Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <a...@lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
Jed, you are forgetting something. The 120 kW figure was for a very short
> time.
About 20 minutes, I think. Long enough to be certain it is real, with this
equipment, at this flow rate.
Water meters don't show flow rate, they show total water consumption, and
> that would be for a long time, relatively.
They show both the instantaneous rate and total water consumption. The ones
I have seen do. These are the cheapest sub-meters on the market, for $50.
("Sub-meters" are used, for example, in individual apartments or in a boiler
room for one boiler.)
However, I have no idea what caused the high apparent heat for that short
> time. Gremlins?
>
Cold fusion, obviously. Do you think one thing caused the 17 kW and
something else caused the bigger heat burst? Do not multiply
entities unnecessarily.
> What I'm suggesting, though, is considering that transient reading as proof
> of *anything* is hazardous. Too many variables.
>
There are not too many variables. The same 4 as ever: inlet temp, outlet
temp, flow and input power. 20 minutes at this flow rate is plenty of time
to be sure. However, there may be some heat going from the cell directly to
the outlet thermocouple in this case, which would exaggerate the heat. That
cannot be a problem for the 17 kW observed for of the test, before and after
the transient.
- Jed
