Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

  • You are very adept at spinning something obviously crappy into the best possible light, I'll give you that.


    Please show me what is 'obviously crappy'.


    From my perspective running to the Judge with scant evidence and shouting 'liar, liar pants on fire' or perhaps more accurately 'cheater, cheater, pants on heater' regarding IH is not winning Rossi any credibility points with the Court. That seems 'obviously crappy', but it applies to Rossi. Furthermore, I think this reveals information about who is running the show, Rossi or his lawyers. I think this indicates that Rossi is running the show, and his lawyers are doing their best given (essentially) impossible demands from their client.


    We'll see what the Judge says, and soon.


    I know you like to promote the 'moral equivalance' meme. If you think that applies here, show us your evidence and reasoning. So far, as I've said before, I find that meme absurd, and provided the evidence and reasoning why.

  • We need to be specific about the use of emissivity (ɛ) on thermal calculations in the Lugano report. In the case of the Optris camera, the ɛ within the sensing range of the bolometer is clearly what must be used. The camera used by MFMP was identical to the one used in Lugano, and both cameras were factory calibrated. That means yes, there is a unique calibration of each pixel for the selected temperature range. That information is stored in the camera ROM and is used by the PIConnect software (along with the ɛ setting) to correctly calculate temperature for each pixel.


    However, the calculation of power from the measured pixel temperature data must use the full-bandwidth ɛ of the object, not the band-limited ɛ used by the camera. The MFMP (Higgins) analysis considered only the accuracy of the temperature measurements, for which the band value of ɛ was determined experimentally using several instruments. The value of ɛ thus found closely matched the camera manufacturers recommended value, as well as several other references.

  • "The three corporate defendants in this case – Cherokee, IPH and IH – all are owned and controlled by Defendant Thomas Darden (“Darden”). Darden has first-hand knowledge of virtually all of the areas of inquiry identified in Plaintiffs’ 30(b)(6) Notices. Instead of appearing as the corporate representative for Cherokee and IPH, Darden instead chose Slocum Fogelman to do so. The reason for doing so is obvious: Darden did not want to subject himself to multiple seven-hour depositions, and intended to deprive Plaintiffs of the ability to obtain additional information about the Defendants’ claims and defenses at issue. Furthermore, Darden made no attempt to instruct or otherwise inform Fogelman as to the facts and circumstances related to the areas of inquiry, leaving Fogelman with no ability to provide substantive responses to Plaintiffs’ questions."


    "Fogelman testified that he was neither an officer, director, nor an employee of IPH. Id. at 7:1-10. Fogelman was either unable or unwilling to respond to questions that were the subject of the noticed areas of inquiry."


    More slimy behavior. Couldn't Darden just man up and sit in the hot seat? Instead, send in the dummy who knows little about what is going on.

  • Exhibit 7 is almost comical. The following exchange is repeated about eleven (11!) times almost verbatim. These are examples of Mr. Fogleman providing his non-answers.


    "What evidence is IPH aware of to support that


    13 allegation?


    14 A. The same evidence that Industrial Heat, LLC has


    15 to support that evidence.

    16 Q. And did you talk to somebody from Industrial


    17 Heat about that allegation?


    18 A. No.


    19 Q. Do you have any independent knowledge about


    20 that allegation other than what Industrial Heat knows?


    21 A. No.


    22 Q. Does anyone else from IPH or would anyone else


    23 from IPH be better able to answer this question?


    24 A. I don't know that."

  • @magicsound


    You come across to me as a voice of reason. Can you expound on your comment a little further. What conclusion do you therefore draw, if any, regarding the THH / ele dispute here?


    The data speaks for itself {:~>


    Seriously, results of our research have been published after peer review in JCMNS vol.20, available in Jed's archive and elsewhere.


    THH can speak for himself regarding his thoughts on our work, or the similar analysis done by TC. I merely wanted to point out that the use of total emissivity in the Lugano calculation of thermal power from temperature is correct, although ele incorrectly goes beyond that by asserting its use in the Optris camera.

  • Hi. I haven't been around for a while.

    The argument by ele of emissivity inputs canceling out has been dismissed a thousand times.

    As Magicsound states, total emissivity is fine to be used to compute power radiated once you know the temperature. But it cannot be used as an input to the narrowband infrared sensor, which needs the emissivity in its sensing range: (for the thousandth time) this was shown live by MFMP to be much higher (0.95 or so) in agreement with known data of spectral emissivity of alumina in the IR band. Use of the Lugano settings was shown to overestimate temperature by more than 500°C.

  • So as I understand it you suppose that the bolometer includes a complex MEMS device (one for each pixel) to modify the planck function expected measurement behaviour into something that is T^3? Have you anywhere seen something like that work? And, in this case, what advantage would that give you for the large extra cost?


    @THH: I suggest that you once read the technical manual and talk to Optris tech-support.


    I only object to useless exercises (by PGM) like estimating (manually integrating) the emissivity from a given measurement of an aluminum xy table. We have seen enough fake news so far!


    May be once upon a time also AR (and others) will understand that measuring a temperature is just one parameter in a successful calorimetry setup. If you have no clue about the delta energy --> delta T function any discussion is fruitless.

  • @THH: I suggest that you once read the technical manual and talk to Optris tech-support.


    I only object to useless exercises (by PGM) like estimating (manually integrating) the emissivity from a given measurement of an aluminum xy table. We have seen enough fake news so far!


    May be once upon a time also AR (and others) will understand that measuring a temperature is just one parameter in a successful calorimetry setup. If you have no clue about the delta energy --> delta T function any discussion is fruitless.

    Consider that it then must be equally useless to pull the emissivity value for radiant power output from some xy table.

  • Wyttenbach ,

    Anyway, I did both integrate the values from one of the Manara et al papers on alumina emissivity, and use the USGS-NASA radiance calculator, as well as another spectra radiance calculator.


    Furthermore, from many months ago I gave some examples and temperature-emissivity conversions. Now that I have the Optris software, I can use the Padua Glowstick .ravi files for the Optris spec'ed out identically to Lugano, and test with the whole range of thermocouple-verified temperatures from room temperature to 1260 C. And my earlier results are extremely close to what the Optris software reports using the same temperature-emissivity settings. Within 5 degrees.


    So clearly this is not fake news, or alternate fact.

    It has strong predictive power.

    And everyone else can do it too.

  • So clearly this is not fake news, or alternate fact.

    It has strong predictive power


    @PGM: I know that your work is fine & correct!


    But if you have no clue about the effective composition (+ thickness of the layer) of the original material used, then all results are mere speculations = fake news.


    Already a 10% difference in emissivity leads to a huge COP error.


    We all should accept that discussing about a fake test (as Lugano was form a scientific point of view) is just a waste of time!