A $5 radiometer on a satellite should be accurate to several decimal
places over at least one important band width. Other coatings could
be calibrated to work for the rest of the spectrum.

All we need is to be accurate to the nearest watt/m^2. What's the big
holdup in determining net increases in incoming radiation energy?


Bret Cahill

Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> A $5 radiometer on a satellite should be accurate to several decimal
> places over at least one important band width. Other coatings could
> be calibrated to work for the rest of the spectrum.
>
> All we need is to be accurate to the nearest watt/m^2. What's the big
> holdup in determining net increases in incoming radiation energy?

The data are politically unacceptable. Studies are being conducted to
create telemetry dynamically sensitive to the needs of liars and
criminals.

Uncle Al says, "Where there are no corrections needed there is no
Official Truth to be had."

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

Bret Cahill wrote:
> A $5 radiometer on a satellite should be accurate to several decimal
> places over at least one important band width. Other coatings could
> be calibrated to work for the rest of the spectrum.
>
> All we need is to be accurate to the nearest watt/m^2. What's the big
> holdup in determining net increases in incoming radiation energy?
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>

Perhaps consider the following article:

> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../410355a0.html

Greetings,

Q

--
The difference between us and the Titanic is the band.

A $5 sensor??? A 4.40 screw is more than that when you havee to put it into
space!

--
Bob May

rmay at nethere.com
http: slash /nav.to slash bobmay
http: slash /bobmay dot astronomy.net