If one is doing a broad search it strikes me that reducing the detecton tme and thus the cycle time is paramount.
A calorimeter is a slow sensing device.... Building a reactor before one has gathered the "wind tunnel data" gives you Langley's result not the wright brothers result. The writghts did not have a theory of lift they had a data set that told them when and how it occurred. The what reacts and what does not and how to turn it on an off need to be worked BEFORE trying to build a commercially viable reactor. What one really wants to measure is heat from the active material. The thing closest to the active material is the material itself... The state of the art in IR temperature sensing should be able to tell you in a matter of 200msec if a potential sample under test has made excess heat by measuring the temp increase of the sample. If one does this the whole caliorimeter nightmare goes away... the experiments get easier to build and try easier to cycle through both materials, and stimulation experiments? Is anyone doing this? On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 9:22 AM, Mark Gibbs <mgi...@gibbs.com> wrote: > A question for Ed: > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>wrote: > > >> The definition of "success rate" in these experiments is fuzzy. Ed stated >> with 90 cathodes. He tested them and identified 4 that met all of his >> criteria. These 4 worked robustly, and repeatedly. So, is that a 5% success >> rate, starting from the 90 cathodes? Or is it a 100% success rate, with the >> 4 good ones? >> > > Regarding the four cathodes that "worked robustly, and repeatedly" ... how > long did they work for? Are they still working? Do you know why they > worked? Can working duplicates be made? > > [mg] >
