Strong evidence for a new kind of radiation.

  • Incandescent lamps are sometimes used as resistive loads for testing/calibrating calorimeters; it seems difficult that an excess heat effect would go unnoticed.

  • All fine and dandy JedRothwell, but excess heat of this kind is assumed to not exist, so no one would have been looking for it, and perhap, just perhaps, it went unnoticed because the total output of light and heat, as assumed to be at best 100%, without no one specifically thinking otherwise, might have been completely unnoticed,


    That scenario is not possible. When bulbs are tested, the entire bulb is put into a calorimeter. It captures the heat from the light as well. You cannot make a transparent calorimeter. Too much non-visible radiation would leak out.


    A calorimeter is the only way to test the bulb for total heat output (including light), which is what you need to design something like a recessed light fixture. A recessed fixture is a box in the wall or ceiling. You have to assume the fixture might be blocked so that no light escapes from it.


    I really do not think that after 116 years, there has not been a single test of tungsten light energy balance. If they produced even 1% excess heat, someone would have noticed. I have seen junior high school textbooks describing science fair experiments in calorimetry using light bulbs. Granted, those experiments would not work as far as I can tell. But anyway they were described.

  • Incandescent lamps are sometimes used as resistive loads for testing/calibrating calorimeters; it seems difficult that an excess heat effect would go unnoticed.


    Yes, I have heard of this. Also, as I mentioned, junior high science fair experiments measuring heat often employ light bulbs. The whole experiment is calibration.


    I suppose if it were isoperibolic with no first principle estimates, they might not notice the heat. The curve would be too high but they would not know. They would have to compare it to a resistance heater. Any other method of calorimetry would reveal the excess. Flow calorimetry, for example, is not as dependent on calibrations as isoperibolic, and it would definitely reveal the total heat in absolute terms.


    A method based only on thermometry (which is what I saw in the textbook) would not reveal the excess. My guess is that the method I saw would not even give you a useful, reproducible, linear result, for various reasons beyond the scope of the discussion.

  • I would like to see a written report for the Parkhomov bulb tests, so see how the experiment and measurements were performed. It might be illuminating....

    So I would.


    But on a second thought I think the excess heat requires a secondary treatment, so, we really need to see what methodology he employed.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • Hot tungsten dissociates hydrogen molecules. Irving Langmuir had problems with the energy balance for the dissociation/recombination of hydrogen gas filled lamps (Gibbs free energy) and was warned by somebody very prominent at the time (Nils Bohr) not to publish his work on this oddity..

  • Simple experiment, but impressive results.


    About the Langmuir effect: the atomic hydrogen recombinate on the glass, making a very efficient caloduc. It si why it is better to use argon inside bulbs, or best: krypton.


    Of course, if Alexander Georgievitch is right, it will be a complete change of paradigm. A major earthquake in physics. In comparison F&P experiment is just a tremor.


    I would have liked to have found an American campus to do this z-pinch experiment with a halogen tube. Haines, in Sandia, reached 4 billion degrees Celsius with his z-pinch made with a "canary cage" of gold thread. But the "canary cage" is destroyed with each shot, it's bad. The wires are pulverized, and the MHD forces collapse the plasma towards the center, heating the matter to supernova temperatures. (4 x109 degrees!) The idea, to do the same thing, (only better) on a lab bench: take a halogen tube from Home Depot, light it with a 220 volt battery through a self , and discharge into a small low inductance Marx-Arkad'eiev generator (It is this high voltage device behind my back, in the photo. The device in my hands has nothing to do with it, they are MHD electrodes for work on the annihilation of shock waves in front of hypersonic space planes. This replaces the control surfaces, ailerons and rudder, I believe the Russians took up the idea on their AVANGARD.)

    The discharge exceeds the instantaneous power of all French nuclear power plants, because this generator is built to have the lowest possible self-inductance. It's just a small test device, you have to imagine the same in a concrete well or in a tower. It would not be very expensive. Inside and outside the tungsten coil, there is a tubular creeping discharge, and MHD forces cause it to crash towards the center. With a block of lead pierced with a hole, to make a pinhole, (stenopé) we would have seen on a photo plate the X-rays caused by the heated material in the center. The discharge cannot pass through the tungsten wire, because it is shaped like a spiral (a coil). Therefore, the tungsten wire moves little, and we can make several shots in a row. The advantage over Haines's experiments is that the plasma "tube" exists BEFORE the discharge. You don't waste time creating it by spraying the wires. It is also much lighter, so it goes faster. And if you put a little deuterium in argon, you should see a nice burst of neutrons.


    And if Parkhomov is right, it should work with hydrogen too.



    Unluckily, this device went to the dumpster, along with most of my laboratory devices.

  • For what it's worth, a photo in the provided slides shows an incandescent lamp (presumably in a ready-to-be-used configuration) wrapped in aluminium foil. Possibly the halogen lamp was also treated the same way, although the photo there shows it in an "as-received" form.



    I am wondering if the excess heat effect occurs both with and without the foil installed.



    This source suggests that standard glass bulbs are designed for surface temperatures of 200–400 °C.

    https://www.physlab.org/wp-con…s/2016/03/Planck_ref8.pdf

  • In electrical engineering parlance there is no such thing as a bulb, they are called lamps.

    In the 1960's you could buy Philips Photolita lamps for photographic studio use.

    I still have a working one.

    They had a filament designed for 180v use, you ran them at normal line voltage ie 240 volts.

    If you switched them straight on they would blow, but you brought them up with a dimmer,

    slowly. they would survive for a maximum of 5 hours. They were known as overun lamps.

    They were very very much brighter than ordinary incandescents and the light was very much

    whiter. I guess the filament was running at near its melting point 3410 deg C

    Pete.

  • I imagine that the bulb(s) would be installed in an empty tube surrounded by water in order to mitigate/prevent electrical hazards and improve heat collection.


    My experience with bulbs enclosed is mostly the glass/quartz violently popping open at about 200 C higher than their normally-operated outside surface temperature.