Re: [Vo]:A simpler test
Reminds me of "The Electric Universe Theory" including the *Safire Project* .
RE: [Vo]:A simpler test
There is a small earth to air current. Very weak but measurable. There were attempts to gather this current with balloons covered with spikes, hundreds of feet up. So, I guess the earth is negative. From: H LV Sent: Monday, April 25, 2022 3:02 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A simpler test What do you mean by the Earth's relative charge? Does it have net positive or negative charge relative to deep space? Harry On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:50 AM Chris Zell mailto:chrisz...@wetmtv.com>> wrote: Could there be a way to generate energy by ‘transmitting away’ the earth’s relative charge into neutral space? Using something similar to this method? From: H LV mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2022 12:33 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com> Subject: Re: [Vo]:A simpler test Update... I haven't done any experiments yet, but I have refined my thinking about the nature of cooling or frigorific radiation. Instead of striving for extremely low temperatures, I recently realised it should be possible to look for cooling radiation between bodies which have a large relative temperature difference. Also I was worried that if frigorific radiation were real then we should readily detect a cooling effect on our eyes or instruments every time a telescope is aimed into the cold depths of space. Does the fact that no one has reported such a cooling effect mean frigorific radiation doesn't exist. Not necessarily. Such a conclusion is based on the assumption that when a concentrator of a given size focuses cooling radiation from a colder body the effective cooling power increases as the temperature of the colder body decreases in the same way as the effective heating power of a hotter body increases as the temperature of the hotter body increases. However, if cooling power does not scale like heating power, then using a thermometer to detect cooling from radiation from deep space at 3 degree Kelvin will probably require a concentrator (i.e. a telescope) that is much larger than any current or planned telescope. Harry On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 9:18 PM H LV mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> wrote: Some telescopes by virtue of their design should already be capable of revealing cooling radiation if it existed. eg. This telescope consists of a primary parabolic reflector and three secondary mirrors which direct the collected light into an instrument room several meters away from the primary reflector. See the first few two photos on this page: http://www.vikdhillon.staff.shef.ac.uk/teaching/phy217/telescopes/phy217_tel_coude.html<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vikdhillon.staff.shef.ac.uk%2Fteaching%2Fphy217%2Ftelescopes%2Fphy217_tel_coude.html&data=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C03ded8ade33b48add9af08da26ee10de%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C637865101179940425%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=9yd6F%2FEnsmiWWzjNwSC%2Bg5MRqJMUEAiuZOk7PsLVpOU%3D&reserved=0> This telescope should be capable of focusing enough frigorific radiation it could be sensed by a hand crossing the path of the beam in the instrument room. It seems unlikely that such an odd cooling sensation would go unreported. Therefore it is likely frigorific radiation is not real. Harry On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 4:43 PM MSF mailto:foster...@protonmail.com>> wrote: > > Don't forget to give us the result of your experiment if you do it. > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 9:06 PM, MSF > mailto:foster...@protonmail.com>> wrote: > > > Now that we have learned about all there is to learn about the acquisition > > and preservation of dry ice, I think you're right about this test. The > > double parabola test you initially proposed would not have proved or > > disproved cooling radiation. The dry ice at the focus would have been a > > radiative heat sink and would have lowered the temperature at the other > > focus. At least that's my opinion of it. > > > > The simpler test you propose really demonstrates the idea of cooling > > radiation as its own wave phenomenon, if it exists. > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 5:35 PM, H LV > > hveeder...@gmail.com<mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > From a fabrication standpoint here is an even simpler test for cooling > > > > > > radiation. > > > > > > It consists of a truncated cone lined with reflective mylar on the > > > > > > inside. The wide end is open to the sky and a thermometer is located > > > > > > at the vertex of the cone. > > &g
Re: [Vo]:A simpler test
What do you mean by the Earth's relative charge? Does it have net positive or negative charge relative to deep space? Harry On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 9:50 AM Chris Zell wrote: > Could there be a way to generate energy by ‘transmitting away’ the earth’s > relative charge into neutral space? Using something similar to this method? > > > > *From:* H LV > *Sent:* Saturday, April 23, 2022 12:33 PM > *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:A simpler test > > > > Update... > > I haven't done any experiments yet, but I have refined my thinking about > the nature of cooling or frigorific radiation. > > Instead of striving for extremely low temperatures, I recently realised it > should be possible to look for cooling radiation between bodies which have > a large relative temperature difference. > > Also I was worried that if frigorific radiation were real then we should > readily detect a cooling effect on our eyes or instruments every time > a telescope is aimed into the cold depths of space. Does the fact that no > one has reported such a cooling effect mean frigorific radiation doesn't > exist. Not necessarily. Such a conclusion is based on the assumption that > when a concentrator of a given size focuses cooling radiation from a colder > body the effective cooling power increases as the temperature of the colder > body decreases in the same way as the effective heating power of a hotter > body increases as the temperature of the hotter body increases. > > However, if cooling power does not scale like heating power, then using a > thermometer to detect cooling from radiation from deep space at 3 degree > Kelvin will probably require a concentrator (i.e. a telescope) that is > much larger than any current or planned telescope. > > Harry > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 9:18 PM H LV wrote: > > Some telescopes by virtue of their design should already be capable of > revealing cooling radiation if it existed. > > eg. This telescope consists of a primary parabolic reflector and three > secondary mirrors which direct the collected light into an instrument > room several meters away from the primary reflector. See the first few > two photos on this page: > > http://www.vikdhillon.staff.shef.ac.uk/teaching/phy217/telescopes/phy217_tel_coude.html > <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vikdhillon.staff.shef.ac.uk%2Fteaching%2Fphy217%2Ftelescopes%2Fphy217_tel_coude.html&data=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C6c40de11cfcc42272b5308da2546fc60%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C637863284070654675%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Sx9LB61KIIrzYTh0HTFHENF3vzd6vQPnM%2BCbe11lLh4%3D&reserved=0> > > This telescope should be capable of focusing enough frigorific > radiation it could be sensed by a hand crossing the path of the beam > in the instrument room. It seems unlikely that such an odd cooling > sensation would go unreported. Therefore it is likely frigorific > radiation is not real. > > > Harry > > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 4:43 PM MSF wrote: > > > > Don't forget to give us the result of your experiment if you do it. > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 9:06 PM, MSF > wrote: > > > > > Now that we have learned about all there is to learn about the > acquisition and preservation of dry ice, I think you're right about this > test. The double parabola test you initially proposed would not have proved > or disproved cooling radiation. The dry ice at the focus would have been a > radiative heat sink and would have lowered the temperature at the other > focus. At least that's my opinion of it. > > > > > > The simpler test you propose really demonstrates the idea of cooling > radiation as its own wave phenomenon, if it exists. > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > > > On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 5:35 PM, H LV hveeder...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > > > From a fabrication standpoint here is an even simpler test for > cooling > > > > > > > > radiation. > > > > > > > > It consists of a truncated cone lined with reflective mylar on the > > > > > > > > inside. The wide end is open to the sky and a thermometer is located > > > > > > > > at the vertex of the cone. > > > > > > > > See diagram: > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p7coRgUqwzMGw40DhUQzJACCyHrd8EL5/view?usp=shari
Re: [Vo]:A simpler test
For cooling a building you can use highly reflective (99.8%) paint. Such a building can stay 3C below ambient without addition al cooling. Search for "Full Daytime Sub-ambient Radiative Cooling with High Figure of Merit in Commercial-like Paints" J.W. On 25.04.2022 15:50, Chris Zell wrote: Could there be a way to generate energy by ‘transmitting away’ the earth’s relative charge into neutral space? Using something similar to this method? *From:*H LV *Sent:* Saturday, April 23, 2022 12:33 PM *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:A simpler test Update... I haven't done any experiments yet, but I have refined my thinking about the nature of cooling or frigorific radiation. Instead of striving for extremely low temperatures, I recently realised it should be possible to look for cooling radiation between bodies which have a large relative temperature difference. Also I was worried that if frigorific radiation were real then we should readily detect a cooling effect on our eyes or instruments every time a telescope is aimed into the cold depths of space. Does the fact that no one has reported such a cooling effect mean frigorific radiation doesn't exist. Not necessarily. Such a conclusion is based on the assumption that when a concentrator of a given size focuses cooling radiation from a colder body the effective cooling power increases as the temperature of the colder body decreases in the same way as the effective heating power of a hotter body increases as the temperature of the hotter body increases. However, if cooling power does not scale like heating power, then using a thermometer to detect cooling from radiation from deep space at 3 degree Kelvin will probably require a concentrator (i.e. a telescope) that is much larger than any current or planned telescope. Harry On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 9:18 PM H LV wrote: Some telescopes by virtue of their design should already be capable of revealing cooling radiation if it existed. eg. This telescope consists of a primary parabolic reflector and three secondary mirrors which direct the collected light into an instrument room several meters away from the primary reflector. See the first few two photos on this page: http://www.vikdhillon.staff.shef.ac.uk/teaching/phy217/telescopes/phy217_tel_coude.html <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vikdhillon.staff.shef.ac.uk%2Fteaching%2Fphy217%2Ftelescopes%2Fphy217_tel_coude.html&data=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C6c40de11cfcc42272b5308da2546fc60%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C637863284070654675%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Sx9LB61KIIrzYTh0HTFHENF3vzd6vQPnM%2BCbe11lLh4%3D&reserved=0> This telescope should be capable of focusing enough frigorific radiation it could be sensed by a hand crossing the path of the beam in the instrument room. It seems unlikely that such an odd cooling sensation would go unreported. Therefore it is likely frigorific radiation is not real. Harry On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 4:43 PM MSF wrote: > > Don't forget to give us the result of your experiment if you do it. > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 9:06 PM, MSF wrote: > > > Now that we have learned about all there is to learn about the acquisition and preservation of dry ice, I think you're right about this test. The double parabola test you initially proposed would not have proved or disproved cooling radiation. The dry ice at the focus would have been a radiative heat sink and would have lowered the temperature at the other focus. At least that's my opinion of it. > > > > The simpler test you propose really demonstrates the idea of cooling radiation as its own wave phenomenon, if it exists. > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 5:35 PM, H LV hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > From a fabrication standpoint here is an even simpler test for cooling > > > > > > radiation. > > > > > > It consists of a truncated cone lined with reflective mylar on the > > > > > > inside. The wide end is open to the sky and a thermometer is located > > > > > > at the vertex of the cone. > > > > > > See diagram: > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p7coRgUqwzMGw40DhUQzJACCyHrd8EL5/view?usp=sharing <https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https
RE: [Vo]:A simpler test
Could there be a way to generate energy by ‘transmitting away’ the earth’s relative charge into neutral space? Using something similar to this method? From: H LV Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2022 12:33 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:A simpler test Update... I haven't done any experiments yet, but I have refined my thinking about the nature of cooling or frigorific radiation. Instead of striving for extremely low temperatures, I recently realised it should be possible to look for cooling radiation between bodies which have a large relative temperature difference. Also I was worried that if frigorific radiation were real then we should readily detect a cooling effect on our eyes or instruments every time a telescope is aimed into the cold depths of space. Does the fact that no one has reported such a cooling effect mean frigorific radiation doesn't exist. Not necessarily. Such a conclusion is based on the assumption that when a concentrator of a given size focuses cooling radiation from a colder body the effective cooling power increases as the temperature of the colder body decreases in the same way as the effective heating power of a hotter body increases as the temperature of the hotter body increases. However, if cooling power does not scale like heating power, then using a thermometer to detect cooling from radiation from deep space at 3 degree Kelvin will probably require a concentrator (i.e. a telescope) that is much larger than any current or planned telescope. Harry On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 9:18 PM H LV mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> wrote: Some telescopes by virtue of their design should already be capable of revealing cooling radiation if it existed. eg. This telescope consists of a primary parabolic reflector and three secondary mirrors which direct the collected light into an instrument room several meters away from the primary reflector. See the first few two photos on this page: http://www.vikdhillon.staff.shef.ac.uk/teaching/phy217/telescopes/phy217_tel_coude.html<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vikdhillon.staff.shef.ac.uk%2Fteaching%2Fphy217%2Ftelescopes%2Fphy217_tel_coude.html&data=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C6c40de11cfcc42272b5308da2546fc60%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C637863284070654675%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=Sx9LB61KIIrzYTh0HTFHENF3vzd6vQPnM%2BCbe11lLh4%3D&reserved=0> This telescope should be capable of focusing enough frigorific radiation it could be sensed by a hand crossing the path of the beam in the instrument room. It seems unlikely that such an odd cooling sensation would go unreported. Therefore it is likely frigorific radiation is not real. Harry On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 4:43 PM MSF mailto:foster...@protonmail.com>> wrote: > > Don't forget to give us the result of your experiment if you do it. > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 9:06 PM, MSF > mailto:foster...@protonmail.com>> wrote: > > > Now that we have learned about all there is to learn about the acquisition > > and preservation of dry ice, I think you're right about this test. The > > double parabola test you initially proposed would not have proved or > > disproved cooling radiation. The dry ice at the focus would have been a > > radiative heat sink and would have lowered the temperature at the other > > focus. At least that's my opinion of it. > > > > The simpler test you propose really demonstrates the idea of cooling > > radiation as its own wave phenomenon, if it exists. > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 5:35 PM, H LV > > hveeder...@gmail.com<mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > From a fabrication standpoint here is an even simpler test for cooling > > > > > > radiation. > > > > > > It consists of a truncated cone lined with reflective mylar on the > > > > > > inside. The wide end is open to the sky and a thermometer is located > > > > > > at the vertex of the cone. > > > > > > See diagram: > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p7coRgUqwzMGw40DhUQzJACCyHrd8EL5/view?usp=sharing<https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdrive.google.com%2Ffile%2Fd%2F1p7coRgUqwzMGw40DhUQzJACCyHrd8EL5%2Fview%3Fusp%3Dsharing&data=05%7C01%7CChrisZell%40wetmtv.com%7C6c40de11cfcc42272b5308da2546fc60%7C9e5488e2e83844f6886cc7608242767e%7C0%7C0%7C637863284070654675%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=AP9LegjrYacrBpvIuK6SBYCpTP1NJifWdbYK%2BGIZ
Re: [Vo]:A simpler test
Update... I haven't done any experiments yet, but I have refined my thinking about the nature of cooling or frigorific radiation. Instead of striving for extremely low temperatures, I recently realised it should be possible to look for cooling radiation between bodies which have a large relative temperature difference. Also I was worried that if frigorific radiation were real then we should readily detect a cooling effect on our eyes or instruments every time a telescope is aimed into the cold depths of space. Does the fact that no one has reported such a cooling effect mean frigorific radiation doesn't exist. Not necessarily. Such a conclusion is based on the assumption that when a concentrator of a given size focuses cooling radiation from a colder body the effective cooling power increases as the temperature of the colder body decreases in the same way as the effective heating power of a hotter body increases as the temperature of the hotter body increases. However, if cooling power does not scale like heating power, then using a thermometer to detect cooling from radiation from deep space at 3 degree Kelvin will probably require a concentrator (i.e. a telescope) that is much larger than any current or planned telescope. Harry On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 9:18 PM H LV wrote: > Some telescopes by virtue of their design should already be capable of > revealing cooling radiation if it existed. > > eg. This telescope consists of a primary parabolic reflector and three > secondary mirrors which direct the collected light into an instrument > room several meters away from the primary reflector. See the first few > two photos on this page: > > http://www.vikdhillon.staff.shef.ac.uk/teaching/phy217/telescopes/phy217_tel_coude.html > > This telescope should be capable of focusing enough frigorific > radiation it could be sensed by a hand crossing the path of the beam > in the instrument room. It seems unlikely that such an odd cooling > sensation would go unreported. Therefore it is likely frigorific > radiation is not real. > > > Harry > > > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 4:43 PM MSF wrote: > > > > Don't forget to give us the result of your experiment if you do it. > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 9:06 PM, MSF > wrote: > > > > > Now that we have learned about all there is to learn about the > acquisition and preservation of dry ice, I think you're right about this > test. The double parabola test you initially proposed would not have proved > or disproved cooling radiation. The dry ice at the focus would have been a > radiative heat sink and would have lowered the temperature at the other > focus. At least that's my opinion of it. > > > > > > The simpler test you propose really demonstrates the idea of cooling > radiation as its own wave phenomenon, if it exists. > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > > > On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 5:35 PM, H LV hveeder...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > > > > > From a fabrication standpoint here is an even simpler test for > cooling > > > > > > > > radiation. > > > > > > > > It consists of a truncated cone lined with reflective mylar on the > > > > > > > > inside. The wide end is open to the sky and a thermometer is located > > > > > > > > at the vertex of the cone. > > > > > > > > See diagram: > > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p7coRgUqwzMGw40DhUQzJACCyHrd8EL5/view?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > If cooling radiation does not exist then the temperature of the > > > > > > > > thermometer should be about the same or perhaps slightly warmer when > > > > > > > > the cone is above it. > > > > > > > > However, if cooling radiation is real and has wave-like properties > > > > > > > > then the cone should focus the cooling radiation from the sky onto > the > > > > > > > > thermometer and lower its temperature. > > > > > > > > Harry > > >
Re: [Vo]:A simpler test
Then again, it could be that most of the frigorific radiation that could be detected with such instruments is either scattered or absorbed by the atmosphere before it reaches the ground. This would actually make sense from the standpoint of frigorific theory since the upper atmosphere is colder than lower atmosphere. I am going to need some sort of cold substance one way or the other. Harry On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 9:21 PM H LV wrote: > > Some telescopes by virtue of their design should already be capable of > revealing cooling radiation if it existed. > > eg. This telescope consists of a primary parabolic reflector and three > secondary mirrors which direct the collected light into an instrument > room several meters away from the primary reflector. See the first > two photos on this page: > http://www.vikdhillon.staff.shef.ac.uk/teaching/phy217/telescopes/phy217_tel_coude.html > > This telescope should be capable of focusing enough frigorific > radiation that it could be sensed by a hand crossing the path of the beam > in the instrument room. It seems unlikely that such an odd cooling > sensation would go unreported. Therefore it is likely frigorific > radiation is not real. > > > Harry > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 4:43 PM MSF wrote: > > > > Don't forget to give us the result of your experiment if you do it. > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 9:06 PM, MSF > > wrote: > > > > > Now that we have learned about all there is to learn about the > > > acquisition and preservation of dry ice, I think you're right about this > > > test. The double parabola test you initially proposed would not have > > > proved or disproved cooling radiation. The dry ice at the focus would > > > have been a radiative heat sink and would have lowered the temperature at > > > the other focus. At least that's my opinion of it. > > > > > > The simpler test you propose really demonstrates the idea of cooling > > > radiation as its own wave phenomenon, if it exists. > > > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > > > On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 5:35 PM, H LV hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > From a fabrication standpoint here is an even simpler test for cooling > > > > > > > > radiation. > > > > > > > > It consists of a truncated cone lined with reflective mylar on the > > > > > > > > inside. The wide end is open to the sky and a thermometer is located > > > > > > > > at the vertex of the cone. > > > > > > > > See diagram: > > > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p7coRgUqwzMGw40DhUQzJACCyHrd8EL5/view?usp=sharing > > > > > > > > If cooling radiation does not exist then the temperature of the > > > > > > > > thermometer should be about the same or perhaps slightly warmer when > > > > > > > > the cone is above it. > > > > > > > > However, if cooling radiation is real and has wave-like properties > > > > > > > > then the cone should focus the cooling radiation from the sky onto the > > > > > > > > thermometer and lower its temperature. > > > > > > > > Harry > >
Re: [Vo]:A simpler test
Some telescopes by virtue of their design should already be capable of revealing cooling radiation if it existed. eg. This telescope consists of a primary parabolic reflector and three secondary mirrors which direct the collected light into an instrument room several meters away from the primary reflector. See the first two photos on this page: http://www.vikdhillon.staff.shef.ac.uk/teaching/phy217/telescopes/phy217_tel_coude.html This telescope should be capable of focusing enough frigorific radiation that it could be sensed by a hand crossing the path of the beam in the instrument room. It seems unlikely that such an odd cooling sensation would go unreported. Therefore it is likely frigorific radiation is not real. Harry On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 4:43 PM MSF wrote: > > Don't forget to give us the result of your experiment if you do it. > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 9:06 PM, MSF > wrote: > > > Now that we have learned about all there is to learn about the acquisition > > and preservation of dry ice, I think you're right about this test. The > > double parabola test you initially proposed would not have proved or > > disproved cooling radiation. The dry ice at the focus would have been a > > radiative heat sink and would have lowered the temperature at the other > > focus. At least that's my opinion of it. > > > > The simpler test you propose really demonstrates the idea of cooling > > radiation as its own wave phenomenon, if it exists. > > > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > > > On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 5:35 PM, H LV hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > From a fabrication standpoint here is an even simpler test for cooling > > > > > > radiation. > > > > > > It consists of a truncated cone lined with reflective mylar on the > > > > > > inside. The wide end is open to the sky and a thermometer is located > > > > > > at the vertex of the cone. > > > > > > See diagram: > > > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p7coRgUqwzMGw40DhUQzJACCyHrd8EL5/view?usp=sharing > > > > > > If cooling radiation does not exist then the temperature of the > > > > > > thermometer should be about the same or perhaps slightly warmer when > > > > > > the cone is above it. > > > > > > However, if cooling radiation is real and has wave-like properties > > > > > > then the cone should focus the cooling radiation from the sky onto the > > > > > > thermometer and lower its temperature. > > > > > > Harry >
Re: [Vo]:A simpler test
On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 4:06 PM MSF wrote: > > Now that we have learned about all there is to learn about the acquisition > and preservation of dry ice, I think you're right about this test. The double > parabola test you initially proposed would not have proved or disproved > cooling radiation. The dry ice at the focus would have been a radiative heat > sink and would have lowered the temperature at the other focus. At least > that's my opinion of it. > When this double parabola experiment was originally done over 200 years Marc-Auguste Pictet came to a similar conclusion while at the same time Count Rumford saw it as evidence of cooling radiation. I proposed that a single elliptical reflector could yield a clearer answer, but it is harder to make than a parabolic reflector. > The simpler test you propose really demonstrates the idea of cooling > radiation as its own wave phenomenon, if it exists. > Using the sky as a source of cold is my idea, but Count Rumford went on to indoor experiments with a cone and some ice. His cone was made of polished brass I believe and was similar to speaking tubes which were used as hearing aids at the time. He reported finding a cooling effect using a thermoscope placed at the small end of the cone, but the details are vague and nobody else seems to have tried to repeat his experiment. Harry > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 5:35 PM, H LV wrote: > > > From a fabrication standpoint here is an even simpler test for cooling > > > > radiation. > > > > It consists of a truncated cone lined with reflective mylar on the > > > > inside. The wide end is open to the sky and a thermometer is located > > > > at the vertex of the cone. > > > > See diagram: > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p7coRgUqwzMGw40DhUQzJACCyHrd8EL5/view?usp=sharing > > > > If cooling radiation does not exist then the temperature of the > > > > thermometer should be about the same or perhaps slightly warmer when > > > > the cone is above it. > > > > However, if cooling radiation is real and has wave-like properties > > > > then the cone should focus the cooling radiation from the sky onto the > > > > thermometer and lower its temperature. > > > > Harry >
Re: [Vo]:A simpler test
Don't forget to give us the result of your experiment if you do it. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 9:06 PM, MSF wrote: > Now that we have learned about all there is to learn about the acquisition > and preservation of dry ice, I think you're right about this test. The double > parabola test you initially proposed would not have proved or disproved > cooling radiation. The dry ice at the focus would have been a radiative heat > sink and would have lowered the temperature at the other focus. At least > that's my opinion of it. > > The simpler test you propose really demonstrates the idea of cooling > radiation as its own wave phenomenon, if it exists. > > ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ > > On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 5:35 PM, H LV hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: > > > From a fabrication standpoint here is an even simpler test for cooling > > > > radiation. > > > > It consists of a truncated cone lined with reflective mylar on the > > > > inside. The wide end is open to the sky and a thermometer is located > > > > at the vertex of the cone. > > > > See diagram: > > > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p7coRgUqwzMGw40DhUQzJACCyHrd8EL5/view?usp=sharing > > > > If cooling radiation does not exist then the temperature of the > > > > thermometer should be about the same or perhaps slightly warmer when > > > > the cone is above it. > > > > However, if cooling radiation is real and has wave-like properties > > > > then the cone should focus the cooling radiation from the sky onto the > > > > thermometer and lower its temperature. > > > > Harry
Re: [Vo]:A simpler test
Now that we have learned about all there is to learn about the acquisition and preservation of dry ice, I think you're right about this test. The double parabola test you initially proposed would not have proved or disproved cooling radiation. The dry ice at the focus would have been a radiative heat sink and would have lowered the temperature at the other focus. At least that's my opinion of it. The simpler test you propose really demonstrates the idea of cooling radiation as its own wave phenomenon, if it exists. ‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐ On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 5:35 PM, H LV wrote: > From a fabrication standpoint here is an even simpler test for cooling > > radiation. > > It consists of a truncated cone lined with reflective mylar on the > > inside. The wide end is open to the sky and a thermometer is located > > at the vertex of the cone. > > See diagram: > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p7coRgUqwzMGw40DhUQzJACCyHrd8EL5/view?usp=sharing > > If cooling radiation does not exist then the temperature of the > > thermometer should be about the same or perhaps slightly warmer when > > the cone is above it. > > However, if cooling radiation is real and has wave-like properties > > then the cone should focus the cooling radiation from the sky onto the > > thermometer and lower its temperature. > > Harry
[Vo]:A simpler test
>From a fabrication standpoint here is an even simpler test for cooling radiation. It consists of a truncated cone lined with reflective mylar on the inside. The wide end is open to the sky and a thermometer is located at the vertex of the cone. See diagram: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p7coRgUqwzMGw40DhUQzJACCyHrd8EL5/view?usp=sharing If cooling radiation does not exist then the temperature of the thermometer should be about the same or perhaps slightly warmer when the cone is above it. However, if cooling radiation is real and has wave-like properties then the cone should focus the cooling radiation from the sky onto the thermometer and lower its temperature. Harry
