Like you say, it depends on the input. Also, I missed the "up to 20 W" in my original post title. It'll be interesting to see the details behind what that means.
ICCF and NI WEEK could turn out to be very exciting this year. On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > 20 W is good! That is a lot of heat for most laboratory-scale > calorimeters. As long as input is below ~100 W it is hard to imagine they > would have difficulty measuring that. > > It is actually easier to measure heat from 10 to 100 W than, say, 1000 W. > I doubt the s/n ratio improves much at 1000 W. > > Depending on the size of the device, and the operating temperature, a > thing like this might be as significant as Rossi's results. Rossi works on > a large scale because he likes to. There is nothing wrong with that. It is > better by far than working at a power level below 0.1 W, where things get > dicey. Rossi's high power levels impress people. But you understand how > science and technology work, you will see that -- > > a ~20 W stable, controlled reaction at a high temperature using common > materials . . . > > . . . is really as impressive as Rossi's. Okay, that 5 conditions, all of > them difficult to meet. Of those 5 stability and control are the most > important. Anyone who achieves them, at any power level easy to measure, > has made a tremendous breakthrough. Rossi certainly has. > > Mizuno may have a similar breakthrough. I hope to upload his paper at the > time of the conference. I hope it will done to his satisfaction and mine. > If not I shall upload the poster, and the paper soon after the conference. > > - Jed > >
