Clearance Items

Quote from Zeus46

You’re overthinking this... And apparently saying that Clarke’s papers is worthless. I disagree.

Is the proportion of energy leaving the system due to convection from the rods that great, that it merits such fine analysis? I assume modelling them as a triangle would be fine?

I am not saying that. The evidence is leading towards a COP of approximately 1, the normal state of the universe in the human sensitivity range. TC, myself, LDM, and others can do some calculations with data supplied, choosing from which we feel is the most reliable.

But the upshot is that the data we are choosing from may not be reliable, as there are certainly errors, and we are not really in a position to choose which data is good, and which is not good, without corroborating data. Which we don't have.

The greatest body of data that can be used for corroboration is the normal result in the typical Earth conditions, where COP would be 1, within uncertainty bounds. The Lugano data, when corroborated with normal Earth expectations (COP =1) has an extremely high level of correspondence and corroboration with alternate calculations using the same data when the COP = 1 theory is applied. Therefore the preponderance of evidence leads me to believe that it did not work, the COP was effectively 1.

However the data is not good enough that if the COP was indeed 1.2 or maybe even 1.5, that we could discern this through the uncertainties and real errors.

I am shocked.

Sorry, it was not my intention to shock you.

Also because you have been and are making for a long time contributions in the discussions on this forum which I realy value.

And I hope you are continuing to do so.

They explain explicitly that the I R camera emissivity setting was derived from the plot they made of total emissivity.

As you know I have earlier stated that there is a possible other explanation for what they stated, but have no idea what the truth is.

The "COP" that was reported is perfectly compatible with this, when power is calculated from the greatly inflated and very erroneous temperature reported by the camera when the emissivity factor is half of what it should be, compounded by the T4 relationship of radiant power to temperature.

Currently I can not calculate if there was a COP of 1 or larger then 1 for the active runs.

As such I have currently no opinion if the ECAT as such is working of not.

That is why I am concentrating on the dummy run, we know that the COP should be 1 there.

Optris reports that the sensitivity range for the camera that was used is the 7 to 13.5 um band, as is consistent with pretty much all LW IR cameras, due to technical reasons (lenses, bolometer design, and atmospheric absorption of IR in large ranges of the IR spectrums). Optris suggested that this type (LWIR) of IR camera be used, because they are aware that the alumina has the highest emissivity in the LWIR range. Matching the IR camera sensitivity band to the maximum emissivity range of the measured object makes for the most accurate temperature readings, when the correct emissivity is used.

The above is clear to me. We all know that you have to use in band emissivities with the Optris. However over the temperature range of the ECAT used in Lugano this is not a constant factor .95, but does also change somewhat with temperature as you already noted in one of your posts.

That all said, why not wait till we can recalculate the dummy run and see what the results are and then have an open discussion about those results.

Maybe those results will tell us more. (And maybe some of us will be shocked about it)

LDM ,

It is obvious that the spectral and total emissivities were conflated in the report.

The exact correct value for the camera emissivity setting we can probably never know.

The exact material of the surface of the reactor body is in question (painted Durapot, how thick, how evenly applied, what exact paint, variance of emissivity of both Duapot 810 and paint batches).

The rods' emissivity were used to calibrate the camera for the reactor body emissivity, but the rods are of a much denser material (noted in the report), and this 'calibration' at half of the Reactor operating temperature (if active COP were 1), and 1/3 of the temperature if the COP as reported was correct). In fact, the Rods probably never even got over 300 C, less than 1/4 of the reported reactor temperature, even if they were made of the same material (but they were not). In essence no reliable calibration for the camera.

However, non-conductor ceramics of many compositions do have a reasonably consistent emissivity range in the IR camera's spectral sensitivity range at elevated temperatures. This is between about 0.8 and 0.97, depending on many factors. The rougher and more porous (like poured, hardened, non-pressed alumina slurry castings), the higher the emissivity.

So, if we look up external data, we find that the typical integrated spectral emissivity of alumina (the report claims that the reactor is >99.9% alumina, even though this is inconsistent with claims that IH cast it from Durapot 810) in the IR camera spectral sensitivity range is around 0.95

Plugging that emissivity in, and re-calculating the temperature, and then re-calculating heat power, we discover that the COP is suddenly very close to 1. That is, that the approximate power produced, within various uncertainties like view factor calculation, convection, actual hemispheric total emissivity, Rods, etc. is almost exactly equal to what is claimed as electrical input power. Considering that there are fourth power factors in these equations, there is only a tiny window where input and temperatures can agree with COP 1. It is not amazing to have this coincidence. It is the normal answer. This lends credence to the idea that the true emissivity of the reactor, as far as the camera is concerned, is close to 0.95

We should not expect perfect convergence with the expected COP 1, as this is difficult when the best attempts are made to do this. But the result, within the gross uncertainties we are given in the Lugano report, that is very close to the mundane result we would expect from heating a stick of alumina strongly leads us to the conclusion that this is indeed the case. If we were to insert the expected spectral value for alumina (as opposed to ~ 0.45), run the calculations, and the result was quite out of ballpark of COP 1, then we may have reason to supect something that was not usual going on, like an anomalous COP, or incorrect input power measurements. However, the COP ~ 1 result actually helps to corroborate the reported averaged input power values.

Further, when the Lugano COP ~1 theory is tested in multiple ways, the results always seem to trend towards a set of conditions free of contradictions.

Conversely, contradictions appear most frequently when the high COP, found in the report, is supposed to be true.

WCG - hows the weather in Sweden this evening?

Quote from Dewey Weaver

Tony - I do wish you would ask the same questions of your boy. Its seems that your curiosity is singularly lopsided.

Regarding Doral, the risk of a split baby decision with a local jury in a complex case makes a walkaway settlement an easy decision if one is offered.

The WCS was convinced that IH would offer him a check to settle and was stunned when this didn't happen. He had no choice but to bail out.

Capisce?

Rossi chickened out according to Dewey

and now we know why Tom Darden

whimped out.

Troll on Dewey

Alas... the jealous attack dogs of Planet Rossi persist.

You're not allowed on the couch.

Get down off the couch.

Of course Monty also trolls from the land of the banished / broken toys.

Thanks for the note - your effort is appreciated.

If at all possible, pls send something we don't know next time.

Alainco - IH had no problem releasing all claims to the WCS IP - we believe that it was, is and forever will remain worthless.

If in the off pico-chance that somebody comes along and gets a branch of that IP to work with a link to the smoldering hole of the WGS, then I'll be the first (or second) to say that we were wrong.

Dewey Weaver ,

Did you get any clarification on the Zr / Al paint type?

I'm starting my semi-transplanetary tour early this year. 27 C and sunny where I am today, probably it will be around -30 C and sunny at the next pit stop.

Para - Was able to dig out some additional information for you. Per Fulvio at the time, the reactor was painted with Alumina and the provided details are:

The paint is from Aremco Products, Inc in Valley Cottage, NY (tel: 845-268-0039); specs: 'Pyro Paint 634-ZO', Lot no.: 634-ZO-1153.

That's all we're going to be able to get on that subject. Fulvio said Alumina, the product number says Zr. The surface analysis said 99.99% pure alumina.

Oh well.

Thanks Dewey Weaver ,

I guess that settles ... something...