a.ashfield <a.ashfi...@verizon.net> wrote:
> So it was Murray who raised the alarm at the last minute . . . Alarms were raised throughout the test, and made known to many people, including me. Your assertion that this happened only at the end is factually incorrect. I expect you will go on repeating it, but it is wrong. > The report of a constant water flow rate maybe explained by the flow meter > giving a running total and the constant flow that Jed makes much of, was > simply the average flow calculated by dividing the total by the number of > days. First, I make "much of it" because the actual flow was something like 3 to 10 times lower than this, as shown by the rust and by various tests. Second, if the flow varied significantly, then an "average flow" would be worse than useless for calorimetry. You compute the heat by multiplying the flow rate by the heat of the water or steam. Since the temperature varied, you would be multiplying the wrong flow rate, and the results would be meaningless. - Jed
