Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

A three-Kelvin-arm Wheatstone bridge measures SThM thermometer resistance to one part in 10^4 and resolves few-nanowatt near-field radiative heat flux.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.5

2026-07-12 02:05 UTC pith:KVHXFJUR

load-bearing objection Clean, usable SThM resistance bridge with real few-nW flux resolution; classical metrology done carefully, only soft spot is the usual G_canti isolation assumption. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2607.03495 v1 pith:KVHXFJUR submitted 2026-07-03 physics.ins-det cond-mat.mes-hall

A high-sensitivity resistance bridge for nanoscale thermal microscopy

Wilfrid Poirier , Victor Guillemot , Mohammed Mghalfi , Valentina Valentina Krachmalnicoff , Yannick De Wilde This is my paper
classification physics.ins-det cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords Resistancemeasurement bridgescanning probe microscopySThMradiative heat fluxWheatstone bridgeKelvin armsnear-field radiation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

Heat flux between micro-objects is hard to measure because the objects are small and the thermal conductance of the gap is tiny. The authors build a Wheatstone bridge with three Kelvin arms that both injects a known Joule power into a scanning-thermal-microscope resistance thermometer and reads its resistance from 100 Ω to 1000 Ω in DC or AC (up to tens of kHz). On resistance standards the bridge is accurate to one part in 10^4 and reaches a relative experimental standard deviation of one part in 10^8 in one second. An electro-thermal model that includes the thermometer’s thermal time constants explains the frequency dependence of the signals and shows when DC and high-frequency AC protocols give the same temperature. With that protocol the instrument detects sub-millikelvin temperature changes and extracts the near-field radiative heat flux between a heated glass microsphere and a glass substrate, caused by surface phonon-polariton coupling, with only a few nanowatts of combined uncertainty.

Core claim

A Wheatstone bridge equipped with three Kelvin arms measures resistances in the 100–1000 Ω range both in DC and in AC up to a few tens of kHz, achieving type-B accuracy of one part in 10^4 and a relative experimental standard deviation as low as one part in 10^8 for a one-second measurement. When the bridge is used with a platinum-film SThM thermometer, an electro-thermal model that accounts for the probe’s thermal cut-offs allows reliable extraction of temperature and heat flux; the resulting sub-mK resolution yields the near-field radiative heat-flux change of roughly 180 nW between a heated glass microsphere and a glass substrate with only a few nanowatts of combined uncertainty.

What carries the argument

The three-Kelvin-arm Wheatstone bridge: a conventional Wheatstone topology whose three additional arms convert the four-wire connections of the thermometer and of the reference resistor into an approximate four-terminal definition, rendering the balance condition insensitive to lead and contact resistances at first order.

Load-bearing premise

The cantilever thermal conductance extracted from the far-field power–temperature slope accounts for every non-radiative heat path and stays independent of sphere–substrate distance, so the whole measured temperature change can be ascribed to near-field radiation.

What would settle it

Repeat the approach-curve experiment while independently varying residual gas pressure or epoxy thermal path length; if the extracted few-nanowatt flux changes systematically with those parameters, the attribution of ΔT solely to near-field radiation is false.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • SThM users can now inject a defined Joule power and read temperature variations of a few hundred microkelvin in a few seconds, opening quantitative heat-flux studies on low-conductivity materials.
  • Near-field radiative transfer mediated by surface phonon-polaritons can be measured between micrometer-scale objects with few-nanowatt uncertainty.
  • The same bridge architecture supports both DC and high-frequency AC protocols, allowing experimenters to choose the regime that best suppresses low-frequency drift.
  • A dual-probe platform already demonstrated with two such instruments can map multi-body radiative heat transfer at different temperatures.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the bridge rejects lead resistances at second order, the same hardware could be adapted to other low-resistance thin-film thermometers without custom four-wire redesign of every probe.
  • The demonstrated white-noise-limited Allan deviation suggests that longer coherent averaging could push the flux uncertainty into the tens-of-picowatts range, enabling still smaller gaps or lower temperature differences.
  • The electro-thermal cut-off analysis supplies a practical diagnostic: any new SThM geometry whose |gamma_3omega| spectrum deviates from the two-pole model would immediately flag an unaccounted thermal path.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 7 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a Wheatstone resistance bridge with three Kelvin arms designed for SThM resistance thermometers in the 100–1000 Ω range. It operates in both DC and AC (up to ~10 kHz), reports type-B relative accuracy of order 10^{-4}–5×10^{-5} against calibrated standards, and achieves relative experimental standard deviations as low as ~10^{-8} for a one-second measurement. An electro-thermal model of the platinum-film probe (including thermal cutoffs) is used to justify high-frequency AC protocols that recover the same resistance/temperature as DC while suppressing low-frequency noise. The instrument is then applied to measure sub-mK temperature changes of a heated glass microsphere, converting them via the cantilever conductance into near-field radiative heat-flux variations of ~180 nW (few-nW combined uncertainty) attributed to surface phonon-polariton coupling.

Significance. The work supplies a carefully engineered, metrology-grade bridge that fills a documented instrumentation gap for quantitative SThM. Strengths include second-order rejection of lead resistances (Appendix A and explicit 2 Ω tests), noise spectral densities that match Johnson–Nyquist plus amplifier noise (Fig. 7), Allan-deviation white-noise scaling (Fig. 13), and consistent DC versus high-frequency AC approach curves (Figs. 14–15). The electro-thermal model (Secs. IV A–C, Appendix B) cleanly explains the observed α(f) and |γ_{3ω}(f)| cutoffs and legitimizes the high-frequency protocol. These elements make the few-nanowatt flux demonstration credible and useful for the near-field radiative-transfer community. The paper is a solid instrumentation contribution with a clear application payoff.

major comments (1)
  1. Section V, Eqs. (20)–(21) and the paragraph preceding Eq. (20): The conversion of the measured temperature difference ΔT(d) into Δφ_rad rests on the assumption that G_canti extracted from the far-field power–temperature slope fully accounts for every non-radiative path and remains independent of sphere–substrate distance. Vacuum operation, discrete spatial modulation against a 4 µm reference, and the agreement of DC/AC curves mitigate but do not quantitatively bound residual gas conduction, epoxy thermal paths, or distance-dependent cantilever loading. Because the abstract and the final claim quote a few-nanowatt uncertainty on a ~180 nW near-field rise, a short quantitative discussion (or upper-bound estimate) of these residuals is needed so that the flux uncertainty is not overstated.
minor comments (7)
  1. Abstract and Introduction: “a few tenths of kHz” should read “a few tens of kHz” (the instrument is characterized up to ~10–15 kHz).
  2. Section II A and reference [16]: the bridge is called “Warshshawky”; the standard spelling (and the cited author) is Warshawsky.
  3. Section IV / Fig. 9: “borosillicate” → “borosilicate”.
  4. Table I header and last row: “T otal” contains a spurious space; also clarify that the quoted u_B range already folds in the α-dependent a-calibration term.
  5. Section II A, after Eq. (2): “nandpintegers” is a missing-space typo (“n and p integers”).
  6. Figures 5–8, 10–11, 13–15: several axis labels and legends appear garbled in the manuscript source (e.g., “/s8722/s49/s48”); ensure clean typography in the final version.
  7. Appendix A, Eq. (33): the leading term 10(r_{1a}r_{2a}−r_{1b}r_{2b})/[R_S(100+R_S)] is stated to dominate; a one-sentence numerical example with the measured 2 Ω shifts would help the reader verify the second-order claim.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Instrument accuracy and noise are benchmarked on external standards; self-citations supply only prior-platform context and flux interpretation, not the performance numbers.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Sec. V, paragraph after Fig. 15; also Conclusion]
    "This can be explained by the coupling of phonon-polaritons at surfaces of the substrate and of the microsphere[22, 23]. With the support of theoretical and numerical tools, this is demonstrated and discussed in detail in work[19], which reports on radiative heat flux measurements that we performed using a first and simpler Wheatstone bridge prototype[24]."

    The physical attribution of the measured ~180 nW rise to surface-phonon-polariton coupling is load-bearing for the application claim, yet is justified principally by the authors’ own prior PRL [19] and PhD thesis [24]. The raw ΔT and Δφ data themselves remain independent; the circularity is confined to the interpretive step and is therefore minor.

full rationale

The derivation chain for the bridge (Eqs. 1–2, Type-B budget Table I, Figs. 5–8) is closed against calibrated ESI SR1010 resistors and direct Johnson-noise measurements; nothing is defined in terms of the later SThM result. The electro-thermal model (Eqs. 4–18, Appendix B) is fitted to measured α(f) and |γ3ω(f)| solely to extract thermal cut-offs; it is not used to “predict” a quantity already fixed by the fit. G_canti and λ are obtained from independent power–temperature and thermometer calibrations before being inserted into Eqs. 20–21. Self-citations [19, 24] appear only after the raw ΔT(d) and Δφ_rad data are presented, supplying the multi-body platform description and the phonon-polariton interpretation already supported by external references [22, 23]. No uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggling, or self-definitional loop is present. The single mild self-citation therefore does not raise the score above 1.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central performance claims rest on classical circuit theory, Johnson–Nyquist noise, linear resistance thermometry, and a two-element lumped thermal model whose parameters are fitted to frequency sweeps. No new physical entities are postulated. Free parameters are the fitted thermal conductances/capacitances, the thermometer coefficient λ, and G_canti; axioms are standard electrical and thermal relations plus the modeling choice that distance-dependent ΔT is purely radiative.

free parameters (3)
  • Thermal cutoffs (f1, f2) / (G1,C1,G2,C2)
    Two-series RC thermal model parameters adjusted to match measured α(f) and |γ_3ω(f)| for the probe with and without microsphere (Fig. 11); not independently calorimetrically measured.
  • Thermometer temperature coefficient λ
    λ = (1.48 ± 0.05) K/Ω from independent calibration; enters conversion of ΔR to ΔT and thus flux uncertainty.
  • Cantilever conductance G_canti
    G_canti = (4.96 ± 0.05) µW/K from far-field power–temperature slope; used in Eq. 20–21 to convert ΔT into Δφ_rad.
axioms (5)
  • standard math Wheatstone/Thomson bridge balance equations with second-order parasitic rejection via Kelvin arms (Eq. 1, Appendix A Eq. 33)
    Classical circuit theory; triangle-star transformations used to show first-order wire-resistance cancellation.
  • domain assumption Johnson–Nyquist thermal noise of the equivalent bridge resistance plus amplifier voltage noise set the white-noise floor
    Used to predict and match measured noise spectral densities (Fig. 7) and type-A uncertainty.
  • domain assumption Linear resistance–temperature relation R = R0 + λ ΔT over the moderate ΔT range used (<100 °C)
    Stated for the platinum serpentine; underpins all temperature and flux conversions.
  • ad hoc to paper Lumped two-element complex thermal conductance G(ω) = (G1+iωC1)(G2+iωC2)/[(G1+G2)+iω(C1+C2)] adequately describes the probe dynamics
    Chosen to fit the two observed cutoffs with/without microsphere; not derived from a full distributed cantilever model.
  • domain assumption All distance-dependent temperature change at fixed Joule power is due to near-field radiative exchange (no residual-gas or mechanical-path contribution)
    Implicit in Eq. 20–21 and the vacuum sphere–plane experiment interpretation.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-grok45 · 21611 in / 3530 out tokens · 31792 ms · 2026-07-12T02:05:06.691826+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Measurements of heat flux between micro-objects, in vacuum or in air, are challenging because of their small size and the low thermal conductance of the medium between them. One way to address this issue consists in using a scanning thermal microscope (SThM) equipped with a temperature dependent resistance thermometer. However, this requires an instrument able to both injecting a defined heating Joule power and performing highly-sensitive resistance measurements. Here, we present such an instrument based on a Wheatstone bridge equipped with three Kelvin arms. It can perform resistance measurements in the range from 100 $\Omega$ to 1000 $\Omega$ not only in direct current but also in alternating current regimes at frequencies up to a few tenths of kHz. We first show that measurements of resistance standards are accurate to within one part in $10^4$ with a relative experimental standard deviation which can be as low as one part in $10^8$ for one second measurement. The instrument is then tested with a SThM thermometer. With the support of an electro-thermal model considering thermal time constants of the thermometer, we explain the frequency dependence of detected signals and optimize the measurement protocols of temperature and heat flux. By measuring sub-mK temperature variations, this instrument is then used to determine with a few nanowatts uncertainty the near-field radiative heat flux between a heated glass microsphere and a glass substrate, which is caused by the coupling of surface phonon-polaritons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.03495 by Mohammed Mghalfi, Valentina Valentina Krachmalnicoff, Victor Guillemot, Wilfrid Poirier, Yannick De Wilde.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of the resistance bridge, which includes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Schematic of the components of the measuring instru [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Schematic of the bridge electronics. DC and AC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Pictures of top and front views of the measuring [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Relative deviations of resistances (SR1010) from their [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Difference between the relative resistance deviations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Relative variation of the resistance, of 500 Ω nominal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Representation of the modified SThM probe used [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Resistance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Schematic of the measurement of the radiative heat [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. a) Successive measurements of ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Variation of the measured temperature as a func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Radiative flux variation, ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16. Equivalent circuit of the resistance bridge consider [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_16.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Near-field Dressing of Thermal Emission

    physics.optics 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Near-field coupling between two heated glass microspheres changes the total thermal radiation they emit to the environment, producing a distance-dependent 'dressed emissivity' that is a thermal analogue of the Purcell effect.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Consideration ofR S andk r calibra- tions leads to type B relative uncertainties ranging from 16×10 −6 (α= 1/2) to 46×10 −6 (α= 0; 1)), lower than 50 parts in 10 6 (see table I)

    Observed deviations can be explained by the combi- nation of an imperfect ratio,k r, of the bridge deviating from unity by∼ −25×10 −6 (this causes a deviation independent of the resistance value) and of relative dis- crepancies ofR S values from their nominal values by less than∼20×10 −6. Consideration ofR S andk r calibra- tions leads to type B relative ...

    arXiv 2000

  2. [2]

    A review on principles and ap- plications of scanning thermal microscopy (sthm),

    Y. Zhang, W. Zhu, F. Hui, M. Lanza, T. Borca-Tasciuc, and M. Mu˜ noz Rojo, “A review on principles and ap- plications of scanning thermal microscopy (sthm),” Adv. Funct. Mater.30, 1900892 (2020). 13

    2020

  3. [3]

    Temperature mapping of operating nanoscale devices by scanning probe thermometry,

    F. Menges, P. Mensch, H. Schmid, H. Riel, A. Stemmer, and B. Gotsmann, “Temperature mapping of operating nanoscale devices by scanning probe thermometry,” Nat. Commun.7, 10874 (2016)

    2016

  4. [4]

    Scanning ther- mal microscopy: A review,

    S. Gom` es, A. Assy, and P.-O. Chapuis, “Scanning ther- mal microscopy: A review,” Physica status solidi (a)212, 477 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    Radiative heat transfer at the nanoscale,

    E. Rousseau, A. Siria, G. Jourdan, S. Volz, F. Comin, J. Chevrier, and J.-J. Greffet, “Radiative heat transfer at the nanoscale,” Nat. Photonics3, 514 (2009)

    2009

  6. [6]

    Near-field heat transfer in a scanning thermal microscope,

    A. Kittel, W. Mueller-Hirsch, J. Parisi, S.-A. Biehs, D. Reddig, and M. Holthaus, “Near-field heat transfer in a scanning thermal microscope,” Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 224301 (2005)

    2005

  7. [7]

    Measure- ment of the thermal conductance of silicon nanowires at low temperature,

    O. Bourgeois, T. Fournier, and J. Chaussy, “Measure- ment of the thermal conductance of silicon nanowires at low temperature,” J. Appl. Phys.101, 016104 (2007)

    2007

  8. [8]

    Near- field radiative thermal transport: From theory to exper- iment,

    B. Song, A. Fiorino, E. Meyhofer, and P. Reddy, “Near- field radiative thermal transport: From theory to exper- iment,” AIP Advances5, 053503 (2015)

    2015

  9. [9]

    Near-field thermal imaging of nanostructured surface,

    A. Kittel, U. F. Wischnath, J. Welker, O. Huth, F. R¨uting, and S.-A. Biehs, “Near-field thermal imaging of nanostructured surface,” Appl. Phys. Lett.93, 193109 (2008)

    2008

  10. [10]

    Surface phonon polariton-mediated near-field ra- diative heat transfer at cryogenic temperatures,

    S. Yan, Y. Luan, J.-W. Lim, R. Mittapally, A. Reihani, Z. Wang, Y. Tsurimaki, S. Fan, P. Reddy, and E. Mey- hofer, “Surface phonon polariton-mediated near-field ra- diative heat transfer at cryogenic temperatures,” Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 196302 (2023)

    2023

  11. [11]

    Multiple-bridge circuits for measurement of small changes in resistance,

    F. Delahaye, “Multiple-bridge circuits for measurement of small changes in resistance,” Metrologia29, 81 (1992)

    1992

  12. [12]

    M´ ethodes de z´ ero en courant continu,

    G. Trapon, “M´ ethodes de z´ ero en courant continu,” Tech- niques de l’Ing´ enieurR955 V2, 1–27 (1997)

    1997

  13. [13]

    A resistance bridge based on a cryogenic cur- rent comparator achieving sub-10 −9 measurement un- certainties,

    Wilfrid Poirier, Dominique Leprat, and F´ elicien Schopfer, “A resistance bridge based on a cryogenic cur- rent comparator achieving sub-10 −9 measurement un- certainties,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement70, 1–14 (2021)

    2021

  14. [14]

    3ω-scanning thermal micro- scope,

    S. Lef` evre and S. Volz, “3ω-scanning thermal micro- scope,” Review of Scientific Instruments76, 033701 (2025)

    2025

  15. [15]

    Quantitative measurement of thermal conduc- tivity by sthm technique: Measurements, calibration pro- tocols and uncertainty evaluation,

    N. Fleurence, S. Demeyer, A. Allard, S. Douri, and B. Hay, “Quantitative measurement of thermal conduc- tivity by sthm technique: Measurements, calibration pro- tocols and uncertainty evaluation,” Nanomaterials13, 2424 (2023)

    2023

  16. [16]

    Calibra- tion of scanning thermal microscopes using optimal esti- mation of function parameters by iterated linearization,

    A.-C. Campbell, P. Klapetek, R. ˇSlesinger, J. Martinek, V. Hortv´ ık, V. Witkovsk´ y, and G. Wimmer, “Calibra- tion of scanning thermal microscopes using optimal esti- mation of function parameters by iterated linearization,” International Journal of Thermal Sciences218, 110080 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    Multiple-bridge circuits for measure- ment of small changes in resistance,

    I. Warshawsky, “Multiple-bridge circuits for measure- ment of small changes in resistance,” Rev. Sci. Instrum. 26, 711 (1955)

    1955

  18. [18]

    Testing universality of the quantum hall effect by means of the wheatstone bridge,

    F. Schopfer and W. Poirier, “Testing universality of the quantum hall effect by means of the wheatstone bridge,” J. Appl. Phys.102, 054903 (2007)

    2007

  19. [19]

    Quantum resistance stan- dard accuracy close to the zero-dissipation state,

    F. Schopfer and W. Poirier, “Quantum resistance stan- dard accuracy close to the zero-dissipation state,” J. Appl. Phys.114, 064508 (2013)

    2013

  20. [20]

    Nonmonotonic ra- diative heat transfer in the transition from far field to near field,

    Victor Guillemot, Riccardo Messina, Valentina Krach- malnicoff, R´ emi Carminati, Philippe Ben-Abdallah, Wil- frid Poirier, and Yannick De Wilde, “Nonmonotonic ra- diative heat transfer in the transition from far field to near field,” Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 19380 (2025)

    2025

  21. [21]

    Evaluation of measurement data — guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement,

    JCGM 100:2008, “Evaluation of measurement data — guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement,” (2008)

    2008

  22. [22]

    Allan variances and spectral densities for dc voltage measurements with polarity reversals,

    T. Witt, “Allan variances and spectral densities for dc voltage measurements with polarity reversals,” IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas.54, 550 (2005)

    2005

  23. [23]

    Enhanced radiative heat transfer at nanometric distances,

    J.-P. Mulet, K. Joulain, R. Carminati, and J.-J. Gr- effet, “Enhanced radiative heat transfer at nanometric distances,” Microscale Thermophys. Eng.6, 209 (2002)

    2002

  24. [24]

    Surface electromagnetic waves thermally excited: Radiative heat transfer, coherence properties and casimir forces revisited in the near field,

    K. Joulain, J.-P. Mulet, F. Marquier, R. Carminati, and J.-J. Greffet, “Surface electromagnetic waves thermally excited: Radiative heat transfer, coherence properties and casimir forces revisited in the near field,” Surf. Sci. Rep.57, 59 (2005)

    2005

  25. [25]

    Study of small-scale radiative heat trans- fer in multi-body systems using a platform of local ther- moresistive probes,

    V. Guillemot, “Study of small-scale radiative heat trans- fer in multi-body systems using a platform of local ther- moresistive probes,” Ph.D. thesis-Paris (2025)

    2025

  26. [26]

    Near field dressing of thermal emission,

    V. Guillemot, R. Mol, R. Messina, V. Krachmalni- coff, P. Ben-Abdallah, W. Poirier, and Y. De Wilde, “Near field dressing of thermal emission,” in preparation (2026)

    2026