Jones, I am concerned that no one has been able to overcome the claims of skeptics that liquid water escapes with the steam and therefore confuses the measurement. We need to come up with a dummy proof method that ensures that the steam leaving the system is pure. That may be a challenge that someone will accept which will advance our testing art. Also, at the same time it will silence much of the skeptic chatter.
The question about the accuracy of the amount of heat entering the fuel from the induction source remains. As the fuel melts, etc. it is very likely that its conductivity is going to dramatically change. Who will be able to get a calibrated measure of something that changes continuously by it nature? If you assume 100% of the electrical power from the mains is deposited within the core then no one can argue with you. On the other hand, if you calibrate that 50% efficiency is expected then you will not hear an end to their complaining. Of course, if you get 200% true excess power as measured at the core, then you might not report excess heat if using the conservative approach. What are you attempting to prove? Who do you want to convince? How you answer those questions indicates your commitment to the industry. If, on the other hand you use standard electrical heating then there is much less open to misunderstanding. You do not need to estimate that less than 100% of the accurately measured input power is getting to the system. After that measurement choice is taken you can concentrate upon the calorimeter technique and art. Fortunately accurate calibration of these devices can be achieved by the addition of resistive heating elements. Dave -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene <[email protected]> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Jun 15, 2015 1:52 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:The good, the bad and the ugly From: David Roberson Ø Ø Jones, my main concern with the induction cook top is the mismatch between the heating coil and the typical shape of the fuel cores. If researchers change the form factor of the fuel into a planar design, which sure seem possible, then that issue can be somewhat resolved Yes Ø The problem of determining the amount of heat actually deposited within the core is a very big one and so far I see no way around it. With calorimetry, it’s all about proper calibration. You have said that yourself. Do you have a problem with boil-off calorimetry, in general? Some do, but in my experience, the inherent error always makes the gain seem less than it is and never more. Ø Note that the ugly would not be so had the Lugano team used a calibrated calorimeter. Exactamundo! And unfortunately – this ugly failure convinces skeptics (and many reasonable observers) that Rossi would not permit proper calibration because he knew the gain was going to be less than he had been claiming … or worse – that his contract with IH was contingent upon showing a more substantial gain than was possible with this setup. Jones Personally, I would rather see a dozen experimenters seeing COP of 1.5, if it is fully repeatable, than one flawed Lugano experiment claiming twice the COP. As the Thomas Clark report makes clear, Lugano/Levi was unprofessional and completely unscientific -- (it is the “ugly” of this Subject heading.)
