If we, for sake of discussion, suppose that the recursive method did exaggerate the dummy reported rib area temperature, and so reduce it to the temperature it might have been without the exaggeration, might then re-calculated output and reported input become much closer together? I propose about 380 C, rather than about 450 C, simply by looking at table 2, and comparing to the value demonstrated there when using an emissivity of 1.0 . (The temperatures of the other parts can be left the same for now).
As I already stated when I presented the results, this is indeed something I planned on doing.
However such a recalculation does not make sense if we don't have a good explanation for the large increase in convective energy of the finned area.
I need to know if there is an error in that calculation or not.
What I already see is that there is a large difference between my convective heat transfer coefficient and that in the report.
So I have to investigate this first before doing that next step.
But I have to go slowly since my concussion is playing up.