On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Joshua Cude <joshua.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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. > > This book _Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles_ says for a body to have an emissivity > 1 it can't be much bigger than the wavelength it radiates. Futhermore, if the surface is covered with such bodies the surface emissivity will not be greater than one. Here is specific page where this is stated: http://tinyurl.com/o6gdvt9 Harry
