At 02:22 PM 10/3/2009, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote:
> At 09:46 AM 10/3/2009, Horace Heffner wrote:
>> I don't think controlling thermal instabilities is important, it is
>> eliminating their effect on the calorimetry. This is of course why
>> Seebeck calorimetry is useful. Whatever directions the heat flows,
>> it is measured.
>
> It occurs to me that, while there is a very important role for precise
> calorimetry to play in cold fusion research, from an engineering
> perspective it might be a bit of a red herring.
From an engineering perspective it's irrelevant.
What I said, essentially.
As long as you need precise calorimetry to tell if anything's happening,
there's nothing going on which can be "engineered".
Well, more accurately, the engineering is way too difficult. Note
that there may be an assumption Stephen is making, that substantial
excess heat is the goal. That's not my goal, the goal of my
"engineering" is to demonstrate nuclear effects and to find
associated effects that are characteristic of the nuclear reactions
even if, by themselves, they do not prove "nuclear."
When enough heat is generated reliably enough to be useful for
"engineering" rather than "science" you won't need a calorimeter to
detect it.
That's right.
Do you need a calorimeter to tell whether the fire in your fireplace is
lit or not? To tell if your car motor has caught? To determine whether
a space heater is doing its job? Obviously not.
Yup. Now, will a Galileo project cell generate enough heat to be a
demonstration of excess heat? I don't know any numbers. It's not
critical for my work. I do not expect that actual calorimetry will be
a part of the kits, though someone could put a kit cell in a
calorimeter, and I do expect to include temperature sensing, which
can lead to rough calorimetry if calibrated. Not the kind of
calorimetry to prove anything, but to be associated with other effects.
