At 11:39 PM 8/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
The maximum error in the actual measurement, then, will be +/- 0.1
degree, plus a little, so that it *might* be off by another digit
under some circumstances. I.e, suppose the
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
Good point. On a meter with a fixed display, you cannot calibrate any
finer than the last digit displayed, minus a tad. McKubre can
calibrate RTDs (I think they are) to a fraction of a degree because
he is looking at a computer screen with as many digits as you
At 10:46 PM 8/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
No, they wouldn't. You can use the resolution to make temperature
comparisons. Jed, maybe I misread the specifications. I did not,
however, make this up. And I do know for a
Abd wrote:
But pressure is also important, because, of course, boiling point depends on
pressure. I see no
sign that the actual pressure inside the E-cat was measured directly.
I just read a quote yesterday from Galantini, not sure where, but I think is
may have been on
Passerini's site,
At 04:40 PM 8/12/2011, Mark Iverson wrote:
Abd wrote:
But pressure is also important, because, of course, boiling point
depends on pressure. I see no
sign that the actual pressure inside the E-cat was measured directly.
I just read a quote yesterday from Galantini, not sure where, but I
I'm asserting that there are defects in the Galantini report, of two kinds.
1. He does not provide data to substantiate what he claims, which
includes specifying exactly what equipment he used. He makes a point
that he measured pressure, but he did not report the result as an
instrumental
By the way, I have been assuming that Galantini was watching the
thermocouple display on the screen, and he took measurements when it hit
100.1°C or above. I do not suppose he used the temperature function in
his instrument. The screen display has 4 digits and I think at least one
is
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
The entire approach to measuring enthalpy is corrupt and fraught with
hazards. You know how to do it right. Rossi deliberately avoided that.
Even assuming you are right and this method does not work, I do not know
of any reason to think Rossi deliberately avoided
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
This depends on the probe. However, from other data (such as probe rated
temperature of 150 C.) the probe has an accuracy of +/- 0.4 C. He's greatly
overstated the accuracy, it seems, and that is crucial here. The
*resolution* is 0.1 C., and I
Galantini stated a fact from manual: «4- The thermometers have a margin of
error of +/- 0,05 Celsius»
Lomax replied with speculation: «This depends on the probe. However, from
other data (such as probe rated temperature of 150 C.) the probe has an
accuracy of +/- 0.4 C. He's greatly overstated
Galantini stated a fact from manual: «4- The thermometers have a margin of
error of +/- 0,05 Celsius»
Lomax replied with speculation: «This depends on the probe. However, from
other data (such as probe rated temperature of 150 C.) the probe has an
accuracy of +/- 0.4 C. He's greatly overstated
Sorry about accidental double post. My cell phone blundered and resent old
draft. First post is is the correct one, latter is unfortunate draft. —Jouni
Jouni Valkonen jounivalko...@gmail.com wrote:
Thermometer must be calibrated in respect of boiling point of water (or
other known temperature that is relevant for what is measured) before it can
be used for accurate measurements. Without calibration, it's accuracy is
just ±0.4°C. But
At 09:17 PM 8/10/2011, you wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax mailto:a...@lomaxdesign.coma...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
This depends on the probe. However, from other
data (such as probe rated temperature of 150 C.)
the probe has an accuracy of +/- 0.4 C. He's
greatly overstated the accuracy, it seems,
I wrote:
Maybe he forgot which probe he used. Again, this is like what you said
above: maybe he did not calibrate. Yes, we all agree that if you don't
calibrate or you use the wrong probe, it does not work. Yes, people do make
mistakes.
To summarize Abd's assertions:
If Galantini made a
At 09:34 PM 8/10/2011, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Galantini stated a fact from manual: «4- The
thermometers have a margin of error of +/- 0,05 Celsius»
Lomax replied with speculation: «This depends
on the probe. However, from other data (such as
probe rated temperature of 150 C.) the probe
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
The maximum error in the actual measurement, then, will be +/- 0.1 degree,
plus a little, so that it *might* be off by another digit under some
circumstances. I.e, suppose the calibration reads 100.0, but the internals
of the meter is saying
At 09:46 PM 8/10/2011, Jed Rothwell wrote:
Precision is better than accuracy with thermocouples. That is to
say, even if it is 0.4 deg C away from the real temperature (because
you do not bother to calibrate) it can still measure a temperature
difference of 0.1 deg C with confidence.
Not
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote:
No, they wouldn't. You can use the resolution to make temperature
comparisons. Jed, maybe I misread the specifications. I did not, however,
make this up. And I do know for a fact that most instruments have higher
resolution than accuracy.
I
19 matches
Mail list logo
