Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 20


Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering Department Princeton University

Name David Harris Signature David Harris Date August 4, 2012

Laboratory Work and Report Submission Infrared Thermography (Research Work) Infrared Thermography (Experimental Work) Infrared Thermography (Report Submission)

Date June June 11, 2012 25, 2012

August 20, 2012

Final report submitted

September 6, 2012

David Harris Princeton Undergraduate Class of 2015 Forbes College Princeton, NJ 08544 August 4, 2012 Alexander J. Smits

Eugene Higgins Professor of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering D218 Engineering Quad Princeton, NJ, 08544 Dear Professor Smits: I submit herewith a scientific report for the experiment conducted during my MAE Practical Summer Internship: Infrared Thermography in a Hypersonic Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel. It has been turned in according to the due date instructed to by Owen Williams (August 10, 2012) and pledge my honor that I have not violated the Honor Code during the composition of this lab report. The report itself contains information and analysis of data retrieved from experiments at the Hypersonic Boundary Layer Facility (HyperBLaF) at Princetons James Forrestal Campus. It is intended to relay the results of the lab experiments, and provide insight and analysis which can be used in later experiments. I hope that your find the report to be informative and comprehensive. I also hope that the analysis presented within will prove to be fruitful in further developing the foundation required for hypersonic testing. Yours sincerely, David Harris

INFRARED THERMOGRAPHY IN A HYPERSONIC BOUNDARY LAYER FACILITY MAE Practical Internship Princeton University Abstract Hypersonic aircraft travel at high speeds ranging from Mach 6 to Mach 25 (the speed attained during atmospheric reentry). In these conditions the speed of air particles hitting the aircraft creates intense friction and generates heat that is very detrimental to the aircraft. These thermal loads are dominated by convective heat transfer, which is difficult to measure accurately. An experiment was designed at Princetons HyperBLaF (Hypersonic Boundary Layer Facility) to test a non-intrusive optical measurement technique, known as infrared thermography, with the aim of obtaining quantitative heat transfer data on a flat brass plate subjected to hypersonic flow. An infrared camera along with compatible computer software was used to measure surface temperature over time for a section of Macor in the flat brass plate. This data was then run through programs written in Matlab to find the heat flux over time and the heat transfer coefficient for the Macor embedded in the flat brass plate. The equations used in the Matlab programs use the one-dimensional semi-infinite model to calculate the heat flux and heat transfer coefficient. Results for heat flux & the heat transfer coefficient were found. However, the Matlab code and infrared camera readings require further validation before final conclusions can be made. HyperBLaF Facility The HyperBLaF is a Mach 8 blowdown tunnel (Figure 1) used for studies of compressible turbulence, shock wave/boundary layer interactions, shock/shock interactions and configuration studies for hypersonic vehicles. The test section has a diameter of 229 mm (9), with a length of 2.0m (6 ft). The max stagnation temperature is 870K (1100 F) at a max stagnation pressure of 10 MPa (1500 psia). Run times vary from approximately 2 to 10 minutes. The range of possible Reynolds numbers allow for completely laminar flow at the lowest value and completely turbulent boundary layers on a flat plate at its highest value. When the tunnel turns on, air from an outdoor storage facility is heated by traveling through an electrically preheated pipe. Flow properties are considered constant through the test section.

Figure 1: HyperBLaF Wind Tunnel 2

Infrared Camera The camera used for infrared thermography is called the ThermoVision A320G purchased from Forward Looking InfraRed (FLIR) Systems Inc. The package included compatible software titled ThermaCam Researcher 2.9 which was installed on the lab computer. The computer interfaced with the camera via a CAT-5 Ethernet cable. Technical data is presented in Table 1. Imaging Performance
Field of view Close Focus Limit Focal Length Spatial Resolution (IFOV) F-number 25 x 18.8 0.4 m (1.31 ft.) 18 mm (0.7 in.) 1.36 mrad 1.3 Focal Plane Array (FPA), Uncooled Microbolometer 7.5 13 320 x 240 pixels
70 mK @ 30 (+86

Detector Performance
Detector Type Spectral Range Resolution
Thermal Sensitivity/ NETD

Detector Pitch Detector Time Constant

25 Typically 12 ms -20 C to +120 C (-4 F to +248 F) 0 C to +350 C (+32 F to +662 F) C( 3.6 F) or

Object Temperature Range Accuracy Emissivity Correction

2% of reading

Variable from 0.01 to 1.0

Table 1: Technical Data for ThermoVision A320G (A325) The cameras field of view was calculated (see Table 2) based on the distance from the lens of the camera to the Macor, which was the object of focus. The camera has a very small focal range, as seen by the small F-number in Table 1. The IFOV (Instantaneous Field of View) and IPA (Instantaneous Projected Area) were calculated (see Table 2) to determine the pixel size in the images and the image area measured by each detector in the cameras focal plane array, respectively.

Spatial Resolution Distance from Camera 0.4 m (1.31 ft) = Close Focal Limit Width Height Area FOV 6.982 in. 5.214 in. 36.404 IFOV 0.210 in. 0.210 in. 0.044 IPA 0.406 in. 0.406 in. 0.165 Table 2: Optical Field of View at Minimum Focal Distance Equipment Validation Based on the radiation theory presented in the Appendix 1, the camera requires inputs describing the surrounding environment, interfering mediums, and the object being studied in order to return accurate temperature data. First, the Macor insert, the object being studied, is considered to be a grey-body, so the emissivity had to be measured and compared to another source for validation. Likewise the wind tunnel viewing window (4 wide and 0.5 thick), made out of zinc selenide, has a transmissivity factor that had to be measured and compared to data from the manufacturer.

Figure 2A: Schematic of the different mediums accounted for to conduct infrared thermography

Wind Tunnel Window Infrared Camera Macor

Figure 2B: Simulated Wind Tunnel Setup This validation was accomplished by conducting three test trials in a simulated wind tunnel setup (Figure 2). The ThermaCam Researcher software contains an algorithm for estimating the emissivity and transmissivity based on the input of a known and an uncalibrated temperature measurement. The known temperature is recorded for a piece of electrical tape attached to the Macor. This tape has a known emissivity so the temperature recorded is considered to be the real temperature. The un-calibrated temperature is recorded for the Macor next to the tape, whose emissivity is not known. The environmental conditions for the three trials are recorded in Table 3, with the known and un-calibrated temperature inputs specified. Environment Conditions Reflected Apparent Temperature ( ) Ambient Temperature ( ) Relative Humidity Temperature Measurements ( ) Trial 1 26.7 26.0 41% Known 59.7 Un-calibrated 59.3 Known 55.0 Trial 2 31.0 26.5 41% Un-calibrated 54.0 Known 52.3 Trial 3 26.5 26.1 41% Un-calibrated 52.1

Table 3: Radiation Parameter Measurements The emissivity values obtained during these three trials (see Table 4) were averaged to obtain the value for emissivity used to calibrate the camera for the actual wind tunnel test. The emissivity values for the Macor were compared to a graph (Figure 3) found in the paper Infrared Thermography for Convective Heat Transfer Measurements by Carlomagno and Cardone

because no data regarding emissivity was provided by Macor manufacturers. The emissivity values from the FLIR for the Macor compare favorably with the values shown in Figure 3. The wind tunnel window transmissivity measurements (see Table 4) were compared to a graph of transmissivity (Figure 4) with respect to wavelength provided by the company for zinc selenide windows of similar thickness (~ half). The averaged transmissivity values were sufficiently close to the manufacturer/researcher values. Trial 1 Emissivity Transmissivity 0.938 0.676 Trial 2 0.903 0.70 Trial 3 0.895 0.680 Average 0.912 0.685

Table 4: Measurements for Infrared Camera Algorithm

Figure 3: Directional Emissivity of MACOR (Carlomagno & Cardone, 2010)

Figure 4: Manufacturer Transmission Graph for Zinc Selenide Window

Experimental Setup: Wind Tunnel Model The wind tunnel test model consisted of Macor, a white glass ceramic, embedded in a sharp, flat, brass plate (Figure 7). Macor was chosen because it has properties suitable for studying transient heat conduction, such as low thermal conductivity and low thermal diffusivity. It also has a relatively high emissivity which facilitates the task of calibrating the infrared camera. Side View

Plate & Macor

Top View

Top View Side View Macor Figure 5: Geometrical Measurements for MACOR Insert and Brass Plate

Emissivity of the Macor & transmissivity of the window are considered constant across the spectral range of 7.5 13 . Emissivity has been observed to vary with temperature, but the influence is only significant at extremely high temperatures (around 1273 K, experimental temperatures Angle were only up to 473 K). The FLIR training manual stated that any tests conducted within a couple hundred Kelvin of experimental temperature will have negligible error for emissivity, so the trials are considered valid. (FLIR Systems, Level I: Course Manual, 2007) Specular radiation causes emissivity to vary with angle between the direction of emission and the surface normal vector. This was measured for MACOR in the paper Infrared Thermography for Convective Heat Transfer Measurements to show that dielectric materials have a relatively constant emissivity if 60 . In this experiment the angle was estimated to be 30 .

Figure 6: Directional Emissivity of MACOR (Carlomagno & Cardone, 2010)


Experimental Setup: Tunnel Setup & Software Calibration

Figure 7: Top View of Experiment Setup

Figure 8: Side View of Experiment Setup

The camera was set up on a tripod facing the wind tunnel window at an angle of ~ 30 as shown in Figure 7. The data entered into the ThermaCam Researcher software for calibration is listed in Table 5. The Spot Tool referenced in Table 5 is a small pointer used in ThermaCam Researcher to specify the spot at which the user would like to measure temperature over time. The pixel coordinates indicating where the Spot Tool was placed on the images of the Macor is provided. A distance and emissivity value is supplied for the Spot Tool because measurement tools in ThermaCam Researcher can be calibrated for different emissivities and object ranges. Image Frequency Spot Tool X-Position (from Bottom Left) Y-Position (from Bottom Left) Object Distance Emissivity Object Parameters Emissivity Object Distance Reflected Temperature Atmospheric Temperature Atmospheric Transmission Relative Humidity Reference Temperature External Optics Temperature External Optics Transmission 30 Images/Second 111 pixels 157 pixels 0.4 meters 0.91 0.91 0.4 26 26.7 1 0 -273.1 40 0.68

Table 5: Input Values for the Infrared Camera Software used in Wind Tunnel Test

Experimental Execution: Data Collection

The infrared camera recorded infrared images at 30 Hz and sent the images through the CAT-5 Ethernet Cable to the computer where they were saved in FLIRs ThermaCam Researcher software. Each infrared image consists of an array of 76,800 pixels; equal to the number of detectors installed on the cameras focal plane array. Each detector generates a signal based on the amount of infrared radiation absorbed in its IFOV. A color palette applied to the image distinguishes areas of similar temperature. Surface temperature measurements on one spot of the Macor are equal to the size of one pixel (which equals the area of the IFOV) was recorded for each infrared image and saved in a text file (Table 6). All measurements were made at the same spot across the entire run time of the tunnel. These surface temperature measurements are graphed with respect to time in Figure 9.

Figure 9: Surface Temperature Graph over time recorded by FLIR Infrared Camera ThermaCam Researcher output the temperature data measured over time at one spot as a text file with several columns. The data used in the Matlab programs are the surface temperature data in column 1 and the time values in column 2 (shaded in Table 6). Temperature ( Kelvin) Initial Temperature & Initial Time

Relative Time (seconds)


Date & Time

8/7/2012 5:49:19.625 PM 8/7/2012 5:49:19.658 PM 8/7/2012 5:49:19.692 PM 8/7/2012 5:49:19.725 PM

# Images Taken

297.052 297.052 297.025

1344376159.658 1344376159.692 1344376159.725

2 3 4

Table 6: Text File output by ThermaCam Researcher with Surface Temperature Data 9

The Semi-Infinite Model Only the heat transfer methods of conduction and convection (see Table 8) are measured in this experiment. Radiation heat transfer, which is proportional to (see Table 4), is assumed to be negligible due to the relatively low temperatures in this experiment (298.13 373.13 ). As seen in the following energy balance equation, conductive and convective heat fluxes are considered equal (Figure 10) and radiation heat flux is considered negligible:

Penetration Depth = 1.5 cm

Figure 10: Semi-Infinite Model Illustration is convective heat transfer, transfer, and is conductive heat transfer].

is radiative heat

The semi-infinite model assumes that heat transfer is one-dimensional and is occurring through a product of low thermal diffusivity (a property satisfied by Macor material). It is called the thick-wall technique because it uses the assumption that the material is infinitely thick. The initial conditions are that at time the temperature is the initial wall temperature (see Table 7). The model breaks down once heat has penetrated through half the thickness of the material (1.5 cm (0.59 in.). Initial Wall Temperature 297.213 Final Wall Temperature 437.079 Total Change in Temperature 139.866 Table 7: Temperature Boundaries for the Measurement Spot on Macor Heat Transfer Method Thick Wall




Radiation Table 8: General Heat Transfer Equations


Transient Heat Conduction Criteria The period between the beginning of a heat transfer process and when the device reaches steady state is known as the transient period where temperature varies with time and position. Measuring heat flux allows us to understand the thermal loads on the object during the transient period. The criterion that determines how long a body undergoes transient heat conduction before reaching steady state is defined by Equation (1) in Table 9. A Matlab program was written to display a graph indicating when the solution violates the boundary condition. (See Figure 11).

Figure 11: Graph of Transient Heat Conduction Criteria over Time

The measuring time for which the semi-infinite model assumption holds is dictated by Equation (2) (Astarita, Cardone, & Carlomagno, 2006) in Table 9.

Tunnel Run-Time for this test Transient Heat Conduction Criteria (1) Time Measurement Criteria for thick-wall technique (2)


= Penetration Depth = thermal diffusivity = Measurement Time = Penetration Depth = Thermal Diffusivity = Measurement Time

Time Limit for this Test

~179.00 seconds ~55.00 seconds

27.49 seconds

Table 9: Time Approximations based on material properties and dimensions


Heat Flux Calculations The equation derived to calculate heat flux based on temperature change across time for a semi-infinite body is: (Astarita, Cardone, & Carlomagno, 2006)

Where = is the surface temperature difference, is the mass density, is the specific heat, and is the thermal conductivity. It is assumed that the entire object is the same temperature at time = 0. However, the integral becomes infinity at the upper boundary condition which makes the equation unsuitable for use in a computer program. A different form of the equation that approximates the solution using a piecewise function was developed in (Cook & Felderman, 1965); where , , and are specific times within the summation and is the total time elapsed in a particular summation interval. (1) This approximation is further simplified by expanding the sum of the first two terms to get the equation into this final form: (2) Equations (1) and (2) were run in Matlab using the surface temperature measurements from the infrared camera as input and outputting a graph of heat flux over time. The order of magnitude for heat flux is about 2-4 kilowatts in an area the size of the IFOV described earlier in this paper (the unit label for the y-axis is inaccurate with regard to the ). The equations should have output graphs that were visually similar, but as seen in Figure 9 there is some discrepancy between the outputs of the two equations. One explanation is that the violation of the transient heat conduction criteria at t = 50s caused the equations to diverge. Another possible cause is a bug in the code relating to summations. A previous bug was discovered that caused the solutions to cluster about the zero position because there was an error in the summation code. Lastly, it is possible that the initial conditions for Equation (2) differ from Equation (1) and werent accounted for in the code. Since the slopes of the graph change dramatically at 50 seconds, the first explanation appears to be the more likely cause. An attempt will be made in future experiments to apply a smoothing technique to minimize the random noise.


Figure 12: Output for Equation (1): Red Line = Equation (1), Blue line = Equation (2)

Findings: Heat Flux With regard to heat flux, the implementation of the Cook-Felderman approximation in a Matlab program proved successful in generating heat flux readings of the expected order of magnitude. Random noise is present so more precise readings can hopefully be obtained in future experiments using data smoothing techniques such as the least squares approximation. The discrepancy between Equation (1) and (2) will also be addressed in for future experiments. Heat Transfer Coefficient Calculations The Heat Transfer Coefficient estimate is 28 An effective formula for determining heat transfer coefficients is found in (Astarita, Cardone, & Carlomagno, 2006). This form is used when the heat transfer rate and the reference temperature are constant. is the constant reference temperature, is the initial wall temperature, and is the current wall temperature. In addition, is the complementary error function, and , , and are mass density, specific heat, and thermal conductivity, respectively. (3) (4) Using a Matlab program, Equation (4) is solved for and substituted into Equation (3) for values of the heat transfer coefficient ranging from 0 to 500. Values of 870 and 297.213 are used for and respectively. The difference between the value generated for based on is compared to the value of in the text file generated by ThermaCam Researcher software. A plot of these differences or errors for each heat transfer coefficient value is shown

in Figure 13. The value with the lowest error is considered to be the best estimate for the heat transfer coefficient. Findings: Heat Transfer Coefficient Based on the graph it appears that the best estimate for the heat transfer coefficient is a value of 28. Unfortunately, the tolerance for this program is based on how many value are chosen to be sampled between 0 and 500. Another program could be written to search with a higher tolerance between the values of 27 and 29 to find a more precise value for the heat transfer coefficient, but this is slightly inefficient. This also does not return show how the heat transfer coefficient changes with time.

Minimum Error

Figure 13: Output for Equation (3): The point of minimum is equal to the estimated heat transfer coefficient = 28.

To summarize, an estimate of the heat transfer coefficient was determined using a Matlab program. The technique described above for calculating the heat transfer coefficient has the potential to deliver a more precise estimate but requires revision of the code based on the range of values to sample. More importantly, the program needs to show how the heat transfer coefficient changes with time. This can be accomplished by simply implementing the equation for convective heat flux:
) This requires that the previous heat flux program that calculates be verified and the freestream temperature in the wind tunnel be matched in time with the temperature measurements , in the ThermaCam Researcher text file.

Considerations for Future Experiments in Heat Transfer Stanton Number A future goal for this experiment is to calculate the non-dimensional Stanton Number using tunnel properties and the heat flux values found in Table 10.


Stanton Number (Dimensionless Parameter)

Table 10: Description of the Stanton Number for Future Calculations Heat Transfer Gage Research Initial research was conducted to determine what type of heat sensor is best to validate the presumed absolute temperature readings from the infrared camera. Criteria for the sensors are quite restrictive. First, the sensor must operate on the thin-film semi-infinite medium assumption. Second, the sensor must be small so as to minimize interference with the flow around the model, but also large enough to be observed properly with the infrared camera (diameter no less than of an inch). Lastly, the sensor must be able to withstand the tunnel conditions, which cover run times from 2 to ten minutes long, and a stagnation temperature as high as 500 . Two options are currently available that meet these criteria. The first is a differential thermopile sensor (called HFMs) from a company called Vatell. These sensors have the lowest time constant in the field (300 ). They also present the option of purchasing either a resistance temperature sensor or a thermocouple design. They can withstand up to 700 . The sensors are short enough to be fully embedded in the Macor. These sensors ship along with software designed to compute heat flux over time. Thermopiles are known to have good-signal-to noise ratio and the Resistance Temperature Sensor outputs an accurately linear temperature vs. resistance graph. However, the advantages of these heat flux sensors are offset by the fact that they cost three times as much as other competing sensors. The competing sensor is a heat flux transducer that uses a Gardon Gage design. The device can withstand up to 500 in the wind tunnel via heat sink/water cooling. The sensitivity is on the order of milli-volts instead of micro-volts for the HFMs. The time constant is on the order of milliseconds as opposed to microseconds for the HFMs. This sensor has a more affordable cost comes with an optical black coating that gives it a high emissivity (favorable for infrared thermography). An optical coating is optional for the HFM sensors.


Literature Cited (References)


Carlomagno, Giovanni M.; Cardone, Gennaro. (last edited August 3, 2010). Infrared Thermography for convective heat transfer measurements. Exp Fluids (2010) 49:11871218. ( November 19, 2007). Users manual: ThermoVision A320;TermoVision A320G. FLIR Systems,Inc. (2007) ThermoVision A320G: Infrared Camera System. FLIR Systems, Inc Simeonides, George. (1992). Infrared Thermography in Blowdown and Intermittent Facilities. VKI (2007). FLIR Systems, Inc. Level I Course Manual. Infrared Training Center: N. Billerica: Massachusets Corning Incorporated. Lighting & Materials. Corning: New York T. Astarita, Cardone, Gennaro,Carlomagno, Giovanni M. (last edited May 23, 2005). Infrared Thermography: An optical method in heat transfer and fluid flow visualization. Optics & Lasers in Engineering 44 (2006) 261-281 de Luca, Luigi; Cardone, Gennaro. Viscous Interaction Phenomena in Hypersonic Wedge Flow. AIAA VOl. 33, No. 12, pp. 2293-2298 Rathore, M.M.; Kapuno, Jr., Raul R.A. Engineering Heat Transfer: Second Edition. Jones & Bartlett Learning: Ontario. (2011) Cook, W.J.; Felderman, E.J. Reduction of Data from Thin-Film Heat-Transfer Gages: A Concise Numerical Technique. AIAA Vol. 4, No. 3, pp 561-562. Cook, W.J. Determination of Heat-Transfer Rates from Transient Surface Temperature Measurements. AIAA Vol. 8, No. 7, pp. 1366-1368



Appendix 1

Infrared Thermography (IRTh) requires an understanding of radiation starting with the concept of the electromagnetic spectrum and the existence of blackbodies. Good overviews are found in (Buchlin, 2010), (Meola & Carlomagno, 2004), and (Carlomagno & Cardone, 2010), as well as in the software documentation for all FLIR infrared thermography products. Plancks law dictates the emissive power (i.e. radiative heat flux) of a blackbody as a function of wavelength:

is absolute temperature, is the wavelength, is Boltzmanns constant, and is Plancks constant. Boltzmanns law follows from the integration of Plancks law across all wavelengths, giving the total emissive power of a blackbody over the entire spectrum.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant (a simple constant of proportionality) is equal to . Most real objects, however, are not blackbodies and only emit a fraction of their actual blackbody emissive power for any specific temperature. These are called grey-bodies and a correction factor known as emissivity is added to Boltzmanns law to calculate heat flux for grey-bodies. Emissivity can be a constant, but usually is a function varying with surface state, temperature, and viewing angle (Simeonides, 1992). The equation of radiative heat flux for a grey-body is: The following equation dictates all the radiation from an object that the camera can see. Absorbance , reflectance , and transmittance are all ratios of greybody radiance to blackbody radiance over blackbody radiance at a specific wavelength: It is usually assumed that the grey-body follows Kirchhoffs Law, which is described by the equality below. For opaque bodies, transmittance is equal to zero, and the equation becomes: Lastly, the Wien Displacement Law is obtained by differentiating Plancks law. The expression relates a particular wavelength to its max blackbody temperature, Units of ( is the temperature in degrees Kelvin and is wavelength in micro-meters. Based on this theory, the emissivity, transmissivity, and reflectivity had to be calculated using a welldocumented procedure.

Appendix 2
Sensor Name Model Number

HFM - 8 - E/H None

HFM - 7 - E/H None

Heat Flux Transducer 4-200-.125-36-20942

SWL Germany
Standard model KL

SWL Germany

SWL Germany
MI with thread M 3.5

SWL Germany
MI with pressure tap and adapter

Important Properties Heat Flux Range Peak Operating Temperature Uncoated Response Time Coated Responset Time Sensor-Specific Properties Pressure Tap Temperature Sensor Heat Flux Sensor RTS Metal RTS Resistance Temperature Sensor Resistance Min. Sensitivity Physical Attributes Diameter Lead Wire Material (Temp Resist.) Lead Wire Length Body Length Sensor Material Body Material

Not Advertised 700 C 17 s 300 s

Not Advertised 700 C 17 s 300 s

200 Btu/ft^2.sec 400 C ~10ms Not Applicable

No Thermocouple--Type E Differential Thermopile Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable 150 V/W/cm^2

No RTS Differential Thermopile Platinum 100-200 ohms 0.25-0.35 ohms/ C 150 V/W/cm^2

No Not Applicable Transducer--Gardon Gage Not Applicable Not Applicable Requires Heat Sink/Cooled Model 10 mV at 200 Btu/ft^2.sec

No Thermocouple--Type E or Type K

No Thermocouple--Type E or Type K

No Thermocouple--Type E or Type K

Yes Thermocouple--Type E or Type K

0.25 in. Mineral Sheath (350 C) ~ 36 in. 0.96 in. Nichrome/Constantan Nickel Housing

0.25 in. Mineral Sheath (350 C) ~ 36 in. 0.96 in. Nichrome/Constantan Nickel Housing

0.0625 in. AWG Solid Copper w/ Teflon Inslation 36 in. 0.125 in. OFHC Copper/ Aluminum Alloy

1.9 mm

4.8 mm/3.6 mm


4.8 mm/3.6 mm

20 mm

12 mm

12 mm

12 mm

chromel/constantan--chromel/alumel chromel/constantan--chromel/alumel chromel/constantan--chromel/alumel chromel/constantan--chromel/alumel

Lab/Experimental Concerns Price Shipping Time Mounting (Thread or Flush Mount) Coating Output

$3,285 3-4 weeks 1/2-20 THD or M12 x 1.75 Otpional Coating--Emissivity = 0.94 Heat Flux & Temperature

$3,285 3-4 weeks 1/2-20 THD or M12 x 1.75 Optional Coating--Emissivity = 0.94 Heat Flux & Temperature

$1,331.00 ~ 5 weeks Not Specified Standard "Optical Black" Coating Heat Flux

Data Acquisition Connection Thermocouple Characterization Function Base Temperature Resistance Resistance relation to Voltage Output Thermocouple Voltage Output Heat Flux Computation Convection Computation Compare/Contrast Linearity of Output Extra Purchase Items Sensor Performance

4-pin Lemo Connector T = a * V^3 + b * V^2 + c * V + d Not Applicable Not Applicable V_tc/G_tc q = (V_hfs/G_hfs) / (g * T + h) q = h * del_T = (V_o(E))/ S_in

4-pin Lemo Connector T = a * V^3 + b * V^2 + c * V + d R_o = e * T_o + f ((V_rts) / (I_rts * G_rts)) + R_o Not Applicable Not Applicable q = h * del_T = (V_o(E))/ S_in

Need to call company back

Non-linear output for thermocouple Vatell AMP-6 (Amplifier) thermopile = good signal-noise ratio

Linear Output for RTS Vatell AMP-6 (Amplifier) thermopile = good signal-noise ratio