Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 10:42 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: -- are intended as plug-in replacements for new or existing commercial heating systems, which also operate in the 1300-1400C range. Huge market. Great observation. Huge market and easy to sell. It puts out four times what you put in and only costs twice as much. I'll buy that for a dollar.
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
Having looked at the Robert Greenyer video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyp14fnE1jQ and his observation of the wavy nature of a commercial heater and the Lugana hotcat : http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/141030_blackbody_04.png Greenyer notes the wavy structure of an electric heating element wound round a ceramic tube, and thinks that this explains the irregular structure of the Lugano hotcat: it's most likely alumina cement over an inner alumina cylinder. I now think this is the most likely construction (sorry for the 300dpi scans) : http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/hotcat_141030_fig20.png and (as usual) the banding could be explained in multiple ways : http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/hotcat_141030_fig21.png Only the shadow hypothesis requires the ceramic to be visually transparent -- the other two just could depend on thermal conductivity. Updated paper's at : http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_hotcat_oct2014_banding_d.php ps : It's now obvious that the hotcat's unusual shape -- particularly the 2013 versions with the flange -- are intended as plug-in replacements for new or existing commercial heating systems, which also operate in the 1300-1400C range. Huge market.
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 7:42 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Only the shadow hypothesis requires the ceramic to be visually transparent -- the other two just could depend on thermal conductivity. The shadow hypothesis has always seemed like a stretch to me. It sounds speculative. Eric
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 10:20:52 PM On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Basically what happens is that as the temperature changes the peak of the blackbody spectrum moves through different parts of the emissivity/wavelength curve. Are you assuming a standard Boltzmann curve that just shifts its peak according to emittance? Is it possible that the frequency and heat-dependant combination of emittance, transmissivity and reflection make it so that there is a distribution other than a Boltzmann distribution for the alumina shell? Eric Yes, that's how Planck's formula/integration works. It TRIES to send a Boltzmann curve, but this is modulated by the emissivity spectrum. As the temperature increases the spectral peak get higher and shifts to shorter wavelengths. If the emissivity is higher then the total power will increase, otherwise (as in this case) it decreases. Per Manara the transmission looks negligible outside the visible range, where there's practically no blackbody power anyway up to 1400C. (It moves to the visible at much higher temperatures -- 4000 to 6000C).
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
All indications are that the visible spectrum contains very little of the energy being radiated so what we see can not be used to figure the radiated power. Many other variables appear to get into the fray which forces us to rely upon calibration if we are to achieve accurate accounting of the radiated and convected power. It is unfortunate that the input power was not the same during both the dummy run and the active one since the increased apparent temperature would have clearly demonstrated excess power if any was present. I am left with believing that excess power was generated due to the rapid increase in calculated output power when a small increase in input power was applied. This is a characteristic of an ECAT system with positive thermal feedback. A passive system would not display this behavior. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Oct 29, 2014 11:35 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON From: Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, October 28, 2014 10:20:52 PM On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Basically what happens is that as the temperature changes the peak of the blackbody spectrum moves through different parts of the emissivity/wavelength curve. Are you assuming a standard Boltzmann curve that just shifts its peak according to emittance? Is it possible that the frequency and heat-dependant combination of emittance, transmissivity and reflection make it so that there is a distribution other than a Boltzmann distribution for the alumina shell? Eric Yes, that's how Planck's formula/integration works. It TRIES to send a Boltzmann curve, but this is modulated by the emissivity spectrum. As the temperature increases the spectral peak get higher and shifts to shorter wavelengths. If the emissivity is higher then the total power will increase, otherwise (as in this case) it decreases. Per Manara the transmission looks negligible outside the visible range, where there's practically no blackbody power anyway up to 1400C. (It moves to the visible at much higher temperatures -- 4000 to 6000C).
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
This last post is a wonderful one. The way the E-Cat produces and then radiates energy is a complete unknown and there is a absolute and uncompromising need in this unique situation to calibrate the temperature sensor used in this particular kind of test in a complete and fined grained detail if the true COP of this reactor is to be determined reliably. On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:36 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: All indications are that the visible spectrum contains very little of the energy being radiated so what we see can not be used to figure the radiated power. Many other variables appear to get into the fray which forces us to rely upon calibration if we are to achieve accurate accounting of the radiated and convected power. It is unfortunate that the input power was not the same during both the dummy run and the active one since the increased apparent temperature would have clearly demonstrated excess power if any was present. I am left with believing that excess power was generated due to the rapid increase in calculated output power when a small increase in input power was applied. This is a characteristic of an ECAT system with positive thermal feedback. A passive system would not display this behavior. Dave -Original Message- From: Alan Fletcher a...@well.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Wed, Oct 29, 2014 11:35 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON *From: *Eric Walker eric.wal...@gmail.com *Sent: *Tuesday, October 28, 2014 10:20:52 PM On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Basically what happens is that as the temperature changes the peak of the blackbody spectrum moves through different parts of the emissivity/wavelength curve. Are you assuming a standard Boltzmann curve that just shifts its peak according to emittance? Is it possible that the frequency and heat-dependant combination of emittance, transmissivity and reflection make it so that there is a distribution other than a Boltzmann distribution for the alumina shell? Eric Yes, that's how Planck's formula/integration works. It TRIES to send a Boltzmann curve, but this is modulated by the emissivity spectrum. As the temperature increases the spectral peak get higher and shifts to shorter wavelengths. If the emissivity is higher then the total power will increase, otherwise (as in this case) it decreases. Per Manara the transmission looks negligible outside the visible range, where there's practically no blackbody power anyway up to 1400C. (It moves to the visible at much higher temperatures -- 4000 to 6000C).
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: This last post is a wonderful one. The way the E-Cat produces and then radiates energy is a complete unknown and there is a absolute and uncompromising need in this unique situation to calibrate the temperature sensor used in this particular kind of test in a complete and fined grained detail if the true COP of this reactor is to be determined reliably. My prediction is that this is the last test you will see from Rossi. The reactor looks like a pre-production prototype. My bet is you will probably see commercial products shipping within the next two years. It's not difficult to sell furnace heating elements which provide 4.6 watts of output for one watt of input.
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote: It's not difficult to sell furnace heating elements which provide 4.6 watts of output for one watt of input. As an entry point into industry, it is a little obscure, and one that the accountants paying the electricity bill will be first to notice. But if accountants can be the advocates of LENR, this is a good thing. Eric
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 12:57:38 PM My analysis of IR calorimetry and Black Body radiation is here : http://lenr.qumbu.com/blackbody_141027A.php Slightly updated. I used my blackbody calculator to derive an emissivity/temperature curve similar to Lugano fig 2. I swept the temperature form 100 to 1400, with emissivity=1, and deduced the average emissivity as Planck/StefanBoltzman using Manara's fig 5 data. The result is at http://lenr.qumbu.com/web_hotcat_pics/141022_lugano_02_manara.png Basically what happens is that as the temperature changes the peak of the blackbody spectrum moves through different parts of the emissivity/wavelength curve. The overall shape of the Lugano emissivity/temperature curve, other than the peak at 300C, is very similar to the Manara curve, so it could also be the result of a wavelength dependency. (Manara also shows a temperature dependency, but I didn't attempt to model that -- I just used the 1050K/770C curve). This increases my confidence that the calibration at 400C could still be at least qualitatively valid at 1400C
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Alan Fletcher a...@well.com wrote: Basically what happens is that as the temperature changes the peak of the blackbody spectrum moves through different parts of the emissivity/wavelength curve. Are you assuming a standard Boltzmann curve that just shifts its peak according to emittance? Is it possible that the frequency and heat-dependant combination of emittance, transmissivity and reflection make it so that there is a distribution other than a Boltzmann distribution for the alumina shell? Eric
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
Nobody really knows how the E-Cat radiates energy. Ni/H is completely undefined technology. No assumptions should be made about LENR. The IR camera calibration is an excellent opportunity to made bad assumptions about the calibration of these sensors. This is the main reason why I believe that an air flow calorimeter is the best way to determine how much energy that the E-Cat was producing. The argument that this method of energy measurement is too inexact can be overcome by good design of this type of calorimeter. At least this type of calorimeter can be calibrated. On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 12:35 AM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: The actual measurement that I am interesting in is the amount of power being radiated and convected away from the device. If the effective temperature can be manipulated by some process that results in less than expected power emission, then we are being fooled. That is the root of my reservations. I have little doubt that excess power is being generated internally by the ECAT core, but an accurate accounting of that power eludes me thus far. The earlier version of the ECAT with the black painted surface appears to be subject to less error in these important calculations. It is unfortunate that the latest version remains so difficult to verify. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Oct 26, 2014 11:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON Use both as a cross check. harry On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Robert Dorr rod...@comcast.net wrote: As to whether a spot pyrometer is more accurate than an IR camera, I think depends on their use. For small area or pin point measurement I agree that a spot pyrometer may be more accurate, but for large or gross measurement I think the IR camera would be just as accurate if not more so. I think that there is no problem using the IR cameras for accurate measurement of the temperature of the Rossi ecat as long as the cameras were calibrated properly. Robert Dorr At 10:16 PM 10/25/2014, you wrote: Hank Mills transcript : https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WNDVQVEhmUjJ4ek0/view But it's still not clear whether they should use 8-14u or 2.5u In any case, their spot pyrometer is most likely more accurate. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8454 - Release Date: 10/25/14 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8454 - Release Date: 10/25/14
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Nobody really knows how the E-Cat radiates energy. It radiates heat energy according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, like any other object. The source of the heat is irrelevant. All hot objects radiate heat the same way, and they all turn the same incandescent color at a given temperature. It makes no difference whether the heat is caused by combustion, electricity, friction, fission, fusion or zero point energy. Ni/H is completely undefined technology. No assumptions should be made about LENR. We cannot even assume that it follows the laws of physics? If we make no assumptions about it then we cannot believe any calorimetry. The IR camera calibration is an excellent opportunity to made bad assumptions about the calibration of these sensors. If the calibration was done correctly there should be no problem. It is not clear to me whether it was done correctly or not. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
On 10/27/2014 03:08 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote:
All hot objects radiate heat the same way, and they all turn the same
incandescent color at a given temperature.
Everything I read tells me this is modified by a materials 'emissivity'
factor.
The amount of thermal energy an object will radiate is not only a
function of temperature, but depends on the material itself. Emissivity
describes a material’s ability to emit or release the thermal energy
which it has absorbed. A perfect radiator-known as a ‘black body’-will
emit the entire amount of absorbed energy. A real body will always emit
less energy than a black body at the same temperature. Emissivity ε is
the ratio of radiation emitted of a given object (real body) Φ_r and a
black body Φ_b at the same temperature.
http://www.keller-msr.com/temperature-pyrometers/emissivity-definition-and-influence-in-non-contact-temperature-measurement.php
Emissivity is a modifying factor used in single color thermometry to
achieve a correct temperature
reading. Emissivity, or radiating efficiency, of most materials is
function of surface condition,
temperature and wavelength of measurement.
http://www-eng.lbl.gov/~dw/projects/DW4229_LHC_detector_analysis/calculations/emissivity2.pdf
Likewise, aluminum oxide (alumina) has an emissivity coefficient of 0.8
according to this reference:
http://www.gphysics.net/emissivity-coefficient
and 0.75 according to this reference:
http://www.coe.montana.edu/me/faculty/sofie/teaching/me360/Pyrometry%20Emissivity%20Notes.pdf
So, as I understand it the emissivity factor must be applied to an ideal
black-box foruma as follows:
The radiation energy per unit time from a *blackbody* is proportional
to the fourth power of the absolute temperature
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/temperature-d_291.html and can be
expressed with *Stefan-Boltzmann Law * as
/q = σ T^4 A/ /(1)/
/where/
/q/ /= heat transfer per unit time (W)/
/σ/ /= 5.6703 10^-8 (W/m^2 K^4 ) - *The* *Stefan-Boltzmann Constant*/
/T/ /= absolute temperature Kelvin (K)/
/A/ /= area of the emitting body (m^2 )/
For objects other than ideal blackbodies ('gray bodies') the
*Stefan-Boltzmann Law* can be expressed as
/q = ε σ T^4 A / /(2)/
/where/
/ε/ /= emissivity of the object (one for a black body)/
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
So, alumina, with an observed value of 950C and an emissivity factor of
0.75, would actually be at 1250C - 1350C, considering the conversion
from C to K back to C.
Craig
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
I believe that the E-Cat is completely enclosed in a high temperature boson condensate. How that condensate might radiate energy is UNKNOWN. This condensate could be releasing energy at a single IR frequency like a laser might. The test team should have run a spectrum analysis on this reactor's heat emissions to eliminate ASSUMPTIONS about energy measurements. On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Nobody really knows how the E-Cat radiates energy. It radiates heat energy according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, like any other object. The source of the heat is irrelevant. All hot objects radiate heat the same way, and they all turn the same incandescent color at a given temperature. It makes no difference whether the heat is caused by combustion, electricity, friction, fission, fusion or zero point energy. Ni/H is completely undefined technology. No assumptions should be made about LENR. We cannot even assume that it follows the laws of physics? If we make no assumptions about it then we cannot believe any calorimetry. The IR camera calibration is an excellent opportunity to made bad assumptions about the calibration of these sensors. If the calibration was done correctly there should be no problem. It is not clear to me whether it was done correctly or not. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
From: Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 12:08:08 PM Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Nobody really knows how the E-Cat radiates energy. It radiates heat energy according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, like any other object. The source of the heat is irrelevant. All hot objects radiate heat the same way ... That's simply not true. The Stefan-Bolzmann law is an approximation. (The single-value emissivity used here is an average over both the wavelength and the viewing angle). What you see (visually, or with an IR detector -- as explained in the Williamson/MFMP interview, and in the Marana paper) is a function of reflectance, transmissivity and emissivity, all of which vary by wavelength and by temperature -- and Alumina is particularly variable and problematic with respect to all of these. You need to know the values of all of these, and then integrate the Planck Formula over the entire spectrum. IF the emissivity is constant then this integral gives the same value as the Stefan-Bolzmann law. If not, it doesn't. I've done the calculations : report(s) coming soon. and they all turn the same incandescent color at a given temperature. I'm not sure that is true either, though I haven't found a specific refutation. It would be true ONLY if their emissivity is constant over the visible spectrum. (Marana's example doesn't cover the visible range).
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
Jed-- Your understanding of black body radiation is different from mine relative to its equilibrium temperature. Note that I have suggested that my understanding of temperature and radiation emitted by a black body depend upon an equilibrium condition. The substance with the light emission to be observed must also be a black body for the law to be correct. Such a body cannot be a gray body with emissivity less than 1. That is: A body that does not absorb all incident radiation (sometimes known as a grey body) and emits less total energy than a black body and is characterized by an emissivity 1. IMHO your generalization stated below is incorrect. Bob Cook - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 12:08 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Nobody really knows how the E-Cat radiates energy. It radiates heat energy according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, like any other object. The source of the heat is irrelevant. All hot objects radiate heat the same way, and they all turn the same incandescent color at a given temperature. It makes no difference whether the heat is caused by combustion, electricity, friction, fission, fusion or zero point energy. .. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
My analysis of IR calorimetry and Black Body radiation is here : http://lenr.qumbu.com/blackbody_141027A.php I was persuaded by McKubre and Docherty not to downgrade my results to failed experiment. I've also updated my banding paper : http://lenr.qumbu.com/rossi_hotcat_oct2014_banding_c.php Without knowledge of the internal structure, and of the properties of the Alumina and the size of the heating wires actually used, NO conclusions at all can be reached : inconclusive. When I have the time I'll update my conclusions post : My conclusion is still ... inconclusive.
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
We cannot even assume that it follows the laws of physics? ***A law is just a mathematically rigorous observation. It is not a dictate from nature. LENR is a field of study precisely because the laws of physics are being broken. It's as if you took some bricks and dropped them from the leaning tower of Pisa just as Newton did, and instead of falling at 1/2gt^2, sometimes the bricks that are sprinkled with a minute amount of pixie dust drop at 2X the acceleration as normal. The mathematically vigorous observation no longer applies under these weird conditions. It wouldn't be a problem if science actually worked the way science was supposed to, but in this case there are entrenched interests in science that would lose their funding if they accepted that the pixie dust bricks actually did fall at the rate described. On 10/27/14, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Nobody really knows how the E-Cat radiates energy. It radiates heat energy according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, like any other object. The source of the heat is irrelevant. All hot objects radiate heat the same way, and they all turn the same incandescent color at a given temperature. It makes no difference whether the heat is caused by combustion, electricity, friction, fission, fusion or zero point energy. Ni/H is completely undefined technology. No assumptions should be made about LENR. We cannot even assume that it follows the laws of physics? If we make no assumptions about it then we cannot believe any calorimetry. The IR camera calibration is an excellent opportunity to made bad assumptions about the calibration of these sensors. If the calibration was done correctly there should be no problem. It is not clear to me whether it was done correctly or not. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
What is new in LENR is how high power magnetic force interacts with the vacuum, nuclear matter, and associated orbital electrons. On Mon, Oct 27, 2014 at 9:35 PM, Kevin O'Malley kevmol...@gmail.com wrote: We cannot even assume that it follows the laws of physics? ***A law is just a mathematically rigorous observation. It is not a dictate from nature. LENR is a field of study precisely because the laws of physics are being broken. It's as if you took some bricks and dropped them from the leaning tower of Pisa just as Newton did, and instead of falling at 1/2gt^2, sometimes the bricks that are sprinkled with a minute amount of pixie dust drop at 2X the acceleration as normal. The mathematically vigorous observation no longer applies under these weird conditions. It wouldn't be a problem if science actually worked the way science was supposed to, but in this case there are entrenched interests in science that would lose their funding if they accepted that the pixie dust bricks actually did fall at the rate described. On 10/27/14, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Nobody really knows how the E-Cat radiates energy. It radiates heat energy according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, like any other object. The source of the heat is irrelevant. All hot objects radiate heat the same way, and they all turn the same incandescent color at a given temperature. It makes no difference whether the heat is caused by combustion, electricity, friction, fission, fusion or zero point energy. Ni/H is completely undefined technology. No assumptions should be made about LENR. We cannot even assume that it follows the laws of physics? If we make no assumptions about it then we cannot believe any calorimetry. The IR camera calibration is an excellent opportunity to made bad assumptions about the calibration of these sensors. If the calibration was done correctly there should be no problem. It is not clear to me whether it was done correctly or not. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
I read the report you linked to. Their main argument is that CCDs response at the temperature the ecat is operating at has a low reaction curve, i.e. the reaction to temperature change flattens out so it's harder to get an accurate reading with a change in temperature. The method that Williamson is using is a Spot Pyrometer which uses emissivity or for a better word reflectance, that's why they are concerned with the transparency of the object they are measuring at IR wavelengths. Williamson says they have looked at alumina at various temperatures and have included it's varying emissivity into an algorithm to give accurate temperature readings. Since alumina is opaque at the temperature of the ecat and the wavelengths they were measuring in the Lugano report, were of between 7.5u and 13u, they chose the appropriate IR cameras. The only thing that someone might have a question with in regards to the IR cameras and Rossi's ecat is, Were the cameras calibrated properly?, and they say on page 4 of the report that the cameras were calibrated by the respective manufacturers laboratories. Robert Dorr At 10:16 PM 10/25/2014, you wrote: Hank Mills transcript : https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WNDVQVEhmUjJ4ek0/viewhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WNDVQVEhmUjJ4ek0/view But it's still not clear whether they should use 8-14u or 2.5u In any case, their spot pyrometer is most likely more accurate. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.comwww.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8454 - Release Date: 10/25/14 - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8454 - Release Date: 10/25/14
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
As to whether a spot pyrometer is more accurate than an IR camera, I think depends on their use. For small area or pin point measurement I agree that a spot pyrometer may be more accurate, but for large or gross measurement I think the IR camera would be just as accurate if not more so. I think that there is no problem using the IR cameras for accurate measurement of the temperature of the Rossi ecat as long as the cameras were calibrated properly. Robert Dorr At 10:16 PM 10/25/2014, you wrote: Hank Mills transcript : https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WNDVQVEhmUjJ4ek0/viewhttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WNDVQVEhmUjJ4ek0/view But it's still not clear whether they should use 8-14u or 2.5u In any case, their spot pyrometer is most likely more accurate. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.comwww.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8454 - Release Date: 10/25/14 - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8454 - Release Date: 10/25/14
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
Use both as a cross check. harry On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Robert Dorr rod...@comcast.net wrote: As to whether a spot pyrometer is more accurate than an IR camera, I think depends on their use. For small area or pin point measurement I agree that a spot pyrometer may be more accurate, but for large or gross measurement I think the IR camera would be just as accurate if not more so. I think that there is no problem using the IR cameras for accurate measurement of the temperature of the Rossi ecat as long as the cameras were calibrated properly. Robert Dorr At 10:16 PM 10/25/2014, you wrote: Hank Mills transcript : https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WNDVQVEhmUjJ4ek0/view But it's still not clear whether they should use 8-14u or 2.5u In any case, their spot pyrometer is most likely more accurate. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8454 - Release Date: 10/25/14 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8454 - Release Date: 10/25/14
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
The actual measurement that I am interesting in is the amount of power being radiated and convected away from the device. If the effective temperature can be manipulated by some process that results in less than expected power emission, then we are being fooled. That is the root of my reservations. I have little doubt that excess power is being generated internally by the ECAT core, but an accurate accounting of that power eludes me thus far. The earlier version of the ECAT with the black painted surface appears to be subject to less error in these important calculations. It is unfortunate that the latest version remains so difficult to verify. Dave -Original Message- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com To: vortex-l vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sun, Oct 26, 2014 11:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON Use both as a cross check. harry On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Robert Dorr rod...@comcast.net wrote: As to whether a spot pyrometer is more accurate than an IR camera, Ithink depends on their use. For small area or pin point measurement Iagree that a spot pyrometer may be more accurate, but for large or grossmeasurement I think the IR camera would be just as accurate if not moreso. I think that there is no problem using the IR cameras for accuratemeasurement of the temperature of the Rossi ecat as long as the cameraswere calibrated properly. Robert Dorr At 10:16 PM 10/25/2014, you wrote: Hank Mills transcript :https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WNDVQVEhmUjJ4ek0/view But it's still not clear whether they should use 8-14u or 2.5u In any case, their spot pyrometer is most likely more accurate. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8454 - Release Date:10/25/14 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8454 - Release Date: 10/25/14
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
From: Robert Dorr rod...@comcast.net Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 5:51:57 PM If you measured at 2.5u you would be dealing with IR directly emitted from the interior of the hot cat because at that wavelength the alumina would be somewhat transparent to IR. Measuring at the wavelengths they did the IR cameras were only reading the surface temperature because of aluminas's opaqueness at wavelengths above approximately 3.5u. Almost everyone gets hung up on the visible wavelength pictures that were published in the report. They bear almost no relation to what the IR cameras were observing. Robert Dorr - - - - This was one of the sections where they were talking over each other. I couldn't really tell if the Williamson guy was warning AGAINST using 2.5u, or recommending FOR it!!!
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
Hank Mills transcript : https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WNDVQVEhmUjJ4ek0/view But it's still not clear whether they should use 8-14u or 2.5u In any case, their spot pyrometer is most likely more accurate.
[Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
MFMP interviews a spokesman for the company Williamson which specializes in non-contact temperature measurement. They discuss the problem of measuring the temperature of Alumina at higher temperatures. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3O3bSu6N7vwcDJUWGl1Y0pmTWs/edit?pli=1 (15 min. audio only must be downloaded to listen) Harry
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
Worth listening to, but they were talking at cross-purposes at times. 3-way complication between reflectance, emission and transmission. Said that wires could cause shadows. (But not, by my analysis from a diffuse source. unless the wire is very close to the surface). Their system can be used to *determine* the emissivity. I *think* they said it would be better to measure Alumina at a lower wavelength (2.5u?) and not in the IR band (8-14)? So far, I see no reason to budge from my initial evaluation of inconclusive. But just one more nail in the coffin and I might downgrade that to failed. (But a failed experiment doesn't necessarily mean the ecat doesn't work). In short, they were nuts to stick with the hotcat/IR calorimetry, and should have asked for a fatcat with water (non-steam) calorimetry. ps : I have a black body / emissivity simulator under construction. But will it rescue or kill the results? - Original Message - From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 2:50:05 PM MFMP interviews a spokesman for the company Williamson which specializes in non-contact temperature measurement. They discuss the problem of measuring the temperature of Alumina at higher temperatures. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3O3bSu6N7vwcDJUWGl1Y0pmTWs/edit?pli=1 (15 min. audio only must be downloaded to listen) Harry
Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON
If you measured at 2.5u you would be dealing with IR directly emitted from the interior of the hot cat because at that wavelength the alumina would be somewhat transparent to IR. Measuring at the wavelengths they did the IR cameras were only reading the surface temperature because of aluminas's opaqueness at wavelengths above approximately 3.5u. Almost everyone gets hung up on the visible wavelength pictures that were published in the report. They bear almost no relation to what the IR cameras were observing. Robert Dorr At 04:51 PM 10/24/2014, you wrote: Worth listening to, but they were talking at cross-purposes at times. 3-way complication between reflectance, emission and transmission. Said that wires could cause shadows. (But not, by my analysis from a diffuse source. unless the wire is very close to the surface). Their system can be used to *determine* the emissivity. I *think* they said it would be better to measure Alumina at a lower wavelength (2.5u?) and not in the IR band (8-14)? So far, I see no reason to budge from my initial evaluation of inconclusive. But just one more nail in the coffin and I might downgrade that to failed. (But a failed experiment doesn't necessarily mean the ecat doesn't work). In short, they were nuts to stick with the hotcat/IR calorimetry, and should have asked for a fatcat with water (non-steam) calorimetry. ps : I have a black body / emissivity simulator under construction. But will it rescue or kill the results? -- From: H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 2:50:05 PM MFMP interviews a spokesman for the company Williamson which specializes in non-contact temperature measurement. They discuss the problem of measuring the temperature of Alumina at higher temperatures. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3O3bSu6N7vwcDJUWGl1Y0pmTWs/edit?pli=1https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3O3bSu6N7vwcDJUWGl1Y0pmTWs/edit?pli=1 (15 min. audio only must be downloaded to listen) Harry No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.comwww.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8448 - Release Date: 10/24/14 - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8448 - Release Date: 10/24/14
