Hi Jed, Congratulations for this, admitting to being wrong is such a rare quality that it deserves a special mention, even though it should be the norm in science of course.
One way to make energy balancing easier and more indisputable in those Superwave experiments would be to include the waveform amplifier in the calorimeter chamber, and make power input to that amplifier low bandwidth DC. This would put to rest the worries that have been expressed about phase errors in the i and v measurements possibly affecting input power measurement. Michel 2009/6/30 Jed Rothwell <[email protected]>: > On July 3 I ridiculed Kirk Shanahan for writing: > > "Dardik et al, of Energetic Technologies have slides from ICCF12 and a paper > from ICCF14 (2008) posted on Rothwell's web site. In both, they show an > artist's drawing of their calorimeter, which contains the thermocouples, > which are designated Tcell and Tjacket. The drawing and these designations > are for what is known as isoperibolic calorimetry. In the text of the ICCF14 > paper, the claim to be using a flow calorimeter, but what they show is NOT > that. Isoperibolic calorimetry is what F&P originally did and were > criticized about in the '89 DOE review. Storms has written several times > that flow calorimetry is superior to isoperibolic . . ." > > This refers to Fig. 1, p. 3 here: > > http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DardikIultrasonic.pdf > > It turns out he was right. This is an isoperibolic calorimeter. I just read > McKubre's paper in the book "Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook" > carefully, and that is what it says. (I read it three times!) See equations > 1 and 2, and: "The calorimeter is isoperibolic in the sense that two > aluminum cups constitute the calorimetric boundary perimeters at constant > temperature: the inner wall at temperature T4, and the outer wall at > temperature T5. Separating the two boundaries is a barrier of alumina powder > having a well-characterized (and constant) thermal conductivity." > > The term "flow calorimeter" in Fig. 3 of the Dardik paper probably refers to > the fact that the water flows through the outer jacket of this cell to > maintain a constant reference temperature. I think this is a problem with > English. I will ask Dardik et al. > > The situation is complicated by the fact that two independent replications > of the effect have been performed, at SRI and ENEA, and the latter > definitely did employ a flow calorimeter. McKubre: "A parallel but > independent set of experiments was performed at ENEA using a mass flow > calorimeter and employing Energetic's superwave stimulus protocals and > palladium foils fabricated by ENEA." (p. 231). > > I disagree with the assertion that "flow calorimetry is superior to > isoperibolic." I doubt that is exactly what Storms said. It is superior in > some ways; for example, it is less dependent upon calibrations. However, > isoperibolic is fine as long as you have "well-characterized (and constant) > thermal conductivity." I do not know anyone who has found a problem with the > isoperibolic calorimeters used Fleischmann and Pons, or Miles. But both > methods have their strengths and weaknesses. I think it is best to use > several methods, which is what Energetics Tech., SRI and ENEA collectively > have done. > > This is a good paper and a good book. I wish it was available on the > Internet. I think it is a bad idea to publish scientific papers on paper. > All scientific information should be made available free of charge to > everyone on earth via the Internet. This is the philosophy of the PLoS > journals (http://www.plos.org), and I agree, even though it costs publishers > and some researchers income. Going back to the 17th century universal access > to basic scientific information has been the goal -- or direction -- of the > Royal Society and others. It has finally come to fruition with the Internet. > > I have copied this mea culpa to Shanahan, to what I hope is his current > e-mail address. > > - Jed > >
