On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 7:44 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
This is wonderfully simple calorimetry. The easiest I have seen in cold > fusion. If you cannot understand this, you cannot understand any > experiment, and you know nothing about this subject. > To be honest, the calorimetry left some things to be desired in my opinion. - The calibration run was operated at a much lower temperature than the live run. - The calculations for radiant heat and convection were byzantine. I don't know how anyone could have any confidence in them without some kind of additional check (such as the one they actually did, against the calibration run). Measuring the heat would have been more reliable by running a control at the same temperature as the live run, with heat exchanger and a working fluid, calibrating the power measured against the power delivered to the control and then using the same setup to measure the net power during the live run. The fancy calculations did not add anything and were a distraction. That said, I'm still basically happy with the calorimetry, because I'm not a physicist and at minimum it provides a good back-of-the-envelope number, and it probably a much better number than that. Eric
