Eric-- I have reservations as to the some of the statements for the following reasons:
1. I take emissivity to be the ratio of specific power (energy/unit area/unit time) of all EM radiation (photons)being emitted from a SURFACE of a body at thermal equilibrium (one that is at a constant surface temperature) to a similar body with similar EM emissions and at the same SURFACE temperature and that is a "black body". Thus, emissivity for alumina will be different for different temperatures, and for sure Ni fuel and/or liquid AlLiH4 may be different than alumina itself. 2. I am not at all sure that the Lugano test was ever at thermal equilibrium, because I concluded it was controlled in its reaction rate by potentially changing conditions around a sweet spot of conditions. 3. I doubt that the thermal conductivity of alumina used in the test as well as the transmission of the spectrum of EM radiation being produced at the LENR reaction through the alumina to the outside surface is well known, particularly at 1400 degrees C. 4. At best the Optiris camera can determine a spectrum of radiation being emitted from a surface and from deeper levels away from a surface. Without calibration I do not understand how the camera can determine temperature of a surface. It may be able to tell something about how a measured spectrum of EM radiation approaches the S-B prediction for a "black body". I doubt the camera is 100% effective at measuring all EM frequencies, particularly those which are soft x-rays and those at the sub-infrared levels. I doubt that the alumina acts as a black body for soft x-rays. The soft x-rays may be important and be directional rather than isotropic. In summary the data of most interest to me is how the surface temperature changes with time as a function of input electrical power. This would be the best indicator of energy production over and above the electrical input. However, even observed temperature changes at a surface should be understood and predictable with a validated thermal model with appropriate geometry, heat capacity, heat sinks, exothermal chemical reactions, heat transfer coeff's. etc. The Swedes, Levi, etal., may very well be working on such a model to supplement their conclusions about excess heat from the Lugano test. Their validation of such a model will be key. They should take their time and get it right. This type of analysis is what Dave Robertson and Gigi did for the Mizuno experiment and were able to make very consistent predictions of measured temperatures. This is what I would call good engineering and will be necessary to coming up with good theory. Bob Cook From: Eric Walker To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 11:00 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Critique of Levi et al. Lugano experiment On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: Some recent experimental measurements by the Martin Fleischmann Memorial Project (MFMP) highlighted a possible error in the Hot-Cat calorimetric measurement; the calorimetric measurement we are referring to is described in the document known as “TPR2” or Lugano Report. . . . Let me see if I can capture the growing consensus concerning the Lugano test: a.. The Lugano test reported an excess heat of 1.5 MWh over the course of a 32 day run of the HotCat. The excess heat was calculated using the output of an Optiris camera and an emissivity obtained using a single method. This emissivity was fed into the Stefan–Boltzmann formula to obtain a value for the radiated power. b.. The assumed emissivity was not adequately double-checked, e.g., using a thermocouple, a spot of refractory paint or a table of measured emissivities for various types of alumina. c.. There is reason to believe that the value that was used for the emissivity in the Lugano report was too low, leading the Stefan–Boltzmann formula to give a radiated power that was significantly higher than was actually seen in the experiment. d.. A lower radiated power, and, hence, temperature, would be consistent with other observations from the Lugano test, including a lack of failure of different components of the HotCat that might be expected at a temperature of 1400 C, which was reported by the authors. Does this capture the consensus? Does anyone disagree or have reservations about any of these statements? The authors of the Lugano test were largely the same as the ones that put together the initial third-party test for the E-Cat. Does the faulty analysis of the Lugano test cast doubt on the conclusions of the earlier test? What does all of this say about the odd suggestion that the core of the HotCat was so hot and bright that the heating elements cast a shadow? Eric
