Re: [Vo]:Ryan Hunt comments on the color of the MFMP reactor
On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: This is not a trivial question - when errors are exponentially multiplied by a fourth power. I'm sure I don't have to remind you that error bars usually extend on both sides of the data plot. Merry Christmas!
RE: [Vo]:Ryan Hunt comments on the color of the MFMP reactor
From: Terry Blanton * This is not a trivial question - when errors are exponentially multiplied by a fourth power. * I'm sure I don't have to remind you that error bars usually extend on both sides of the data plot. Merry Christmas! Yes, there is the possibility that the claimed gain could have been underestimated by temperature calculations which did not properly account for all of the far IR radiation – just as having been overestimated due to photon leakage on the high end… by any IR device which was not properly calibrated. Calibration is the name of the game. For instance, since alumina is a “gray body” radiator - not blackbody – then full calibration of the camera should have been made with heated alumina in Lugano - at the highest expected temperature, but this was not done under direct order. Thus, the data from Lugano is compromised. That is all that can be said – the data is worthless, but the temperature could indeed have been grossly underestimated as well as grossly overestimated. 4th power will do that. In short, when everything depends on the accuracy of the low pass filter on the camera, then the “extra” flux of high frequency light passing through the alumina and being filtered by the camera, could in principle also diminish the longer wavelengths, so that temperature is being underestimated ! This is a detail that has not been voiced, and no one knows the answer. However, the overriding point is that calibration of this kind of instrument is all-important, and since Levi should have realized this (after all, this is supposedly his field of expertise) then we have to ask why he allowed Rossi stop the calibration run at 500 C. Clearly, Levi and the Swedes were being manipulated. Thus we have a Lugano report that resolves nothing. The field of LENR would be better off if this report never surfaced, due to shoddy measurements. Although the error could have gone either way, the common sense implication from Rossi’s action is that he knew from his own past experience - that proper calibration of the camera would not help his cause. Which puts us in this strange predicament. If further MFMP testing concludes that the real temperature of the reactor, based on a more accurate reading using the thermocouple, is actually higher than the camera computation of temperature in the range above 1000C – then two radically different conclusions (interpretations) are possible. One … Rossi actually underestimated the net gain in Lugano. Two … which is more provocative, is that there is net gain from SPP formation alone ! …which happens in a porous alumina reactor, even without the need for added fuel (other than the water vapor in air). This gain is due to DCE. (yes, there are other interpretations besides these, but these two are in stark contrast to general expectations now floating around cyberspace)
Re: [Vo]:Ryan Hunt comments on the color of the MFMP reactor
Bob-- Some thoughts relative to the MFMP test. I would be nice to know how the magnetic and optical properties, including transmittance and absorption spectra, of the alumina with likely additives (for example Li and Ni nano powders and hydrogen) change as a function of: 1. Temperature up to 1500 C, 2. Grain size, 3. Different potential additives, including ones that make it more opaque above 1000 C. 4. Ambient magnetic and electric fields including changing fields. 5. Light wave length. 6. Nuclear magnetic resonances. (This parameter would entail a separate test--most likely.) Such information, if not already planned, may help calibrate the camera for the determination of internal temperatures up to 1500 C. Such tests may be able to be accomplished with small pieces of well defined alumina (including structural and chemical changes which occur at high temperatures) and a well known spectrum of light from a hot source and a simple controlled magnetic field. These questions arise in light of the fact accurate knowledge of the Lugano test alumina (optical properties and nuclear magnetic resonances) and its actual composition and the magnetic field is not well described in the test report. Some of these questions about the alumina may also be the subject of follow-up tests. If and when an actual test of an operating LENR device is accomplished, such information would be helpful in understanding the reactions occurring in the device. Reflecting on the RD suggested herein, it would be nice to understand the MFMP RD strategy with the priorities they have for testing. Appropriate and timely comments may be forthcoming, if one were to have a working plan for the RD. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Bob Higgins To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 7:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ryan Hunt comments on the color of the MFMP reactor I believe this is the same model the MFMP intends to get. The expansion is the calibration at the factory for that high temperature range. That is what MFMP is waiting for - there is a long queue for the calibration at the factory. MFMP will be having the camera they borrow calibrated identically to that of the Lugano experiment. The cost is for the calibration, not additional hardware as far as I know. On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The reason for asking is that the model mentioned in the paper is the PI 160. This camera’s standard version has a temperature range from -20°C up to 900°C. It can be “optionally” expanded to 1500°C … for significantly higher cost. … but do we know for sure that the Lugano camera was the “expanded version” ? I can find no mention that it was the expanded version, and this is the kind of detail which should be noted. This is not a trivial question - when errors are exponentially multiplied by a fourth power. From: Jones Beene BTW – does anyone know the model # of the Optris camera used in Lugano ? From: Bob Higgins The original plan was to buy an Optris camera and sell it after MFMP's experiments were completed. Bob Greenyer even tried to buy THE camera used for the Lugano experiment.
Re: [Vo]:Ryan Hunt comments on the color of the MFMP reactor
Jones, even though the accuracy of the temperature measurement is somewhat questionable there are other indications that support the conclusion that excess heat is being generated by a nuclear process. You are forgetting about the fuel element changes that were measured. This is a non trivial situation and the testers have stated that they kept a close watch on the fuel during the extraction process. It is a stretch to suggest that Rossi or anyone else falsified the charge. I suppose that anyone that can not accept the fact that LENR involves nuclear conversions must come to that conclusion. Also, the large increase of the device temperature and/or power output with a small input power change is significant. Positive feedback, which is associated with internally generated power, causes that behavior. The observation had the testers concerned that they were about to destroy the HotCat which is one reason that they did not increase the input further. All of the positive thermal feedback models that I have constructed exhibit that characteristic which becomes much more pronounced with increasing levels of positive feedback. So, we have several observations and measurements that support that some form of nuclear process is active in Rossi's device. Any evidence against this conclusion is based upon total speculation and requires some form of deception or magical trick. Skeptics that doubt the accuracy of a test need to address why the positive evidence is flawed and so far I have seen nothing that explains the large output power delta when the input drive is increased by a modest amount. Merry Christmas to all, Dave -Original Message- From: Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Dec 24, 2014 12:25 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:Ryan Hunt comments on the color of the MFMP reactor From: Terry Blanton Ø This is not a trivial question - when errors are exponentially multiplied by a fourth power. Ø I'm sure I don't have to remind you that error bars usually extend on both sides of the data plot. Merry Christmas! Yes, there is the possibility that the claimed gain could have been underestimated by temperature calculations which did not properly account for all of the far IR radiation – just as having been overestimated due to photon leakage on the high end… by any IR device which was not properly calibrated. Calibration is the name of the game. For instance, since alumina is a “gray body” radiator - not blackbody – then full calibration of the camera should have been made with heated alumina in Lugano - at the highest expected temperature, but this was not done under direct order. Thus, the data from Lugano is compromised. That is all that can be said – the data is worthless, but the temperature could indeed have been grossly underestimated as well as grossly overestimated. 4th power will do that. In short, when everything depends on the accuracy of the low pass filter on the camera, then the “extra” flux of high frequency light passing through the alumina and being filtered by the camera, could in principle also diminish the longer wavelengths, so that temperature is being underestimated ! This is a detail that has not been voiced, and no one knows the answer. However, the overriding point is that calibration of this kind of instrument is all-important, and since Levi should have realized this (after all, this is supposedly his field of expertise) then we have to ask why he allowed Rossi stop the calibration run at 500 C. Clearly, Levi and the Swedes were being manipulated. Thus we have a Lugano report that resolves nothing. The field of LENR would be better off if this report never surfaced, due to shoddy measurements. Although the error could have gone either way, the common sense implication from Rossi’s action is that he knew from his own past experience - that proper calibration of the camera would not help his cause. Which puts us in this strange predicament. If further MFMP testing concludes that the real temperature of the reactor, based on a more accurate reading using the thermocouple, is actually higher than the camera computation of temperature in the range above 1000C – then two radically different conclusions (interpretations) are possible. One … Rossi actually underestimated the net gain in Lugano. Two … which is more provocative, is that there is net gain from SPP formation alone ! …which happens in a porous alumina reactor, even without the need for added fuel (other than the water vapor in air). This gain is due to DCE. (yes, there are other interpretations besides these, but these two are in stark contrast to general expectations now floating around cyberspace)
Re: [Vo]:Ryan Hunt comments on the color of the MFMP reactor
Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Turns out to get the Optris camera calibrated to the high temp range is what is taking so long. The company is doing their very best to get MFMP a camera for the test in late January. That's awfully good of them! It is great to see such cooperation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ryan Hunt comments on the color of the MFMP reactor
I though that MFMP was buying that camera. Maybe its just good customer service. On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Turns out to get the Optris camera calibrated to the high temp range is what is taking so long. The company is doing their very best to get MFMP a camera for the test in late January. That's awfully good of them! It is great to see such cooperation. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ryan Hunt comments on the color of the MFMP reactor
The original plan was to buy an Optris camera and sell it after MFMP's experiments were completed. Bob Greenyer even tried to buy THE camera used for the Lugano experiment. Turns out the Lugano camera was busy being used in another experiment. Bob worked with the manufacturer to get a camera, but the big issue is that the camera needs special factory calibration to work in the temperature range of the Lugano experiment, and there was a long backlog in the calibration facility. In the end, they offered to rent MFMP a camera calibrated to that range for a very reasonable price. You are right, it is very nice of them - AND - Bob is a good negotiator. On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: I though that MFMP was buying that camera. Maybe its just good customer service. On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Turns out to get the Optris camera calibrated to the high temp range is what is taking so long. The company is doing their very best to get MFMP a camera for the test in late January. That's awfully good of them! It is great to see such cooperation. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Ryan Hunt comments on the color of the MFMP reactor
BTW – does anyone know the model # of the Optris camera used in Lugano ? From: Bob Higgins The original plan was to buy an Optris camera and sell it after MFMP's experiments were completed. Bob Greenyer even tried to buy THE camera used for the Lugano experiment.
RE: [Vo]:Ryan Hunt comments on the color of the MFMP reactor
The reason for asking is that the model mentioned in the paper is the PI 160. This camera’s standard version has a temperature range from -20°C up to 900°C. It can be “optionally” expanded to 1500°C … for significantly higher cost. … but do we know for sure that the Lugano camera was the “expanded version” ? I can find no mention that it was the expanded version, and this is the kind of detail which should be noted. This is not a trivial question - when errors are exponentially multiplied by a fourth power. From: Jones Beene BTW – does anyone know the model # of the Optris camera used in Lugano ? From: Bob Higgins The original plan was to buy an Optris camera and sell it after MFMP's experiments were completed. Bob Greenyer even tried to buy THE camera used for the Lugano experiment.
Re: [Vo]:Ryan Hunt comments on the color of the MFMP reactor
I believe this is the same model the MFMP intends to get. The expansion is the calibration at the factory for that high temperature range. That is what MFMP is waiting for - there is a long queue for the calibration at the factory. MFMP will be having the camera they borrow calibrated identically to that of the Lugano experiment. The cost is for the calibration, not additional hardware as far as I know. On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: The reason for asking is that the model mentioned in the paper is the PI 160. This camera’s standard version has a temperature range from -20°C up to 900°C. It can be “optionally” expanded to 1500°C … for significantly higher cost. … but do we know for sure that the Lugano camera was the “expanded version” ? I can find no mention that it was the expanded version, and this is the kind of detail which should be noted. This is not a trivial question - when errors are exponentially multiplied by a fourth power. *From:* Jones Beene BTW – does anyone know the model # of the Optris camera used in Lugano ? *From:* Bob Higgins The original plan was to buy an Optris camera and sell it after MFMP's experiments were completed. Bob Greenyer even tried to buy THE camera used for the Lugano experiment.
Re: [Vo]:Ryan Hunt comments on the color of the MFMP reactor
The color of the MFMP dogbone and the Lugano hotCat are more complicated than what you would expect from blackbody radiation. Both devices had internal heaters at higher temperature than the surface of the ribbed ceramic convection tube. At visible wavelengths alumina transmits a good percentage of the photons. Thus, the color the eye sees in these devices consists of the sum of reflected light, surface blackbody radiation, and transmitted light from the heater coil filtered by the intervening alumina. Because of the porosity of the alumina, the ceramic is a reddening (low pass) filter, so the light from the much hotter internal heater coils will be reddened as it is transmitted. I have experimented with up to 5mm of alumina ceramic with a red diode laser, and while there is a lot of scattering, there is also a lot of bulk transmission. So if the heater is at 1200C, and the surface is at 800C, in a dark room, the surface will look a color somewhere in between the surface blackbody color and the blackbody color of the higher temperature heater coil. Then, as Ryan mentions, almost all digital cameras have an infrared cutoff filter, but they do not all have the same cutoff wavelength. Some cameras aim to boost their perceived low-light performance by admitting more of the infrared into the red channel. To make things worse, some cameras have light leak in the blue channel from the infrared that is transmitted (causing purple fringe effects). The cameras that pass more infrared will take a picture that looks more red in this case. Further, the exposure is very important because the red, green, and blue channels individually saturate. If overexposed, the color will change because first the red channel will saturate first from this type of light. At much higher exposure, all channels saturate and the result is white. Saturation actually begins at 10% below full well in the sensor and the recorded signal becomes nonlinear. These effects conspire to make a simply taken picture taken nearly worthless in determination of temperature for this style of device. On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: There has been a lot of discussion about these photos published by the MFMP on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/posts/881440191886681 Look at the lower two photos. They look bright white. However, someone from the MFPM commented at Facebook that they do not appear bright white to the human eye. So I asked Ryan Hunt the following: I have a question about this [attached Facebook] photo from the MFPM experiment. Someone on Facebook . . . said the camera shows this as white but to the human eye it is more of a red color. They were emphatic: 'Not. White. Hot.' . . . In other words: Is the color an artifact of the camera, or does it look this way to the human eye as well? His response: The bright appearance was mostly an artifact of the camera detecting IR in addition to visible. It was a red/orange color, but not nearly as bright as any of the photos appeared to show it. All the modern cameras auto adjust so much I didn't know how to make them show what I was seeing. Consumer cameras usually capture colors pretty much the way the human eye sees them, but not in this case. I guess there is a lot more IR coming out of this gadget than the objects in a typical family photo at the beach or campfire. I asked him if the orange color resembles the color in Fig. 12 of the ELFORSK report. His response: Yeah, I would say it is very similar. I would judge that to be roughly 800 to 900C on the surface. I found that the amount of ambient lighting made a big difference to how the camera viewed it. That's why I suggested we try to make a visible reference at a controlled temperature to compare to in the photo. My comment: I also judge that shade of red to be around 800°C based on this color scale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence#mediaviewer/File:Incandescence_Color.jpg - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ryan Hunt comments on the color of the MFMP reactor
Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: These effects conspire to make a simply taken picture taken nearly worthless in determination of temperature for this style of device. How about the color as perceived by the human eye? Is that of any value in determination of temperature in this case? The eye is a remarkable instrument. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ryan Hunt comments on the color of the MFMP reactor
Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Because of the porosity of the alumina, the ceramic is a reddening (low pass) filter, so the light from the much hotter internal heater coils will be reddened as it is transmitted. . . . Ryan had a follow-up comment along those lines: The color they glow at varies a bit with emissivity. In the case of the dogbone, there appears to be controversy over whether it is transparent in the range of the heating element so the optris thermal camera might have measured the element temperature. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ryan Hunt comments on the color of the MFMP reactor
The eye does a good job at dealing with the infrared. Not everyone's eye is the same, but someone that can see more infrared has been seeing it all of his life and it is integrated into how he perceive color. The real problem is that the color is itself not a good indicator of temperature. Look at the frosted surface of an incandescent light bulb. It's color depends primarily of the blackbody radiation of the filament at lets say 3500K, but the glass envelope may only be about 400-500K. Sure, the glass envelope emits at a blackbody temp of 400-500K, but the color is pretty much that of the filament slightly reddened as it passes through the frosted glass (the frosting causes greater loss of blue). The alumina ceramic is a partly transparent envelope with a hot coil inside. Admittedly, the ceramic is more highly coupled to the heater coil and will be hotter, but the color is neither that of the hot heater coil (it is red filtered by the alumina) or of the color of the black body of its own surface. It is a mix, best characterized by measuring its spectrum. The Lugano hotCat had a different mix of heater coil light, ceramic color filtering, and blackbody radiation. For one thing the heater coil was different, thicker, and it was closer to the surface of the roots of the ribbed ceramic convection tube. Because the ceramic was thinner, more of the blue end of the heater coil spectrum would have made it through to the surace. The result is that the color in the VISIBLE range would have been more like that of the heater coil, because it had to pass through less ceramic [than the current dogbone]. There is discussion in the MFMP that it may be desirable to use a larger core to get the heater wire closer to the surface (roots) of the convection tube. Bob On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: These effects conspire to make a simply taken picture taken nearly worthless in determination of temperature for this style of device. How about the color as perceived by the human eye? Is that of any value in determination of temperature in this case? The eye is a remarkable instrument. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Ryan Hunt comments on the color of the MFMP reactor
The far infrared behavior is expected to be much different than the visible case. The Optris images at ~20 longer wavelength - 6 to 13 microns. In this range, alumina is believed to be nearly completely opaque. The emissivity will be different, but the fact that it is opaque is, by far, the most important observation. Being opaque, it means that the Optris camera was NOT measuring the higher internal temperature of the hotCat reaction core or heater coil, but just the surface. This is what MFMP hopes to verify by placing thermocouples on the convection tube and measuring with an identically calibrated Optris camera what temperature it reports around the thermocouple. This should put to rest the issue of whether the Optris can validly measure only the surface of the convection tube and not what may be higher temperature inside. Better still for the MFMP dogbone experiment is that it will be its own calorimeter. What is put into it in electrical power will be the delivered heat to the ambient via radiation and convection. The internal temperature is not important - it will rise until the surface temperature is such that it is delivering the heat from the input into the ambient. The heat will not need to be measured, only the input electrical power. The device with have, by definition, a COP=1. So, at any given measured surface temperature, the heat being delivered to the ambient will be well known (measured input power) and will serve as a check on the calculations of the Lugano team. A bigger issue is the averaging of temperature. The temperature is different at the root of the fins than at the tips of the fins. The Optris did not image this, but got an average temperature instead. I believe the short wavelength pyrometers (1 micron) measure peak temperature, but the Optris and most far infrared pyrometers measure the average temperature. Since the heat being delivered partly goes as T^4, using an average can be wrong - just how wrong depends on the temperature difference that is being averaged. Bob On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Bob Higgins rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com wrote: Because of the porosity of the alumina, the ceramic is a reddening (low pass) filter, so the light from the much hotter internal heater coils will be reddened as it is transmitted. . . . Ryan had a follow-up comment along those lines: The color they glow at varies a bit with emissivity. In the case of the dogbone, there appears to be controversy over whether it is transparent in the range of the heating element so the optris thermal camera might have measured the element temperature. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:Ryan Hunt comments on the color of the MFMP reactor
From: Bob Higgins Ø Being opaque, it means that the Optris camera was NOT measuring the higher internal temperature of the hotCat reaction core or heater coil, but just the surface. Bob, wait a second … just today - in an earlier post you said (correctly) “Because of the porosity of the alumina, the ceramic is a reddening (low pass) filter… … or was that quote from Ryan? Anyway, the problem is not just that the dog-bone is acting as a low pass filter, but moreover the “calculation” exponentially inflates the effect of any radiation that is passed, so that in the end, the reddening is amplified by a fourth power into what could be an artificially inflated temperature estimate. Rossi’s cadre of gullible cheerleaders, here and on E-Cat World, seem to be immune to the basic problem. Rossi never measured temperature – he computed it with a formula that has a 4th power amplification of systemic error. Levi could have used a platinum thermocouple to confirm, and thereby have salvaged something – but he did not. Continuing from your earlier post: “so the light from the much hotter internal heater coils will be reddened as it is transmitted. I have experimented with up to 5mm of alumina ceramic with a red diode laser, and while there is a lot of scattering, there is also a lot of bulk transmission.” Bottom line: “a lot of bulk transmission” can skew the numbers, even a little can. The calculated temperature of the Lugano report could be grossly in error.
Re: [Vo]:Ryan Hunt comments on the color of the MFMP reactor
From the experiments we have conducted, if a 1 micron wavelength Williamson pyrometer had been used, I would say the whole measurement would be wrong. However, at the 6-13 micron wavelength of the Optris, I am leaning toward the average temperature having been measured correctly by the Optris. I think the visible light color the eye sees is somewhere between the surface blackbody color and the internal heater temperature color - but only for the wavelengths to about 3 microns. When I said that the light from the heater coils would have been reddened, that is due to absorption of shorter wavelength photons and turning them into heat (this is not a reflective filter). The alumina transmission cuts off between 3-4 microns, particularly for the polycrystalline material with lots of grain boundaries and silicates in those grain boundaries. That light of wavelength shorter than 3 microns will be to some extent transmitted and attenuated a lot - with the attenuated photons turning into heat in the ceramic. Photons emitted by the heater coil at a wavelength longer than 4 microns will be turned into heat inside the alumina. So, unless the Optris has an unexpected sensitivity to light shorter than 6 microns, then it should assess the average temperature correctly. Still, there is that residual doubt and that is why the MFMP experiment is being conducted where there will be direct surface temperature measurement along with the Optris temperature assessments. There won't be a 4th power error. At any given temperature, in the dogbone experiment, the heat out will be equal to the electrical power input, so we will know exactly what the heat output is at any given surface temperature and any given Optris assessed temperature. Bob On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Bob Higgins Ø Being opaque, it means that the Optris camera was NOT measuring the higher internal temperature of the hotCat reaction core or heater coil, but just the surface. Bob, wait a second … just today - in an earlier post you said (correctly) “Because of the porosity of the alumina, the ceramic is a reddening (low pass) filter… … or was that quote from Ryan? Anyway, the problem is not just that the dog-bone is acting as a low pass filter, but moreover the “calculation” exponentially inflates the effect of any radiation that is passed, so that in the end, the reddening is amplified by a fourth power into what could be an artificially inflated temperature estimate. Rossi’s cadre of gullible cheerleaders, here and on E-Cat World, seem to be immune to the basic problem. Rossi never measured temperature – he computed it with a formula that has a 4th power amplification of systemic error. Levi could have used a platinum thermocouple to confirm, and thereby have salvaged something – but he did not. Continuing from your earlier post: “so the light from the much hotter internal heater coils will be reddened as it is transmitted. I have experimented with up to 5mm of alumina ceramic with a red diode laser, and while there is a lot of scattering, there is also a lot of bulk transmission.” Bottom line: “a lot of bulk transmission” can skew the numbers, even a little can. The calculated temperature of the Lugano report could be grossly in error.
RE: [Vo]:Ryan Hunt comments on the color of the MFMP reactor
From: Bob Higgins Ø The alumina transmission cuts off between 3-4 microns… So, unless the Optris has an unexpected sensitivity to light shorter than 6 microns, then it should assess the average temperature correctly. Well, yeah … the “unexpected sensitivity” is almost a given – at least as an unknown variable in this situation. I hate to focus on the obvious next step, but why not save a lot of time and tedious diversion - by taking the laser, the ceramic and the Optris – NOTHING else, and shine the laser through the ceramic onto the Optris at close range and see what you get. You should see nothing. If you see anything at all, and I predict that you will - then Rossi’s dog-bone is in deep dog-poo (because of the 4th power problem)
Re: [Vo]:Ryan Hunt comments on the color of the MFMP reactor
Turns out to get the Optris camera calibrated to the high temp range is what is taking so long. The company is doing their very best to get MFMP a camera for the test in late January. If we had the camera now we would be making all sorts of preliminary tests. We just want to be truly ready for the important tests when the camera is available. On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 6:48 PM, Jones Beene jone...@pacbell.net wrote: *From:* Bob Higgins Ø The alumina transmission cuts off between 3-4 microns… So, unless the Optris has an unexpected sensitivity to light shorter than 6 microns, then it should assess the average temperature correctly. Well, yeah … the “unexpected sensitivity” is almost a given – at least as an unknown variable in this situation. I hate to focus on the obvious next step, but why not save a lot of time and tedious diversion - by taking the laser, the ceramic and the Optris – NOTHING else, and shine the laser through the ceramic onto the Optris at close range and see what you get. You should see nothing. If you see anything at all, and I predict that you will - then Rossi’s dog-bone is in deep dog-poo (because of the 4th power problem)
