It’s difficult for me to answer all your Qs at this point in time (due to time constraints), but let me try to add a few things (and Alan can certainly chime in here if he has the time)...
These cells were never really designed as accurate calorimeters to the level that I think you are suggesting. They were designed to see huge COPs as were suggested by the initial Rossi Cell and Lugano Report. a COP of 1.2 is right on the edge but possibly doable if things like the post calibration could successfully be done as was planned. I believe Alan has some ideas on a better calorimeter design and Bob H is working on a full-blown calorimeter setup, as far as I know... There is more than one thermocouple on this beast. There are two near each other on the active side, one on the dummy side (on the heater covers) and previously there was one inserted into the middle of the active cell until the sealing requirement stopped that. There are also thermometers measuring ambient temperature and sometimes one is placed near the pressure transducer to check it, but I am digressing here... Alan has placed the experimental uncertainty somewhere around 10 or 20% depending on what happens during a given experiment. There is a chance at times to perform local, differential calorimetry if one is clever. The calorimetry can be made relative to where the calorimeter “sits” at any given time. Actually if you’re interested, you may want to take a look at the data and perform some differential analysis on it ... I was trying to do this during the pulsing part of the experiment... Yes, the uncertainty is increased in this run relative to previous runs. I know I’m probably not answering/commenting that well on you points, but hey, I tried. Good questions, though ... Hanging out in the chat during the run is always enlightening, to say the least. - Mark Jurich From: Eric Walker Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 8:27 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: MFMP "crude calorimeter" On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:08 PM, Mark Jurich <jur...@hotmail.com> wrote: Not sure what you mean by “full-blown calorimetry”, but I can tell you this (having been assisting Alan rather closely for the last several months). By "full-blown calorimetry," I have in mind mass flow calorimetry, isoperibolic calorimetry, etc. Using a single thermocouple for a cell is something different. That does not to suggest that it cannot be made to work. But I assume your experimental uncertainty is going to be a lot higher. (Was the experimental uncertainty calculated?) We know that the calorimetry changes (it’s a moving target), but we had no dummy post calibration to check it against. Yes -- I remember seeing comments about the behavior of the thermocouples changing over time. I would imagine that knowing this and not being able to do a post-calibration check on the dummy would disqualify the temperature results. (I recall reading that Alan has specifically not claimed excess heat in this case.) Eric
