Calorimetry, external TC's and OT for internal temps would provide a fuller picture. K-type TC's typically contain nickel so have a low Curie point and are often only rated up to 185°C anyway. I also suspect they may be susceptible to photoelectric induction since what they actually sense is EMF, which is then presumed as thermoelectric in origin even though it may not be.
An optical reading is both more accurate, and less ambiguous in the interpretation of results. On Tuesday, March 1, 2016, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Vibrator ! <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > Can't help thinking optical thermometry would be preferable since it's >> impervious to heat damage... assuming the steel currently used for >> chambers is entirely incidental to the reaction, a transparent ceramic >> would would allow direct observation - if not for the whole chamber, then >> at least a via a small window... >> > > Optical thermometry has the disadvantage of no one believing that the > results are accurate. Part of the difficulty is that the total power is a > function of the fourth power of the temperature, so that you'd better get > the temperature exactly right. Getting the emissivity of the object under > test exactly right is also important and something people will argue about > for years, as in the case of the Lugano E-Cat test. > > In light of such issues, proper calorimetry seems like a saner way to go. > > Eric > >
