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 <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 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
