By the way, I meant all of this advice to apply to the big, 100 kW reactor. Not the initial test of the single unit. As AG says, it would be "hard to cock that up." It is a piece of cake.
Still, it would be good to have your local HVAC engineering firm take part in that test too, to test out their knowledge. They can bring the input power analyzer, thermocouples and so on. As a practical matter, I would not want to schlep heavy instruments on airplanes. Just have someone show up with a van full of them, all set up the local electric power plugs. Yugo's question: "how do you plan to make sure the measurements you acquire from the heat exchanger reflect the enthalpy accurately and are not due to such things as errors in thermocouple placement?" . . . is really, really stupid. The answer is to use your own thermocouples, or ones provided by the local HVAC engineers. Obviously! AG understands that. By the way, during the Oct. 6 test, I could have ensured there was no error in the thermocouple placement. I could have done that in 5 minutes. In my sleep. That's another reason Yugo's question is dumb. Answer #2, who COULDN'T do that?!? I went over that issue with him before the test, e-mailing him advice from various people about how to avoid any question about that, by using multiple thermocouples. I was mad as hell at Rossi for not doing it, and he got pretty upset with me for telling him. That was another in a long series of sloppy mistakes on his part. He has been doing stuff like that for years. It is terribly annoying! If he did not have such high heat lasting far longer than any possible chemical effect, his results would be unconvincing. As I have said before, you can toss out all instrument readings from all thermocouples and still be sure of these results. Maybe you should. That is something Yugo completely fails to understand. These results are *not* dependent on instruments. I think Rossi fundamentally does not trust instruments. He says he wants an effect so large you do not need them. - Jed
