Jed -interesting comment- As I have
told you before I have a seebeck that is roughly 8 times as sensitive (based on
V/watts) as Ed's and was made for a series of NRL experiments. But you seem to
keep harping on that and your money connections.As usual your comments just set
up straw
men and are not well informed.
Again you seem stuck in the:
everyone's experiments should be done to prove the reality of CF and not to
gather info for future applications.
I personally think that running a load with a thermoelectic chip (if done long
enough under load with no input) is good. You may wish to know that a seebeck
is nothing but a bunch of thermoelectric chips and a volt meter (of no real
load). Having stimulation or not depends on what you what to study.
Dennis
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 14:10:09 -0500
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Miley Arpa-E startup project reloaded! vote for for 10 days..
hurry up
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
DJ Cravens <[email protected]> wrote:
The current system I am working off of is at 0.25 to 1 W with no input. This is
with about 25 grams
of sample
(density about 3 gm/ml - metal in C). This is in a heavy metal sphere with gas
pressure
generated
in situ and sealed. The temperature is near room temp when not insulated.
That sounds promising!
However, I think it calls for a good calorimeter. One of Ed's Seebeck
calorimeters would be ideal, or the Thermonetics Seebeck. 0.25 to 1 W is too
small to measure by any other means with confidence. As I said, Arata tried to
do it by crude methods and the thermoelectric chip driving the camera focus
motor. I think it was on the 1 W scale. It was not convincing. He should have
used a Seebeck.
With a good calorimeter and a professional presentation, you could convince a
lot of people with that, and probably get proper funding.
Higher
power densities can be reached by stimulation but at the expense of COP.
Then stay away from that. Better to have zero power input, and simple
calorimetry, in my opinion.
- Jed
