Rossi vs. Darden developments  Part 2


Not quite the right thread, but it will do.
How to check emissivity calculations
Wyttenbach has for a long time promoted the idea that Optris engineers have told him that the camera software incorporates emissivity e into temp measurements as:
T = T0/e^(1/3)
Maybe some additional information to work with:
The Optris IR basics manual on page 9 gives the following formula for the sensor signal :U = C · [εTob^{n} +(1 – ε) · Tamb^{n} – Tpyr^{n}] Temperatures in K
They state that for long wavelengths the factor n is between 2 and 3.
For some analysis I did I found that n setting at 2.72 gave me good results, but I have no proof that this is the correct value to use with the Optris.
Comparing two situations of the same measurement means that U stays the same.
For two different emissivities you then can equate the two formula's and solve the other temperature.
Note that at lower temperatures the factor (1e)*Tamb^{n} becomes significant.
That is a possible explanation that for low temperatures the approximation formula given by Optris does not work. At high temperatures the formula becomes more accurate.I am curious what your results will be with the formula above.

Something you indulge in yourself, quite freely.
That is true
But I do say when I'm speculating. All the things I say about Rossi, for example, are documented nonspeculative. It is generally others who speculate that because of Rossi's motivation one thing or another is not possible...

Maybe some additional information to work with:
The Optris IR basics manual on page 9 gives the following formula for the sensor signal :U = C · [εTob^{n} +(1 – ε) · Tamb^{n} – Tpyr^{n}] Temperatures in K
They state that for long wavelengths the factor n is between 2 and 3.
For some analysis I did I found that n setting at 2.72 gave me good results, but I have no proof that this is the correct value to use with the Optris.
Comparing two situations of the same measurement means that U stays the same.
For two different emissivities you then can equate the two formula's and solve the other temperature.
Note that at lower temperatures the factor (1e)*Tamb^{n} becomes significant.
That is a possible explanation that for low temperatures the approximation formula given by Optris does not work. At high temperatures the formula becomes more accurate.I am curious what your results will be with the formula above.
Well, i think this specific formula works always, it is just that Optris are giving vague data about what is n and the camera does not go up to high enough temperatures to get to n = 1 (I'd guess the highest allowed temperature will around 2). If we can find a higher temp ravi file from an Optris we can see exactly what is n for all these higher temperatures.
Anyone want to post one?
EDIT  I take your point about the ambient correction. IF the camera does this then both the Lugano authors and I are getting it wrong by doing it again. That will make very little difference at high temperatures but more difference at the control temperatures. But I'm not clear from this that the camera software makes this correction (how does it know Tamb?).

In regards to the heat camera it seems like the standards for the measurements are very differently when the data of the Lugano team is assessed compared with the data of Dewey Weaver. While these discussions are far above my expertise i just note that it seems a bit unfair how Lugano data is so harshly questioned while no one has made any attempts to objects to Dewey Weaver's measurement.
In regards to Eric statement that other teams that work with IH are very happy about the IH relationship and have no problems, I'm happy if that statement is correct. Would you care to tell a bit more what you've heard. My guess would be that some of the teams has written so strict NDA's that they are not able to say anything else than the typical "the outcome could be positive but it could also be negative". When IH signed a lot of these teams they shut of a lot of the communication to the outside world so if you can shed some more light on this, that would be most welcome. I hope it's not positive in the sense that "no one publicly complained"?
Even if IH wins the lawsuit on all important points they might be slightly crippled moving forward, and it makes sense not to put all eggs in one basket, also because competition is something positive, not negative, the more professional and promising researchers and teams out there should consider there is alternative routes and investors for their continued development. There is alternatives routes where they do not have to work under very harsh NDA's, or, where they can have the same privileges as IH provides but working with other investors. I'm always happy to forward an email or two ... just putting it out there. 
Wyttenbach has for a long time promoted the idea that Optris engineers have told him that the camera software incorporates emissivity e into temp measurements as:
@THH: As a service I repost the picture of the german manual which shows the n (internal formula) for the three measurment ranges.

@THH: As a service I repost the picture of the german manual which shows the n (internal formula) for the three measurment ranges.
OK  so would you care to interpret  in the light of your hypothesis as to what this diagram means  why the Optris camera itself gives a value of n that varies as indicated in my post consistently with the TC report and inconsistently with your claims thast exponent=3?
You don't have to take my word for it. you can download the Optris software and do it yourself. It took me 15 minutes + a spreadsheet.
Maybe you should tell Optris that their software is wrong?

In regards to Eric statement that other teams that work with IH are very happy about the IH relationship and have no problems, I'm happy if that statement is correct. Would you care to tell a bit more what you've heard.
Since 2014 I've been on the CMNS list, a private mailing list of LENR researchers and other interested parties. The discussions there are confidential, so I cannot provide details. I do recall one or more researchers speaking positively of IH coming onto the scene, but this is at best a vague impression at this point. I also know from the Marianne Macy Infinite Energy article and from other hearsay that several wellknown researchers such as Peter Hagelstein and Yeong Kim have collaborated with IH, and there was a possibility that IH were going to host an ICCF conference (not sure what the status of that is). So on balance I see IH's influence as being a positive one. Are NDA's a problem? I personally would prefer that they not be put in place, but I think that's something for individual researchers to decide for themselves. Would a friendly competition from other funders be desirable? I think so. But let's start with what funders are available here and now and then hope that more appear. Should LENR researchers consider carefully the pros and cons before accepting funding from IH and entering into an NDA, and possibly instead consider other avenues of assistance? For sure.
Is it possible that there are discontented researchers who have been unable to express their discontent as a result of an NDA that is in place, and hence word hasn't gotten out? Possibly.

Rossele, Levi and others have promoted the idea that total emissivity must be used in these calculations and hence exponent = 4 uniformly of temperature (see below).
Dear THH
I apprecieate your efforts if favor of IH.
But now you are making confusion beetween Stephan Boltzmann law and the internal calibration of the Optris Camera that is quite complicate.
I note also that from your table the change of temperature vs emissivity is quite smooth a change of about 50% in emissivity lead to a change in temperature of only 8% !
This means that also the calculated energy must be changing smoothly and means that the emissivity factor is not really relevant.

Dear THH
I apprecieate your efforts if favor of IH.
But now you are making confusion beetween Stephan Boltzmann law and the internal calibration of the Optris Camera that is quite complicate.
I note also that from your table the change of temperature vs emissivity is quite smooth a change of about 50% in emissivity lead to a change in temperature of only 8% !
This means that also the calculated energy must be changing smoothly and means that the emissivity factor is not really relevant.
Ele  that is a perfect deliberate Rossiesque deceit  or you are much more incompetent than you appear.
Try again.

You don't have to take my word for it. you can download the Optris software and do it yourself. It took me 15 minutes + a spreadsheet.
@THH: I thought that physics is done by measuring first...
I have no lab no camera and optris just refers to their internal formula, telling us that the IR bolometer follows a T^{3} law.
It's up to you to make measurements like mfp did. MFP confirmed the T^{3} dependency...

@THH: I thought that physics is done by measuring first...
I have no lab no camera and optris just refers to their internal formula, telling us that the IR bolometer follows a T^{3} law.
It's up to you to make measurements like mfp did. MFP confirmed the T^{3} dependency...
Wyttenbach. You don't need a lab. You need a PC, you can download the Optris software, the mfmp ravi data, and use it without a camera. As I did, and gave the download link. you will then discover that your hypothesis about fixed e^3 is wrong.
And I'm calling you on this. If you don't have the balls to check it for yourself  or the courtesy to look at my results which do this  you can make no valid contribution to any discussion of this matter.
MFMP did not confirm e^3 at 1400C (it would be so perhaps at around 800C). As you can see the exponent n varies with T, something you have not yet admitted.

THHuxleynew:
QuoteRossele, Levi and others have promoted the idea that total emissivity must be used in these calculations and hence exponent = 4 uniformly of temperature (see below).
The best way to perfect emissivity calculations is to avoid thermal cameras and the 4th power computations altogether. That is actually not that difficult to do using a forced flow, liquid cooled system as has been beautifully shown, for very hot devices, here:
(by Giancarlo et. al.)
One can only conclude that Rossi's use of thermal cameras not to mention unnecssary three phase power, was to deceive. That fits perfectly with his background and previous complete lack of any accomplishment except for taking money from various investors with no good results EVER. In his entire life  anyway the parts of which we have reliable records and not just "Rossisays".

That fits perfectly with his background and previous complete lack of any accomplishment except for taking money from various investors with no good results EVER. In his entire life  anyway the parts of which we have reliable records and not just "Rossisays".
Yes, but the RossiSays are such a magnificence that if even 1% of RossiSays is true he is a hero of the age and must be supported.
Now, who can disagree with that sort of logic?

Since 2014 I've been on the CMNS list, a private mailing list of LENR researchers and other interested parties. The discussions there are confidential, so I cannot provide details. I do recall one or more researchers speaking positively of IH coming onto the scene, but this is at best a vague impression at this point. I also know from the Marianne Macy Infinite Energy article and from other hearsay that several wellknown researchers such as Peter Hagelstein and Yeong Kim have collaborated with IH, and there was a possibility that IH were going to host an ICCF conference (not sure what the status of that is). So on balance I see IH's influence as being a positive one.
Eric thank you for sharing that piece of information.