Jones-- It is my understanding that the IR camera only judges temperature based on the spectrum AND intensity of the light coming from a unit area, the smaller that area the more accurate the local temperature determination. I think you are correct to assume some energy may not be captured by the dog bone and hence has no chance of contributing to the temperature at the surface that is being measured by the camera. Only calibration of the camera reading with actual (T/c or other direct local temperature measurement methods) will allow reasonable temperature determination at any place other than the area being monitored by the camera. And calibration may not be valid if the conditions of light transmission change as a function of temperature outside the calibration temperatures.
The down shifting of potential soft x-rays may happen, but if it does, that energy should be deposited in the alumina and contribute to the temperature at the surface that the camera monitors based on its determination of frequency and intensity over the frequency spectrum it can monitor. (In fission reactor designs gamma heating is considered in fuel element temperature design calculations and contributes to the maximum temperature determination for the fuel. And much of the gamma energy produced by a reactor is caught by the thermal shields which have no internal fissioning fuel. This heat from the thermal shields adds a small amount of energy to the total produced by the reactor as useful energy.) Thus, if calibration does not include the introduction of soft x-rays, with the resulting energy (heat source) within the alumina, an inaccurate temperature would be deduced for the interior of the reactor. If the camera monitors light being emitted from a volume of the alumina with non-uniform heat generation, then the temperature of that volume can be only considered to be an average of some sort. It has been my experience that local temperatures within fission reactor fuel elements can change significantly from spot to spot, if small gaps or voids exist in the fuel much like contact resistance in an electrical circuit can cause relatively large potential differentials. Thus, I would think tubes inside of tubes can be a problem from the standpoint of controlling temperatures, when a significant internal heat source is present. This could be a problem for the MFMP experiment, but not so much for the Parkhomov experiment in light of the fact his setup does not have any apparent gaps or voids except in the center where the fuel is positioned. Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: Jones Beene To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2015 11:52 AM Subject: RE: [Vo]:Lithium aluminum thin film and the Kretschmann geometry Ø Worth mentioning. If soft x-rays were being downshifted to visible light, this could account for some of the brightness observed in the photos of Lugano. Is the light emission more intense than it should be for an incandescent wire embedded in cement? If so the COP was even higher than stated. Say … This is an angle worth pursuing. A thermometry camera which determines temperature based on measuring the flux of long wavelength IR radiation is calibrated back to the real temperature. And there is a known and predictable visible light emission which is part of the same package, but it does not get measured or accounted for, since it NEVER varies when the system is a true blackbody radiator. OK so far, so good- this is standard physics. But… what happens when there is more radiation in the visible range than there should be, compared to the IR spectrum? This would be due to x-rays being downshifted to visible light, and then being emitted through a translucent material, for instance. In fact downshifting in this fashion would be expected from soft x-rays. The IR spectrum does not reflect the lost energy. Since the assumption is that IR flux is absolutely correlated to a predictable visible flux, then any system which has a higher visible flux destroys the underlying assumptions of correlated thermal energy, but in a way that UNDERESTIMATES the true excess energy ! IOW a system where gain derives from soft x-rays could be producing far more real excess energy than it seems, if measure by IR thermometry - since a significant percentage of the gain ends up as visible light and is not accounted for. Has anyone else noticed this before? … or is there an error in the logic? Of course, this assumes the DDL modality for gain - and not LENR, which is probably why no one has noticed it. Moreover, it only applies to the IR camera technique and in Parkhomov’s setup, he captures all the excess energy (since the visible light does not escape) so his gain is not underestimated.
