One final erratum (hopefully): In the November run when the device overheated to visible wavelengths, the input power was 1kW (p2), not 360W. Therefore:
360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441) 1000=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441) ; subst(1000, 360) Th=(59549289748750/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4) ; solve(Th) Th=611.17587 Kelvin Th=338.026 Celsius using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 4.741300568689E-6 meter Still deep into the infrared. On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:59 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > Erratum: I also left out the substitution step for room temperature: > > 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-6975757441) ; subst(289) > > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Erratum: Strike the "So, what..." >> >> >> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> q=eps*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)*A >>> q=eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*s*(Th^4-Tc^4) ; subst(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r, A) >>> q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*(Th^4-Tc^4) ; subst(5.6703e-8, s) >>> q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(0.11*l*pi+0.00605*pi)*(Th^4-Tc^4) ; subst(.055, r) >>> q=2.40137205*10^-9*eps*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4) ; subst(.33, l) >>> q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4) ; subst(1, eps) >>> 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4) ; subst(360, q) >>> Th=(21437744309550/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4) ; solve(Th) >>> Th=483.6006 Kelvin >>> Th=210.451 Celsius >>> >>> using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php >>> >>> peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 5.9920696955297E-6 meter >>> >>> or 6 micrometers >>> >>> That is with no losses other than black body radiation (ie: no >>> convective losses). >>> >>> That is way into the infrared. The excursions into the visible >>> wavelength occurred with 360W. >>> >>> >>> >>> So, what >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> There is value in pursuing reductio ad absurda when they engage one of >>>>> the strongest arguments that the demonstration is valid: >>>>> >>>>> That the power input could not conceivably have produced the radiation >>>>> wavelengths observed. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more >>>> detailed discussion of that, with equations and examples? That would be >>>> helpful. Please post this in a new thread so I can find it easily. >>>> >>>> You might also address the fact that the first device melted. >>>> >>>> - Jed >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
