Bob, if you view the video where the calorimetry was being demonstrated, it
appears that the heat was calculated from the temp rise. It seems to me that
if there was Qcond being conducted out of the conductor, it was ignore. That
means that the energy output was underestimated because Qcond was not measured
at all; only the temp rise in the calorimeter was considered.
Also, the COP was 4+ based on this specific single explosion, Mills did not
claim COP of 2.
Jojo
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Higgins
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Is the SunCell a titanium burner?
I thought it was important to say more explicitly why I believe the Mills
demo calorimetry may be flawed. I hope the enclosed diagram will come through
to Vortex – I have seen others come through recently and I tried to make this a
small image file. If it doesn’t come through, I apologize. Since I was not
there to examine the calorimeter, I am describing what I believe was used - and
this is just reasonable speculation.
If we had an ideal calorimeter, and some energy is input inside, Ein, one
would expect to measure a total heat flux of the calorimeter, Qmeas, equal to
Ein. If you put in 5 joules of input energy, the total integrated heat
measured (Qmeas) should be 5 joules of heat. In the ideal calorimeter, all
heat generated inside gets measured, 100%.
Now, for Mills to measure his water/catalyst arc detonations, large
electrodes must be inserted through the calorimeter walls so that the
detonation occurs inside. In general, the apparatus to provide the source
energy for the arc is outside of the calorimeter (physically large). In this
simplified description, there are 2 ways for the heat to leave the calorimeter:
1) through the calorimeter’s heat sensing mechanism (measures Qmeas), and 2)
through the arc conductors, call this heat Qcond. Since there is a large
current flowing in the arc, it is nearly impossible to insert something in the
conductor so as to directly measure the heat flow going through the conductor.
So, what to do? Well, Ein is usually measurable electrically. To find Qcond,
then perform a reference (blind) experiment. Don’t put anything inside the arc
gap, fire it with energy, Ein1, measure Qmeas1 and calculate
Qcond1 = Ein1 – Qmeas1
Now put in the water/catalyst in the arc gap and detonate it. You think
Qcond should be the same (Qcond1) and you calculate the total energy output as
Qtot2 = Qmeas2 + Qcond1
and you go on to calculate the COP as
COP = (Qmeas2 + Qcond1)/Ein (presuming Ein is constant for now)
So, where is the flaw in this? Consider (for a mental experiment) that for
the blind you evacuated the calorimeter. When the arc is fired, all of its
electrons will impact the positive electrode. Most of the energy will be
deposited as heat directly in the electrode and will be conducted out as Qcond;
very little will show up in Qmeas. In this case Qcond may be fairly close to
Ein.
Now lets say you put in some micro-encapsulated metal (so that you don’t
short the electrodes), and you fire the arc. Most of the electrons will impact
the metal in the gap and heat it to a quite high temperature. There will be
some evaporation, and some material expelled (ejecta) that is very hot. In
this case, more of Ein will be measured by the calorimeter as Qmeas, and Qcond
will be smaller than the vacuum case.
Now, put in the water/catalyst and fire the arc. As the demonstration
showed, the detonation is a lot louder and brighter. This doesn’t necessarily
mean that the heat generation was any more, but it does mean that there was
more ejecta (including steam) and increased visible photon radiation. All of
the ejecta (including steam) and the light carry energy away from the arc and
Qcond is less still.
Call Qmeas-wc the heat measured by the calorimeter when the water/catalyst is
used and Qcond-blind the conductor heat calculated from the blind calibration
calculation. When the COP is calculated as
COP = (Qmeas-wc + Qcond-blind)/Ein
it comes out higher than the real COP value because Qcond-blind is larger
than the true (and not measurable) Qcond-wc, by probably a large amount.
Intuition tells me that Qcond will be a fairly large part of the heat in all
tests, so an error in the Qcond used in the COP calculation will create a
similar, but slightly less error in the COP.
Mills only demonstrated a COP of about 2. Because of this kind of error, the
COP could easily have been closer to 1. This is an extremely difficult
modified calorimeter to calibrate. Perhaps when Mills makes the arc source
small enough to fit entirely in the calorimeter (except for some tiny capacitor
charging wires), it will be possible to get an accurate measurement.
Bob Higgins
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Jojo Iznart <jojoiznar...@gmail.com> wrote:
2. I don't agree with your analysis of the Bomb Calorimetry. Larger
conductors if any should lessen the heat because its resistance to current is
lower. Furthermore, larger conductors have a larger and heavier thermal mass
and should therefore absorb heat and cause the temperature rise to be lower.
The heat output was estimated from the temperature rise. If there is a large
thermal mass like large conductors, it should cause a lower temperature rise
inside. If any, the modifications you object to would "UNDER" estimate the
output power. Besides, it matters not if there is a large conductor. You
claim that these larger conductor carried heat. Yea??? heat from where to
where. Everything is inside the calorimeter. So, unless there was a big heat
source behind the bomb calorimeter "conducting" heat from the outside to the
inside via the Large conductors ..... Besides, they characterized the temp
chart due to room temperature effects. So, I find your objections illogical
and unfounded.
