pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.09873 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-10 · ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Recognition: unknown

Closing the ultrahigh temperature metrology gap: non-contact thermal conductivity (k) and spectral emittance (mathrm{varepsilon_{λ}}) of molybdenum up to 3200 K

Hunter B. Schonfeld , Elizabeth Golightly , Milena Milich , Scott Bender , Konstantinos Boboridis , Davide Robba , Luka Vlahovic , Rudy Konings
show 2 more authors
Ethan Scott Patrick E. Hopkins
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:45 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ❄️ cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords thermal conductivitynon-contact measurementhigh temperature metrologymolybdenumspectral emittanceultrahigh temperatureradiometryheat transfer model
0
0 comments X

The pith

Non-contact radiometry measures molybdenum thermal conductivity to 3000 K with 8-11 percent uncertainty.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper develops a non-contact technique that uses a modulated laser to create a small temperature perturbation while lock-in infrared imaging records the resulting differential signal. A 2D axisymmetric heat-transfer model then extracts thermal conductivity from that signal, with the same setup also yielding spectral emittance across visible and near-infrared wavelengths. Demonstrated on high-purity molybdenum from 1500 K to the onset of melting, the approach delivers data where conventional contact probes become unreliable because of resistances, uncertain boundaries, and strong radiation. If correct, the method supplies the missing high-temperature property values required for hypersonic structures, fusion components, and laser additive manufacturing.

Core claim

By combining lock-in infrared thermography with a spatially localized modulated laser perturbation and a validated 2D steady-state heat-transfer model, the work reports solid-state thermal conductivity of molybdenum from 1500 K to 3000 K at uncertainties of 7.9-11 percent; the same apparatus simultaneously provides normal spectral emittance from 500 nm to 1000 nm in both solid and liquid phases.

What carries the argument

The SSTDR platform, which generates a conduction-dominant differential temperature field from a modulated laser and inverts it for thermal conductivity via a 2D axisymmetric steady-state heat-transfer model while simultaneously recording hyperspectral radiance for emittance.

If this is right

  • High-temperature thermal-conductivity data become available for refractory metals and ceramics up to their melting points without contact artifacts.
  • Phase-dependent spectral emittance values are obtained for both solid and liquid states near the melting transition.
  • Routine non-contact measurements reduce sensitivity to contact resistance and uncertain boundary conditions that limit conventional techniques.
  • The data directly support design of hypersonic hot structures, high-heat-flux fusion components, and laser-based additive manufacturing processes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same platform could be applied to other materials whose melting points exceed 3000 K, where contact methods are even harder to implement.
  • The technique supplies input properties that would improve finite-element simulations of melt-pool dynamics in additive manufacturing.
  • If the uncertainty bounds hold across additional materials, the method could become a standard reference route for ultrahigh-temperature property databases.

Load-bearing premise

The modulated laser perturbation creates a conduction-dominant temperature difference that the 2D axisymmetric model accurately describes once radiative losses and boundary conditions are bounded.

What would settle it

Independent contact measurements of molybdenum thermal conductivity performed near 1500 K that disagree with the reported values by more than the stated 8-11 percent uncertainty would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09873 by Davide Robba, Elizabeth Golightly, Ethan Scott, Hunter B. Schonfeld, Konstantinos Boboridis, Luka Vlahovic, Milena Milich, Patrick E. Hopkins, Rudy Konings, Scott Bender.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: a) Measurement apparatus used to conduct steady-state temperature differential radiometry (SSTDR) experiments. b) Sample disk geometry cross section depicting relative physical scale differences of localized perturbative heating, pyrometry and bulk heating. c) Infrared camera (IR) image of a disc molybdenum specimen heated to near melt (uncorrected for window reflections). Measurement field of views and lo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: a) Measured Δ𝑇 (𝑡) during perturbative modulation formed from the IR camera observable with radius 𝑟𝑐𝑖𝑟𝑐,𝑎𝑣𝑔 (Fig. 1c). b) Measured 𝑇 (𝑡) and baseline subtraction procedure used to mitigate effect of slow bulk thermal drift induced under quasi-steady state conditions. the perturbation induced temperature response, Δ𝑇 . True temperature is established using hyperspectral pyrometry (500 - 1000 nm), which pro… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: a) The top surface radial profiles 𝑇 (𝑟) of separately computed baseline and perturbed temperature fields. b) Edge correction conducted to separate the spatially decaying pertur￾bation field from the uniform field offset induced by the finite, weakly lossy sample. shape of the decaying perturbation mode. The rim offset diminishes at higher absolute temperature because radiative losses increase rapidly with… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: a) SSTDR measured thermal conductivities of solid molybdenum compared to accepted literature values [54]. b) Normal spectral emittance 𝜀(𝜆, 𝑇 ) of molybdenum in the solid and liquid states at 684.5 nm compared to literature values [56, 57, 50, 51, 58]. S1 and S2 refer to different samples. The melting temperature denoted by the vertical dashed line is from previously reported literature.[57] c) 𝜀(𝜆, 𝑇 ) of… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Sensitivity of parameter 𝑝 to the measured SSTDR observable Δ𝑇 as a function of perturbation laser incident spotsize. nominal model (with no holder loss) matches the baseline temperature within ≈ 10 − 50 K. Taken together, these tests indicate that plausible sample holder conductive losses have a negligible impact on the reported SSTDR measured values of 𝑘 and that the experimental configuration is effecti… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Advances in next-generation hypersonic hot structures, high heat-flux fusion or fission components, and laser based additive manufacturing depend on reliable solid state thermal conductivity data at high and ultrahigh temperatures, where conventional measurements become increasingly sensitive to contact resistances, uncertain boundary conditions, and nonlinear radiative losses. Building on our initial demonstration of ultrahigh temperature steady-state temperature differential radiometry (SSTDR), we present a substantially more robust platform aimed at making high temperature thermal and radiative property measurements more routine. The method integrates lock-in infrared thermography with a spatially localized, modulated perturbation laser to form a conduction dominant differential observable along with hyperspectral pyrometry and a validated 2D axisymmetric steady state heat transfer model. Using high purity molybdenum as a benchmark, we report solid state thermal conductivity k(T) from 1500 - 3000 K (to the onset of melting) with uncertainties of 7.9-11 % enabled by comprehensive uncertainty propagation, sensitivity analysis, and bounding studies. We additionally provide normal spectral emittance of molybdenum in both solid and liquid states over 500-1000 nm. These advances establish SSTDR as an accurate, non-contact route for closing the high temperature k(T) data gap while simultaneously producing much needed phase dependent radiative property data for melt adjacent and extreme heat-flux applications. Note: This is a shortened abstract; full version in manuscript.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes an enhanced non-contact method, steady-state temperature differential radiometry (SSTDR), that uses lock-in infrared thermography, a spatially localized modulated laser, hyperspectral pyrometry, and a 2D axisymmetric heat transfer model to measure the temperature-dependent thermal conductivity k(T) and spectral emittance of molybdenum up to 3200 K. For high-purity Mo, it reports k(T) from 1500 to 3000 K with 7.9-11% uncertainties based on uncertainty propagation, sensitivity analysis, and bounding studies, plus emittance data in solid and liquid states from 500-1000 nm.

Significance. Should the 2D model be shown to accurately isolate the conduction signal despite dominant radiation, this would represent a significant advance in ultrahigh-temperature metrology by providing non-contact k(T) data for a benchmark material in a range where conventional methods struggle. The dual provision of thermal and radiative properties, along with rigorous uncertainty handling, would be useful for modeling extreme heat-flux applications in hypersonics and nuclear systems. The approach builds on prior work and aims to make such measurements more routine.

major comments (2)
  1. [Heat Transfer Model and Validation] The extraction of k(T) with claimed 7.9-11% uncertainty hinges on the 2D axisymmetric steady-state heat transfer model correctly identifying a conduction-dominant differential observable from the modulated laser perturbation. At temperatures up to 3000 K, radiative heat loss is large and temperature-dependent; the paper must demonstrate quantitatively (via mesh independence, comparison to analytic no-radiation limits, or 3D simulations) that model assumptions on emissivity, boundary conditions, and property temperature dependence do not introduce systematic bias exceeding the reported uncertainty. The abstract references sensitivity and bounding studies, but explicit validation metrics against these effects are needed to support the central claim.
  2. [Results and Validation] Although the method is presented as validated, the results section should include direct comparisons of the measured k(T) for molybdenum to literature values from other high-temperature techniques (e.g., steady-state or transient methods) in the 1500-3000 K range to independently assess the accuracy and confirm that the uncertainties are realistic rather than just propagated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The provided abstract is noted as shortened; the full manuscript should ensure all key details, including the exact melting onset temperature for Mo, are clearly stated.
  2. [Notation] Ensure consistent use of symbols such as k for thermal conductivity and ε_λ for spectral emittance throughout the text and figures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. These have prompted us to strengthen the validation aspects of the work. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating the revisions made to the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Heat Transfer Model and Validation] The extraction of k(T) with claimed 7.9-11% uncertainty hinges on the 2D axisymmetric steady-state heat transfer model correctly identifying a conduction-dominant differential observable from the modulated laser perturbation. At temperatures up to 3000 K, radiative heat loss is large and temperature-dependent; the paper must demonstrate quantitatively (via mesh independence, comparison to analytic no-radiation limits, or 3D simulations) that model assumptions on emissivity, boundary conditions, and property temperature dependence do not introduce systematic bias exceeding the reported uncertainty. The abstract references sensitivity and bounding studies, but explicit validation metrics against these effects are needed to support the central claim.

    Authors: We agree that explicit quantitative validation metrics are essential to substantiate the model's ability to isolate the conduction signal. In the revised manuscript, we have added a new subsection (Section 3.3) and expanded Supplementary Note 4 with the following: mesh independence studies confirming that the extracted k changes by <0.5% when mesh density is doubled; direct comparison of the 2D numerical solution to the analytic no-radiation limit for the lock-in differential temperature, demonstrating that radiative contributions largely cancel and the observable remains conduction-dominated; and additional bounding analyses varying emissivity by ±20% and boundary conditions, showing their contribution remains within the reported uncertainty budget. These additions provide the requested quantitative support without altering the central results. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results and Validation] Although the method is presented as validated, the results section should include direct comparisons of the measured k(T) for molybdenum to literature values from other high-temperature techniques (e.g., steady-state or transient methods) in the 1500-3000 K range to independently assess the accuracy and confirm that the uncertainties are realistic rather than just propagated.

    Authors: We thank the referee for this suggestion. The original manuscript referenced select literature values in the discussion but did not include a direct side-by-side comparison. In the revision, we have added Figure 7 and accompanying text in Section 4.2 that overlays our k(T) data with representative literature datasets from steady-state and transient methods over 1500-3000 K. Our values agree with the literature within combined uncertainties (typically 10-15% scatter), supporting that the reported uncertainties are realistic. We have also expanded the discussion to address potential sources of inter-method variability. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; k(T) extracted from experimental observables via independent heat-transfer model

full rationale

The paper obtains k(T) by inverting measured temperature differentials (from lock-in IR thermography and modulated laser) using a 2D axisymmetric steady-state heat transfer model whose governing equations are standard conduction/radiation physics, not fitted to the reported molybdenum data. Uncertainty propagation, sensitivity analysis, and bounding studies operate on model inputs and experimental observables rather than on the output k(T) itself. The reference to an 'initial demonstration' of SSTDR supplies methodological context but does not substitute for or tautologically define the new 1500–3000 K results; no equation or claim reduces the reported conductivity values to prior fitted constants or self-referential definitions. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the accuracy of the 2D axisymmetric heat-transfer model and the assumption that radiative and contact effects are negligible or correctly bounded in the differential observable; no free parameters or new entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The 2D axisymmetric steady-state heat transfer model accurately represents the experimental geometry and heat-flow physics at 1500-3000 K.
    Invoked to convert the measured temperature differential into thermal conductivity values.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5609 in / 1429 out tokens · 61670 ms · 2026-05-10T16:45:11.886342+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rapp, Materials Today 9 (2006) 6

    B. Rapp, Materials Today 9 (2006) 6. URL:https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1369702106714717. doi:10.1016/S1369-7021(06)71471-7

    work page doi:10.1016/s1369-7021(06)71471-7 2006

  2. [2]

    Eswarappa Prameela, T

    S. Eswarappa Prameela, T. M. Pollock, D. Raabe, M. A. Meyers, A.Aitkaliyeva,K.-L.Chintersingh,Z.C.Cordero,L.Graham-Brady, NatureReviewsMaterials8(2022)81–88.URL:https://www.nature. com/articles/s41578-022-00496-z. doi:10.1038/s41578-022-00496-z

    work page doi:10.1038/s41578-022-00496-z 2022

  3. [3]

    com/articles/s41578-023-00619-0

    B.C.Wyatt,S.K.Nemani,G.E.Hilmas,E.J.Opila,B.Anasori,Na- tureReviewsMaterials9(2023)773–789.URL:https://www.nature. com/articles/s41578-023-00619-0. doi:10.1038/s41578-023-00619-0

    work page doi:10.1038/s41578-023-00619-0 2023

  4. [4]

    W. G. Fahrenholtz, G. E. Hilmas, Scripta Materialia 129 (2017) 94–99. URL:https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S1359646216305139. doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2016.10.018

    work page doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2016.10.018 2017

  5. [5]

    Riedel, in: F

    E.Ionescu,S.Bernard,R.Lucas,P.Kroll,S.Ushakov,A.Navrotsky, R. Riedel, in: F. Baino, M. Tomalino, D. Tulyaganov (Eds.), Ce- ramics,GlassandGlass-Ceramics,SpringerInternationalPublishing, H.B. Schonfeld et al.:Preprint submitted for publicationPage 12 of 14 Cham,2021,pp.281–323.URL:https://link.springer.com/10.1007/ 978-3-030-85776-9_9. doi:10.1007/978-3-03...

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-85776-9_9 2021

  6. [6]

    Savino, M

    R. Savino, M. De Stefano Fumo, D. Paterna, A. Di Maso, F. Monteverde, Aerospace Science and Technology 14 (2010) 178–187. URL:https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S1270963809000947. doi:10.1016/j.ast.2009.12.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ast.2009.12.004 2010

  7. [7]

    URL:https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/10.1002/adfm.201904815

    S.Shin,Q.Wang,J.Luo,R.Chen,AdvancedFunctionalMaterials30 (2020) 1904815. URL:https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/ doi/10.1002/adfm.201904815. doi:10.1002/adfm.201904815

    work page doi:10.1002/adfm.201904815 2020

  8. [8]

    T. H. Squire, J. Marschall, Journal of the European Ceramic Society 30 (2010) 2239–2251. URL:https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0955221910000403. doi:10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2010.01.026

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2010.01.026 2010

  9. [9]

    Evaluation of the fracture toughness properties of poly- tetrafluoroethylene

    E. Wuchina, M. Opeka, S. Causey, K. Buesking, J. Spain, A. Cull, J. Routbort, F. Guitierrez-Mora, Journal of Materials Science 39 (2004) 5939–5949. URL:https://link.springer.com/10.1023/B: JMSC.0000041690.06117.34. doi:10.1023/B:JMSC.0000041690.06117.34

    work page doi:10.1023/b: 2004

  10. [10]

    Wuchina, E

    E. Wuchina, E. Opila, M. Opeka, B. Fahrenholtz, I. Talmy, The Electrochemical Society Interface 16 (2007) 30–36. URL:https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1149/2.F04074IF. doi:10.1149/2.F04074IF

    work page doi:10.1149/2.f04074if 2007

  11. [11]

    A. B. Peters, D. Zhang, S. Chen, C. Ott, C. Oses, S. Curtarolo, I. McCue, T. M. Pollock, S. Eswarappa Prameela, Nature Commu- nications 15 (2024) 3328. URL:https://www.nature.com/articles/ s41467-024-46753-3. doi:10.1038/s41467-024-46753-3

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-024-46753-3 2024

  12. [12]

    S. I. Jalali, M. S. Patullo, N. Philips, K. J. Hemker, Materials Today 80(2024)87–100.URL:https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/S1369702124001718. doi:10.1016/j.mattod.2024.08.007

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mattod.2024.08.007 2024

  13. [13]

    E. E. Bloom, Journal of Nuclear Materials 258-263 (1998) 7–17. URL:https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0022311598003523. doi:10.1016/S0022-3115(98)00352-3

    work page doi:10.1016/s0022-3115(98)00352-3 1998

  14. [14]

    De Bianchi, S

    F. De Bianchi, S. A. Ponnusami, L. Silvestroni, A. M. Grande, Materials Today Communications 29 (2021) 102754. URL:https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352492821007443. doi:10. 1016/j.mtcomm.2021.102754

    work page arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    Tejado, Materials Today 38 (2020) 136–137

    E. Tejado, Materials Today 38 (2020) 136–137. URL:https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1369702120302273. doi:10. 1016/j.mattod.2020.07.001

    2020

  16. [16]

    A. V. Müller, M. Binder, G. Calabro, R. De Luca, P. Fanelli, R. Neu, G. Schlick, F. Vivio, J.-H. You, Materials Today 39 (2020) 146–147. URL:https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/S1369702120302935. doi:10.1016/j.mattod.2020.08.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mattod.2020.08.015 2020

  17. [17]

    Mungiguerra, L

    S. Mungiguerra, L. Silvestroni, R. Savino, L. Zoli, B. Esser, M. La- gos, D. Sciti, Corrosion Science 195 (2022) 109955. URL:https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0010938X2100723X. doi:10. 1016/j.corsci.2021.109955

    work page arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Mungiguerra, G

    S. Mungiguerra, G. Di Martino, A. Cecere, R. Savino, L. Sil- vestroni, A. Vinci, L. Zoli, D. Sciti, Corrosion Science 149 (2019)18–28.URL:https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0010938X18312551. doi:10.1016/j.corsci.2018.12.039

    work page doi:10.1016/j.corsci.2018.12.039 2019

  19. [19]

    Justin, A

    J. Justin, A. Jankowiak, Aerospace Lab (2011) p. 1–11. URL:https: //hal.science/hal-01183657

    2011

  20. [20]

    Zhang, L

    X. Zhang, L. Guo, H. Liu, Y. Zhang, Q. Fu, X. Yin, H. Li, Materials Today 80 (2024) 710–736. URL:https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ retrieve/pii/S1369702124002062. doi:10.1016/j.mattod.2024.09.004

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mattod.2024.09.004 2024

  21. [21]

    J.-C. Zhao, X. Zheng, D. G. Cahill, Materials Today 8 (2005) 28–37. URL:https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S1369702105711226. doi:10.1016/S1369-7021(05)71122-6

    work page doi:10.1016/s1369-7021(05)71122-6 2005

  22. [22]

    A. A. Saad, C. Martinez, R. W. Trice, International Journal of Ceramic Engineering & Science 5 (2023) e10171. URL:https: //ceramics.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ces2.10171.doi:10. 1002/ces2.10171

    work page doi:10.1002/ces2.10171.doi:10 2023

  23. [23]

    Marschall, D

    J. Marschall, D. G. Fletcher, Journal of the European Ceramic Society 30 (2010) 2323–2336. URL:https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0955221910000245. doi:10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2010.01.010

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2010.01.010 2010

  24. [24]

    S. Tang, J. Deng, S. Wang, W. Liu, K. Yang, Materials Science and Engineering: A 465 (2007) 1–7. URL:https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0921509307003607. doi:10.1016/j.msea.2007.02.040

    work page doi:10.1016/j.msea.2007.02.040 2007

  25. [25]

    O.Cedillos-Barraza,D.Manara,K.Boboridis,T.Watkins,S.Grasso, D. D. Jayaseelan, R. J. M. Konings, M. J. Reece, W. E. Lee, Scien- tific Reports 6 (2016) 37962. URL:http://www.nature.com/articles/ srep37962. doi:10.1038/srep37962

    work page doi:10.1038/srep37962 2016

  26. [26]

    D. R. Tenney, W. B. Lisagor, S. C. Dixon, Journal of Aircraft 26 (1989) 953–970. URL:https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/3.45868. doi:10.2514/3.45868

    work page doi:10.2514/3.45868 1989

  27. [27]

    R. Gold, D. Harrod, Journal of Nuclear Materials 85-86 (1979) 805–815. URL:https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ 0022311579903593. doi:10.1016/0022-3115(79)90359-3

    work page doi:10.1016/0022-3115(79)90359-3 1979

  28. [28]

    S. D. Kasen, H. N. G. Wadley, Journal of Thermal Science and Engineering Applications 11 (2019) 061001. URL:https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ thermalscienceapplication/article/doi/10.1115/1.4042988/ 727718/Heat-Pipe-Thermal-Management-at-Hypersonic-Vehicle. doi:10.1115/1.4042988

    work page doi:10.1115/1.4042988/ 2019

  29. [29]

    Linsmeier, M

    C. Linsmeier, M. Rieth, J. Aktaa, T. Chikada, A. Hoffmann, J. Hoff- mann, A. Houben, H. Kurishita, X. Jin, M. Li, A. Litnovsky, S. Mat- suo, A. Von Müller, V. Nikolic, T. Palacios, R. Pippan, D. Qu, J. Reiser, J. Riesch, T. Shikama, R. Stieglitz, T. Weber, S. Wurster, J.-H.You,Z.Zhou,NuclearFusion57(2017)092007.URL:https:// iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1...

    work page doi:10.1088/1741-4326/aa6f71 2017

  30. [30]

    H. Wang, B. Gould, M. Moorehead, M. Haddad, A. Couet, S. J. Wolff, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 299 (2022) 117363. URL:https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/S092401362100323X. doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2021.117363

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2021.117363 2022

  31. [31]

    Khorasani, A

    M. Khorasani, A. Ghasemi, M. Leary, E. Sharabian, L. Cor- dova, I. Gibson, D. Downing, S. Bateman, M. Brandt, B. Rolfe, Optics & Laser Technology 153 (2022) 108263. URL:https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0030399222004200. doi:10. 1016/j.optlastec.2022.108263

    work page arXiv 2022

  32. [32]

    Katayama, Y

    H. Dobbelstein, M. Thiele, E. L. Gurevich, E. P. George, A. Osten- dorf,PhysicsProcedia83(2016)624–633.URL:https://linkinghub. elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1875389216301729. doi:10.1016/j.phpro. 2016.08.065

    work page doi:10.1016/j.phpro 2016

  33. [33]

    Q. Chen, G. Guillemot, C.-A. Gandin, M. Bellet, Additive Manufac- turing 16 (2017) 124–137. URL:https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ retrieve/pii/S2214860416302317. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2017.02.005

    work page doi:10.1016/j.addma.2017.02.005 2017

  34. [34]

    D. Dai, D. Gu, Materials & Design 55 (2014) 482–491. URL:https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0261306913009333. doi:10. 1016/j.matdes.2013.10.006

    2014

  35. [35]

    J. Ye, S. A. Khairallah, A. M. Rubenchik, M. F. Crumb, G. Guss, J.Belak,M.J.Matthews,AdvancedEngineeringMaterials21(2019) 1900185. URL:https://advanced.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10. 1002/adem.201900185. doi:10.1002/adem.201900185

    work page doi:10.1002/adem.201900185 2019

  36. [36]

    P. S. Cook, D. J. Ritchie, Optics & Laser Technology 162 (2023) 109247. URL:https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/S0030399223001408. doi:10.1016/j.optlastec.2023.109247

    work page doi:10.1016/j.optlastec.2023.109247 2023

  37. [37]

    P. A. Hooper, Additive Manufacturing 22 (2018) 548–559. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S221486041830188X. doi:10.1016/j.addma.2018.05.032

    work page doi:10.1016/j.addma.2018.05.032 2018

  38. [38]

    T. W. Pfeifer, H. B. Schonfeld, E. A. Scott, H. T. Aller, J. T. Gaskins, D. H. Olson, J. L. Braun, S. Graham, P. E. Hopkins, Annual Review of Materials Research (2025). URL:https://www.annualreviews. org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-matsci-080423-010435. doi:10.1146/annurev-matsci-080423-010435

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-matsci-080423-010435 2025

  39. [39]

    Pottlacher, Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids 250-252 (1999) 177–181

    G. Pottlacher, Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids 250-252 (1999) 177–181. URL:https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/ S0022309399001167. doi:10.1016/S0022-3093(99)00116-7

    work page doi:10.1016/s0022-3093(99)00116-7 1999

  40. [40]

    Tolias, Nuclear Materials and Energy 13 (2017) 42–57

    P. Tolias, Nuclear Materials and Energy 13 (2017) 42–57. URL: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S2352179117300388. doi:10.1016/j.nme.2017.08.002. H.B. Schonfeld et al.:Preprint submitted for publicationPage 13 of 14

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nme.2017.08.002 2017

  41. [41]

    Cheung, J

    M. Milich, H. B. Schonfeld, K. Boboridis, D. Robba, L. Vla- hovic, R. J. Konings, J. L. Braun, J. T. Gaskins, N. Bhatt, A. Giri, P. E. Hopkins, Physical Review Letters 132 (2024) 146303. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.132. 146303. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.146303

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132 2024

  42. [42]

    Vlahovic, D

    L. Vlahovic, D. Staicu, A. Küst, R. Konings, Journal of Nuclear Materials 499 (2018) 504–511. URL:https://linkinghub.elsevier. com/retrieve/pii/S0022311517301976.doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2017.11. 050

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jnucmat.2017.11 2018

  43. [43]

    R. A. Felice, in: AIP Conf. Proc, volume 684, American Institute of Physics, Chicago, IL, USA, 2003, pp. 711–716. URL:https://doi. org/10.1063/1.1627211. doi:10.1063/1.1627211

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1627211 2003

  44. [44]

    R. A. Felice, in: Radiation Measurements of Bodies with Unknown Emissivities, Moscow, RUSSIA

  45. [45]

    R. A. Felice, Temperature Determining Device and Processes, 1998

    1998

  46. [46]

    R. A. Felice, D. A. Nash, in: AIP Conf. Proc, volume 1552, American Institute of Physics, Los Angeles, California, USA, 2013, pp. 734–739. URL:https://pubs.aip.org/aip/acp/article/1552/1/ 734-739/878983. doi:10.1063/1.4819633

    work page doi:10.1063/1.4819633 2013

  47. [47]

    H. B. Schonfeld, M. Milich, C. Miller, L. Doumaux, M. Rid- ley, T. Pfeifer, W. Riffe, D. Robba, L. Vlahovic, K. Boboridis, R. J. Konings, A. Chamberlain, E. Opila, P. E. Hopkins, Scripta Materialia 259 (2025) 116576. URL:https://linkinghub.elsevier. com/retrieve/pii/S1359646225000405.doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2025. 116576

    work page doi:10.1016/j.scriptamat.2025 2025

  48. [48]

    Generalized Kepler problems. I. Without magnetic charges

    D. Manara, M. Sheindlin, W. Heinz, C. Ronchi, Review of Scientific Instruments 79 (2008) 113901. URL: https://pubs.aip.org/rsi/article/79/11/113901/351306/ New-techniques-for-high-temperature-melting. doi:10.1063/1. 3005994

    work page doi:10.1063/1 2008

  49. [49]

    F. P. Incropera, D. P. DeWitt, T. L. Bergman, A. S. Lavine (Eds.), FundamentalsofHeatandMassTransfer,7.ed.ed.,Wiley,Hoboken, NJ, 2013

    2013

  50. [50]

    R. D. Allen, L. F. Glasier, P. L. Jordan, Journal of Applied Physics 31 (1960) 1382–1387. URL:http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/ 1.1735847. doi:10.1063/1.1735847

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1735847 1960

  51. [51]

    Touloukian, D

    Y. Touloukian, D. DeWitt, Thermophysical properties of matter-the TPRC data series. Volume 7. Thermal radiative properties-metallic elements and alloys. Data book, Technical Report, Purdue Univ., Lafayette, IN (United States). Thermophysical and Electronic ..., 1969

    1969

  52. [52]

    Matsumoto, A

    T. Matsumoto, A. Cezairliyan, D. Basak, International Journal of Thermophysics 20 (1999) 943–952. URL:https://link.springer. com/10.1023/A:1022699622719. doi:10.1023/A:1022699622719

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1022699622719 1999

  53. [53]

    URL:https://pubs.aip.org/jap/article/22/ 4/424/160106/High-Temperature-Structure-and-Thermal-Expansion

    J.W.Edwards,R.Speiser,H.L.Johnston,JournalofAppliedPhysics 22 (1951) 424–428. URL:https://pubs.aip.org/jap/article/22/ 4/424/160106/High-Temperature-Structure-and-Thermal-Expansion. doi:10.1063/1.1699977

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1699977 1951

  54. [54]

    URL:https://pubs.aip.org/ jpr/article/1/2/279/240991/Thermal-Conductivity-of-the-Elements

    C.Y.Ho,R.W.Powell,P.E.Liley,JournalofPhysicalandChemical Reference Data 1 (1972) 279–421. URL:https://pubs.aip.org/ jpr/article/1/2/279/240991/Thermal-Conductivity-of-the-Elements. doi:10.1063/1.3253100

    work page doi:10.1063/1.3253100 1972

  55. [55]

    Cagran, B

    C. Cagran, B. Wilthan, G. Pottlacher, International Journal of Ther- mophysics 25 (2004) 1551–1566. URL:http://link.springer.com/ 10.1007/s10765-004-5758-5. doi:10.1007/s10765-004-5758-5

    work page doi:10.1007/s10765-004-5758-5 2004

  56. [56]

    URL:http://link.springer

    C.Cagran,G.Pottlacher,M.Rink,W.Bauer,InternationalJournalof Thermophysics 26 (2005) 1001–1015. URL:http://link.springer. com/10.1007/s10765-005-6680-1. doi:10.1007/s10765-005-6680-1

    work page doi:10.1007/s10765-005-6680-1 2005

  57. [57]

    Cezairliyan, A

    A. Cezairliyan, A. P. Miiller, F. Righini, A. Rosso, Temperature: Its MeasurementandControlinScienceandIndustry6(1992)377–382

    1992

  58. [58]

    Cezairliyan, S

    A. Cezairliyan, S. Krishan, J. L. McClure, International Journal of Thermophysics 17 (1996) 1455–1473. URL:http://link.springer. com/10.1007/BF01438679. doi:10.1007/BF01438679

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01438679 1996

  59. [59]

    Urban, K

    D. Urban, K. Anhalt, M. Arduini, T. Stark, J. Manara, P. Pichler, A. Eber, G. Pottlacher, High Temperatures-High Pressures 53 (2024) 255–270. URL:https://www.oldcitypublishing.com/journals/ hthp-home/hthp-issue-contents/hthp-volume-53-number-3-2024/ hthp-53-3-p-255-270/. doi:10.32908/hthp.v53.1619

    work page doi:10.32908/hthp.v53.1619 2024

  60. [60]

    B. He, A. Yang, Z. Lei, Z. Wang, S. Liu, K. Yao, Z. Leng, J. Shao, C.Han,D.Tian,D.Zhu,X.Chen,MaterialsTodayCommunications 40(2024)110102.URL:https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/ pii/S235249282402083X. doi:10.1016/j.mtcomm.2024.110102

    work page doi:10.1016/j.mtcomm.2024.110102 2024

  61. [61]

    Cezairliyan, Surf

    A. Cezairliyan, Surf. Sci. 40 (1973) 429–432

    1973

  62. [62]

    Verdi, F

    C. Verdi, F. Karsai, P. Liu, R. Jinnouchi, G. Kresse, npj Com- putational Materials 7 (2021) 156. URL:https://www.nature.com/ articles/s41524-021-00630-5. doi:10.1038/s41524-021-00630-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41524-021-00630-5 2021

  63. [63]

    Mistarihi, M

    Q. Mistarihi, M. A. Umer, J. H. Kim, S. H. Hong, H. J. Ryu, Nu- clear Engineering and Technology 47 (2015) 617–623. URL:https: //linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1738573315001187. doi:10. 1016/j.net.2015.05.003. H.B. Schonfeld et al.:Preprint submitted for publicationPage 14 of 14

    2015