Quote Originally Posted by skinnee View Post
I don't recall the exact amount of time, but there was well over a week of sensor calibration and pre-testing that occurred prior to data being captured for the logged results.
Well, so long as it had a chance to cure to a point where the performance wouldn't change significantly over time (digging through my PMs, I recall Eric mentioning 12 hours or so). Either way, it's a detail which should be included in the methodology page.

With the sensors deployed for testing, margin of error is +/- 0.125C
So, the accuracy, precision, and linearity of the DTS is no longer an unknown and/or has been properly cross-calibrated over a wide temperature range against a known, good reference? If that's the case and +/- 0.125C is your calculated margin of error/uncertainty, then it should be stated in your methodology.

On the heat source... that really doesn't work for the intended audience and indeed does complicate matters. With an representative system, the entire audience can relate to each piece of gear, applications used and so on. This same scenario plays out for every test we take on, it is a balancing act and trying to find the proper mix of testing to engage the LC community.
I suppose we're just going to have to remain in disagreement there... pandering to the perceived level of understanding of a given audience is all fine and dandy when it comes to the analysis of data and conclusions; however, such "audience tailoring" should not play a part in the design of a test or in the presentation of data. In the end, though, they're your tests and you can conduct them however you like. Carry on