Excellent point. Would be easy enough to do a second control run even now to add some confidence to the calorimetry. The alumina + wire will be off-the-shelf all someone need do is ask Rossi for specs of tube and wire - he should be happy to provide them in the interests of clarity.
On 10 October 2014 13:40, Eric Walker <eric.wal...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > >
