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

Quote from THHuxley

The IR bolometer does (more or less) count photons, and hence measures radiant power.

Sigh. I did cover the indirect measure, but .... it simply does not count photons. There is no photon counter in it. Rather, it measures absorbed energy, i.e., heat, through a temperature rise in the bolometer material, creating a resistance change, which has been calibrated. It is resistance which is actually measured, but this resistance change is a direct effect of temperature rise from absorbed power. One could, down the road, estimate the number of photons from the wavelength and total energy in the band, but .... that is not "counting" at all, but a theoretical calculation.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Lets see if this makes any sense and saves a thousand words:

Great. Excellent. Now for something crucial, for others and for future generations. Sources?

If we assume that the "alumina" in this chart matches the spectral emissivity of the Lugano alumina -- which may be an assumption, not a fact -- then this chart shows what could have been used for better estimates in the Lugano Report. Ideally, though, there would be calibration. The camera could have been calibrated with a hole drilled in it that would function as a black body at the alumina temperature. Or the entire power/temperature relationship could have been calibrated using the full range of input power. Neither was done, to the high-temperature measurements of both temperature and power were flying, not grounded in reality. The plot given shows exactly how that error -- using total emissivity -- would create major error.

This is not speculation. It is actually what they did, it is reasonably clear in the Report.

Quote from Wyttenbach

@Abd: But you should follow this, because this terms weight can be massively higher than the collected photon count. My argument is simple: As the Lugano team used the camera more or less in out of range condition, somebody should ask Optris what (n's) they have stored in their EPROM.

There is no collected photon count. See below. There is no necessity to ask Optris. They don't have the emissivity data in their EEPROM. Rather, what is in the EEPROM handles calculations based on the entered band emissivity. And "somebody" is undefined. If you want to ask them, certainly you may. But what question will you ask?

The camera was not used in "out of range condition," as far as I know. It was used incorrectly. This is what the Lugano report has on the cameras:

Quote

The cameras used were two Optris PI 160 Thermal Imagers, one provided with a 30° × 23° lens and 160 × 120 pixel UFPA sensors, capable of reading temperatures up to 900°C, the other with a 48° ×37° lens, capable of measuring temperatures up to 1500°C. The spectral range for both cameras is from 7.5 to 13 μm.

Knowing the band is not quite enough, what is actually needed is the behavior of the material across the range of temperatures, as it interacts with band sensitivity (which may not be flat across the band). That's done with calibration, not only with theoretical information. Materials can vary greatly with how, for example, the surface is processed. For accurate measurements, there is no substitute for calibration.

Back to Wyttenbach:

Quote

Just remember neither TC was, nor Paradigmonia is able to explain the large excess heat of the hot E-cat rods...They both are wishful researchers trying everything to prove than NiH LENR doesn't work..and as long as they can't explain the rod issue, their arguments stay just just there for glaring the limited readers.

I have no idea what they are "able" to do, other than what they have already done. The discussion here starts with measuring temperature, and it is confused when this is combined with a discussion of "excess heat," which is a different and also complex issue. One at a time. What temperature was the thing?

(And more to the ultimate point, did the Lugano researchers know what they were doing? We have an obvious answer here.)

Bringing in other issues, before this basic one is resolved, will indeed confuse readers, and imputing such an attached motive to them is rude, when they are trying rather strongly to explain some basic facts to you. That idea about them will contribute to your own confusion, and will also damage your ability to communicate any real points you have. One step at a time.

Quote

The heart of a thermal image camera is an array of e.g GaF photodiodes, which in fact count (accumulated) photons of only the band we are interested in.

You made that up.
The cameras: http://www.optris.com/thermal-imager-pi160 . The detector is "FPA, uncooled (25 μm x 25 μm)"

From the Basics document this is described:

Quote

The core of almost all globally used thermographic systems is a focal plane array (FPA), an integrated image sensor with sizes of 20,000 to 1 million pixels. Each individual pixel is a
microbolometer with the dimensions 17 x 17 µm^2 to 35 x 35 µm^2

This is very much not an array of photon-counting photodiodes. Here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbolometer.

Wyttenbach, again, you are making assumptions without checking them. Time and again!

Quote from randombit0

Paradigmnoia wrote:

What interpretation? Perhaps RB0 explains:

Being "well seen" by the camera is not particularly relevant.

Yes. We know that from black body characteristics, and this was known before QM, so we do not know it "based on Quantum Mechanics," it would be more true that QM was based on the black body problem.

"Input power at steady conditions" does not tell us -- at all -- how the camera can be used to determine temperature from radiance in the camera band. How the camera is to be used is obvious: the band emissivity must be provided. Not the total emissivity, because total emissivity cannot be detected by the camera. The band emissivity creates the relationship between camera bolometer reading and the temperature of the device. It is not a relationship with total emitted power, only to power in the band (and thus to temperature). Again, the statement about "much hotter" is true. And irrelevant.

If the band emissivity for the detection band is 1.0, the temperature of the body will be the same as a black body, for a given microbolometer measure. However, total emissivity for alumina is much lower. That is, in-band, the body will appear as a black body, but as to average emission, full-band, it is not black, it emits only about half the radiation as a black body with the same temperature would. Were the total emitted power the same, it would have to be hotter. However, we do not start out knowing the total emitted power.

RB0 is attempting to reason back from power considerations, when total power is irrelevant to the camera reading. The camera routinely measures *temperature*, not power. It cannot measure power directly. It measures temperature by measuring absorbed power in the detection band. Not total power, not even total power presented to the bolometers, but only the power that they absorb, which is band-limited.

Alan Smith, by the way, apparently does not understand the full possible functions of extended discussion. We are not, here, a decision-making body, rather this is, as he states, a forum for discussion, hopefully civil. Is the purpose of discussion to "win arguments"? Some may think so. However, for me, the purpose of discussion is to explore topics and develop expression. I learn by writing, and some topics I learn well by discussing over and over in increasing detail. This discussion has taught me a great deal about how the camera works, for example, and exactly what the error was that was made at Lugano.

It also develops deeper understanding of another topic of great interest to me, how we think -- and how we don't. That topic impacts every area of my life and the lives of those around me. It is a crucial part of how I have made and continue to make a difference. Back to RB0.

RB0 continues to repeat his non-sequitur, possibly demonstrating the failure behind Lugano. If his idea was present among the Lugano researchers, it may have prevailed; sometimes, in small groups, an idea prevails through force of personality. The total emissivity is completely irrelevant to how the camera is used to measure temperature. What is used and required is band emissivity. Because the partial calibration was done at temperatures where band emissivity may have been roughly equal to total emissivity, that calibration measurement may have appeared to match otherwise confirmed temperature.

When a manual is read with a strong preconception, I have seen many times, it may be misread to appear to confirm that preconception. This is an effect of how we interpret messages, we interpret them to "make sense" within what we already "know." When our existing knowledge is defective in some way, we may read the evidence we see as confirming it. This is why the scientific method places such emphasis on a vigorous attempt to prove one's own ideas and predictions wrong. Not right. And the model we are looking at here is how Rossi thinks, and then how those who strongly support him think. Rossi explicitly denied, in 2011, the value of control experiments, because "he already knew what would happen," i.e., nothing. But the result of a control experiment is not "nothing." "Nothing" would come out of a judgment of results as good or bad, and to a Rossi Engineer, no XP is bad, a waste of time. However, this should have been obvious: the control experiment shows the behavior of the device if there is no XP, or at least that is the attempt. It is obvious that the Lugano researchers did not consider calibration essential, and they gave a bogus reason for not doing it, immediately recognized as preposterous by *friends* of LENR, quite willing to consider the calculated heat as being real.

Where did that reason come from? Alan suggests that the Lugano researchers were under time pressure. Okay, that would explain the setup. However, how long would it take to recognize what could be in error? The watched the paint dry for a month. They took more time writing the Report. And then they stopped talking. Were they under NDA preventing them from commenting?

Then they were not independent!

If the body appears to be a black body in the detection band (and it appears that this may be so for alumina), then, for a given emission level in the band, it would have the same temperature as the black body. It would have lower emission in other bands, thus total emissivity would be lower. Because total emissivity is needed to estimate total power given temperature, total emissivity must be used in the full radiation calculation. Band emissivity is used to estimate temperature from radiance in the detection band.

It doesn't important that "the body emits less in a part of the spectrum the camera don't see" because this kind of considerations ( normalization to camera ( and optics) sensitivity ) are treated by the factory calibration process. A camera wouldn't work without the specific calibration files.
The factory calibration does not provide band emissivity, it must be entered by the user. On what is that entry based? Ideally, it is based on a local calibration with the exact material, covering the full temperature range. There was a form of calibration that might have been readily available, which would be drilling a hole in the alumina of dimensions such that the hole would act as a pure black body, and the user guide describes this. They then could have immediately created band emissivity values at the operating temperatures. Notice that emissivity is temperature-dependent for a non-gray body. To develop an accurate temperature, then, requires a recursive process, which the Lugano researchers used at the lower temperatures. The camera would easily read the temperature of the black-body hole. That, in fact, would be enough, but for a temperature map, the camera would be set for the band emissivity of alumina, which would be close to 1.0 for the band. It's a strong emitter in that band.

[quote]What we do using total emissivity is to inform the camera software of how much power the body emits compared to a Black Body

Display More

.
The camera needs to know, to image the tested device, the band emissivity. As the device surface temperature varies, different settings might be needed for different locations. This could get complex. I don't know if the device allows regional settings, it's a complication.

The camera could only use total emissivity for a gray body. In the detection band, alumina appears to be a black body. However, the full power spectrum, it emits only about half of the energy that a black body would radiate. However, the camera does not see full power, only band power. RB0 either totally misunderstands how the camera works, or is stirring the pot to increase confusion. I dislike "FUD" as an explanation of comments, but ... it can happen when someone has an ulterior motive -- or just likes to stir the pot, we have one user who has acknowledged that motive.

Quote from SSC

Welcome.

[quote]In the Optris manual "Basic principles of non-contact temperature measurement" one finds the formula utilized by IR cameras to deduce the temperature of an object on the basis of the radiation received by the sensors. It would seem that camera software is capable of adjusting readings in order to account for the wavelength range which the camera is capable of detecting.

Yes. It does this for a black body. To use the camera for a gray body, total emissivity and band emissivity are identical. For a non-gray body, it is far more complicated.

This is obvious from basic principles, whether or not well-expressed on that page: the camera is not affected by radiance out-of-band, the detectors are thermistors with controlled IR absorption, within a narrow band.

To infer object temperature from thermistor temperature, the camera must have band emissivity information for the observed material. What is programmed into the EEPROM is black body behavior, only. Then, from the band emissivity information, which must be supplied by the user, since it varies with the material, the camera will increase the temperature reading to the extent that the band emissivity is less than 1.0.

This correction takes place by modifying exponent "n" in the " Tobj" formula.Page 8 in the manual states:"As infrared thermometers do not cover the wavelength range as a whole, the exponent n depends on the wavelength λ. At wavelengths ranging from 1 to 14 μm n is between 17 and 2 (at long wavelengths between 2 and 3 and at short wavelengths between 15 and 17)."So we do not measure all the time at the max wavelength with the IR camera, but it is not necessary if the radiation is enough to get an accurate temperature reading. The radiation maximum (Wien’s Law) could be outside the camera’s sensitivity range but maybe the camera is still receiving a lot of radiation within this range. The exponent "n" in the formula is probably a function of wavelengths and the actual adjustment of the exponent is programmed into the camera EEPROM. So it seems to me that epsilon could be the total emissivity (the manual does not clarify which kind of emissivity we have to insert in the formula....

Yes. The adjustment is programmed. However, the camera cannot know the relationship between band emissivity and total emissivity. The user does not "use the formula." I have not followed the derivation, and the idea that his is important is based on ignoring how the camera is actually used and then trying to derive some sort of relationship as to how the camera reading will vary with emissivity. The naive approach was to ignore the complicated formula and use the fourth power relationship, which would only work with total emissivity.

What the camera has programmed is black body behavior, then it adjusts for different band emissivity, based on the value given by the user. It cannot calculate that, it has no information on which to calculate it.

"Band emissivity," as derived from calibrations -- i.e., finding, experimentally, what gives the correct temperature as determined by other means -- takes into account the intersection of the camera band sensitivity (which will vary across the band) with the actual emissivity spectrum of the object material.

"Other means" could include black body calibration, i.e., drilling a hole as described such that the hole functions as a black body in the band involved, setting emissivity for 1.00, and then determining the temperature on the black body assumption. Then this can be assumed to be the temperature of the material adjacent to the hole, and the emissivity determined as that emissivity that gives the same temperature for that adjacent spot. The camera will then correctly show all regions of the material with the same temperature. It would not necessarily read correctly for regions at a different temperature. To create a global map of the device temperature could require more calibrations. More work, but not difficult. (Instead of many drilled holes, rather, take the device up through the temperature range and measure emissivity of the spot; these values could then be used to adjust readings for other regions.)

A more sophisticated camera would allow an input file with the full band emissivity data across the temperature range. I don't think the camera used allows that. The Lugano team missed the whole issue.

We have not yet looked with high care at how the total emitted power is then determined. There would have been, again, a simple procedure that would have bypassed the entire problem, making all those complex calculations unnecessary. Calibration of camera readings vs. input power, across the full input power range.

Quote from Wyttenbach

@ ABD: At least the following you should understand. The primary collector of the photons is a photodiode. The more photons it collects, the higher the current (charge flow) it produces. The charge is accumulated like in older CCD photosensors, and then measured. Thus, as Optris states, the sensor current "U" (p.9) directly conforms with the Plank law. All the other stuff is Optris internal, which I don't know, but what somebody like TC, who makes the primary claims, should have known in advance...

No. You have not read what I cited, and it's clear. There are no "photodiodes" in the Optris cameras. None. Were there, you'd be correct. The sources are explicit. The Oprtis camera used is based on an array of microbolometers, described well in the Wikipedia article I cited. There is no photon detection, as such. The use of microbolometers is explicit in the Optris sources, also cited.

You are making a claim about "Optris internal" that is blatantly false. The camera does not use a CCD sensor. There is no accumulation of charge. You made up all of this, this has been explicitly explained to you, giving sources, and yet you continue with your insistence. And, at the same time, you accuse others of arrogance. It has all become totally obvious, to anyone who reflects, studies the matter, and consults sources.

What is being shown is that you make up arguments based on some driving force. The most common such on the internet is "being right." I.e., if I wrote something, it must have been right, so the only issue is what arguments I can discover or invent to prove it. And if I'm seriously attached, I could do this until the cows come home. Then there is another possibility, raised commonly on Planet Rossi: "Paid FUD." Are you paid? That would ordinarily be a rude question. You are not the likeliest candidate!

(I won't do this, because I actually love being wrong, it gives me room to grow.)

There are two major players we are mostly concerned with, Industrial Heat and Andrea Rossi. One of these has benefited and may continue to benefit from "public opinion." So which one might have a financial motive to create FUD? IH has never depended on public opinion, for their own support, and I don't see them going that way except in one area, when they begin to promote governmental involvement. Hence APCO as a consultant, that is their expertise. Attacking Rossi would not be a major part of that eventual program, Rossi has largely made himself irrelevant by filing Rossi v. Darden. But Rossi needs additional investment, needs the publicity and buzz....

Or at least that is as plausible or more plausible than the reverse. (Planet Rossi made many comments as to how the "FUD" was designed to influence the lawsuit, which is nearly impossible. Public opinion will make no difference, and the Judge is not going to read any of this stuff, nor will the jury, unless something specific is presented at trial, such as Rossi's blog comments. What we may write and think will be utterly irrelevant.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Wyttenbach,
The Optris microbolometers are RTDs, not photodiodes.

How may people have to tell him before he decides to actually look at the sources? I gave explicit sources. He ignored them and kept repeating his error. What does it take?

RTD = Resistance Temperature Detector. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_thermometer

I cited the camera manual for the type of sensor used, and found the definition of that in the Optris literature. It is an array of microbolometers, essentially tiny resistors with well-controlled IR emissivity and set up for precise resistance measurements. The incident IR, in-band, heats the resistor, and the resistance change is measured. There are no photodiodes or CCDs ("Charge Coupled Devices").

Wyttenbach was likely confused by the common use of CCDs in digital cameras. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge-coupled_device

Look, from the CCD article:

Quote

The normal functioning of a CCD, astronomical or otherwise, can be divided into two phases: exposure and readout. During the first phase, the CCD passively collects incoming photons, storing electrons in its cells. After the exposure time is passed, the cells are read out one line at a time.