Infrared picture

[filip 0]

Just for fun. I did not adjust the emissivity. The PEEK is not hotter thAn the brass.

Sorry, I cannot do it, the extension bmt is not allowed.

[IRobertI 520]

bmt sounds like an internal file format for whatever software you're using. Is it not possible to export into some other image format?

[filip 0]

Not in IRSoft and not in Windows Photo Viewer.

[joergen 2]

Not in IRSoft and not in Windows Photo Viewer.

How about making a screen shot?

[IRobertI 520]

My google-fu was stronger than I thought hehe. I found the manual for IRSoft earlier but I didn't think it would be the software you were using. Either way, it looks like it might be possible depending on how the image was first created. See page 19 of the manual:

http://aitproducts.com/media/downloads/ ... Manual.pdf

Or do what Joergen said and just take a screen shot

[filip 0]

I don't like to fight forum policy, but here it is.

[msurunner 2]

What is the context in which this picture is taken? ie, after a print? Before a print? Ambient?

[IRobertI 520]

Since it isn't adjusted properly the image doesn't really say much does it? I mean according to this image the extruder motor is almost as hot as the nozzle. Not to mention the hottest temperature is around 40C, I have showers hotter than that

[joergen 2]

Yeah, I agree with robert and msu... what are you trying to show?

[filip 0]

I am trying to show that people comment without reading everything.

[joergen 2]

I am trying to show that people comment without reading everything.

true, very true.

the problem is that measuring IR from shiny surfaces (compared to matte surfaces) seems difficult, and not give proper readings.

secondly, the field of view is confusing, and the readings therefore heavily clipped.

[filip 0]

I don't have easy access to the IR camera.

Could I do it right ? With black stickers ?

I cannot zoom in in IRSoft, or am I wrong again ?

And Robert, how do you know that the temperature is 40 degrees ?

[IRobertI 520]

Uhm... by reading the graph on the right? It shows that yellow/white represents the peak temperature and that happens to be ~40C on this graph.

And yes, I did read that you hadn't set the emissivity and my post was commenting on that.

[msurunner 2]

Just for fun. I did not adjust the emissivity. The PEEK is not hotter thAn the brass.

Sorry, I cannot do it, the extension bmt is not allowed.

But your pic shows the PEEK being hotter than the brass??? I'm really confused as to what you are trying to show. And when in the process has this been taken? If I were to guess, I'm assuming ten minutes or so after a print, which makes a lot more sense as to why the PEEK would be hotter than the brass. Because brass has a higher thermal conductivity it will heat more easily, AND cool more easily. Thus, even though the PEEK wouldn't get as hot as the brass, it would hold it's temp longer than the brass.

[filip 0]

It was taken some minutes after the printing. I don't remember well.

Next ? time I might try a thermal video. A couple of second of printing and of cooling. What size and format does this forum allow ?

Or, if there is a majority vote, I could delete this thread and forget the Whole thing.

[msurunner 2]

If you do so, please include the settings you used (temp of printer, print speed, fan speed, etc) and time in print. I would also say calibrating the camera would be recommended, though not as necessary if you can give us the print temp.

[phanc60844 0]

It maybe that the peek just emits more IR giving you a false reading. You need to double check it with a contact measurement before you can trust the IR camera. thats the problem with the IR cameras that I've used, you have to use the same emisivity level for the whole picture which is OK if all of the parts you are looking at are all the same material/colour otherwise they are very misleding and cannot be trusted.

just my 2 pence worth