Then again, it could be that most of the frigorific radiation that could be detected with such instruments is either scattered or absorbed by the atmosphere before it reaches the ground. This would actually make sense from the standpoint of frigorific theory since the upper atmosphere is colder than lower atmosphere.
I am going to need some sort of cold substance one way or the other. Harry On Sun, Jan 30, 2022 at 9:21 PM H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Some telescopes by virtue of their design should already be capable of > revealing cooling radiation if it existed. > > eg. This telescope consists of a primary parabolic reflector and three > secondary mirrors which direct the collected light into an instrument > room several meters away from the primary reflector. See the first > two photos on this page: > http://www.vikdhillon.staff.shef.ac.uk/teaching/phy217/telescopes/phy217_tel_coude.html > > This telescope should be capable of focusing enough frigorific > radiation that it could be sensed by a hand crossing the path of the beam > in the instrument room. It seems unlikely that such an odd cooling > sensation would go unreported. Therefore it is likely frigorific > radiation is not real. > > > Harry > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 4:43 PM MSF <foster...@protonmail.com> wrote: > > > > Don't forget to give us the result of your experiment if you do it. > > > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > > > On Monday, January 24th, 2022 at 9:06 PM, MSF <foster...@protonmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > 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 > >
