I consider that the camera may actually be a control device that is calibrated
to monitor a certain wave length of emitted radiation associated with the LENR
reaction and serves to adjust the activity of the mouse--maybe the current in
the electrical wires or their magnetic field strength--to control the rate of
the reaction with a rapid feed back signal. The designers and the testers
probably know the answer to this question, but do not want to answer, since it
is not necessary to confirm excess heat production, the apparent objective of
the test. (The thermocouple may not be a primary control device because of its
relatively slow responds compared to the radiation emitted by the LENR.
Axil's suggestions and conjectures seem to be consistent with my conjecture
above about monitoring selected radiation.
In MHO the alumina does not act as a black body. The assumption that the color
seen by the camera corresponds to temperature of something, for example, the
inside of the vessel , is not correct. The internal thermocouple would be a
better indicator of reaction temperatures, assuming there is good convection
within the inside of the alumina vessel.
Bob
----- Original Message -----
From: Axil Axil
To: vortex-l
Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Color Temperature
It could be that the nature of the light is very unusual as produced by the
reactor. If only infrared photons were monochromatically emitted (like a laser)
that all corresponded to the exact temperature of 1400C. and no other photon
energy wavelengths was produced, then the light would not be blackbody
radiation. The testers should have taken a spectrum to see what wavelengths of
light comprised the light that came from the reactor,
This spectrum would be proof that the reactor operates under a boson
condensate.
This fits with the theory that the boson condensate would have kept all
photon energy equal and isothermal.
On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 1:32 AM, H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote:
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 phosphorescence 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
