Quote:
Originally posted by Les
However think I score a point by being first to be stupid.
|
LOL
A bold claim Les. There are entire societies which have sprung up in this data which have no other purpose than to build monuments honouring the enormity and awesome power of my stupidity. But I will concede, subject to recount. These kind of competitions have a way of switching leaders very fast and I am on your tail.
bigben2K, the same flux block was used for all these measurements but other parameters were changing. Tests with another would be very interesting.
Re calibrating the flux block as you suggested. Tricky. If you have a heat source at each end the temps just explode. With a calibrated heat source and a calibrated heat "extractor" (peltier?) it could be done but then you are moving outside the purpose. The "calibration" it has is a "known!?" conductivity, "known" dimensions and many measurements. It is inherently resistant to probe movement because the range of possible movement is small as a percentage of the distance between the probes. This also leads to it being insensitive to probe errors as well. Analogy: Measure the thickness of a coin to 1% you need a micrometer. Measure the length of a room to 1% you only need a tape measure. The flux block is the tape measure in this case, and the kind of work pHaestus is doing is the micrometer, far more accurate by necessity to obtain the same accuracy. Ultimately his data will be far more valuable but consider this a poor mans method for some of the same problems.
Cheers
Incoherent