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 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 9:28 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> 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 p >> hosphorescence 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 > >
