Talk:Solar furnace

message: Would like to know how these numbers are arrived at. Thermodynamics limits the temperature at 5800K, after which a perfect absorber would emit more radiation than it collected, but that is assuming that sunlight reaching the earth is a perfect blackbody spectrum, which of course it is not.
:The 3,000 degrees figure comes from this link .  I am not an expert on the solar furnace, but perhaps the article should not give both 4,000 and 3,000 degrees due to the contradiction.  The Odeillo solar furnace is also rated at up to 1000kW.--Ianmacm 18:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the sun was in contact with the absorber, the limiting temperature would be the surface temperature of the sun, 5800K, but it is the coherence of light that sets a limit, not thermodynamics. Without a reference, I'm deleting the statement. 199.125.109.134 (talk) 15:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  4000 degrees C 

message: The first modern solar furnace is believed to have been built in France, but not in 1949 by Professor Félix Trombe.
In 1900, Father Himalaya  built in Sorède, Pyrenees of France the first solar furnace, and is still possible to see the remains on site . 
Sonja Hortela 02:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Father Himalaya AKA Padre Himalaya 

message: It strikes me that it would not be necessary to burn wood (-en ships) for Archimedes' trick to have worked. 
# Aiming the beams at humans aboard the ship would have burnt them severely, and given the impression that they could burn ships, even if they could not. Attackers would then have ceased getting closer.
# And also possible, if less likely, the beams might have burnt sail cloth or other material on the boat, thus setting the vessel alight.
Tabby 18:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burning ships 

message: In modern political correctness, BCE should always be used for non-religious references, instead of the obsolete BC, which is meaningful to a minority of the world. My edit was deleted. Please see the article on BCE, and then restore the change. How could anyone argue against that?
:That article does not state whether BC/AD or BCE/CE is to be used on Wikipedia. If I missed where that is stated, please give a more direct reference as the article is rather long. The article actually presents the BCE/CE system as "alternative" and gives several arguments against its use, so you need to bolster your argument further. 184.100.0.99 (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  BC versus BCE 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Solar furnace. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090313121601/http://www.pre.ethz.ch/research/projects/?id=solhycarb to http://www.pre.ethz.ch/research/projects/?id=solhycarb
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219020314/http://www.dlr.de/tt/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-2881/4512_read-6629/ to http://www.dlr.de/tt/desktopdefault.aspx/tabid-2881/4512_read-6629/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070515143956/http://www.promes.cnrs.fr/TOUT-PUBLIC/Les-fours/lesfours1.htm to http://www.promes.cnrs.fr/TOUT-PUBLIC/Les-fours/lesfours1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)