On Feb 29, 2016, at 8:33 PM, H LV wrote: " ... The softest x-rays are stopped by air."
Sorry for nit-picking. I would not say "stopped by air." I would say "loose energy mostly by photoelectric and Compton collisions with oxygen and nitrogen atoms, in air." Ludwik ====================================== > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Russ George <russ.geo...@gmail.com> wrote: >> If x-ray "warming" is taking place then we are at the very simple 'dead >> graduate student' test phase.. a dose of radiation capable of warming >> anything is surely lethal so just look into the lab and count the number of >> dead grad students lying on the floor, any number greater than 0 means a >> dramatic nuclear process in hand :( >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: H LV [mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 5:15 PM >> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com >> Subject: Re: [Vo]:New paper from Jiang in Chinese >> >> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Notice the delayed rise in T4 at the beginning of the experiment. The >>>> >>>> rise in T4 after power is turned off might just be the delayed >>>> dissipation of heat from inside to the outside. >>> >>> >>> I do not think so. Look closely as the power is being reduced, at >>> around time 14:00, shortly before "Power off." (About 7 minutes >>> before.) T4 suddenly pops up, from 110°C up to around 120°C. >>> >>> Maybe that is just noise, but if it is real, it does not look like >>> delayed dissipation to me. >>> >>> Unless the configuration of the cell is changed, I do not see how the >>> dissipation could increase suddenly like that. By "changed" I mean for >>> example, suppose the MgO insulation is wrapped around and attached >>> with adhesive tape. Suppose you loosen the tape. The outside >>> temperature might change suddenly. I doubt anyone would make such >>> changes to the cell during a test. >>> >>> If there were heat left in the cell that had to be dissipated after >>> the power is turned off, I suppose the T4 curve would continue rising >>> at a steady pace for a while, then it would drop off. It would not >>> have leveled off after 13:20. It seems the temperature inside the cell >>> continued in a stable condition if we can believe that either T1 or T2 >>> was working correctly. So there was no large increase in the internal >>> temperature. >>> >>> Granted there was a sudden increase in temperature in T1 and T2. It >>> happens at time 14:20. I just drew some lines on the graph, and I >>> think that T1 and >>> T2 go up and reach a peak about 6 minutes before T4 suddenly >>> increased. T1 continues for 26 minutes at the higher temperature. >>> >>> I would not expect T4 to pop up like that in response to the increase >>> shown by T1 and T2. I would expect T4 to gradually rise in response to >>> that increase. Perhaps it might continue after T1 peaks, but it would >>> be a continual, gradual rise. That kind of slow rise is what T4 does >>> after the initial jump, followed by a gradual decay. >> >> Ok, but if there was so much more heat being produced in the reactor why is >> T1 dropping so quickly while T4 is gradually rising? >> Maybe the surface (see the diagram) on which the sensor was mounted was >> warmed by a burst of xrays. >> >> harry >> >> >
