Goat Guy wrote: "FOURTH were they condensing the water-vapor into a vessel for weighing? The heat-of-vaporization of water is very well known, and a very useful proxy for figuring out thermal-energy production rates. It isn't (unfortunately) a very quick responder to thermal-generator fluctuations, but at least when a final quantity has been condensed and measured, the conversion to joules, calories, kilowatt-hours is straight forward."
That is the stupidest skeptical objection I have read in many months. To summarize, he saying: 1. Boiling water calorimetry is a straightforward way to measure energy. It does exactly what is needed. 2. BUT it is not a good way to measure power in real time, unfortunately. Okay, so what is "unfortunate"? What difference does the output power make in this particular test? Many other calorimeter types can be used to measure real-time output power, so if that is what you want to know, do another experiment. I don't know why he says "proxy." It is a direct, first-principle technique. There are none more direct or simpler. During the Watergate scandal people talked about "non-denial denials." This is a no-objection objection. He is calling out something on the basis that it would be a problem if it were a problem but anyone can see it isn't a problem but maybe if we say it is a problem again and again gullible people will begin to think it is a problem. - Jed
