Ok. Presumably they would have caught their error had they succeeded in attaching a thermocouple to the surface of the reactor right over the reaction chamber.
Harry On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Bob Higgins <rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 >> >> > >
