Talk:Thermocouple

message: I agree of course, but was just trying to keep it a bit simpler. However, I have re-added the bit about adding the compensating voltage to the thermocouple voltage to get accurate result. Dave 21:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Compensating/Extension cables 

message: I believe that the included coefficients for Type K thermocouple aren't correct. There is no way that the coefficients of larger powers should get exponentially bigger.
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.229.15.205 (talk) 19:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect info 

message: The number appears to be wrong. Please see discussion here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Curie_temperature#Curie_temperature_of_iron
 Guy Macon  09:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Followup: User Wtshymanski corrected it here and on the curie temperature page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guymacon (talk • contribs) 15:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curie temperature of iron 

message: This page seems to be very lacking in references, which is a shame as there is a lot of real-world information on it. Maybe the original contributors might wish to share their sources?
87.112.99.166 (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some references? 

message: When I hear the word thermocouple, I think about the device that is used to control temperature also Thermopower, where could a link to this page be put?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scikris (talk • contribs) 00:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the thermopower page? 

message: Why the names or Types of thermocouples are random (K,E,S,B..), not serial(A,B,C,D..)? Is there any reason? Chinu giet08 (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the history, but I think they were serial, and are listed now by their popularity (or other parameters, like alloying metal) rather than alpha order. Materialscientist (talk) 05:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Labeling

message: Note that copying tables like this  is not a copyright violation (such data are not copyrightable). I don't know whether this table fits in the article though. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure? The page where it was copied from certainly says "© 2011 - 2012 Pelican Wire Company, Inc. All rights reserved." I would be surprised if someone spent a lot of time gathering all that information, and just because they published it in tabular form, there was no copyright protection for their company. Such information certainly needs wikifying though: what is the point of that column headed 'PART #' here? I'm sure there's something in WP:MoS about presenting info in ALL CAPS too. (Copied here from my talk page so that other editors here may comment too) --Nigelj (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insulation types 

message: It's worth noting that the lead image at the present is a bit misleading, as the thermocouple is not being used at all to measure room temperature in that case. The reason I say that is that the multimeter is measuring basically zero volts out of the thermocouple, but it is performing cold junction compensation (using a second internal thermometer, based on thermistor or something like that). Thus the thermocouple has absolutely nothing to do with the temperature being displayed on the multimeter: I could short the inputs together using a simple copper wire and see the same reading.
It would be nice to have an image showing a multimeter measuring the temperature of something else which has a different temperature. --Nanite (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The thermocouple is being used to measure room temperature.  Assuming that the room temperature is indeed 19° Celsius, the type K thermocouple in use will provide an output of  0.758 mV of e.m.f.  The junctions between the thermocouple wires/connector and the multimeter terminals will each provide an e.m.f. though as we do not know what the metallic composition of the terminals is, we cannot speculate as to the magnitude of these e.m.f.s.  The cold junction compensation is designed to calibrate out these later two e.m.f.s leaving the meter to indicate the temperature represented by the e.m.f. of the thermocouple itself, in this case 19° Celsius.  86.159.159.138 (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  note on lead image 

message: Type-K Polynomial Coefficients 0–500 °C, 0.05 °C accuracy; for Tref = 0 °C
n	a_n
0	0 °C
1	25.08355 °C/mV
2	7.860106×10−2 °C/mV2
3	−2.503131×10−1 °C/mV3
4	8.315270×10−2 °C/mV4
5	−1.228034×10−2 °C/mV5
6	9.804036×10−4 °C/mV6
7	−4.413030×10−5 °C/mV7
8	1.057734×10−6 °C/mV8
9	−1.052755×10−8 °C/mV9
I removed the following table since it takes much space and adds very little to the article, especially since it only describes type K. And if we would have this kind of information for all thermocouples, the article would be full of wikitables. Anonimski (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coefficients 

message: Example: I have a thermocouple with the hot junction at the temperature of 575 °C and cold junction at the temperature 550 °C. Let's say I measured the thermoelectric voltage U=0.1 mV. Now, I will take the same thermocouple with the hot junction on the temperature 50 °C and the cold junction on the temperature of 25 °C. The temperature difference in both cases is 25 °C. Will I measure the same voltage U=0.1 mV or not??? Is the thermoelectric voltage only a function of the temperature difference or because of the non-linearity of Seebeck coefficient I will get some other U?? Thanks. Tomáš.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.160.72.10 (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thermoelectric voltage temperature difference 

message: Word not used in article. Equinox (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Dictionaries do say thermel=thermocouple, however nothing links to thermel (except the link I just made). Seems to be an archaic term. Delete? --Nanite (talk) 08:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does "thermel" redirect here? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Thermocouple. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120910075232/http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/mep_kelvin/its-90_supplementary.html to http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/mep_kelvin/its-90_supplementary.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Regarding (section Principle of operation):
: "Although very little current flows, power can be generated by a single thermocouple junction"
Is that really true? Doesn't it require at least two thermocouples and a temperature difference? --Mortense (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A perpetual motion machine is suggested in this article