Alan,
And that is why they should have calibrated for thermal loss at the higher temperature, if Mitchell Swartz’s argument is accurate. Everyone seems to be missing this. Mitch sates: even an accurate temperature measurement is NOT power or heat loss. The person to whom Brian Ahern spoke was affirming that they measured temperature correctly, and that is all. Rossi's group did not calibrate for real heat loss at that high temperature, which they should have done (since the transmissivity in the visible range, which everyone acknowledges but then ignores, means that the assumption of blackbody radiator is wrong). If that assumption is wrong, then a systemic error then gets raised to the 4th power. Since, they did not account for heat loss (thermal power) properly – there could be substantial error. I hope I got that right. Mitch will shortly correct me if not :-) From: Alan Fletcher It has moderate transmissivity in the visible range, which is what the photograph shows. But it drops to zero by 6 and above, which is what the IR camera is measuring. So there could be visible shadows / glowing resistors seen through the ceramic, but the IR calculations are OK. _____ From: "H Veeder" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2014 11:27:44 PM He commented: "My interpretation of figure 6 is that the tranmissivity of alumina goes down to zero. Hence, this shows the arguments about alumina translucency are moot." does this imply the dark bands are not cast shadows? Harry
