On 8/30/13 1:34 AM, Steve Willner wrote:

The bottom line is that the calculated thermal acceleration is 80% of
the acceleration derived from the Doppler tracking data. However,
the error bars are larger than the 20% difference, so there is
currently no evidence of "new physics." (The RTG asymmetry is
uncertain because of unknown changes in the coating properties.
Making it just a bit bigger than 1% would give excellent agreement.)

This presented logic is in a constant time frame.
'calculated thermal acceleration is 80%'
The RTG contribution is 1%
A more complete model would analyze
these deceleration contributions with time for a constant residual.
The much detailed finite element electrical contribution
fades faster with time (21.9 year half life)
(based on regression of http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507v1 table 1 data)
leaving the RTG contribution (87 year half life)
that can be considered constant in the measured Pioneer time frame.
No detailed finite element thermal RTG deceleration analysis was done in
http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2507v1.
A prior RTG analysis in
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104064 page 32-33
reads in part:
"So, even though a complete thermal/physical model of
the spacecraft might be able to ascertain if there are any
other unsuspected heat systematics, we conclude that
this particular 'RTG' mechanism does not provide enough power
to explain the Pioneer anomaly"
That leaves a constant deceleration residual with time
with no on board mechanistic origin.

I won't say 'new physics' is required
but verification of known universal physics
(external to Pioneers)
is warranted to explain this constant deceleration residual.

Richard D Saam