femr2 wrote:The object being picked up is above 82C.
I will take this as an assumption.
Probably a pretty good one.
I will also take as an assumption that the Hutchison Effect wasn't at play, in particular, the characteristic of Metal Luminance Without Heat.
A characteristic which, as best as I can tell, resides only in the imagination of those promoting this effect. I'd never heard of it - except in relation to Judy Wood which meant I was not interested - so I decided to look it up and, within two clicks, found myself at Judy Wood's site. Eager to find information explaining this effect and the notion of metal luminance without heat, I looked. What I found was "Cheeto" picture (luminance without heat)
. Which is simply two versions of the same picture we're discussing here, an apparently ripped off reference to the 82 degree limitation of the hydraulics (also mentioned here), and two pictures of another scene taken at slightly different times.
Needless to say, hardly the explanation I sought!
The last two pictures are this one (Figure 33)
which bears the caption "Why isn't the paper on fire?" and another which shows the same scene in closer detail (Figure 34)
. Now, this is kind of funny because the second picture shows what is burning in both pictures - PAPER! So, to make it perfectly clear, the answer to the question "Why isn't the paper on fire?" is...
...get ready for this...
The paper IS on fire.
So, how about the caption for the second picture? "Why is this firefighter choosing to walk though the fire instead of around it? Isn't he concerned with catching his pants on fire or getting something hot poking up into him?"
Well, first off, I think there are more parsimonious explanations than the flames you see with your own lying eyes are not flames. Dr. Wood actually doesn't offer an explanation, best as I can tell, but I have to assume this is the notion being suggested (damn lying eyes, that is). Far simpler explanations are:
- the firefighter is stupid
- the firefighter is crazy
and my favorite, of course...
- the firefighter is NOT walking through the fire!
He has one foot directly adjacent to flames, yes. But he most certainly is not walking through
the fire, nor does it appear his chosen path will take him through it.
"Isn't he concerned with catching his pants on fire..."
Those would be flame retardant pants so probably not.
"...or getting something hot poking up into him?"
That's just salacious. Frankly I wouldn't be concerned walking the same path with regular street clothes, unless they were soaked in gasoline. There's nothing hot to "poke up into him", there is a small PAPER fire burning next to one foot.
The major problem here is not that, once again, the displayed observational skills are extremely poor. The problem is there is absolutely no case made for why these photos show anything other than what they appear to show, and no explanation for why an outlandish set of theories is being invoked to explain the mundane. No explanation of luminance without heat. It is as if the pictures offered are the only proof of the phenomena, here or anywhere.
Perhaps you can point me to something independent of these pictures to support the notion that such an effect actually exists, then we could discuss whether it applies to the glowing object being picked up by the machinery.
As to the 82 degree figure, I don't think anyone questions why the mechanism would fail if operated above its design temperature limits. But nothing has been done to establish that an extremely hot piece picked up in the jaws would necessarily result in the hydraulic fluid being heated to the point of failing seals. Surely, if the machine were picking up pieces like that for an extended time, the fluid would be heated and might eventually reach failure temperatures. Perhaps it did fail. Perhaps it failed shortly after the picture was taken. Guess we don't know the answer to that, do we?
Talk about assumptions.