Here are some boiler test forms, and information about them:
http://www.peci.org/ftguide/ftg/SystemModules/Boilers/Functional_Testing_for_Boilers.htm
This is worth reading. It will make you respect HVAC engineers. As I
said, there are many tests other than calorimetry, for things like
actuators and thermostats: "safeties, interlocks, Alarms" "actuation and
sequencing" "control accuracy and stability" and so on. The calorimetry
section here is called "boiler efficiency test."
These are complicated machines. They are wonderful. A cold fusion boiler
will ultimately be cheaper than gas or electric ones, for the reasons
described in my book, but it will still be complicated and expensive.
Here is a Word document from this site with an efficiency test:
http://www.peci.org/ftguide/ftg/SystemModules/AirHandlers/AHU_ReferenceGuide/CxTestProtocolLib/Documents/hw10ml.doc
From p. 3, here is the data recorded for an efficiency test:
1. Leaving boiler heating water (HW) temp, design / measured
2. Entering boiler HW temp, design / measured
3. Delta (entering - leaving) HW temp, design
4. Delta HW temp, measured. Acceptance: 15% of design
5. Boiler water flow rate, design gpm
6. Boiler water flow rate, measured gpm (from TAB report).
Acceptance: 10% of design
As I said, this is roughly as much data as Levi et al. provided. If you
were an expert investigating a boiler accident, and you looked up state
agency inspection data on a boiler, this is what you would find. No
expert would claim in court: "That data is not enough to tell us if the
boiler was working. It might have been producing 1,000 times less energy
than the test indicates." (As one person claimed here.) That's preposterous.
The method is, as noted on this form, good enough to ensure that the
machines are with 10% of design specifications. This test, along with
all the stuff the inspector looks at, is accurate enough to ensure the
machines are working correctly and they are safe. If the machine was
actually producing 1000 times less energy than the test indicates, or
even 1.5 times less, it would not be safe, and this test would not be used.
- Jed
