Robert Leguillon <robert.leguil...@hotmail.com> wrote: This appears to be the Houkes data that you're referring to: > > http://lenr-canr.org/RossiData/Houkes%20Oct%206%20Calculation%20of%20influence%20of%20Tin%20on%20Tout.xlsx > > I cannot open this file. I get a zip with dissociated .xml's. > I know that I'd quickly discounted it in the past . . . >
That is in Microsoft Excel format. I will try converting it to Acrobat. But, I must say that your allusion to > "the fact that two calorimetric methods were in reasonable agreement" > is just hogwash. The secondary calorimetric observations cited previously > were entirely contingent upon the acceptance of the first. This is a > circular argument. > I do not see what you mean. Method 1 is the flow rate and temperature difference in the cooling loop. Method 2 is the flow rate of the fluid coming from the reactor, with the assumption that the fluid was all vaporized, which is reasonable given the temperature. I do not see how one can be dependent or contingent on the other. Method 1 would work just as well even if the fluid coming from the reactor was not vaporized, or not close to boiling. - Jed
