> > It is a normal heating curve! It is a calibration. It looks pretty bumpy > to me. That's ambient temp fluctuations, I think.
Not so. I used the data from his active run to create that chart. He re-calibrates everything, every time he puts reactors into the box and > seals it up. He does the procedures graphed in the Calorimetry section of > the new paper. The traverse test and so on. He leaves the reactors in for a > long time in some cases. Months. He can recalibrate anytime. > > He also cleans out the fan and does other maintenance before starting a > run. > He probably needs to include more data. We're kind of left taking his word for it. It is such an amazing result that he should at least end with another calibration. On Wed, Jun 19, 2019 at 7:10 PM Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Jack Cole <jcol...@gmail.com> wrote: > > It's not really clear to me whether he re-calibrated everything with the >> new reactor. >> > > He re-calibrates everything, every time he puts reactors into the box and > seals it up. He does the procedures graphed in the Calorimetry section of > the new paper. The traverse test and so on. He leaves the reactors in for a > long time in some cases. Months. He can recalibrate anytime. > > He also cleans out the fan and does other maintenance before starting a > run. > > > >> In the first set of experiments (first paper), he had two reactors and >> would switch between them. >> > > Still does. > > > >> The second set, he only shows a 50W calibration and 0W. I graphed input >> power by reactor temp, and it looks awfully uniform (and quite similar to a >> normal heating curve). >> > > It is a normal heating curve! It is a calibration. It looks pretty bumpy > to me. That's ambient temp fluctuations, I think. > > - Jed > >
