Posts by Paradigmnoia

Quote from JedRothwell

Ah, ha. That's a technical error. * On p. 10 they calculated 1,609 W. You are saying it should be 1,505 W, a 6% error. That is significant, but I do not think it is close to negating their conclusion.

Have you found other technical errors?

* I mean, that is the kind of error I keep asking Mary Yugo and others to point to, rather than saying, for example, "this paper is wrong because I do not trust the author." A paper may be dubious or unbelievable because the author is untrustworthy, but that is not a technical error. It is a judgement call. It may be valid, but it ain't technical.

Display More

Other than questions regarding the electrical measurements, that's about it.

The COP goes back to 5.6 or so from around 5, (when adjusted as above and the related daughter calculations are all accounted for), when experiment 1 is re-calculated using the same emissivity as determined (properly) in experiment 2.

Levi et al "Indication of..."

Page 9, equation (3): T⁴ is calculated wrong; calculated thermal power reduces to 1505 W when corrected.

Heat transfer coefficient is a bit too high, due to coarse data in table used for selection of value.

Quote from maryyugo

Preparing for a fundamental closed doors test in the next week, after which Sigma 5 will have been completed.

What does that even mean?

Nothing.

But it sounds vaguely sciencey.

@randerbit,

In this case, this is the general formula for determining the apparent emissivity of an object as viewed through the discrete spectral sensitivity range of the IR camera microbolometer system.

@randerbit,

How are those integrations you promised us over a year ago coming along?

Here is a good place to start:

Ele wrote: "

Oh ho the Genius come in ! Tell me guru how hot is your plate ?

Normal electric heaters go up to about 400 °C and in this (low) range of temperature the Lugano group successfully calibrated their instruments and found no artificial COP with the empty reactor.

They even measured the emissivity of the Alumina on the pipes remember ?

So I see that you are here to collect the applause of the professional anti Rossi team but I think that you have done wrong measurements !"

I need no applause. I ask for no thanks.

I have done many measurements, which gives the the experience to know when someone is bullshitting regarding that type of measurement.

I only ask that the perpetuation of the myth of the correct use of total emissivity for the IR camera specific emissivity user function during the Lugano "reactor" test (and in addition the stupid reiteration nonsense using the total emissivity plot) be buried once and for. This simply requires that more people test the system. I have made dozens of suggestions of how this can be done cheaply and easily, but complex replications are also fine. They will all show, within a small amount of error, that the use of total emissivity for alumina is completely wrong in regards to IR camera measurement using less than the total IR band for temperature measurement.

In my opinion, anyone clinging to the possibility that the use of total emissivity for anything that is not a true grey body or blackbody (which alumina and almost all similar materials are definitely not), has not actually tested the system, is intentionally obfuscating the truth, or worse.

The biggest impediment for most people is obtaining an IR temperature measurement device that can go at least as high as 1000 C. Some folks are scared of, or too inexperienced with electricity to do some tests. But many are capable. I call upon these skilled folks to do some tests, and add their voice to the coming, and indeed inevitable chorus of "bullshit" in regards to the Lugano Report.

I know that the Swedish scientists are fully capable of making a hot alumina tube, or square tile, and testing the emissivity with secondary temperature measurement to at least 1300 C. I triple dog dare them to do it.

TT4N

P

Quote from randombit0

Hello mr. Paradigmoia,

I'm just tracking how many disinformation you can spread out.

You have tested it ? Alone ? and using the same logic of this forum who was over viewing you ?

How have you verified that Alumina you used was pure ? Impure Alumina, like what is found in most alumina cements have a very different emissivity from the pure one.

Alumina cements have a very high emissivity while pure alumina does not go above 0.7 (0.64) in any case.

Remember, the Lugano group have measured the emissivity of the alumina pipes and found that this was perfectly compatible with the values found in tables.

You say you have heated up to glowing .......

How ? have you used Kanthal wires ? From where you were seeing the glowing ? pure Alumina becomes transparent at high temperature so the glowing should be from the wires if you have seen the glowing from your tube then this would suggest that yours was not pure alumina.

You say that you got a "COP around 3 to 4"

Which number please ? 3 or 4 ? and how you have used math ?

Remember that Energy is a very weak function of emissivity because emissivity appears in the conversion of bolometers signal (proportional to energy) to temperature and back to conversion from temperature to energy.

So what you refer is unrealistic and surely is due to a math error, for example the one from TC that was using two different emissivity factors one for the camera and one for the Stefan Boltzmann law.

You say that you have stick a thermoucople on the tube. How ?

Contact measure of temperature on Alumina is not trivial because Alumina is a thermal insulator and also normal thermocouples would not stand high temperature so you need quite a refined setup to do that not something that everyone can do.

You say that you adjusted the emissivity on your IR gun, this means that somehow you measured it and if you obtained a value higher then 0.7 then your material was not alumina. Note that at high emissivity the error done by TC is less important so you will ( oh what a miracle !) find a COP just near 1.

So mr Paradigmoia, for me (and also for any one with some laboratory experience) you are just mythomaniac who want to appears in the net as the hero that is the one and the only capable to make a measure. Not the Lugano team or prof. Parchkomov or any other equals you.

Display More

Nice try. I suggest everyone that can to test it. Don't take my word alone. But I have made many tests.

A pure alumina tile (easily purchased) placed on a hot plate is a fine test. Use the table from the Lugano report, reiterate away, and wonder why the tile is so much hotter than the hot plate by IR, when using the Lugano Total - Spectral Conflation Protocol...

Visible light transparency IS NOT equivalent to IR transparency. It only takes about 1.5 mm of alumina ceramic to be totally opaque to IR transmission, depending on pore size and grain size characteristics.

3 to 4 "COP" depends primarily on the temperature of the ceramic. The hotter, the higher the IR baloney "COP" will be.

Good day.

Ele said: "

Regarding TC all of you repeat the story about the emissivity.... etc...... but that was only a fantasy and a false information diffused only by TC, and also the others critics in what you call his paper were ridiculous.

And BTW who was supervising TC ? You say that even an Angel could do errors why not TC ?

You seem to take his words like a dogma, or an absolute truth."

Well, I tested it. I once again suggest everyone test it.

TC was right within a very small margin of error.

Heat up an alumina tube to glowing, use the Lugano Protocol, and get a "COP" of around 3 to 4.

Then stick a thermocouple on the tube, correct the IR camera or even IR "gun" emissivity function to the appropriate value, which very near 0.95, and voila, the IR camera temperature plummets, matches the thermocouple, and a COP of 1.0 (or very close to that) is the result when the math is done.

Seriously, the replicator crowd should have made dozens of fake 3 to 4 COP devices using the Lugano Protocol and alumina tubes (even bathroom tiles) by now. No fuel needed! No special recipe, except the Lugano Protocol IR total and spectral emissivity conflation treatment.

@kirk

The history of the mass of the electron is another good example. The early confirmations hang around Rutherford's, possibly due to the influence of his reputation, then slowly slink over to a new mean.

I might have enough time in a month or so to fiddle with sub-Critical Radius alumina coatings on Kanthal wires to see how high a Lugano-style IR "COP" can be made to go.

SSC said:

"How many nonsense .............. Professors have written and signed the Lugano report, that is enough to make it clear that they support the work they have done. There is no need to reiterate their point of view on the internet: if they did not deny what they wrote,it means that they are convinced of the value of their work. The fact that they believe in the E-Cat is confirmed by the replication they are making in Sweden: if it were not so, now they would deal with other things. It is useless that you try to interpret the attitude of the Professors so that this can be part of your vision, where Rossi is an orc and anyone who has to deal with him is a victim. Things are not so, resign yourself to that."

Bah, I can make a Lugano-Style IR COP of 3.2 with 5 mm alumina tube with one orange-hot Kanthal wire running lengthwise through the centre of it.

So can anyone.

Clearly I should have sent one to Sweden a long time ago.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Elon Musk should solve that for you cerca 2020 with his massive number of low earth orbit global internet satellite launches about to commence.

We will have satellite Internet.... At $7 / Mb . So chittychatting won't be allowed.

More competition would be nice. Out normal satellite provider sold all their available bandwidth to some big company working in the region, so we are stuck with plan B for now.

Quote from Alan Fletcher

WONDERING: why none of the most vociferous posters haven't made a bet ... Dewey, Mary Y, Rothwell, even TH Huxley, IH Fanboy ...

OK, I bet 38 L/h max, unless water is forced through the pump inlet by external pressure.

I'll be airport hopping for the next couple of days, on my way to the Arctic again.

Thanks, Alan, for doing the experiment. Hopefully I can see results before arriving at my destination.

I won't have internet for up to 2 months, so if I don't post for a long time, don't be surprised.

Cheers!

P

Quote from IH Fanboy

It fits well with a mantra to stifle innovation.

Look who is FUDing now....

Certainly the ridges do improve cooling some, but not as dramatically as one might tend to think. The main cooling improvement would be to convection cooling, but convection cooling is a small part of the heat budget once the object begins to visibly glow.

As for radiation cooling, the 45 degree ridges have a large component of captured and re-emitted heat from the adjacent ridges (View factor effects). This slightly increases emissivity.

Viewed normal to the length of the main tube, as the IR camera should be, the ridge profiles are not visible. The hotter valleys and cooler tips temperatures are averaged within the Optris measurement boxes, and they are not directly visible in the images provided, even though there may be as much as 75 C differences between the immediately adjacent peaks and valleys.

Testing using the Lugano results lead me to using 2.3 cm diameter for the Main Tube, instead of 2.0 cm, as a quick fudge to dealing with the ridges that was consistent with posted Lugano figures when using their methods.

I have tested many scenarios where temperatures K might have slipped in instead of degrees C, and vice-versa, and none of them seem at all likely.

Quote from ele

You are discovering the obvious. The inside of the pipe is obviously hotter..... so what ?

Clearly I "discovered" this a couple of years ago.

How hot would the heater coils in the Lugano device be, if the outside surface was 1410 C?

And, how hot is the Lugano thermocouple in it's fairly central Cap position?

In my plot, the inner thermocouple was only 2 mm below the outer coils, on the other side of the alumina.

Re: Hotter on the inside..., unfueled alumina tube with coil on outside of tube.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Para, you really can't help but FUD can you?

Kanthal A1 has a melting point at 1500 C.

The hot cat reactor is designed to operate in a range of 250-1200° C. The max measured temp in Lugano was ~1410. The reactor was designed such that the convective thermal exchange from internal to external is maximized, so the differential between internal and surface temp is probably negligible.

Whereas the surface of the caps is smooth, the outer surface of the body of the device is molded in triangular ridges, 2.3 mm high and 3.2 mm wide at the base, covering the entire surface and designed to improve convective thermal exchange .... In this way, the current embodiment of the device 10 is capable of attaining higher temperatures than earlier models, avoiding internal melting...

Display More

If the outside of the Main Tube was around 1410 C, then the below the ridges, under the ceramic potting compound, (where the wound heating coil is), the temperature is higher.

The caps have more insulation, and even with a cooler outside temperature, will have a very high core temperature. Remember, three sets of glowing hot wires pass around the inner fuel tube filler area (and extend past it), beneath 1.5 cm of cast alumina.

For a fun test, heat a Kanthal A1 wire 1400 C (at an un-insulated section), while 4 cm of it are encased in 1.5 cm of hardened alumina paste. Then try encasing 4 cm of it in 3 mm of alumina paste (use a new wire for this).

Note that surface convective improvements have minor effects on surface temperature compared to the radiative power dissipation unless the overal surface area is increased by multiples rather than fractional increases. The fins on the Lugano device contribute little to the overall cooling.

Quote from IH Fanboy

Sure, but the outside of the caps were in the 500 C range. The internal temp of the end caps will be somewhat hotter, but probably still well within the range of the thermocoupler used. Come to think of it, I think Rossi explained all of this on his blog long ago, which would be consistent with the patent application. (Although I can't seem to find the discussion on the blog at the moment.)

...600 C range, and double the diameter (insulation thickness) of the Main Tube, but with the fuel just mms away from the wire.

Which also leads us to the Kanthal A1 calibrated resistance wire temperature problem.

Quote from IH Fanboy

I went back and took a look at the patent application, and you are right, there are some diagrams of the innards, so I retract that. My memory was of the Lugano report itself, which just had the exterior photographs.

Having admitted that, the patent application states that: "A thermocouple inserted into one of the caps allows the control system to manage power supply to the resistors by [indirectly] measuring the internal temperature of the reactor." (emphasis added; clarification in brackets added.) And as we know, the end caps were of a lower temperature than the reactor.

Table 6:

So, once again, Para/THH FUD debunked.

Display More

That was the outside of the caps. Of course the internal temperature was much higher.