This is really good news Jed. Now the calorimeter seems to be working in the right way [stable ambient and enough time, as we said at the beginning of the discussion]. From your short data presented I suppose it took 7 hours for the cooling liquid to reach a final stable average temperature. From now on, the power transferred from the pump to the water exactly compensates the losses to the ambient.
Some data are, however, missing in your announcement: what is the value of the ambient temperature in the last 28 hours? Moreover, is it possible to get data for the transient part, I mean the first 7 hours. 2015-01-30 20:32 GMT+01:00 Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com>: > And . . . Here is definitive proof of what I say. > > It happens that Mizuno sent me a large data set which includes about 35 > hours where nothing was happening. He left the computer running, and he > left the heating on so the ambient temperature was reasonably stable. I see > it was especially stable during the last 28 hours. The pump was also > running all this time. Here are the cooling water temperatures for the > first 14 hours and the second 14 hours: > > First 14: Average 17.85°C, min 17.64°C, max 18.08°C > Last 14: Average 17.81°C, min 17.65°C, max 18.10°C > > There is no difference. The pump did not change the temperature. Using the > adiabatic method of calorimetry we see *zero heat* in this data set. > There is NO INCREASE in the water temperature even though the pump is > adding heat the whole time. It has reached the terminal temperature for the > pump input. > > Really, people should stop debating this. The pump cannot possibly affect > this method of calorimetry. > > - Jed > >
