Here is a typical response from someone who sounds like an academic scientist, over at extremetech. This is a classic example of Skeptical thinking:
"The paper is on the arXiv is a joke full with elementary errors, such as assuming the the device is a perfect black body instead of picking a sensible emissivity. The uncertainty analysis has not been done at all instead an arbitrary value of 10% has been used (especially small seeing as there is a T^4 dependence!). No corrections for the fact that the are looking at the side of a cylinder not a flat plane are applied." My response: "The authors noted all of issues you list. They show that their settings for the items you list all reduce the estimate of output heat. For example, correcting for a cylinder would increase the estimate of heat. Using a number less than 1 in the IR camera software would increase the temperature and the heat. Even though they chose the most conservative estimates for all parameters, the excess heat far exceeds input power." This person is not thinking. This is reflexive rejection. He did not even notice that the paper explicitly described every issue he raises, and the paper say why they chose to do things, such as ignoring the fact that it is a cylinder. I mentioned this in my first description of the paper. I saw this. Why did this person not see it? Willful blindness. That's why. - Jed
