Rossi vs. Darden aftermath discussions

Quote from Paradigmnoia

so this confirms that part of the report math is good enough

Wow you confirming part of the Lugano Report...... incredible :).

Quote from Paradigmnoia

be if the emissivity were 0.95 instead of 0.69 - 0.71 (Main body) and 0.79 (Caps).

Again the same stuff Paradigmoia !

Note that of course you forget that the Lugano Professors have confirmed that :

1) the reactor was made by pure Alumina (read the analysis )

2) the emissivity of Alumina at this temperature was exactly what present in literature.

They have measured it comparing to a calibrated reference dot (TiO2 on Kapton)

Note also that at those temperature the Lugano Report contains calculations showing how the emitted power was in agreement with the input power.

So all mumbling about "If emissivity was...." is pure nonsense and free speculation.

We note also from your numbers that even if you varied the emissivity of about 36% your calculated emitted power varies just of about 15% demonstrating also that the emitted power have a very weak dependency on emissivity as one should expect.

Nothing new. Just same old stuff.

Quote from randombit0

Wow you confirming part of the Lugano Report...... incredible :).

Again the same stuff Paradigmoia !

Note that of course you forget that the Lugano Professors have confirmed that :

1) the reactor was made by pure Alumina (read the analysis )

2) the emissivity of Alumina at this temperature was exactly what present in literature.

They have measured it comparing to a calibrated reference dot (TiO2 on Kapton)

Note also that at those temperature the Lugano Report contains calculations showing how the emitted power was in agreement with the input power.

So all mumbling about "If emissivity was...." is pure nonsense and free speculation.

We note also from your numbers that even if you varied the emissivity of about 36% your calculated emitted power varies just of about 15% demonstrating also that the emitted power have a very weak dependency on emissivity as one should expect.

Nothing new. Just same old stuff.

Display More

rb0 - I don't know whether you are unable to question and reflect on your own views, or are deceitful in this matter. We have in detail debated these points and you know well that IR spectroscopy requires the use of band emissivity, not total emissivity, whereas output power from temperature requires total emissivity. You come to grief because you conflate the two.

Mats said he was going to check this matter with experts (at a time when he was annoyed by TC) but then chickened out. How about this. You PM me your (real) identity and if you have serious expertise yourself, or a position that might make such a claim plausible, I'll find some local to where I am undeniable IR thermography experts to put you right. That is of course if you do not trust the web expertise, MFMP, Paradignmoia, and also are not capable of reading and understanding TC's paper, as others have.

It seems a great shame that you might perhaps be wasting you time deluded by such an elementary and easily corrected mistake.

Quote from maryyugo

ROTFWL! Of course not! Levi's main published papers are about coffee brewing.

No Mary.

Levi haves some patents on Cofee Machines heat exchanges and an impressive number of papers in many field of physics applied and fundamental with more the 20k citations.

Just looking in google scholar https://scholar.google.nl/cita…vEZM3BQAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra .

And you ?

even if you varied the emissivity of about 36% your calculated emitted power varies just of about 15% demonstrating also that the emitted power have a very weak dependency on emissivity

As I know you know - because we have said it before - that only applies if a single emissivity figure is used for the IR calculation (which needs band emissivity) and the power calculation (which needs total emissivity).

This was Levi's argument to Mat a while ago, and it would be correct were band emissivity and total emissivity known to be the same, as is the case for ideal grey bodies but not alumina which has a very unusual large drop in emissivity at higher optical frequencies and therefore looks mostly high emissivity in the IR band and low emissivity at higher frequencies. Interestingly, this is the reason for that highly variable with temperature total emissivity that we both agree. At higher temperatures more of the optical power falls at higher frequencies where the spectral emissivity is lower, so the total becomes smaller.

Quote from randombit0

No Mary.

Levi haves some patents on Cofee Machines heat exchanges and an impressive number of papers in many field of physics applied and fundamental with more the 20k citations.

Just looking in google scholar https://scholar.google.nl/cita…vEZM3BQAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=sra .

And you ?

There is no doubt that in the 1990s Levi had some part in a team doing decent nuclear physics. Alas nothing to show expertise in IR thermography but then we already know that! But calling the resulting papers Levi's papers is perhaps a bit much. Here is the author list for the first paper you linked. I've highlighted Levi in there to save people time looking for it.

Malcolm Derrick, D Krakauer, S Magill, B Musgrave, J Repond, S Repond, R Stanek, RL Talaga, J Thron, F Arzarello, R Ayad, G Bari, M Basile, L Bellagamba, D Boscherini, A Bruni, G Bruni, P Bruni, G Cara Romeo, G Castellini, M Chiarini, L Cifarelli, F Cindolo, F Ciralli, A Contin, S D'Auria, C Del Papa, F Frasconi, P Giusti, G Iacobucci, G Laurenti, G Levi, Q Lin, B Lisowski, G Maccarrone, A Margotti, T Massam, R Nania, C Nemoz, F Palmonari, G Sartorelli, R Timellini, Y Zamora Garcia, A Zichichi, A Bargende, J Crittenden, K Desch, B Diekmann, T Doeker, A Frey, M Geerts, G Geitz, H Hartmann, D Haun, K Heinloth, E Hilger, H-P Jakob, S Kramarczyk, M Kückes, A Mass, S Mengel, J Mollen, D Monaldi, H Müsch, E Paul, R Schattevoy, J-L Schneider, D Schramm, R Wedemeyer, A Cassidy, DG Cussans, N Dyce, B Foster, R Gilmore, GP Heath, HF Heath, M Lancaster, TJ Llewellyn, J Malos, CJS Morgado, RJ Tapper, SS Wilson, R Yoshida, RR Rau, M Arneodo, M Schioppa, G Susinno, A Bernstein, A Caldwell, I Gialas, JA Parsons, S Ritz, F Sciulli, PB Straub, L Wai, S Yang, P Borzemski, J Chwastowski, A Dwuraźny, A Eskreys, Z Jakubowski, B Niziol, K Piotrzkowski, M Zachara, L Zawiejski, L Adamczyk, B Bednarek, K Eskreys, K Jeleń, D Kisielewska, T Kowalski, E Rulikowska-Zarȩbska, L Suszycki, J Zajac, T Kȩdzieski, A Kotański, M Przybycień, LAT Bauerdick, U Behrens, JK Bienlein, S Böttcher, C Coldewey, A Dannemann, G Drews, P Erhard, M Flasiński, I Fleck, R Gläser, P Göttlicher, B Gutjahr, T Haas, L Hagge, W Hain, D Hasell, H Hultschig, G Jahnen, P Joos, M Kasemann, R Klanner, W Koch, L Köpke, U Kötz, H Kowalski, W Kröger, J Krüger, J Labs, A Ladage, B Löhr, M Löwe, D Lüke

Quote from THHuxleynew

We have in detail debated these points and you know well that IR spectroscopy requires the use of band emissivity, not total emissivity, whereas output power from temperature requires total emissivity. You come to grief because you conflate the two.

This was the usual wrong argumentation yo use against Lugano.

Is totally nonsense.

Or better to say it make sense only for people that have an agenda and simply want to negate the Lugano results without any real scientific basis.

What I think that now you are taking out this old and useless discussion just to distract people about more sensitive topics like e.g. the long list of possible criminal actions by Darden and Co.

I was really (badly) impressed reading Sifferkol and just searching some documents on the net.

Quote from randombit0

So all mumbling about "If emissivity was...." is pure nonsense and free speculation.

I can mumble and compare away, and maybe it validates or excludes one idea or another.

Quote from randombit0

Note that of course you forget that the Lugano Professors have confirmed that :

1) the reactor was made by pure Alumina (read the analysis )

2) the emissivity of Alumina at this temperature was exactly what present in literature.

Your deep concern is also noted. The emissivity of alumina for TOTAL spectral radiance is well-understood, As is the measuring technique required to measure it, which is directly relevant to the method it is detected, and subsequently converted to a calculated radiant power output.

The operation of an IR camera is a little less clear to some, but relies on a spectrally limited bandwidth, which is directly relevant to the user factor emissivity adjustment required to determine a temperature correctly.

At low temperatures, due to a 4th power effect, the effect of small changes to the emissivity user function for the Optris camera has a reletively small effect.

At high temperatures, the 4th power effect causes large changes in calculated temperatures, and therefore power calculations dependent on those temperatures.

What is interesting, as I am sure as an IR expert you realize, there is a certain temperature range below which a device could be operated and appear to produce nearly the same temperature and power at a somewhat wrong emissivity user function as at the correct emissivity user function value. (The "hockey stick" plot breakout point).

Quote from randombit0

Wow you confirming part of the Lugano Report...... incredible :).

Levi et al did mess it up in the 2011 report though, using a poor coefficient of heat transfer value. Nice to see that they got it fixed later on.

The Professors did do some good work, but they also did mess up other things. Nobody is perfect. But a good scientist owns up to their mistakes, and deals with them for the betterment of Science in general.

At low temperatures, due to a 4th power effect, the effect of small changes to the emissivity user function for the Optris camera has a reletively small effect.

At high temperatures, the 4th power effect causes large changes in calculated temperatures, and therefore power calculations dependent on those temperatures.

P. the 4th power is relevant if when computing total power from temperature.

When computing band power - what the camera measures - from temperature the exponent n is very variable, going from 1 up to some high number depending on where the IR band lies on the Planck curve.

To compute power out from emissivity you need to put the two together because you first use 1/n to get from emissivity to temperature and then 4 to get from temperature to power out. The overall effect is therefore 4/n and can be more or less than 1 depennding on the temperature.

On another thread I posted a spreadsheet where I showed this using the Optris software by varying emissivity and at each data point taking e and e + 10% in order to estimate the exponent (e -> T) for that value of e. Since different values of e let me explore different calculated temperatures for the same IR camera data you can from this see how the camera (correctly) changes the exponent as the temperature changes.

Quote from THHuxleynew

P. the 4th power is relevant if when computing total power from temperature.

Yes. I might not have been as clear as I meant.

But what I meant is that holding the temperature low enough, the effect on total power calculations is not incredibly sensitive to moderate camera emissivity setting variances from the correct one (if the object is not too small).

So (for example) the Dummy (or more noticeably the Rods) at lower power input levels can have the temperature measured at a reasonably wide range of camera emissivity settings around the correct value, and still come close to the correct radiant+convective power calculated from those temperatures. The variance from the input power with calculated radiant+convective power becomes more "hockey stick" like as temperature increases, and dramatically so after a certain temperature range.

I am not sure whether I admire or pity the people who continue to argue with Rossi believers about technical, factual, or even logical matters. They are going to believe Rossi no matter what happens. It is more productive to argue with rocks.

Quote from maryyugo

In Rossi's 30+ years of scamming and accomplishing absolutely nothing that works or sold,

I believe that is incorrect. As I recall, he developed Diesel engines that run on biofuel. He sold that company for a lot of money.

Quote from interested observer

I am not sure whether I admire or pity the people who continue to argue with Rossi believers about technical, factual, or even logical matters. They are going to believe Rossi no matter what happens. It is more productive to argue with rocks.

I only argue with the ones like rb0 / ele who sound like they might be competent but then come out with incompetent statements. I can never lose the feeling that they might actually redeem themselves one day. But I guess their attitude towards these things is different from mine.

Quote from maryyugo

That's probably Rossifiction. There is a lot of it out there or do you also believe he broke world records in cycling or track or whatever he claimed? What was the company?

I did not hear it from Rossi. I wouldn't believe him. I think the people at Ampenergo told me. I don't recall the name of the company.

Quote from maryyugo

PS: ALL Diesel engines can be modified to run on biofuel.

Not for long! Using the wrong fuel or modifying the engine brings nothing but trouble, I have heard.

Quote from maryyugo

Where do you think they heard it from? They're Rossipals. Or at one time they were.

They are smart cookies. They know a lot of bad stuff about Rossi, and they know not to believe him without checking.

Darden and the others at I.H. and the company in the UK that invested with them are also smart cookies. Smarter than you give them credit for. I think they were caught off-guard when Rossi filed suit, but who wouldn't be?

Jed, how do you reconcile IH et al being smart cookies and giving $12M to Rossi? Those two things strike me as mutually exclusive.

Quote from interested observer

Jed, how do you reconcile IH et al being smart cookies and giving $12M to Rossi? Those two things strike me as mutually exclusive.

Smart people sometimes make stupid mistakes. In retrospect, this was a mistake. $1 million might have been reasonable. When I say they are smart cookies, I am judging them by the totality of their investments and the totality of their knowledge of cold fusion.

Some so-called venture capitalists do not really venture anything. They are insiders who clean up after the hard work is done and the risk has already been taken. I have the impression that Darden and the others are the real thing. They actually do risk money. I know they have lost it in many of their ventures, but they earned more than they lost. People who managed to pull that off are usually smart.