As things get hotter the emissivity changes At 1000C things are a lot better emitters than at 100C.
>Rossi is smarter than that. This depends on the level of CON in Rossi's work. The Rossi is smarter than that argument can cut both ways... On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 9:30 AM, Bob Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > Jed-- > > Rossi is smarter than that. He would also have measured emissivity years > ago in designing the temperature/camera instrument. > > I would guess the material which is being used as a "dogbone" has a > different amount of calcium or something else, because of the dogs diet.:) > > Bob > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 04, 2015 8:01 AM > *Subject:* Re: [Vo]:Notes from MFMP Lugano Thermal Verification -- > emissivity should have been .95? > > Quote from Notes: > > "The main revelation was that the emissivity required for the camera to > correctly interpret the temperatures on the surface was very close to .95. > When we plugged in the emissivities cited from literature in the Lugano > report (0.8 to 0.4), the apparent temperature was 1200 to 1500C at 900W > in. Is our cast alumina significantly different than other alumina > materials? Tomorrow we can compare several temperatures at once on a 1/2" > OD alumina tube that we purchased from McMaster Carr. . . ." > > Uh oh. That does not sound good for Levi et al. > > - Jed > >
