Once again, Jane confuses "radiant power output" with "electrical heating power".
I haven't "confused" anything. I understand perfectly well how you think your own erroneous "solution" to the problem worked... or more accurately, didn't work.
I am very definitely not the party here who is confused.
Or maybe Jane could listen to Prof. Brian Cox. Jane/Lonny Eachus likes Prof. Brian Cox and is very bothered by the fact that Prof. Cox agrees with mainstream physics.
No, once again you've put words in my mouth that I never actually stated. Why have you kept doing that? Are you allergic to simply telling the truth?
The experiment we were discussing was Spencer's radiation experiment. Not "global warming". You keep trying to apply my arguments about Spencer's challenge to the broader issue of global warming, aka "climate change", and it's not valid to do so. I have not argued with you about that in many months, and I do not intend to argue further with you about that... because you do not argue honestly. That isn't an idle comment; I have pages and pages of proof.
If you want to ask him about what amounts to a pretty straightforward textbook radiation problem, go right ahead. But I already know the answer -- which, in fact, I got from textbooks on the subject -- so I don't have to bet. You go ahead, if you want to.
The only reason I agreed to work through the Spencer experiment with you was because I already knew you were wrong, and wanted the chance to show that to everybody, unequivocally. Well, I got that chance. And as soon as I get it written up (which as I have stated before will take a while), I fully intend to show everybody. You asked me if I really was willing to publish the results, no matter the outcome. Well, now that in fact it didn't go well for you, sour grapes isn't going to get you anywhere.
I have no other business with you, or arguments with you. If you try to argue with me I will not respond, except (possibly) to show others where you err and misquote me. And maybe not even then.