David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: I agree completely with Jed as long as the ambient is kept at a constant > temperature.
When ambient changes a great deal over a short time, calorimetry becomes too complicated. You need to throw away those results. Or use them for a limited purpose. Mizuno has reduced fluctuations and I hope he soon eliminates the overnight temperature change. I consider the change in ambient as being the equivalent of an input power > application who's value is proportional to the ratio of the rapid change in > ambient degrees to the total change above the normal stable ambient. Do you mean when ambient temperature falls? This would look like input power . . . but only if you do not record the ambient temperature! As long as you see it is falling, you know this is not actually input power. The hard part is when you have actual power plus a falling ambient. It is difficult to separate them out. It is not worth the effort. Just toss out the data. If ambient temperature rises (and you don't notice) it looks like heat vanishing in a magic endothermic reaction. > Now if the ambient rapidly changes by 1 degree I believe that this is > exactly the same as a signal appearing that is 1 watt * (1 C/ 4 C) = .25 > watts. Well, it is not the same because we have a record of the ambient temperature. As I said, suppose you take a glass of warm water and put it outside in January. The difference between ambient and the water suddenly increases by 20 deg C. That does not mean a heat source appeared out of nowhere. It means the water does not instantly cool off. With this system, if I have derived Newton's cooling coefficient right, 1 W going into the water should produce a 1.5 deg C temperature difference. - Jed
