On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> From: H Veeder > > Ø Other examples of light emitting bodies which* do not* follow the > incandescent temperature rule are phosphorescent and fluorescent bodies. > > Yup. And as far back as 1886 it was noticed that alumina, in one form, was > phosphorescent. A paper by Crookes (the one of radiometer fame): > > "On the Crimson Line of Phosphorescent Alumina." 1886. > > Today with the benefit of 130 years we realize that the alumina tested > back then had slight chromium content – think ruby - and today the > message is that an aluminum paste– such as applied to Inconel wires > embedded in a alumina tube housing – containing trace chromium - can > provide overwhelming phosphorescent red coloration… and thus the tube is > not in keeping with an incandescent temperature determination. > > In short –this Levi report is miles away from being a scientific paper. > The details of fabrication of the tube are hidden, and the reddish glow > does not necessarily mean lower temperature if there is ruby phosphorescen > ce in a paste or coating. > > If the surface temperature is 1400C then according to the textbooks, as Jed says, the surface should be glowing white. Other things could be happening too, but they don't alter the standard expectation. Either this incongruity is caused by a measurement error or something entirely new is happening. I've proposed other types of emissions but they don't address the issue of the missing white light. harry
