Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: Here you've used average emissivity. I think a rock-bottom lower bound (or > something along those lines) would use ε=1. I do not readily see a way to > extract such a calculation for the March 2013 run from the data presented > in the paper. >
I guess you can look it up. However, they measured the temperature on the surface with thermocouples and found they agreed with the IR camera to within 3°C. The difference can be explained by the tape used to hold the thermocouple to the surface acting as insulation. So obviously the IR camera settings are correct. > Understood. Sometimes its helpful to get a lower bound that is beyond > conservative . . . > If you go too far you begin to make absurd assumptions, such as maybe the room temperature is actually close to 60°C, or maybe their ammeter is way off, or Rossi secretly changed the ammeter when no one was looking. You could go on all day spinning "maybe, what if, suppose." Another thing I forgot to mention is that they ignore heat from the ends of the cylinder and from the large flange. I'll bet those two would add ~100 W. They also left out the effect of the cylinder walls being at an angle, as they did in the first test. - Jed
