I thought it was an interesting report, but I think a fundamental issue may be getting missed in the calorimetry of the BLP experiment.
As I understand it, the calorimeter was modified to have the large copper electrodes that supply the very high spot welder current placed into the test chamber. These conductors will allow a lot of heat to flow out that will not get registered by the calorimeter because the whole apparatus is not in an enclosed box. To address this outflow of heat, null/blind experiments were run for calibration using spot welding of metals. However, as the author of the report points out, the nature of the energy release for the experiments with water was different - louder pop and light. This means that there was radiation (at least visible light) and probably ejecta from the actual experiment compared to the null blind. The blind experiments would have had more of their heat conducted out through the copper electrodes and the experiments with light and ejecta would deposit more of the heat to the calorimeter bomb shell. Even if the energy release were the same in the two cases, the calorimeter would show more heat in the case where there was light and ejecta and water vapor. Is this enough to make up for a factor of 2 difference in the measured heat? It is hard to say without having a better model for the apparatus, and the report does not provide any indication this this detailed level of modeling was done. Despite this, a factor of 2 should be discern-able after modeling if real. Bob Higgins On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:38 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/GlumacReport2.pdf > > A tenth of a degree or less rise in temperature in the calorimeter. > Everything extrapolated from that. LOL. > > >
