On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 9:57 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> H Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > > From the point of the calorimeter heat is not absorbed since no heat >> vanishes. >> > > The energy does vanish! You put in X amount of electricity but only a > fraction of X comes out. The rest goes into changing the chemical structure > of the egg you are cooking, or the hydride you are forming (or whatever > endothermic process is happening). > > Most of the electrical energy vanishes into potential energy. No heat energy has vanished. Instead the calorimeter registers the slight increase in heat energy. > > >> Like all measuring instruments a calorimeter is incapable of doing >> anything other than it was designed to do and that consists in detecting >> changes or lack of changes in heat content. Whether or not the data it >> supplies represents exothermic or endothermic reactions requires further >> interpretation based on additional knowledge. >> > > "Endothermic" means the reaction absorbs energy. It outputs less than you > put in. Obviously the calorimeter tells you that is happening. It can do > that for the same reason it tells you that a chemical or nuclear reaction > produces *more* than you put in. It does not require any interpretation > or additional knowledge. That's like saying you need additional knowledge > to be sure you have gained weight when your bathroom scale says you are 10 > lbs heavier. No, you don't. The numbers are right there. > > This is an incorrect analogy because weight cannot become potential weight the way electrical energy can become potential energy. If it was possible then you could store 9 lbs of potential weight after eating 10 lbs of food and only gain 1 lb according to the bathroom scale. > > >> We can rule out this scenario for most cold fusion experiments, including >>> McKubre's, because the periods when there is no heat are shorter than the >>> continuous periods when there is heat. So the deficit would have to be as >>> large or larger than the positive heat release. >>> >>> >>> >> >> Whether or not an excess heat event is long or short is relative to when >> the accounting period begins. >> Does he include the time and energy spent loading? >> > > The balance is zero during loading, except the initial phase when the > palladium loads a significant amount of hydrogen. > > As I said, there are no quiescent periods long enough to store energy > below the level of detection, and during the exothermic periods far more > energy comes out than any mechanism can store in chemical reactions. > > An unknown method might exist for the storage of energy far beyond what chemistry can do. I suggested the conversion of energy into mass as one possibility. Perhaps a variant of the newly discovered MIMS bond is capable of storing enough energy. (A MIMS bond can store 1000 times the energy of conventional chemical bond but they are too short lived to be useful in the context. ) > > >> The calorimeter doesn't tell you there is a "deficit". >> > > Of course it does! That's what it is for. > > > >> The only thing it tells you is how much and how quickly the heat >> content of the system changes.The "deficit" is an *interpretation* of this >> raw data. >> > > Since you measure input electricity as well as output heat, you can see > there is a balance, a deficit or an excess. > > > To repeat, unless the temperature falls a calorimeter by itself cannot >> tell you if an endothermic process has occurred. >> > > No, the temperature does not need to fall. When it does not rise as much > as it does when all input energy converts to heat, you know you have an > endothermic reaction. > > It is only by using another instrument to measure the input that you are able to infer from the calorimeter's measure of the output that the reaction was endothermic. That inference is made by you and not by the calorimeter. > Imagine you shovel 20 kg of coal into a 1 kg container. You then weigh the > container. If it weighs 25 kg you have magically created excess mass. It > weighs only 15 kg you have destroyed mass. That cannot happen with mass but > it happens all the time with energy going into a system, for example when > you cook eggs, charge up a battery, or strike a match (endothermic, > endothermic, exothermic). The whole point of a calorimeter is to measure > the energy balance in such reactions. > > > >> You need additional information to interpret the meaning of the lack of >> rise in temperature . >> > > Well, you have to know how the temperature reflects the power, but that is > the same knowledge you need to characterize an exothermic reaction. > > I suggest you read a book about calorimetry, such as Hemminger and Hohne, > which I spent a few hours cribbing from yesterday. > > > Since it is a textbook it deals with known science and it won't have a chapter on unknown methods of energy storage. Harry
