I wrote: I believe Lubos Motl proposed somewhere that the E-Cat HT surface is not > well-approximated by a blackbody and that the true emissivity is likely to > be T^(4+d), where 0 < d < 1; i.e., that in the worst case scenario there > will be ~T^5 relationship between temperature and power rather than T^4. I > do not know what to make of this (assuming I have accurately reproduced the > details). >
That it was Lubos Motl was unintentional speculation on my part, drawing upon a comment by someone else in the comments to the recent Register article [1]. The person who wanted to modify the Stefan-Boltzmann equation was HolyFreakinGhost. Elsewhere there is speculation (from the real Motl) that the "emissivity of metals" is 0.2 or something on that order [2]. It seems pretty clear that the E-Cat HT was well painted with black paint; I do not see how this detail could have been a point of confusion. However, if Motl's value of ~0.2 were used for the emissivity, he estimates that the calculated power would be approximately equal to the input power. Eric [1] http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2013/05/22/e_cat_test_claims_success_yet_again/#c_1833878 [2] http://motls.blogspot.com/2013/05/tommaso-dorigo-impressed-by-cold-fusion.html
