Posts by Paradigmnoia

    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...


    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.

    Well, more bad news for the Lugano report...um.. to report.

    Data from the new and old Cylinders show that Durapot 810 total emissivity varies from idealized pure alumina as depicted in a Plot 1, Lugano report. Worse is that the normal variation range of pure alumina total emissivity vs temperature is also fairly broad. The values used for Plot 1 do seem be about the mean of the normal variation range, based on examination of several data sets for total emissivity of alumina.

    Uncured (not baked above 1000 C) Durapot 810 has a different IR camera band emissivity from idealized pure alumina also, but does tend towards the ideal after significant heating. The LWIR emissivity of uncured Durapot 810 ranges from 0.85 to 0.87. The fully cured Durapot 810 LWIR emissivity is 0.93 to 0.96 in the same temperature range.


    Fully cured Durapot 810 does have a total emissivity similar to the values shown in Plot 1, but the cooler end of the temperature range appears to require a slightly higher total emissivity than Plot 1, while the high end of the temperature range appears to require a slightly lower total emissivity than Plot 1 shows. At around 800 C, the Plot 1 values seem to be very close, if not the same, as fully cured Durapot 810 requires.


    The under-cured Durapot 810 appears to need a lower total emissivity than Plot 1 shows across the entire temperature range. Without adjustments, the under-cured Cylinder2 reports a COP of around 1.15 - 1.2 using the total emissivity from Plot 1 for radiant power calculations. This is applicable to all instances where the Cylinder has not exceeded 850 C (actual) for a significant time period (hours), and should apply to anything else made of Durapot 810. I am uncertain, but perhaps longer periods of fairly high temperature (circa 800 C) may be equivalent to shorter periods of extreme temperature (> 1000 C) for obtaining the final cured state. (This might partly explain why the Lugano report Row 1 power summary data is a bit peculiar compared to the rest of the active runs).


    So the thermal history of the Lugano device before it was used for the Dummy run is critically important. (What sort of heat curing history was the device subjected to before use?)

    The use of high temperature paint, whether alumina or zirconia-based, is also important, as is when it was applied.


    Therefore the Lugano Dummy may not be a reliable comparison, even to itself, to a post-long-term heated Lugano device.

    Is that a reason to have also an internal thermocouple ?

    Several years ago I did some simulated excess heat experiments with hot tubes, using 50 W J Type bulbs to simulate the internal heat source. The tubes at that time were about 700-1300 W designs, roughly the size of the Lugano ribbed area (15-20 cm long, 1.5 to 2.5 cm OD). Tube breakage resulted almost every time. (The tubes were open on one end, so they did not burst violently, which they might have if sealed). Slow heat increases were manageable, but rapid ones were destructive.


    During the failure of the Cylinder 1, where a coil hot spot formed, the internal thermocouple showed only a slight bump in temperatures because the hot spot was about 1.5 cm from the thermocouple. The hot spot was visually about 300 C hotter than the rest of the tube on the outside. (I think I have IR data for the hot spot). So the internal thermocouple should capture a heat excursion if the effect is nearby, equally distributed along the tube core, or if the thermal conductivity of the tube is very high, but could miss it if extra heat is localized.


    Localized heat excursions are bad for tubes. Heat excursions that exceed the thermal conductivity of the tube by a significant amount are bad for the tubes.