Now that we have learned about all there is to learn about the acquisition and preservation of dry ice, I think you're right about this test. The double parabola test you initially proposed would not have proved or disproved cooling radiation. The dry ice at the focus would have been a radiative heat sink and would have lowered the temperature at the other focus. At least that's my opinion of it.
The simpler test you propose really demonstrates the idea of cooling radiation as its own wave phenomenon, if it exists. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 5:35 PM, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > From a fabrication standpoint here is an even simpler test for cooling > > radiation. > > It consists of a truncated cone lined with reflective mylar on the > > inside. The wide end is open to the sky and a thermometer is located > > at the vertex of the cone. > > See diagram: > > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p7coRgUqwzMGw40DhUQzJACCyHrd8EL5/view?usp=sharing > > If cooling radiation does not exist then the temperature of the > > thermometer should be about the same or perhaps slightly warmer when > > the cone is above it. > > However, if cooling radiation is real and has wave-like properties > > then the cone should focus the cooling radiation from the sky onto the > > thermometer and lower its temperature. > > Harry
