Posts by Paradigmnoia

    Here they supposedly measured a flame temperature between 124 and 144 °C, but it's a technical report from a company which sells oxyhydrogen (so-called "HHO") systems:


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…016c508ae07629e5283f0.pdf

    It will take a bit to work through what is claimed in this paper.


    Edit:

    There are substantial amounts of data available for download for this paper. The author is highly commended on that. The calculation spreadsheets are actually available.


    One thing that is apparent is that only one state of H and O are considered, just 1/3 O2 and 2/3 H2. OH is neglected.


    There is no laser wavelength refraction adjustment for atmosphere, but that is possibly negligible.


    There is an extra table showing an emissivity-temperature re-calculation. It appears to show an IR spot size larger than the flame width. A wiki link and a reference to the emissivity of copper is mysteriously supplied.

    I have more ambitious hopes. I am hoping this is replicated by thousands of researchers worldwide. As we said in the conclusion, this is a remarkably simple experiment. The paper describes the materials and methods in as much detail as Mizuno himself knows. I spent weeks grilling him to think of every detail. As you see, we even listed the detergent he uses, and the ingredients listed on their website. We do not know if the choice of detergent has any impact on the results, but just in case it does, we tell the reader the ingredients.

    In some work do, we use ONLY plain Ivory dish detergent. Just a drop, to break surface tension.

    Here they supposedly measured a flame temperature between 124 and 144 °C, but it's a technical report from a company which sells oxyhydrogen (so-called "HHO") systems:


    https://www.researchgate.net/p…016c508ae07629e5283f0.pdf

    Haha. The Eckman 2008 paper referenced for the temperature in the paper above reports 130 F (54.4 C), not 130 C. And of course, the InfraCAM SD used for the Eckman report operates in the 7.5 to 13 um range, which is useless for combustion columns of HHO, oxyhydrogen, oxypropane etc.


    https://www.scribd.com/documen…ns-Gas-What-Exactly-is-It


    https://www.instrumart.com/pro…nfracam-sd-thermal-imager

    One of the points in the paper is that the flame of the burning of this gas is relatively cold, 130°C, which is consistent with what Bob Greenyer measured with the Optris, albeit I don't know how the guys that report that temperature that King quotes performed the measurement (I e-mailed them asking, hope they answer).

    The reference for the 130 C is [3] this website , unless there is another 130 C mentioned.

    The website reference seems to be regarding the torch tip temperature, not a flame temperature. The website comment is correct that the BG flame radiates very little heat.


    Later I found the same reference [3] above repeated , but also [14] is referenced for 130 C, found here . The first sentence of the report mentions George Wiseman, owner of the website above, and is therefore likely the source of the 130 C (134 C) temperature again.

    Much more active discussion on ECW.

    But, for those who don’t go there often I have tested a couple items from the Omasa lab visit.


    1) Successfully burned through a pure tungsten rod with a cheap oxy-propane torch (cannot possibly get as hot as the melting point of tungsten.) The metal smoked and evaporated away, leaving very sharp points at the cut, just like the video. Substantial amounts of tungsten trioxide were formed near the cut on the rod, which could be evaporated away completely by adjusting the flame position.


    1b) A test with propane-air was unable to burn the tungsten appreciably, but did leave a very thin layer of yellow tungsten oxide (tungsten trioxide).


    2) Used an IR pyrometer on the oxy-propane flame, emissivity set at 0.95 like in the video. Peak carbonizing flame temp reported was 85 C, and a clean flame was 50 C. (I don’t currently have a hydrogen source) .This is because a gas is not a suitable target for LWIR thermometry. Gasses (flames are gasses) emit in discrete wavelengths (broadening with temperature a bit), and almost no radiation is emitted in the LWIR band for oxyhydrogen or oxy-propane. The flame is also fairly transparent, so the background temperature of solid objects is ‘seen’ by the pyrometer (or Optris) through the flame.


    3) Cannot find my titanium bolts, so will purchase a small piece of titanium somewhere and melt/burn it with the oxy-propane torch soon.


    4) Will attempt to rig up something to test the IR pyrometer results on burning tungsten and titanium. I expect similar values to those seen in the video where Omasa Gas was used... but we will see... Several references show that the integrated emissivity of tungsten in the 8-14 um band is about 0.4 in the 1800 C range. (Tungsten light bulb filaments seem to be often coated with HfO2 in order to increase the emissivity.)


    5) Flir emissivity reference sheet shows burnished brass in the 8-14 um band is 0.4, and 0.5 for oxidized brass. This indicates that the torch tip is almost certainly at least twice as hot as suggested in the video.

    I heard Rossi is working on a cloud based solution for the grammer check portion of his blog due to the high cpu load. The AI inference engine is already stressed.

    Seriously. IRRC, they are over 3 million words.

    If I forget to turn off Spelling/Grammar Check, the CPU fans go to full blast and it takes serious amounts of time to stop the process. But it does eventually chew through it if I let it go, after greenlighting an “ignore” response to a warning at “too many errors” (or somesuch), probably at 65535 instances or something...

    Once your entire body is replaced, atom-by-atom, by Created Elements, you will become a super-being.

    For now, it is offered only a degree of super-being.

    But the sun has merely begun to rise...


    I can hardly wait for the Researchgate investigation to be completed.

    There are a lot unknowns

    Since they are unknown we can not conclude if they where bad or not for the conclusions made.


    All serious unknowns are bad for something that is characterizing a Null device.


    On the other hand, I haven't yet tried to recalculate the dummy with a lower LWIR emissivity, using the reiterative values as a start point. Note that the drop in LWIR E should affect the total emissivity also, since LWIR is the primary emissive part of the total IR spectrum for alumina-like materials.

    .

    Was the Lugano device made of Durapot 810 like the patent application and Dewey claim?

    Was the Lugano device made of 99%+ alumina as the report claims?

    Was the Lugano device painted in Aremco 634-ZO as Dewey claims, and suggested directly to the Professors in a an email reprinted in the Court documents?

    Why do the chips of the reactor for testing shown in the report look like long thin shavings, and not rough crumbles and dust scraped from a ridge of reactor made of ceramic materials?

    Was the device cured at 225 F as suggested by the Durapot instructions?

    Was the device post-cured at higher temperatures?

    Did the Lugano device turn an ugly grey upon heating?

    Is there chipped paint in images of the Lugano device?

    Were there two devices used, one of which broke, as claimed by Darden in his summary, rather than feared that could break as suggested in the Lugano report? Did the dummy break?


    Well, nothing like attempting self-looping for a reality check.