Infrared Physics & Technology 44 (2003) 9199

www.elsevier.com/locate/infrared

Non-contact multiband method for emissivity measurement

a,* b
Adam Mazikowski , Krzysztof Chrzanowski
a
Gdansk University of Technology, Department of Optoelectronics, Narutowicza 11/12, 80-952 Gdansk, Poland
b
Military University of Technology, Institute of Optoelectronics, Kaliskiego 2, 00-908 Warsaw 49, Poland
Received 17 June 2002

Abstract

During the last decade an increasing interest in passive multiband systems for temperature measurement was noted
and quite a few such systems have been developed. However, recent studies showed that multiband systems are capable
of producing accurate results of non-contact temperature measurement only in limited number of applications and that
multiband systems will not become a real rival for single band systems in temperature measurement applications.
Available literature about passive multiband systems concentrated exclusively on the problem of temperature mea-
surements with these systems in situation when these systems can be used for non-contact emissivity measurements too.
A model of a passive multiband system for non-contact emissivity measurement has been developed in this paper.
Simulations carried out using this model showed that it is possible to achieve reasonable accuracy of emissivity mea-
surements with passive multiband systems and these systems can be considered as an attractive solution for emissivity
measurements in industrial conditions.
2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction parameters: temperature, contamination, rough-

Emissivity describes the objects ability to emit
thermal radiation, and measurement of emissivity
is of signicant importance in science, industry and
other areas. When heat transfer is modelled,
emissivity must be known. Most of commercially
available thermal instruments, such as pyrometers,
thermal scanners or thermal cameras need the
emissivity of the object examined as an input pa-
rameter [1]. It is usually obtained using literature
data. Unfortunately, emissivity depends on many
*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: adamazik@eti.pg.gda.pl (A. Mazikowski).
ness or viewing angle. To make matters worse, not
only is the object emissivity usually unknown, but
in many applications it may change during the
measurement.
Several methods for emissivity measurements
have been developed [26]. Direct measurement of
emissivity using the denition: ratio of sample
emissive power to blackbody emissive power is the
most popular method. This technique involves
measurement of the examined object and spe-
cially prepared reference plate of known emissiv-
ity. Indirect emissivity measurement using the
relationship between object reectivity and ob-
ject emissivity has found many applications, too.
The latter method requires integrating bi-direc-
tional reectivity measurements over an entire

1350-4495/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 1 3 5 0 - 4 4 9 5 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 1 8 2 - 2
92 A. Mazikowski, K. Chrzanowski / Infrared Physics & Technology 44 (2003) 9199
hemisphere to work out the hemispherical-direc-
tional reectivity. Another group of techniques
that have been developed recently are techniques
based on periodic radiometry [5]. It is shown that
thermal modulation of a sample allows direct and
indirect emissivity measurements even at low
temperature, with ordinary equipment. The emis-
sivity measurement methods mentioned above
allow us to perform reliable and accurate labora-
tory emissivity measurements. However, they
have some disadvantages, when in eld measure-
ments are needed. In most cases they involve
knowledge of the sample temperature, tempera-
ture modulation, sophisticated equipment or
specially prepared samples as reference source.
To conclude, they cannot allow us to perform
emissivity measurement in working and un-
known conditions often met in many industrial
applications.
During the last decade an increasing interest in
passive multiband systems for temperature mea-
surement was noted [714]. The method is based
on the assumption that object emissivity can be
well approximated by function of wavelength of m
parameters where m
1 must be lower or equal
to number of system spectral bands. A few multi-
band pyrometers and thermal cameras have been
developed [1518]. However, recent studies
showed that multiband systems are capable of
producing accurate results of non-contact tem-
perature measurement only in a limited number
of applications and that multiband systems will
not become a real rival for single band sys-
tems in temperature measurement applications
[10,11,19].
Available literature about passive multiband
systems concentrates exclusively on problem of
temperature measurements with these systems in
situations when these systems can be used for non-
contact emissivity measurements, too. A study of
the accuracy of non-contact emissivity measure-
ment with multiband systems is in this paper. The
aim of the study is determination of accuracy of
emissivity measurement with multiband systems in
real industrial conditions. A mathematical model
that enables determination of errors generated
during measurement process with real multiband
systems is developed. Calculations of emissivity
measurement errors in possible measurement
conditions were carried out. Conclusions about
capabilities of multiband systems in industrial
applications in comparison to other methods of
emissivity measurement are presented.
2. Basic concept of the multiband radiometer
In passive multiband systems measurements of
the emitted radiance of the object are taken at
several wavelengths (usually more than four). In
result we obtain a set of n equations with m un-
knowns, as presented below:
S1 f Tob ; ea1 ; a2 . . . am
1 ; k1 . . .
S2 f Tob ; ea1 ; a2 . . . am
1 ; k2 . . .
1
...
Sn f Tob ; ea1 ; a2 . . . am
1 ; kn . . .
where n is the number of detection bands, Sn is the
signal measured at n band, Tob is the true object
temperature, ea1 ; a2 . . . am
1 ; k is the object emis-
sivity at wavelength k.
Both the temperature Tob and the emissivity
ea1 ; a2 . . . am
1 ; k of the object tested can be cal-
culated by tting the measurement data to the
theoretical model [7,8,10,20]. For this purpose a
few dierent techniques are used. The most pop-
ular is the least-squares technique [21,22]. Re-
searchers interested in temperature measurements
analysed the accuracy of determination of the
temperature Tob by solving set of equations (1)
omitting the problem of accuracy determination of
the emissivity ea1 ; a2 . . . am
1 ; k1 [714]. In this
paper we will have an inverse situation.
Graphical presentation of emissivity (or tem-
perature) measurement process with passive in-
frared radiometer is shown in Fig. 1. Radiation
emitted by the investigated object is collected by
the optical system and then transmitted through
band-pass lters to the detector (detectors). The
electrical signal is then amplied and converted to
digital form. Next, using the chosen technique the
emissivity (or temperature) of the measured object
is calculated.
 A. Mazikowski, K. Chrzanowski / Infrared Physics & Technology 44 (2003) 9199
Fig. 1. Emissivity measurement system using multiwavelength infrared radiometry. BRbackground radiation, ORobject radia-
tion.
3. Mathematical model of emissivity measurement
system
The signals S1 ; . . . ; Sn in the set of equations (1)
are signals measured at the output of the multi-
band radiometer. The components f Tob ; ea1 ;
a2 . . . am
1 ; k1 ; . . . ; f Tob ; ea1 ; a2 . . . am
1 ; kn are
the assumed signals calculated using a theoretical
model of the measurement process and let us call
these signals Sa1 ; . . . ; San .
The assumed output signal Sa in channel n can
be modelled mathematically as [19,24]
Z
gn R Adn
Sn 2n eas kMTas ; kso ksFn ksn k dk
4F 1 Dkn
where F is the optics F -number that equals the
ratio of focal length f and the aperture diameter
D [19,24], gn is the electronic system amplica-
tion in n spectral channel, R is the detector
peak spectral responsivity at n spectral channel,
Ad is the detector area, eas k is the assumed ob-
ject emissivity, MT ; k is the blackbody spectral
radiant exitance in temperature T and wave-
length k, sn k is the detector relative spectral re-
sponsivity, so k is the transmittance of optics and
sFn k is the lter transmittance in n spectral
channel.
The real output signal Sn in channel n obtained
in working measurement conditions can be pre-
sented as follows [19,24]:
93

gn  dgn Rn  dRn Adn
Sn
4F 2 1
Z
 eob kMTob ; kso ksFn ksn k dk
Dk
Z n
1
eob keback kMTback ; kso ksFn ksn k dk
Dk
Z n 
eopt kMTopt ; ksFn ksn k dk
Dkn
 Van  Vdn 3
where eob k, eback k, eopt k are, respectively, real
object, background and optics emissivity, dgn is the
standard deviation of the gain gn , dR is the stan-

dard deviation of the detector peak spectral re-
sponsivity R , Van and Vdn are the standard
deviations caused by analog and digital noise re-
2
spectively.
As we can see there are signicant dierences
between the assumed signal (2) and the real signal
shown in (3). Eq. (3) takes into account additional
parameters: background radiation, radiation
emitted by optical elements, electronic noise and
non-ideal emissivity approximation of the real
body. Depending on measurement conditions
some of these factors can be negligible, while
others can cause signicant errors of object emis-
sivity measurements. Now let us dene the quan-
tities presented in Eqs. (2) and (3).
To choose an emissivity approximation function
it is necessary to make a few assumptions. From
analysis of analytical functions for approximation
of object emissivity available in literature we can
conclude that a function of one to two parameters
94 A. Mazikowski, K. Chrzanowski / Infrared Physics & Technology 44 (2003) 9199
can well approximate emissivity functions of most
objects [19,23]. As emissivity function used in
multiband systems must very well interpolate ob-
ject emissivity at system spectral bands, let us as-
sume that a function of at least three parameters is
needed. From a few possible functions a mth de-
gree exponential polynomial was chosen.
ek expa0 a1 k a2 k2
Such a form for emissivity makes possible to use a
linear least squares method for unknown param-
eters calculations. This method is fast and simple,
gives good results but is limited to use exponential
polynomial as object emissivity approximation
[10,14].
The output signals in each channel suer from
electronic errors. The output analog noise consists
of two components: the noise generated by the
detector and amplied by electronics blocks and
additional noise generated by these blocks. For a
well designed electronics the output noise is mostly
caused by the detector. In case of pin-type detec-
tor, working in current-to-voltage converter con-
guration, the output analog error can be assessed
as
s
2
rn Rn
Van Adn Dfn iN rn 2 Dfn 4kTsyst rn Dfn
Dn
where rn is the current-to-voltage converter trans-
resistance in n spectral channel, iN is the spectral
density of current noise of operational amplier, k
is the Boltzmann constant, Tsyst is the electronic
device temperature, D is the detector peak nor-
malised spectral detectivity (cm Hz1=2 W
1 ), Df is
the noise equivalent bandwidth to the output of
the analog channel n.
The error generated by limited resolution of the
digitisation system used in channel n can be cal-
culated as standard deviation of rectangular
probability distribution. In the range determined
by least bit (LSB) of the converter, the digital
output is equal to 0 for the analog input less
than LSB/2 and equal LSB for the analog input
greater than LSB/2. Using simple integration we
obtain [19]
LSBn Smax n
Vdn p p 6
12 122k
where Smax n is maximal value of the analog signal
to be digitised at electronic channel n, k is bit
number of A/D converter.
Additional electronic errors may be caused by
variation of system channel gain and variation of
4 detector responsivity due to the system tempera-
ture changes. These errors cannot be modelled
mathematically, but can be well estimated. Let us
consider a case when the same electronic channel is
used for all optical bands, so the errors occur si-
multaneously in each of system bands. Such errors
may be assessed as the dierence between param-
eters during calibration and those existing in real
measurement conditions.
All multiband infrared systems require a cali-
bration procedure. During calibration it is possible
to precisely determine the signal caused by the
optics and geometrical factors. As a reference
source a blackbody is usually used. The limited
accuracy of the blackbody temperature DTcal is the
main source of calibration errors as other errors
can be successfully minimised in laboratory con-
ditions. The calibration signal is usually deter-
mined experimentally.
5 4. Calculations
Having dened multiband radiometric system
components as mathematical formulas, it is pos-
sible to perform computer simulations. Because
multiband systems can be designed in many ways,
let us make a few general assumptions about de-
sign of the system.
First, a system with six spectral bands, located
between 1.3 and 1.85 lm, will be analysed. The
number of system spectral bands is greater than a
minimum number. Additionally, in this spectrum
range atmosphere attenuation is negligible. Sec-
ond, we assume that the optical signal emitted by
optical elements is also negligible or can be pre-
cisely determined during the calibration process.
Third, the limited blackbody temperature accuracy
will be considered as the only source of calibration
errors. Fourth, the extended InGaAs pin-type de-
 A. Mazikowski, K. Chrzanowski / Infrared Physics & Technology 44 (2003) 9199 95

tector, working with current-to-voltage converter

as preamplier will be used for calculations.

4.1. The emissivity accuracy criteria

For emissivity accuracy assessment the emissiv-

ity accuracy criteria must be determined. The ob-
ject emissivity is a function of wavelength, so
simple comparison of parameters may not work
properly. In such a situation a new way of as- Fig. 2. The emissivity measurement error caused by method
sessing emissivity accuracy is proposed. We in- and numerical operations.
troduce a parameter hDei that equals the average
of error modulus for all wavelengths in the used
and was eliminated in further computer simula-
spectral range
Z tions.
1
hDei jeas k
ecalc kj dk 7
Dk Dk 4.3. Background radiation and object temperature
where Dk is the used spectral region, eas k is the uctuations
assumed real object emissivity, ecalc k is the cal-
culated object emissivity. Based on this parameter The inuence of background radiation on
the emissivity measurement accuracy will be de- measurement results depends on the background
termined by further computer analysis. In most temperature Tback , its emissivity eback and the object
cases, when any pseudorandom value is added to reectivity. Let us consider a typical situation
the system parameter examined, the calculations when the background emissivity is high, close to 1.
must be repeated several hundred times so we Additionally we will choose iron as the measured
obtain good statistical results. The statistical error object, whose emissivity can be approximated
can be calculated as shown by the following function: eob exp
0:361

0:667k2 [22,23]. The simulation results for three
1X dierent object temperatures equal to 300, 400 and
hDeistat hDeik 8
k k 500 C respectively are presented in Fig. 3.
As we can see, the error caused by background
where k is the number of repetitions, hDeik is the
radiation reected by the object strongly depends
average error (7) obtained in kth trial.
on background temperature and object tempera-
ture. The calculated curves shift right when the
4.2. The method accuracy
object temperature rises. The correlation of signals
At the beginning of emissivity accuracy analysis
the accuracy of calculations should be assessed.
Some errors may be eected by numerical opera-
tions and do not completely fulll the least squares
method assumption [9,21]. For this purpose let us
assume ideal measurement conditions, without
inuence of any error causing factors. The results
of the simulation are shown in Fig. 2.
The results obtained show that the error gener-
ally decreases as the object temperature rises.
However, all the errors can be thought of as ac-
ceptable or, in higher temperatures, negligible. Fig. 3. The emissivity measurement error caused by inuence
Additionally, the error has systematic character of background radiation.
96 A. Mazikowski, K. Chrzanowski / Infrared Physics & Technology 44 (2003) 9199
Fig. 4. The emissivity measurement error caused by object
temperature uctuations.
received in dierent spectral bands cause a few
local minima. However, it is clear that for object
temperatures over 300 C and background tem-
perature below 100 C the emissivity errors are
relatively small, almost negligible. For higher
background temperatures these errors can be more
signicant.
The system channel signals are measured si-
multaneously or quasi-simultaneously. Therefore,
let us assume uctuations of object temperature
during measurement of about 0.1 C. Multiband
systems are sensitive to such errors which result in
quite a signicant emissivity measurement errors
(Fig. 4).
4.4. Object emissivity approximation
The multiband method of emissivity measure-
ment is based on a fundamental assumption that
the real object emissivity can be very well ap-
proximated by a mathematical function with a few
unknown parameters. For applying the linear least
squares method the exponential polynomial is
needed. In fact this assumption is not exactly ful-
lled so emissivity measurement errors can occur.
To assess these errors the following test was per-
formed. Let us assume the object made from N-
155ASTM steel of oxidised surface, so the real
object emissivity is given by a function presented
in Fig. 5(curve 1) [19,23]. In Fig. 5 the spectral
characteristics of calculated object emissivity is
also presented (curve 2).
The test performed shows serious emissivity er-
rors if the real object emissivity cannot be exactly
approximated by the assumed mathematical
Fig. 5. (1) The real and (2) the calculated object emissivity as
function of wavelength.
function. In the whole analysed spectral range the
dierence between assumed and calculated emis-
sivity is about 0.04. Additionally, other tests have
been carried out to analyse the inuence of object
temperature on these errors. The errors seem to be
practically independent of temperature of the
measured object.
4.5. Analog and digital electronic noise
The noise in analog electronic blocks repre-
sented by the standard deviation of the output
electronic signal Van introduced in point 3 causes
variations of the indications of the radiometer.
Because analog noise depends mainly on the nor-
malised detector detectivity D , calculations of
standard deviation of output emissivity variations
were carried out for three dierent normalised
detectivity values for objects made from iron.
Other parameters included into calculations are
spectral density of current noises for operational
amplier iN and system gain g. The rst was set to
0.01 pA Hz
2 , a value typical for standard ampli-
er, while the latter was set to 106 .
As shown in Fig. 6, the emissivity measurement
errors caused by noise in the analog electronic
channel decrease when the object temperature ri-
ses. For detectors of normalised detectivity equal
to 5  1011 or greater, which is typical for most of
pin-type detectors, these errors are relatively small,
while for lower detectivity they can be more sig-
nicant.
As well as analog noise digital errors can inu-
ence the emissivity measurement accuracy due to
the limited resolution of digitisation system. Be-
 A. Mazikowski, K. Chrzanowski / Infrared Physics & Technology 44 (2003) 9199
Fig. 6. Emissivity measurement error caused by analog elec-
tronic channel noise.
cause of wide range of object temperatures and
emissivities it is almost impossible to perform the
analog-to-digital conversion using one xed range.
Let us make some assumption then. First, signals
from all optical channels are measured using the
same range. Second, we assume the situation,
when the sub-ranged system allows us to obtain
near 100% of full analog-to-digital converter range
for the highest output analog signal.
Calculations were performed for three dierent
resolution A/D converters. As we can see in Fig. 7
the errors caused by the limited resolution of the
A/D converter are signicant. Additionally, they
strongly depend on bit number of A/D converter.
Even applying 16-bit converters do not reduce
these errors below 0.01. It can also be noticed that
limited digital resolution errors decrease as the
object temperature rises.
Other errors are errors that exist due to the gain
and responsivity variations. They can be assessed
as 0.25% per one degree of system temperature
change [19]. Let us assume that the temperature
dierence between calibration and real conditions
Fig. 7. Emissivity measurement error caused by limited reso-
lution of digitisation system.
97
Fig. 8. Emissivity measurement error due to variation of gain
and detector responsivity.
DTsyst 2 K as a common value for all channels.
Additionally, system temperature can change
during measurements, so potentially the measure-
ment in each channel can be taken at dierent
temperatures. Let us assume that this dierence
to DTn 0:2 K. Greater temperature changes
can be well controlled and compensated. In Fig. 8
the errors presented are relatively small, about
0.01 and are rather independent of object tem-
perature.
4.6. Calibration errors
In point 3 we assume the blackbody temperature
and emissivity accuracy as sources of calibration
errors. The typical blackbody temperature uncer-
tainty DT is about 0.25% of absolute blackbody
temperature, while the emissivity uncertainty is
smaller than 0.005.
The calculations showed that errors caused by
calibration may be considered as negligible in
comparison to errors previously discussed.
4.7. Final results
Let us now calculate the emissivity measurement
accuracy in real condition, when all previously
discussed factors are present. For calculation we
assumed the following parameters: the real object
made from N-155ASTM steel of oxidised sur-
face, Tback 100 C, eback 1, 12 bit A/D con-
verter, uncooled G5851-01 detector of normalised
detectivity D 1  1011 , the object temperature
uctuations 0.1 C, the common gain and detector
responsivity uctuations 0:5  0:05% in each sys-
tem channel. Results are presented in Fig. 9.
98 A. Mazikowski, K. Chrzanowski / Infrared Physics & Technology 44 (2003) 9199
Fig. 9. Emissivity measurement error in assumed real condi-
tions.
Although some of the previously analysed fac-
tors cause quite signicant errors, in general case
these errors are partially compensated. Measure-
ment accuracy is relatively small only for lower
temperatures, while for higher values the results
obtained can be considered as attractive in indus-
trial conditions. The measurement accuracy of
other methods in laboratory conditions is 0.005
0.01. However, for methods useful in industry
conditions the accuracy is reported to be 0.020.03
[15] which is a comparable value to the one
achieved in the method developed here.
5. Conclusions
A model of a passive multiband system for
non-contact emissivity measurement has been de-
veloped. It shows that multiband method of
emissivity measurements is based on validity of
some assumptions about measurement conditions,
system design and calibration process. In such a
situation radiometric and electrical disturbances
must be analysed as potential sources of mea-
surement errors.
Simulations carried out using a model of emis-
sivity measuring multiband radiometer showed
that non-ideal approximation of object emissivity
by assumed mathematical function and uctuation
of object temperature during measurement process
are the most important sources of errors. For
a well-designed system the inuences of other
sources as caused by analog electronic noise,
blackbody non-accuracy, limited resolution of
analog-to-digital converter can be considered as
non-signicant.
Errors caused by background radiation reected
by the object strongly depend on background and
object temperatures. For background temperature
below 100 C and object temperature higher than
300 C, the inuence of this source of errors can be
considered as non-signicant, too.
Generally, simulations carried out using the
developed model of a passive multiband system for
non-contact emissivity measurement showed that
it is possible to achieve reasonable accuracy of
emissivity measurements with passive multiband
systems and these systems can be considered as an
attractive solution for emissivity measurements in
industrial conditions.
References
[1] R.P. Madding, Emissivity measurement and temperature
correction accuracy consideration, Proc. SPIE 3700 (Ther-
mosense XXI) (1999) 393401.
[2] L. Chen, B.T. Yang, X.-R. Hu, Design principle for
simultaneous emissivity and temperature measurements,
Opt. Eng. 29 (1990) 14451448.
[3] R.B. Johnson, C. Feng, J.D. Fehribach, On the validity
and techniques of temperature and emissivity measure-
ment, Proc. SPIE 394 (Thermosense X) (1988) pp. 202206.
[4] D. Especel, S. Mattei, Total emissivity measurement
without use of an absolute reference, Infrared Phys.
Technol. 37 (1996) 777784.
[5] M. Siroux, E. Tang-Kwor, S. Mattei, A periodic technique
for emissivity measurements of insulating materials at
moderate temperature, Meas. Sci. Technol. 9 (1988) 1956
1962.
[6] V. Webbeking et al., Emissivity measurement apparatus
and method, US Patent 5,505,543, 1996.
[7] W.F. Kosonocky, M.B. Kaplinsky, et al., Multi-wave-
length imaging pyrometer, Proc. SPIE 2225 (1994) pp. 26
43.
[8] Z. Bielecki, K. Chrzanowski, T. Piaz tkowski, M. Szulim,
Multiband infrared pyrometer, in: KKM98Polish Na-
tional Metrology Congress, 1998.
[9] A. Mazikowski, R. Hypszer, M. Jez drzejewska-Szczerska,
Modelling of non-contact temperature measurement sys-
tem using multiwavelength pyrometry, Proc. SPIE 4516
(2001) 120124.
[10] K. Chrzanowski, Z. Bielecki, M. Szulim, Comparison of
temperature resolution of single-band, dual-band, and
multiband infrared systems, Appl. Opt. 38 (13) (1999)
28202823.
[11] K. Chrzanowski, M. Szulim, Errors of temperature mea-
surement with multiband IR systems, Appl. Opt. 38 (10)
(1999) 19982006.
 A. Mazikowski, K. Chrzanowski / Infrared Physics & Technology 44 (2003) 9199
[12] V. Tank, H. Dietl, Multispectral infrared pyrometer for
temperature measurement with automatic correction of the
inuence of emissivity, Infrared Phys. 30 (1990) 331342.
[13] R.R. Corwin, A. Rodenburgh, Temperature error in
radiation thermometry caused by emissivity and reec-
tance measurement error, Appl. Opt. 33 (10) (1994) 1950
1957.
[14] C. Schietinger et al., Non-contact optical techniques for
measuring surface conditions, US Patent 5,490,728, 1996.
[15] V. Tank, Method of and device for contactless temperature
measurement of an object independently of radiation
emissivity, US Patent 4,924,478, 1990.
[16] U. Kienitz, Pyrometric measurement procedure and multi-
channel pyrometer, US Patent 4,880,314, 1989.
[17] Z. Bielecki, K. Chrzanowski, R. Matyszkiel, M. Szulim,
Infrared pyrometer for temperature measurement of ob-
ject, emissivity of which depends of wavelength and time,
Optica Applicata 29 (1999) 287294.
99
[18] M. Khan et al., Emissivity independent multiwavelength
pyrometer, US Patent 5,132,992, 1992.
[19] K. Chrzanowski, Non-contact thermometry. Measure-
ments errors, Res. Dev. Treat. (Polish Chapter of SPIE)
7 (2000).
 Andreic, Distribution temperature calculations by tting
[20] Z
the Planck radiation curve to a measured spectrum, Appl.
Opt. 31 (1) (1992) 126130.
[21] M.A. Khan, C. Allemand, T.W. Eagar, Noncontact
temperature measurements. Least squares based tech-
niques, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 62 (1991) 403409.
[22] M.A. Khan, C. Allemand, T.W. Eagar, Noncontact
temperature measurements. Interpolation based tech-
niques, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 62 (1991) 392402.
[23] A. Sala, Radiant Properties of Materials, PWN-Polish
Scientic Publishers, Warsaw, Elsevier, Amsterdam
Oxford, 1986.
[24] C.L. Wyatt, Radiometric System Design, London, 1987.