the emissivity was used, it was not the blackbody equation but is not that the greybody equation (correct term?) ?
anyway what have to be the sensitivity error to explain the apparent COP ? naively I assume that the emissivity during the calibration have to be much much higher than assumed and the one at 1400C much much lower than assumed, with a factor of 3.4+ ? if the reactor is a perfect blackbody at 1400C, it have to express an emissivity of 30% at calibration ? is it right analysis ? is it possible ? 2014-10-16 6:57 GMT+02:00 Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 9:43 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> > wrote: > > It would be a miracle to find that the temperature exactly matched what is >> expected according to the Stephan-Boltzman equation. >> > > I get that the preconditions for the Stephan-Boltzman equation were not > met, technically, since the device is not a blackbody (e.g., painted with > black refractory coating) and that there is an error term that is being > raised to the fourth power. My questions are: what are the implications? > Would the Stephan-Boltzman equation provide a lower bound for the true > power, or an upper bound, or something else? How far off would the > Stephan-Boltzman > equation be in practice? I get the sense that it would be a minor error > term and that professionals in this field would not be too hesitant to use > the equation in a context such as the Lugano test. I'm starting to wonder > whether the emissivity problem is primarily an academic one. > > Eric > >
