he calls them epiphenomenon which is correct, their primary property is light production, heat is a secondary feature and not reliable, take for example LED based lighting, or even the low energy fluorescents.
But RF was just being a well deserved smartass. Besides, who would ever interview RF, it would a waste of time, Unless you have Newton, Einstein and Larry & Sergei already on your payroll just give the man an office, s stapler and let him do whatever comes to mind.
Back when I entered Caltech, someone mentioned what Feynman's salary was. (Feynman was a prof at Caltech.) I stupidly said I thought his salary was outrageously high. I was pointedly told that Feynman was worth far more than his salary simply to have his name listed as being on the staff (bringing interest, credibility, and donations to Caltech).
And, of course, Feynman being Feynman he did infinitely more than just have his name on the roster. Only his tragic demise was able to stop him.
Any company would be out of their freakin' minds to pass up any opportunity to hire Feynman.
I'd "interview" him for the opportunity to spend an hour with him, not that there's any chance in hell I'd say "no hire".
As for his position and job at the company, who cares. Whatever he wants.
their primary property is light production, heat is a secondary feature
Hmm, not necessarily. Back in the days when this problem was originally offered incandescent bulbs were by far the most popular light source for facilities, and if you look at a graph[1] of such a bulb's output, you'll find the fast majority of it is below the threshold of visible light -- the real primary property of incandescent bulbs is IR (heat) production. As a physicist Feynman would be well aware of this, and hence I think he would approved of the low-tech intended solution over the suggested alternatives.
If you posit fluorescent lights, the traditional solution would still work. LED lights weren't stipulated as a special condition and even they are stated, they're not 100% efficient and hence might well work with the traditional solution.
It doesnt matter whether they are phenomenon or epiphenomenon. The assertion was that they are undocumented and unreliable. Do you believe that there is no documentation on the thermal properties (epi or not) of a light bulb? If there is no such documentation then I imagine that the designers of light bulb fixtures and shades cant sleep easy..
But RF was just being a well deserved smartass. Besides, who would ever interview RF, it would a waste of time, Unless you have Newton, Einstein and Larry & Sergei already on your payroll just give the man an office, s stapler and let him do whatever comes to mind.