I read the report you linked to. Their main argument is that CCDs
response at the temperature the ecat is operating at has a low
reaction curve, i.e. the reaction to temperature change flattens out
so it's harder to get an accurate reading with a change in
temperature. The method that Williamson is using is a "Spot
Pyrometer" which uses emissivity or for a better word reflectance,
that's why they are concerned with the transparency of the object
they are measuring at IR wavelengths. Williamson says they have
looked at alumina at various temperatures and have included it's
varying emissivity into an algorithm to give accurate temperature
readings. Since alumina is opaque at the temperature of the ecat and
the wavelengths they were measuring in the Lugano report, were of
between 7.5u and 13u, they chose the appropriate IR cameras. The only
thing that someone might have a question with in regards to the IR
cameras and Rossi's ecat is, "Were the cameras calibrated properly?",
and they say on page 4 of the report that the cameras were calibrated
by the respective manufacturers laboratories.
Robert Dorr
At 10:16 PM 10/25/2014, you wrote:
Hank Mills transcript :
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WNDVQVEhmUjJ4ek0/view>https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz7lTfqkED9WNDVQVEhmUjJ4ek0/view
But it's still not clear whether they should use 8-14u or 2.5u
In any case, their spot pyrometer is most likely more accurate.
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com>www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8454 - Release Date: 10/25/14
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4765 / Virus Database: 4040/8454 - Release Date: 10/25/14
