as McKubre says, that cast many questions, thus doubts on the precision of the results.
anyway, an error in emissivity have to be of 3.6 to explain current situation. this level of error , especially once you notice that the assumed emissivity at 1250-1400C is 0.4, and the one at 450 is 0.7, which imply incredibly high and low emissivity for the same object... If I compute well the ration of the real emissivity between 450C and 1400C have to be 1 over 6 but the test let too much doubt to be respected by those who don't want it to be real. too bad. maybe some reanalysis , or some new reference can reinstall trust. 2014-11-02 16:56 GMT+01:00 Alan Fletcher <[email protected]>: > *From: *"Alain Sepeda" <[email protected]> > *Sent: *Sunday, November 2, 2014 4:17:39 A > > and an interesting reference article > Infrared thermography for convective heat transfer measurements > http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00348-010-0912-2 > <http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00348-010-0912-2> > > That one's (at least partly) downloadable. > > It emphasizes that you have to take into account the wavelength-dependence > of emissivity. > (as in my http://lenr.qumbu.com/blackbody_141027A.php) > > page 1189: However, since infrared camera detectors capture only a limited > band of the whole electromagnetic spectrum, while making measurements > with IR thermography, Planck’s law (2), rather than Stefan–Boltzmann’s law > (4), has to be applied. > > >
