Well, Jed, I hope your're right about there being copious irrefutable evidence in the July 8 demo for an excess heat anomaly -- in that case, we should petition Rossi to immediately release the full details to world authorities, so that the world community can commit to publicly exploring a possibly game changing breakthrough in basic physics, fully comparable to uranium fission in January 1939 -- the world security issues re weapons applications must be publicly and cooperatively assessed as soon as possible -- I doubt that Rossi will respond to me, but, since he does communicate with you, I hope you will share your own thoughts about the urgent stakes for humanity, which transcend the personal property and profit angle -- for his friends and relatives will also live in whatever probable history evolves...
I hope you will also mention that reactors should be examined for buildup of boiler scale in the highest temperature areas from the mineral content of municipal water, which can lead to corrosion, impeded flows, and explosions. With mutual friendship, Rich Murray On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Horace Heffner <hheff...@mtaonline.net> wrote: > >> >> Two thermocouples were used to measure the delta T. If one is off 1 >> degree hot absolute and the other is off 1 degree cold absolute, then delta >> T is off by 2°C, systematically. > > Yes of course if they are both off by 1 degree that's 2. HOWEVER: > 1. They were not off by that much. Lewan and others saw they were 0.5°C > apart. Someone should have turned the OFFSET adjustment to fix that bias. > You can see that is the bias in the first several readings up to around > 13:40, when Tout is always 0.5 to 0.7°C below Tin. The extra 0.2°C is > probably caused by momentary fluctuations; they should have pressed the HOLD > button before reading it. If they had done that, the bias would have > been 0.5°C every time. > 2. These thermocouples are in the same meter, so the precision will be the > same even if there is a bias. > 3. I have never heard of a laboratory grade 250 euro themometer with a 2°C > bias at these temperatures, unless someone accidentally turned the OFFSET > screw. That is a huge bias. > 4. The inlet water is from the municipal reservoir which is gigantic. The > temperature hardly varies. You can see this in inlet temperature record. It > varies from 24.7 to 25.2°C. So you can ignore that and use only the outlet > thermocouple change against itself, rather than the difference between them. > Tout starts at 23.7°C, and then at the peak at 16:50 it is 35.5°C. It has > moved up 11.8°C. Tin is 24.7°C at that time, so the difference Tout - Tin = > 10.8°C. That is caused by the 0.5 deg C bias, and again probably by the fact > they did not press HOLD so the temperature fluctuated before they could read > both values at the same moment. It is very likely the actual difference is > 11.8°C. But who cares? 10.8°C is fine. If there was not anomalous heat, the > reactor would be stone cold by that time, and Tout would be 23.7°C. Why > quibble about it? This is irrefutable proof. It makes no difference whether > it was 7757 W or 8474 W. It sure as hell was not stone cold tap water > temperature. > >> >> It looked to me the actual error was on the order of 0.8°C, but who >> knows without calibration. > > The first two hours before the steam entered the heat exchanger can be used > as a calibration. > >> >> It is possible, even easy, to make a thermocouple (pair) specifically for >> measuring delta T. > > Yes. This meter, the Termometro TM-947 SD has that feature built in. You > just set it for T1-T2 mode. So does my HH12B. Of course when you set it to > T1-T2 mode, you have to zero out the bias if there is one. I have never seen > a bias as large as 0.5°C but if I did, I would just erase it with the > OFFSET. I would also calibrate with cold water (5°C) tap water, and boiling > water beforehand to make sure the thing is working. However, these things > are extremely reliable and that is really only a formality. > The likelihood that this instrument is wrong by 10°C and there is actually > no heat is roughly as high as the likelihood that a new Prius digital > speedometer will be off by ~10 mph. I'll bet that's never happened. I'll bet > it can't happen. The thing might show zero or random numbers, but not a bias > as large as 10 mph. > >> >> One means to greatly simplify and improve the delta T measurement is to >> use paired type T thermocouples at the Tin and Tout measuring points. > > These are paired. They are in the same meter. They share the same control > electronics. Probably timeshare it. It is extremely unlikely they have > significantly different precision at these temperatures; i.e. that one goes > up 10.1°C while the other goes up 10.2°C. > > You do not need to take my word for any of this. If you do not believe my > description of how these things work, I strongly recommend you buy or borrow > a few of these things plus some conventional red liquid thermometers. Spend > a day testing them at different temperatures. Be sure to stir the water. > Don't use water with ice cubes in it. You will see how accurate and precise > they are. You will see that there it not the slightest chance this one > registered a 10°C difference when there was actually no difference. You can > see from the final decay curve how quickly the thing cools. After 3 hours > 1.8 tons of cooling water went through the system. Even if it had been > incandescent before the power went off, it would have been cool by that > time, and it was definitely not incandescent. The only possible explanation > is that additional heat was generated after the power was turned off. Lots > of power! More than 8 kW at times. > - Jed >
