So Josh, Why do you *ignore* the FACT that Ekstrom and others are using the emissivity of stainless when that is irrelevant???
Why not the same critical comments from you about those so-called 'experts' who make such an obvious mistake??? RE: unknown emissivity of the paint in the December test. Yes, as they have explained, they analyzed the December test, realized some weaknesses, took measures in the March test to eliminate/calibrate for those weaknesses, and will be improving their instrumentation and procedures for the next test. -Mark From: Joshua Cude [mailto:joshua.c...@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 27, 2013 2:45 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ekstrom critique of Levi et al. On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:33 PM, MarkI-ZeroPoint <zeropo...@charter.net> wrote: Jed: More importantly, why is he using the emissivity of stainless steel, when the outer cylinder is painted ceramic, NOT stainless steel!!! Since it's painted, it doesn't make any difference what was painted. Yes, all metals have low emissivity, but that is irrelevant when a metal is NOT what is 'emissiviting' (to coin a word)! J Ceramics have a much higher emissivity. But we have no idea what the emissivity of the paint used in the December test was, nor whether it was wavelength dependent. There may be a paint for which an assumption of emissivity of 1 greatly overestimates the power. A few measurements could have excluded this possibility.
