> From: "Jed Rothwell" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 12:59:12 PM > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Comments by Bo Hoistad > > 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."
On the register HolyFreakinGhost commented Posted Wednesday 22nd May 2013 03:03 GMT <http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/1833015> ... Thirdly, using the Stefan-Boltzmann law on anything that isn't a blackbody isn't likely to convince me that you know what you're doing. I don't see anywhere where they take into account that for a real substance the power law is somewhat greater than 4 -- and that this has to be tested ... and Posted Wednesday 22nd May 2013 12:51 GMT <http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/containing/1833878> ... Did you miss the part where I found that they're modelling heat emission using the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which is only valid for blackbodies, and that they didn't test whether or not this object is actually radiating as a blackbody (hint: it won't be), and that they would have to modify that law to T^(4+delta) with delta<~1? That's the point I stopped reading. .. [ with a rant on the typeface and formatting ]
