Alan Smith has stated that he knows for a fact the the light produced by the Quark can be adjusted from red to blue. This speaks against the proposition that the light is generated by blackbody radiation.
It was a blackbody for the purposes of calculating radiant power in the first Gullstrom-Rossi paper.
Blue-white light? Isn't blue-white hot over 10000 K for a blackbody?
Well, I am interested to see where the method outlined by LDM ends up.
We could choose 1000 K (726.85 C) as the start point. The starting emissivity for this T would be the respective value in the Lugano report Plot 1, I suppose.
I thought I had an Excel file made by someone that digitized this at some point. We should agree on the alumina total emissivity vs temperature plot to use before getting carried away and introducing extra complications into this method comparison.
Maybe someone that can use Python can use the code from the TC "Comment" report appendix and run another parallel test?
Or maybe we should use one of those temperatures that were used in the TC report for comparison to something already done (run 5 or 6, the "jump"), saving some work?
Thoughts?
EDIT: This link is to Bob Higgins' file, which has a good alumina total Emissivity vs Temp plot we can use (on second tab).
I have a full-page ad from Life magazine from the 1950s featuring 16 medical doctors extolling the health benefits of smoking Camel cigarettes. These doctors knew MUCH more about medical matters than you and I do. Nevertheless, they were idiots. It is quite easy to find smart people who believe stupid things. It is especially useful when the stupid things they believe are what you yourself want to believe.
The measure of intelligence is not made by IQ tests, university degrees, and professional titles, but what one does with their knowledge and abilities.
There was a better roboticized factory quote somewhere in 2012. There were questions about building it before the certifications were done, and changes needing to be accommodated. But Rossi said something to the effect that the cost of changes was less than that of delays in building the factory.
Rossilivecat.com/all will do the full history (but watch out for mis-matched questions and answers) combined with CTL+F or find on page to find whatever term one is looking for.
The /all addition makes for a rather large download, so be prepared for that.
This is the image that comes to mind for some reason...
LDM ,
Access to the original data would answer sooo many questions, and put so many theories to bed.
We don't really need to know about any special waveforms, as long as the kWh part is there, even if (properly) averaged over some reasonable time period to hide some secret details.
With the IH-Leonardo settlement, the recorded data likely belongs to Rossi 100% and I doubt it will ever be released. Probably it is scrubbed from the data loggers and laptops already.
IH did some tests on a virgin reactor, but that report is probably also sealed. Dewey hasn't answered any questions about the IH tests or the reactor paint since the settlement.
Nothing is being learned from Rossi's devices except that some people are pretty easily fooled.
I don't know about that. I learned a lot about thermodynamics studying Rossi's devices. I am also getting fairly proficient at making electrical heaters. I heat my shop with a home-made heater sometimes. Probably still cheaper to have bought an IR heater at the local Home Depot (my insurance company would likely insist on it)... but what fun is that?
To those searching for truth -- not the truth of dogma and darkness but the truth brought by reason, search, examination, and inquiry, discipline is required. For faith, as well intentioned as it may be, must be built on facts, not fiction -- faith in fiction is a damnable false hope.
- Thomas Edison
Like the gentle caress of the first sweet breath of spring, the demo on the 24th will bring a new age of reason.
“He turned away, and suddenly she thought about the old children's story, where the stupid girl opens the box that God gave her, and all the evils of the world fly out, except Hope, which stays at the bottom; and she wondered what Hope was doing in there in the first place, in with all the bad things. Then the answer came to her, and she wondered how she could've been so stupid. Hope was in there because it was evil too, probably the worst of them all, so heavy with malice and pain that it couldn't drag itself out of the opened box.”
- K.J. Parker, from "Sharps"
It is disturbing that some people are elevated to the status of heroes in order to justify one's beliefs.
You arrive at the in-band black body temperature of the Optris by setting the in-band emissivity on the Optris to one after the measurements.
Gotcha... the NASA-USGS radiance calculator can do that, since we don't have the original data. We could also use the Optris software with a suitable hot object. (Crunching the numbers manually is feasible also.)
Then you do a change from in-band to broad-band black body temperature using the data from the graph..
Using your new graph? I think that is what you mean. OK...
After that you do the recursive adjustments using the plot.
Using the Lugano Plot 1 ? I can visualize how that could work.
I'm not sure how that is better than doing it the other way, but it does not seem wrong.
Seems to me like it adds more uncertainty because the alumina total emissivity plot (Plot 1) is used several times to extract information for the conversion, and that plot is built from fairly coarse data.
Can we choose a convenient surface temperature and run it through both processes and see where they end up?
The upcoming demo on the 24th is our long awaited reward that will flush the cult of recrimination down the toilet of history. Your days are numbered.
I can't tell if this is facetious sarcasm or not.
Ahhh, IF.
If the paint smears and the horn falls off the pink unicorn revealing the tape used to hold it on, then the pink unicorn supporters will claim it was too risky to reveal the real unicorn in case someone tried to ride away on it....
If grandma had wheels...
If wishes were fishes...
LDM ,
Certainly tossing the Tamb term has a very small effect on objects of higher temperatures and smallish areas. I assumed that the Optris dealt with this properly in the original measurement, and even with later emissivity changes its effect is almost insignificant.
Your method is the one that I originally used. My spreadsheets were getting out of hand eventually. (I had one with all of the individual measurement areas.... ugh.)
When I switched to the spectral radiant power per steradian matching method, using the NASA-USGS radiant power calculator, I eliminated many of the steps. In general, it is the same thing as what you suggest. The spectral radiant power per steradian method I was using bypasses the manual conversion to a blackbody and back to the new emissivity. Probably the calculator actually does this step internally. The calculator generates a spreadsheet of the radiant power integrated over a series of wavelength steps within the in band segments, and plots the spectral segments of the Planck curve (which cross when two different emissivities for two respective temperatures have equivalent radiant power).
As long as the total emissivity for alumina (assuming an alumina object), found in the literature and which is sufficiently correct in Plot 1, is used to calculate power, the result of power calculations resulting from the corrected temperature (assuming it is now corrected) will be correct.
The problem with the recursive adjustments in the report is that it is messing with the in band emissivity for the camera by inserting a derivative of the broadband emissivity. If the in band emissivity was used in a plot for the recursive method it might have worked properly.
Below is an example from the NASA-USGS calculator. (I forget if this is exact, but it will be pretty close)
Parkhomov Padua! I thought it its day of glory! Physicists are mistaken, energy should be looked for on geology!
I was disappointed that the plot of the data had not been dealt with by the time the Padua conference was held, considering that he had been alerted to it well in advance. Parkhomov did eventually make amends, and supplied the actual recorded data files. That is good enough for me. I'm not sure what to make of his later work, but the efforts he and his team have made since Padua are considerable.
LDM ,
I have only one thermal conductivity number for Durapot 810, and have no idea what temperature is is valid for. It is much lower than is typically reported for extruded high density alumina, which has a large decrease from room temperature to ~ 1000 C, typically about 20 W/mK dropping to 10 W/mK in that range. The MFMP used a 99% alumina based casting material, the brand is noted in the construction page. Durapot 810 has less alumina, and unknown other components. Based on dark stains made when heating, I think some manganese is in there (forming pyrolusite?) . I will try some dilute HCl and see if there is a carbonate component. Likely some polymer flow modifier (burned off eventually, based on smell during the first strong heating), some defloculant, and maybe some phosphate. If I send some out for analysis, it will not be soon.
The recursive method (please review the Lugano report for details) is a feedback method that reiterates the temperature to get a new emissivity to get a new temperature several times in succession, using Plot 1. Try it with the Optris software if you have it. It shifts the final temperature reported from an original temperature reading based on the slope of the Plot 1 graph, (which is for total emissivity, not the Optris IR spectral sensitivity range).
I don't think K and degrees C were conflated.
Edit: I mis-read the beginning of your post. I have only just done the emissivity test of Durapot 810, and it is only applicable to the 8 to 14 micron band. It was only one test, with one pyrometer, but over 10 temperature data points. It very slowly dropped from 0.9 to 0.87, in that band, from 300 C increasing to the maximum external temperature tested of 990 C. (0.88 at 500 C). My intuition (and assisted by many examinations of various other refractory materials) is that the broad band emissivity is similar to alumina, but perhaps slightly higher in the shortwave, so that a single total emissivity figure would be only slightly higher than that for alumina. But that is a guess, really. If the Lugano reactor was painted with alumina paint, like Aremco Pyro-Paint 634-AL then the alumina total emissivity should be about right.
I don't spend any time attempting to pick that body of work apart.
I doubt that I can reach the level of knowledge to do a good job of attempting it. I know my current limitations. Maybe I will get knowledgeable enough to look over those experiments critically one day. I am better at noticing where cause and effect seem out of step with each other, and pattern and anomaly detection. Probably a borderline Aspie thing...
Like the unfortunate Parkhomov repeats in a plot a while back. As soon as I looked at the plot, I knew something was amiss, unconsciously. The plot just looked wrong. It took a while to work out what was bugging me about it. Little chunks of up and down data making a lumpy line, nothing that any calculating would have proven or disproven, but I could see the grains of repetition hiding in it. I am great at finding problems in data, doing QA/QC, catching shifted parts of columns, transposed chunks of data, and accidental decimal point shifts when scrolling through spreadsheets containing thousands of rows and dozens of columns where other people just see a sea of numbers. But I am no electrochemist.
It is important to be able to effectively nit pick to pieces claims of LENR so that we are, collectively, so good at it that when the real deal comes along it will obvious as the noses on our faces. Our various tests of BS will utterly fail when applied to the real thing.
LDM, for what is worth, I just checked my slab results from the first test of the 6x7 cm unit.
At the input of 207 W, the 35 mW/mm2 is obtained. It happens that I had a 208 W input step, at 61.02 V true RMS, with a peak internal T of 722.5 C, and external T of 631.9 C at steady state. So I can easily dial up 61 V and see how long it takes a small slab to heat up to steady state. Not really comparable to Lugano, but possibly informative, grossly.
I re-calculated the temperatures for Lugano using radiant power matching to arrive at the equivalent temperatures required to reach the same radiant power at different emissivities per steradian, which bypasses some complex calculations. The Optris software agrees very closely with the results of that method.
Where a complication is introduced into the Lugano figures is the use of the recursive emissivity method applied to the camera emissivity using the Plot 1 values, so that the original emissivity is not directly calculable by any method (if at all) and therefore the original temperature that was detected at some "original" emissivity setting, is in doubt. So we can calculate alternate temperatures based on alternate emissivities at some constant radiant power level, perhaps even perfectly, but the original temperature-emissivity measurement has been obfuscated by the manipulation through the recursive method, and therefore the actual measured temperature-radiant power level detected by the Optris is uncertain. Perhaps this is why you get lower temperatures from the model.
It should also be remembered that the temperatures reported are composites of those of the respective measurement areas for the main tube and and the caps. This introduces yet more uncertainty. Interestingly, this means that some locations would be hotter than the reported 1410 C maximum, in turn meaning that the coil temperatures would be even hotter than some already very high temperature estimates, if the reported values were taken at face value. (Regardless of whether there was reaction heating or simple Joule heating, or some combination of the two).
