I don't think that is the reason for the Lugano appearance. The Lugano reactor was like an incandescent light bulb and it was not analyzed that way. If you analyzed an incandescent light bulb, the appearance and its radiated power would not be represented by the temperature of the glass envelope. Yes, the glass envelope temperature will be what you want to use for the envelope convection power and envelope contribution to the radiation power. However, you must use the temperature of the filament and the transmission response of the glass envelope to determine the radiated power. At the Lugano temperatures, radiated power dominated and the transparency of the alumina was unknown and not factored into the equation.
Back to the light bulb, the glass envelope temperature may only be 80C, but you would hardly ascribe its heat + light energy output or visual appearance to be that of a blackbody radiator at 80C. On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:47 PM, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > An energy distribution whose peak becomes higher at lower temperatures > might help to explain > why the Lugano reactor's surface temperature appeared to be too high > for how it looked visually. > > Harry > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:20 PM, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > > How about the Maxwell-boltzmann distribution? > > http://ibchem.com/IB/ibnotes/full/sta_htm/Maxwell_Boltzmann.htm > > > > Lower temperatures have higher peaks which is the opposite of a > > blackbody distribution. > > > > Harry > > > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 12:45 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> One of the researchers that I discussed this with suggested that the > >> spectrum looked like a blackbody radiation. I did some analysis and can > >> tell you that it does NOT look like blackbody radiation. Blackbody > >> radiation cuts off very sharply on the high energy side. At 100 million > >> degrees, there would be some energy at 100keV, but by the time it got to > >> 1MeV, the blackbody radiation would have declined by 40 orders of > magnitude. > >> That is not what is seen here. > >> > >> It is really hard to explain a continuous spectrum that looks like it > >> probably spans at least 2 orders of magnitude in photon energy with > maximum > >> energies over 1MeV. The best explanations so far (and there has not > been a > >> chance for widespread vetting) are that it is due to: 1) Bremsstrahlung > >> from really high energy light charged particles [electrons, positrons] > with > >> a distribution of energy, or 2) interference in the NaI detector by a > flux > >> of neutral particles causing the apparent spectrum by activation of the > Na, > >> I, and Th in the detector crystal. > >> > >> Thank you for the links. I will have a look these papers. > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:29 AM, Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> The peak is at least 10x more than that of you provided... > >>> > >>> Bob Higgins, in my work with Akito, I proposed that in cold fusion you > >>> have, unlike the conventional fusion, the fusion of more than 2 nuclei. > >>> There are not experiments with more than 2 nuclei fusioning (C12 is > formed > >>> by B8, which is stable for 10^-15s, I am talking here of something > less than > >>> 10^-23s in coincidence). This will form an excited ball that will > shine at a > >>> few kev. There will surely be brehmstralung, from this weak gama rays. > >>> > >>> http://vixra.org/abs/1209.0057 > >>> > >>> http://vixra.org/abs/1401.0202 > >> > >> > >
