Dennis,
Indeed . And that would be "controls".
It might be a minority view; several controls are needed.
He needs a metachronous 1 MW pulse for enough time
and energy for the system to reach the same temp and heat
deposited that the LANR system would expect to achieve
in the steady state,
... and synchronous calibration pulses of a fraction of that
power.
Would also suggest a temperature control for his pyrometer
to match the peak temp recorded at point.
The additional controls for calorimetry including correcting
for positional flow error, and for background in any measurement
of ionizing radiation (which they are doing) and near-IR
(which you know who is doing), and thermal waveform
reconstruction are obvious.
Probably would also add a flow measurement
calibration, and check that humidity sensors are valid with
two calibrations if the temperature exceeds 96C.
Best regards,
m
===================================
At 06:05 PM 3/3/2011, you wrote:
and I would like to see what he will use as his control.
Dennis
--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jed Rothwell" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 3:50 PM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: [Vo]:Anticipating skeptical objections to a 1 MW demonstration
Yesterday I wrote that it can be surprisingly difficult to evaluate the
performance of a large machine. That probably sounds odd. Let me explain
a bit, while I try to anticipate some of the honest skeptical objections
that might be raised about a 1 MW demonstration. Rossi is sometimes open
to suggestions and if we can come up with ways to avoid these problems
perhaps he will make adjustments.
Let's look at what we know about the proposed demonstration, and think
about how to measure the effect.
THE 1 MW DEMO
