Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: A corespondent sent me this link: http://www.eurotherm2008.tue.nl/Proceedings_Eurotherm2008/papers/Radiation/RAD_6.pdf He commented: My interpretation of figure 6 is that the tranmissivity of alumina goes down to zero. Hence, this shows the arguments about alumina translucency are moot. - Jed does this imply the dark bands are not cast shadows? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
It has moderate transmissivity in the visible range, which is what the photograph shows. But it drops to zero by 6 and above, which is what the IR camera is measuring. So there could be visible shadows / glowing resistors seen through the ceramic, but the IR calculations are OK. - Original Message - From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:27:44 PM He commented: My interpretation of figure 6 is that the tranmissivity of alumina goes down to zero. Hence, this shows the arguments about alumina translucency are moot. does this imply the dark bands are not cast shadows? Harry
RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
Alan, And that is why they should have calibrated for thermal loss at the higher temperature, if Mitchell Swartz’s argument is accurate. Everyone seems to be missing this. Mitch sates: even an accurate temperature measurement is NOT power or heat loss. The person to whom Brian Ahern spoke was affirming that they measured temperature correctly, and that is all. Rossi's group did not calibrate for real heat loss at that high temperature, which they should have done (since the transmissivity in the visible range, which everyone acknowledges but then ignores, means that the assumption of blackbody radiator is wrong). If that assumption is wrong, then a systemic error then gets raised to the 4th power. Since, they did not account for heat loss (thermal power) properly – there could be substantial error. I hope I got that right. Mitch will shortly correct me if not :-) From: Alan Fletcher It has moderate transmissivity in the visible range, which is what the photograph shows. But it drops to zero by 6 and above, which is what the IR camera is measuring. So there could be visible shadows / glowing resistors seen through the ceramic, but the IR calculations are OK. _ From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:27:44 PM He commented: My interpretation of figure 6 is that the tranmissivity of alumina goes down to zero. Hence, this shows the arguments about alumina translucency are moot. does this imply the dark bands are not cast shadows? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
Much of the red glow is confined to the central part of the alumina vessel, but there are areas where the red glow extends to the exterior surface of the vessel. Is all the red glow near the exterior surface just diffusion of red light from the central part due to the alumina's translucency or could some of it be indicative of the surface temperature in those areas? Harry On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: It has moderate transmissivity in the visible range, which is what the photograph shows. But it drops to zero by 6 and above, which is what the IR camera is measuring. So there could be visible shadows / glowing resistors seen through the ceramic, but the IR calculations are OK. -- *From: *H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com *Sent: *Monday, October 13, 2014 11:27:44 PM He commented: My interpretation of figure 6 is that the tranmissivity of alumina goes down to zero. Hence, this shows the arguments about alumina translucency are moot. does this imply the dark bands are not cast shadows? Harry
RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
To state it another way: 1) Accurate temperature measurement is NOT the same as power or heat loss. 2) Levi measured temperature accurately 3) The Stefan–Boltzmann law describes the power radiated from a blackbody 4) Levi then used Stefan-Boltzmann to calculate heat loss, which includes a fourth power 5) The Rossi device is obviously NOT a blackbody radiator since it glows in the visible range due to transmissivity in the visible range. The internal shadows are proof of that 6) It is therefore wrong to use Stefan–Boltzmann without prior calibration for the difference, which can be substantial 7) No calibration above 500 C was done due to Rossi’s “intervention” 8) Consequently the thermal balance of the Rossi cell has not been accounted for properly. With a nod to Mitchell Swartz. And that is why they should have calibrated for thermal loss at the higher temperature, if Mitchell Swartz’s argument is accurate. Everyone seems to be missing this. Mitch sates: even an accurate temperature measurement is NOT power or heat loss. The person to whom Brian Ahern spoke was affirming that they measured temperature correctly, and that is all. Rossi's group did not calibrate for real heat loss at that high temperature, which they should have done (since the transmissivity in the visible range, which everyone acknowledges but then ignores, means that the assumption of blackbody radiator is wrong). If that assumption is wrong, then a systemic error then gets raised to the 4th power. Since, they did not account for heat loss (thermal power) properly – there could be substantial error. I hope I got that right. Mitch will shortly correct me if not :-) From: Alan Fletcher It has moderate transmissivity in the visible range, which is what the photograph shows. But it drops to zero by 6 and above, which is what the IR camera is measuring. So there could be visible shadows / glowing resistors seen through the ceramic, but the IR calculations are OK. From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:27:44 PM He commented: My interpretation of figure 6 is that the tranmissivity of alumina goes down to zero. Hence, this shows the arguments about alumina translucency are moot. does this imply the dark bands are not cast shadows? Harry attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
Jonas: I seem to remember that the 4th power thing is due to (largely due to?) the strongly rising center of the frequency as temperature increases. Thus, the radiated power through a narrow window (visible band is only 1 octave) is probably only proportional to the /first/ power, at least when that window is well below the peak power frequency. If true, any error contributed by that window rapidly becomes unimportant as temperature increases. Ol' Bab, who was an engineer... On 10/14/2014 12:07 PM, Jones Beene wrote: 5) The Rossi device is obviously NOT a blackbody radiator since it glows in the visible range due to transmissivity in the visible range. The internal shadows are proof of that 6) It is therefore wrong to use Stefan–Boltzmann without prior calibration for the difference, which can be substantial --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
From: David L. Babcock I seem to remember that the 4th power thing is due to (largely due to?) the strongly rising center of the frequency as temperature increases. Thus, the radiated power through a narrow window (visible band is only 1 octave) is probably only proportional to the first power, at least when that window is well below the peak power frequency. What frequency are you assuming is peak power? I would have suspected that the higher the photon frequency, the more power, such that visible should be peak. * If true, any error contributed by that window rapidly becomes unimportant as temperature increases. Yes, if true - but this depends on your assumption of peak power. Can you elaborate on why you think it would be longer wavelength rather than shorter? Thanks
Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
(Response in line) On 10/14/2014 12:51 PM, Jones Beene wrote: *From:*David L. Babcock I seem to remember that the 4th power thing is due to (largely due to?) the strongly rising center of the frequency as temperature increases. Thus, the radiated power through a narrow window (visible band is only 1 octave) is probably only proportional to the /first/ power, at least when that window is well below the peak power frequency. What frequency are you assuming is peak power? I would have suspected that the higher the photon frequency, the more power, such that visible should be peak. I get a glimmer that I'm off, here. I visualized the peak as well above the visible, in the ultra-violet. Unlikely, as nobody even hints that the perceived color was blue-white. So maybe I'm right, but not right about this particular case. ØIf true, any error contributed by that window rapidly becomes unimportant as temperature increases. Yes, if true - but this depends on your assumption of peak power. Can you elaborate on why you think it would be longer wavelength rather than shorter? Probably a typo here, as I was thinking the peak to be much /shorter/ wavelength. I may not be all that wrong. The cutoff is so many nm, the window doesn't tint ordinary light (I've seen some alumina), and the experts agree that the effect is small at the lower power used for cal. Or at least small enough to be easily calculated-out. Thanks Speaking of calculated-out, wouldn't the tester be using established equations (or tables from same) for alumina, which then would certainly account for any likely range of T? Then the short-coming of calibrating at the wrong temperature is reduced -magically!- to a second order effect. Perhaps 2% or 10%. Not enough to disapear the over-unity, just a small embarrassment. Thank you for the polite exchange Ol' Bab --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com
Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: You seem to be saying that it is not found in the “revised” or edited version? There is an edited version of the report, in which details like this are removed. Where is this edited version? What is the URL? Which is older? - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
The good news : In fig 6 the transmittance of alumina drops off by 5um,, and drops off quicker at higher temperatures. The bad news : In fig 7 the emittance varies greatly by wavelength (1.0 to 0.15), and also varies by temperature. Levi et al do not mention the variation by wavelength, only temperature (Fig 6, plot1). I don't know whether the IR camera system takes this into account. And we still have the problem of a system calibrated at 450C being used at 1400C - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 6:23:11 AM Subject: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures A corespondent sent me this link: http://www.eurotherm2008.tue.nl/Proceedings_Eurotherm2008/papers/Radiation/RAD_6.pdf He commented: My interpretation of figure 6 is that the tranmissivity of alumina goes down to zero. Hence, this shows the arguments about alumina translucency are moot. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
There are several problems 1)They had every opportunity to coat the reactor with black refractory paint. In fact Rossi did this on numerous other tests. 2)They did not calibrate above 450 C and this was not done ON ORDERS FROM ROSSI 3)There is every reason to believe that the same gain would have been seen in the dummy had they calibrated it high enough. 4)They should have used pyrometer of platinum thermocouple in any event 5)The were highly criticized in the first report for the IR Camera but ignored the criticism 6)In short this report is non-scientific and should not be passed-off as evidence of anything. From: Alan Fletcher The good news : In fig 6 the transmittance of alumina drops off by 5um,, and drops off quicker at higher temperatures. The bad news : In fig 7 the emittance varies greatly by wavelength (1.0 to 0.15), and also varies by temperature. Levi et al do not mention the variation by wavelength, only temperature (Fig 6, plot1). I don't know whether the IR camera system takes this into account. And we still have the problem of a system calibrated at 450C being used at 1400C _
Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
The system is way too complex for thermography to be able to deal with. I note that most black-body radiation for 1400°C: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131016/ncomms3630/images_article/ncomms3630-f4.jpg has majority of emission at 4um where the alumina transmittance appears relatively high in that fig 6 But a key factor is that even with only 10% transmittance if the alumina is relatively cool - say 1000°C then with 0.4 emissivity the power it is radiating is only about 2x that of the much higher radiative output 1350°C inconel wires+core reactor behind it. Even worse, because the transmittance drops off at longer wavelengths the power transmitted will be mostly at shorter wavelengths it will make the resulting spectrum look hotter than it actually is, which will skew the spectrum seen by the camera sees towards something that looks like a much higher temperatures. That is going to produce serious over-reading in temperature. This is all looking worse and worse the more I see. On 13 October 2014 22:35, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: The good news : In fig 6 the transmittance of alumina drops off by 5um,, and drops off quicker at higher temperatures. The bad news : In fig 7 the emittance varies greatly by wavelength (1.0 to 0.15), and also varies by temperature. Levi et al do not mention the variation by wavelength, only temperature (Fig 6, plot1). I don't know whether the IR camera system takes this into account. And we still have the problem of a system calibrated at 450C being used at 1400C -- *From: *Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent: *Monday, October 13, 2014 6:23:11 AM *Subject: *[Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures A corespondent sent me this link: http://www.eurotherm2008.tue.nl/Proceedings_Eurotherm2008/papers/Radiation/RAD_6.pdf He commented: My interpretation of figure 6 is that the tranmissivity of alumina goes down to zero. Hence, this shows the arguments about alumina translucency are moot. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: 2)They did not calibrate above 450 C and this was not done ON ORDERS FROM ROSSI It does not say that anywhere. 3)There is every reason to believe that the same gain would have been seen in the dummy had they calibrated it high enough. A dummy cell cannot gain. The ratio of temperature to input power can only be lower as the power increases. If it gained it would producing excess heat. When they input ~800 W for the first 10 days, the temperature should not have exceeded ~750°C. If it did, that can only be from excess heat. 4)They should have used pyrometer of platinum thermocouple in any event Anyone can come up with a list of things he thinks they should have done. No one is ever fully satisfied with an experiment performed by someone else. This is the not invented here syndrome. 5)The were highly criticized in the first report for the IR Camera but ignored the criticism Some people criticized them. Others, including experienced experts, said this is the industry standard method of measuring heat from hot devices of this nature. Some people will criticize them no matter what they do, and no matter what the results are. 6)In short this report is non-scientific and should not be passed-off as evidence of anything. The people at ELFORSK and elsewhere disagree with you. You have not given any credible technical reasons for this opinion of yours, so I disagree. Repeating this over and over again does not make it true. Calling people fan boys and the like and cherry-picking stories about Rossi's past does not make it true either. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
Let me remove a few typos There are several problems with the testing which cannot be remedied with the dubious isotope analysis, which is an independent problem. 1)They had every opportunity to coat the reactor with black refractory paint. In fact Rossi did this on numerous other tests. This can be seen in many of the more famous images online. 2)They did not calibrate above 450 C and this was not done ON DIRECT ORDERS FROM ROSSI 3)There is every reason to believe that the apparent gain is a calibration relic and would have been seen in the dummy, had they tested it high enough. IOW there is NO EFFECTIVE calibration at high temperature here, and this is a niche in which success depends on calibration. 4)They should have used pyrometer or platinum thermocouple, or preferably both - in any event. Had they used all three, and it would have cost almost nothing to use all three, there would be no problem. 5)The were highly criticized in the first report for the IR Camera but ignored the criticism. 6)In short this report is non-scientific and should not be passed-off as evidence of anything. It represents extreme incompetence at best.
RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
From: Jed Rothwell 2)They did not calibrate above 450 C and this was not done ON ORDERS FROM ROSSI JR: It does not say that anywhere. Please read the report carefully before making silly rationalizations.
Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
Care to share where you saw this? The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration. On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Jed Rothwell 2)They did not calibrate above 450 C and this was not done ON ORDERS FROM ROSSI JR: It does not say that anywhere. Please read the report carefully before making silly rationalizations.
RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
You seem to be saying that it is not found in the “revised” or edited version? There is an edited version of the report, in which details like this are removed. Rothwell, no doubt, would chose to only read the edited version. From: Blaze Spinnaker Care to share where you saw this? The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration They did not calibrate above 450 C and this was not done ON ORDERS FROM ROSSI JR: It does not say that anywhere. attachment: winmail.dat
RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
Of course, Rothwell may be trying to distinguish between Rossi actually doing it himself of giving the order to do it. Hmm… flashback a few years …. It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.” I would hope that we are above that kind of double-talk on vortex, but of course we are not. _ From: Jones Beene You seem to be saying that it is not found in the “revised” or edited version? There is an edited version of the report, in which details like this are removed. Rothwell, no doubt, would chose to only read the edited version. From: Blaze Spinnaker Care to share where you saw this? The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration They did not calibrate above 450 C and this was not done ON ORDERS FROM ROSSI JR: It does not say that anywhere. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
And we still have the problem of a system calibrated at 450C being used at 1400C the main question is why this F**G reactor is at 1400C while it have less power in... OK, I'm not an expert, but this challenge my understanding. 2014-10-13 16:35 GMT+02:00 Alan Fletcher a...@well.com: The good news : In fig 6 the transmittance of alumina drops off by 5um,, and drops off quicker at higher temperatures. The bad news : In fig 7 the emittance varies greatly by wavelength (1.0 to 0.15), and also varies by temperature. Levi et al do not mention the variation by wavelength, only temperature (Fig 6, plot1). I don't know whether the IR camera system takes this into account. And we still have the problem of a system calibrated at 450C being used at 1400C -- *From: *Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com *To: *vortex-l@eskimo.com *Sent: *Monday, October 13, 2014 6:23:11 AM *Subject: *[Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures A corespondent sent me this link: http://www.eurotherm2008.tue.nl/Proceedings_Eurotherm2008/papers/Radiation/RAD_6.pdf He commented: My interpretation of figure 6 is that the tranmissivity of alumina goes down to zero. Hence, this shows the arguments about alumina translucency are moot. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
It now becomes apparent why we suffered through such a long delay in seeing this paper published. I would love to the original version. Obviously, they went through several months trying to edit out all of the “problem” areas. Apparently they missed a few – one of which was the admission that Rossi himself stopped the dummy calibration run. Since that detail looms as very important, I shudder to think what would happen if they had succeeded in editing it out, in time so it was not discovered. They might have actually been able to force this through as real science – and not more of Rossi’s charade. _ Of course, Rothwell may be trying to distinguish between Rossi actually doing it himself of giving the order to do it. Hmm… flashback a few years …. It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.” I would hope that we are above that kind of double-talk on vortex, but of course we are not. _ From: Jones Beene You seem to be saying that it is not found in the “revised” or edited version? There is an edited version of the report, in which details like this are removed. Rothwell, no doubt, would chose to only read the edited version. From: Blaze Spinnaker Care to share where you saw this? The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration They did not calibrate above 450 C and this was not done ON ORDERS FROM ROSSI JR: It does not say that anywhere. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
On 10/13/2014 11:19 AM, Jones Beene wrote: *From:*Jed Rothwell 2)They did not calibrate above 450 C and this was not done ON ORDERS FROM ROSSI JR: It does not say that anywhere. Please read the report carefully before making silly rationalizations. Is this what you're referring to? In fact, it is well known that some Inconel cables have a crystalline structure that is modified by temperature, and are capable of withstanding high currents only if they are operated at the appropriate temperature. If these conditions are not met, microscopic melt spots are liable to occur in the cables. So, there was some fear of fracturing the ceramic body, due to the lower temperature of the thermal generators with respect to the loaded reactor. For these reasons, power to the dummy reactor was held at below 500 W, in order to avoid any possible damage to the apparatus. Craig
RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
Jones: In fairness to this process it also says of the dummy reactor test that “Rossi gradually brought it to the power level THEY requested” (emphasis added). It doesn’t say that the test power level was determined or demanded by Rossi. The fact he turned it off after they had what they wanted is not the same as saying they didn’t test at a higher level “ON ORDERS FROM ROSSI”. I am not saying the test was adequate or inadequate, I am not qualified. But some of what is happening here is not objective and may be driven by other motives, i.e the same as the nonsense you usually see from Krivit. Ransom _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 10:42 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures You seem to be saying that it is not found in the “revised” or edited version? There is an edited version of the report, in which details like this are removed. Rothwell, no doubt, would chose to only read the edited version. From: Blaze Spinnaker Care to share where you saw this? The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration They did not calibrate above 450 C and this was not done ON ORDERS FROM ROSSI JR: It does not say that anywhere. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
Rephrase : And we still have the problem of a system calibrated at 450C being used TO CALCULATE a temperature of 1400C I'm wondering if the curve where they increased the input power may be useful. If we regard the previous stable temperature of 1250C as a calibration, then the DELTA power input and DELTA temperature (140C) has less scope for error. - Original Message - From: Alain Sepeda alain.sep...@gmail.com And we still have the problem of a system calibrated at 450C being used at 1400C the main question is why this F**G reactor is at 1400C while it have less power in... OK, I'm not an expert, but this challenge my understanding.
Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
Loosely related questionable power generation experiment... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCx89BRbVeU On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 12:37 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Randy, No scientist would calibrate for 500 if they knew that the reaction is going to 1400. And they should have known in advance, based on the previous results. The reason for this, which you may not be aware of, is that changes in temperature at the high end get multiplied by an equation called the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Please look at the curve shown on this site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law You can see in this curve - that small changes exponentially increase into huge changes in the power estimate. The technique they are using does not really measure temperature, it measure photon emission and plugs that into a formula. However, had they used a platinum thermocouple or a pyrometer, there would be no problem. They knew this from the previous criticism but ignored it (or else the idea was vetoes by AR). The result is that calibration to 500 only means what it says, the active reactor temperature can be trusted up to this level. Near 1000 however, a small error is multiplied into a huge error. _ From: Randy Wuller Jones: In fairness to this process it also says of the dummy reactor test that “Rossi gradually brought it to the power level THEY requested” (emphasis added). It doesn’t say that the test power level was determined or demanded by Rossi. The fact he turned it off after they had what they wanted is not the same as saying they didn’t test at a higher level “ON ORDERS FROM ROSSI”. I am not saying the test was adequate or inadequate, I am not qualified. But some of what is happening here is not objective and may be driven by other motives, i.e the same as the nonsense you usually see from Krivit. Ransom _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 10:42 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures You seem to be saying that it is not found in the “revised” or edited version? There is an edited version of the report, in which details like this are removed. Rothwell, no doubt, would chose to only read the edited version. From: Blaze Spinnaker Care to share where you saw this? The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration They did not calibrate above 450 C and this was not done ON ORDERS FROM ROSSI JR: It does not say that anywhere.
RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
Jones: I understand that concept. But just a quick glance at the data seems to question your conclusion. Why didn’t the 30w input decrease between File1 and File 5 cause a much bigger decrease in temperature being estimated by the TI camera if your assumption is correct? I would have expected a much bigger difference if you were correct. Ransom _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:37 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures Randy, No scientist would calibrate for 500 if they knew that the reaction is going to 1400. And they should have known in advance, based on the previous results. The reason for this, which you may not be aware of, is that changes in temperature at the high end get multiplied by an equation called the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Please look at the curve shown on this site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law You can see in this curve - that small changes exponentially increase into huge changes in the power estimate. The technique they are using does not really measure temperature, it measure photon emission and plugs that into a formula. However, had they used a platinum thermocouple or a pyrometer, there would be no problem. They knew this from the previous criticism but ignored it (or else the idea was vetoes by AR). The result is that calibration to 500 only means what it says, the active reactor temperature can be trusted up to this level. Near 1000 however, a small error is multiplied into a huge error. _ From: Randy Wuller Jones: In fairness to this process it also says of the dummy reactor test that “Rossi gradually brought it to the power level THEY requested” (emphasis added). It doesn’t say that the test power level was determined or demanded by Rossi. The fact he turned it off after they had what they wanted is not the same as saying they didn’t test at a higher level “ON ORDERS FROM ROSSI”. I am not saying the test was adequate or inadequate, I am not qualified. But some of what is happening here is not objective and may be driven by other motives, i.e the same as the nonsense you usually see from Krivit. Ransom _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 10:42 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures You seem to be saying that it is not found in the “revised” or edited version? There is an edited version of the report, in which details like this are removed. Rothwell, no doubt, would chose to only read the edited version. From: Blaze Spinnaker Care to share where you saw this? The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration They did not calibrate above 450 C and this was not done ON ORDERS FROM ROSSI JR: It does not say that anywhere. attachment: winmail.dat
Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
We need to be careful when we say the technique for reading the temperature only measures photons. When I read the documents from the camera vendor site I came away with the understanding that the detectors that they use in their instruments actually respond to heat directly. The heat is in the form of IR radiation, and the photons from the visual portion of the spectrum would have little effect. I was impressed by the ability of these camera systems to limit their sensitivities to the IR region of the spectrum. We should not spend too much effort worrying about what color is seen by our eyes. The important information concerning temperature is outside our visual range. Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Mon, Oct 13, 2014 12:37 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures Randy, No scientist would calibrate for 500 if they knew that the reaction is going to 1400. And they should have known in advance, based on the previous results. The reason for this, which you may not be aware of, is that changes in temperature at the high end get multiplied by an equation called the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Please look at the curve shown on this site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law You can see in this curve - that small changes exponentially increase into huge changes in the power estimate. The technique they are using does not really measure temperature, it measure photon emission and plugs that into a formula. However, had they used a platinum thermocouple or a pyrometer, there would be no problem. They knew this from the previous criticism but ignored it (or else the idea was vetoes by AR). The result is that calibration to 500 only means what it says, the active reactor temperature can be trusted up to this level. Near 1000 however, a small error is multiplied into a huge error. _ From: Randy Wuller Jones: In fairness to this process it also says of the dummy reactor test that “Rossi gradually brought it to the power level THEY requested” (emphasis added). It doesn’t say that the test power level was determined or demanded by Rossi. The fact he turned it off after they had what they wanted is not the same as saying they didn’t test at a higher level “ON ORDERS FROM ROSSI”. I am not saying the test was adequate or inadequate, I am not qualified. But some of what is happening here is not objective and may be driven by other motives, i.e the same as the nonsense you usually see from Krivit. Ransom _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 10:42 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures You seem to be saying that it is not found in the “revised” or edited version? There is an edited version of the report, in which details like this are removed. Rothwell, no doubt, would chose to only read the edited version. From: Blaze Spinnaker Care to share where you saw this? The dummy reactor was switched on at 12:20 PM of 24 February 2014 by Andrea Rossi who gradually brought it to the power level requested by us. Rossi later intervened to switch off the dummy, and in the following subsequent operations on the E-Cat: charge insertion, reactor startup, reactor shutdown and powder charge extraction. Throughout the test, no further intervention or interference on his part occurred; moreover, all phases of the test were monitored directly by the collaboration They did not calibrate above 450 C and this was not done ON ORDERS FROM ROSSI JR: It does not say that anywhere.
Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
At 10:46 AM 10/13/2014, you wrote: We need to be careful when we say the technique for reading the temperature only measures photons. When I read the documents from the camera vendor site I came away with the understanding that the detectors that they use in their instruments actually respond to heat directly. The heat is in the form of IR radiation, and the photons from the visual portion of the spectrum would have little effect. It's all photons. Visible, Infra-red, ultra-violet, radio
RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
Randy, Let me clear. I think that there was thermal gain here. I have said all along that there is gain but it could be less than claimed, because many things do not add up, and the extent of gain is not proved by the thermography… yet. And a level of real gain does not mean that the calibration should not have be done. There is no excuse for not doing it. Maybe the gain would have been as claimed, with calibration – who knows? The one and only thing which I am sure about is that the Lithium-6 should not be there. This puts me in a bit of a logical bind, since if there is to be thermal gain when this is done correctly - then, and as Alain says, does not the gain itself explain the presence of the isotope? No! No! No! Even if the thermal gain is proved, I am fully convinced that the Li6 was added – and is not a product of transmutation. Same with the Ni62. There can be no doubt of this unless most of nuclear physics goes down the drain as well. However – and this is the CAVEAT - it is true that these two expensive and nearly pure isotopes could have been added by Rossi at the start and not at the end – which would mean that (Li6 Ni62) is indeed his “Secret sauce” and he wanted to make it appear as only a transmutation product. Either way they were added – not created. That still falls under the category of deceit, since it means that he submitted a “raw fuel” sample to test which he knew did not contain the Li6 nor the Ni62. I hope that is crystal clear because it is a fine-line as to where the deceit came into play. Even if we can accept most or all of the heat as valid, then there has been deceit in the way the isotope analysis was handled. However, Rossi’s many fans will say that he can be forgiven for that since he was only trying to protect his secret. Which would essentially mean that the secret is to start out with Ni62 and Li6, making this a very expensive 1.5 MWhr of energy. Since that essentially makes the device of little use to solve the energy crisis, then the deceit is only there to enrich Andrea Rossi. _ From: Randy Wuller I understand that concept. But just a quick glance at the data seems to question your conclusion. Why didn’t the 30w input decrease between File1 and File 5 cause a much bigger decrease in temperature being estimated by the TI camera if your assumption is correct? I would have expected a much bigger difference if you were correct. Ransom _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:37 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures Randy, No scientist would calibrate for 500 if they knew that the reaction is going to 1400. And they should have known in advance, based on the previous results. The reason for this, which you may not be aware of, is that changes in temperature at the high end get multiplied by an equation called the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Please look at the curve shown on this site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law You can see in this curve - that small changes exponentially increase into huge changes in the power estimate. The technique they are using does not really measure temperature, it measure photon emission and plugs that into a formula. However, had they used a platinum thermocouple or a pyrometer, there would be no problem. They knew this from the previous criticism but ignored it (or else the idea was vetoes by AR). The result is that calibration to 500 only means what it says, the active reactor temperature can be trusted up to this level. Near 1000 however, a small error is multiplied into a huge error. _ From: Randy Wuller Jones: In fairness to this process it also says of the dummy reactor test that “Rossi gradually brought it to the power level THEY requested” (emphasis added). It doesn’t say that the test power level was determined or demanded by Rossi. The fact he turned it off after they had what they wanted is not the same as saying they didn’t test at a higher level “ON ORDERS FROM ROSSI”. I am not saying the test was adequate or inadequate, I am not qualified. But some of what is happening here is not objective and may be driven by other motives, i.e the same as the nonsense you usually see from Krivit. Ransom _ From: Jones
Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
The cameras were already calibrated by their respective manufacturers as stated on page 4 of the report, All the instruments used during the test are property of the authors of the present paper, and were calibrated in their respective manufacturers’ laboratories. Moreover, once in Lugano, a further check was made to ensure that the PCEs and the IR cameras were not yielding anomalous readings. So I see no reason to recalibrate over and over. They checked for anomalous readings and none were found. Robert Dorr On 10/13/2014 8:19 AM, Jones Beene wrote: *From:* Jed Rothwell 2) They did not calibrate above 450 C and this was not done ON ORDERS FROM ROSSI JR: It does not say that anywhere. Please read the report carefully before making silly rationalizations. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8382 - Release Date: 10/13/14
Re: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures
I wanted to add that in the dummy run there was a 10% deviation between measured and output, assume that the heat is proportional to the Temperature (which it's not, its T^4) you will get a 10% error in temperature measurement. (3.5% if you think in T^4). Now state that at the higher temperatures the error is from T^4, then you get 40% measurement error in the output energy, but the difference is 350%. So this calculi does not show significant problems. Then we have the issue with transparense, meaning that maybe 10% of the light power get's through there the cam measure power e.g. but output_w = T^4, I get from this that the added error to measured output is 10% and so we land on 50%. Hence the figures does not indicate that you can explain away a COP of 350%. Also the step change speaks the same story of a major COP 1. I can be wrong of cause but then try to refine the calculi so that we get somewhere. On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:08 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: Randy, Let me clear. I think that there was thermal gain here. I have said all along that there is gain but it could be less than claimed, because many things do not add up, and the extent of gain is not proved by the thermography… yet. And a level of real gain does not mean that the calibration should not have be done. There is no excuse for not doing it. Maybe the gain would have been as claimed, with calibration – who knows? The one and only thing which I am sure about is that the Lithium-6 should not be there. This puts me in a bit of a logical bind, since if there is to be thermal gain when this is done correctly - then, and as Alain says, does not the gain itself explain the presence of the isotope? No! No! No! Even if the thermal gain is proved, I am fully convinced that the Li6 was added – and is not a product of transmutation. Same with the Ni62. There can be no doubt of this unless most of nuclear physics goes down the drain as well. However – and this is the CAVEAT - it is true that these two expensive and nearly pure isotopes could have been added by Rossi at the start and not at the end – which would mean that (Li6 Ni62) is indeed his “Secret sauce” and he wanted to make it appear as only a transmutation product. Either way they were added – not created. That still falls under the category of deceit, since it means that he submitted a “raw fuel” sample to test which he knew did not contain the Li6 nor the Ni62. I hope that is crystal clear because it is a fine-line as to where the deceit came into play. Even if we can accept most or all of the heat as valid, then there has been deceit in the way the isotope analysis was handled. However, Rossi’s many fans will say that he can be forgiven for that since he was only trying to protect his secret. Which would essentially mean that the secret is to start out with Ni62 and Li6, making this a very expensive 1.5 MWhr of energy. Since that essentially makes the device of little use to solve the energy crisis, then the deceit is only there to enrich Andrea Rossi. _ From: Randy Wuller I understand that concept. But just a quick glance at the data seems to question your conclusion. Why didn’t the 30w input decrease between File1 and File 5 cause a much bigger decrease in temperature being estimated by the TI camera if your assumption is correct? I would have expected a much bigger difference if you were correct. Ransom _ From: Jones Beene [mailto:jone...@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:37 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:Determining the transmittance . . . of semitransparent materials at elevated temperatures Randy, No scientist would calibrate for 500 if they knew that the reaction is going to 1400. And they should have known in advance, based on the previous results. The reason for this, which you may not be aware of, is that changes in temperature at the high end get multiplied by an equation called the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Please look at the curve shown on this site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law You can see in this curve - that small changes exponentially increase into huge changes in the power estimate. The technique they are using does not really measure temperature, it measure photon emission and plugs that into a formula. However, had they used a platinum thermocouple or a pyrometer, there would be no problem. They knew this from the previous criticism but ignored it (or else the idea was vetoes by AR). The result is that calibration to 500 only means what it says, the active reactor temperature can be
