<[email protected]> wrote: Perhaps you just misinterpret what he said. It could also be taken to mean:-
"the output varied between 2.5 and 3.7 kW" rather than that there was a > large > error in the measurement. I do not think so. Look at the first table on page 14. The column headings are "First hypothesis" (2.5 kW) and "Second hypothesis" (3.7 kW). The two hypotheses are listed on page 13: "* that the temperature of the inner cylinder is equal to that of the outer cylinder. This is the worst-case hypothesis; * that the power irradiated by the inner cylinder is equal to that irradiated by the outer cylinder." He should have sorted out which apotheosis is correct, by calibration. - Jed
