wrote in message
...
In uk.d-i-y, David wrote:

I'm not too sure about your radiative/convective loss assessment though.

Given that the top of the pot is pretty much sealed it doesn't matter if
you
get any air down at the bottom of the pot, by whatever means

Ah, sorry, there's another unstated assumption of mine - that the pot has
a Hole in the middle of the "base" (base when used as pot, top when used
as light cover) - 'cuz all the pottery pots I've seen have this kind of a
drainage hole in them. Thuz, the conditions are right for a useful
convective flow from the bottom of the pot to the top, if air can get
in at the bottom. If there's no such 'ole, then of course there isn't
going to be nearly the same air flow, and a higher proportion of the
(smaller) losses will be by radiation (assert): though you're right that a
fair bit of the losses even from an "unholed" pot will be from convection
currents around the outer surface of the pot.

(Have we worked this one to death yet? ;-)

Is that not the whole point of a decent thread on usenet? :-) There is
always another avenue that you can veer off down if you really desire, but
whether anyone else follows is another matter.

This thread could just be in its infancy compared with an Andy Hall/IMM
tit for tat match :-)

cheers

David