Erratum: Strike the "So, what..."
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 5:53 PM, James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: > q=eps*s*(Th^4-Tc^4)*A > q=eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*s*(Th^4-Tc^4) ; subst(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r, A) > q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(2*pi*r^2+2*l*pi*r)*(Th^4-Tc^4) ; subst(5.6703e-8, s) > q=5.6703*10^-8*eps*(0.11*l*pi+0.00605*pi)*(Th^4-Tc^4) ; subst(.055, r) > q=2.40137205*10^-9*eps*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4) ; subst(.33, l) > q=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4) ; subst(1, eps) > 360=2.40137205*10^-9*pi*(Th^4-Tc^4) ; subst(360, q) > Th=(21437744309550/pi+997533314063)^(1/4)/143^(1/4) ; solve(Th) > Th=483.6006 Kelvin > Th=210.451 Celsius > > using: http://www.ajdesigner.com/phpwien/wien_equation.php > > peak emission wavelength (λmax) = 5.9920696955297E-6 meter > > or 6 micrometers > > That is with no losses other than black body radiation (ie: no convective > losses). > > That is way into the infrared. The excursions into the visible wavelength > occurred with 360W. > > > > So, what > > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> James Bowery <jabow...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> There is value in pursuing reductio ad absurda when they engage one of >>> the strongest arguments that the demonstration is valid: >>> >>> That the power input could not conceivably have produced the radiation >>> wavelengths observed. >>> >> >> You have mentioned that several times. Can you please post a more >> detailed discussion of that, with equations and examples? That would be >> helpful. Please post this in a new thread so I can find it easily. >> >> You might also address the fact that the first device melted. >> >> - Jed >> >> >
