AFAIK, the Lugano team never publicly commented on the errors found in their analyses. Tom Clarke makes a good case for some portions of the surface envelope to be at 780C. If this were the whole story, the reactor would have been seen as a barely detectable red glow. MFMP found in its replica that the roots of the ridges were 50C hotter than the tips of the ridges. But, even this doesn't explain the appearance. Alumina is well known to transmit a lot of light in the visible, and we see that in the visible light pictures. I think this is a case like the incandescent light bulb, where you cannot use the 1 surface temperature to characterize anything but the convection which was a small part of the overall output power.
On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 1:31 PM, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > If I remember correctly, the Lugano team did not provide any internal > temperatures. They only reported the surface temperatures which were > high enough that the reactor should have glowed white hot if it > behaved like an incandescent body. However, as Jed pointed out, the > pictures they provided were more consistent with an incandescent body > at a lower surface lower temperature. Most people decided this was a > consequence of their camera's settings. Did the Lugano team say this > was reason? > > Harry > > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 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 > >> >
