Cheap thermometer calibration technique?

On Tue, 08 May 2007 14:16:38 -0700, John Larkin
  Quoted Text Here  

Hard to believe, but it is.
Still, not a good source to cal IR with.
Skin is about 0.96, but skin temp is always several degrees lower than internal body temp.
A GOOD, NIST traceable black body source is only about 0.98
1.0 is not achievable.

On Tue, 08 May 2007 12:20:02 -0700, John Larkin
You're nuts.

On Tue, 08 May 2007 17:42:08 -0700, The Great Attractor
  Quoted Text Here  
What do you think the emissivity of an ice cube is?
John

On Tue, 08 May 2007 19:42:04 -0700, John Larkin
  Quoted Text Here  
List all the 1.0 emissivity sources you know of.

["Followup-To:" header set to sci.electronics.design.] The Great Attractor wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
What part of "close to" do you not understand?
robert

  Quoted Text Here  
Nothing like a little actual data to cut through the fog...
  Quoted Text Here  
or a little confirmation from them that depends on this stuff for their income...
  Quoted Text Here  
[...]
Or an oft-referenced expert source.
Thanks again, John. Dave (OP)

  Quoted Text Here  
The expert source would certainly NOT be john, and the link was from ME, asshole.

On Tue, 08 May 2007 21:51:53 -0700, The Great Attractor
  Quoted Text Here  
Well read it then. Water is 0.98.
John

On May 8, 10:34 pm, John Larkin
  Quoted Text Here  
Why do you even bother reading his posts? He is wrong far more often than right and never admits an error.

  Quoted Text Here  
Ok, he is AlwaysWrong. But when a sensible person asks a sensible question, and the GreatBlunderer gives him advice that is flat preposterous, he ought to be corrected.
John

On May 9, 7:53 am, John Larkin
  Quoted Text Here  
Yes, I can see your point.
Perhaps someone as a service to the public could write a little bot that puts a follow up on his posts pointing his out.

MooseFET wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
So, you need a "Garbage bot"? ;-)

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
It wasn't for me personally. I was concerned about anyone who may not have seen his posts before. Since he seems to specialize in lame insults and counterfactual statements, I don't read his posts much anymore. When someone replies to him, I may read the reply. Someone new to the group, however, may not know this about him.

MooseFET wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
How about a simple warning post, once a week about the losers who spread false and dangerous info?

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
One of the local news groups I used to frequent had a monthly FAQ posting. There was an unoffical "keeper of the FAQ" who would edit it from time to time and post it about once a month unless it was raining or too sunny that week.
It worked moderately well. From time to time a newby would jump in with a post before reading it and get gently roasted over the open flames. When spam ads were posted we would have a little competition to see who could write the best parody of it.

  Quoted Text Here  
Totally retarded behavior.
Not surprising that you endorse such utter stupidity.

  Quoted Text Here  
That is your specialty, you retarded fuckhead.

  Quoted Text Here  
You just made one, fuckhead.

  Quoted Text Here  
The "expert source" I'm referring to is the document you pointed to several times.

  Quoted Text Here  
Yet you complimented HIM for posting it.
Nice reply to me. I really enjoy helping someone out, and then seeing them complimenting someone else for it. Thanks.