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
@Adrian Ashfield ,
The IR camera will report a different T for different sized areas, even if the measurement areas centred on the same location, if there is a temperature gradient across that area. This is because the camera measures radiant power from the measurement area, not the temperature directly. The radiant power is increasing proportional to T4 across the temperature gradient. The camera therefore calculates a proportional root 4 T based on the total radiant power determined in the area measured.
It seems likely to me, after some consideration, that the power calculated for the total area from simple temperature averaging from the different IR camera measurement areas will indeed correctly reflect the power calculated from the averaged temperatures that are originally based on actual radiant power measured for the respective areas, as long as the temperatures being averaged from the different measurement areas are areas are of equal size. The camera itself is integrating the power over the measurement areas to a single proxy temperature representative of the total radiant power in each area.
I was mostly wondering if this assumption is correct.
When I get in the right mood, I'll do up a spreadsheet and see how it hangs together.
Consider for a moment also the position a thermocouple would need to be at, within each segment, to match the IR camera temperature for each segment in the above example 100 to 300 C equal gradient, (and for a logarithmic temperature gradient) bar.
(In our mental experiment, the bar has the temperature gradient along the X axis, the Y axis is isothermal at all respective X coordinates, and there is no Z axis.)
LDM ,
Let's not complicate this discussion excessively until the simple case is examined.
For sake of discussion, let's consider the case where the hypothetical emissivity = 1.This allows the cancelling of much of the equation.
Adrian's comment is deeper than it looks at first glance. The bar will have a temperature gradient from the 100 C end to the 300 C end.
The IR camera will do its own RMS-like power determination by directly measuring radiant power for each measurement area. (Let's assume the 100 to 300 C bar is divided into three equal areas).
Then the camera assigns a temperature appropriate for the total radiant power measured in each respective measurement area. For the 100 C end, the temperature reported will not be halfway between 100 and 200 C. (In fact, the 200 C middle will span a temperature range from < 200 C to > 200 C). The temperature reported by the IR camera is effectively a proxy for the radiant power, which is a logarithmic function of T.
The radiant power along the 100 to C C bar will have a logarithmic distribution, even if the temperature gradient is perfectly linear. (In real life, the temperature along the bar will almost certainly have a logarithmic gradient also, but let's keep this simple as possible for now.)
Where I am getting hung up on is, if the T is a proxy for a logarithmic value, is simple averaging T akin to simple averaging of logarithmic values? (Leading to skewed results)
Or, because the IR camera (in theory) effectively does an integration of the radiant power in each segment to determine a temperature value, can the respective reported temperatures be simple averaged and the power calculated from that average give the same answer as summing the calculated power for each individual segment?
Or, do we need to use the RMS temperature of the segments to achieve the correct answer? (Or is this method perhaps more appropriate for spot T measurements?)
I might have to do some tests with the Optris software to see what actually happens.
Regarding technical errors in Indictation of..., I am considering the following potential source of error (as yet unquantified):
Temperature averaging rather than RMS temperature, where power is calculated from temperature (from equal size areas). Since P is proportional to T4, a simple average biases the calculated power to a higher value.
In Indication of, the temperatures of the various IR camera detection areas are simple averaged.
Consider the effect, for example, of the temperatures 100 C in one area, and 300 C in an adjacent area. The average is 200 C. The RMS T would be 158 C. The power calculated for the average T could be 2.57 times that of the RMS T.
Am I mistaken here?
Aluminum boron nitride. Chlorine in aluminum chloride used in preparation.
Suggested reading topic: combustion synthesis
The point that I am trying to make is that fusion has nothing to do with LENR.
Yes. Nuclear fusion and Low Energy don't seem to belong together.
But.... but.... Rossi will tell you. If you do that, he already knows what will happen! So he doesn't want you to do it!!!
(ROTFWL! I love the idea.... but won't it burn up pretty quickly? Is that purely metaphorical Koolaid?)
Burning Kool-aid is less scary than molten sand. Possibly a carbon track near the coil is something to keep in mind when fuelling with Kool-aid powder.
Molten resistor wire and ceramic is nasty too. Remember when it was claimed the melting alumina tubes must be from LENR reactions? Because ceramic can't melt at the temperatures caused by the heater wire, even with metal melting? Well, I managed it a couple days ago. Boiled a nice bubble and a bunch of small ones in the ceramic. No lithium, no nickel fuel. Only 481 W. Miniature fire fountain of mixed ceramic and Kanthal.
Paragdimonia,
have you ever read this Webpage?
I enjoy the GSVIT work very much.
Rossi not so much. He has (at least) an angry post on JoNP for probably every one of the GSVIT tests of Rossi et al's work.
Have said all that, what would the pp fusion rate be at ambient pressure from a hydrogen load of 10 micrograms of hydrogen?
How about the fusion rate of the gazillions of H atoms used to cool turbines?
"According to John Speranza, vice president, hydrogen product sales, Proton Energy Systems, almost 70 percent of all electric power generators over 60 MW worldwide use hydrogen cooling."
Oh, it may be OCD...
I'm working up to a design with the same apparent peak COP as Lugano, but fuelled with 1 g of Kool-Aid powder.
In the meantime, the KISS principle is strangely difficult in practice.
Each proton might fusion once in 14 Ga. Makes more sense.
Much better than "Even inside the core of the sun, a proton will fusion once on the average of 14 billion years."
I guess I was a bit too preoccupied with other things to work out the meaning rather than the face value statement.
WTF is with the power factor reported by a Kill A Watt for a purely resistive load fed by a SSVR set at less than full conduction/voltage?
Does a PCE meter get tripped up by a triac?
Has anyone tried it?
Maybe the MFMP can try measuring a coil powered by a triac with theirs and report the results.
Edit: part 1 worked out. The meter uses the V before the SSVR to calculate the PF.
Not sure if the W or VA is correct. Neither seems to be correct...
I can see that doing these tests on the cheap side is not going to work, which is what I was working on, so anyone can do these hot alumina tests.
I just bought a new true RMS multimeter with duty cycle functions etc. to sort this out.
...
The Kill A Watt shows correct W and A, and cross checks with the steamengine.org calculator. (Minor differences based on the included minor load of the SSVR circuit and indicator lights). Volts reading on my other DVM was terrible. 50.4 V in my last test should have been around 76 V.
Luckily my workhorse "Vulcan" coil has the same wire and coil resistance as the square I cast, so a quick test was easy. (The Vulcan has windings on the outside, and only gets to 800 C maxed out at 115 V, so the effect of insulating with Durapot is quite a contrast).
Lesson: Ignore VA and PF on the Kill A Watt when using a purely resistive load and partial sine AC.
(I don't think the PCE is so easily fooled).
The low entropy of crystals is the key. Try to calculate the probability that three or more atoms align along a single line inside hot chaotic plasma, so that the projections of their nuclei overlap mutually. Try to compare it with probability of such aligning within common crystal lattice.
OK..... But if the sun runs on P-P fusion (in theory), then one fusion every 14 billion years (roughly the age of the universe) does not make a sun.
After my first Durapot 810 test, it became clear that Durapot 810, notwithstanding the thermal conductive descriptor on the promotional material, is a poor conductor of heat. Maybe it's better than your average alumina casting material, but compared to zirconium oxide, etc., it is poor at 2.16 W/mK.
Even 5 mm of it is enough to greatly slow down the heat from a wire cast into it. The widening temperature gap between the outside and the inside as the overall temperature rises is evidence of this.
Using this calculator, and inserting the appropriate values, the temperature in the region of the Lugano device heater coil can be estimated. (The temperatures for Lugano can be taken at face value for the present.). Heat calculator
Area of main Lugano body (not Caps): 0.0144 m2
Thickness: fins 1.6 mm, tube 1 cm, overall diameter 2.32 mm so : 4 to 5 mm (0.4 to 0.5 cm)
Thermal conductivity: 2.16 W/mK Metric Durapot specifications
T hot: we are solving for this. Click on the Thot part of the equation, (in blue at top) when the remaining numbers are filled in to get the answer.
T cold : this is the external temperature. 1400 or 1410 C will do here.
Q/t: might be some conjecture here. 2890 W reported for the device, Caps included. This Calculator will enable one to sort out the Cap contribution. Turns out it is fairly low. Use 4 cm (0. 04 m) diameter, 8 cm (0.08 m) long [ 2 x 4 cm long Cap], 0.7 emissivity, 600 C for Caps and 0.2 m long, 0.023 m diameter, 0.4 emissivity and 1400 or 1410 C temperature. Anyways, about 300 W of the reported 2890 W output of the device (we are ignoring the Rods, Joule heat cables; just looking at the main ribbed tube part) belongs to the Caps. I used 2500 W here for the main tube (to be conservative). Try 910 W (Lugano input power) instead of 2500.
One version is pictured below, with 4 mm depth (wall thickness). This would be close to the depth of the heater coil wires in the Lugano device from surface.
The melting point of Kanthal A1 is 1500 C.
(I suspect that the thermal conductivity of Durapot 810 drops significantly from room T to 1350 C. Possibly to half.)
I'm still puzzling at the idea of a proton in the sun fusing once on average every 14 billion years, (IOW probably not even once, on average, since the solar system formed), being able to heat the sun at all.
Non-lithium version running 220 C internal at 30 W, ~ 6.5 V AC. Going to be a hot one.
(Minimum SSVR setting, V floats around between 5.6 V and 7.6 V)
0.14 power factor, LOL.
Humming- buzzing sound.
Initial run to see if the ceramic breaks currently running.
Ran at 220 C for 2 hours to make sure water is all out. (Was previously baked in oven for 3 hours at 225 F, followed by 1.5 hrs at 525 F to set ceramic, a few days ago).
Dialled to ~ 10 V now to soak.
....
650 C internal at ~20 V. Power density is probably 4 to 5 x the Lugano device. Ceramic block (not including wires) is only 75 g.
Dialled up to ~ 25 V. Needs a better external thermocouple attachment. Too hot to fiddle with now... Emissivity supposedly > 1, based on external thermocouple and IR thermometer reading. (Emissivity set to 0.74 to matches internal T).
....
1188 C internal T at ~ 41 V.
Somewhere around 800 C on the outside. If I breathe on it or move around the external T drops a bit.
No way will I be able to turn this up to full voltage without melting something - which is why there is an internal thermocouple.
I'll take it in 5 V steps to 1350 C inside T, maybe 1370 C and see how it holds up. Nice orange glow at present.
....
Sparks at 50 V and 1350 C ish inside T.
Coil vaporized > 1 cm where exposed.
The temperature was still rising for several seconds after I cut the power. Thermocouple survived (although now permanently encased in fired porcelain).
All thermocouples are in the same location now, settling to the ambient T to check for variances among them.
....
The next one needs to be twice as big or half the potential wattage. That was 70 cm2 and not even 600 W before it melted.
Here's a maverick idea for y'all:
I'll mix 5% lithium carbonate into Durapot 810, and cast a 1000 W heater coil into it made of nichrome 80. Check for excess heat.
(Very possible that this may cause the ceramic to fail to cure, or cured ceramic to melt at much lower temperatures than normal. Maybe it will melt and make rubies...)
Do you think I should get a neutron detector or alarm before lighting it up?
