Hello Horace The condenser was made out of glass and had a length of 1.5 meter and was positioned vertically. It was cooled by water which flowed around the glass condenser. Best Regards Peter
----- Original Message ----- From: "Horace Heffner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 03, 2004 1:23 AM Subject: Re: comments on the Cirillo paper > At 12:06 PM 12/2/4, Jones Beene wrote: > >Horace, you seem to be saying that the condenser was > >air-cooled instead of water-cooled. Of course this would > >introduce major errors, and it still doesn't address the > >issue of tritium. > > Actually, there is no mention of a condenser in the Cirillio paper. The > standard method of doing boiloff calorimetry is to measure the weight of > water boiled off (that disappears) and then multply by the energy required > to boil that water (which explicitly *is* the method used by Cirillo.) It > appears the plastic cylinder with pyrex lid located above the cell does the > condensing. There is apparently no intent to use the condensation heat > (i.e. mass flow calorimetry on the secondary coil) as a secondary > calorimetric means. Cirillo's method is definitely susceptable to > entrained water droplets. > > I would assume P.J van Noorden (he can clue us in) used an ordinary > laboratory condenser. Such condensers are typically made of glass and used > in either straight through mode or reflux mode. In straight through mode > the steam comes in through one (elevated) end and water comes out the > other. In reflux mode the condenser is usually vertical and steam is > admitted in at the bottom and water comes out the bottom into an attached > flask. Unless you are trying to do dual calorimetry, it doesn't matter how > the condenser is cooled, by gas, by water, or by ice. The heat measurment > is via the mass of water lost in the reactor. > > Boiloff calorimeters are typically calibrated using boil-off runs using > calibration resistors for heat and cool-off runs to determine the > calorimeter constant for ambient losses. P.J van Noorden certianly makes > it clear that such calibration runs may be invalid becuase ultrasound or > other turbulence creates entraind droplets, and tthe calibration resistor > will not cause droplet entrainment like a source of ultrasound does. One > solution to this problem is to include an ultrasound device in at least one > clibration run to test whatever water drop barrier is used. It would not > be possible to calibrate the drop formation rate itself, so some kind of > drop barrier would have to be utilized. > > These principles have ramifications *way* beyond the Cirillo paper. They > are fundamental to all boiloff calorimetry. > > > > > >Only if it had been water cooled could all the heat be > >accounted for, and that is why I assumed it was water cooled > >and that the thallium was turning up in the second circuit. > > > >> This is a very important comment. It means that boiloff > >calorimetry can be very suspect without proper controls. > > > >Yes, proper controls like a second circuit with dual > >calorimetry. > > > You need to account for more than just the enthalpy of condensation. > > > > > >> A radioactive tracer would be good in labs equipped to > >handle them. > > > >Not unless the possibility of tritium can be eliminated, > > > I have done plenty of tritium counting using liquid scintillation counting. > I think it is more difficult to count water borne tritium by other means. > Scintillation couters can reliably and automatically discriminate between > tritium and say carbon 14. There is almost no penetrating power for 20 keV > beta particles, so counting 201 Tl without interference from tritium is > easy. > > Technetium counting and even imaging is readily done using 180 degrees > opposed scintillation couters to track positron annihilation photon pairs. > I had this procedure done to image my heart. I was signifcantly > radioactive for a day. It was a bit scary to turn on my geiger counter and > hear it go wild near me. > > > >or > >unless your tracer has a far more energetic signature than > >tritium. Thallium is just too close IMHO. > > > >After all, your are doing cold fusion. Cold fusion often > >produces tritium. Isn't the cross-connection obvious? BTW > >even though tritium "normally" has a significant spread of > >energy, can we be sure that tritium produced via CF is not > >closer to being mono-energetic? > > > What do you mean significant spread? The peak is fairly confined. > > BTW, my handbook shows 201 Tl decaying by electron capture (1.36 MeV) with > Hg and K shell x-rays of 135.28 keV and 167.40 keV. This stuff should > stand out like the sun on a clear day. > > > At 4:14 PM 12/2/4, P.J van Noorden wrote: > >Hello > >We used 201 Thallium in our nuclear medicine department > >to study the perfusion of the heart.The energy emission of radioactive > >thallium is about 80 eV. > >Now we have a technetium based radiopharmacon which gives a better image > >quality.( 140eV) > > > I don't see how 80 keV enters into the picture. > > Regards, > > Horace Heffner > > >
