David L Babcock <ol...@rochester.rr.com> wrote: There might be a dozen reasons why NOT water flow calorimetry, but the big > thing here is, why bother? >
I can think of some very good reasons not to do water flow calorimetry. At these temperatures and power levels, it would be dangerous. Also difficult. It would probably cool the reactor too fast and quench the reaction. The only way I can think to avoid that would be to envelop the reactor under insulating material with the cooling water flowing over the outside of the envelope. This might well cause the reactor to overheat and melt, again. If I had one reactor melt, I would definitely not go with a method that hides the reactor or insulates it. If they let the water vaporize it would remove a lot of heat but the skeptics would go ape shit because they do not believe the textbook heat of vaporization for water is correct (2260 J/g). All in all, I would steer clear of this method. I wonder if it is incandescent in the control runs during the step with 283 W of input power. I doubt it. One thing for sure: You cannot melt a device of this nature with 283 W! - Jed
