I still think ice calorimetry I suggested last January is a better
idea, because it is based on first principles, is very accurate, and
can be used throughout an experiment to achieve the very essential
*total energy balance*, vs just a snapshot power measurement, which
can be very deceiving. The only difficulty is providing enough ice
for the duration of the experiment. Still, ice calorimetry is very
affordable and feasible.
Despite this, I suggested last April similar steam codensation
methods combined with isoperibolic calorimetry.
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg44947.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg44953.html
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg48555.html
I would note that steam sparging can have large errors due to steam
escaping, due to variability in measuring the temperature decline
curve, due to variations in the calorimetry constant with
temperature, and due to imperfect stirring techniques. See my
reference in one of the above posts for an actual application where I
applied thermal decline curve measurement and estimated a complete
energy balance.
Ultimately, the best method involves simultaneous dual calorimetry
techniques which establish *total energy balances*, like that used by
Earthech International:
http://www.earthtech.org/experiments/ICCF14_MOAC.pdf
and which in the past has been provided free of charge. Earthtech
also has excellent equipment for measuring total electrical energy
in. The Rossi devices can be treated like black boxes, with no
knowledge of any trade secrets or internals required.
The above things are no secret! This stuff has been discussed on
this list and other lists in which one or more of the involved
scientists are members.
Krivit's recent article that discusses the calorimetry issues I think
is right on point, or on seven points if you will. Further, if there
were any real interest in applying serious science this would have
been accomplished 6 months ago.
It is still, after more than 6 months of apparently meaningless
discussion on many lists, incredible that it could be expected that
anyone would invest a dime in this technology without the most basic
and inexpensive science being applied. Has no one heard of due
diligence?
Perhaps we will see serious practical results in October or November
as promised. If not, this affair could set the prospects for serious
LENR research back another 20 years.
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
On Aug 19, 2011, at 10:04 AM, Jouni Valkonen wrote:
Hallo,
I stumbled upon in the internet a very simple method for doing
extremely accurate (up to two or three significant digits, depending
on insulation) calorimetric analysis for any water boiler. Method is
simple and all measurements are accurate:
– Just weight 5 kg water into bucket.
– Measure the temperature of water. (preferred temperature is the
same
as inlet water temperature)
– Put hot water/steam outlet hose into bucket for 5 minutes.
– After the experiment, weight the water in the bucket and measure
the
temperature change.
– To refine accuracy, after the experiment, observe for 5 min how
fast
70°C water is cooling.
This gives accurately the amount of heat outlet hose is carrying with
steam and hot water. It is sad that Mats Lewan did not realize this
simple to do calorimetric method. If he had realized this, he would
have observed ΔT to be around 30-40°C and this would have spared us
all from lots of excess heat generated in discussion forums.
This is also strong argument that sloppy science in E-Cat
demonstrations was not Rossi's fault, but those independent observers,
such as Galantini, Levi, Lewan, Kullander & Essén, could have just
pointed out this simple and accurate calorimetric method, if they had
been smart enough. But instead Galantini, Kullander, etc. performed
irrelevant measurements when they tried to measure wetness of steam,
although it is well known fact that all water boilers on Earth produce
ca. 98% quality steam (±0.015), in normal pressure.
–Jouni
