Some Points Regarding a Recent Presentation at ICCF20 on the ‘Lugano Report’ (Rainer Rander)

Quote from BobHiggins

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

While this is [mostly] true, MFMP's analysis did not use any of these temperatures to compute the emitted heat - the heat was not calculated. Based on MFMP replica Optris data processed in exactly the same way as the Lugano researchers, the "thermal states" of the MFMP replica and the active Lugano device were matched. Then the Lugano heat was ascertained as the electrical heat input into the MFMP replica to obtain that identical thermal state as the active Lugano device.

Thanks. I was referring only to the measure of temperature. Lugano used temperature in their heat calculations. I have mentioned that power calibration (which MFMP attempted with a simulated Lugano device) would bypass even the need to determine actual temperature. I'm not yet conversant with how the Lugano data was used to match "identical thermal state," I have not yet studied this MFMP paper in sufficient detail. One might do this by setting the camera with the emissivity known to have been used by Lugano. Then what power input was necessary to create the same result (camera reading) could be studied. So this is what I expect to see, ab initio.

While there are possible complications with how input power would be distributed through the device, if a dummy fuel tube were used, and similar heating coils, this could be minimized. If not, then that could be an error source. How large, I do not know. If a full calibration were done, the internals of the device would also be matched as closely as possible. Then any spot on the surface could be used as a "power detector,: and if many spots were used, the results should tighten up.

Rainer Rander was attacking this MFMP work in the subject post here. He does point up some issues, but they are issues that call everything into doubt, remarkably.

MFMP began from a position of strong support for Rossi results. Their investigations were largely aimed at attempts to confirm Rossi, or, say, Parkhomov, who treated his own work as a Rossi confirmation. Yet they are proceeding scientifically, presenting results regardless of what they might seem to imply.

Quote

There were actually 4 measures of temperature: b-type thermocouple close to the root of the ridges, k-type thermocouple contacting higher on the ridges, the Wilkinson pyrometer measuring peak temperature near the root, and the Optris camera reporting average temperature. Of those measurements, only the Optris relied on a single-value emissivity parameter. MFMP found that a single-value emissivity parameter of about 0.90 entered into the Optris best correlated with the other measurements. However, this was only used to re-assess the Lugano device surface temperature - IT WAS NOT USED TO CALCULATE HEAT!

I got that, Bob. Shouting is not necessary.

Now, about that emissivity parameter. Emissivity of alumina, particularly around the detection band, may vary substantially with temperature. A single value could be quite misleading. I would expect to see more precise data and results. "about 0.90" is an approximation; rather, what were actual results, and error bars were what? In general, I'm not seeing an error analysis, which would be important here. I will comment separately on the MFMP report, in detail. However, before doing that, I want to acknowledge strong appreciation for the work of MFMP. I do not always agree with approaches or conclusions, some seem premature, but ... MFMP is "getting its hands dirty," and is actually studying reality, not just theory or bluster. Way to go, folks!

Quote from THHuxley

Therefore the TRUE value of n must also vary (a lot) from this approximation.

So what does Optris do? If they use n=3 for this sensor at all temperatures (very possible) that will, as Paradigmnoia tells you, be the first guess transformation which is then modified by a linear piecewise approximation stored in a lookup table.

There may be a basic error here. I have been writing that the Optris camera uses a lookup table, stored in an EEPROM, which is reprogrammable. They would use an EEPROM so that the camera maybe calibrated or recalibrated.

Calibration would be based on actual measurements with the camera, not on theoretical calculations, as such. Camera calibration might shift with age and exposure to heat, for example.

However, I reread the IR Basics guide. It doesn't actually say what I had remembered. This is what it says:

Quote

The results of these calculations for all temperatures are stored as curve band in the EEPROM of the infrared thermometer. This guarantees quick access to the data and fast calculation of the temperature.

First of all, "infrared thermometer." This doesn't actually tell us what the camera uses. Then, prominent in the formula is "C," which is "device-specific." In other words, devices may differ, based on normal manufacturing variation and other conditions. Hence each device must be calibrated, which would be a procedure where the actual conversion values would be measured and stored. From an engineer's point of view, then, I suspect that the statement in the guide is slightly misleading. Guides and manuals are not perfect, if one really wants the whole story, a conversation with the company's application engineer may be required. And even that can be flawed, depending on the engineer.

From an engineering perspective, there are two approaches to converting resistance values in the bolometer array to temperatures. At this point, one is considering and assuming a black body. One approach would be to use a microprocessor to do the math, but this must be fed values, such as C, the device-specific constant. Which might not actually be a constant, only approximately so, since the response of the device may not match theory precisely. The other approach is to create range calilbration. Full range calibration may take too long, so spot calibration might be used, with values interpolated (where the formulas might assist).

If the camera is calibrated, how? What is changed? Is some conversion given to allow camera results to be adjusted? (Some calibrations, particularly of physical standards, may do that.) I don't think so. I think the EEPROM is a look-up table that may be interpolated for intermediate values. And it was rooted in actual measurements of black body objects (or objects of known emissivity and temperature, such as calibration dots, but those dots don't work at the higher temperatures needed).

However, the plot thickens. It may be that there is no calibration data in the camera. See http://www.varmekamera.se/Manu…Connect-MA-E2012-08-A.pdf

I have not found any detailed description, anywhere, of how the camera actually works. If there is a factory calibration of the camera, it might modify an internal EEPROM. Or perhaps the camera simply generates raw data, and all the calculation and conversion is done in the recording and display software, the manual for which is linked above. There is a "calibration file," but it's unclear what it is. So far, I have reviewed the IR Basics guide, the actual camera manual, and the software guide, and none of it is completely clear.

It might be hydrid. I.e., calibration might be written to an EEPROM in the camera, by a user action. But I have not seen clear description anywhere.

What would actually be important for "live use" would be full specific calibration. With that, all the intermediate process doesn't matter, it comes out in the wash. This is for measuring temperature, and for measuring power, the entire temperature issue is unnecessary, as power can be correlated with camera readings, so measuring power becomes quite direct, assuming constant conditions.

Quote from THHuxley

Abd wrote:

in fact 7-13um is mostly below the wavelength alumina goes translucent and so over the temp ranges here emissivity stays high - though it does vary a little. The range 0.87 - 0.97 is more than enough. Now - what exact value do we get within this range? it depends on how the sensor weights power over the range, and on the alumina microstructure.

Indeed. "Alumina microstructure." The Lugano surface was complex. How was it made? It is possible that IH might support MFMP. They did, apparently, make those reactors. It has been said that there are no Lugano reactors left, but not only have I not seen a clear confirmation of that, but what is lost might be found .... and they would know how the reactor was made. Have they been asked for this information?

Quote

MFMP's work has merits and disadvantages compared with TCs.
(1) (good) it cuts through theoretical assumptions and does thermal analysis empirically

Yes. TC's work was theoretical, which will then be based on assumptions, and which can be more susceptible to error. (Like the Lugano work itself). The MFMP work is more grounded, but still suffers from issues over "exactr replication." What the MFMP work shows is that something was way, way off with Lugano. There is no contrary evidence, in fact, just hot air from Planet Rossi (i.e., "Rainer Rander" and some others) and silence from the actual Lugano researchers, who might contribute to science by actually answering questions. If there is an NDA, with whom? Industrial Heat? Rossi? Who is blocking the conversation?

At some point, public interest outweights NDAs. Gamberale apparently took no hit for breaking his NDA with Defkalion. This was represented as an independent replication, and for one of the professors to demonstrate independence by simply telling the truth about his or her experience would be highly defensible and laudable. No "trade secrets" would need to be revealed, and if there were, IH could actually authorize it.

However, there is another issue. This is ancient history. Does it really matter? What is important is what can be confirmed, with high weight on what can be reproduced. So what is presently being done is of higher significance. There are plenty of failures to find NiH heat, but .... one damn good experiment could shift the balance, and if it can be reliably repeated, it's all over. High-precision calorimetry is being discussed on the CMNS list, and my awareness that LENR research was crippled by inferior calorimetry, and/or poorly presented results, so complex as to confuse anyone not willing to spend a day to study a paper. The poor calorimetry was motivated, in part, by maintaining simplicity, because the high-precision calorimetry of Pons and Fleischmann was "too complicated." But complex calorimetry that takes into account the full available data can be "hidden under the hood," documented separately and simply presented as results, and then shown to be of clear precision and accuracy by calibrations. It is not necessary to snow readers with complexity.

This is all about technical writing skill.

Quote

(2) (bad) in as far as it links this to the Lugano measurements it suffers uncertainty due to variable emissivity between its alumina and the Lugano alumina. This is not a big error (given the above likely range) but it can be significant.

Yes. Rainer Rander actually brings that up. So ... how did the Lugano researchers determine their own emissivity? They show a calibration at low temperature, but we know that this could work just fine -- by coincidence, if the emissivity at low temperature matches the total emissivity, which, apparently, they used and then used at high temperature with no calibration, thus resulting in the massive temperature error.

It is possibly not a major issue, but the point is that it could be impossible to nail the matter down. This, then, confirms another major problem with all "demonstrations." They might not be indepedently verifiable, hence they cannot reliably establish what they might purport to establish. Rossi was apparently manufaturing individual E-Cats by 2011, in quantity. It would be such that would be first to be independently verified, if that were to happen. It is possible to arrange verification that still protects IP, but Rossi did not arrange this. Ever. Except with IH, which was allowed, for obvious reasons, to attempt such verification, and which claims to have failed completely. That, all by itself, casts major cold water on Lugano.

Quote

This is a general comment about the MFMP work based on their methodology and its applicability. I will comment in detail after reading their paper when I've more time.

Yes. The work generally confirms widespread speculation about Lugano. It then attempts to estimate COP, from this calibration, showing low COP but possibly significant. However, the material! They are taking data from Lugano and assuming that they can then adjust it with their own calibration. Definitely, better than nothing! But very possibly flawed. I also intend to read the paper more carefully.

Quote from BobHiggins

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Sorry. Just there for emphasis. I still get a chuckle about the likeness of capitalization to shouting.

DAMN IT! SHOUTING IS FOR EMPHASIS!

Now, a detailed review of the Rainer Rander post on ECW that started this thread:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…ano-report-rainer-rander/

Quote

Recently Mr. Robert Greenyer from the so called “MFMP Project” attacked, during a presentation done at ICCF20, the results of the “Lugano Report”, a technical report written, more than two years ago, by an international group of scientists that clearly shows that a prototype of the Rossi High Temperature Reactor, was producing Energy with a COP of about 3.6.

Immediately telegraphed. This is factional polemic. Greenyer is from the MFMP project. It is not "so-called," those are scare quotes. It actually is a Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project, from inception. It is also an attempt at "public science." It has been showing increasing maturity and depth. Does the Lugano report "clearly show" the claimed result? That report, never published in a journal, i.e., never subject to peer review, was quickly followed by a published review by Michael McKubre, http://www.infinite-energy.com…ne/issue118/analysis.html

Notice that McKubre's first reaction is "positive." This report looked good at first, and only began to fall apart when carefully studied. McKubre, however, pointed out a fundamental problem:

Quote

Although highly interesting, this report has problems at several levels that render direct interpretation difficult or impossible without further information and clarification. This is a shame and undoubtedly a source of great frustration to the CMNS community. There are substantive missing or broken issues dealing with the essential issues of calorimetry and sampling.
[...]
Of primary concern is the complete absence of relevant pre- or post-test calibration. The mathematical description of heat losses from a structure with multiple parts and awkward geometry is not difficult but contains many terms and several assumptions. Perhaps with more direct experience I could trust the equations and assumptions to do their job, but I do not have that experience. Neither do the authors, nor does most of the “audience.” The only way to handle such uncertainty is via relevant calibration, ideally under identical conditions at and surrounding the operating point. The calibration that was performed was at a single point well below the points of ultimate operation. This is bad and bad. We need to determine the shape of the performance manifold empirically, ideally bracketing all points of operation. This was not done.

Notice that McKubre did not claim that the results were wrong, but that there had been inadequate calibration, which then would allow any errors in the calculations to generate incorrect results. Because there was a bit of prima facie evidence that something was drastically off, the appearance of the reactor when it was supposedly at 1400 C external temperature not matching what would be expected at that temperature, those interested in this experiment and in attempting to confirm it began to study what had been done. This led to a number of reports that show an obvious error, the use of total emissivity in place of band emissivity, which will typically be obtained from an in-situ calibration with the actual materials. The Lugano team did not show, in the report, any sign of being aware of the issue. That, again, is easy to understand, because, as McKubre pointed out, they were not experts. Rainer Rander seems to be asserting that, as an "international group of scientists," they would be experts. But how was this group selected? Who chose them? It's obvious. They were not selected for expertise in calorimetry, and one of them, Essen, had made at least one major blunder in his own study of an early Rossi demonstration, which he never cleared up. It is a bit shocking for Essen, after all, as having been a leader in the Swedish skeptic movement.

Back to Rander:

Quote

The harsh critical statements, claiming that the whole analysis was wrong and that just a tiny effect was observed, was spread over the net without any details and this behavior pattern seemed immediately to me, and other colleagues from European Universities and Research Centers, quite unscientific and unprofessional.

The net happens. This paper is now published, and it attempts to recover actual power measurement from clues in the Lugano Report. It is not in controversy among LENR researchers whether or not the Lugano test showed COP of 3.6. It did not. The remaining question, in fact, is whether any COP was shown at all. The MFMP report shows, as their conclusion, some residual excess power. It's not enough to convince anyone of much of anything, other than "maybe," and "further research is needed." The alternative is to use the relatively strong evidence from Industrial Heat, which claims that, in spite of extensive effort over some years, they were unable to confirm any excess heat from any Rossi-designed device. They made the Lugano reactor, and apparently attempted to test it themselves, using more precise calorimetry (which would not have been difficult). I personally gloss "no heat" as "no major heat," because low levels of apparent excess heat are common as artifact, and difficult to distinguish from real reactions. In order to discount the IH evidence, it becomes necessary to adapt a conspiracy theory, because IH had money, had, supposedly, full disclosure from Rossi plus Rossi's personal assistance for at least a year, per the Agreement, and still reported failure.

The paper, just published in JCMNS, is at http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedt.pdf, and it begins on page 86. This is from a conference proceeding and sometimes peer review can be thin for these. Still, it is of reasonable quality, and not "unscientific." It is "unprofessional," by definition, because these are not professionals. However, quality work is quality work. They have done a decent job with limited resources.

Of course, I wonder at "seemed immediately to me, and other colleagues from European Universities and Research Centers, quite unscientific and unprofessional." The capitalization here reminds me of a certain style, and Rainer Rander has been accused of being Andrea Rossi, who is constrained from personally commenting by his lawyers (and sensibly so, since he tends to stick his foot in his mouth and make things worse), but who seems to use sock puppets to say what he wants to say, then he can say "No comment." Be that as it may, there are a few academics associated with Rossi, and they seem to have all gone silent. (Peter Gluck would be an exception.) Who are these "collegeagues"? Why can't they be quoted? Why does Rainer Rander not establish his identity, since he seems to think credentials matter?

I think he's lying, that is what I think. He may have some friends who agree with him, but this is not some general scientific consensus, and it might just be as few as three: me, myself, and I.

However, what are his arguments? Do they make sense? Can what he is saying be confirmed?

Quote

In fact, I was able to retrieve from the Internet a document, dated August 2016, http://magicsound.us/MFMP/MFMP_Research-August2016.pdf, written by the same person in name of the MFMP where substantially the same declarations are made adding that: “the Optris thermal camera needed an emissivity in the range of 0.95 to match temperatures seen by the thermocouples”.

This would require explanation. What did MFMP do? They studied a dummy reactor made to hopefully match the Lugano reactor. I am not looking up that comment, because it does describe part of the conclusions in the paper. In a comment here, one of the MFMP people described that they used two thermocouples, an independent and more sophisticated pyrometer, and the same Optris camera as used by Lugano, to look at the aliumina under conditions similar to Lugano. The principle they were following was recommended for camera calibration. Use a known temperature, based on independent measurement, and then set the camera to read the same temperature. From this report, they found that 0.95 worked. This is, from other evidence we have about alumina, was roughly to be expected. Rainer seems to have no clue:

Quote

This statement is absolutely surprising and disappointing. We should remember that Alumina total integrated emissivity is, at low temperature, about 0.64 and that this figure di decreases with increasing temperatures.

Notice: total emissivity. This is not the figure that the camera needs, and this is exactly the error made by the Lugano team. The camera needs band emissivity, in the band matching the actual camera response, and this emissivity varies with temperature. Yes, total emissivity decreases, I think to roughly 40 or 45%. But that is total emissivity, not band emissivity. The alumina is apparently a very good radiator in the camera detection band, so it is almost a black body *in that band,* not in the integrated full specrum.

Quote

Supposing that there was no problem with the thermal contact of the Thermocouple, that is not trivial due to the fact that Alumina is a good thermal insulator, the figure obtained by MFMP simply means that the material used by them was not pure Alumina.

Notice that this is a completely different argument. Yes, the alumina may have differed. This is a detail that they did not necessarily nail down. However, we could expect that it might be close. So, suppose the alumina was wrong and results way off because of that. Where would that leave us? It would not address the fundamental error that the Lugano team made, failure to calibrate. Had they calibrated, they would probably have looked for something to explain what would have appeared to them as a blatant discrepancy. Perhaps they might have consulted a camera expert.

The thermocouple contact may have been poor, that is a possible weakness in the report, in fact I suspect it, but ... they also used a two-band pyrometer, a more sophisticated device. Lugano used nothing.

Quote

Even a small fraction of Mg as found in common “Alumina” cements as “Durapot”, can change material emissivity dramatically.

The consequence of what Rander is claiming is that Lugano cannot be confirmed, unless perhaps one has the exact material used, ideally the same reactor. IH might have that somewhere. Or where did it go? Regardless, there are so many issues about the Lugano test that it is essentially useless. Rossi, supposedly, made many E-cats. A true independent test now would make all that old testing moot.

Basically, the variability of alumina requires that an actual calibration be done, and Rainer is avoiding noticing that the calibration must be done at the actual temperature, though he certainly knows that alumina emissivity varies with temperature. Calibration. Don't leave home without it. Rossi generally avoided calibration, thought, in 2011, that control experiments were unnecessary, because he "already know what would happen, nothing." But that is not what a control experiment does. It does not generate "nothing," it generates measurable results showing the effect of the experimental variable, such as, in this case, fuel. Calibration will always be sensibly done with experimental conditions exactly the same as in the experiment; this can include many things not considered important, but that might be, such as power-up sequence, etc. Still, a miniimal calibration would have looked at 900 W power input and what the camera showed. They would actually bypass temperature measurement, by correlating camera readings with actual input power. Temperature then becomes something that might satisfy curiosity.

Quote

So with that result MFMP has simply demonstrated that:
1) The material they used was NOT the same of the Lugano measure, or
2) Thermocouple positioning and/or thermal contact was not correct.

Rander is showing more lack of academic reserve. He has posited those as possibilities that could explain, at least partly, the MFMP results, but then he treats this as if proven, or "demonstrated." The first claim is, so far, unverifiable, they matched the material as closely as they could. The Lugano reactor also had fins. How were those made? Lugano, examined closely, leads to a pile of mysteries, and what is normal in science is that an original researcher answers inquiries. I've made many such inquiries, and the researchers answer. The Lugano team clammed up. So MFMP did the best they could with what they had.

The second claim neglects the pyrometer confirmation. I do intend to examine the MFMP report in more detail. However, what Rainer is shooting down, in fact, is a report that appears to confirm, on the face, that there was some heat. If the defects Rainer is alleging are serious, then there is no evidence of excess heat that isn't already highly impeached by the failure to calibrate.

Quote

In both cases we must conclude that their results are NOT significant in any way. The MFMP report also does not include a real energy calibration, just temperatures being reported, that is necessary in order to know how much power is really injected in the coils.

What the MFMP reports is actually a calibration, as suggested by the camera manufacturer. The difficulty is that the material might not be exact. There is no other data, the Lugano researchers failed to calibrate in the necessary temperature range,when they had the reactor in front of them. What stopped them? I have my suspicion, but little evidence on it.

(What range was necessary? Ideally, it would go up to 1400 C, but that figure only comes from the defective measurement, and the actual temperature was likely much lower. So there would be another calibration that would have been almost as useful, and in a practical sense, almost totally useful: calibrating at full power, which is what MFMP did, not Lugano.)

Quote

We should note also that MFMP is ignoring the fact that the Lugano group had measured emissivity of Alumina on the pipes and also calibrated the empty reactor up to 450 °C obtaining a perfect agreement with the measured power and the known values of Alumina emissivity.

They don't ignore that. This is, again, showing that Rander doesn't understand the issue.
At the lower temperature, the total emissivity of alumina may approximately match the band emissivity, i.e., what the camera will see. At the higher temperature, note, it is quite different. Failure to calibrate at the critical temperature or operating power was the fundamental failure of Lugano.

Quote

This also rules out any of the fanciful considerations about “spectral emissivity” of Alumina that do not consider the fact that any IR detector is factory calibrated in order to permit usage of total emissivity values during measure.

This is the opposite of how the camera is to be used, and, again, if the Lugano researchers thought like this, no wonder they were confused.

Band emissivity is absolutely required for the camera, and total emissivity will only work for gray bodies, and it is preferably obtained from actual calibrations of the material to be viewed, at the temperature involved. From calibrations, one may have a plot of band emissivity vs. temperature. This would then be the value to use (and since one does not start out knowing the temperature, a recursive process is used). Total emissivity is essentially irrelevant to the camera usage, since it cannot be seen by the camera, only band emissivity. Total emissivity, as used at Lugano, worked at low temperature, where, apparently, band emissivity and total emissivity were roughly the same. This is quite clear: the Lugano team was completely unaware of the issue.

So, here, we see someone pretending to be an academic with his colleagues all in agreement, but none of them staking their personal reputation on it. This kind of mishegas is normally ignored in the real world, is only present on the internet. This isn't academic science and isn't real science. It's polemic, from someone who clearly has an axe to grind, so far from reality is it.

Quote

In conclusion we think that the points raised by MFMP against the Lugano Report lack any foundation and have no scientific value.

At least one journal editor and reviewer appears to have disagreed. If Rander wants to play the science game, it is played in the journals. I'm sure that JCMNS would publish a sober critique of the MFMP work, if submitted. What Rander has said, so far, though, would probably be immediately rejected. He will have to do much better, starting with not being anonymous, hiding, where he can say whatever he wants with no consequences.

I have criticized the Lugano team for stonewalling, but I also must acknowledge the other side. They did put their names on that report, which could, in fact, risk damage to reputation. My hope is that they will recover by opening up, or at least disclosing why they cannot.

There is an update, discussion of which will follow.

continuing the commentary on Rainer Rander
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…ano-report-rainer-rander/

Quote

UPDATE: (October 10, 2016)

The following follow-up comment has been submitted by Rainer Rander

Mr. Bob Greenyer affirms that :
“In the Optris camera manual on page 42 it said to use 0.95 for Alumina, this was ignored by the lugano report authors”

Which Manual? In the online version of the Optris Manual (http://www.optris.com/thermal-…Manuals/Englisch/Infrared Cameras/Manual optris PI.pdf) on page 42 there is the “Electrical Installation” and at the end of the manual two emissivity tables for metals and non metals “Oxidized Aluminium” has for the camera spectral range a maximum emissivity of 0.4.

Display More

I love questions that can be answered.

No source was given for the Greenyer comment. This was from a blog post, apparently: http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…ander/#comment-2939247264

Yes. Greenyer wrote that. "page 42" was likely a typo. The relevant page in the manual might have been page 72, which instructs to start with a band emissivity of 0.95 for a calibration dot. Page 76 lists emissivity for "ceramic," which might be similar to alumina, might even be alumina, showing in the relevant band for the camera, emissivity of 0.95. On page 74, a page giving the emissivity of metals, aluminum is there, giving four forms. Rander refers to "oxidized" which shows a band emissivity of 0.2 to 0.4. However, "oxidized aluminum" refers to ordinary aluminum metal with the normal thin oxide coating. This is utterly unlike the ceramic form of alumina. It is basically a metal. One might notice on the page 76 chart that most non-metals have high emissivity in the 7.5 - 13 micron camera band.

Rander is cherry-picking data that appears to support his position. Many people will not look.

Quote

For the Emissivity of Alumina on Inconel, quite the same situation of the Lugano report, could be found to have values: “Alumina on Inconel 800-2000 (427-1093) .69-.45” in the table retrieved at, http://www.scigiene.com/pdfs/4…erEmissivitytablesrev.pdf, for the IR thermometers of Scigene that have a spectral response from 8 to 14 micrometers; that is very similar to Optris Pi160.

This is not "quite the same situation of the Lugano report." Alumina on Inconel is a material not used in the reactor, this is alumina bonded onto Inconel. From various sources, it appears that it has a very different emissivity than plain alumina. If it is a thin layer, this might easily be understandable. Bottom line, to use the Optris Camera, the band emissivity of the material under test must be obtained, and because there are so many variations possible, it must be obtained experimentally, in a calibration, or there is a high risk of error.

Quote

Mr. Greenyer also affirms that the material was pure Alumina. On what basis? Did they have an analysis done? If they have used a cement even the impurities in water could affect the emissivity values. In fact the Lugano group has verified that the material of the reactor body was pure Alumina by x ray scattering.

This is nitpicking. Yes, there may have been some variation, but we have no better data than what was gathered by MFMP. How was the reactor made? Were the ridges on it prepared by casting alumina over a basic cylinder? If so, alumina cement may have been used. Lugano did not have those details, and it may be that no communication with Rossi or Industrial Heat has been possible -- I don't know -- but, bottom line, alumina as put together by MFMP, attempting to be as close as possible to Lugano, showed what it showed. Given that the Lugano team were totally unaware of the problem of total emissivity vs. band emissivity, they have provided a plausible explanation for the obvious problem, a reactor calculated to be 1400 C using a total emissivity value, that was obviously not at that temperature, from the apparent color.

Small variations in composition might introduce small problems, but, in this case, are not likely to have introduced large ones. Nevertheless, Rander has introduced a certain doubt that may be enough to impeach the MFMP finding of small COP. Would he prefer "none"? or "no conclusion possible"?

Also I have looked with interest to the plot reported in the comments by Mr. Greenyer but I have two points:

Quote

1) In the plot it is explicitly said that convection is NOT considered, and also radiation(?) referring just to a “thermal state”. That is surprising because when speaking of “power” (i.e. energy/time) all means of thermal energy transport are important (An isolated system could maintain a certain temperature using much less power than a non isolated one). Convection, radiation,and also heat conduction via the cables, were all considered by the Lugano group.

Indeed they were. Rander is showing that he has totally failed to understand what MFMP did. They put in 900 W and observed what the camera showed. Assuming similar ventilation conditions, this would automatically consider *all energy transport*. That covers convection, radiation, and conduction, if there is a similar conduction path. There could be an issue from any variation, though. Whether it would be a large one or not would require detailed examination.

Rander appears to consider the "consideration" of all these variables superior to a full calibration, thus he is thinking like whoever planned Lugano.

The heat transport must be studied if one is going to extrapolate from temperature to power dissipation. Calibration bypasses this entirely. Yes, one must be aware of conduction paths, but only to match them. No actual study of the heat transfer is needed, and this avoids the kind of complexity that can lead to -- and over up -- even major errors.

I don't know if it made any difference, but I think I did suggest this kind of study to MFMP. It was obviously needed.

Quote

2) Moreover, because an IR sensor respond to received energy (and NOT temperature) and any (common) camera or thermometer would attempt to calculate temperature using an input emissivity value, and the SAME emissivity value is used to calculate back energy, then the two cancels and energy should have NO dependence on emissivity. In the real case, because of the internal algorithms of the camera, there is still a weak dependence, that would still NOT justify the big differences found by the MFMP.

This is beyond the pale. It's the same argument, I think, as used here by Randombit0.

Camera readings for temperature depend on band emissivity, that is, what the camera can see. It cannot see total emissivity, only what the material radiates in the relatively narrow band to which it is sensitive.

Radiation of power by the material varies with total emissivity, because there will be radiation in all bands, the actual radiation has no relationship to the camera band sensitivity. The "same" emissivity value cannot be used, and the reason is quite simple and easy to understand. The Lugano team used total emissivity for the calculation of temperature (i.e., by how they set the camera emissivity function) and also for the calculation of radiation, depending on temperature. It was only the former that was incorrect. So they obtained a temperature too high and then (perhaps correctly) they calculated the much higher power dissipation which would have been the case if the device were actually at that temperature.

Using band emissivity, as suggested here, would be utterly incorrect.

Quote

The comment about the emissivity measure with the reference dots is completely wrong. As we can see in page 71 of the previously cited Optris manual, it is normal procedure to read the temperature value in the center of the dot where it is less probable to have artifacts (due to air under the dot not perfectly sticking surface, than on its borders). Any speculation about parts of the dot “sticking out” is to be considered just FUD. The procedure that the Lugano group have followed is perfectly correct.

Rander did not source the "comment." It appears to be by Obvious (Paradigmnoia here). This is, my opinion, a quite minor issue, but "FUD" is radically impolite. It is normal for a scientific report to be considered in detail, with apparent anomalies, oddities, receiving examination. They may or may not be of significance. But Rander apparently considers careful examination and mention of what is observed, "FUD." I looked over the Obvious comment and did not see anything about the dot that would seriously impeach Lugano, in itself. Here is the post:
http://www.e-catworld.com/2016…ander/#comment-2942526728 and another post following it.

The Optris manual does not state what Rander claims. Rather, there is an image showing the selected calibration point, which does happen to be at the center of the dot, and that's kind of an obvious place to point the camera at! So, we can "see" this "normal procedure" there, and this has very little to do with what Obvious wrote. If there were a dot not bonded by the adhesive to the surface, I would expect that areas of the dot with some air gap would, in fact, be cooler. I don't see that Obvious established this. In fact, I don't think he intended to say what Rander interpreted, at all. He used "sticking out" to mean "very clearly visible." He does not mention a possible separation, so this could be a deficit in understanding English.

In looking at the Lugano report (http://www.elforsk.se/Global/O…er/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf) I noticed that they used a emissivity value "from the literature," for the alumina temperature displayed in Figure 7, taken "from the literature." This was [3] R. Morrell, Handbook of properties of technical and engineering ceramics Part 2, 1985, H.M.S.O.

This would almost certainly be a total emissivity value, because band emissivity depends on the camera sensitivity, and this kind of camera was not in use at that time, I think. Rather, engineers would want to know total emissivity, not band. If I'm wrong, someone point it out, but Lugano used total emissivity rather than band emissivity to set up the camera. As mentioned, they seemed to not be aware of the difference.

Quote

Also, personally I found the comments about the Lugano team being unable to carry out the measurement inappropriate. Personal attacks show only the (low) level of the attacker. And probably it is these kind of comments that are keeping the authors of the Lugano report as far as possible from blogs.

They could have been able, but they didn't. It is that simple. Anyone can make mistakes. Even total experts make mistakes. But real experts, when a mistake is pointed out, say "Oops! Sorry!" Fake experts will argue till the cows come home. Or will ignore critique. Levi has been confronted with some of this analysis, and his response, reported by Mats Lewan, showed that he still did not understand the issue.

There have been real questions raised by real scientists, and the Lugano team has completely clammed up. I would not expect them to answer in blogs. They could easily respond to the MFMP publication ijn JCMNS. That is where discussions on this kind of issuel take place. Had they published their results in a journal, that is where critique would, first of all, be published. This is normal scientific practice. Sometimes, for various reasons, a critique is published in a different journal, but it's completely normal then for the original author(s) to respond there.

This mishegas about "blogs" is simply an effort to confuse and avoid the obvious Obvious. Rander's comment was published on a blog. As it happens, an MFMP author responded, but MFMP is very much "public science." And one might notice that they are less and less involved in "arguments," and moving toward actual experiment and measurement and clear report.

That is what Rander is disparaging. Real science, not perfect, but developing data that can then advance knowledge.

Quote from randombit0

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:

Dear Abdul,

You can use "Abd." "Abdul" is a weirdness produced by transliterating Arabic names beginning with "servant of the" and mixing up the definite article of the next word (al- ul- or il, depending on grammatical context) with the first one. Nobody would ever, in Arabic, be called "Abdul." It could be an insult. "Abd" means "servant," among other meanings.

Quote

this two phrases demonstrate that your field is probably Grammar or Literature, but not Science or Engineering.

My field. What is my field? I was trained in science, at the California Institute of Technology, I sat with Richard P. Feynman for the Feynman Lectures, the original, which dates me. I did fine in that Physics class, though I was already losing interest in going forward academically. I dropped out, and proceeded to quite a full life, I have seven children and six grandchildren, and I became a self-taught electronics engineer, and still have that business, though I now only use another designer I retained. So science and engineering are fields of mine. But I am a writer, primarily, and a major project is promoting genuine research into LENR. And, on that, I was published in a peer-reviewed journal, last year. I wonder, RB0, if you have ever been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, on your own? My paper is at http://www.currentscience.ac.in/Volumes/108/04/0574.pdf and I have been told it is making a difference. Do you have a published paper you can show?

Or do you have other success you can show?

Quote

Not a problem Writers and Journalist are nice people.

Thanks, at least I can take it that way. Or I could take it as a lead-in to condescension.

Quote

I will try to explain some concepts with simple words.

The problem, RB0, is that I already understand what you "explain" and probably understood it well over fifty years ago.

Quote

First :
How much signal you receive on a detector IS relevant !

Of course it is, with a qualification. It's relevant to what? It has no relevance to the issue being discussed here, so your response simply takes my comment out of context. Your communication skills are primitive, and I predict that they will eventually lead to failure in life, once you run out of steam. How's it going for you? That's a question that one of my trainers always asked. You can lie to yourself, sometimes, and often to others, but it is very hard to lie to people who have a deep understanding, because they will see through it. Most, however, won't tell you. Finding friends who will tell you the truth can be crucial. It is not necessarily easy. I sought out trainers who could see right through me, so that I could not hide.

Quote

If the received signal is low because the detector is not "tuned" to receive it the experimenter risk to collect more noise ( random signals ) then significant data. This make the measure impossible. In technical wording is called Signal to Noise ratio and for some details look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal-to-noise_ratio.

And then correlation may be used to punch through the noise. There is no such marginal measurement being made here. Alumina is highly visible in the camera detection band, it is almost a black body.

Quote

Also. Before QM BB radiation was known only as an experimental fact with ( almost ) no explanation. Is just after QM that we really KNOW a complete physical explanation of that phenomenon and so we also know that there will never be a material with better emissivity !

This is epistemologically unsophisticated. QM did explain the mystery of black body radiation, and I referred to that, because it was that mystery that led to the development of QM. Here is a little page on it: http://home.fnal.gov/~pompos/light/light_page27.html and the next page.

The "black body problem" is described on Wikipedia, where it is called the Ultraviolet catastrophe.

My point here, however, is that one does not need to look at the quantization of light to understand how the Optris camera works. One merely needs to know what was known before QM explained the spectrum. I.e., the actual black body radiation spectrum needs to be known, and that's all. Further, to use an Optris camera properly, one need know nothing about QM, and it would only be confusing.

RB0's introduction of QM was just part of his standard FUD, that can snow people without a decent background in science. It is not that RB0 is entirely wrong, though he has come up with some real bloopers here (such as his confusion between the band emissivity used in setting the camera to measure temperature, and the total emissivity that predicts total energy radiation), but where he goes seriously astray, like his friend Andrea, is in claiming that others are wrong, and in one discussion Rossi actually claimed that a common usage was totally wrong, and then cited a source as place to learn about it, a well-known professor and author, who actually used the expression he said was wrong.

Rossi has some learning deficits, probably coming out of how he studied all this. There are huge holes in his knowledge -- which can be true of anyone, but ... he doesn't seem to be aware of it, being supremely self-confident. His ability to communicate science is quite poor. And RB0 seems to be, ah, very similar. Maybe it's the company he hangs out with.

Quote

If you need a more detailed explanation please ask.

I'm going to guess that RB0 actually was out of diapers by the time that I had a decent understanding of these topics, but not so long out of diapers. In that two years of physics at Cal Tech, I would not remember the fomulae, I would derive them as needed in a test. And then I became far more interested in life itself, and what it's about.

In one of the discussions someone mentioned "Aramco" paint, mentioning the Arab-American Oil Company, which was, of course, irrelevant. "Aremco" is the correct name. The material is http://www.aremco.com/wp-conte…/A05_S2_15_Emissivity.pdf Aremco 840-CM, rated to a temperature of 1371 C.

Quote

HiE-Coat™ 840-C, a jet-black, water-based, ceramic coating now produced by Aremco Products, Inc., demonstrates an emissivity greater than 0.90 at temperatures to 2500 °F.

The new MFMP report, http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedt.pdf page 86, used this paint. By following a normal calibration procedure, with the paint, they determined a band emissivity of 0.95 for the alumina. They do not actually state the paint emissivity value they used (and I found no source for it that was more precise than "greater than 0.090"), nor do they state the temperature at which this emissivity determination was done. Properly, a plot of emissivity vs. temperature would have been generated.

No attempt was made to use a black-body calibration (i.e, creating a hole with black-body characteristics, it could even penetrate into the interior, the worry being alumina translucency, would it be a problem?)

Quote

Thermal measurements were made up to 900 W power input – commensurate with the power given in the Lugano Report for the first part of that experiment. The thermocouples showed a maximum temperature of 843◦C, compare to 975◦C given by the Williamson pyrometer and an average of 971◦C by the Optris infrared camera with emissivity set to 0.95.
Further measurements showed significant temperature gradient on the tube circumference and along the surface profile of the outer fins. This surface temperature variation, combined with the limited contact patch of the thermocouple beads, was probably the cause of the lower thermocouple readings compared to the pyrometer

Some reasonable arguments are given for the accuracy of the alumina band emissivity value. However, why the thermocouple beads had a limited contact patch is not explained. The beads were tied to the surface by a Kanthal wire. This was a setup for imprecision. I would have suggested covering them with alumina cement. Possibly drilling a shallow hole in the aliumina and insetting them in cement and covering it with cement.

Reading Clarke: https://drive.google.com/file/…3A7ovRVhQcHBweTVNbjg/view
together with the Lugano report: http://www.elforsk.se/Global/O…er/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf

I come to the conclusion that the Lugano report was so flawed that not only were its conclusions of major XE were unfounded, there is also insufficient information to correct the errors and come up with a COP estimate. Clarke used theory to correct the temperature based on a presumably better estimate of emissivity, but it was still that, an estimate. He used an exponent of 1, based on his own mathematics, referring to the variation of camera measurement with temperature (where, above, an exponent of 4 was proposed, clearly incorrect, then a value of 3 was taken from an Optris explanatory graph, clearly not intended to give a precise value, Paradhgmnoia came up with 1.6, and we have no agreement, and there are variables that are unknown, acknowledged by all, included the exact material. MFMP used an inproved experimental technique that attempted to calibrate the emissivity using high-emissivty paint, but does not show how the paint emissivity was determined, nor what value was used. The MFMP results confirm the general conclusions of Clarke, from an experimental approach. There are now at least four users here who agree that the Lugano Report is so badly flawed that no clear conclusions can be drawn from it. The only sustained objection has been from Randombit0, who is suspected of being Rossi, but who is clearly and admittedly associated with Rossi. And whose arguments make no sense to any of the others.

The basic problem with Lugano is simple to understand. At the simplest level, they failed to check their work with a power control, i.e., the same device at the same input power. So any error in their procedure and calculations could escape undetected. They assumed that a low power calibration would be enough, but anyone experienced with LENR calorimetry would immediately see the problem. The emissivity of alumina changes with temperature! Their low-power calibration was incorrectly done, but at that temperature, the band emissivity of alumina -- what the camera detects -- is about the same as the total emissivity, which they used in error for both measurements.

Then there is the issue of attempting to correct the power measurements. There are so many assumptions involved that the reliability of any analysis can be and must be called into question. It is clear that the original Lugano estimate was far off. We then have circumstantial evidence: IH claimed that they were unable to verify any excess heat from the Rossi IP. They made the Lugano reactor. I assume they did independently test it.

If Rossi has the technology he has claimed, it should be quite easy to set up a true independent test. Lugano was a disaster, but it was a problem from the beginning, in who was chosen to be on the team. There were no experts in calorimetry, nobody familiar with the hazards and pitfalls. Rossi's personal involvement at two critical points had an impact on independence. These all point to Lugano team shortcomings, Rossi cannot be blamed for what they did ... unless he acted to create the errors, and they aren't talking, so ...

Lugano is dead.

Randombit,

What do you think about the idea of high pressure intragranular hydrogen bubbles being the trigger location of the Rossi Effect? (His older systems not the Quark.)