From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson
Are you saying calorimeter measurements can measure sunlilght, UV and soft X-Rays? I didn't think that was the case. Yes, Steven – that is the case. You and Axil are confusing power and energy. This is a daily occurrence on forums and even among ‘fizzix perfessunals’ and no one is immune, so don’t take it as a personal criticism. The thermal energy of a down-converted and absorbed x-ray is 100% equivalent to its highest power as a photon in a vacuum. Yes, it has higher power before down conversion - compared to later when downshifted - but not higher energy. Energy stays the same under CoE - conservation of energy. Proper calorimetry will absorb all photons and measure their heat only. The soft x-rays of Mills are actually absorbed by the transparent plastic, or a mm of water or a few inches of air. UV is absorbed by everything. Visible goes through plastic and air unimpeded, but is fully absorbed by a thin coat of black paint. Once you realize the distinction between power and energy in calorimetry, there is no way Mills is underestimating the gain - and as Bob opines, he may be overestimating it. Again, according to "the doctor" that's where most of the energy resides. Of course that is true, as far as it goes - but can be misinterpreted QED. In the sense that soft x-rays or UV is where putative gain would come from, most the energy can be there and you must capture it, but still all that gain - ALL of it - is converted to heat by the calorimeter with no loss, and the only loss is peak power. Just repeating what I heard. That may be the problem (or is it lack of caffeine?) - you are repeating valid information, but not thinking about the implications. From: Jones Beene The speculation (of inaccurate calorimetry) is nonsense. Visible photons passing through the water are captured on the wall of the calorimeter - all of the heat is retained and captured in the water. You guys seem to want to boost Mills by claiming he cannot measure his own gain because he is an idiot with calorimetry, and the gain is actually higher? LOL what kind of logic is that? Sorry, and there could eventually be higher gain than this from photocells, but the only real proof here is COP of about 2. No mystery why the photocell data is still not released. And you can see that titanium is far and away the best catalyst – which is what started this thread to begin with. Everything else is hype – designed to elicit funding from the carefully selected audience. OTOH – it is still COP ~2. And that is worth something From: Orionworks - Steven Vincent Johnson I basically concur with Axil's speculations.
