Monochromatic IR-C Device for Radiant Heating

[Green Xenon]

Hi:

 

I recently posted something similar. I apologize profusely if anyone is annoyed.

 

Infra-red C spectrum = 100,000 nm to 3,000 nm

 

100,000 nm = 2.9979e12 Hz = 2,997,900,000,000 Hz

 

3,000 nm = 9.9931e13 Hz = 99,931,000,000,000 Hz

 

Arithmetic mean of IR-C spectrum = 51,464,450,000,000 Hz = 5825.23388 nm

 

Due to the the above and the inability of the device in http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/53451-wide-spectrum-irc-emission-device/ to exist, I'm now thinking of a different device for the same applications of that previous IR-C emitting device.

 

This hypothetical device emits only 51,464,450,000,000 Hz light, not higher-frequnecy and not lower-frequency -- just 51,464,450,000,000 Hz. This light is incoherent and because of this, this device cannot be a laser. It cannot be a LED either because there are no LEDs which emit in light at 51,464,450,000,000 Hz. Even if they were, LEDs are meant for low-intensity emission. Forcing a LED to emit light intense enough to generate significant heat will damage the LED.

 

In addition, the emission of the IR-C light from this theoretical device is constant, non-flickering and non-pulsatile. The shape of the panel emitting this radiation is square or rectangular depending on the application. In any case, the panel faces downward from the ceiling -- or other "top" -- of an enclosure and emits the IR-C light *downwards* only. Equally important is that the source of this light is *not* incandescent to any extent. The generation of this IR-C light is the result of something other than incandescence. By "incandescence", I'm referring to EM radiation being emitted by an object as a result of heat and/or temperature and/or temperature difference.

 

 

Thanks,

 

Green Xenon

[Mr Skeptic]

OK, so a laser. The light can be made incoherent easily enough, I would think. But it's still going to emit other radiation unless you keep it at 0 K, which is impossible.

[swansont]

Why not a laser, or an array of them?

 

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/08/08/researchers.demonstrate.highly.directional.terahertz.laser.rays

[Green Xenon]

OK, so a laser. The light can be made incoherent easily enough, I would think. But it's still going to emit other radiation unless you keep it at 0 K, which is impossible.

 

 

Other radiation is ok as long as they are at negligible intensities.

 

Why not a laser, or an array of them?

 

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2010/08/08/researchers.demonstrate.highly.directional.terahertz.laser.rays

 

 

Due to my personal preference, I don't want to associate lasers with extreme or even perceptible heat. In any of my applications, I would like lasers not to generate any noticeable heat. So if something is going to be used to heat things up to significant temperatures, the source of heat should be something other than a laser.

[swansont]

Due to my personal preference, I don't want to associate lasers with extreme or even perceptible heat. In any of my applications, I would like lasers not to generate any noticeable heat. So if something is going to be used to heat things up to significant temperatures, the source of heat should be something other than a laser.

 

Your requirement for narrow-band emission severely limits your choices. Lasers transfer energy, therefore they will heat things up. Nature is indifferent to your personal preference.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well that severely limits your options. If you find a molecule with an emission at your preferred wavelength, you could use a prism to split out only that one wavlength and I think that would be both very narrow and not coherent.

[swansont]

Well that severely limits your options. If you find a molecule with an emission at your preferred wavelength, you could use a prism to split out only that one wavlength and I think that would be both very narrow and not coherent.

 

 

Without lasing, though, you have no control over the emission direction. Getting the light to go in the right direction is made a lot easier in a laser, especially if you want to minimize heating of the rest of the device caused by the stray light.

[Green Xenon]

OK, so a laser. The light can be made incoherent easily enough, I would think.

 

How can a laser's light be "de-coherenced" to the maximum extent possible?

 

Without lasing, though, you have no control over the emission direction. Getting the light to go in the right direction is made a lot easier in a laser, especially if you want to minimize heating of the rest of the device caused by the stray light.

 

Ok, so I agree to make this device a laser.

 

 

Happy Holidays,

 

Green Xenon

Edited December 26, 2010 by Green Xenon

[swansont]

How can a laser's light be "de-coherenced" to the maximum extent possible?

 

 

I'm not seeing why coherent light is to be avoided, but in an array of lasers, the individual beams need not be coherent with each other. It may also be that the coherence length of any laser is short; it depends on the details of the laser.

[Green Xenon]

I'm not seeing why coherent light is to be avoided, but in an array of lasers, the individual beams need not be coherent with each other. It may also be that the coherence length of any laser is short; it depends on the details of the laser.

 

You know, I'm starting to realize that some of my preferences are unnecessary. Maybe coherence does not need to be avoided.

 

In any case, how would one design/build a 51,464,450,000,000 Hz laser? I'm guessing free-electron laser is the best candidate for this. However, the bulkiness of the FEL might be an issue in the applications I described.