Jones--
Common practice would be to calibrate the thermocouple before and after the
test. I think that, if the thermocouple were not working it would be obvious
and there would be data to confirm it did not work. The differences between
the camera and the thermocouple, if it worked, should be explained. A report
addendum is common.
Bob Cook
----- Original Message -----
From: Jones Beene
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2014 3:24 PM
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Color Temperature
From: Jed Rothwell
The discussion of color and temperature only mask the glaring reality that
an inexpensive way to be certain of thermal gain in the TP2 device is flow
calorimetry.
I think flow calorimetry with this device at these temperatures would be
problematic. For one thing, you could not see the device, which might even be
dangerous. I think the present method is better, although it may not have been
done right. It should be confirmed with the internal thermocouples.
Well, catch-22 they used an internal thermocouple - and apparently took data
from a perfect location, which could “see” down the axis of the tube,
presumably the hottest place in the system, but chose not to release the data.
What excuse can they have - other than the thermocouple data does not support
the thermography (therefore the thermocouple failed)?
Ahern proposed a calorimeter which would not compromise the integrity of the
ceramic tube.
Jones
