might not be valid to use in high temperature LENR because the LENR reactor might radiate power in the infrared, visible and XUV ranges that do not conform to the temperature based IR thermography profile.…

I mentioned this (melted nickel) in another forum that is known for censoring and banning if the wind blows a different direction (cough E-Scat World) and the post was removed before anyone could even respond. I also have a problem with the IR thermography readings not coinciding with the melted nickel. Are we wrong here guys?

Well, in the IR 7-13u range the al2o3 is mostly absorbent and so its emissivity is reliable => temperature inference is reliable. However differences in al2o3 microstructure can still have some effect so we have some error.

When it comes to total power there is more scope for error, which could be in either direction, since the internal structiure (nickel or whatever) can affect the results. Even then my "gut feeling" is that the al2o3 emissivity will not be very far (no more than 20%) from what is found.

Why? Consider optical etc wavelengths. The al203 may be transparent but in fact it is more translucent. internal reflections at crystal boundaries etc will increase path length and some energy will be thermalised at each reflection. All this thermalised power comes out with the al2o3 emissivity, as does power in wavelengths where al2o3 is absorbent.

But, this is gut feeling. No proof. And hence I do not know: am very willing to be shown wrong.

Very Curious, it's not my intention to criticize, but there is quite a lot of super heated steam over on the super heated thread. Ironically here in the play ground there is some interesting science being discussed.

Its an interesting point about the high energy alphas interacting with other nuclei, has this been discussed at length before? If so could someone point me to it? I'd like to try and understand more about the background.

Quote from stephenrenzz

I mentioned this (melted nickel) in another forum that is known for censoring and banning if the wind blows a different direction (cough E-Scat World) and the post was removed before anyone could even respond. I also have a problem with the IR thermography readings not coinciding with the melted nickel. Are we wrong here guys?

Maybe it was not what you said but how you said it that was irritating?

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Well, in the IR 7-13u range the al2o3 is mostly absorbent and so its emissivity is reliable => temperature inference is reliable. However differences in al2o3 microstructure can still have some effect so we have some error.

When it comes to total power…

Thomas, brillant stuff. I understand how energy would be thermalized at reflection points, but can you explain what you mean by the increase in path length.

Quote from axil

Quote from stephenrenzz: “Quote from axil: “Regarding IR thermography...

IR thermography might not be valid to use in high temperature LENR because the LENR reactor might radiate power in the infrared, visible and XUV ranges that do not conform to…

Definitely not Axil. I learned very quickly that if you want to avoid being censored and banned on E-Scat World, you have to be careful how you state things. I stated the point very matter-of-factly, and the post was removed. I reiterated it a different way, there was no rhetoric, sarcasm, argumentation or anything, I was honestly putting it out there to be considered and it was again removed. This turned into a pattern until I was banned. The pattern is disgusting, I am keeping the history. That site is SOOO terrible with its censoring and banning. You would only know how bad it was if you were a skeptic....we are NOT welcome there no matter what garbage spews from Franks mouth. I had much respect for him until he let this happen...I even emailed him about it. Disgusting excuse for a forum...no wonder E-Scat is so ridiculed.

Quote from StephenC

Its an interesting point about the high energy alphas interacting with other nuclei, has this been discussed at length before? If so could someone point me to it? I'd like to try and understand more about the background.

Yes, but nobody reacted. Search the forum for Stelson and you will find the postings. I have calculated the count rate, but please check that I did not get lost in the powers of ten!

Quote

I understand how energy would be thermalized at reflection points, but can you explain what you mean by the increase in path length.

When light is reflected it goes in random direction so you get something like a random walk where the overall average path length of a photon escaping can be much longer than the direct length.

You need to read the LUGANO report in great detail to understand that the nickel was melted. Rossi understood this because he picked that melted particle out of the reactor as described by Dr. Cook. It was the only piece of nickel that he could free. By the way, randombit0 did not know that nuckel had melted and Rossi did. So bit0 cannot be Rossi.

Rossi took this new understanding of how the LENR reaction could continue even if nickel was in a melted state into the next design of the quark reactor which runs at very high temperatures beyond the melting point of nickel.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Quote: “I understand how energy would be thermalized at reflection points, but can you explain what you mean by the increase in path length.”

When light is reflected it goes in random direction so you get something like a random walk where the…

Gotcha...totally makes sense. Thanks for the clarification...lots to think about now!!!

Thanks very much Peter. I need to take some time to read those papers they do look interesting.

And the thread

Quote from Thomas Clarke

But the temperature emissivity is restricted to ir band (camera sensor) and not the same as the power emissivity which is integrated over the whole spectrum.

Again and again trying to mess up. THIS TIME So you mean that finally the camera was reading the right temperature ?
So if the measure of temperature was OK then also the power measurement was.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

If the object in the view of the IR camera is a blackbody or grey body, then ε is the same for the camera and for calculating total power.
When the object is a selective emitter, the camera ε is not representative of the ε to be used for calculating total power.

The IR camera bolometer is also a selective emitter, which means that it is also a selective absorber in the same bands (or the reverse if you prefer).
Since the IR camera is not hot, it's selective IR emission (and therefore absorption) properties are not immediately obvious.

This phrase is simply NONSENSE the camera bolometers temperature is controlled and measured continuously by the electronics and software in order to get the correct measure.

Also many materials have a band emissivity that varies with wave length and still temperature (and power) measurements are perfectly possible, using the TOTAL EMISSIVITY.

Quote

Again and again trying to mess up. THIS TIME So you mean that finally the camera was reading the right temperature ?So if the measure of temperature was OK then also the power measurement was.

The camera will read the right temperature if you give it the correct band emissivty, in all cases...

And the power measurement will be correct if you give it the correct total emissivity, in all cases.

I think you need to understand this first, and then you can start to consider the real uncertainties caused by the partial translucence of al2o3. But those just mean the Lugano results have unknown errors. We knew that anyway. They do not affect the known miscalculation Levi made and it seems is still making.

Quote

Also many materials have a band emissivity that varies with wave length and still temperature (and power) measurements are perfectly possible, using the TOTAL EMISSIVITY.

That is what I said (several times) at the start of the debate here. Often total emissivity is a pretty good approximation to 7-13u band emissivity as measured by the camera. But not for Al2O3 at high temperatures where it has a low total emissivity due to the higher frequency low spectral emissivity but keeps high band emissivity since in 7-13u band it stays at high spectral emisivity.

Quote from Thomas Clarke

Even then my "gut feeling" is that the al2o3 emissivity will not be very far (no more than 20%) from what is found.

WOW DEAR ! Did you finally agree that for Al2O3 the total emissivity found is correct ?
Should I remember you that the Lugano Authors have measured the total emissivity of the alumina pipes and found the same value reported in the literature ?