Robert Leguillon wrote:
Rothwell seems to like putting words into my mouth. If the ENTIRE energy balance is looked at, it will obviously balance. ALL of the warm-up time (from initial power-application to dry steam) needs to be in the equation just as much as cool down.
Well of course. That's how calorimetry works. In all cases reported so far, the ENTIRE energy balance has far exceeded input energy. That has been true even when they cut off the measurements and did not bother to measure the cool-down. (They should not have done that, but doing that only reduces the measurement of total output. It hurts their case.)
What are you disputing? It would seem you do not want to take "yes" for an answer.
Noone will be fretting about stored heat UNLESS the output power observed at the secondary never surpasses the peak input.
It always has in the past. Why do you think it will not now? and what difference does the peak input power make if it only lasts a short time? the thing went for four hours with no input power. Unless input power was far above output during the warm-up period, and unless most of that energy vanished into nowhere without heating the water, it is unimportant.
I haven't seen any results yet. A lot of emphasis is being placed on the H.A.D., and that concerns me. H.A.D. is unnecessary and will only muddy the water if it is merely a slow temperature decay that is LESS THAN peak input.
No it does not muddy the water. It makes calorimetry much simpler. I still do not begin to understand why you think it muddies the water or confuses the issue.
- Jed
