Jed, all that you say has nothing to do with the Newton's law of cooling. It is by far more complex and it is what we are trying to simulate. With good and promising results I must say. You need the complete Fourier equation.
It is time to go to sleep. Best regards. 2015-01-14 22:12 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>: > Gigi DiMarco <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> you continue to be wrong. >> If you have constant ambient and constant heat source the temperature >> difference will stay constant. No exponential decrease. Sorry. >> > > If the power remains the same for the entire test, that is correct. It > reaches the terminal temperature, and it does not not fall. If ambient > remains steady, so does the reactor temperature. If ambient rises or falls, > the reactor temperature follows with a long lag. > > On the other hand, if you reduce power, the temperature declines. That is > what you see in Mizuno's data after the heat pulses and after anomalous > heat fades away. It falls exponentially. > > The temperature gradually falls back down to within ~0.6 deg C of ambient > (which is a moving target when the room is cooling off). It always reaches > that temperature by the next morning. That is convenient for Mizuno, > because it lets him start a new test every day. If the insulation were > better, he would have to have active cooling to bring the reactor back down > to the starting point. Or he would have to start at an elevated > temperature, which would make comparing tests complicated. > > - Jed > >
