Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net> wrote: My first reaction is: did it not occur to anyone in 18 hours to reduce the > flow by a factor of 10 so as to get more reliable numbers?
I would not recommend that: 1. The machine went bonkers when they started the run, producing very high heat. I think it is safer to leave the cooling water flow high. 2. A 5°C temperature difference is huge and easily measured. 3. You should not change experimental parameters midway through the run. Other reports refer to the reactor chamber as being about 50 ml. Photos seem > to confirm this. This must have been a special device for this test. > This was the larger device shown in the photos and used in the first set of tests. > Jed uses 3000 L/h, or 0.83 liter/sec. Not that a 20% difference is > significant. > They told me it was 3000 L/h. with that kind of flowmeter I trust the cumulative total more than the instantaneous reading. A more recent report says it was just under 1 L per second. > Since we don't know the geometry of the device, we don't know where and how > the output thermometer was located. Yes we do. It is shown in some photos. > If it is in a metal well, it is possible that it was heated slightly via > the high thermal conductivity of copper between the resistance heater and > the thermometer. > With a 5°C temperature difference this would be insignificant. During the first phase when it went bonkers this might have been a factor, causing the output heat to seem larger than it was. - Jed
