Posts by randombit0

Quote from Jack Cole

1. The Lugano reports authors used data from before the time of the Optris thermal imaging camera existence as basis for their work

Hello Boys,
I would add some answers to the others that should appear on EW.

Point 1. Dear Mr. Cole and Greenyer, this is what is called Scientific Literature. Human Progress is build by studying previous results of others and recording new results. Every scientific paper has citations of previous work.

Quote from Jack Cole

8. we used high emissivity paint to verify emissivity values selected (Aramco paint) at 1000ºC as recommended by the Optris manual and not done by the lugano team.

Sirs ! Be serious if you are able ! No page of the Optris manual say to use "Aramco paint"( Aramco actually seems to be a company related to Oil extraction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco)
instead on page 71 and 72 Optris manual suggest to use their reference dots or a not well specified black paint.The Lugano team used the reference dots and successfully measured the emissivity of the Alumina pipes.

Quote from Jack Cole

2. In the Optris camera manual on page 42 it said to use 0.95 for Alumina, this was ignored by the lugano report authors

Again in NO page of the manual is said to use that value for Alumina. On page 42 there are described the electrical connections. Alumina on Inconel (quite a similar situation to the Rossi Reactor) can be found on the datasheets of Scigene IR thermometers that have a sensitivity window from 8 to 14 micrometers
www.scigiene.com/pdfs/428_InfraredThermometerEmissivitytablesrev.pdf
"Ceramic. Alumina on Inconel. 800-2000 (427-1093) .69-.45"

Also Flir would report similar values.

Other points should appear on EW.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

from somewhere

Hello Everybody ! Are you in an excited state or just happy to see my post on EW ?
Seem that you ware having fun without me ! Bad boys ! Not inviting the only girl in the group !
You ware wanting to make the party all alone !

Paradigmoia emissivity of a materia is NOT an easy think to calculate from components of a ceramic.
You need actually to measure it.
I was not saying anything new from what I have said before here.
That "unknown origin" table tell us nothing more then what was already discussed. It is the spectral emissivity.... that must be integrated to obtain the single number that an IR camera needs.
Should we discuss it again boys ? Seems yes !

Quote from andrea.s

But it is important to her to argue and deny to keep up the morale of Rossi supporters.

"Morale of Rossi supporters "
Why you boys imagine everything ( and oh yes I mean Every-thing ) like a football match ?

I'm not writing about sports and supporters here but about Science.
Eventually in Court there will not be my avatar, but me, with other experts. And at that time would be clear WHO is trying to poison the Jury.

Quote from THHuxley

Perhaps this is because your rather eccentric and aphysical explanations abstract from spectral emissivity

Oh guys what a wonderful high tech language ! What a wonderful word to put on Scrabble !
It's really a shame that's not even a word !

There is nothing eccentric, apart writing in this forum, nor unphysical ( ʌnˈfɪzɪk(ə)l/ adjective ), in my explanations.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

OK, here we go..

Paradigmoia oh dear !
I have already explained to you MANY times that you and others are simply NOT understanding what emissivity is.
But I see that you have turned a deaf ear to what I have told you.
Regarding the images of the DOT (TiO2 on Kapton foil) I have seen that they used a standard calibration procedure.
In any field it takes a long time Mr Paradigmoia to be an "expert". In my opinion you are not an expert in Thermal Physics and IR Calorimetry.
You don't take a PhD in one day or simply randomly reading some literature. Understanding scientific papers needs time and hard study.
I would like to ask you to stop disseminating FUD. But I know you will go on.

So you are back again Boys !
And what ? You are still repeating the same erroneous argumentation about Alumina emissivity ?
Are you joking ? Are you unable to understand ? We discussed that quite a long !
May be I should remind you some conclusions:

1) The right value to use in IR thermography is total emissivity usually simply referred as "emissivity" in tables.
2) The Lugano group (that is not only Levi) measured the total emissivity of the pipes and found values in agreement with literature.
3) Because the interest was about the radiated power and not the actual temperature the emissivity value used is not critical and the main result of the report would not change.

Now I see that you are repeating all that again even in a thread that should not be devoted to that.
I see that also some people that is historically always against LENR is here.
Old other friends are also here.
It is like a dejavu. But ok let's play it again.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

First, the rods are heated somewhat by the leads.

Paradigmoia ..... still working in summer !
Dear boy Rods ware mainly heated by Thermal Conduction from the reactor body. So the heat you see in the rods is mainly to attribute to the reactor and is a nonsense to subtract it to the electrical input power.
You are arificially augmentig the reactor COP factor by doing this, but I think you have not even realized that !
I suggest you to not mess up with numbers just to arrive to erroneous conclusions.
Is summer ! take a vacation !

Quote from Mary Yugo

many of whom I suspect were his colleagues in prison.

Oh my dear Mary. Really ? Haven't you read and heard about the fact that Rossi was cleared by all accusations ?

Fear Uncertainty and Doubt dominates the argumentation of people who has no arguments.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

it is trivial to construct the equivalent greybody spectrum

No is not trivial, my dear.
Camera transfer function is not so trivial. Also note (AGAIN) that camera bolometers detect IR power and convert it to temperature using the emissivity. If you use the same emissivity to calculate back the power(density) you should obtain the same values.
If you you obtain different figures.... check your calculations !

Quote from andrea.s

One possibility I considered was that the testers initially ran the reactor too high (around 3kW)

Hello Andrea,.... I already answered you that your 3kW exist only in your fantasy! Also come on and be serious !
Have you ever seen a melt down so precise to transform a Delta to wye without destroying the resistors ?

Have you ever been in a laboratory ? (as a Scientist)

Quote from Malcolm Lear

Many thanks for that valuable information Dewey.

Wow big boys you had fun during the weekend ! One question. If any of you had accidentally read the report would had noticed that the Authors had analyzed the alumina cement from the reactor using x ray diffraction.The analysis was done by people not involved with report work.So the reactor material was well known or better to say they preferred to scientifically find which was the material instead of trusting Rossi, or any other involved.How can you trust any information coming from a stake holder two years after the experiment ? This is NOT a good practice !

And then if you have to test a reactor device you have two choices:
A) to use two similar devices one "loaded" and one empty and compare the results or
B) to use the same device empty and "loaded".

Because the Lugano device was a prototype A) was not a option. So they have chosen B) and of course they had to disconnect and then reconnect again the reactor. They have not changed the setup apart from loading the reactor.

And please, Paradigmoia. Do not "fart" (using your language) any more ! The numbers you are giving are just good for pleasing Mr. Weaver or "IH Football fans" not for Science.
How you pretend to obtain them if you have no idea about the camera calibration ?
And AGAIN any IR camera and sensor has a window of sensitivity and what is quite interesting detector response in not constant in that window and depends also on used optics. That's why is necessary a calibration file, obtained in factory using a Black Body source, in order to use the camera.
I would not respond to the "Bully" (men pretend always to "show muscles" to hide their fear) consideration about what I'm expert on, but our company have a sufficient number of Scientist and Engineers (even men!) to have a good know in any type of IR measurement (also from Space).

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Actually, I arrived at my calculations using multiple radiance-convection calculators

Paradigmoia you are doing what is called a Bluff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluff_(poker</a>) <br>
The multiple radiance and convection (dividing the reactor in multiple zones) calculations have been done by the Authors of the report not by you. Come on be serious (if you can) you never wanted to defend the report ! Read your own posting!

As stated many times POWER and emissivity are weakly dependent variables because the same emissivity is used by the camera software to calculate temperature (from power detected by camera bolometers) and then back to recalculate power.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

I spent weeks trying to find where he went wrong.

Mr. Clarke was wrong because he was misunderstanding the concept and the use of the emissivity even using arbitrary different values in the calculations. There was quite a discussion on that forum. Should we repeat it again ?

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The omissions of important information

YOU are omitting important information ! The Authors of the report have described in detail their analysis process. NOT YOU.
You are making affirmations without showing any analysis method, so your numbers have no scientific meaning.
As stated ANY scientific paper can criticized in that way !

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Farting around with Lugano

Oh Yes, just farts ! No facts !
Paradigmoia, your numbers are nonsense because you don't specify how you have obtained them.
In fact i presume that you don't have obtained your figures using correct and sound analysis.
In the same way one could attack any scientific paper.
I see that many pretend to criticize other people work without being able to review their own.

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

However, real objects have different emissivities at different wavelengths. "Total emissivity" cannot express this.

OMG ! We have discussed that already ! Again and again. Total emissivity is the ratio of two INTEGRALS over all wavelengths !Seem that for some people IR cameras can't be used with real objects ! And they keep repeating the same false misleading and wrong statements again and again.Interestingly the same people is so proud that pretend to judge a temperature from the color (i.e. emission of radiation) of a photograph! Oh yes a group of scientist (two years ago) have done "complex" (not really complex my dear!) calculations and now somebody says in a generic and vague way that there could be an error. This just means the he has not understood anything of the paper!And the same gui also ask why the data of a TC that was used by Rossi where not released ...... Mr. Lomax are you sane ?Figures from that TC would vary depending on the exact position (unknown to the Authors) and how the TC was read (also unknown)......

and then the daily dose of insults:

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

The "independent professors" signed off on that bit of patent nonsense, as if it was their idea.

You are writing about a group of Professors of three different Universities.
Normally who use insults have no arguments.

Is nice the way how you conclude your post Mr. Lomax:

Quote from Abd Ul-Rahman Lomax

it doesn't matter what the reality is.

For me reality matters.

Paradigmoia ANY camera has been calibrated using a Black Body and comes with it's own calibration files.
Each Optris camera come with specific calibration files associated to serial number of the camera sensor and optics. The system would not work without that.
This procedure guarantee that you can measure temperature and also radiated heat if the total emissivity is known.

@Weaver
Sir you affirm that now after more then two years from the test a group of unspecified "very competent engineers" is working with replicas of the Lugano reactor ? Come on ! Who can guarantee that this are real replicas of the original reactor ? You are certainly a stake holder so who can guarantee that you are not trying to forge an evidence ?
BTW many groups in the world seems to have done successful experiments based on the Lugano paper.

@Paradigmoia.
You are missing an important point.
If you apply a reference sticker on a surface the sticker material (kapton) is in close thermal contact with the surface so it will receive heat by conduction and not by radiation. In this way is possible to get an accurate measure of the surface temperature and also to measure the emissivity of the surface near the sticker. This is true for ANY surface on which a good thermal contact could be made as the Alumina pipes-

In the paper that YOU have cited we read at page 3 near formula 3 :
"The total emittance is a measure for the amount of energy, which is emitted by a sample at a certain temperature. "

Note that the two terms (emissivity and emittance) are normally used as synonym:

"The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, formerly NBS) has recommended to reserve the ending "-ivity" for radiative properties of pure, perfectly smooth materials, and "-ance" for rough and contaminated surfaces. Most real surfaces fall into the latter category, discussed in the present chapter. However, few researchers in the field appear to follow this convention, rather employing endings according to their own personal preference."
("Radiative Heat Transfer", by Michael F. Modest, pp. 76)

So even you have found a reference on which is clearly written that the total emissivity (-ance) is the the right parameter to be used.
Now the important point to be understood is that the measure of Power (density emitted) is weakly dependent on that parameter because the same parameter is used by the camera to compute surface temperature and than to calculate back the power.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

So, randombit0, you are avoiding a response?

No Dear Paradigmoia I'm not avoiding any respose. Is you that had avoided many responses the fact that Alumina is partially transparent to IR was already evaluated in our laboratory. If you read my posts you will find it.
But (as I'm trying to told you) the emissivity parameter have a low impact on the final measure of power emitted because it is cancelled in the calcolus.
We have evaluated that the the maximum error is <30% . So does not harm the conclusion of the Lugano Report.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

The transmitted IR energy does not heat the alumina

This my dear paradigmoia is nonsense or better to say very misleading.
If you have a body made of different partially transparent materials then the total emissivity is a convolution of the two emissivities, that depend also on the thickness of the layers .

Quote from stephenrenzz

...careful Dr. Bit0....

Ohhh what I see.... are you trying to threaten me Stephen ? What a fool ! I'm a woman that made her career in a men dominated domain !
I know what is threat, bullying and stalking, the only means a certain category of men use ! I know what is fear, and how to work and win in spite of fear.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

What if the lens was made of a few mm of alumina?

Paradigmoia this is NOT even english.
And BTW, Alumina has maximum emissivity in a "long" (compared to the peak of black body spectrum) wave range not short !
But this does not change nothing about the fact that total emissivity was the correct parameter to be used.

Just a question Stephen I see that you proudly use an image of the ATLAS experiment at CERN. I worked there and still have many friend and colleagues there. CERN is a beautiful place to work with many expert, enthusiastic and curious people.
Have you really been there ? Have you seen how many experiments, activities and studies (even uncommon and outside the "main stream") are done there ? I think not.

Quote from David Fojt

Because it becomes polluted by people who come to spend time, to gossip also, and not knowing/talk a lot about engineering ..

I totally agree with you !