Worth listening to, but they were talking at cross-purposes at times. 3-way complication between reflectance, emission and transmission. Said that wires could cause shadows. (But not, by my analysis from a diffuse source. unless the wire is very close to the surface).
Their system can be used to *determine* the emissivity. I *think* they said it would be better to measure Alumina at a lower wavelength (2.5u?) and not in the IR band (8-14)? So far, I see no reason to budge from my initial evaluation of "inconclusive". But just one more nail in the coffin and I might downgrade that to "failed". (But a failed experiment doesn't necessarily mean the ecat doesn't work). In short, they were nuts to stick with the hotcat/IR calorimetry, and should have asked for a fatcat with water (non-steam) calorimetry. ps : I have a black body / emissivity simulator under construction. But will it "rescue" or "kill" the results? ----- Original Message ----- From: "H Veeder" <hveeder...@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, October 24, 2014 2:50:05 PM MFMP interviews a spokesman for the company Williamson which specializes in non-contact temperature measurement. They discuss the problem of measuring the temperature of Alumina at higher temperatures. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3O3bSu6N7vwcDJUWGl1Y0pmTWs/edit?pli=1 (15 min. audio only must be downloaded to listen) Harry
