The Great Optris Debate

  • I have started this thread to provide a home for the Optris posts, which are derailing RossiVDarden2. Apologies in advance if I missed one, or move one too many (for some). Alan







    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)


    T is the camera calculated temperature for emissivity = e where T0 is the camera calculated temperature for emissivity = 1.


    So that T scales as exponent 3 of 1/e independent of T.


    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).


    As opposed to what the camera must do to be accurate, which is to vary the exponent smoothly with T according to the Planck function evaluated over the Optris sensor passband. We expect an increasingly higher exponent at lower temperatures as the passband gets higher in frequency relative to the Planck peak. At very high temperatures the IR passband occupies the Rayleigh-Jeans part of the Planck curve - much lower in frequency than the peak - where the exponent is 1. For the Lugano test higher temperatures in the active test we had approximately an exponent of 2. An exponent of 4 would be what Levi would I guess expect since he claims that total emissivity is the only relevant parameter. We know that this scales at T^4 because total radiation scales like this.


    So let’s do some limited checking, courtesy MFMP:


    (1) Download the Optris PI Connect software and a sample camera ravi file from MFMP dogbone 2 thermal assessment experiment.

    (2) view the ravi file - note that segment AL with defined emissivity 0.95 temperature 59.7C in the layout (go to tools->configuration to see this).


    (3) change the layout emissivity for AL area from the tools->configuration screen from 0.95 to 0.475 (1/2 of old value) and save

    (4) Note the changed temperature for AL

    (5) repeat to get Optris calculated temperatures for a range of emissivities.


    I've tabulated some values below, and the calculations I use to work out the corresponding exponent (the site here imports cut and pasted excel spreadsheets nicely, which is great)



    e

    e-ratio

    T/C

    T/K

    T-ratio

    exponent


    0.99

    1.1

    58.4

    331.4

    1.009656005

    9.918139261

    0.9

    61.6

    334.6


    0.55

    1.1

    82

    355

    1.013802817

    6.952671482

    0.5

    86.9

    359.9



    0.22

    1.1

    142.9

    415.9

    1.020678048

    4.656737156

    0.2

    151.5

    424.5



    0.165

    1.1

    170.4

    443.4

    1.02277853

    4.231687462

    0.15

    180.5

    453.5


    0.11

    1.1

    218.1

    491.1

    1.026471187

    3.64797291

    0.1

    231.1

    504.1


    I don't easily have a way to generate additional Optris camera ravi files so cannot in this way test higher temps: 0.1 is an emissivity limit in the software. If someone can unearth and post some of these (Paradigmnoia?), we could see precisely how the Optris camera responds over the entire temperature range, and check further.


    Of course, TC's paper has done this theoretically, assuming the Optris camera software works correctly. MFMP have confirmed it experimentally. But it seems some here: specifically ele and Wyttenbach will be more convinced by their own checks than what other people say? Perhaps this would help Levi, too?


    After all, were total emissivity to be the relevant parameter as Levi says we would need to integrate radiance over all frequencies and therefore have an exponent uniformly of 4 regardless of temperature. And were Wyttenbach to have correctly understood the Optris support guy he spoke to we would have exponent uniformly 3.


    I needed to check this since I could not otherwise be certain that Optris were not selling camera software that just did not work for grey-bodies, though this is a bit unlikely!


    Wyttenbach - please contact your Optris support person who told you the exponent was always 3 and set them right - giving this simple check that anyone with a PC and web access can make.


    It is perhaps interesting from these figures that at a temperature around that used in the Lugano dummy test we have exponent=4 consistent with what Levi thinks!


  • 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 · [εTobn +(1 – ε) · Tambn – Tpyrn] 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 (1-e)*Tambn 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?).

  • 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 T3 law.


    It's up to you to make measurements like mfp did. MFP confirmed the T3 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 T3 law.


    It's up to you to make measurements like mfp did. MFP confirmed the T3 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:

    Quote

    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).

    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:


    https://tinyurl.com/kx4opjq


    (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 "Rossi-says".

  • 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?).


    The ambient temperature is measured by the camera but can also be manula set.

    See text of PI connect manual below


    2.4.3. Emissivity, transmissivity, ambient temperature

    Using the menu Tools, Configuration and Device the Emissivity and the Transmissivity (IR-window compensation) can be set. The transmissivity is referring to the loss of radiation if an object’s surface is measured by looking through a suitable window. Knowing the Ambient temperature is inevitable for a correct temperature measurement. The ambient temperature value is delivered by the camera’s internal sensor by default. Alternatively, the value can be set as a fixed value



  • Well done. So it looks like we have a correction:


    This will not change the powers deduced from temperatures.


    It will slightly change the way that emissivity affects temperature.


    It applies to TC's correction - it is a v small additional correction: but relatively much larger for the dummy than the active case.


    It does raise the possibility of an error in the Lugano data. We do not know how this ambient adjustment was set. There was in any case an error due to the local ambient temperature being hotter during long tests than normal.


    If I had the strength of will I'd redo TC's calcs including this - might be interesting in the dummy case.

  • Well done. So it looks like we have a correction:


    Since by equating the formula I gave the factor C cancels out and also the factor Tpyrn, we can use the term εTobn +(1 – ε) · Tambn to compare the same situation for the combinations of emissivity and temperature you are giving in your spreadsheet. The results are shown below for a n value of 3 and an ambient temperature of 21 degree C.


    e T/K n value difference (%)
    0.99 331.4 3 36286870.91 0.074
    0.9 334.6 36259889.17
    0.55 355 3 36059376.27 0.070
    0.5
    359.9 36034115.42
    0.22 415.9 3 0.052252563 0.052
    0.2 424.5 35659881.26
    0.165 443.4 3 35635381.59 0.033
    0.15 453.5 35623609.6
    0.11 491.1 3 35680221.15 -0.10
    0.1 504.1 35716018.4


    It tends to become lower then 3 for higher temperatures.

    For example for your last set the correct n value would be 2.84 to give an error of -.004 % instead of .1 for a n value of 3

    The calculations show that the formula in the Optirs IR-basics manuals is indeed the one the Optris uses and that n is not constant over temperature.

    I wonder how we can predict the correct n value for a measurement (The Optris has to do this also)


    EDIT : Table layout problem. Hopefully corrected

  • I wonder how we can predict the correct n value for a measurement (The Optris has to do this also)


    You can do it integrating the Planck function over the Optris sensor BW and take the derivative of this integral wrt T.


    TC's code does this numerically with a horrible hack (the integration part). You could easily enough get a numerical solution using matlab, or an approximate polynomial approximation using maple etc.


    without using proper tools it is a bit difficult because though the integration can be done numerically in a hacky way following this by differentiation is a bit dangerous. Better to use proper numerical tools.


    when I feel really bored I'll see whether there is a nice way to do it.


    regards, THH


  • I have some Visual basic code i wrote which integrates the Planck function over a bandwidth.

    Can possibly adapt it with minor effort, but it likely be after some time because I take a short vacation.

    Do you have a link to TC's code to understand how he does the differentiation ?

  • 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.


    @THH: As a guy that works at scientific institution, I expect that you are able to do decent research work: I told you, already months ago, after your last attempt to prove that calculations are better than measurements, that experiments done by mfp have verified T3 law of Optris. If you are not able to find the JCMNS-21 proceedings then please silently ask JED who certainly will help you with the first steps in real LENR.



    Here as short excerpt of the mfp publication:





  • "The decision to develop something different, from my point of view, could be explained with the will to maintain the control over his IP"

    Since when do REAL lawyers have a "from my point of view".


    Bullfeathers! (disclaimer : I do a radio show with a local criminal defense attorney). REAL lawyers ... outside of a courtroom or while working for a client ... have PLENTY point[s] of view. Edit: and many of them in the USA run for office!

    On Rossi : I think, to a large extent, that he believed his measurements. He was just bad at it. I don't think he used 3 phase to deceive .. it just gave him more power. He didn't know about true RMS ... as soon as there was a complaint he ran the ecat with a variac, and then got an RMS meter. I don't think he came up with the IR method ... I suspect Levi did. He trusted Levi's results, as did the Lugano team. I think the ceramic transparency issue surprised everyone.

  • Wyttenbach ,

    I was able to predict the Optris-reported temperature changes caused by emissivity adjustments. And then after downloading the Optris software a while back, able to confirm my predictions (made a year earlier) by examining emissivity changes to a real, hot object with an independently known temperature using the Optris software.


    So bully to the n=x for various bandwidths image from Optris.

    It is as accurate as the generic advertised calorie count reported for a McDonalds chicken burger, compared to actually measuring the calories in a randomly selected McDonalds chicken burger.


    (Click on the IR image to see the actual Optris calculation.)

  • It is as accurate as the generic advertised calorie count reported for a McDonalds chicken burger, compared to actually measuring the calories in a randomly selected McDonalds chicken burger.


    @PGM : I completely agree: Optris is no replacement for exact calorimetry. Only if you have two identical objects, with identical heat generation, then you may compare the "calories".

    Or simply said: With Optris there are to many free parameters, that you must keep an eye on.


  • MFMP do indeed say that in this paper, along with their recalculation of Lugano performance which is very similar to mine based on their thermal modelling.


    I asked Bob Higgins for clarification, because what they say here is contrary to what the Optris camera software actually does - as you can easily validate for yourself. Wyttenbach - you seem most interested in this - I strongly suggest you get your hands dirty and have a look at the Optris software as I suggest above (with a link to the relevant downloads).


    Bob replied to my e-mail as below (his remarks in italic). You can see that MFMP were making assumptions about the exponent of 3 for all temperatures, since they did not test this. They do not get a matching COP between the two higher power runs, as would be expected, and as TC got. So their results do not have the internal self-validation that TC's do: probably this is a tell-tale sign that more accuracy with the exponent in the higher temperature run was needed.


    Of interest in the MFMP paper is the fact that the Lugano thermal modelling results were way off (by a factor of more than 100%) for the dummy reactor. Specifically the temperature claimed by them for this would be reached at a much lower input power. this result is independent of the possibly flawed exponent, since it is matching claimed Lugano input power against actual measured temperature.


    This is a mystery because it appears to indicate:

    (1) The Lugano testers had some experimental issue that meant they were undermeasuring input power to the dummy run by a large amount. (There was that mystery change in electrical setup, you will remember. It should not have altered anything).

    (2) The Lugano tester theoretical calculations for the dummy run, which match the input to within 5%, were very wrong.


    if you look at their assumptions you will see that to get even this 5% match they had to make some assumptions. It is a sign that here something was indeed wrong. Such wrong results can be generated when people try (in all honesty) to retrofit theory to results instead of predicting results from theory. We do not know what is their error, though there is a good candidate in the convection calculations.


    TC did not attempt to reanalyse the dummy results. I agree with this (still) because the convection data is so full of unsafe assumptions it is very difficult to tell whether correct or no, and for the dummy this constitutes most of the power budget. The convection theoretical analysis could be wrong by 100% or more making the dummy runs unsafe. For the active runs convection is a small part of the total power budget so even if this is very wrong the results (corrected) still have some merit.


    So my best resolution of this is:

    (1) Some unknown error resulting in wrong input power measurement for the dummy

    (2) A retrofitted convection calculation which is much too high that matches the (wrong) input data.


    Further interesting (to obsessives like me) checking would be to test this hypothesis. Suppose the convection powers are all too high. Match them with the MFMP thermal data (thereby making them much lower). Check to see what effect that has on the active power budget (it will bring COP down slightly) and on the corrected COP for the two active tests. this should remain pretty well identical. I'd expect this because although we get some difference in convection budget between the two cases it is mostly linear - and only the non-linear component of this will produce a difference in COP. But it needs doing properly - I've found that expectations here do not always work.


    if the power budget matches less well after this convection corrections we have a continued mystery. Otherwise this new information strengthens TC's (and MFMP's) conclusions. Note that what we know for sure is that the MFMP 1.3 reanalysis of the higher temperature test while broadly correct will be a bit high due to the assumption they made that exponent stayed at the same value for the two tests.


    I'm almost motivated to write this up properly...


    My e-m to Bob Higgins, with Bob's reply in italics

    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    So that I can understand this.
    I am using the PI Connect software you have posted, and a .ravi file of
    raw camera readings together with a layout that marks areas and assigns
    emissivity to each one. I'd expect this is what they would have done,
    since they use the marked areas in their photos?
    So that changing the emissivity can be done at any time, for any one of these areas, and the calculated temperature changes.
    I have posted the raw data for this on LF and you can see that this
    software does exactly what theory says - an exponent varying from approx
    9 to 2 over the range 60C to 1200C (remembering that this is T in K
    that the exponent applies to.
    When MFMP took the data, it was adjusted live while the Optris was imaging
    the dummy reactor at high temperature (~900C as I recall). It was on
    this basis that the 3.0 exponent was selected, not upon an evaluation
    over large temperature range. Though as you point out, it was likely an
    error to use it over such a large range in the analysis. However, it
    is approximately correct in the range where it was used.




    That is an easily verifiable (and verified by several people) fact, so to square this with your observations:
    (1)
    There must be some different and incompatible way to enter area
    emissivities to the camera other than PI Connect with a ravi file from
    the camera. There might be a direct online connection, but it is highly
    surprising that it would be so obviously incompatible?
    or



    (2) Optris must have radically changed this software between the version you used and the version currently posted 2.9.2147.0
    or
    (3)
    I was testing with a .ravi derived from 60C e=0.95 measurement. It
    could be that for some reason at larger radiances corresponding to higher
    temperatures they change (largely) the algorithm.
    or
    (4) Something else.


    Do you have an idea which of these might be true? The difference here
    is not small. For example, at 60C (a common temperature) a 10% change in
    emissivity makes a 1% difference in temperature, rather than a 3%
    difference as would be true for exponent 3. The result would be
    radically different temperatures for an emissivity of 0.5.


    I suspect that the calibration is stored in the Optris camera itself and
    read out by the PI Connect software. I also bet the calibration is
    contained in the .ravi file so that the correct calibration gets used
    for the camera that produced the data. Thus, I suspect that the
    operation of the PI Connect software on re-loaded .ravi data is correct
    and behaves the same as it would with the live data with regards to
    behavior over temperature and E.



    TC's calculations based
    on the correct correction (and this is the same as what the PI Connect
    software does on the MFMP posted sample file) neatly give identical COP
    for the two high temperatures to within 0.5%. this result is robust
    against any of the parameters being changed within reasonable bounds
    and so represents significant internal consistency checking. Your
    recalculation does not do this, so I've no a priori reason to prefer it.


    The first data comparison in the JCMNS-21 paper, in matching the lower
    temperature Lugano thermal state to that of the dummy reactor, was very
    close to where the exponent of 3 was extracted. Because of the failure
    of the Optris during the dummy measurement, the exponent was not
    measured at the higher temperature, and the exponent of 3 was used in
    the extrapolation to somewhat higher temperature thermal state. The
    first, lower temperature thermal state match, is likely very close to
    correct. The second, higher temperature extrapolated thermal state may
    be in error due to the presumed exponent of 3. It would be worth
    recalculating.


    Perhaps
    we can find out how the calibration coefficients are stored in the
    .ravi file and how they are applied. The calibration may include the
    exponent as a function of temperature for the particular camera.

  • Search around for the Padua Reheat Google folder (there should be a link on the MFMP site). I found it without too much difficulty.

    In there are .ravi files for a significant range of temperatures (some are rather large files).

    Here are the ones I downloaded a couple of months ago (image)


    So: I can google this and get an image. The MFMP experiment list does not seem to index older experiments. As always I find their site impenetrable when it comes to researching and checking specific older results. the format is optimised for live comment, and does not well suit reflective research. I'm sure it is all there, just no easy way to navigate or search - but maybe I've just not worked it out.


    Can anyone help me over this? I'd like to check these higher temp ravi files.


    Regards, THH

  • MFMP do indeed say that in this paper, along with their recalculation of Lugano performance which is very similar to mine based on their thermal modelling


    THHuxleynew : Thanks for digging in!


    For me the mfp calibration power measurements show, that it is not easy to correctly model an unknown reactor. Nevertheless, the Optris errors could be reproduced and a simple procedure for COP recalculations/adjustments could be given.

    If an experiment shows a huge COP > 4, then it might be OK to use thermal calorimetry just for verification purposes. But there are many caveats: Single band measurements are sometimes inaccurate especially, if a vendor does recommend to use an other frequency... Convection is difficult to calculate in, if the surface is irregular. Convection, in some bands, leads to mirror-effects and random fluctuation of the signal.

    Conclusion: Any serious measurement must relay on two independent systems. I personally would never accept a final result, that is based on a single type of T measurement. This includes at least 3 TC's that must be used!