There has been a lot of discussion about these photos published by the MFMP on Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/MartinFleischmannMemorialProject/posts/881440191886681 Look at the lower two photos. They look bright white. However, someone from the MFPM commented at Facebook that they do not appear bright white to the human eye. So I asked Ryan Hunt the following: "I have a question about this [attached Facebook] photo from the MFPM experiment. Someone on Facebook . . . said the camera shows this as white but to the human eye it is more of a red color. They were emphatic: 'Not. White. Hot.' . . . In other words: Is the color an artifact of the camera, or does it look this way to the human eye as well?" His response: "The bright appearance was mostly an artifact of the camera detecting IR in addition to visible. It was a red/orange color, but not nearly as bright as any of the photos appeared to show it. All the modern cameras auto adjust so much I didn't know how to make them show what I was seeing." Consumer cameras usually capture colors pretty much the way the human eye sees them, but not in this case. I guess there is a lot more IR coming out of this gadget than the objects in a typical family photo at the beach or campfire. I asked him if the orange color resembles the color in Fig. 12 of the ELFORSK report. His response: "Yeah, I would say it is very similar. I would judge that to be roughly 800 to 900C on the surface. I found that the amount of ambient lighting made a big difference to how the camera viewed it. That's why I suggested we try to make a visible reference at a controlled temperature to compare to in the photo." My comment: I also judge that shade of red to be around 800°C based on this color scale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescence#mediaviewer/File:Incandescence_Color.jpg - Jed
