Ericsson & Pomp wrote: > To our understanding, the sensor of the IR camera actually provides an > electrical signal proportional to the emitted power in its region of sensitivity. It would seem to us that this signal, in combination with the wavelength response of the sensor, should have been reported and used for the derivation of the total emitted power. It would seem that going via an inferred surface temperature of the emitting object is an unnecessary detour.
So they want a custom-made camera with raw output from the sensor!? Had this been done, wouldn't they have written something like: > The use of the raw electrical signal from the sensor instead of the > manufacturer-calibrated temperature represents a new situation and introduces > additional unknowns that make the estimation of the output power unreliable. -- Berke Durak
