Berke Durak <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > Exactly. Mary Yugo provided an example of this mindset. When Rossi et al. did various forms of liquid calorimetry she demanded some other method because liquid calorimetry (flow, phase change or isoperibolic) is complicated. She had a reasonable point. It is complicated. However, when they changed to a much simpler, first-principle method with Stefan-Boltzmann’s formula and only two instruments, she immediately reversed her position an demanded they go back to liquid calorimetry. Whatever they do, she demands the opposite. She will not take "yes" for an answer. I will grant, there is a bit more to it. There are two other issues: 1. You could have done this IR camera method with the previous reactors running at lower temperatures. 2. This is cruder, with a larger margin of error. On the other hand it is more robust and more believable because it is so simple. - Jed
