RE: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[Bob Cook]

Bob—

Your comments are right along the lines of mine.  However, I have a thought 
that the resonances that exist in the Ni particle lattice are important in the 
coupling that allows the change of  potential energy of the system to phonic 
kinetic energy of the lattice.

My hypothesis for a reaction with added D would be to see a change in the 
resonances and hence the coupling conditions.  More heat or less heat may be 
the result.

The pathway of mobile H in the Ni lattice would also change with addition of D, 
given its added mass and would change the electric field seen by the average 
H+.  This would also change the wave length of the H+ and associated coupling 
resonances necessary for the LENR.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10y

From: Bob Higgins<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2016 5:35 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

Bob, This is exactly the type of experiment I had in mind.  Add about 10%
LAD to the LAH and re-run the series of experiments to see how the XH
compares to plain LAH.

You are also correct that this may tell us a lot about what reaction is
occurring.  It has been held by many LENR researchers that LENR cannot be
obtained with H, only with D.  They claim that the XH produced in Ni-H
reactions is really reaction with the residual D in the naturally isotopic
H (0.0156 atomic %).  If when adding 10% LAD (a D increase of 640x) you get
much more heat, it would support evidence for the theory that it was only
the D that was reacting.  If you do not get much more heat, then either: 1)
only the H is reacting, or 2) as Dennis Letts describes, the reaction is
confined to NAE and there are not enough NAE to support reaction with the
greater amount of D.

That is why I asked AP the question about tests with added D.  Based on his
response, I have suggested to Mathieu Valat that he share his LAD with AP.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Bob Cook <frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Bob H—
>
>
>
> Why not do an experiment with a small concentration of D to determine
> whether or not it changes the repeatable reaction (with normal H).  It may
> be a little D does poison the reaction.  Getting rid of all the D may be
> the ticket to higher energy production.  Such information may also help
> understanding the Ni system geometry and other physical properties that are
> important for the reaction to occur.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>

Re: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[Bob Higgins]

Bob, This is exactly the type of experiment I had in mind.  Add about 10%
LAD to the LAH and re-run the series of experiments to see how the XH
compares to plain LAH.

You are also correct that this may tell us a lot about what reaction is
occurring.  It has been held by many LENR researchers that LENR cannot be
obtained with H, only with D.  They claim that the XH produced in Ni-H
reactions is really reaction with the residual D in the naturally isotopic
H (0.0156 atomic %).  If when adding 10% LAD (a D increase of 640x) you get
much more heat, it would support evidence for the theory that it was only
the D that was reacting.  If you do not get much more heat, then either: 1)
only the H is reacting, or 2) as Dennis Letts describes, the reaction is
confined to NAE and there are not enough NAE to support reaction with the
greater amount of D.

That is why I asked AP the question about tests with added D.  Based on his
response, I have suggested to Mathieu Valat that he share his LAD with AP.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:29 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

> Bob H—
>
>
>
> Why not do an experiment with a small concentration of D to determine
> whether or not it changes the repeatable reaction (with normal H).  It may
> be a little D does poison the reaction.  Getting rid of all the D may be
> the ticket to higher energy production.  Such information may also help
> understanding the Ni system geometry and other physical properties that are
> important for the reaction to occur.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>

RE: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[Bob Cook]

Bob H—

Why not do an experiment with a small concentration of D to determine whether 
or not it changes the repeatable reaction (with normal H).  It may be a little 
D does poison the reaction.  Getting rid of all the D may be the ticket to 
higher energy production.  Such information may also help understanding the Ni 
system geometry and other physical properties that are important for the 
reaction to occur.

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Bob Higgins<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2016 10:08 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

You missed my point - and, of course, I could have said it better.  The
problem is that a failed quasi-replication (Ahern's experiment was FAR from
replication) does not mean the reaction does not work.  It means the
experimenter failed to adequately replicate variables that were important,
about which little or nothing may have been reported.  Also, just because a
single experiment with LAH or LAD fails to produce XH, does not mean that
it is not possible to get XH from that system.  You would like someone
successful with LAH to evaluate the enrichment with LAD - that would be
Parkhomov, not Ahern.

It was failed quasi-replications of F that sent the whole field into a
tailspin.  There were eventually things that could be learned from those
experiments, but initial conclusions from them were totally wrong.  The
answer is not going to be found in just a single experiment.

I am not against quasi-replications, just against drawing false conclusions
from them.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote:

> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
> As we have all seen in this field, failed quasi-replications don't mean
> squat.
>
> No at all! On the contrary, quasi-replications mean quite a lot, if not
> everything.
>
> AP had his first quasi-success in performing a quasi-replication of the
> hot-cat, and he has done little else except quasi-replication of that
> first one - which was actually not successful… and he finally found
> modest success by varying parameters, not by following a presumed path.
>
> There really is no decent model out there - and no strategy except to
> learn from the failures, which is at the 90% rate… so there is a lot to
> learn from analyzing the quasi-replications.
>
>

RE: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[Bob Cook]

Jones—

There is an easily calculated magnetic field at the center of the heater coil 
that may be more important than the electric field.  Ni particles would likely 
line up their magnetic moments to result in a significant induced B field, 
allowing coupling and energy transfer pertinent to each reaction.  If the 
electrical varied with time, the variable magnetic field would change the 
various energy states of the Ni-H system to assure desirable coupling at least 
some fraction of the time.

Bob Cook






b

From: Jones Beene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2016 6:42 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation


From: Bob Higgins

Mathieu Valat has some LiAlD4 given to him by Jean-Paul Biberian.  I asked 
Mathieu if he would be willing to send some to Parkhomov to increase the 
possibility that Parkhomov would run an experiment with D enrichment to look 
for increase in excess power.

Bob,

Brian Ahern tried the deuterated material. You might want to contact him for 
the details, but basically LiAlD4 did not work in his tube kiln setup, nor did 
the regualr AP mix.

It could be that the tube kiln itself does not function well as a replacement 
for directly wound resistance wire - for an unknown basic reason, no matter 
what material is used. This could be because the electric field of the heater 
wire is more important than the heat itself – or some combination of the two. 
Naturally, we have been led to think the heat is the key – but clearly the key 
is not simply heat alone.

Re: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[a.ashfield]

Bob,
I couldn't agree more.  Even F & P's experiment produced XH but the 
academics were looking for tell tale nuclear radiation - and there 
wasn't any.
It should also be a warning to those eager to write off Rossi.  He has 
done thousands of experiments since 2011 and appears to have found out 
what works better than others in the field.



On 7/4/2016 2:08 PM, Bob Higgins wrote:
You missed my point - and, of course, I could have said it better.  
The problem is that a failed quasi-replication (Ahern's experiment was 
FAR from replication) does not mean the reaction does not work.  It 
means the experimenter failed to adequately replicate variables that 
were important, about which little or nothing may have been reported.  
Also, just because a single experiment with LAH or LAD fails to 
produce XH, does not mean that it is not possible to get XH from that 
system.  You would like someone successful with LAH to evaluate the 
enrichment with LAD - that would be Parkhomov, not Ahern.


It was failed quasi-replications of F that sent the whole field into 
a tailspin.  There were eventually things that could be learned from 
those experiments, but initial conclusions from them were totally 
wrong.  The answer is not going to be found in just a single experiment.


I am not against quasi-replications, just against drawing false 
conclusions from them.


On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Jones Beene > wrote:


*From:*Bob Higgins

As we have all seen in this field, failed quasi-replications don't
mean squat.

Noat all!On the contrary,quasi-replicationsmeanquitea lot, if not
everything.

AP had hisfirst quasi-success in performing aquasi-replicationof
the hot-cat,and he hasdonelittleelseexceptquasi-replicationofthat
first one - whichwas actually not successful…andhefinallyfound
modest success byvarying parameters, notbyfollowing a presumed path.

There really is nodecentmodelout there -and no strategyexcept to
learn from the failures, which isat the90% rate… so there is a lot
to learnfrom analyzing thequasi-replications.

Re: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[Bob Higgins]

You missed my point - and, of course, I could have said it better.  The
problem is that a failed quasi-replication (Ahern's experiment was FAR from
replication) does not mean the reaction does not work.  It means the
experimenter failed to adequately replicate variables that were important,
about which little or nothing may have been reported.  Also, just because a
single experiment with LAH or LAD fails to produce XH, does not mean that
it is not possible to get XH from that system.  You would like someone
successful with LAH to evaluate the enrichment with LAD - that would be
Parkhomov, not Ahern.

It was failed quasi-replications of F that sent the whole field into a
tailspin.  There were eventually things that could be learned from those
experiments, but initial conclusions from them were totally wrong.  The
answer is not going to be found in just a single experiment.

I am not against quasi-replications, just against drawing false conclusions
from them.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
> As we have all seen in this field, failed quasi-replications don't mean
> squat.
>
> No at all! On the contrary, quasi-replications mean quite a lot, if not
> everything.
>
> AP had his first quasi-success in performing a quasi-replication of the
> hot-cat, and he has done little else except quasi-replication of that
> first one - which was actually not successful… and he finally found
> modest success by varying parameters, not by following a presumed path.
>
> There really is no decent model out there - and no strategy except to
> learn from the failures, which is at the 90% rate… so there is a lot to
> learn from analyzing the quasi-replications.
>
>

RE: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

As we have all seen in this field, failed quasi-replications don't mean squat.


No at all! On the contrary, quasi-replications mean quite a lot, if not 
everything. 

AP had his first quasi-success in performing a quasi-replication of the 
hot-cat, and he has done little else except quasi-replication of that first one 
- which was actually not successful… and he finally found modest success by 
varying parameters, not by following a presumed path. 

There really is no decent model out there - and no strategy except to learn 
from the failures, which is at the 90% rate… so there is a lot to learn from 
analyzing the quasi-replications.

Re: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[Bob Higgins]

I think AP's success is more likely due to the pre-treatment protocol and
H2 pressure during time of excess heat, rather than just the "fuel mix" or
the heater coil fields.  Notice in AP's latest reported experiment that the
fuel was soaked at 500-600C for about 8 days as pre-treatment.  The H2
pressure was relieved to be 1 bar absolute or less.  Then when AP heated
above the melting point of Li-H and Al, he got XH.  Pre-treatment and H2
pressure are critical parameters to get this to work.  In the early days, I
don't think Brian (nor the rest of us) knew what was important.  Parkhomov
ran a lot of failed experiments.  It was his lucky ones that leaked out the
H2 that worked in the early days without even he knowing the critical
parameters.

Determining if D enrichment enhances XH will require running several
experiments with it. If you put in some small amount of the LAD and the
experiment didn't work, it might just be one of the ones that didn't work
for some other reason.  You might need a series of blind experiments to see
statistically if all of the LAD enriched ones failed and the LAH
experiments worked (at least some of the time).  And, it needs to be run by
someone who has had success with Ni+LAH.

As we have all seen in this field, failed quasi-replications don't mean
squat.

On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 8:42 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
> Mathieu Valat has some LiAlD4 given to him by Jean-Paul Biberian.  I asked
> Mathieu if he would be willing to send some to Parkhomov to increase the
> possibility that Parkhomov would run an experiment with D enrichment to
> look for increase in excess power.
>
> Bob,
>
> Brian Ahern tried the deuterated material. You might want to contact him
> for the details, but basically LiAlD4 did not work in his tube kiln setup,
> nor did the regualr AP mix.
>
> It could be that the tube kiln itself does not function well as a
> replacement for directly wound resistance wire - for an unknown basic
> reason, no matter what material is used. This could be because the electric 
> field
> of the heater wire is more important than the heat itself – or some
> combination of the two. Naturally, we have been led to think the heat is
> the key – but clearly the key is not simply heat alone.
>
>

RE: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[Jones Beene]

From: Bob Higgins 

Mathieu Valat has some LiAlD4 given to him by Jean-Paul Biberian.  I asked 
Mathieu if he would be willing to send some to Parkhomov to increase the 
possibility that Parkhomov would run an experiment with D enrichment to look 
for increase in excess power.  

Bob,

Brian Ahern tried the deuterated material. You might want to contact him for 
the details, but basically LiAlD4 did not work in his tube kiln setup, nor did 
the regualr AP mix. 

It could be that the tube kiln itself does not function well as a replacement 
for directly wound resistance wire - for an unknown basic reason, no matter 
what material is used. This could be because the electric field of the heater 
wire is more important than the heat itself – or some combination of the two. 
Naturally, we have been led to think the heat is the key – but clearly the key 
is not simply heat alone.

RE: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[Russ George]

Russia developed the engineering R protocol called TRIZ and it has served 
them very well for decades. It is a results oriented practical methodology 
based on rigorous scientific methods. I would guess Parkhomov knows it like a 
second nature. Western impatience is not held is high esteem in most of the 
world.
 
From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 4, 2016 6:45 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation
 
Mathieu Valat has some LiAlD4 given to him by Jean-Paul Biberian.  I asked 
Mathieu if he would be willing to send some to Parkhomov to increase the 
possibility that Parkhomov would run an experiment with D enrichment to look 
for increase in excess power.  Mathieu was all for that.  

I also asked Bob Greenyer if various parts and equipment could be donated to 
Parkhomov to enhance his experiments.  Bob was going to ask Parkhomov - again - 
but in previous times he asked, Parkhomov was not interested in receiving such 
donations.  Bob thinks Parkhomov has all of the support he needs, but simply 
moves too quickly in his experiments to be bothered with waiting for "the right 
equipment".  Bob says, "the mentality in Russia is to do what works fast and 
gives you 90% of the answer and iterate".  It is a pretty good meme in many 
cases.
 
On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Bob Cook < <mailto:frobertc...@hotmail.com> 
frobertc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
 
Bob—
 
Great communication with AP.  It would be nice to get AP to confirm that D does 
not change the energy generation of the experiment except in so far as the H 
concentration is reduced.  
 
In his answers to your question about deuterium AP seemed to hope it had no 
effect on the reaction???
 
Bob Cook
 
Sent from  <https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> Mail for Windows 10

Re: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[Bob Higgins]

Mathieu Valat has some LiAlD4 given to him by Jean-Paul Biberian.  I asked
Mathieu if he would be willing to send some to Parkhomov to increase the
possibility that Parkhomov would run an experiment with D enrichment to
look for increase in excess power.  Mathieu was all for that.

I also asked Bob Greenyer if various parts and equipment could be donated
to Parkhomov to enhance his experiments.  Bob was going to ask Parkhomov -
again - but in previous times he asked, Parkhomov was not interested in
receiving such donations.  Bob thinks Parkhomov has all of the support he
needs, but simply moves too quickly in his experiments to be bothered with
waiting for "the right equipment".  Bob says, "the mentality in Russia is
to do what works fast and gives you 90% of the answer and iterate".  It is
a pretty good meme in many cases.

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 10:35 PM, Bob Cook  wrote:

>
>
> Bob—
>
>
>
> Great communication with AP.  It would be nice to get AP to confirm that D
> does not change the energy generation of the experiment except in so far as
> the H concentration is reduced.
>
>
>
> In his answers to your question about deuterium AP seemed to hope it had
> no effect on the reaction???
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Sent from Mail  for
> Windows 10
>

RE: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[Bob Cook]

Bob—

Great communication with AP.  It would be nice to get AP to confirm that D does 
not change the energy generation of the experiment except in so far as the H 
concentration is reduced.

In his answers to your question about deuterium AP seemed to hope it had no 
effect on the reaction???

Bob Cook

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10

From: Bob Higgins<mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 3, 2016 7:16 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: Re: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

Parkhomov's choice of rain gauge for flow meter is an interesting choice -
fits perfectly with his style.  This flow meter is of the bistable conical
cup type.  It flops back and forth as each cup fills to a certain MASS of
water: [I am inserting a small picture - hope it comes through]


​
When one cup fills to 10g of water, it flows over and presents the other
cup.  Each flop causes a magnet to pass a reed switch which causes a
pulse.  Parkhomov said he measured a noise of about +/- 0.1 g for each
flop.  The +/- 0.1 g may not have been the repeatability or noise - for
example the left cup could be 9.9g and the right cup 10.1g depending on the
level of the system.

Measuring the mass of water is much better than measuring the volume of
water because the heat in each gram is much more stable with temperature
than the heat with 1cc.

Also note from the pictures of the system that Parkhomov had a can storing
water up above the reactor.  This can had a water level control to keep the
can filled to a certain height.  This would have controlled the water
pressure (only the dead fall pressure) and helped keep the flow constant.

Bob

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Great work! Good answers. The parts relating to calorimetry look okay to
> me, at first glance:
>
> What type of flow measurement sensor was used? Can you list the
>> manufacturer and model of the flow sensor?
>> A flow measurement sensor was used, a Rain Gauge supplied Oregon
>> Scientific - Weather Station WMRS200. It
>> generates 1 pulse from 10 g of water.
>>
>
> That sounds like good enough resolution.
>
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Oregon-Scientific-WMR200-Professional-Weather/dp/B000VSTALG
>
> I cannot find that at the Oregon Scientific website. Here is something
> similar:
>
>
> http://www.oregonscientificstore.com/p-358-oregon-scientific-wmr300a-ultra-precision-professional-weather-system.aspx
>
>
>
>> Did the water supply for the calorimeter come directly from the drinking
>> water faucet? Yes
>> Was the flow rate manually set? Yes
>>
>
> Both reasonable. Once you set a flow rate with a faucet, it is stable in
> most cities.
>
>
>
>> What flow rate was used? (for example in, or L/hour) About 4 ml/s
>>
>
> 240 ml/minute is fine.
>
>
> At the 1200°C operating point, what was the typical temperature difference
>> between the water outlet temperature
>> and the water inlet temperature? About 20 deg C.
>
>
> That's a big temperature difference. The COP is 1.1 to 1.3, so I guess
> that up to ~6 deg C of that is anomalous heat. See the other document at
> this web site, p. 8:
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2YnpFakRobUE1clE=drive_web
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[Jed Rothwell]

Bob Higgins  wrote:

Parkhomov's choice of rain gauge for flow meter is an interesting choice -
> fits perfectly with his style.  This flow meter is of the bistable conical
> cup type.  It flops back and forth as each cup fills to a certain MASS of
> water: [I am inserting a small picture - hope it comes through]
>

That is interesting.

Ed Storms and Mike McKubre both used this style of mass-flow meter. This
has some advantages over turbine types, calorimetric types (that heat the
water) and others described here:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/flow-meters-d_493.html

The direct mass flow ones are less likely to clog up, and they are accurate
over a broad range of flow rates.

- Jed

Re: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[Bob Higgins]

Parkhomov's choice of rain gauge for flow meter is an interesting choice -
fits perfectly with his style.  This flow meter is of the bistable conical
cup type.  It flops back and forth as each cup fills to a certain MASS of
water: [I am inserting a small picture - hope it comes through]


​
When one cup fills to 10g of water, it flows over and presents the other
cup.  Each flop causes a magnet to pass a reed switch which causes a
pulse.  Parkhomov said he measured a noise of about +/- 0.1 g for each
flop.  The +/- 0.1 g may not have been the repeatability or noise - for
example the left cup could be 9.9g and the right cup 10.1g depending on the
level of the system.

Measuring the mass of water is much better than measuring the volume of
water because the heat in each gram is much more stable with temperature
than the heat with 1cc.

Also note from the pictures of the system that Parkhomov had a can storing
water up above the reactor.  This can had a water level control to keep the
can filled to a certain height.  This would have controlled the water
pressure (only the dead fall pressure) and helped keep the flow constant.

Bob

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Jed Rothwell  wrote:

> Great work! Good answers. The parts relating to calorimetry look okay to
> me, at first glance:
>
> What type of flow measurement sensor was used? Can you list the
>> manufacturer and model of the flow sensor?
>> A flow measurement sensor was used, a Rain Gauge supplied Oregon
>> Scientific - Weather Station WMRS200. It
>> generates 1 pulse from 10 g of water.
>>
>
> That sounds like good enough resolution.
>
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Oregon-Scientific-WMR200-Professional-Weather/dp/B000VSTALG
>
> I cannot find that at the Oregon Scientific website. Here is something
> similar:
>
>
> http://www.oregonscientificstore.com/p-358-oregon-scientific-wmr300a-ultra-precision-professional-weather-system.aspx
>
>
>
>> Did the water supply for the calorimeter come directly from the drinking
>> water faucet? Yes
>> Was the flow rate manually set? Yes
>>
>
> Both reasonable. Once you set a flow rate with a faucet, it is stable in
> most cities.
>
>
>
>> What flow rate was used? (for example in, or L/hour) About 4 ml/s
>>
>
> 240 ml/minute is fine.
>
>
> At the 1200°C operating point, what was the typical temperature difference
>> between the water outlet temperature
>> and the water inlet temperature? About 20 deg C.
>
>
> That's a big temperature difference. The COP is 1.1 to 1.3, so I guess
> that up to ~6 deg C of that is anomalous heat. See the other document at
> this web site, p. 8:
>
>
> https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2YnpFakRobUE1clE=drive_web
>
> - Jed
>
>

Re: [Vo]: Q and A with Parkhomov regarding his latest presentation

[Jed Rothwell]

Great work! Good answers. The parts relating to calorimetry look okay to
me, at first glance:

What type of flow measurement sensor was used? Can you list the
> manufacturer and model of the flow sensor?
> A flow measurement sensor was used, a Rain Gauge supplied Oregon
> Scientific - Weather Station WMRS200. It
> generates 1 pulse from 10 g of water.
>

That sounds like good enough resolution.

https://www.amazon.com/Oregon-Scientific-WMR200-Professional-Weather/dp/B000VSTALG

I cannot find that at the Oregon Scientific website. Here is something
similar:

http://www.oregonscientificstore.com/p-358-oregon-scientific-wmr300a-ultra-precision-professional-weather-system.aspx



> Did the water supply for the calorimeter come directly from the drinking
> water faucet? Yes
> Was the flow rate manually set? Yes
>

Both reasonable. Once you set a flow rate with a faucet, it is stable in
most cities.



> What flow rate was used? (for example in, or L/hour) About 4 ml/s
>

240 ml/minute is fine.


At the 1200°C operating point, what was the typical temperature difference
> between the water outlet temperature
> and the water inlet temperature? About 20 deg C.


That's a big temperature difference. The COP is 1.1 to 1.3, so I guess that
up to ~6 deg C of that is anomalous heat. See the other document at this
web site, p. 8:

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B5Pc25a4cOM2YnpFakRobUE1clE=drive_web

- Jed