Gigi DiMarco <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm sorry but if you take the 18 hour experiment file and draw the water > temperature against the room temperature you will find a temperature rise > at the equilibrium higher than 2.5 °C. This is a huge amount which, is > incompatible with what you and Mizuno say. > Where do you see that? At what hour? At hour 2.2 it reaches the peak. The water temperature is 23.3°C and ambient is 22.8°C. That's 0.5°C (but a careful measurement shows the average is ~0.60°C.) It never goes higher. The temperature difference does not change, although ambient falls a lot, and the data becomes useless. But I do not see a 2.5°C difference anywhere in data. > Your mistake is to think to have a good adiabatic calorimeter whereas you > don't. > On the contrary, if this were a good adiabatic calorimeter the temperature would go higher. At this low power of 0.2 W it functions as an isoperibolic calorimeter, reaching a terminal high temperature in 1.5 hours. > To be good you should have a stable ambient temperature or appropriate > time constants. > Yes. The ambient is not stable for long. Mizuno plans to fix this problem, as I noted in the report. But I think it is stable long enough to show that the maximum temperature difference from the pump power is 0.6°C. Ambient was stable for 2.4 hours and the temperature stopped climbing after 1.5 hours. I think that anybody here familiar with calorimetry can judge what I'm > saying. > Experts in calorimetry such as McKubre disagree with you. Several of them reviewed the paper before I published it. Mizuno is an expert in calorimetry and he disagrees. > Take all the Mizuno's measurement and consider the excess temperature of > the water against the ambient. If the test run (including power pulses) and > the pump run have similar values Mizuno is wrong. > The values are completely different. > Remember that power dissipation is linear with that temperature difference > so the ambient is the real baseline. > No, it is not. We do not measure from ambient. We measure starting from whatever the water temperature is after the pump has been running for many hours, or for days. If ambient varies too much, we stop measuring. The only possible problem would be if the pump did more work at times, and added more heat. > To convince you: start again the experiment with the alleged reaction, but > in the same time decrease the room temperature by at least 10 degrees > opening the window (it's wintertime); do you really think that you are > going to find an increase in the water temperature? > I would throw out data from such an unstable ambient temperature. Ambient has to be stable for this technique to work. But anyway, in this hypothetical test you describe, the reactor plus Dewar would gradually lose heat to ambient, and gain heat from the input power + anomalous reaction. Whether the water temperature increases overall would depend on how much input power + anomalous heat there is. In some tests, the reactor has been too hot to touch, so obviously in those tests the water temperature would increase even if the room temperature falls 10°C. If the water temperature decreases shall we have a negative excess heat? > If ambient temperature changes are big enough to in the measurements to that extent, I would throw away the dataset and try again.
