LDM ,
Using your model, do you have the ability to work out the time required to reach equilibrium temperatures relating to various data points in the Lugano report, based on nominal input power?
Such as reaching 450 C from 20 C, 1260 C to 1400 C, etc. ?
How humans went from using tools made from sticks and stones to using semiconductors while adhering to ideas contrary to facts constantly amazes me. No wonder some people think that much of our modern technology and even ancient architecture was devised with help and information supplied to us by extraterrestrials.
Can you confirm whether the Lugano device was painted with Aremco Pyro-Paint 634-AL?
(or identity for me the correct paint)
I would like to test its emissivity when painted onto my Durapot slab.
Is the test report done on the emissivity performed for IH ever going to made public?
Conditions of dropping the lawsuits perhaps prevent these disclosures. Can you comment on that?
@Mary Yugo ,
THH is referring to the MFMP paper.
In other news, the new Durapot slab has been cured, and now is wired up and almost ready to go. The three thermocouples are currently stabilizing to the test area temperature. I may add a fourth, but maybe later, resting on the surface (as before) to compare the external-but-embedded T to the resting-with-slight-pressure-on-surface T. However, this requires me assembling another extension cable and I may have to scavenge another set of TC quick connects from another device since I seem to have used them all up. I should have another pair of new ceramic connectors somewhere...
The elbow device was able to heat more water than the pump could supply.
The old blue container was able to move water uphill without steam or pump pressure, (thereby avoiding flooding the condensers).
The red container was able to heat more water than the pumps can supply. And sometimes use more electricity than was supplied.
I am sensing a pattern, but just can't quite put my finger on it...
Lots of photos and maybe some video would be great. It is amazing what can be confirmed or denied based on some good images, even if it is not obvious at the time the images were taken.
I wonder if Rossi will continue to use irrigation couplers at the demo. I love the combo of advanced nuclear tech and garage tinkerer cobbling together of parts.
BobHiggins and Paradigmnoia will be able to comment on this.
I agree, and have commented on ECW and here (although in a rather convoluted way, in retrospect).
The last paragraph of my comment sums it up.
It was in a shipping container except for the heat loops.
I would ship it up north and heat a warehouse. They say it will be a cold winter in the NE.
Either it works or it doesn't.
can no one else make it run? Lewen ?
I bet Leonardi can make it go.
Improved hot slab baking in the oven currently.
External thermocouple cast into the surface layer this time. Hopefully it won't pop out.
Emissivity was reporting >1 last time, when the external thermocouple was held in place on the surface by spring tension of an arc of the thermocouple and the mass of the TC extension wire.
A longer heater coil inside should allow better electrical control with wider input range before hitting the meltdown zone. This also makes for a larger slab, and should give the IR thermometer a better target.
Hopefully the greater overall mass isn't too counter-productive.
Really? When your rig, like Rossi's previous ones, is connected to a mains power supply or a giant Diesel-engine-powered generator?
What work was witnessed being performed? Maybe-steam-making? LOL.
Perhaps the very special lifting of water in the condensate lines against "condensation" vacuum and without the use of pressure, but that required far less than 470 kWh anyway.
Spinning an engine with heat of a million tiny bulbs will be entertaining if nothing else.
An engine would be great addition to the system. It is hard to fake actual Work.
Probably some spectator will unplug a control system to help demonstrate self-sustain operation , stall puting it back, and it will explode...
There is a caveat: if your sample is radioactive, it can generate spurious lines in the acquired x-ray spectrum that are not the characteristic lines of anything. The analysis software may not deal with these extra lines gracefully and may say that an element is present that is not actually there. I have never seen this happen.
The EDS however has such fine resolution that I'm not sure how it might react. I would lean towards the detector being swamped with decay-related X-rays in some channels if the specimen has appreciable radioactivity.
I have seen the decay-related peaks many times using XRF for bulk concentration analyses. The lines due to radioactive decay are not spurious, however. They are consistent. One might (uncautiously) say they are characteristic of the radioactive source, but that is too easy confused with the Characteristic X-rays that the system normally relies on. In moderate and higher concentrations of a given element there are typically a large alpha and also a smaller beta peak channel located right next to the alpha channel, on the higher energy side. The smaller beta peak is absent in the decay-related lines, which helps to distinguish them from the elemental characteristic lines. Rhodium is one element that often reports in uranium-rich samples tested by XRF results, for example, and is due to a decay peak and not the actual presence of the element.
Smaller "shoulder peaks" sometimes also occur on either side of the main peak, when some elements in a sample have very high concentrations, which the detector software often falsely interprets as being related to some other element.
@Adrian Ashfield ,
Concave surfaces have the extra complication of re-absorption and possible reflection of emitted light, but reduced reflection from external sources (by blocking part of the incident angles), which should be nearly impossible in a convex or flat surface, which emit hemispherically from a diffuse surface. Typically this ultimately increases the emissivity, and that could possibly occur unevenly over the surface depending on the foci of the concave surface.
@Adrian Ashfield ,
Lambert' cosine law shows that the curved surface of a cylinder will have the same radiance as viewed from any angle, so the cylinder edges appear to the IR camera to have the same temperature as the center (if it is isothermal to start with). Surface roughness, reflectivity, and the detector pixel size relative to the subtended steradian view area will modify this, but mostly at extremely oblique angles, so that won't affect the temperature reported by the camera very much unless the object is very small relative to the view area.
Lambert's cosine law is why the moon edges appear as bright as the center, for example.
Ok, then. Thanks for your help, everyone that contributed.
The upshot of my wandering thoughts (above) is that the arithmetic mean of the numeric values for T4 of all individual cells, entered into the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for the total area is equivalent to the summed power of the individual cells when those cells are calculated independently. Good to know.
Averaging raw temperatures would seem to be poor practice and seems to skew the power calculations to a lower value.
It is interesting that increasing the number of measurement areas seems to increase the overall power, but I accept that the metal frame blocking part of the measurement area is the main culprit in this case, as the area of unaffected cells is increased in size when the total number of cells is increased.
So I thereby retract my earlier statements about the total power being calculated mathematically incorrectly in the Indication of... report. That part seems fine. Now I fully understand what was done in that section.
Bahhhh....
If one uses the geometric mean of the T4 for each of the cells (instead of averaging them), in all three versions (10 cells, 20 cells, and 30 cells), and then calculate radiant power, all three agree very closely, with the following resulting temperatures (from least cells to most) : 706.4538 K, 706.3596 K, and 706.7204 K
The calculated power is then (same order) :1463.113 W, 1462.333 W and 1465.323 W
I don't know if this more or less accurate then what was presented in the report, but considering that we are discussing the same object sliced and diced different ways, the pieces should all add up to about the same. Obviously, this adds up to a ~143 W reduction in the reported power, but that is not my point at present.
(It certainly demonstrates how finicky these calculations can be).
The question remains: which method is most correct ?
Average of 40 cells = 711.5425 K (711.5 K report).......... 1505.727 W over total area (1609 K report).......... 1607.711 W summing 40 cells individually calculated
Average of 20 cells = 710.695 K (710.7 K report)............ 1498.556 W over total area..................................... 1590.225 W summing 20 cells individually calculated
Average of 10 cells = 709.445 K (709 K report)............... 1488.093 W over total area..................................... 1552.993 W summing 10 cells individually calculated
Cell # and individual cell temperatures equals those as described in the Indication of ...report, page 9.
I just noticed that in the report, the average of the T^4 was used to calculate power (2.73694 * 1011). This means an effective T of 723.2964 K
Therefore in that case, total P = 1607.711 W
As long as the camera does whatever it does consistently, whatever internal algorithms it uses is of little consequence.
I am not discussing the uncertainties or errors caused by the IR camera itself, but those that might be caused by errant calculation methods using the data generated by the IR camera.
Interesting...
I averaged the temperature from the 40 temperature cells from Indication of..., (page 9), and got the average T of 711.5425 K, same as the report (rounded to 711.5 there)...
I calculated the radiant power, and arrived at the answer I got before of 1505.727 W (rather than the reported 1609 W, which I have commented on previously).
Then I divided the area 0.1036 m2 by 40, and calculated the radiant power for each of the 40 temperature cells, individually, and summed the power of all those cells.
I have calculated 1607.7 W that way...
So, FWIW....
the geometric mean of the all the cell temperatures results in 706.45 K, leading to 1463.13 W
and the RMS of all the cell temperatures is 715.997, leading to 1543.78 W
(All power calculations do not include the room temperature corrections, subsequently applied in the report, page 10)
Zeus46 ,
RMS is probably not what I actually mean.
Something more like the logarithmic mean or geometric mean is more like what I am thinking of.
It's been a very long time since I did any of that sort math
