Hi, among the skeptic argument one of the only that is not laughable is the one of goatguy... maybe is it because I don't understand it well...
He seems to say - that alumina is not a grey body, but transparent, and that emissivity must be mixed with translucidity when considering the radiation of heat... - and maybe that one effect could came from changing resistors that are more or less hidden "optically"... I propose a kind of group work, I propose that people with competence, analyse goagguys arguments, and the report. 1- can someone explain first the point of goatguy on the fact that alumina is transparent... is it noticeable ? does it change the way radiation equation are computed or is it simply emissivity change ? what can be the order of size of the error induced ? 2- can someone confirm (I cannot yet reread the report) that some known emissivity dots were used, but that the surface of the reactor prevented permanent thermocouple installation... can someone analyse the report precisely 3- can someone confirm or refute my position that "if the same object is brighter for an IR cam, even with a complex emissivity curve, it is hotter than the same object that bright less" the term bright is apparent temperature for an IR cam, or for a blacksmith 4- finally what is the possible error that - translucidity of alumina - with resistor switching that move heat source to change : the observed COP, to higher or to lower ? 5- or to make COP possibly =1 my position is that because of my naive rule 3, 5 is impossible. moreover 2 remove the possibility that effect in 1 are noticeable and not mostly corrected. I want to know if I'm wrong. and I have other duties... please help ... I'm sorry.
