The Playground

Quote from DAK2

BTW: I was always confused by the discussion of emissivity vs. temperature vs. radiation. To me, emissivity is a fudge factor that makes radiation and temperature approach an ideal black body. If you just make emissivity 1, then you will always underestimate temperature. You can see that if you plot the Jones data and match it to a pure t^4 curve. The emissivity will vary to make the curves match.

That was Levi's argument - sort of. "Well even if you set e = 1 you still get COP=2". But of course if you make emissivity = 1 you overestimate power output. In the Lugano case the Al2O3 gives emissivity in IR band close to 1, but total emissivity (determining output power) of only 0.5 or so. The conditions and material used just happen to maximise the errors from any assumption that emissivity seen by the camera is the same as emissivity used for power output calculation.

Quote from Henry

After the whimper your impartial friends "the moderators" immediately deleted the downvote possibility from selection.

Abuse it and lose it.

Quote from THHuxleynew

That was Levi's argument - sort of. "Well even if you set e = 1 you still get COP=2". But of course if you make emissivity = 1 you overestimate power output. In the Lugano case the Al2O3 gives emissivity in IR band close to 1, but total emissivity (determining output power) of only 0.5 or so. The conditions and material used just happen to maximise the errors from any assumption that emissivity seen by the camera is the same as emissivity used for power output calculation.

I agree with you completely and understand the arguments. I was trying to get some value from a poor experiment. In my opinion the MFMP "reproduction" is the ONLY way to understand such a system but one needs a sensitivity analysis (basically vary a lot of runs) to see where errors can occur. Until that is done (if ever), I am still sitting on the fence if the COP >1.

I downplay calculations because of the unknown fudge factors. I look at things as follows:

You have a well-known theory that is based on first principles (select almost any theory). The theorists claim great success and win lots of prizes. The experimentalist (me) then applies that theory to real experiments and finds that the theory does not work because the theorist simplified things too much. So the experimentalist then invents fudge factors (in this case emissivity values) to make the results agree with theory. Everyone is then happy because you have a theory and results agree with the theory - except in this case the fudge factors vary with temperature and material such that the only way to get accurate results (whatever accurate is in the experimenter's mind) is to measure the fudge factors for a given system under study. Under these conditions is the theory helpful? In the case of thermography, the theory is widely used but when you have a certain system where the temperature actually matters, then you go with experimental values almost exclusively (or calibrate the system with emissivity dots, for example). Hopefully, the experimentalist is wise enough to know how his/her instruments work and take that into consideration. That is happening less and less now days as sophisticated equipment with proprietary algorithms are being employed and you trust the numbers which are given to n++ significant figures.

Lugano was such a case where stuff mattered greatly and it made one guess the experimental values because they were never measured properly. With these guessed values, the theory is then flexible enough such that you can select some fudge factors to get the data to agree with experiment and claim success. Thus, in some eyes, with a given set of values and assumptions, you see a COP=1. With other assumptions you see a COP >1. Who do you believe when both can be reasonable? Well if you were to place bets you go with the fudge factors that agree with conventional science and get on with your life. Unfortunately, that happens in many fields and thus new science remains undiscovered (more often great claims are made that have more mundane explanations).

I will continue to follow this field, and until the fence falls one way or the other, I will try to keep an open mind.

Do you want to discuss the data sets obtained before Lugano? They are more interesting to me.

Thomas Clarke never wrote anything so daft as what you did above. Are you seriously asking why the electricity bill was lower when the location was not being used?

Quote from Henry

This Forum is becoming just the house of Rossi's fans and supporters.

I think this is a misunderstanding of the current balance of support here. This place is a refreshing oasis of skeptical thought.

Quote from Henry

For your info I read the posts and I gave a lot of like (not just dislike) without the need of any "justification".

I probably would not mind if "likes" went away, either. I did not make the "dislikes" go away this time, but I'm particularly glad that they're gone in your case. If they could be turned off just for you and one or two others, even better, but the software does not currently allow that. Perhaps a future version: at that time everyone will be able to downvote but you. One can hold out hope. You will then be forced to engage here in actual reasoned discussion (or trolling if you prefer, but that won't last long).

What we really hope to support here is reasoned argumentation on scientific topics. Arguments that proceed unemotionally to set out a case, or to tackle some possibility brought up earlier in the thread by introducing new information or considerations. People who are used to reading and participating in this type of discussion know it when they see it. I am grateful that gradually the noise is ebbing here somewhat and the signal increasing. Probably won't last long.

Quote from Henry

It seems that your friend from Arkansas ("the US moderator") has an aim: censure my posts or ban me. I feel incoming another "Thomas Clarke treatment".

His friend from Arkansas is actually from Colorado. In Colorado we are accustomed to a brutal frontier existence and deal with malefactors and miscreants without batting an eye. TC felt compelled to leave as a result of harassment from Sifferkol, unfortunately, but no one here making arguments along the lines TC used to make is in a lick of danger of being punished in any way. It's hard to see how you might arrive at this conclusion. Your own difficulties stem only from your failing to really participate here other than through downvoting, which Alan has discussed with you privately.

Henry, They're just saying up your game. Provide references (something I was called on) This is not ECW, they allow complete scepticism of Rossi here. I do not remember me being censored. Remember Tyy? He had zero content just "ya all foolz" if he just said why he would probably still be here. I rarely downvote, when I do it is because of lack of content or just a raw insult. I upvote to let someone who is addressing me that I saw their response comment to me. If I hit an upvote and I am not in the convo it is due the the value of the words and its appeal to logic. Alan has had to moderate (do the heavy lifting) now Eric is as well. From my dealing with Eric he consistent and logical. You are really picking the wrong fight IMHO. I also agree with you on the downvotes BTW. but (LARGE BUT) make a salient point when doing so. Another way to look at it. Now that the downvote is gone, to "verbal downvote" you are required to post a comment (w/ references) and deal with the question directly. So you still can express your opinions.

Zeus46 wrote: "

Thomas Clarke never wrote anything so daft as what you did above. Are
you seriously asking why the electricity bill was lower when the
location was not being used?"

Zeus - I can not follow who or what you are quoting it dropped off, please specify. -thx

Eric, TC did not just leave this forum. What happened to him caused him to drop out across the board (reference: all his disqus history stops cold from this point on multiple boards) This is what happens when the "What is your real name or your argument" people crash into someones real life, then the miscreant starts harassing you IRL at your place of employment.

Quote from Henry

Ah, and zealous LF moderators where were? Not attended promptly to stop the harassment ongoing by the believer?

Alan was largely working on his own and had his hands more than full. The ethos here was much more laissez faire at the time, so there wasn't any precedent to go with. We will not allow that kind of altercation to get very far in the future.

Quote from Henry

Probably it was better to stay in Arkansas, if this is the situation at your country. It seems you live in the wild west, a land under control criminality.

We are barbarians in the US. There was a movie that was made about us several years ago which I recommend.

Oh henry, I liked Eric's post do to the movie reference, President Camancho and Cheeto both begin with a C. Real subtle there.