I know nothing about emissivity....
Sounds like a lot of high brow hooey to me...
Been around a lot of heat in my day....mostly heat treatment, testing, steel alloy experimentation foundry work.
In all those years of setting up themocouples, monitoring devices, programmable logic controllers to maintain, time and log heating cycles we never painted a test piece. Not ever for any reason. There never was a need and it eliminates a visual clue or indications that there is a problem developing. Metals change color and texture just prior to failure or structural bonding issues arising...and we did a lot of stuff for the government and private companies in all sorts of areas to include Woods Hole Oceanographic, Northrup, Lockheed and others.....So we tested metals and made parts and structures to certain design tolerances of temperature, pressure and stress.
Never painted a piece that was undergoing heat cycles or testing. We used thermal optics but relied on multiple thermo couples. Once the structures were completed and checked, they got painted, usually white. Special bonding paint used for under coat or primer.
From my experience the only thing that a dark or black heat resistant paint on the vessel that is essentially a one off, one use container, is to obscure the heat signature, not to enhance it. It would muddle the picture making hot or cold spots disappear which makes the use of such a accurate digital camera more or less a waste of time. All they could see was the average heating of the vessel with no details of what was emanating from inside or where. At least you see that with multiple thermocouples.
That was not needed. What little reflection they would have seen in the camera could have been compensated for by adjustment and they did say that they shot the vessel at a low angle to prevent this yet the piece was painted.. so was the second but with a different paint. Must have run out and according to the observer they did a crappy job of painting with thin areas and thick ones.
It was enough to get my attention. I think what they were trying to show is exactly what they did show. A high heat output and a low power input to make the result impressive. But nothing more or less. That is why the paint and the waveform doctoring which I can only assume was pulsating DC...as it would be the lowest power way of heating those coils. It also reduces the probability of failure of a ni-chrome element over the length of the test.
If they are going to these length’s to test better, then what would happen if and when someone tries to duplicate it. Or perhaps this was not a test at all and was just a show for the testing people.
Then there is the matter of the reactor being started before the witnesses even arrived on the first test. Why did they not wait?....what were they trying to avoid...?
Just using you as a sounding board because you more or less prompted me into it. As you can see, I don’t rust anyone. And that mistrust pays off frequently.
So no...I don’t know anything about emissivity, but I do know that the paint was not necessary for the test. Without it you would have seen in the image any hot spots, cold spots etc...With a high temp coating on the test piece you are looking through a dirty lense and you cannot discern details that might be needed for evaluation. I’m sorry, but I’m not buying the excuse. Just like I don’t buy a lot of things that occurred with this experiment.
It’s either not ready for prime time, and they are hiding this fact, or what they have is smoke and mirrors... or they are paranoid schizophrenics..You pick it because I can’t tell much when everyone is not being truthful, hiding the truth, or simply faking it...
Read more closely. At one point they "did" cross check the camera with a direct sensor (thermocouple) measurement. The thermal camera is simply the fastest and easiest way to get a overall profile of the whole reactor without needing a mass of spaghetti hooked up to a zillion thermocouples.
I repeat, the whole emissivity issue is a giant red herring, and your "dirty window" scenario is simply bogus.
I have to admit you have a very active imagination at thinking up possible reasons thing might be wrong. Unfortunately, all of those reasons have already been discussed, debated, and disproved by prior tests or analysis, of which you are simply ignorant.
"Yesterday when I read the PDF I noted another anomaly with the control test. In addition to it not being painted (if I read that right) They did not even put the end caps on it!"
The pictures of the reactor I saw had endcaps, and at least one writeup describes not only the endcaps, but how they were joined to the reactor.
"But I can say without much reservation that what they did will not be nearly enough to satisfy many people..maybe a few dreamers..."
And I can say without reservation that you haven't done enough homework..the vast majority of your objections have already been addressed in other experimental and/or theoretical papers on these and other tests done on Rossi's reactors.
And, of course, there are some people who will NEVER be satisfied, no matter what amount or kind of data is presented....that's why they are called "pathological skeptics" (which handle, please note, I am NOT applying to you....or at least not yet).