Have you done a spectroscopic analysis of all the radiation produced by the reactor including x-rays, extreme ultraviolet(aka black light), and RF radio frequencies?
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 1:03 PM, AlanG <[email protected]> wrote: > @Jones > > We tested the Aramco coating in our experiments at HUG in February 2015. > It was moderately effective but was found to degrade over time at 900°C. > See the image at > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxxJkjesxe4kUUJubGlNaEZ1VVU > > You can also see in that image the effect of long-term heating on > alumina-based cement, probably due to non-reversible phase change in the > crystal structure. I agree that these kinds of problems make IR temperature > measurement difficult, and I use it in combination with thermocouples as a > check measurement. > > Regarding the possibility of UV secondary emission, alumina appears to be > opaque at such wavelengths. See the graph from reference 4 in Bob Higgins > paper: http://tinyurl.com/ltq8kvf > So to fit your hypothesis, any UV emission from quantum dots in a > GlowStick reactor would have to occur at the outer (cooler) surface to add > to the radiated energy. Otherwise the UV would simply be thermalized in the > bulk material. > > AlanG / MFMP > > > On 7/27/2015 3:34 PM, Jones Beene wrote: > > I wasn’t aware of “photon multiplication” as a potential hindrance to IR > testing (in the context of thermometry) until recently, but it is a hot > topic in Optics journals these days. Was it even mentioned wrt Lugano? > Doubt it. For instance - with quantum dots as the receptor, 7 new visible > photons > can be emitted from every UV photon entering the dot. This would change > the blackbody curve of the thermal emitter should it also be a UV emitter. > Does > the glow stick contain quantum dots and does the gain involve UV? The > would greatly alter assumptions. > > Much was made of the alumina emissivity problem, but that is a different > subject than photon multiplication (which relates to another underlying > assumption – that the thermal emitter is not an intrinsic light source). Thus, > emissivity is different from multiplication - and both can cause errors. Bob > Higgins revised the suspected Lugano temperature down to 1100C, from the > original 1410C - based on an emissivity correction, but if photon > multiplication was happening at the same time, and the E-Cat is an > intrinsic UV emitter - there could be even less energy gain than the > thermal calculation indicates. > > The sad thing is that in both cases, the simple expedient of a specialty > black coating could solve the problem. Surely MFMP are now aware of the > necessity of such a coating. Here is one of many companies which provides > them. > > *http://www.aremco.com/high-emissivity-coatings/* > <http://www.aremco.com/high-emissivity-coatings/> > > According to E-Cat World, a new glow-stick test is underway. The plan is > to use a non-contact thermometry again, including an IR thermometer > rather than the thermocouple that was used with the Padua test. Both the > IR thermometer and the Optris Pi 160 will give incorrect readings if IR > photons > are multiplied in the range in which they operate… unless coated. > > Personally, I do not believe that K-type thermocouples will be accurate > either, so the black coating is a must. Type K may be used up to 1260C in > non-oxidizing or inert atmospheres. According to experts, in marginally > oxidizing atmosphere, such as coated with a ceramic cement and operating > in air, the situation is different. As low as 800C the chromel wire of > the pair will start to corrode in a phenomenon known as "green rot". > > Anyway, if it’s not too late – please paint the reactor with high > emissivity paint and use a platinum thermocouple. Otherwise – expect to > hear the same complaints from skeptics as before. > > >
