randombit0 Member
  • Member since Apr 27th 2016
  • Last Activity:

Posts by randombit0

    Would the emissivity of the reactor change if sunglasses were put over the Optris camera lense?



    Please Paradigmoia don't mess up! If you put any lens or filter in front of an IR camera as for example the glass used in the enclosures for furnace measurements you have to set another parameter that depending on your camera brand is called transparency or window transmissivity. In this way you inform the camera that is looking the sample through a mean that would absorb part of the energy.
    The same is done (by a much more elaborate algorithm) when trying to measure ground or sea temperature from space.
    Emissivity of a surface is a property of the surface and do not depend on filters. Of course the signal you record on the IR camera depend on the medium between the camera and the sample, that why one should use the "transparency" parameter.

    That is what I said (several times) at the start of the debate here.



    Ah ! So tell me My dear self repeating. Why people normally use a camera for mesure temperature and power for.... let's say a brick http://www.icess.ucsb.edu/modis/EMIS/images/clybrkcm.gif and can't for alumina that is also a mineral ?


    BTW:
    Band emissivities are used when the material and the measuring conditions are not completely known like in Land Surface Temperature measures from space where you have also to know atmospheric conditions and models (we also do that in our Company). It is a completely different technology and measure-


    That is NOT the case if you have a known material seen directly by the IR camera.

    Even then my "gut feeling" is that the al2o3 emissivity will not be very far (no more than 20%) from what is found.



    WOW DEAR <3 ! Did you finally agree that for Al2O3 the total emissivity found is correct ?
    Should I remember you that the Lugano Authors have measured the total emissivity of the alumina pipes and found the same value reported in the literature ?

    But the temperature emissivity is restricted to ir band (camera sensor) and not the same as the power emissivity which is integrated over the whole spectrum.



    Again and again trying to mess up. THIS TIME So you mean that finally the camera was reading the right temperature ?
    So if the measure of temperature was OK then also the power measurement was.


    If the object in the view of the IR camera is a blackbody or grey body, then ε is the same for the camera and for calculating total power.
    When the object is a selective emitter, the camera ε is not representative of the ε to be used for calculating total power.


    The IR camera bolometer is also a selective emitter, which means that it is also a selective absorber in the same bands (or the reverse if you prefer).
    Since the IR camera is not hot, it's selective IR emission (and therefore absorption) properties are not immediately obvious.


    This phrase is simply NONSENSE the camera bolometers temperature is controlled and measured continuously by the electronics and software in order to get the correct measure.


    Also many materials have a band emissivity that varies with wave length and still temperature (and power) measurements are perfectly possible, using the TOTAL EMISSIVITY.

    nature.com/news/has-a-hungaria…th-force-of-nature-1.1995


    Seems that your link is broken may be that you where meaning THIS:


    http://www.nature.com/news/has…h-force-of-nature-1.19957
    "Attila Krasznahorkay at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences’s Institute for Nuclear Research in Debrecen, Hungary, and his colleagues reported their surprising result in 2015 on the arXiv preprint server, and this January in the journal Physical Review Letters1. But the report – which posited the existence of a new, light boson only 34 times heavier than the electron – was largely overlooked."


    Note maybe that this experiment has nothing to do with LENR or that will not be confirmed BUT because has no apparent economical vale all the "big experts" that are around here will not criticize it.

    No because the IR sensor power is "power in 7-13u band". The total power is (obviously) power in all bands



    :D You are really writing your OWN Physics! Dear I should call you to invent some fairy tales for my kids .


    No No we don't need your help in the lab ! We have our instruments and computer programs !


    In fact a malicious observer could say that you are mixing up information in an completely incorrect way so to confuse people that is not expert of the field.


    In reality my dear you are just telling fairy tales and jokes. Keep on ! :thumbup:

    Now Levi's reply shows the identical conceptual confusion randombit0 showed here - an assumption that total emissivity and band emissivity must be the same so that the emissivity exists as a single quantity. If both are set to 1 what he says would be true - but of course if the band emissivity is close to 1 and the total emissivity is 0.5, as is the case, it is not true. That confusion leads to the wrong calculations in the Lugano report.



    Thomas my dear You are back ! I was missing you sugar ! So after some hours of silence you start to repeat your old story !
    I try to make a simple explanation "for dummy" like you.
    There is only one emissivity (total my dear !) because there is only one parameter to set on any IR camera. That value is used to compute the temperature from the power measured by the IR camera sensors. When you compute power back from temperature you must use the same value. Because the two values in the two formulas direct and inverse are the same they cancel.
    May be you have not understood.... or just don't want to understand. Who knows ?


    Ah about the pump..... any experimenter would not rely on the model and factory datasheet but would do his own calibration just in case that the pump used in the experiment was modified. I think that this was done. But maybe you are Aristotelian Philosophers and prefer to discuss of models and datasheets instead of measures.

    Proof by repetitive assertion does not convince me



    Also don't convince me Mr.Clarke. You are repeating yourself. And your answer was scientifically wrong.
    You are now trying to provoke me (who cares ! Men are so idiots !) because YOU have no more arguments !
    https://thenewfire.files.wordp…2016/05/lenr_ecat_fog.pdf
    Now I understand more and more your connections with this plot. Your problem, not mine.

    Hi Felix, nice reading you.
    Here is a fast translation of your text via Google Tranlator:
    There are now some weeks since the 352 days lasting test of 1MW ECAT plant in Florida was completed and although we are not really smarter than before, the fog is still quite tight, so a lot of it has happened, what is can read here in some epic contributions in this forum.


    Here I would like to hold once that, as predicted, this Forum has established itself as one of the focal points for discussions around the topic LENR, at least as regards the English and English affine part of the world, no one really get away from this forum.


    For me personally a lot of new questions arise, because even if I can not grab it right and can not prove, yet I have the feeling that this scenario is most likely.


    1. The Ecat technology works, basic data COP> 50 + self sustain mode + Dry Steam


    2. The Rossi / Leonardo Corp. - Darden / Industrial Heat dispute erweisst to obtain the IP control, which can be regarded as a failure in the litigation on the part of IH as a coordinated attempt.


    3. Industrial Heat is only a kind of front company that was never designed to LENR to produce products, but only for collecting external investments and as a basis for the IP transfer or rather should serve theft.


    4. Industrial Heat is burned as company history and and will play in the future in terms LENR no longer relevant.


    5. The large and small investment firms will bear the IH, if they have not already done so, if possible make its investments reversed, at least after the court case in Florida that Leonardo Corp. will win, the return transfer of the case to the highest court instance of the State of Florida and the appointment of an additional judge as assessors, whose expertise lies in the jurisdiction of economic crime, a clear signal is that in this case not only is for Intellectual Property and Licensing questions will go, but also about the role of large investment funds, energy companies and arms manufacturers and their representatives play with illegal methods other entrepreneurs to deceive (to the say the least)


    6. The introduction of ECAT Technology will be delayed by this incident further, mainly due to the growing mistrust on the part of Rossi, whose temperament does not allow it to provide the technology of their own hands. He knows he has the Holy Grail, or near it with J. R. R. Tolkien to say, the ring in his hands and he can not let go. While Rossi is an intelligent man with great expertise, but not a true entrepreneur who did such a technology to achieve a breakthrough on the world market alone. Thus, a long time is little happen to be there because Rossi takes an already established on the world market partner, whom he trusts, the profile forth best a conglomerate such as Siemens AG, but with more understanding of the needs and peculiarities of inventors.


    7. The first LENR reactor I will therefore at the earliest can be purchased only in the year 2020th


    8. The probability here is high that this reactor is not of the Leonardo Corp. comes but comes from China, India, or Russia.


    I'm curious how it develops and will me times look now and my prediction here.


    greetings
    Felix

    I don't volunteer that lightly


    Oh I see so YOU are not a Scientist doing all that for the sake of true ! You are explicitly connected to IH or at least in a state of psychological subjection. So THAT why you are here.


    I see that any time somebody give you an answer you mess up things in order to select what is good for you (and IH) and hide what is in contrast with what you write.
    We all know the T^4 law even IR thermometers manufactures know that law and invert it to convert the energy measured by the bolometers in to temperature. When one wants to calculate the energy again the two emissivity factors in the formulas cancel !

    Exactly, just like alumina. And "black" means emissivity=1. So you were agreeing all the time: all's well that ends well.



    YOU have not understood nothing and maybe that you are NOT able to see the photographs ! Are you blind ?
    The "black" Alumina is emitting a lot more then the alumina pipes meaning that the alumina pipes have LOW emissivity.


    And.... O Dear ! You look like a little baby ! One day away (working) and you already start saying again your LIES !
    What are you chatting about the a 3kW input (we already discussed your presumptuous analysis and discarded it !) and discarded TC measurement ?!! Have you EVER tried to make a good thermal contact on Alumina ? IF you don't know Alumina is a very good thermal insulator and making a good thermal contact on an external part of a pipe is extremely critical. LOOK AT MFMP....

    And for reasons known only to the authors and Rossi, black refractory paint wasn't used.


    Black refractory paint should be VERY special to resist to that range of temperature, using paint on a porous surface introduce a HUGE series of problems because emissivity can change depending on the thickness of paint, how much solvent is still in it ( e.g. changing emissivity with time).
    Also any real expert known that not everything that look black in visible light is a good IR emitter.
    TiO2 dots are white in visible light but they are "black" in IR.


    They invent a whole new (and incorrect) way of doing thermography!


    No MrClarke they have NOT invented nothing. Stop Bulling.

    The bolometer sensitivity B(v) is the same for each pixel


    No Mr. Clarke they are NOT ! Anyone (even students) with some experience in laboratory known that when you have an array of detectors they have different characteristics. If you want an uniform response from the whole you need a careful factory calibration. This is true for every electronic component.


    That is correct, because no-one expects thermographers to use book emissivity values.


    Come ON ! Be serious ! What the tables are compiled for ?
    ANY manual give you a table with reference emissivity values to be used
    when you can't measure emissivity directly. The Authors did this measure for the alumina pipes, obtaining exactly the reference (total) emissivity.


    Also you are completely ignoring the fact that in that case we are interested to measure ENERGY radiated and not temperature and Energy has a weak dependence on emissivity.


    The effect here was very very special!


    Oh yes you Googled a page on a completely different type of measure and are trying to mess up thinks.
    The page you linked refers to a narrow band thermography, achieved using filters in order to isolate the signal of the sample from the background. The equipment used is quite special and techniques and goals differ from our case.