Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: Joshua's position is that in the present measurements, the emissivity is > implicitly taken into account twice when using an IR camera, and that in > assuming that a high epsilon is conservative (in the first calculation), > people are neglecting to see what effect it has on the calculated power in > the second calculation. >
For the fifth time, the authors addressed this! It is shown right there in Fig. 7. The camera software computes higher temperatures. The higher the temperature, the higher the power (all else being equal, which of course it is, since we are only changing one parameter). It could not be shown more clearly! With this camera, when you lower the emissivity parameter, the computed temperature goes up. Cude asserts that if they lowered it all the way to 0.2 the temperature might be computed lower. I am sure this is nonsense, but even if it were true it is irrelevant. There is not a shred of evidence the actual emissivity of this reactor is anything close to 0.2. It is 0.7 to 0.9. It makes no sense to talk about 0.2 anything. > I would be interested in a second opinion from someone familiar with IR > cameras. > In Fig. 7, the IR camera itself tells you the answer! That is the most authoritative answer you can get. - Jed
