On 04/16/2011 04:11 PM, Horace Heffner wrote: > > I still see no documentation of calorimetry techniques applied. Did I > miss something?
Horace, I don't understand what you're saying here. The first of the public demos used flow calorimetry: Known flow rate, and known temperature rise, gives heat produced. You can take issue with it on the grounds that they were claiming that the effluent was dry steam and so all the enthalpy of evaporation was produced, when maybe it wasn't, but it's absurd to claim there was no calorimetry done. Furthermore, even if you assume no steam at all was actually produced, the measurements from the instruments clearly indicated the water was heated from 20 degrees to 100 degrees, which is already over unity -- it indicates close to a kilowatt was produced, and the electrical energy in was 400 watts. The later test (February?) used flowing water at less than boiling. Again, it's flow calorimetry, and flow rate times temperature rise gives heat produced. You can pick at the quality of the calorimetry, but it's absurd to say no calorimetry was done. In particular, the input water was tap water, with no temperature control, with a very low initial temperature, and the temp was measured only at the start and end of the run, allowing the possibility that the input temperature varied by some amount during the run. Since the temp rise was 5 degrees, an input temperature variation of a few degrees during the run would have made a gross difference to the calculated heat produced. I seem to recall the flow rate was also measured at the start, and then assumed constant during the run. You can say, perhaps rightly, that these are flaws in the calorimetry, but again, it's absurd to claim there was no calorimetry. > > > Best regards, > > Horace Heffner > http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ > > > >
