The actual measurement that I am interesting in is the amount of power being radiated and convected away from the device. If the effective temperature can be manipulated by some process that results in less than expected power emission, then we are being fooled. That is the root of my reservations.
I have little doubt that excess power is being generated internally by the ECAT core, but an accurate accounting of that power eludes me thus far. The earlier version of the ECAT with the black painted surface appears to be subject to less error in these important calculations. It is unfortunate that the latest version remains so difficult to verify. Dave -----Original Message----- From: H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Sun, Oct 26, 2014 11:55 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:MFMP interviews spokesman from WILLIAMSON Use both as a cross check. harry On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Robert Dorr <rod...@comcast.net> wrote: As to whether a spot pyrometer is more accurate than an IR camera, Ithink depends on their use. For small area or pin point measurement Iagree that a spot pyrometer may be more accurate, but for large or grossmeasurement I think the IR camera would be just as accurate if not moreso. I think that there is no problem using the IR cameras for accuratemeasurement of the temperature of the Rossi ecat as long as the cameraswere calibrated properly. Robert Dorr At 10:16 PM 10/25/2014, you wrote: Hank Mills transcript :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 - 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
