Re python.
On windows download the standard distribution of 2.7.
comment out the references to numpy and matplotlib (if you want to plot nice graphs, good for visualisation, matplotlib is the only decent tool but it has annoyingly large dependencies with numpy:
comment out the section that does the plotting:
(sorry for the BB introduced heading - somone does not like programmers!)
#------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# DISPLAY FUNCTIONS (REQUIRES NUMPY, SCIPY, PYLAB)
# -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
#def interp1(pts):
# xv = numpy.asarray([x for (x,y) in pts])
# yv = numpy.asarray([y for (x,y) in pts])
# xnew = numpy.linspace(pts[0][0], pts[-1][0], 100)
# tck = sp.splrep(xv, yv, s=0,k=1)
# ynew = sp.splev(xnew, tck,der=0)
# plt.plot(xnew, ynew)
# plt.title('Band Emissivity')
# plt.show()
Display More
Finally comment out the plot function from main - it still does some decent text printout:
All will then be good. If you look at the details you will see that for second order terms - like the contribution of convection - I have some hacky adjustments. the point being I don't have the raw data, but I can take the quoted report powers and work out a best guess adjustment ratio based on the temperature change and and the theoretical power dependence on T (e.g. T^1.6 or whatever).
For the active tests radiant power at higher temperatures is so dominant second order terms don't matter (I still do my best to estimate, but much higher errors can be tolerated). For the dummy test this is less true - but in any case this calculation for dummy is not very relevant - we know it was fudged by the testers.
Interestingly - consider the quite large error they notice after fudging. They had to adjust emissivity from book value, and so would use the adjusted (total) emissivity in the power calculation. The temperature must be correct because independently measured in this case. But the total emissivity would be adjusted affecting power out. Maybe you'd get a better fit if you used the correct (non-adjusted) emissivity? Anyway that is really not of much interest, and especially at low temperatures where there are questions about the convective loss which is much more significant, their calculations are not reliable.
Best wishes, Tom