Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote:
> In the first test the steam was wet steam, and the output was overestimated > by a factor of three. > Experts who know about steam disagree. > In the second test, we see triple the heat evolved due to the higher flow > rate. That could be overestimated too due to bad thermocouple placement but > not by a factor of three. > That is a convoluted hypothesis. It seems more likely to me that both tests produced the same power. One explanation for both sets of facts is better than separate ad hoc hypotheses, especially when experts rule out the first hypothesis, and the second (ultrasound, I think) is impossible. The placement of the thermocouple may have made a difference and caused an overestimation of the heat when the outlet reached 40°C, but when it was only 5°C above the inlet temperature the that is unlikely. So the 16 kW was right, but the 130 kW may have been over-estimated because of the placement problem. McKubre and others agree the outlet thermocouple location was not ideal, but they also said that at worst it will cause only moderate inaccuracy. - Jed
