Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released - Angels on a pin
and that water flow calorimetry is required... (heard it too). so there is no way to please them. that is on purpose. exhausting. 2013/5/20 Harry Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com Debunkers will say water flow calorimetry conceals a trick. Harry On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:31 PM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.comwrote: There might be a dozen reasons why NOT water flow calorimetry, but the big thing here is, why bother? They get a torrent of heat, *easily* shown by IR to be far, far more than any that accepted science can explain away, and you want that last decimal place? The question that was answered is, *is it real*? The answer is binary, two-state, accuracy is not a factor. But I think what you are really saying is that somehow hot water trumps IR, in the gut perhaps. It's not separated from common sense basement engineering by several exponential equations. And I think you are right in this, at least for a portion of the (persuadable) critics. Ol' Bab On 5/20/2013 12:04 PM, Jones Beene wrote: But the main issue - why they did not perform water flow calorimetry? That is a major question that needs to be answered after all of these months. Instead of removing doubts, which they could have done with water flow - they merely added more doubts.
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released - Angels on a pin
There might be a dozen reasons why NOT water flow calorimetry, but the big thing here is, why bother? They get a torrent of heat, /easily/ shown by IR to be far, far more than any that accepted science can explain away, and you want that last decimal place? The question that was answered is, /is it real/? The answer is binary, two-state, accuracy is not a factor. But I think what you are really saying is that somehow hot water trumps IR, in the gut perhaps. It's not separated from common sense basement engineering by several exponential equations. And I think you are right in this, at least for a portion of the (persuadable) critics. Ol' Bab On 5/20/2013 12:04 PM, Jones Beene wrote: But the main issue - why they did not perform water flow calorimetry? That is a major question that needs to be answered after all of these months. Instead of removing doubts, which they could have done with water flow - they merely added more doubts.
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released - Angels on a pin
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
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released - Angels on a pin
This is symptomatic of what I mean when I say this is entirely outside the realm of academic discourse. The psychology of the academic is that the engineering of the experimental apparatus is entirely under his control -- hence one would, of course, design the heat source to be compatible with the most widely-accepted standards of calorimetry. It is not within the psychological set of the academic that the key aspect of the experimental apparatus is not only not under his control but it so far from what he would consider a reasonable design, given the constraints normally imposed by funding, that his prior experimental techniques would be rendered impractical. On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: 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
Re: [Vo]:3rd Party Report Released - Angels on a pin
Debunkers will say water flow calorimetry conceals a trick. Harry On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:31 PM, David L Babcock ol...@rochester.rr.comwrote: There might be a dozen reasons why NOT water flow calorimetry, but the big thing here is, why bother? They get a torrent of heat, *easily* shown by IR to be far, far more than any that accepted science can explain away, and you want that last decimal place? The question that was answered is, *is it real*? The answer is binary, two-state, accuracy is not a factor. But I think what you are really saying is that somehow hot water trumps IR, in the gut perhaps. It's not separated from common sense basement engineering by several exponential equations. And I think you are right in this, at least for a portion of the (persuadable) critics. Ol' Bab On 5/20/2013 12:04 PM, Jones Beene wrote: But the main issue - why they did not perform water flow calorimetry? That is a major question that needs to be answered after all of these months. Instead of removing doubts, which they could have done with water flow - they merely added more doubts.
